Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I believe in all religions, in that they all exist, and that their existence-(atleast as far as they pertain and relate to my own existence)-result completely from my own perception of them. That makes me a 'pantheist solopsist'. It works well as a belief system, in that I can accept that all these different viewpoints are fundamentally correct (God exists, Allah exists, Jesus exists, Buddha exists, Odin exists, Rama exists, everybody's right, etc ad infinium), while still allowing myself to accept or deny their personal relevance to myself-in that the very existence and fabric of the Universe Itself-(as it pertains to me)-exists as a result of my own existence and perspective on it. And, should I at some point entirely cease to exist, the very Universe, Time, and Reality-as I percieve them-will-(for me)-then completely cease to exist. Thus, being my very own Alpha and Omega, the freedom and responsibility of choice falls entirely on my own infinite and ultimate self, while any sense of subservience or obsequity before a higher power is nullified by the fundamental inability for there to be a Universe which I can percieve, which does not also force my existence. To put it as succinctly as I possibly can:

"I, therefore.".

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help -- we need not waste our energies in his defense.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

Or our money :p

It just ticks me off that churches are tax exempt, and yet religion won't keep it's nose out of politics.
Fine, you want to be part of the political process-pay your part like the rest of us.

I'll respect any church that pays taxes to the government, even when they don't have to.

It even says in the Bible "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars."

I don't think priests, ministers, etc. should be able to vote, unless they also pay taxes.
And I don't think you should be able to donate any taxable income or assets to a church-maybe
that would keep some of the greediest of the evangelists from taking too many houses and mortgage payments.

to (probably mis)quote some comedian I can't remember the name of:

"I don't believe in any god that requires heavy financing"

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Firstly, thanks to all of the people who have thanked me. It is challenging to be the only (as far as I can tell) fundamentalist Christian in a virtual sea of agnostics, atheists, and other believers. If I don't answer a particular post, please don't be offended. There's only so much typing that my ten fingers can do....

Thanks also to the assorted agnostics, atheists, and other believers who are participating. We have (mostly) managed to keep an even keel and a respectful tone, and those qualities are truly rare in online debates. Especially online debates about religion.

On to the responses:
Firstly, I object to the notion that you can reject the Bible as evidence. Even if you disregard the divine inspiration of the Bible, it's still an astounding collection of primary source material. We know more about Jesus than we know about Socrates (for example), and historical documents are our primary sources of knowledge.

By the way, the Jewish historian Josephus mentioned Jesus in his writings. Josephus never mentioned Christ's divinity, but his writing should be enough to prove (at the very least) that there was a guy named Jesus in first-century Judea who seems to correlate with the Jesus of the Gospels.

Nevertheless, I can meet your challenge in the same way that the earliest apostles did. I have met Jesus. Not physically, of course, but in ways that were utterly real nonetheless. I have seen His power at work in my life and in the lives of others around me. I cannot doubt the power of God through Christ any more than I could doubt the existence of the sun, the wind, or the force of gravity.

Logic also insists that there's something real to the Gospel. Christianity exploded across the Roman Empire in spite of several emperors who tried to stop it. (Nero is the obvious example, but Diocletian wasn't any better.) Now look at the original apostles. A bunch of fishermen, a tax collector, and a former persecutor of the faith. They weren't the most-likely candidates to lead a spiritual revival, but they did it anyway. That's either a lot of coincidence, or the power of God.

The fate of the original apostles also reinforces their claims. Every one of the eleven (not counting Judas Iscariot) suffered for the faith. Ten of them died for it, and John was exiled to the island of Patmos. These guys all knew Jesus personally. If He had been a fake, wouldn't they have known about it? If so, why would they have been willing to die for a lie?

That's a fair question, but you have to really think about it. What do you suppose would happen if God performed a big, showy miracle today? Before you answer, remember that there are people who still believe that 9/11 was faked and that the Twin Towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition....

It wouldn't work. Skeptics would raise questions. So-called experts would prove how the miracle could have been done through science, special effects, or mass hypnosis. You can't force people to believe, even if you raise someone from the dead.

That's the very point that Jesus addressed in the parable about Lazarus the beggar & the rich man (as recorded in Luke 16):


Shortly thereafter, Jesus rose from the dead ... and people still didn't believe Him.

Doubt is not your problem. Many believers have doubted. Mother Theresa doubted. The apostle Thomas doubted.

Excuse me for saying so, but your problem is a failure to grasp your condition. You seem to believe that you deserve Heaven on your own merits. You don't. None of us deserve Heaven on our own merits. Heaven is perfect, and we aren't.

By the way, how "good" do you have to be in order to be GOOD? Where's the line between good and not-good?

Let's take the average guy. He doesn't hurt anyone, not usually. Maybe he drives a little too fast, but he hasn't actually killed anyone yet. He gets a little short-tempered, and he occasionally has a harsh word for his wife or his kids. But we all do that, right? In spite of that, he deeply loves his family. He would give his life for them, but he hasn't been required to do that yet. He's a good worker, even though he spends a little too much time on the Web when he should be working. He's nice to people most of the time. Some people would miss him if he died.

Is this guy good enough for Heaven? Is he worthy of perfection? What if he worked a little bit harder?

Alone among all of the religions, Christianity recognizes the true problem. None of us is truly righteous [Romans 3:10]. Even when we think we're being good, most of us are usually seeking some sort of reward or praise. Genuine self-sacrificing love (with nothing to be gained by it) is darned rare in our broken world, whereas evil seems commonplace. How would humans rise above these problems to become worthy of God?

We can't do it. So God came to us. He gives us the worthiness and righteousness that we cannot attain on our own. And He gives it to us for free, because He already paid the price.

One of my favorite quotes on this subject goes something like:
"Christianity is not a religion. Religion is all about people working toward God. God is smart enough to know that we can't possibly reach Him, so He came to us. Christianity is simply living with Christ in your life."

I was referring to a popular misconception that life would be great if only God would leave us alone to enjoy it. Perhaps my language was too strong, and I apologize for any offense.

I am well aware that life is not a neverending party.

You're confusing God's omniscience with His perfect will. Yes, God knew we were going to fall from grace. He knew we were going to sin. That's why He planned for our redemption from the very beginning of time.

But knowing something bad is going to happen does not mean the same thing as actually planning for it to happen. For example, I know that my kids are probably making trouble for my wife during homeschooling today. (Yup, we homeschool.) Do I want that to happen? No. Would I be delighted if it didn't happen? Sure! But I know it's probably going to happen anyway, so I make my plans for how to respond to it.

In the same way, although God knew we were going to fall from grace, He didn't want it to happen. He even made plans to redeem us after our Fall. But He couldn't have prevented our Fall without taking away our free will, so He allowed it to happen.

Actually, you're quite correct. If the Bible isn't reliable, then God is not God. Fortunately, the Bible is reliable and clear.

Actually, the clarity of the Bible is another point toward why it should be trusted. Think about it. The books of the Bible were written over thousands of years by many different human beings. Their cultural backgrounds, languages, and environments all changed many times, but the message stayed the same. God loves His people and wants to save them. Sadly, we keep screwing up the plan because we want to be in control. Only by accepting the grace of God and asking Him into our lives can we ever find happiness and holiness.

What translation are you using? The NIV renders Isaiah 45:7 a bit differently:
The NASB has:
The point in this verse is God's sovereignty. In context, the verse is part of God's explicit endorsement of Cyrus (a pagan king!) as the agent of God's will and deliverer of God's people. God is not the author of Evil. However, He is lord of all, and He can use destruction to fulfill His purposes.

Your citation of Amos 3:6 suffers from a similar problem. NIV:
NASB:
God is not claiming authorship of Evil. Rather, He is forcefully stating His sovereignty, even going so far as to declare that He can use disaster & destruction as part of His plans.

Hmmm ... so I did a little comparison, and it appears that you're using the good ol' King James Version for your quotations. I love the KJV because of its poetic language and beautiful cadences. In fact, I still recite the Lord's Prayer in KJV English.

The problem is that the KJV English is distinctive because it is old. The English language has changed a bit since King James's day, and those changes can make the KJV a little tricky to understand. If you like the KJV, may I recommend the New King James Version (NKJV) for you? It uses much of the same poetic, beautiful language, but it also uses modern words to avoid confusing modern readers.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

God did "just" forgive them. He's capable of doing it, and He did it. He paid the price for it.

No, all forgiveness has a price. When the sin is not very great, the price is not very high. If I step on your toe, you can forgive me easily. On the other hand, if I massacre your family with a chainsaw, you might find forgiveness a little more difficult. The worse the sin, the harder it is to forgive.

It's only reasonable that the sins of the entire human race -- past, present, and future -- would require a whole lot of forgiveness. That much forgiveness can't come cheap.

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in another world than he does in this.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "Reply To The Indianapolis Clergy" The Iconoclast, Indianapolis, Indiana (1882)

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

You have to understand that the God of Isreal is a very pure being, and won't abide with evil. What He defines as evil. It is part of his nature that can't be changed. He has given us the choice to accept the blood sacrifice of his only begotton son or not. It is the blood of the Lamb that allows us into his presence without being destroyed. This world was created to be the source of beings that would destroy the rebelling angels. All of the rebels are bound on this planet. Thats why this world is so messed up. We are in a war that is spirtital in nature, that it bleeds into our physical realm is unfortunate but seems to be part of the plan. I ask everyone to just try an experiment. Ask the being known as Jesus to cover your sins and enter your heart. Then ask to receive the power of the Holy Spirit. The tingling sensation that you will feel is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Then give praise and thanks. Go and share what you have found. Its that simple. Because this is the sole path to ever-lasting life, we are commanded to share the truth with others. If you choose this path, you will be included in something that is wonderous. But there is a cost. You will be hated by all man unreasonably, it is part of the deal. Also your eyes will be opened to a realm that is simply too hard to comprehend without the guidence of the Holy Spirit. Sorry if I've offended anyone but this is the truth. Try the experiment, you will discover more than you could possibly imagine.:D

Re: OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)
 

If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men.... What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena.


-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Liberty Of All" (1877)

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.

No he isn't. There is no holy trinity in my book.
Yes, he did pick a random Jewish carpenter for it. That was EXACTLY THE POINT.

Re: Real-world sensitivities and game names
 

No, I am not self-reliant. I'll freely admit that. I am totally reliant on God for everything that I have, everything that I am, and even the very breath in my lungs.

I could pretend otherwise. I could claim that I'm a self-made man. I could even produce evidence to support my claim. But would that really make me self-reliant? If I drop dead of a brain aneurysm in the next five minutes, whose fault would it be? Can I control the blood vessels in my brain?

I'm proud of my education, but should I be? Would I be as well-educated if I had not been born into a middle-class family in the richest country on Earth? For that matter, don't I owe my intelligence to genetics, upbringing, and other circumstances outside of my control? What if I had been born with a mental disability of some kind?

Isaac Newton wrote:
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

We all stand on the shoulders of other people. Those people stood on the shoulders of still more people, etcetera. And we all "stand on" nature to a great extent, not to mention seemingly-random chances. None of us are self-reliant. Not me. Not you.

Odd. I found some evidence for the Gospels with a quick Google search:
Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (Faithfacts.org)

I'm sure that you can find more evidence if you look. Naturally, skeptics will claim that this evidence is false, biased, or whatever. That claim can be tested by looking at the evidence itself. Still, it seems like an exaggeration to claim that there is no evidence whatsoever.

Wikipedia actually has a decent summary of the different opinions about the authorship of the Gospels. For example, some people claim that Luke could have been written as early as 37 AD, which would have been less than ten years after the Crucifixion. Fascinating.

I think I've mostly addressed these points in my reply to Tifone, but I'll add one more thing: You are totally free to reject the claims of Christ. You are also free to reject God.

Although you may not care, no matter how much you reject Him, He still wants you. He's funny that way. I know that I won't ever convince you via online debate, but I pray that you will be open to Him one day.

Shalom!