# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Why is the religion that you practice superior to all other religions?

## MarieColvin

Hi all,

If you practice a religion, you must, one way or another, find it superior to all other religions. But regardless of what religion you practice, everyone who practices any religion feels "in my heart and in my soul that [my religion] is the true path." Everyone somehow just "knows" that their religion is the right one. So what would you tell someone like me, who is looking for a religion? What does your religion offer that the others don't?

Thanks a lot.
Marie


mod edit - this looks to be a bot account, so user was banned, but I'll leave thread open

----------


## Expatriate

I don't have a religion as it is commonly defined. However I like many of the purported teachings of Jesus and the Buddha. I'm sure there are other figures that I have not researched that also had much wisdom to offer.

I think all religions have useful things that you can learn from them, but most also contain a lot of closed-mindedness and fear-mongering. Basically I'd recommend trying to keep your mind as open as possible. 

If you can find the strength to do what you believe is right and help others without being driven by the fear of eternal punishment or some vengeful deity, I for one would respect you greatly.

----------


## Sola_Fide

The standard for any philosophical or religious system is:  how faithful is it to God's Word in the Bible?

The Bible alone is the Word of God.  It is the axiom, or starting point, of knowledge.  It is the standard and rule of faith.  All of our traditions must be brought under the authority of God's Word.  The Scripture alone is sufficient to equip a Christian man or woman for everything in this life.

So I don't even like the title of this thread...It's as if someone can say they are better than someone else for some arbitrary reason.  No, all of my thinking and practice must be brought under the authority of God's law and word.  When God speaks, it is the final authority.  My own deviations from God's Word must be corrected or else I am in error.  So, no..."my" religion is not better, its only God's Word which is superior.

----------


## Dsylexic

er, i was born into the hindu religion and it says all paths to god are equally valid.including atheism. pretty libertarian i'd say.superior or not ,who cares.but it doesnt talk down to non believers.infact the idea of non believers itself is invalid to the philosphical hindu(and i dont speak for the lumpen hindu)

----------


## maskander

> er, i was born into the hindu religion and it says all paths to god are equally valid.including atheism. pretty libertarian i'd say.superior or not ,who cares.but it doesnt talk down to non believers.infact the idea of non believers itself is invalid to the philosphical hindu(and i dont speak for the lumpen hindu)


that's neat thanks for informing

----------


## sevin

> The standard for any philosophical or religious system is:  how faithful is it to God's Word in the Bible?
> 
> The Bible alone is the Word of God.  It is the axiom, or starting point, of knowledge.  It is the standard and rule of faith.  All of our traditions must be brought under the authority of God's Word.  The Scripture alone is sufficient to equip a Christian man or woman for everything in this life.
> 
> So I don't even like the title of this thread...It's as if someone can say they are better than someone else for some arbitrary reason.  No, all of my thinking and practice must be brought under the authority of God's law and word.  When God speaks, it is the final authority.  My own deviations from God's Word must be corrected or else I am in error.  So, no..."my" religion is not better, its only God's Word which is superior.


So basically you're saying: "My religion is the one true religion because the Bible says so."

----------


## Brown Sapper

Because my Religion invented the Kama Sutra.

----------


## otherone

> Hi all,
> 
> If you practice a religion, you must, one way or another, find it superior to all other religions.?


I don't know that this is true.  Many people choose a religion that they feel comfortable with...a preference as opposed to finding it 'superior'.  Claims of superiority can quickly become a slugfest.  In addition, many are raised in their faith, and have no basis of comparison.

----------


## Captain Caveman

A definition of religion is "a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices" or "a practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith."
One conclusion of this is that by trying to adhere to "the rules", we somehow appease a god for our shortcomings and bad actions (sins).

However, the faith of Christ Jesus promises us that if we fully submit to Him, He will make His abode in us and change us into one of His. This is accomplished by the things He already did, we only respond to His call and follow Him. (see John 14, Ephesians 2, etc...)

The faith of Christ Jesus is the only belief system that promises God will change your "inner man" if you truly submit to Him, all others teach adherence by mastering your own self-nature.

/food for thought

----------


## moostraks

> So basically you're saying: "My religion is the one true religion because the Bible says so."


potter verse in 3...2...1 

 I was thinking this thread is going to be an interesting downhill slide. I think otherone is right many people are raised in a certain religion and are just comfortable there with no reference to other beliefs from which to make the sort of judgement OP is looking for. Many religions will claim they are superior but it is usually self serving when they do this imo. I hope you find what you are looking for OP.

----------


## TER

Because only Christ saves us.  Only He restores our complete being, body, soul, and spirit, and only through Christ are we granted the path to a resurrection unto eternal life.  That's why Christiainity is superior to all religions.

----------


## pcosmar

I don't practice religion. 
I don't have  a religion. I have Faith.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So basically you're saying: "My religion is the one true religion because the Bible says so."


No.  I said that my religion and traditions must be conformed to the Word of God like everyone else's.  I am in error if my thinking or practice is not Biblical.

So, far from saying that "I am right", I specifically said "I am frequently wrong and only the Bible is right".

----------


## eduardo89

This is what really matters




> I believe in one God,
> the Father almighty,
> maker of heaven and earth,
> of all things visible and invisible.
> I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
> the Only Begotten Son of God,
> born of the Father before all ages.
> God from God, Light from Light,
> true God from true God,
> ...

----------


## AFPVet

Well, I am a Gnostic Christian; however, since I have studied religion academically, I will tell people to choose the one that best fits them. I encourage everyone to at least learn about other faiths—or general spirituality—and be free to learn about that belief without pressure. I do not force my religion onto others... I use the word _verstehen_ or understanding regarding other beliefs and cultures.

----------


## tfurrh

> Well, I am a Gnostic Christian


What is that?

----------


## cartemj06

All religions are a claim to truth. They all claim to have a monopoly on either a truth or the truth. So, when religion shopping, we shouldn't just go with the one that feels good, sounds good or our friends like et cetera. We should examine the claims of the religion and for all intents and purposes investigate the truth claims of each of the religions and see which ones we find truthful and which ones we find dis-honest. The next step is to narrow down the "truthy" religions and see what they say and compare them to the others to see if they conflict. If one says that god is A and the other says that god is B, can God be both and and b? 
God cannot exist and not exist at the same time, so a religion that teaches that god is, conflicts with one that teaches that there is no god. This is how you come to a "superior" religion one that is true. it is also personal, followers or supposed followers do not make truth. 

When I examined some religions there were things that I liked in each that I found, they all have some redeeming quality. At the same time it was learning about Jesus and other religions that led me to believe that the truth claims of that religion held more credibility to me than the others. This comes with one BIG DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with the majority of christian "religion" or teachings in the churches or some of the believer's musings that I have encountered. I don't want to denigrate anyones religious practices or beliefs, and I don't want to spark any internet religion debates but I fully support rational and respectful conversation on the topic, like the OP's original question. 

PS, Does anyone else get the feeling that two christians arguing about the bible completely resembles two comic book "nerds" arguing about the nuances of their comics, characters and super powers?

----------


## AFPVet

> What is that?


It's a form of Christianity which believes there is more to the Bible and accepts gnostic texts which fill in the blanks and helps to clarify/correct issues within the canonized Bible. There are several books which include all of the lost texts which were found in 1945; however, the one I really like was written by Alan Jacobs called _Sacred Wisdom, The Gnostic Gospels._

----------


## tfurrh

> lost texts which were found in 1945[/I]


how old were the lost texts? approx date? BC? that'd be cool

----------


## AFPVet

> how old were the lost texts? approx date?


Well, they really don't know for sure. Some were older than others....

Here is some information about them:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/Pagels...c-Gospels.html

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, I am a Gnostic Christian; however, since I have studied religion academically, I will tell people to choose the one that best fits them. I encourage everyone to at least learn about other faithsor general spiritualityand be free to learn about that belief without pressure. I do not force my religion onto others... I use the word _verstehen_ or understanding regarding other beliefs and cultures.


But there is no such thing as a Gnostic Christian.  Especially since the Apostles themselves and the early Christians like Polycarp spent their lives fighting it.  Paul write the book of Collosians entirely against the Gnostic heresy.

----------


## AFPVet

> But there is no such thing as a Gnostic Christian.  Especially since the Apostles themselves and the early Christians like Polycarp spent their lives fighting it.  Paul write the book of Collosians entirely against the Gnostic heresy.


I respectfully disagree... have you read the gnostic texts?

----------


## tfurrh

the beam & the mote, the beam & the mote.

----------


## WilliamC

> Because my Religion invented the Kama Sutra.




/thread.

for me at least

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I respectfully disagree... have you read the gnostic texts?


Yes I have.  What don't you understand about Paul's condemnation of Gnosticism in Collosians?  If Paul condemned the Gnostic idea that Christ didn't have a physical body and the Gnostic dualism which says that there are two equally competing forces of good and evil in the universe.... if he condemned these, then they cannot be Christian.

----------


## tfurrh

> have you read the gnostic texts?


I have read a lot of 'lost works', and love to read just about any ancient texts found

the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' that Christians love to wave about, include *gasp* T_he Book of Enoch,_ and *gasp* _The Jubilees,_ 

Why don't they wave those around?

Why were books from the Septuagint not carried over into the KJV of the Old Testament?

I agree with you that there's more to 'The Bible' than 'The Bible.'

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> I have read a lot of 'lost works', and love to read just about any ancient texts found
> 
> the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' that Christians love to wave about, include *gasp* T_he Book of Enoch,_ and *gasp* _The Jubilees,_ 
> 
> Why don't they wave those around?
> 
> Why were books from the Septuagint not carried over into the KJV of the Old Testament?
> 
> I agree with you that there's more to the Bible than 'The Bible.'


Do you seriously think that Enoch wrote a book?

----------


## sevin

> No.  I said that my religion and traditions must be conformed to the Word of God like everyone else's.  I am in error if my thinking or practice is not Biblical.
> 
> So, far from saying that "I am right", I specifically said "I am frequently wrong and only the Bible is right".


Okay, then maybe the question for you should be: Why is the Bible superior to all other religious texts?

----------


## tfurrh

> Do you seriously think that Enoch wrote a book?


The earliest manuscripts they've found have barely dated BC.....I never said anyone wrote a book. I just said it was found included with the other Dead Sea Scrolls (that supposedly offer so much closure to the rest of the Bible).

edit: but, I guess its fine to think that Moses recorded everything from the beginning of time to his death, and that was the first time anything had ever been written down?

----------


## AFPVet

> Yes I have.  What don't you understand about Paul's condemnation of Gnosticism in Collosians?  If Paul condemned the Gnostic idea that *Christ didn't have a physical body* and the Gnostic dualism which says that there are two equally competing forces of good and evil in the universe.... if he condemned these, then they cannot be Christian.


What? Where did you get that? That was not in the Gnostic works that I read. All of what I read coincide with my belief. Read Alan Jacob's book. Jesus was saying that the Kingdom is in our hearts and all around us. We must forget the earthly (physical) things and differences since we are all the same... of spirit. Everything is energy.... Some things which we do not see are vibrating at higher frequencies.

----------


## Working Poor

it works for me and make me feel complete.

----------


## tfurrh

> What? Where did you get that?


See thread title...

----------


## AFPVet

> See thread title...


Gotcha

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What? Where did you get that? That was not in the Gnostic works that I read. All of what I read coincide with my belief. Read Alan Jacob's book. Jesus was saying that the Kingdom is in our hearts and all around us. We must forget the earthly (physical) things and differences since we are all the same... of spirit. All things return to their roots. The body returns to it's roots and we return to spirit since we are energy.


Yes, I know.  That is wrong.  God blessed this world and was pleased with it.  He said it was good.  

The physical is not evil.  This idea that "the physical is evil, and the spiritual is good" led the Gnostics to say that Christ didn't really have a real body.  How could Jesus, who was perfectly good, have a physical body if the physical is evil?  This is what they erroneously thought.

This is why Paul emphasized in Colossians 1.  That Jesus had a real physical body, and 2. Christ is the ruler of all things:





> Colossians 1:15-23 NASB
> 
> He is the *image of the invisible God*, the firstborn of all creation. 
> 
> *For by Him all things were created,  both  in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.* 
> 
> He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. *For it was the  Father's  good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him*, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him,  I say,  whether things on earth or things in heaven. 
> 
> And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind,  engaged  in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you *in His fleshly body* through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach- if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.



All the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus in actual bodily form.  He was a real man.  He never ceased to be God.  He put on flesh...and the two natures never mixed.  Jesus was the God-man.  He said "Examine me, for a PHANTASMA has not flesh and bones.". Jesus was really a man.

Also Jesus is the Creator and ruler of His creation.  There is no battle of dualistic forces in the universe.  All things exist for Him and by Him, and in Him all things hold together.  Jesus is the sovereign Lord, and the dominion and principality of evil is subject to Him because He created it and controls it.

----------


## Muwahid

Superior is fightin' words. I'm Muslim and I follow it because I feel it's the most complete compelling religion, a lot of people might look at non-Abrahamic religions and find some kind of spirituality in them but I see a problem in them that they are rather untraceable, if there is a God there wouldn't be a time where he didn't send his message to earth, so the Abrahamic religions take care of that. There's a line going back thousands of years to religions sent to people. Islam > Christianity > Judaism > People of Abraham (the pagans in Arabia followed Abraham the builder of the Ka'bah, but of course added other gods over time) even the Nabeteans were said to have come from Abrahams lineage through Isma'eel.

So for me the Abrahamic line of religions is very powerful, and the last major religion claiming to be of Abrahamic origins is Islam, and it spoke of true monotheism where non Abrahamic religions tended to be polytheistic, and the major problem one has with polytheism is what's the point of God if there needs to be more than one, that means god isn't all powerful, and it makes the gods akin to man, we feel that over time once monotheistic religions corrupted, like the Arabs who followed Abraham and a central god "Allah", but introduced new gods.

Lastly Islam has all of its artifacts, an issue I have with most other religions is sure they have nice stories however, how many of them are true, how many of them can be sourced, but Muslims have their original texts and we know where the grave of our prophet (ص) is, and his family, and his companions, and the exact sites of revelation, and there were no non-Islamic empires that came and destroyed these things leaving us to piece it back together today they've always been there under the rule of Muslims and to me that's profound, to be able to visit the grave of our prophet (ص) and know he really did walk the earth without a shadow of a doubt.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Superior is fightin' words. I'm Muslim and I follow it because I feel it's the most complete compelling religion, a lot of people might look at non-Abrahamic religions and find some kind of spirituality in them but I see a problem in them that they are rather untraceable, if there is a God there wouldn't be a time where he didn't send his message to earth, so the Abrahamic religions take care of that. There's a line going back thousands of years to religions sent to people. Islam > Christianity > Judaism > People of Abraham (the pagans in Arabia followed Abraham the builder of the Ka'bah, but of course added other gods over time) even the Nabeteans were said to have come from Abrahams lineage through Isma'eel.
> 
> So for me the Abrahamic line of religions is very powerful, and the last major religion claiming to be of Abrahamic origins is Islam, and it spoke of true monotheism where non Abrahamic religions tended to be polytheistic, and the major problem one has with polytheism is what's the point of God if there needs to be more than one, that means god isn't all powerful, and it makes the gods akin to man, we feel that over time once monotheistic religions corrupted, like the Arabs who followed Abraham and a central god "Allah", but introduced new gods.
> 
> Lastly Islam has all of its artifacts, an issue I have with most other religions is sure they have nice stories however, how many of them are true, how many of them can be sourced, but Muslims have their original texts and we know where the grave of our prophet (ص) is, and his family, and his companions, and the exact sites of revelation, and there were no non-Islamic empires that came and destroyed these things leaving us to piece it back together today they've always been there under the rule of Muslims and to me that's profound, to be able to visit the grave of our prophet (ص) and know he really did walk the earth without a shadow of a doubt.


Where are the original pre-Uthmanic texts of the Koran?  Could you link us to a picture of them?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Okay, then maybe the question for you should be: Why is the Bible superior to all other religious texts?


Simply, because the Bible is the Word of God and the others are the words of men.

----------


## Muwahid

The Uthmanic Qur'an is the first complete Qur'an compiled. They started _compiling_ the chapters of the Qur'an after the prophets death because notable haafiz (those who have memorized all 114 chapters of the Quran) had died in battle. Uthman bin Affan was a companion of the prophet and among those promised heaven and therefore the gap of a few decades without a written Qur'an is rather insignificant. This is not to say Quran wasn't written prior to it just not totally compiled in a book form.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Uthmanic Qur'an is the first complete Qur'an compiled. They started _compiling_ the chapters of the Qur'an after the prophets death because notable haafiz (those who have memorized all 114 chapters of the Quran) had died in battle. Uthman bin Affan was a companion of the prophet and among those promised heaven and therefore the gap of a few decades without a written Qur'an is rather insignificant. This is not to say Quran wasn't written prior to it just not totally compiled in a book form.


But you said you had the original texts. So I assume you mean the texts before Uthman had copies burned.  Where are the original pre-burning, pre-Uthman texts of the Koran?

----------


## Muwahid

> But you said you had the original texts. So I assume you mean the texts before Uthman had copies burned.  Where are the original pre-burning, pre-Uthman texts of the Koran?


They are the original texts, as I said they are the first. The Qur'an wasn't revealed in text format, the text format came later. The Qur'ans Uthman replaced were Qur'ans in different dialects, so *returned* them to the original dialect of the Quraysh which was the original revelation. Because of the Status of Uthman in Islam, he very much is an authority what he puts on paper about Islam is an original Islamic text unlike if it had come generations later.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> They are the original texts, as I said they are the first. The Qur'an wasn't revealed in text format, the text format came later. The Qur'ans Uthman replaced were Qur'ans in different dialects, so *returned* them to the original dialect of the Quraysh which was the original revelation. Because of the Status of Uthman in Islam, he very much is an authority what he puts on paper about Islam is an original Islamic text unlike if it had come generations later.


There is overwhelming evidence for textual variation in the Koran. I will leave it up to people here to make their own decision about it:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/

----------


## Muwahid

> There is overwhelming evidence for textual variation in the Koran. I will leave it up to people here to make their own decision about it:
> http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/


Answering Islam's claims are refuted in literally hundreds of articles on Answering-Christianity.

www.answering-christianity.com/quran/textual.htm (the sites down, but I'm sure it'll be up soon I use their Quran searcher daily).

And there's a ton of stuff on Islamic awareness regarding the old manuscripts http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

Answering Islam's team arent exactly linguistic experts, there's not "overwhelming evidence" whatsoever because there's not a single piece of evidence from it there's not a single Quran which has something radically different written in it from another; so if you're going to make extraordinary claims, you're going to need extraordinary evidence and not just post links because I can do the same.

----------


## Captain Caveman

Interesting thread. What comes to my mind is that the bulk of us are debating written texts and external data basically. Our "Gnostic Christian" friend (quote tags _not_ used in a negative light) rightly pointed out that the Kingdom of the Most High God is in you.. and I would add that *if* you are one of His people, then The Kingdom is within you...

I would point out that (in my experience) the Christian Bible doesn't tell so much how to be a "Christian" as it does confirm who you are - if you really are one. A true convert of Christ Jesus, the son of the God of Issac, Abraham and Jacob... will be a living epistle, a living example of what the Bible relays to us about being one of His.

It seems this is where the Christian Faith differs from all others (so far as I know). Christ Jesus will change you.. not you changing yourself.. and the result of it is freely evident in the life of a believer.

Knowing God is vastly different than knowing about God. jus' sayin'

----------


## Voluntary Man

> *Why is the religion that you practice superior to all other religions?*


Marie, IMO, if you have to _practice_, you haven't got the right one.

----------


## Liberty's Landing

Christianity without all the baggage.

Treat people as you would like to be treated.
Love God.
Understand that we all have free will, and that we will not accomplish the first two 100%.
Be thankful that God loves us any way.
Be motivated by that to do better than you were.

You can go a lot of directions from there.  Be honest with yourself and desire truth and I believe you will find it.

----------


## BuddyRey

I don't think my religion is "better" or "truer" than anyone else's religion...I just follow it because it's right for me.

----------


## sevin

> Simply, because the Bible is the Word of God and the others are the words of men.


Right. So you're saying the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Right. So you're saying the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so.


That's not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons.  There is no higher authority than God's own self-disclosure.  It would be ridiculous for me to try to prove that the Bible is true externally if the Creator of the universe already says it is...so I don't have to prove it beyond what God says about it.  

The Holy Spirit regenerated my heart and opened my eyes to see that it was true.  He hasn't opened your eyes, so that is why you think it is just nonsense.  There is that personal element to the equation as well.

----------


## TER

> That's not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons.  There is no higher authority than God's own self-disclosure.  It would be ridiculous for me to try to prove that the Bible is true externally if the Creator of the universe already says it is...so I don't have to prove it beyond what God says about it.  
> 
> The Holy Spirit regenerated my heart and opened my eyes to see that it was true.  He hasn't opened your eyes, so that is why you think it is just nonsense.  There is that personal element to the equation as well.


AB, do you believe that no matter what you do from now until the rest of your life that you are going to Heaven?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> AB, do you believe that no matter what you do from now until the rest of your life that you are going to Heaven?



No.  I must prove my calling and election:




> 2 Peter 1:10 NLT
> 
> So, dear brothers and sisters, work hard to prove that you really are among those God has called and chosen. Do these things, and you will never fall away.



If I fall away from the faith, it is because I was never chosen in the first place:



> 1 John 2:19 NIV
> 
> They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

----------


## TER

> If I fall away from the faith, it is because I was never chosen in the first place:


so if you end up not going to heaven for the evils you do, it is because of God.  In otherwords, you blame God if you don't make it into heaven.  AB, your theology is twisted and not at all consistent with the orthodox Christianity.  Please repent and humble yourself and stop blaming God for the evils in the world.

----------


## otherone

> so if you end up not going to heaven for the evils you do, it is because of God.


I'm not getting that at all from what AB writes.  It appears more that he is saying, "only the chosen will choose the right path."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not getting that at all from what AB writes.  It appears more that he is saying, "only the chosen will choose the right path."


Yes.  Because we are dead in sin, God must make us alive and give us the power to believe.  We cannot do this on our own.  Left to our own nature, we will always never choose God.  God must take out our  heart of stone and put in a heart of flesh to believe.  We are saved by grace, not anything within ourselves.

----------


## TER

> I'm not getting that at all from what AB writes.  It appears more that he is saying, "only the chosen will choose the right path."


However, it is exactly where his theology leads, that those who chose the wrong path, it wasn't on account of their own decisions or will but on the decision and will of God that they choose evil and not be chosen as the elect.  It is a heretical teachings which is the reason why atheism has spread like wild fire in the world, because it make Gods out to by a blood thirsty tyrant Who created human robots which He has created in order to cast into hell.  Exactly against what Christ came to reveal to the world, that whoever comes to God with a humble and contrite heart AND FOLLOWS His commandments to love, they will find mercy and salvation.  For "love will cover a multitudes of sins" (1 Peter 4:8).

----------


## TER

> Yes.  Because we are dead in sin, God must make us alive and give us the power to believe.  We cannot do this on our own.  Left to our own nature, we will always never choose God.  God must take out our a heart of stone and put in a heart if flesh to believe.  We are saved by grace, not anything within ourselves.


AB, stop blaming God for the evils you do and own up to them.  You making God the scape goat for the evils you do will be a losing defense before the Judgment Seat of Christ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> so if you end up not going to heaven for the evils you do, it is because of God.  In otherwords, you blame God if you don't make it into heaven.  AB, your theology is twisted and not at all consistent with the orthodox Christianity.  Please repent and humble yourself and stop blaming God for the evils in the world.


I don't blame God if I am not saved, because God is not required to show mercy to me.  God would be absolutely just in never showing His mercy to any rebel sinner.

I mean....how you think this is twisted is beyond me.  This is what the Bible teaches in Romans 9 for example.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> AB, stop blaming God for the evils you do and own up to them.  You making God the scape goat for the evils you do will be a losing defense before the Judgment Seat of Christ.


The responsibility for the evil of men is theirs alone, because God makes us responsible.

----------


## TER

> I don't blame God if I am not saved, because God is not required to show mercy to me.  God would be absolutely just in never showing His mercy to any rebel sinner.
> 
> I mean....how you think this is twisted is beyond me.  This is what the Bible teaches in Romans 9 for example.


Your linguistic gymnastics do not impress me and your contradictory statements are the fruits of your twisted theology, blaming God for the evil in one breath and then blaming it on man in the next.  These innovative, progressive, alternative and contradictory doctrines express a faith which assigns blame upon God, and you should repent and seek mercy for the sins you do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> However, it is exactly where his theology leads, that those who chose the wrong path, it wasn't on account of their own decisions or will but on the decision and will of God that they choose evil and not be chosen as the elect.  (1 Peter 4:8).


Yes, that's right.  Salvation is dependent on God's will, not man's:




> Romans 9:14-16 NIV
> 
> What then shall we say? Is God unjust?
> 
> Not at all! For he says to Moses,
> "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
> and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 
> 
> *It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy*.



How can you not see this???

----------


## realtonygoodwin

God gets to decide who will live with Him eternally. Why should we have any say?

----------


## TER

> Yes, that's right.  Salvation is dependent on God's will, not man's:


AB, you agree then that those who choose the wrong path, that it was God Who made them choose that path, and therefore God is responsible for the evils they do.  This is blasphemous.  You can keep trying to use your misinterptation of Romans 9 to justify your innovative, progressive, alternative and contradictory belief, but you do so at the expense of the Gospel which Christ preached and frankly I am done trying to help you see the errors of your ways.  Best of luck and may God, Who wills ALL to be saved, have mercy on you and help you before you lead others into perdition by assinging evil to God.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Interesting thread. What comes to my mind is that the bulk of us are debating written texts and external data basically. Our "Gnostic Christian" friend (quote tags _not_ used in a negative light) rightly pointed out that the Kingdom of the Most High God is in you.. and I would add that *if* you are one of His people, then The Kingdom is within you...
> 
> I would point out that (in my experience) the Christian Bible doesn't tell so much how to be a "Christian" as it does confirm who you are - if you really are one. A true convert of Christ Jesus, the son of the God of Issac, Abraham and Jacob... will be a living epistle, a living example of what the Bible relays to us about being one of His.
> 
> It seems this is where the Christian Faith differs from all others (so far as I know). Christ Jesus will change you.. not you changing yourself.. and the result of it is freely evident in the life of a believer.
> 
> Knowing God is vastly different than knowing about God. jus' sayin'


If you haven't read it yet, you may be interested in "The Kingdom Of God Is Within You", by Leo Tolstoy. http://www.amazon.com/The-Kingdom-Go...1929393&sr=1-1

(fair warning: Tolstoy is generally considered heretical for this and other writings, and was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox church-and remains excommunicated, AFAIK)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> AB, you agree then that those who choose the wrong path, that it was God Who made them choose that path, and therefore God is responsible for the evils they do.  This is blasphemous.  You can keep trying to use your misinterptation of Romans 9 to justify your innovative, progressive, alternative and contradictory belief, but you do so at the expense of the Gospel which Christ preached and frankly I am done trying to help you see the errors of your ways.  Best of luck and may God, Who wills ALL to be saved, have mercy on you and help you before you lead others into perdition by assinging evil to God.



Paul already answers you in Romans 9.  He says "Is there injustice with God?  May it never be!". And then he goes on to says that God has mercy on whom He mercies and hardens whom He hardens.  God's mercy cannot be demanded.  If anything, His JUSTICE should be demanded...and in that case we all would be condemned.

We are not ascribing evil TO God, but proclaiming that He brings good out of the evil of men.  God decreed that Judas would betray Jesus AND made him responsible for his own willful choice.

To say that God "wills all people to be saved", but some people don't get saved is to say that God is not omnipotent.  That is not the God of the Bible.

----------


## TER

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! *How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!*"  Luke 13:34


And spare me your revisionist Calvinistic explanation for this verse which goes counter to the understanding of this verse from the very beginning.  You ignore the verses that go counter to your innovative doctrines and if that fails, then you twist them around to justify the innovative, progressive, alternative and contradictory beliefs which you have accepted to be true, even as it flies in the face of the witness of the Church from the beginning.

----------


## cartemj06

Why is paul more important than christ? Why are christians so caught up in Pauls letters instead of christ's words?

----------


## realtonygoodwin

All of the Bible is equally inspired.

----------


## PierzStyx

> So basically you're saying: "My religion is the one true religion because the Bible says so."


Correction-because he says that it is what the Bible says. Now whether the Bible actually says that is irrelevant as long as he can claim it does. Like how liberals can claim the Constitution authorizes them to regulate raw milk through teh interstate commerce clause. It's irrelevant whether The Constitution's clause actually allows them to regulate raw milk, only that they can claim it does as a justification for their beliefs and actions.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Paul already answers you in Romans 9.  He says "Is there injustice with God?  May it never be!". And then he goes on to says that God has mercy on whom He mercies and hardens whom He hardens.  God's mercy cannot be demanded.  If anything, His JUSTICE should be demanded...and in that case we all would be condemned.
> 
> We are not ascribing evil TO God, but proclaiming that He brings good out of the evil of men.  God decreed that Judas would betray Jesus AND made him responsible for his own willful choice.
> 
> To say that God "wills all people to be saved", but some people don't get saved is to say that God is not omnipotent.  That is not the God of the Bible.


So its just if I force you to rape and murder your children and then put you on trial and execute you for it? How is that justice? If anything that is tyranny. Its slavery. Its evil. Yet this is exactly what you claim God does to us.

Proclaiming God can cause good to come from the actions of evil is not the same as claiming God is the will behind all actions. In fact to claim He can make good come from evil means that He cannot be the causer of the original evil action. Otherwise He isn't turning good from evil but just making it all work out like a puzzle. He is causing both evil and good. 

Your claim that it means God is omnipotent if He wills all should be saved, but not all are saved, is also wrong. That is only the case in your belief where God is the only will. That He is all-powerful but doesn't enslave you to Him is the truth. He leaves you the gift of your agency to choose to follow and serve Him, and thus grow form the experience. That some choose not to in no way limit's God's omnipotence. It means He loves you enough to allow you to live your life as you would. 

And if all will is ultimately nothing more than God's will then every single action is ultimate attributable to God. After all, I would never swear, steal, commit adultery, or worship false gods if God didn't make me. And all those things are clearly sins and therefore evil. Yet I didn't do those things. God did them through me. It is Him sinning, not I. Not only does your belief make God the originator of sin, it makes Him the prime sinner. Even Satan is doing no more than God's will. Its not Satan's fault he is evil. Its God who is evil acting His will through the guise of Satan. 

Also you clearly do not understand how justice and mercy inter-relate. God's justice demands punishment for sins. Christ took that punishment upon Himself. This frees us form the condemnation of justice and saves us through the grace of mercy. Justice is satisfied by Christ being punished for our sins, and we are purified and made sinless by the same sacrifice. Thus His justice is fully satisfied and we are saved.

----------


## Captain Caveman

> “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! *How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!*"  Luke 13:34
> 
> 
> And spare me your revisionist Calvinistic explanation for this verse which goes counter to the understanding of this verse from the very beginning.  You ignore the verses that go counter to your innovative doctrines and if that fails, then you twist them around to justify the innovative, progressive, alternative and contradictory beliefs which you have accepted to be true, even as it flies in the face of the witness of the Church from the beginning.


I think what AB is saying (that I happen to agree with), is that God's door is always open, but you must choose to walk through it. God's ways are not our ways, if He hardens someone He probably has an all-knowing reason. I don't think you can "blame" AB for saying "it's all on God" no more than we can blame you for saying "it's all on man". If men could save themselves, Christ paid a horrible price for nothing. If God alone saved us (even if it was against our wishes), then free will has no place either.

Think of it like a contract (covenant). There are two parties in the contract, and each party holds up to their end of the bargain for the contract to be filled.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why is paul more important than christ? Why are christians so caught up in Pauls letters instead of christ's words?


If that was the standard (its not) then you would have no reason not to believe the doctrines of grace, because Jesus clearly taught the doctrines of grace.   I was going to start a thread and post all the verses where Jesus teaches election and predestination.  There are MANY of them.

Here is a couple off the top of my head:




> John 6:44 NASB
> 
> No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.





> Matthew 11:25 NASB
> 
> At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.



There are so many, especially in John.

----------


## Captain Caveman

> Yes.  Because we are dead in sin, God must make us alive and give us the power to believe.  We cannot do this on our own.  Left to our own nature, we will always never choose God.  God must take out our  heart of stone and put in a heart of flesh to believe.  We are saved by grace, not anything within ourselves.


I will attest to this.

God presented Himself to me several times and I turned away and I hardened up again. Thank God He came again and this time I obeyed. His Grace gives me the means, I just "follow The Leader". It's all severely simple!

----------


## otherone

> Yet I didn't do those things. God did them through me. It is Him sinning, not I. Not only does your belief make God the originator of sin, it makes Him the prime sinner.


It is my understanding that sin is not an action, it is a condition.  Sin is separation from God...how can God separate himself from himself?  Is not man sinful by his very existence?  If God creates morality, then why is he bound by it? Isn't he bound only by his revealed word?  Hasn't he destroyed all the flesh he has created? Who are we to judge?  Life is brutally short and painful...God, who created time but is outside of it... who sees all things at once, past present, future, in an instant?  Who knows all choices we will make, before we've made them?  Everything is at once and eternal always.

----------


## WilliamC

> Because my Religion invented the Kama Sutra.





> /thread.
> 
> for me at least


I know what I said but sheesh why ya'll keep squabbling over minutia is beyond me.

God is love.

So long as we all agree on that then I'm cool with you 

Alas where I will find my personal salvation is no longer clear, but I'm still looking...

----------


## PierzStyx

I dislike the word "superior". I believe my church to be the only true and living church upon the Earth. But I do not believe that makes us "superior". We are all sinners and imperfect before God. Thus none of us are "superior" to one another.

But as to the question of why I believe the church I am a member of, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is Christ's true church upon the Earth? There are doctrinal reasons. For example, Paul taught that Christ's church was "built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (Ephesians 2:20) The foundation of a building is its most important part. If the foundation is strong the building will stand. If the foundation is compromised though, it is only a matter of time before the building falls. Anciently the corner stone was the part that the rest of the foundation was measured from. If the cornerstone was askew, the foundation would be as well. If the corner stone was straight, so would be the rest of the building. Paul tells us the foundation for the Church of Jesus Christ anciently were His Apostles and Prophets, with Christ Himself being the cornerstone, or chief part. 

Nothing in the Bible says that foundation of apostles and prophets and Christ would ever be altered. In fact in indicates the opposite. Paul said this foundation was "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ", or in other words for the work of the gospel and that it would last "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:11-15) So that foundation would endure and lead until all people were united in the one Christian faith, were perfect, and became fully like Christ. Needless to say that time has not come, and therefore that foundation should still exist. 

It is part of the message of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the Biblical warnings of "a falling away" (2 Thessalonians 2:3) of the ancient Church of Christ, of a "famine of hearing the words of God" (Amos 8:11-12), of the rise of false teachers who taught "damning heresies" (2 Peter 2:1-2, but really the entire chapter) did occur. The original Church of Jesus Christ was lost. The people corrupted the faith, as evidenced by _every_ epistle Paul ever wrote (which had the express purpose of calling the apostate churches back to the truth), their leaders rejected and persecuted the prophets and apostles (3 John 1:9-11 has an especially good example of this) and lost the fulness of the gospel.


It is also part of our message that this situation did not continue forever. In the spring of 1820 a young boy, Joseph Smith went into a small grove of trees near his house. His intention was to ask God which church he should go to. It was something that had bothered him for a long time. There were so many churches teaching so many things, all claiming to be based solely on the Bible, that it confused him. So after a time of reading the Holy Bible for an answer he came across a verse of scripture, James 1:5, that promised if anyone needs an answer to a question that god will give them that answer through prayer. He said that this verse of scripture entered into his heart "with great force" and "I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." So he did the Christian thing and asked God.

The answer he received was undoubtedly one he never expected. Kneeling down, he bowed himself and uttered his first vocal prayer. He called upon God for an answer.  In answer he says, "I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" (Joseph Smith-History 1:16-17) In that grove of trees, God the Father and the Savior Jesus Christ came personally in vision to Joseph Smith. The Father introduced His Son, Jesus, and Christ counseled the young boy. Joseph was told he was to join none of the churches because while there were many good people who were in them, none of them had the fulness of the gospel anymore and had made grievous errors in understand the scriptures, ending up teaching the doctrines of man as opposed the truths of God. Joseph was further told about his calling. God had a great work to do and he was to prepare himself for it. Then the vision ended. But the work was only beginning. 

Through Joseph Smith God restored His church. He began by giving forth new scripture, The Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is a translation the Prophet Joseph Smith made by the power of God, of ancient records detailing a group of believers here on the American continent before white people came showing that God's saving work wasn't just to a small nation in the Middle East, but a worldwide effort at redemption of the whole human race. It even records a visit of Jesus Christ to these people, after His Resurrection and Ascension in the Old World. Along with this the revelations given to Joseph Smith, and a few of his prophetic successors, were gathered as the Doctrine and Covenants. The Church of Christ was restored as a new Prophet and new Apostles were called to lead it today under the direction of Jesus Christ Himself. Today it is still lead in this same way, with Thomas S. Monson as the current Prophet and leader of the church. God speaks today and gives us guidance for our lives in this modern age. He warns us, teaches us, and saves us. God is not silent nor doth He sleep. He does not leave us to wallow in ignorance or fight over scripture but gives us clear direction and teaching through his modern Prophet and Twelve Apostles. 

(To read more of Joseph Smith's story: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng)

But all this is doctrine. And really even then this is just a small sampling of the doctrine present in the Holy Bible, lost to Christianity, and restored in our day in their fulness as part of the "restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3:21) This is what I believe. You asked how do I _know_ its true. That is something related but different.

How do I know its true? In the Book of Mormon the ancient American prophet Moroni (More-own-eye)wrote concerning knowing the truth of something "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." This is how I know. When I first came across the church, I listened to its message. I read from the Book of Mormon, studied its words, and pondered about what it (and they) meant and taught. Then truly wanting to know the answer, I asked God. I prayed to know if it was true or not. And He answered my prayer. The Holy Spirit fell upon me, touching my heart and mind. For the first time in my life I communicated with God. I felt the Spirit testify in my heart through feelings and in my mind, through my thoughts, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints _is_ Christ's true church upon the Earth today. I not only "feel 'in my heart and in my soul that [my religion] is the true path." but I know in my mind. This became the seed of my testimony, my witness, of the Restoration of the Gospel. Everything I have read and studied and prayed about since then has only confirmed and expanded this original truth. 

And what does my church have for you? Well it is my testimony that you to can know all this as well. You do not have to take my word for it. We have missionaries that go out and meet with people and teach them what we believe. But more importantly they can teach you about prayer, how to pray, and how to recognize answers to your prayers so that you on your own can go before God and ask Him yourself if He is real and if this is what He wants for you. You can know of yourself if what I have said is true. You can know the purpose of life, why people exists, what happens after death, the Plan of Salvation, and much more. You can know God knows you, individually and distinctly, and loves you infinitely. You can know relief form the burden of sin and joy in salvation. All this will bring greater joy and knowledge and light and truth into your life more so than anything else, anywhere else, whatever else. This is what is offered you.

 If you would like to ask any questions, feel free to message me. I doubt I'd see them on here. Posts get to easily lost on threads like this. That goes for anyone who reads this as well.

----------


## PierzStyx

> It is my understanding that sin is not an action, it is a condition.  Sin is separation from God...how can God separate himself from himself?  Is not man sinful by his very existence?  If God creates morality, then why is he bound by it? Isn't he bound only by his revealed word?  Hasn't he destroyed all the flesh he has created? Who are we to judge?  Life is brutally short and painful...God, who created time but is outside of it... who sees all things at once, past present, future, in an instant?  Who knows all choices we will make, before we've made them?  Everything is at once and eternal always.


Sin is an action that results in separation from God. For example, worshiping false gods is a sin. It causes separation from God because you do not know Him because you are spending your time worshiping something else.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I will attest to this.
> 
> God presented Himself to me several times and I turned away and I hardened up again. Thank God He came again and this time I obeyed. His Grace gives me the means, I just "follow The Leader". It's all severely simple!


This means though you do not agree with AB. He is saying God hardened you and softened you. You had no choice in it. The very fact that you believe it was your choice to listen to God or not means you disagree with AB.

That said, I'm glad you found faith.

----------


## PierzStyx

> AB, you agree then that those who choose the wrong path, that it was God Who made them choose that path, and therefore God is responsible for the evils they do.  This is blasphemous.  You can keep trying to use your misinterptation of Romans 9 to justify your innovative, progressive, alternative and contradictory belief, but you do so at the expense of the Gospel which Christ preached and frankly I am done trying to help you see the errors of your ways.  Best of luck and may God, Who wills ALL to be saved, have mercy on you and help you before you lead others into perdition by assinging evil to God.


Its like ramming your head into a brick wall and about as useful.

----------


## Danke

Kinda funny, we are up to 78 posts in this thread, the OP was quickly banned for it, apparently.  Mods are great...

----------


## Yieu

> So for me the Abrahamic line of religions is very powerful, and the last major religion claiming to be of Abrahamic origins is Islam, and it spoke of true monotheism where non Abrahamic religions tended to be polytheistic, and the major problem one has with polytheism is what's the point of God if there needs to be more than one, that means god isn't all powerful, and it makes the gods akin to man, we feel that over time once monotheistic religions corrupted, like the Arabs who followed Abraham and a central god "Allah", but introduced new gods.


Did you know that Vaishnavas, of which 70% of Hindus are, are completely monotheistic?

Little known fact.

----------


## Yieu

> Simply, because the Bible is the Word of God and the others are the words of men.


Conjecture, supposition.

The Bhagavad Gita is the Word of God, too.

----------


## Muwahid

> Did you know that Vaishnavas, of which 70% of Hindus are, are completely monotheistic?
> 
> Little known fact.


Mhm interesting, Islam states there have been over 100,000 prophets and messengers sent to all nations throughout the world, some successful some unsuccessful in guiding the people to worship one God, some Muslims postulated that many of the other large religions like Hinduism and Buddhism were once inspired religions which of course over time introduced new concepts.

Also there are some who claim Muhammad was prophesied in Hindu texts Info on that here

So we feel most paganism came later, Hinduism is one of the worlds oldest religions and surely had plenty of time to be changed and altered like the religions before and even after it.

Now I don't really study Hinduism so I myself wont make such bold statements but that's just something to chew on. Like I said if there's a God, there wouldn't be a time his message isn't being spread and spoken of throughout this earth.

----------


## Yieu

I believe that the Abrahamic and Vaishnava religions were started by the same God and that they worship the same God, just in different times and places.  It seems your belief is similar.  I don't believe that either of our religions have been tainted, and we both worship the same God, just slightly differently.

He has revealed different aspects of His divine nature to our religions.  He knew that not all of us would have a taste for worshiping Him in the same way, so he laid out various paths to reach Him.  This is logical, because as we all know, He desires for all of us to be saved.

If God is merciful, then he would have to leave multiple paths, knowing that not everyone would chose the same path, due to preferring to have a different relationship with God.

----------


## Muwahid

Islam doesn't have a absolutest methodology, not everyone who dies on this earth a non-Muslim according to Islam is going to hell, the criteria is simply if they were given a chance to hear the truth and study it and then accept it, then they would be accepted as believers. So God is very merciful.

The only reason we disagree and say that Islam is the last revelation that everyone should follow is because of purity; even Muslims have issues with fringe sects who try to twist the original teachings of Islam and it's relatively new in comparison to Judaism, or Hinduism, so on that basis we say that surely other religions have introduced concepts foreign to the original religion which may detract from Gods original words, so I'm sure you would agree to follow the words of man over Gods would be an insult to God!




> فويل للذين يكتبون الكتاب بايديهم ثم يقولون هذا من عند الله (Woe to those who write books by their own hands, then say that it is from God) Qur'an 2:79


But, regardless knowing your religion isn't based on something arbitrary and meaningless, and is connected to the creator of everything should inspire anyone whether they're from the Abrahamic line or another. The Abrahamic line surely is not the only one connected to God, that is for sure.

----------


## cartemj06

If you truly believe that all religions worship the same god then you really need to look deeply into the religions that you think this about. Like my first post in this thread says, all the religions claim to be truthful and they all contradict ach other. you can't say A and not A in the same sentence.

----------


## WilliamC

> If you truly believe that all religions worship the same god then you really need to look deeply into the religions that you think this about. Like my first post in this thread says, all the religions claim to be truthful and they all contradict ach other. *you can't say A and not A in the same sentence.*


Well the beauty of language is that you actually _can_ say 'A and not A' in the same sentence.

It depends on what 'A' is.

If 'A' is assumed to be a well-defined element of some set S, then 'A and not A' defines the empty set.

But if A is not well-defined, like A is an infinite set, then 'A and not A' defines a non-empty set.

This is because there is more than one infinite set, and they are not equipotent, that is they do not share a one-to-one correspondence of elements.

And example is the infinite set of rational numbers p/q, where p,q are integers. 

Since there are an infinite set of integers, then there is an infinite set of rational numbers, but it can be proven mathematically that the set of rational numbers is equipotent to the set of integers, that is they are both 'equally infinite'.

However, the set of real numbers is not capable of being placed into a one-to-one relation with the set of integers, mathematically it can be proven that there are infinitely many more real numbers than rational numbers, but this is now 'unequally infinite'.

Finally, the set of real numbers is of the same infinite class (or cardinality) as the number of points on the Cartesian plane, or by extension to the number of points in a three-dimensional space. However, it can be mathematically proven (and this one is beyond me) that the number of possible plane curves or space curves (that is all possible continuous curves that can be drawn on a two-dimensional plane or in three-dimensional space) is infinitely larger than the number of real numbers corresponding to the plane or volume.

So mathematically there are at least three classes of infinity, and these can be abstracted to an infinite number of infinities, but I am not aware of there being any correspondence between infinite classes greater than those used to describe all possible continuous curves on the plane and any other mathematical or physical concept.

Of course all of the above depends upon your ability to accept the axiom of choice, which can be summed up as for any collection of non-empty sets it is possible to chose exactly one object from each set. It's a no-brainer for finite sets but less so for infinite sets.

And if you are still confused (as I often am) ask yourself what is meant by declaring 'this statement is false'.

If 'this statement is false' is understood as 'true' then it contradicts the meaning of the word false.

If 'this statement is false' is understood to be 'false' then the statement must be true, which again contradicts the meaning of the word false.

While it is obvious that our language can construct such statements it is just as obvious that such statements cannot be the basis of logical arguments.

Some folks also cannot accept the concept of the empty set, or zero, or nothing, since by even being able to name or think about it it renders the concept invalid.

I suppose you could say that about the concept of infinity, since any definition of it automatically constrains it to something less than infinity.

----------


## Yieu

> If you truly believe that all religions worship the same god then you really need to look deeply into the religions that you think this about. Like my first post in this thread says, all the religions claim to be truthful and they all contradict ach other. you can't say A and not A in the same sentence.


I disagree with that notion.

I believe that God has revealed Himself to different peoples, at different times, according to how much of Himself, and which aspects of Himself they were ready and able to accept and understand.  So we might understand Him slightly differently, but the differences do not make all but one of religion wrong.

Also, nice post WilliamC.

----------


## tttppp

I don't believe in religion. Its physically impossible for the universe to be created by a God. Any religion that believes the universe was created by God, is incorrect.

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't believe in religion. Its physically impossible for the universe to be created by a God. Any religion that believes the universe was created by God, is incorrect.


Guess what. Your religion is that God didn't create the universe.

----------


## Muwahid

> I don't believe in religion. Its physically impossible for the universe to be created by a God. Any religion that believes the universe was created by God, is incorrect.


Atheism is the notion that the universe has always been here always will be here and has no creator; yet mocks the idea of a God that's always been here, always will, and has no creator. 

I'll honestly never understand that, I get it that maybe you don't see a religion you like but I don't really understand the great impossibility of a God when you have to believe there's infinitely been something there with no creator, that just is there for no reason, that something exploded for no reason, it's just mind boggling. Try getting your head around that. (AFAIK there's nothing scientific explaining the existence of something infinitely for no reason yet)

----------


## tttppp

> Guess what. Your religion is that God didn't create the universe.


I guess you could say that. But I actually chose my position based on thought and common sense. I don't believe it for the sake of believing it, which is what most religious people do. I'm willing to bet that the majority of religious people did not do a thorough research on most religions and then picked the accurate religion.

----------


## eduardo89

> I guess you could say that. But I actually chose my position based on thought and common sense. I don't believe it for the sake of believing it, which is what most religious people do. I'm willing to bet that the majority of religious people did not do a thorough research on most religions and then picked the accurate religion.


Thought, common sense and reason cannot rule out the existence of God.

----------


## tttppp

> Atheism is the notion that the universe has always been here always will be here and has no creator; yet mocks the idea of a God that's always been here, always will, and has no creator. 
> 
> I'll honestly never understand that, I get it that maybe you don't see a religion you like but I don't really understand the great impossibility of a God when you have to believe there's infinitely been something there with no creator, that just is there for no reason, that something exploded for no reason, it's just mind boggling. Try getting your head around that. (AFAIK there's nothing scientific explaining the existence of something infinitely for no reason yet)


Zero=Infinity. The universe never had a beginning and never will have an end. If there is no beginning, there is no creator. There could be in existence Gods, but no God created the universe.

----------


## Muwahid

> Zero=Infinity. The universe never had a beginning and never will have an end. If there is no beginning, there is no creator. There could be in existence Gods, but no God created the universe.


Doesn't explain how something tangible was here for an infinity which random things happened to and it spontaneously combusted creating the universe we have today. I understand the principle of infinity, but it doesn't explain the cause.

I just find it fascinating that if you replace the word God with Universe in most atheists explanation you have essentially what religious people say, yet one in the head of an atheist is absolutely absurd while the other is patently genius. Then they call themselves "rationalists". In any case as I've said before, God is above scientific concepts, God is impossible in Science. 

If I create a compiler for a computer programming language that will interpret my jumble of code into an executable program; am I, as the creator of this compiler, then bound to it's rules and logic? Of course not. Similarly, the creator of our science and logic is not bound to them. I believe the science created for us, is self sustaining obviously, but divine intervention did occur, and of course without the creator of our "compiler" i.e., science it wouldn't exist in the first place.

Is God possible in science? 
Answer: No

But most religious people don't dispute that, something atheists argue, when we're not disagreeing.

----------


## AFPVet

> Is God possible in science? 
> Answer: No
> 
> But most religious people don't dispute that, something atheists argue, when we're not disagreeing.


Well, actually, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. Science can do many things; however, it is limited upon the capability of the "machines" using it.

----------


## MelissaWV

Answer to the OP:  It isn't.

----------


## tttppp

> Doesn't explain how something tangible was here for an infinity which random things happened to and it spontaneously combusted creating the universe we have today. I understand the principle of infinity, but it doesn't explain the cause.
> 
> I just find it fascinating that if you replace the word God with Universe in most atheists explanation you have essentially what religious people say, yet one in the head of an atheist is absolutely absurd while the other is patently genius. Then they call themselves "rationalists". In any case as I've said before, God is above scientific concepts, God is impossible in Science. 
> 
> If I create a compiler for a computer programming language that will interpret my jumble of code into an executable program; am I, as the creator of this compiler, then bound to it's rules and logic? Of course not. Similarly, the creator of our science and logic is not bound to them. I believe the science created for us, is self sustaining obviously, but divine intervention did occur, and of course without the creator of our "compiler" i.e., science it wouldn't exist in the first place.
> 
> Is God possible in science? 
> Answer: No
> 
> But most religious people don't dispute that, something atheists argue, when we're not disagreeing.


It doesn't explain how the universe was created because the universe never was created. It explains how the universe always existed.

Lets say we start out with absolutely nothing as most religious people believe. How do you go from absolutely nothing to what we have today?

----------


## otherone

> Well, actually, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. Science can do many things; however, it is limited upon the capability of the "machines" using it.


excellent point.  In addition, logic, as it is man-made, is an inefficient tool to understand that which is outside our cognitive ability.

----------


## Muwahid

> It doesn't explain how the universe was created because the universe never was created. It explains how the universe always existed.
> 
> Lets say we start out with absolutely nothing as most religious people believe. How do you go from absolutely nothing to what we have today?


Your premise is false people of faith believe in an ever lasting deity, not that there was ever nothing. There was always something. The concept of infinity works just the same with us which begs the question why is one more logical than the other, especially by people who call themselves rationalists. 

Your idea is the universe was always here, why? You don't have to explain it because infinity takes care of it I guess. 

Frankly I don't see the difference between what you or I believe then.




> Well, actually, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. Science can do many things; however, it is limited upon the capability of the "machines" using it.


Proving a negative is quite hard to do! However my point is, if you believe in God then you believe he is above all that is created, right? So if he was scientifically possible he would not be the god taught in most scriptures as that god claims to be above all of the creation. So frmo a theological standpoint I think a lot of us would reject the notion that "science" created "god" rather than the other way around.

----------


## tttppp

> Your premise is false people of faith believe in an ever lasting deity, not that there was ever nothing. There was always something. The concept of infinity works just the same with us which begs the question why is one more logical than the other, especially by people who call themselves rationalists. 
> 
> Your idea is the universe was always here, why? You don't have to explain it because infinity takes care of it I guess. 
> 
> Frankly I don't see the difference between what you or I believe then.
> 
> 
> 
> Proving a negative is quite hard to do! However my point is, if you believe in God then you believe he is above all that is created, right? So if he was scientifically possible he would not be the god taught in most scriptures as that god claims to be above all of the creation. So frmo a theological standpoint I think a lot of us would reject the notion that "science" created "god" rather than the other way around.


Don't you see what religion is? Its just there as another way to control people.

If anyone outside a church said he was beyond all reason and you just had to take his word for it, you probably wouldn't believe him. But for some reason when in church, you accept that God is your creator and don't need any reasoning behind it, because God is beyond reason. 

There is one group of people who follow similar methods to churches. They are called con men.



If you believe in infinity, then why do you believe in God. If infinity exists, a creator does not exist.

----------


## eduardo89

> Don't you see what religion is? Its just there as another way to control people.


Of course it is, but that's because we are all sinners, and we're pretty damn lazy sinners to top it all. For most, religion simply means obey what has already been discussed, follow what's been decided and it's your shortcut to salvation. Man will always stray and pervert the Word of God. I'm a Catholic, and I know well how the Church has perverted Christ's message through its actions over the centuries. Does this mean I hate the Church or hate religion? Absolutely not. As I said, we are all sinners. We always look for the easy path to happiness and salvation.  Despite that, we still worship. We still yearn for God's grace. That is how I know God must exist.  Are all worshippers, we can't deny that. Either we worship the Creator or we worship the created. I don't really know where I'm going with all this, St. Patrick's day drinking has gotten to my head. 


/unintelligible rant

----------


## otherone

> I don't really know where I'm going with all this, St. Patrick's day drinking has gotten to my head.


Guiness yet, or the supermarket swill, still?

----------


## eduardo89

> Guiness yet, or the supermarket swill, still?


2 pints of Guinness, and 4 litres of German beer  (so far)

I love beer. But it makes me pee so much. I'm going to go pee.

----------


## Muwahid

> Don't you see what religion is? Its just there as another way to control people.
> 
> If anyone outside a church said he was beyond all reason and you just had to take his word for it, you probably wouldn't believe him. But for some reason when in church, you accept that God is your creator and don't need any reasoning behind it, because God is beyond reason. 
> 
> There is one group of people who follow similar methods to churches. They are called con men.
> 
> If you believe in infinity, then why do you believe in God. If infinity exists, a creator does not exist.


God is infinite not his creation 

The religion is to control people line, to me sounds like a cop-out. Because parents control you, grandparents, aunts uncles, the law of the land you agree to abide by controls you, social norms govern your behavior, fashion dictates what you wear in the street. But for some reason when religion has a say in anything people think it's this evil mass population controlling device. 

Can it be used to control people? Sure... has it been? Sure, is that it's main purpose? Nah.

It reminds me of when people say religion causes war when more people in our history anyway have been killed by atheist marxists, and most wars are fought over money and imperialism, but if religion stirs up one conflict all of a sudden it's evil.

I happily obey the tenets of my faith; _there is no compulsion in religion 2:256_
The same way you obey whatever it is you obey in life.

----------


## tttppp

> God is infinite not his creation 
> 
> The religion is to control people line, to me sounds like a cop-out. Because parents control you, grandparents, aunts uncles, the law of the land you agree to abide by controls you, social norms govern your behavior, fashion dictates what you wear in the street. But for some reason when religion has a say in anything people think it's this evil mass population controlling device. 
> 
> Can it be used to control people? Sure... has it been? Sure, is that it's main purpose? Nah.
> 
> It reminds me of when people say religion causes war when more people in our history anyway have been killed by atheist marxists, and most wars are fought over money and imperialism, but if religion stirs up one conflict all of a sudden it's evil.
> 
> I happily obey the tenets of my faith; _there is no compulsion in religion 2:256_
> The same way you obey whatever it is you obey in life.


If God is infinite, then we are infinite as well.

How can you being arguing for a creator and infinity at the same time? If infinity exists, there is no creator.

----------


## Yieu

> If God is infinite, then we are infinite as well.
> 
> How can you being arguing for a creator and infinity at the same time? If infinity exists, there is no creator.


Not exactly, but it can be explained.  




> The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.


http://vedabase.net/iso/invocation/en

----------


## Muwahid

> If God is infinite, then we are infinite as well.
> 
> How can you being arguing for a creator and infinity at the same time? If infinity exists, there is no creator.


What I mean is we were _created_ by something.

----------


## sevin

> That's not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons.  There is no higher authority than God's own self-disclosure.  It would be ridiculous for me to try to prove that the Bible is true externally if the Creator of the universe already says it is...so I don't have to prove it beyond what God says about it.  
> 
> The Holy Spirit regenerated my heart and opened my eyes to see that it was true.  He hasn't opened your eyes, so that is why you think it is just nonsense.  There is that personal element to the equation as well.


Okay. I'm not trying to insult you or anything. I just like to ask these questions to Christians. I'm curious what kind of answer I'll get. 

It's interesting because all you're saying is, "God opened my eyes and told me the Bible is His word." But anyone could say that about any religious book.

You might _believe_ you know the truth, but you don't _know_.

----------


## tttppp

> What I mean is we were _created_ by something.


You mean something created us, or something created the universe?

----------


## eduardo89

> You mean something created us, or something created the universe?


I'd say both.

----------


## tttppp

> Not exactly, but it can be explained.  
> 
> 
> 
> http://vedabase.net/iso/invocation/en


"Originally Posted by Sri Isopanishad: Invocation
The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance."

This quote doesn't explain anything. Its a bunch of gibberish.

----------


## Beorn

> Okay. I'm not trying to insult you or anything. I just like to ask these questions to Christians. I'm curious what kind of answer I'll get. 
> 
> It's interesting because all you're saying is, "God opened my eyes and told me the Bible is His word." But anyone could say that about any religious book.
> 
> You might _believe_ you know the truth, but you don't _know_.


Not just religious books, but any books or basis of knowledge have the same basis in presuppositions.

"God opened my eyes and told me the Bible is His word" is not that different from saying "Reason opened my eyes and showed me that what Dawkins has written is reasonable."

----------


## robert68

Some of us are descendents of Zeus.

----------


## WilliamC

> Thought, common sense and reason cannot rule out the existence of God.


I agree, and that's why I am an _agnostic_ atheist.

Just because I don't _believe_ in god doesn't mean I can _prove_ god does not exist, and why some are so caught up in trying to do so is beyond me. 

Unless, as I've mentioned, you are content to define god as love in which case I'm happy to agree 'cause when it comes to love I've been there before and I'm a believer.





Yea, I remember love...

_Can one come to love the memory of love more than the love itself?
Why do yesterday's gains seem worth more than any current wealth?
Can the past be kept alive in the heart without endangering current mental health?
Must history be forgotten so that the future can still be felt?

Today I spoke to a friend of mine who had recently spoken to you.
You did not recall his acquaintance with me and he didn't let on he knew.
He said that you were looking fine and had had a drink or two,
You were enjoying the party, having fun, I was glad to hear it was true.

Of course you didn't mention me, why should you it's been so long?
Though I swear again as he spoke to me your voice I heard it's song.
Just for an instance I was taken back in time to when you to me belonged,
The moment passed I could not believe these emotions were still so strong.

Later on that same evening I ran into a couple from our old scene.
They disapproved of our relationship, you know the one's I mean.
We talked and chatted of this and that and a variety of things,
Not once did your name come up nor a word about you did I glean.

Do you know there isn't a single photograph of you that I possess?
Not that I should have one at all look how easily I became obsessed
With just a fading image of the most beautiful face I ever caressed,
Never think that I still miss you or that I love you any less.

I only want for the best in your life and for you to be happy and free.
Keep going forward and face all your trials with courage and dignity.
Never look back with guilt or remorse about things that weren't meant to be.
When you do recall all you've been through smile and be well pleased.

Can one come to love the memory of love? Of course but never forget
That what lies behind is just the beginning of all that's not happened yet.
The road you have traveled to get here is closed, it's choices forever set,
But if you are willing to cherish your past the future will aid and abet._

----------


## otherone

> "God opened my eyes and told me the Bible is His word" is not that different from saying "Reason opened my eyes and showed me that what Dawkins has written is reasonable."


QFT
_All knowledge is subjective_

----------


## Yieu

> "Originally Posted by Sri Isopanishad: Invocation
> The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance."
> 
> This quote doesn't explain anything. Its a bunch of gibberish.


It explains quite a bit, but I admit that with the wording used in this translation you may have to think about it for a while before you get it.

All of it makes sense to me.  The only part that it looks like might be hard to read is the last sentence, which is trying to say that because God is purnam, or absolutely complete and whole, the fact that he creates _new_ things such as the universe and living beings does not diminish Him or His energy in quality or quantity.

It might help to know the word for word translation.




> oḿ  the Complete Whole; pūrṇam  perfectly complete; adaḥ  that; pūrṇam  perfectly complete; idam  this phenomenal world; pūrṇāt  from the all-perfect; pūrṇam  complete unit; udacyate  is produced; pūrṇasya  of the Complete Whole; pūrṇam  completely, all; ādāya  having been taken away; pūrṇam  the complete balance; eva  even; avaśiṣyate  is remaining.


Once the verse is understood, it answers the question you posed, and others.

----------


## Yieu

> If God is infinite, then we are infinite as well.
> 
> How can you being arguing for a creator and infinity at the same time? If infinity exists, there is no creator.


I will try to answer this from another scriptural perspective using the concept of sanatana, or eternity.

Sanatana means "that which has no beggining or end".  God is sanatana, and so are we.

But how can we also be sanatana?  Because the Lord exists beyond time, and we are a part of His eternal nature, being His creations.  Being from His nature, we have the qualities that God does, but in minute quantity.

----------


## sevin

> "God opened my eyes and told me the Bible is His word" is not that different from saying "Reason opened my eyes and showed me that what Dawkins has written is reasonable."


I think it's a little different. One requires faith, the other requires logic. Now if you think logic itself requires faith, then there's nothing more to discuss.

----------


## moostraks

> I think it's a little different. One requires faith, the other requires logic. Now if you think logic itself requires faith, then there's nothing more to discuss.


I believe both sides believe they are employing logic to come to their conclusions.

----------


## Beorn

> I think it's a little different. One requires faith, the other requires logic. Now if you think logic itself requires faith, then there's nothing more to discuss.


I believe they both employ faith and logic.

Can you prove logic doesn't rely on faith?
That is, can you prove that logic is reliable without disobeying its own laws of circular reasoning and relying on logic to prove it?

I know you can't. I just want to be clear as to exactly why you think there is nothing more to discuss.

----------


## UK4Paul

For me, it boils down to these.

*(1) For me, it is self-evident that the things in nature have a Creator.*

I appreciate that atheists and skeptics do not see it this way, even though they will accept that everything else in life has a creator. In other words, they use, say, an Apple computer knowing it was created, yet they will eat an apple and assume it simply came about as a result of random chance over a huge period of time.

Actually, the apple WAS produced... by the tree. The tree was produced... by God. But who produced God? Skeptics and atheists have the same problem with the Universe. They believe the Universe had an origin, a "First Cause" if you will... yet what caused that?

So really, skeptics and believers have the same problem in relation to the First Cause. The difference is, believers (like myself) point to design as evidence of a Designer.

And ironically, the more advanced we get scientifically, the more advanced we see the design. We see that our bodies, on a large scale, seem fairly simple... yet go down to the molecular, cellular level... and we see incredible complexity and machine-like, precision design that would have made Darwin raise an eyebrow or two 

*(2) The Hebrew God (YHWH) claims to be that Creator.*

Many gods do not even claim that. The Hebrew God claims it, which at least means his claims are worthy of a bit more attention. I know that ardent atheists spend a bit more time over YHWH than, say, Zeus 

*(3) The Hebrew God has left an indelible imprint of His activities with humankind*

It's interesting that we here are not really talking about Zeus, or Hermes... and yet all through history, this YHWH keeps cropping up and being talked about, even though his religion often seems on the brink of destruction at times. If Zeus were really God, I would have thought his worshippers would be making a defense of him by now.

*(4) The Hebrew God has told humankind in advance what He intended to do.*

For example, the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53, who dies and comes back to life to bear the sins of many... 800 years in advance of Christ. While this could be seen as a prophecy, it is also a statement of INTENT.

*(5) The Hebrew God was the God of Jesus Christ.*

Jesus Christ lived and died exactly like the "suffering servant" in Isaiah 53. He also claimed to be the Son of God, and was put to death for it.

Of course, skeptics have attempted to attack and/or demolish the "Jesus" story from every possible angle...

(a) Jesus never existed, but his story is really a rehash of pagan myths and legends. ["Zeitgeist"]
(b) Jesus was mistaken. [Dawkins]
(c) Jesus was deluded.
(d) Jesus was a magician. [the Jewish Talmud]
(e) Jesus existed but his story was later edited to include miracles, etc [Skeptics]

None of these, upon closer scrutiny, hold up.

Most of the pagan myths do not bear the same resemblance to the life of Jesus, and the ones who claim this lack SOURCE MATERIAL to demonstrate this, but usually quote other writers who themselves don't have the source material to back up their claims... or where such material exists, it usually comes much later than Jesus anyway (as in the case of the supposed Mithra connections). And in the few connections, i.e. December 25th, the birthday of the Sun... well, Jesus wasn't even born in the middle of winter anyway! So the connection has nothing to do with the Jesus story in the New Testament.

Was Jesus mistaken? Possibly, but his statements do not sound like somebody who is simply mistaken. Besides, he was NOT mistaken in his pronouncements about his destiny, and the destiny of his nation. He said he was going to be put to death... and that his nation would fall by the sword and led captive into all the nations. Clearly he was not mistaken there, so something more was probably going on.

If Jesus was deluded, then let's face it, he was an incredibly wise deluded man  This also means his apostles and disciples were deluded, yet the apostles also claimed to perform miracles and also lost their lives in the fervent belief they had witnessed Jesus' resurrection. Paul was also independently deluded, because he had a vision of Christ outside of the circle of the apostles... a vision that resulted in him converting huge numbers of non-Jews to Christ!

The Jewish Talmud claims Jesus [using a cryptic name for him] was a magician, justifying why they put him to death. But this demonstrates two things: that (a) they knew he existed, and (b) that the man performed things that appeared to them as magic tricks.

But if Jesus were a magician, then that would make him a false prophet... a deceiver. Yet their own scriptures foretold a "suffering servant" who would die on behalf of the sins of the people. Daniel [chapter 9] foretold a Messiah, or "anointed one", who would be cut off... prior to their city and temple being destroyed.

Given that their city and temple WERE destroyed (as foretold by their own prophet Daniel) [in 70AD]... the Jewish Messiah must, of necessity, have arrived prior to 70AD. And while there were several who claimed to be prophets and messiahs in that time, only Jesus stands out as foretelling the things that came upon the Jews, and whose words are immortalized even today.

Thus, this suggests Jesus was a TRUE prophet... and therefore not merely a "magician". Indeed, their ancient prophets also performed similar miracles to Jesus... so that same generation would have stoned their own prophets, had they lived among them!

Thus, their claim that Jesus was a magician does not hold water, because he demonstrated all the qualities of being a PROPHET... including, ironically, being put to death by his own people, as some Old Testament prophets were.

Was Jesus' life story edited to include miracles, at a later date? This means that Jesus did no miracles... but then, why would the original disciples believe him to be the Messiah and a prophet? The miracles were one of the SIGNS and proofs of his identity. Without them, the apostles and disciples would have had no compelling reason to believe Jesus' claims... and certainly not to die for him.

Indeed, why would there be ANY compelling reason for a Jew in the mid 30's of the 1st century to become a Christian, if there were no miracles? Jesus had been put to death... end of!

Yet the apostles and early disciples staked their lives and reputations on the belief that they had seen Jesus perform miracles, and had also witnessed his resurrection. This was also true of many of his earliest disciples. The Christian congregation itself was also founded on a claimed miracle... that of 120 disciples speaking in tongues to the Jews from all nations in Jerusalem. [Acts 2] If none of these things were true, wouldn't it be much more likely that the Nazarene "sect" would have simply fizzled out after a time?

And even if not, we have to ask where their momentum came from... especially when they did not have a "New Testament" to refer to!

Word of mouth therefore clearly played a part... and the authority of the apostles. But again...the authority of the apostles was an unusual anomaly in history, because most authority is wielded for a somewhat selfish purpose, while the apostles expended themselves for, and even died for, their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

If the apostles "made up" some or all of the miracle stories... then they are liars. But then, when you read their warnings about God, they do not sound like liars but very sincere people.

So what is left? That they were mistaken? They could have been... but then, they were also able to perform miracles themselves... so if they were making that up, then they were liars. And yet they do not sound like liars. What was their motivation? Money, power, fame? Possibly... but if so, it would be the most contradictory set of beliefs ever. Their congitive dissonance would have been through the roof 

Or maybe... just maybe... they were telling the truth. Maybe Jesus was who he claimed to be... the Son of God. And maybe... just maybe... the apostles were witnesses of him, and his resurrection.

This is the best hypothesis in my opinion, and the one that I accept.

(Of course, what I've said here isn't a COMPLETE account of why I believe what I believe, or a complete attempt to refute all possible counter-arguments... but it's a good outline and a decent start  )

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think it's a little different. One requires faith, the other requires logic. Now if you think logic itself requires faith, then there's nothing more to discuss.


No.  They both require faith.  Your epistemology of empiricism is based 100% on blind faith.  I've shown this many times on this forum with different people.

----------


## tttppp

> I will try to answer this from another scriptural perspective using the concept of sanatana, or eternity.
> 
> Sanatana means "that which has no beggining or end".  God is sanatana, and so are we.
> 
> But how can we also be sanatana?  Because the Lord exists beyond time, and we are a part of His eternal nature, being His creations.  Being from His nature, we have the qualities that God does, but in minute quantity.


If God is eternal, then so are we. If infinity exists, then everything is infinite. You can't have an infinite God and finite universe.

----------


## tttppp

> For me, it boils down to these.
> 
> *(1) For me, it is self-evident that the things in nature have a Creator.*
> 
> I appreciate that atheists and skeptics do not see it this way, even though they will accept that everything else in life has a creator. In other words, they use, say, an Apple computer knowing it was created, yet they will eat an apple and assume it simply came about as a result of random chance over a huge period of time.
> 
> Actually, the apple WAS produced... by the tree. The tree was produced... by God. But who produced God? Skeptics and atheists have the same problem with the Universe. They believe the Universe had an origin, a "First Cause" if you will... yet what caused that?
> 
> So really, skeptics and believers have the same problem in relation to the First Cause. The difference is, believers (like myself) point to design as evidence of a Designer.
> ...


I would be considered an atheist, and I don't believe the universe had an origin. If the universe doesn't have a beginning, then how could God create it.

----------


## Yieu

> If God is eternal, then so are we. If infinity exists, then everything is infinite. You can't have an infinite God and finite universe.


I was just saying that we are eternal because God created us that way, and so is God.

But this universe, and all other universes, are temporary.  They go through cycles of creation and destruction.  This is taught in the Vedas, and is also similar to the "big crunch" theory, and involves the multi-verse theory.

----------


## Yieu

> I would be considered an atheist, and I don't believe the universe had an origin. If the universe doesn't have a beginning, then how could God create it.


You don't believe in the big bang theory?  In other words, you believe the universe has always existed and there is no galactic drift?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I was just saying that we are eternal because God created us that way, and so is God.
> 
> But this universe, and all other universes, are temporary.  They go through cycles of creation and destruction.  This is taught in the Vedas, and is also similar to the "big crunch" theory, and involves the multi-verse theory.


That cyclical view of history is certainly not Biblical.  The Bible teaches a linear view of history...that the universe came into being at a point in time.

----------


## tttppp

> I was just saying that we are eternal because God created us that way, and so is God.
> 
> But this universe, and all other universes, are temporary.  They go through cycles of creation and destruction.  This is taught in the Vedas, and is also similar to the "big crunch" theory, and involves the multi-verse theory.


All of those theories you mentioned are bs. The universe is infinite. Thats the only way it can exist. The cycles of creation and destruction are total bs. In 10 years they'll come up with another bs theory that disproves it. You can't figure out the universe by what you see. What you can see is only a small fraction of the whole. The only way you can figure out the whole is to use your brain. Technically, if infinity exists, what you see is zero. So you'll never be able to prove what the universe is based on what you see.

----------


## Yieu

> That cyclical view of history is certainly not Biblical.  The Bible teaches a linear view of history...that the universe came into being at a point in time.


This universe did come into being at one point in time.  The only difference in the teaching is that God had created universes prior to this one --as He exists eternally, which means having no beginning as well as having no end.

----------


## tttppp

> You don't believe in the big bang theory?  In other words, you believe the universe has always existed and there is no galactic drift?


The big bang theory is possible, but it would not include everything. It would just be limited to our universe, not everything. So the big bang theory, is not a theory of everything. If it is a theory of everything, then it would be inaccurate. 

But even in the big bang theory, the universe starts from basically an infinite amount of energy. It didn't start from absolutely nothing. So if you do believe in the big bang theory, you can't really believe in most religions, in which a lot of them have adopted the big bang theory as proof the universe was created by God.

----------


## Muwahid

> The big bang theory is possible, but it would not include everything. It would just be limited to our universe, not everything. So the big bang theory, is not a theory of everything. If it is a theory of everything, then it would be inaccurate. 
> 
> But even in the big bang theory, the universe starts from basically an infinite amount of energy. It didn't start from absolutely nothing. So if you do believe in the big bang theory, you can't really believe in most religions, in which a lot of them have adopted the big bang theory as proof the universe was created by God.


Do you believe the universe is expanding?  I think that's the basic evidence for the big bang, if the universe is expanding then at one point it would have had to have been really small.

----------


## otherone

> No.  They both require faith.  Your epistemology of empiricism is based 100% on blind faith.


QFT.
Logic is a fine tool to discern what is real, but fails in it's attempts to prove that which is outside our consciousness. 
All knowledge is subjective.

----------


## sevin

> No.  They both require faith.  Your epistemology of empiricism is based 100% on blind faith.  I've shown this many times on this forum with different people.


But if your beliefs are based on blind faith as well, then what makes your beliefs superior to mine?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But if your beliefs are based on blind faith as well, then what makes your beliefs superior to mine?


Because empiricism is irrational.  Induction is a logical fallacy.  Arguments from experience commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent.  If your theory of knowledge causes you to break the laws of logic, there is something wrong to begin with.

Since all knowledge must come through propositions (which are either true or false), and since the senses in interacting with creation yield no propositions, knowledge cannot be conveyed by sensation.

----------


## otherone

> If your theory of knowledge causes you to break the laws of logic, there is something wrong to begin with.


You've already claimed that the system of logic itself is based on faith.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> QFT.
> Logic is a fine tool to discern what is real, but fails in it's attempts to prove that which is outside our consciousness. 
> All knowledge is subjective.


Whoa!  Now I definitely wouldn't say that!  I would say it is the opposite.  All knowledge is objective in the mind of God.  Man can only have knowledge when he knows something that God knows.




> Scripturalism denies the correspondence theory of truth, i.e., that the mind of man has only a representation of the truth, and not the truth itself. Rather, a Christian epistemology holds to the coherence theory of truth, which maintains that what man has is the real truth: the same truth that exists in man’s mind exists first in the mind of God. As stated by Gordon Clark: “Realism is the view that the mind of man actually possesses the truth. Representationalism holds that the mind has only an image, a picture, a representation, an analogy of the truth, but does not have the truth itself.”(18)
> 
> A Christian epistemology maintains that a proposition is true because God thinks it to be true. Therefore, when man knows truth, what he knows coheres with that which God knows. Our knowledge must coincide with God’s knowledge if we are going to know the truth. In the coherence theory, the mind and the object known are both part of one system, a system in which all parts are in perfect accord, because they are found in the mind of God. Since God is omniscient, knowing all truth, if man is going to know the truth, he must know what God knows.



Besides, sensation cannot yield knowledge.  All knowledge comes through propositions, and since the senses interacting with the world produce no propositions, they can't be true or false, so you can't know anything through sensation.

----------


## otherone

> Whoa!  Now I definitely wouldn't say that!  I would say it is the opposite.


My apologies, I got tangled between what Sevin wrote and what Beorn wrote:
Sevin is one of you people, Beorn is possibly a Sophist like myself. 



> Can you prove logic doesn't rely on faith?
> That is, can you prove that logic is reliable without disobeying its own laws of circular reasoning and relying on logic to prove it?


Deists and Positive Atheists essentially say the same thing...that absolute knowledge exists.  That isn't my thing...at least, I can't_ prove_ it, as absolute knowledge lies outside of logic.

----------


## UK4Paul

> I would be considered an atheist, and I don't believe the universe had an origin. If the universe doesn't have a beginning, then how could God create it.


OK, here is one possibility. Since Einstein's equation (e=mc^2) shows that energy and matter are related, and energy can be converted into matter and vice versa...

Is it possible that there was a time when everything was pure energy? Is it possible that this was "God", and this entity gradually converted some of that energy into matter?

At least with your worldview on the universe not having an origin, we don't have to worry about the origin of the energy...  because if the universe didn't have an origin, then that could be true of the energy within it as well.

Actually, I have a notion (although I'm not dogmatic about it), that what we call "God" was actually infinite, inexhaustable ENERGY... which by virtue of its infinite nature, would have the capacity somehow for Infinite Intelligence. This Intelligence then created what we see in our universe today.

I know it's a crude theory, but at least it's a start in attempting to understand God. Most Christians simply say he is the First Cause, and leave it at that. They don't explain how such First Cause had such an intelligence in the first place.

I personally think God CAN be explained... but we are still at the infancy stage of understanding energy.

I suspect that infinite ENERGY would, by its very nature, be Intelligent. It would be like an instant neural net.

As for the infinite regress problem that atheists "worry" about... well, mathematics is full of infinite regresses.

Take the number 1, and divide it by 3... you get 0.33333333333333333... and on to an infinity of smallness.

The universe is based on mathematics, in as far as the physical sciences we know are based on laws that we can define mathematically.

In other words, e=mc^2 is the mathematical expression connecting energy and mass by the SQUARE of the speed of light.

Nobody actually asks why it is the SQUARE of the speed of light 

Physics isn't really interested... but these things hint at the nature of reality.

----------


## tttppp

> Do you believe the universe is expanding?  I think that's the basic evidence for the big bang, if the universe is expanding then at one point it would have had to have been really small.


I don't believe the universe is expanding. This research is based off of one observation from our perspective. Our vantage point only takes into consideration about 0% of the universe. I don't think its wise to jump to conclusions of one observation that can view 0% of the universe.

----------


## tttppp

> OK, here is one possibility. Since Einstein's equation (e=mc^2) shows that energy and matter are related, and energy can be converted into matter and vice versa...
> 
> Is it possible that there was a time when everything was pure energy? Is it possible that this was "God", and this entity gradually converted some of that energy into matter?
> 
> At least with your worldview on the universe not having an origin, we don't have to worry about the origin of the energy...  because if the universe didn't have an origin, then that could be true of the energy within it as well.
> 
> Actually, I have a notion (although I'm not dogmatic about it), that what we call "God" was actually infinite, inexhaustable ENERGY... which by virtue of its infinite nature, would have the capacity somehow for Infinite Intelligence. This Intelligence then created what we see in our universe today.
> 
> I know it's a crude theory, but at least it's a start in attempting to understand God. Most Christians simply say he is the First Cause, and leave it at that. They don't explain how such First Cause had such an intelligence in the first place.
> ...


Everything is pure energy now. Everything is made up of the same stuff and can be converted into anything you want. It all follows the same law, zero=infinity. 

Lets put the God issue to rest. Lets take Christianity for example. Everyone follows the bible. Well I can tell you for a fact that the bible is not God's word. No true God would write a complex book that nobody can get a complete understanding of. A real God would get everything down on one page, and make it so simple that everyone would understand it. I'm not saying I'm God, but I can write a rule book a lot simpler than the bible. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the bible doesn't come from God. The bible, like all religious books, can be interpreted almost any way you want. This is not something God would want.

----------


## Supernaut

Paganism - Because it is the religion of my Indo-European ancestors, and I find truth in its simplicity especially compared to the weird, esoteric, Middle-Eastern Cult of Human Sacrifice, nonsense that was forcefully imposed by the Roman tyrant Constantine to brainwash and enslave a continent of once strong and proud people.

----------


## Muwahid

> I don't believe the universe is expanding. This research is based off of one observation from our perspective. Our vantage point only takes into consideration about 0% of the universe. I don't think its wise to jump to conclusions of one observation that can view 0% of the universe.


Just out of curiosity are there any published works which corroborate your point of view? It's hard to get an idea of what you believe when it's typically against mainstream science taught in schools.

----------


## tttppp

> Just out of curiosity are there any published works which corroborate your point of view? It's hard to get an idea of what you believe when it's typically against mainstream science taught in schools.


I tried looking for similar ideas on the internet, but couldn't find any. If you find something you think is similar, let me know. 

By the way, I took astronomy in high school and it covered all the generally accepted knowledge about the universe. I did ace the classes. So I have a pretty good understanding of what is generally accepted. After thinking it through, I just realized its total bs.

One movie you may want to consider is "I Heart Huckabees." This movie is pretty accurate on this stuff, and its pretty entertaining too. Its got a lot of good actors in it too.

----------


## TER

...

----------


## Muwahid

> I tried looking for similar ideas on the internet, but couldn't find any. If you find something you think is similar, let me know. 
> 
> By the way, I took astronomy in high school and it covered all the generally accepted knowledge about the universe. I did ace the classes. So I have a pretty good understanding of what is generally accepted. After thinking it through, I just realized its total bs.
> 
> One movie you may want to consider is "I Heart Huckabees." This movie is pretty accurate on this stuff, and its pretty entertaining too. Its got a lot of good actors in it too.


Here's a talk by Lawrence Krauss: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

He argues the case of infinity, got into some pretty foreign concepts to me but I think he does reinforce the big bang theory.. the thing is the universe wouldn't be limited to just what we see now for all we know this is just a stage in an infinite amount of stages so I don't think the big bang conflicts with you, as you stated yourself the big bang doesn't (and I never took it to) abrogate the idea of an infinite universe and corroborate theological concepts like the "creation" of the universe. I just think it would be impossible for scientists to explore anything prior to the big bang because the fabric of space and time as we know it, started at that point leaving atheists with a problem explaining anything before hand.

In any case he offers an interesting explanation, I just hate their rhetoric about God, anything to do with dawkins is so militant atheist it makes the stomach churn mostly because they don't understand the theology they so hotly debate - like I said for me, prove anything you want with science and I'll agree with it no problem. My only point beyond that is God created our science and reality. So you could say if the universe is infinite there is no God where I say science can't disprove what is beyond science philosophically, to someone who understands "God", he can't be disproven (as annoying as that may be for Atheists) but we never took a position that God is provable with science, so for people to argue science nullifies god's existence is absurd.

But when religion talks of science and gets it wrong, yes then we must take these things into account, the earths not flat nor is it 4,000 years old or whatever some people think.

----------


## Beorn

> My apologies, I got tangled between what Sevin wrote and what Beorn wrote:
> Sevin is one of you people, Beorn is possibly a Sophist like myself. 
> 
> 
> Deists and Positive Atheists essentially say the same thing...that absolute knowledge exists.  That isn't my thing...at least, I can't_ prove_ it, as absolute knowledge lies outside of logic.


Sorry, I'm much closer to AB's position.

I was just trying to turn circular reasoning arguments back on positive atheists.

I believe absolute truth exists and I think some of it is self-evident to all people. I think many people know the truth, but ignore it or fight that knowledge by filling their mind with lies intermingled with truth. I can't prove what should be self-evident to those people. However, I can expose the lies they tell themselves by showing inconsistency in thinking.

----------


## robert68

> ...
> 
> Lets put the God issue to rest. Lets take Christianity for example. Everyone follows the bible. Well I can tell you for a fact that the bible is not God's word. No true God would write a complex book that nobody can get a complete understanding of. A real God would get everything down on one page, and make it so simple that everyone would understand it. I'm not saying I'm God, but I can write a rule book a lot simpler than the bible. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the bible doesn't come from God. The bible, like all religious books, can be interpreted almost any way you want. This is not something God would want.


Even one page can be twisted, altered, mistranslated, and/or falsified by humans. Can’t God (or doesn’t he) just communicate directly to humans, in the form of their conscience or intuition?

----------


## libertyjam

> Just out of curiosity are there any published works which corroborate your point of view? It's hard to get an idea of what you believe when it's typically against mainstream science taught in schools.


Since you asked, see the following links; these are just a quick search list and I have not read all of these particular sites, but in physical astronomy and physics it is the Steady State Theory (SST) opposed to the Big Bang Theory.   There is plenty of published literature for both arguments and evidence seemingly for both, with much that can go either way depending on interpretation.  

http://www.cosmology.info/
http://www.cosmology.info/2005confer...s/burbidge.pdf
www.cosmology.info/2005conference/program.pdf
http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/bigbang.htm
http://www.steady-state-universe.net/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm
http://www.wellbalanceduniverse.com/...cal_theory.htm
http://www.wellbalanceduniverse.com/...ncosmology.htm

----------


## tttppp

> Here's a talk by Lawrence Krauss: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
> 
> He argues the case of infinity, got into some pretty foreign concepts to me but I think he does reinforce the big bang theory.. the thing is the universe wouldn't be limited to just what we see now for all we know this is just a stage in an infinite amount of stages so I don't think the big bang conflicts with you, as you stated yourself the big bang doesn't (and I never took it to) abrogate the idea of an infinite universe and corroborate theological concepts like the "creation" of the universe. I just think it would be impossible for scientists to explore anything prior to the big bang because the fabric of space and time as we know it, started at that point leaving atheists with a problem explaining anything before hand.
> 
> In any case he offers an interesting explanation, I just hate their rhetoric about God, anything to do with dawkins is so militant atheist it makes the stomach churn mostly because they don't understand the theology they so hotly debate - like I said for me, prove anything you want with science and I'll agree with it no problem. My only point beyond that is God created our science and reality. So you could say if the universe is infinite there is no God where I say science can't disprove what is beyond science philosophically, to someone who understands "God", he can't be disproven (as annoying as that may be for Atheists) but we never took a position that God is provable with science, so for people to argue science nullifies god's existence is absurd.
> 
> But when religion talks of science and gets it wrong, yes then we must take these things into account, the earths not flat nor is it 4,000 years old or whatever some people think.


I skimmed through the video and summary of the video. Apparently they are arguing that the universe had a beginning and end. This is opposed to my view that the universe is infinite and there is no beginning or end. 

I disagree with you that God cannot be proven or disproven. If the universe is infinite, there is no beginning or end. If the is no beginning, there is no creator. There could be a God who created us. Thats possible. But it is not possible that a God created everything. 

My theory is that zero=infinity is the only true law of the universe. Thats why the universe has always existed and always will. You can pretty much prove this conceptually, but to obtain physical scientific proof may be impossible.

----------


## tttppp

> Even one page can be twisted, altered, mistranslated, and/or falsified by humans. Can’t God (or doesn’t he) just communicate directly to humans, in the form of their conscience or intuition?


Thats certainly possible as well. But if he did give us something on paper, it would be very clear and to the point. It would be better than any human could. But if you look at the bible, it is very easy for many humans to write a better guide for humans than the bible. The bible reminds me a lot of the laws our government makes, or the endless documents corporations make for their employees. My guess is the same people write all three of these things, the bible, laws, corporate documents.

----------


## libertyjam

Muhawid and tttppp

Here is another paper for you, if you are inclined for the technical stuff:

http://casswww.ucsd.edu/archive/pers...ubs/985623.pdf

----------


## otherone

> Sorry, I'm much closer to AB's position.
> 
> I was just trying to turn circular reasoning arguments back on positive atheists.


My apologies for misrepresenting your argument!  And I agree, Logic is as circular as faith.  I guess I was too zealous in believing someone else thought as I did...Nihilism is a lonely path. 


(I crack myself up )

----------


## UK4Paul

Hi tttppp




> Lets put the God issue to rest. Lets take Christianity for example. Everyone follows the bible. Well I can tell you for a fact that the bible is not God's word. No true God would write a complex book that nobody can get a complete understanding of. A real God would get everything down on one page, and make it so simple that everyone would understand it. I'm not saying I'm God, but I can write a rule book a lot simpler than the bible. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the bible doesn't come from God. The bible, like all religious books, can be interpreted almost any way you want. This is not something God would want.


First of all, you are _presuming_ what God would do here. So you reject the Bible because it doesn't fit in with your presupposed idea of what God should have done?

(Besides, I disagree that one page would be enough... but if you really want to get the essence of it, the 10 Commandments would be your best bet, probably along with the commandment, also part of the Law covenant, to love one's neighbour as oneself.)

Second, bear in mind that most of "the Bible" wasn't particularly written for us anyway, but for a small number of tribes living in the Middle East, called Hebrews (and later known as Jews).

It was a _collection_ of writings that they considered sacred... which contained their "constitution" (the Law covenant), a detailed history of their ancestry, and the writings of their prophets. Why would they want to narrow this down to one page?

The same is true of the origin of Christianity, although on a much smaller scale.

"The Bible" is not a rule book. It is a collection of writings that initially the Jews, and later the Christians, considered to be sacred or valuable enough to be worth preserving.

One thing I am almost certain of... if it were merely one page long, there would be almost NO Christians and probably NO Jews today.

Why would there be?

Yes, you can get a set of RULES into one page... but why would anyone follow it?

I admit, it makes for a great thought experiment... but I really doubt a one page document would have anywhere near the same impact on the world.

And let's face it, regardless of your assumption about what God SHOULD do... the Bible has had a MAJOR impact on the world.

So I will side with God on this one and suggest His idea was slightly better than yours... sorry

----------


## UK4Paul

> Even one page can be twisted, altered, mistranslated, and/or falsified by humans. Can’t God (or doesn’t he) just communicate directly to humans, in the form of their conscience or intuition?


He does.

But I don't think He does it "forcefully" (for the most part), because He respects your freedom of choice.

He would rather people come to Him and love him freely, rather than be bludgeoned and forced into it.

Sadly, much of the Church throughout history has preferred the "bludgeoning" approach, especially on "heretics" who dared to believe a slightly different version of the Deity, or on Jews and pagans who refused... how dare they!... to be forcefully baptized.

And we wonder why not everyone has accepted Christianity...

----------


## WilliamC

> I think it's a little different. One requires faith, the other requires logic. Now if you think logic itself requires faith, then there's nothing more to discuss.





> No.  They both require faith.  Your epistemology of empiricism is based 100% on blind faith.  I've shown this many times on this forum with different people.





> 1faith noun \ˈfāth\ plural faiths Definition of FAITH
> 
> 1  a       : allegiance to duty or a person 
>             : loyalty
>     b  (1) : fidelity to one's promises 
>         (2) : sincerity of intentions
> 
> 2   a  (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God 
>         (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion 
> ...





> 1 a    (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning 
>         (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> 
>         (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics 
>         (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge 
>    b   (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty 
>         (2) : relevance, propriety 
>    c         : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable 
>    d         : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
> 2             : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>


Only by using non-standard definitions of words however.

Most dictionaries use faith and logic as antonyms, you simply define them as being equivalent.

----------


## Beorn

> My apologies for misrepresenting your argument!  And I agree, Logic is as circular as faith.  I guess I was too zealous in believing someone else thought as I did...Nihilism is a lonely path. 
> 
> 
> (I crack myself up )


Yes, well if you go to a ghetto you'll find plenty of people living out nihilism even if they aren't aware of the very term.

----------


## otherone

> Yes, well if you go to a ghetto you'll find plenty of people living out nihilism even if they aren't aware of the very term.


Been there, done that, but Nihilism isn't self-destruction.

----------


## tttppp

> Hi tttppp
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you are _presuming_ what God would do here. So you reject the Bible because it doesn't fit in with your presupposed idea of what God should have done?
> 
> (Besides, I disagree that one page would be enough... but if you really want to get the essence of it, the 10 Commandments would be your best bet, probably along with the commandment, also part of the Law covenant, to love one's neighbour as oneself.)
> 
> Second, bear in mind that most of "the Bible" wasn't particularly written for us anyway, but for a small number of tribes living in the Middle East, called Hebrews (and later known as Jews).
> ...


What positive impact has the bible ever had on the world?

Put it this way. What is more important to this country, the constitution which is relatively short and simple, or all the bull$#@! overlapping rules and regulations that this country has added after that? Its possible to create a simple, easy to read document, that everyone can understand and live by. I guess God wasn't smart enough to figure that out.

----------


## Captain Caveman

> This means though you do not agree with AB. He is saying God hardened you and softened you. You had no choice in it. The very fact that you believe it was your choice to listen to God or not means you disagree with AB.
> 
> That said, I'm glad you found faith.


Thank you for the reply.

For me, I see that in some regards both sides of the "God did it, or you did it" (freewill or lack thereof) debate have merit. God responded to my actions, in response to my actions towards Him. It becomes a chicken or the egg idea at some point, but I do feel that yes (!), God does the saving.. and we do need to respond to Him for Him to do it. We have choice, God alone has the ability.

I mean think about it... "sin" (the fallen nature, that produces bad actions/thoughts/problems) is what separates us from God. God has made a way for our nature (our "inner man") to be super-naturally changed so that the fallen nature does not compel us any longer. Being free from this burden, we are free to be good children to a loving Father.

Only God has the ability to make it happen, we only need respond and lay down our self-life for Him.

Because of the things I've experienced, I also strongly disagree with folks who teach "you must do this or that, wear the right clothes or whatever" to be saved. God does the changing, we just willingly go along IMHO. This is the crux of "religion" when people say you must do things this-way-or-that... it's just rules following... whereas really having some interaction with God, and HE changes your nature, is wholly different.

Should anyone desire a living breathing interacting <i>relationship</i> with the Most High God, PM me... I'm not the answer, but I know things about getting there.

----------


## UK4Paul

Hi tttppp




> What positive impact has the bible ever had on the world?


Are you kidding me? It has been a source of hope and inspiration for many. I think the framers of the constitution were also positively influenced by it. And whether you think it is a "positive" development or not, hundreds of millions of people believe in the God revealed in the Bible, and live their lives accordingly. And that is to say nothing of the rich cultural impact.

Now, I notice you added the word "positive", as if only _positive_ impacts are valid. Plus, you mean "positive" from YOUR point of view. The fact that there are hundreds of millions of Christians might not be positive in your eyes, but might be positive in God's 




> Put it this way. What is more important to this country, the constitution which is relatively short and simple, or all the bull$#@! overlapping rules and regulations that this country has added after that? Its possible to create a simple, easy to read document, that everyone can understand and live by. I guess God wasn't smart enough to figure that out.


I get your point. But again, it goes back to God's intention, not your expectations.

The Bible is NOT a set of rules. 

If you wanted to learn about American history, do you just read the Constitution?

Well, the Constitution would be part of that history... but it wouldn't explain how the U.S. got started, or the story of King George or the Tea Party, or the Revolution... would it?

You would need to read more than just the Constitution to get that history.

That's what the Bible is.

It contains Israel's CONSTITUTION... and also their HISTORY, along with some writings from their PROPHETS, POETS and KINGS.

As for God not being smart enough to figure it out: I'm willing to bet that you, despite your skeptical viewpoint, know the basic story of the Bible, and its key message:

God creates world... Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden... Adam and Eve sin and are thrown out of the garden of Eden... God creates a nation for himself called Israel... brings a Messiah through that nation, called Jesus Christ... invites people back to the tree of life, through Christ.

OK... that's the gist, and I bet you already knew most or all of that.

How did you know? Because God apparently wasn't smart enough... yet you somehow KNOW the "one page" story!

The bottom line is...

Everyone (or rather, a huge number of people) know the BASIC story of the Bible.

And the details... the sheer size of it... simply contributes to the richness and the intrigue of the story.

Look at Revelation... the book has captivated Christians for hundreds of years (even though I think the bulk of it was fulfilled in or before 70AD)!

So what if people interpret it different ways? It's got people TALKING... and that's what God wants (or at least, I suspect that's what He wants).

Of all the books in the Bible, Revelation is the most complex... but ONLY because it draws upon so much symbology from the rest of the Bible.

It is like the University of the Bible. Nobody goes to university without first going to school.

It is God's way of saying, "If you want to know the deeper stuff, learn the basics first."

But it's not essential. It is there for the people who would get BORED of studying the same "one page" document  It's there for the people who WANT to know more. In your "one page" scenario, where would people go if they wanted to know more?

God? OK... and how would he communicate the "more"? Yes, he could reveal the entire scope of Israel's history, his prophecies, the gospels etc... to each person individually... or he could... oooh, say, have it _written down_... 

So you already know what that "one page" says... yet you do not believe... so the extra 999 pages or so, really don't matter to you.

Yet I think God knows what he's doing, because they DO matter to hundreds of millions of people.

And the fact that we are even discussing "The Bible" here today, is perhaps proof that God DOES know what he's doing after all.

But do you really believe that if it were a one page document, you'd be a worshiper of God right now? Hmmm... 

I guess it's one of those reeeeallly convenient hypothetical questions you can happily answer "Yes" to because you know it's hypothetical... and if you say "No", well then... there ya go.

----------


## tttppp

> Hi tttppp
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me? It has been a source of hope and inspiration for many. I think the framers of the constitution were also positively influenced by it. And whether you think it is a "positive" development or not, hundreds of millions of people believe in the God revealed in the Bible, and live their lives accordingly. And that is to say nothing of the rich cultural impact.
> 
> Now, I notice you added the word "positive", as if only _positive_ impacts are valid. Plus, you mean "positive" from YOUR point of view. The fact that there are hundreds of millions of Christians might not be positive in your eyes, but might be positive in God's 
> 
> 
> ...


Most people who follow the bible live by a different set of rules because they have different interpretations of the bible. Also, I've met plenty of people who put on this show of how deeply religious they are and know everything about the bible, but they end up being the biggest scumbags you'll ever meet...just like Santorum. 

There have been plenty of wars in the name of religion. I don't think this is positive. 

If we had a clear and concise guideline to live by, people would just live their lives and wouldn't have to worry about studying the bible and figuring it out. Christians, Jews, and Muslims basically follow the same religion, but have been fighting since the beginning of time because of some bs differences in their complex documents. If they all had a simple document that everyone could live by, there wouldn't be this fighting over religion.

----------


## nobody

I have a risen savior.  My standing with G-d is defined by G-d.  My G-d and savior CANNOT lie.  My G-d created and accomplishes what HE wants in the Heavenlies and on Earth.  My faith is not in myself but what HE has done which is what He wants for all mankind.  He is PEACE.

----------


## eduardo89

> Most people who follow the bible live by a different set of rules because they have different interpretations of the bible. Also, I've met plenty of people who put on this show of how deeply religious they are and know everything about the bible, but they end up being the biggest scumbags you'll ever meet...just like Santorum. 
> 
> There have been plenty of wars in the name of religion. I don't think this is positive. 
> 
> If we had a clear and concise guideline to live by, people would just live their lives and wouldn't have to worry about studying the bible and figuring it out. *Christians, Jews, and Muslims basically follow the same religion, but have been fighting since the beginning of time because of some bs differences in their complex documents.* If they all had a simple document that everyone could live by, there wouldn't be this fighting over religion.


No, we don't. I'd venture as far as to say we don't even worship the same god. Christians believe that God the Father sent His only begotten son to die for our Sins. We believe Jesus Christ is our Savior. He is an integral, central part of our faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is what defines Christianity. Neither Judaiam nor Islam believe in Christ as the Son of God. They are completely different religions worshipping a different god.

----------


## tttppp

> No, we don't. I'd venture as far as to say we don't even worship the same god. Christians believe that God the Father sent His only begotten son to die for our Sins. We believe Jesus Christ is our Savior. He is an integral, central part of our faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is what defines Christianity. Neither Judaiam nor Islam believe in Christ as the Son of God. They are completely different religions worshipping a different god.


This is why we have so many problems. Billions of people follow basically the same religion, yet kill each other because of some pointless differences.

----------


## Yieu

> No, we don't. I'd venture as far as to say we don't even worship the same god. Christians believe that God the Father sent His only begotten son to die for our Sins. We believe Jesus Christ is our Savior. He is an integral, central part of our faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is what defines Christianity. Neither Judaiam nor Islam believe in Christ as the Son of God. They are completely different religions worshipping a different god.


Well, I believe that God is the Father of Jesus, and that all the religions you mentioned including Hinduism just believe in approaching the same God in a different manner.

Christians approach God through Jesus, and people of other religions may have other ways of approaching God, but they are approaching the same God.




> This is why we have so many problems. Billions of people follow basically the same religion, yet kill each other because of some pointless differences.


Good point.  We should be getting along here, we worship the same God, just slightly differently.

----------


## tttppp

> Well, I believe that God is the Father of Jesus, and that all the religions you mentioned including Hinduism just believe in approaching the same God in a different manner.
> 
> Christians approach God through Jesus, and people of other religions may have other ways of approaching God, but they are approaching the same God.
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.  We should be getting along here, we worship the same God, just slightly differently.


Just to be clear, I know these religions are not exact. But the basics of each of them are very similar. 

I'm a big concepts kind of person. I really don't care about pointless details. When people trying to explain the petty differences between most religions, I just want to fall asleep.

----------


## Yieu

> Just to be clear, I know these religions are not exact. But the basics of each of them are very similar. 
> 
> I'm a big concepts kind of person. I really don't care about pointless details. When people trying to explain the petty differences between most religions, I just want to fall asleep.


I agree on that point.  The smaller differences do not matter so much, what matters is that we are worshiping the same God.  The manner in which we do so is less important, so long as we are following His instruction, whether it be from the Bible, the Gita, or otherwise.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Doesn't explain how something tangible was here for an infinity which random things happened to and it spontaneously combusted creating the universe we have today. I understand the principle of infinity, but it doesn't explain the cause.
> 
> I just find it fascinating that if you replace the word God with Universe in most atheists explanation you have essentially what religious people say, yet one in the head of an atheist is absolutely absurd while the other is patently genius. Then they call themselves "rationalists". In any case as I've said before, God is above scientific concepts, God is impossible in Science. 
> 
> If I create a compiler for a computer programming language that will interpret my jumble of code into an executable program; am I, as the creator of this compiler, then bound to it's rules and logic? Of course not. Similarly, the creator of our science and logic is not bound to them. I believe the science created for us, is self sustaining obviously, but divine intervention did occur, and of course without the creator of our "compiler" i.e., science it wouldn't exist in the first place.
> 
> Is God possible in science? 
> Answer: No
> 
> But most religious people don't dispute that, something atheists argue, when we're not disagreeing.


How do you jump from a Deistic perspective to a personified deified one? I think it's highly absurd to assume that what I call God (the Clockmaker), you believe is some humanoid or personified deity that interferes in the affairs of man, and in the vastness of the Universe has limited creation to one planet and one species. Did it not ever cross your mind that God is an abstract concept that we refer to as the creator of the Universe, but beyond that we have no rational basis for any other presumptions? 

Everything has a beginning. Everything has an end. Perhaps the human brain is incapable of understanding anything else.

I do like your computer programmer analogy as it is a common one Deists use. It completely refutes any revealed / supernatural mumbo-jumbo. You don't see the laws of physics changing constantly, or the table of elements changing, or chemistry, or the base interaction of the Universe. I will believe in supernatural when I see gravity disappear, or hydrogen disappear, or any other observation which contradicts the Natural Laws. So.....I'll probably be waiting for something that will never happen. 

Curious in any event, in your thoughts on Deism.

----------


## eduardo89

> This is why we have so many problems. Billions of people follow basically the same religion, yet kill each other because of some pointless differences.


It's not "basically the same religion" at all. We worship different gods. Judaism and Islam do not worship the Christian God.




> Just to be clear, I know these religions are not exact. But the basics of each of them are very similar. 
> 
> I'm a big concepts kind of person.* I really don't care about pointless details.* When people trying to explain the petty differences between most religions, I just want to fall asleep.


This "pointless detail" to Christians is Christ. Those who reject Christ are worshiping a different (and false) god than us Christians.

----------


## Muwahid

> No, we don't. I'd venture as far as to say we don't even worship the same god. Christians believe that God the Father sent His only begotten son to die for our Sins. We believe Jesus Christ is our Savior. He is an integral, central part of our faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is what defines Christianity. Neither Judaiam nor Islam believe in Christ as the Son of God. They are completely different religions worshipping a different god.


The same monotheistic god is followed in Judaism, and Christianity, and Islam, and even in extinct polytheistic religions like the Meccans who were _haneefs_ (monotheists) first but worshiped other foreign "gods" later, but their central God was Allah (lit. The God), this is because the people of Mecca were followers of Abraham and Ismael. Judaism is an easier religion to prove as Jesus himself was essentially a Jew:




> Mathew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


This is proof of the link between Christianity and the religions of all the previous prophets in the Abrahamic line and beyond. Islam came and did not more than to teach a non-trinitarian view of Christianity. Which many of the early Christians didn't even subscribe to themselves until the Council of Nicaea.




> Faith in Jesus Christ is what defines Christianity


I can't be a Muslim without affirming the miracles and prophethood of Jesus عليه السلام, but I do not accept the anthropomorphism that God and divine unhuman-like deity who is perfect in every way SIRED a son. If you take that disagreement out, are we monotheists? Do we accept Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Isac, Ismael,  Ezekiel, John, etc? Do we affirm Hell and Heaven, it becomes abundantly clear many religions were divine even if they lose their way today, but most religions came from divine inspiration of a God.

And it's better that way what God would only reveal a message to people once and never again no matter how much they strayed.

----------


## eduardo89

I'm not denying that we share common roots.

I'm saying that we do not worship the same god. Islam does not accept the Holy Trinity, so how can you say we worship the same god? Islam does not accept that Jesus Christ is God, so we are obviously not worshiping the same god.

----------


## Muwahid

Yes you're right if you worship Jesus Christ; we do not worship him, but who you take to believe he is (God) then we worship that all powerful God, believing in roughly the same tenets and morals.

----------


## tttppp

> I'm not denying that we share common roots.
> 
> I'm saying that we do not worship the same god. Islam does not accept the Holy Trinity, so how can you say we worship the same god? Islam does not accept that Jesus Christ is God, so we are obviously not worshiping the same god.


Does Christianity believe Christ is God? I thought there is only one God.

----------


## tttppp

> It's not "basically the same religion" at all. We worship different gods. Judaism and Islam do not worship the Christian God.
> 
> 
> 
> This "pointless detail" to Christians is Christ. Those who reject Christ are worshiping a different (and false) god than us Christians.


Just because someone doesn't believe Jesus was the son of God, doesn't mean they can't believe in that same God.

----------


## eduardo89

> Does Christianity believe Christ is God? I thought there is only one God.


There is only one God. The concept is called the Holy Trinity.

This is what every Christian believes:




> We believe in one God,
> the Father, the Almighty
> maker of heaven and earth,
> of all that is, seen and unseen.
> 
> We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> the only Son of God,
> eternally begotten of the Father,
> God from God, Light from Light,
> ...

----------


## tttppp

> There is only one God. The concept is called the Holy Trinity.
> 
> This is what every Christian believes:


By the way, who are Adam and Eve? Didn't God make them? Doesn't that make them his children as well? Aren't we all descendants of God. What makes Jesus so special?

----------


## eduardo89

> By the way, who are Adam and Eve? Didn't God make them? Doesn't that make them his children as well? Aren't we all descendants of God. What makes Jesus so special?


Adam and Eve were the first two humans, God made them (and us) in His image.

Jesus is the Son of God. He is God incarnate, born to the Virgin Mary by act of the Holy Spirit. He came down from Heaven to die for our sins.

----------


## tttppp

> Adam and Eve were the first two humans, God made them (and us) in His image.
> 
> Jesus is the Son of God. He is God incarnate, born to the Virgin Mary by act of the Holy Spirit. He came down from Heaven to die for our sins.


Why is it that Jesus gets special powers, and Adam and Eve don't? Also, what can Jesus do that humans in theory cannot do?

----------


## PierzStyx

> There is only one God. The concept is called the Holy Trinity.
> 
> This is what every Christian believes:


Not at all. There are a whole host of Christian Churches that reject the doctrine of the Trinity.  Here are a list of a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Groups


And obviously not all Trinitarian Christian even believe the Creed you quote as I am positive Baptists would reject the "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church" line. Its kinda the basis for Protestantism.

----------


## eduardo89

> Not at all. There are a whole host of Christian Churches that reject the doctrine of the Trinity.  And obviously not all Christian even believe the Creed you quote as I am positive Baptists would reject the "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church" line. Its kinda the basis for Protestantism.


That last part is fundamental to Christianity. It means that you believe in the Church Jesus Christ founded on Earth. There are very few churches that reject the Nicene Creed, most notably Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Calvinists, and many evangelical churches believe in it. The word "catholic" in the creed does not mean the Roman Catholic Church necessarily, catholic means universal.

And no, you cannot be a Christian if you reject the Holy Trinity.

----------


## eduardo89

> Why is it that Jesus gets special powers, and Adam and Eve don't? Also, what can Jesus do that humans in theory cannot do?


Jesus doesn't "get special powers". Jesus is God. He is consubstantial with the Father. He was not made, but begotten. Adam and Ever were made, Jesus wasn't.

----------


## PierzStyx

> That last part is fundamental to Christianity. It means that you believe in the Church Jesus Christ founded on Earth. There are very few churches that reject the Nicene Creed, most notably Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and many evangelical churches believe in it. The word "catholic" in the creed does not mean the Roman Catholic Church necessarily, catholic means universal.
> 
> And no, you cannot be a Christian if you reject the Holy Trinity.


Here is a short list of a few that do not believe in the Trinity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Groups

And no the Trinity is not fundamental to being a Christian. It is a Greek pagan doctrine that was brought into Christianity by the "Church Fathers" who took over the Christian movement after the deaths of the Apostles. http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Content...%20Trinity.htm  and also: http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trini...nity-doctrine/ The earliest statement of belief in the Trinity as official doctrine of Christianity didn't come into play until 200 YEARS after the Apostle's death. In fact until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD the Christian world was split over the nature of God. And then it was only settle by a vote, by POLITICS. I reject the pagan belief of the Trinity that was forced upon Christianity at the order of a pagan Emperor, Constantine, by a council of men who had no authority from God. Here is a rejection of the Trinity by a Evangelical Pastor, who explains it quite well: http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics...c/trinity.html  He even talks about the influence of Middle Eastern mysticism on Christianity leading to the belief in the Trinity.

And actually the "catholic" mentioned in the Creed means specifically the Roman Catholic Church as it was the church organized by that Creed. At the time it was only the "Catholic Church" or just The Church, as no other Christian churches had splintered from it. That you would think otherwise is you trying to re-write history in order to make it fit your beliefs.

----------


## eduardo89

> Here is a short list of a few that do not believe in the Trinity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism#Groups


And those groups amount to less than 1% of self-described Christian churches.







> And actually the "catholic" mentioned in the Creed means specifically the Roman Catholic Church as it was the church organized by that Creed. At the time it was only the "Catholic Church" or just The Church, as no other Christian churches had splintered from it. That you would think otherwise is you trying to re-write history in order to make it fit your beliefs.


You obviously don't know what "catholic" means. It means universal and many churches use it to indicate their belief to be the descendant of the Church Christ founded.

The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterian, Methodists and many post-Reformation churches believe that their churches are catholic in the sense that they are in continuity with the original universal church founded by the Apostles

----------


## UK4Paul

Hi tttppp




> Most people who follow the bible live by a different set of rules because they have different interpretations of the bible.


Oh, I agree. But then, is that automatically a bad thing?




> Also, I've met plenty of people who put on this show of how deeply religious they are and know everything about the bible, but they end up being the biggest scumbags you'll ever meet...just like Santorum.


Agreed. But then, this is a uniquely human problem. Humans never seem to quite be able to live up to the ideals set before them. No wonder Gandhi said he liked Christ but not Christians.

I'm pretty sure that even if the Bible were one page in size, scumbags would just find something else to be scumbags about 




> There have been plenty of wars in the name of religion. I don't think this is positive.


True. I'm not sure whether Christ would have supported those wars.




> If we had a clear and concise guideline to live by, people would just live their lives and wouldn't have to worry about studying the bible and figuring it out. Christians, Jews, and Muslims basically follow the same religion, but have been fighting since the beginning of time because of some bs differences in their complex documents. If they all had a simple document that everyone could live by, there wouldn't be this fighting over religion.


I certainly take your point... but you are making the assumption that, if everyone had this simple document, nobody else would come up with a competing document.

I don't think it's as easy as that 

Incidentally, it could be argued that your idea was tried. When Moses came down the mountains, he carried two tablets of stone, containing just the 10 Commandments.

He found them making a golden calf to lead them back into Egypt 

So I suspect the size of the document isn't the real issue. It's what humans WANT to do... that's the real issue.

The human tendency is always to add more and more laws and layers. I think that's because many humans have a somewhat "childish" need for "rules and regulations".

I actually believe that God's whole point is actually to get us to GROW OUT OF our need for such things!

When Jesus came, he boiled the entire Jewish law covenant to two key points:

Love God, and love your neighbour.

Really, if a person does these two things, there is no need for laws 

But it has taken thousands of pages of ink for mankind to figure this out. I think you are right in principle, but I'm simply saying that God has taken us this route so that we can figure out that we don't actually need hundreds of laws... two are enough.

At least, that's my take

----------


## UK4Paul

Hi eduardo89




> I'm not denying that we share common roots.
> 
> I'm saying that we do not worship the same god. Islam does not accept the Holy Trinity, so how can you say we worship the same god? Islam does not accept that Jesus Christ is God, so we are obviously not worshiping the same god.


I can see where you're coming from... but at the same time, the God of the Jews was YHWH, who was also Jesus' God. That is who he prayed to, and taught his followers to pray to... so the Jews and Christians do have the same God. Jesus didn't teach his followers to pray to himself.

I would also say Muslims have the same God as well. "Allah" basically means God. In fact, "Allah" is used in place of God in Bibles in some Muslim countries, because Allah means God.

Where each differs is in how they view Jesus. Jews don't recognize Jesus as their Messiah and the Son of God (yet  ), and Muslims don't recognize Jesus as the Son of God (yet  ).

I suppose it boils down to proving that Jesus was the Son of God. What would help is if he would hurry on back so we can get all this sorted out

----------


## UK4Paul

> And no, you cannot be a Christian if you reject the Holy Trinity.


And this pretty much clinches tttpp's point.

Wars, persecutions and crusades were engaged in, because one group of Christians differed slightly in how they saw the relationship between the Father and the Son... not to mention the Holy Spirit.

Nothing proves his point more.

Which is more important... to love one's neighbour as oneself, or to slaughter and shun thy neighbour if they happen to believe a slightly different creed?

----------


## Muwahid

> Jesus doesn't "get special powers". Jesus is God. He is consubstantial with the Father. He was not made, but begotten. Adam and Ever were made, Jesus wasn't.


Can you quote in the bible where Jesus explicitly states his divinity by stating he is God?

----------


## eduardo89

> Can you quote in the bible where Jesus explicitly states his divinity by stating he is God?


Matthew 1:23
Isaiah 9:6 
John 1:14
John 8:58 
John 14:6-7
1 Timothy 3:16

and many more

----------


## eduardo89

> Hi eduardo89
> 
> 
> 
> I can see where you're coming from... but at the same time, the God of the Jews was YHWH, who was also Jesus' God. That is who he prayed to, and taught his followers to pray to... so the Jews and Christians do have the same God. Jesus didn't teach his followers to pray to himself.
> 
> I would also say Muslims have the same God as well. "Allah" basically means God. In fact, "Allah" is used in place of God in Bibles in some Muslim countries, because Allah means God.
> 
> Where each differs is in how they view Jesus. Jews don't recognize Jesus as their Messiah and the Son of God (yet  ), and Muslims don't recognize Jesus as the Son of God (yet  ).
> ...


The way I see it, as Jesus is God, that if you do not accept Him as God then you are obviously praying to a different God.

----------


## tttppp

> Hi tttppp
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I agree. But then, is that automatically a bad thing?
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. But then, this is a uniquely human problem. Humans never seem to quite be able to live up to the ideals set before them. No wonder Gandhi said he liked Christ but not Christians.
> ...


You are kind of demonstrating my point when you say that humans have a need to develop more and more laws and rules. The bible is a clear example of this. It is clearly a document written by humans.

The 10 commandments could be an example of a document created by God. Its short, and too the point...you can't really improve it dramatically like you can with the bible. Christians and everyone else would be better off if we just eliminated the bible and focused on the 10 commandments. Just like America would be better off if we scrapped our legal system and just focused on the constitution.

Its hard for scumbags to get around clear and concise rules. Where scumbags thrive is systems where the rules are so complex that nobody can understand them.

----------


## Muwahid

> Matthew 1:23
> Isaiah 9:6 
> John 1:14
> John 8:58 
> John 14:6-7
> 1 Timothy 3:16
> 
> and many more


None of those explicitly illustrate Jesus proclaiming that he is God. John 14:7 is probably the strongest case when you don't read it all...




> 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
> 
>  8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
> 
>  9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? *The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work*.


I can see how some interpret this, but for me it's rather evident.. Philips own reaction must mean he did not ever think Jesus and the father (God) to be one in the same literally. Jesus the man said he speaks not on *his own authority*, this is the case with all messengers of God... the revelations they speak are from divine inspiration that doesn't make them themselves God, in fact the Qur'an has a similar verse:




> وما ينطق عن الهوى إن هو إلا وحي يوحى (He [Muhammad] does not speak of his own desires, it is nothing but pure revelation revealed by God)


I just find it strange there's no single passage where Jesus is quoted as saying "I am God", yet it's a pillar of Christianity as you pointed out.

----------


## TER

Muhawid, I can understand to a degree why someone raised in Islam might read the Gospels and not think that Jesus Christ is God.  But that is because you already have a prejudice that those same writings are lies and distortions.  Unfortunately, this clouds your judgment and understanding of Who Christ is and how He saves us.

Christ did not have to write anything in a book, for He writes in the hearts of men.  Only those whose whole faith depends on the writings of men end up worshipping books.  Ironincally, when God did attempt to write down His laws with His own finger, His children were worshipping a golden calf made by human hands in defiance of God and Moses threw the stone tablets to the ground.  For we are not worthy or have enough knowledge to read the words of God written either on paper or stone without involving our bias and prejudices and human weakness to stain and tarnish it.  Lest we worship the tablets and not the Uncreated Creator of the universe.  No, the Wisdom of God is not a book, but a living Man, the Son of Man propheciezed by Daniel.  But you cannot understand this verifiable and long believed prophetic truth because you have been taught that these prophecies are lies or distortions.  That may be easy to say centuries after the events happened, but the blood of the martyrs and the witness of the saints overrule it.  A book indeed is corruptible, which is why a book can never be the Word of God.  Rather, the Word of God is a Person, and in that Person, we as persons find salvation.  For books are not in the image of God, nor do books find salvation, nor do we by books find salvation, but rather we humans, in the flesh, as children of God, find incorruption by He Who was uncorrupted, Whose flesh was without sin, Whose life was without sin, and Whose death was without sin.  There is no salvation for the human being apart from Jesus Christ.  And most certainly, He was considered to be even before His advent _Immanuel_, 'God with us'.  This was the cry of the Church from the beginning, well before the Gospels were ever written.  For the faith was confirmed by the wonders of the saints and by the blood of the martyrs well before an Apostle decided to record the events for prosperity.  

When Christ asked Simon Peter Who he thought Christ was, St. Peter said 'the Son of the living God'.  Jesus then revealed how He would build His Church, namely, by the faith that He is the Son of God.  And this is the faith which has been defended from the beginning, and the faith wherein we find salvation.

You know how many times the word salvation is in the Quran?   The answer is zero.  This is because only in Christ do we find it.

Anyone who has been indoctrinated to consider the truths in Scriptures to be lies will never understand the revelation of God in Christ.  Thus it is understandable to a degree why one can be blind to these truths which are so apparent to others, because their mind was formed in such a manner to doubt.  Indeed, their eyes are shut and the doors of their hearts remain closed.   But those saved by God are not done so by words in a book, or by the proclamations of men, nor even the words of angels, but by Jesus Christ, the living Word of God and by the Holy Spirit of God working within His Body, the Church, which He established when He sanctified all of us and all of creation by His sinless offering of love upon the Cross.

----------


## WilliamC

Ya'll still at this?

I'm telling you God is Love is the answer...

----------


## Dsylexic

> "Originally Posted by Sri Isopanishad: Invocation
> The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance."
> 
> This quote doesn't explain anything. Its a bunch of gibberish.


au contraire,it explains very lucidly the idea of infinity.something hindus grasped long before western mathematicians.looks like the idea of infinity is still a mystery to you.cant blame  you.must be the public school education

----------


## Captain Caveman

> And those groups amount to less than 1% of self-described Christian churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't know what "catholic" means. It means universal and many churches use it to indicate their belief to be the descendant of the Church Christ founded.
> 
> The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterian, Methodists and many post-Reformation churches believe that their churches are catholic in the sense that they are in continuity with the original universal church founded by the Apostles


If we recall the quote "many shall seek, and few shall find.." and also "Not everyone who keeps saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will get into the kingdom...", then I suspect the chart may not accurately reflect who is truly converted, and who is not. Just a thought.....

Also, on the other end of the spectrum from non-trinitarians are the Oneness folks, who haven't been mentioned. So I mentioned them, that's all.

The most important question for all of us (me included), is to know if we have the Spirit of Christ within us (Romans 8:9). If you do, I bet it was a hugely (and permanently) life changing event, yes?

----------


## Yieu

> Ya'll still at this?
> 
> I'm telling you God is Love is the answer...


You're right.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qdKZBXMX5E

----------


## vodalian

I know that I won't see it in my lifetime, but I really hope that down the road, my great (x) grandchildren will be able to experience freedom and peace on this planet without the coercion religion fundamentalists use to control the population.

----------


## Yieu

I know this is how it already is, but you can currently follow whatever religion you desire, and do not have to submit to anyone else's will in regards to your personal relationship with God, or lack of relationship.

----------


## tttppp

> au contraire,it explains very lucidly the idea of infinity.something hindus grasped long before western mathematicians.looks like the idea of infinity is still a mystery to you.cant blame  you.must be the public school education


I understand infinity just fine. You should read all of my posts. I called that quote gibberish because it does a horrible job of explaining its point. Instead of getting right to the point, it makes it as complicated as it could possibly get.

Plus I take your comment that I don't understand infinity to be an insult. Maybe if you had graduated from high school, you would have known that public school doesn't even address infinity.

----------

