Page 31 of 89 FirstFirst ... 2126272829303132333435364181 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 620 of 1780
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #601  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Like i said, much earlier in this thread, i think it is more genuine if a person is good "out of the goodness of their heart"- As opposed to just being a good person because they believe they'll burn in hell if they're not good to others.
    Its a bit difficult to describe, the these aren't really different things. You can't "fake" goodness in the eyes of God. One cannot simply go through the motions and say "Well, I followed your stupid rules, give me my salvation.

    I'll try to explain it. We aren't saved because we are good, rather we exhibit goodness as a result of being saved. This is an imperfect example, obviously because someone that rejects God can behave in a good way, but perhaps it addresses at least one issue. In short--you can't be cynical about your salvation. You can't just say "Well, I don't want to burn in hell, so I had better toe the line." Although, if you willfully commit sinful acts, you can insure that you reject goodness.

    Simply put--you alone can definitely earn damnation, but you alone cannot earn salvation. I'm not sure this helps or confuses the issue more. My apologies if it is the latter.

    KAM
  2. #602  
    Religion is subjective to each individual, I will point to the multitudes of religions as a point in fact. Prior to Christianity, people believed in al lot of different things, for far longer then the present religions. What ever your belief system, allow everyone, the right to choose. Failure to do so, is folly. As I stated, allow me my belief(s), I will allow you yours.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #603  
    Proving the Bible's events as being historically factual, or proving whether or not certain peoples existed as described, does not prove or disprove the existence of God.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #604  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You can't just say "Well, I don't want to burn in hell, so I had better toe the line."
    Actually, many many people do say this, and live and preach accordingly. There really is no denying this.
    Do you have children? If yes, would you want your child to live a lawful life because he was scared of getting punished by you?
    Or wouldn't you want him to be a good citizen because he knew that it was the right thing to be, not because he was afraid of the consequences if he wasn't.
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #605  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Proving the Bible's events as being historically factual, or proving whether or not certain peoples existed as described, does not prove or disprove the existence of God.
    Well, that is basically true. However, if Jesus existed and rose from the dead, that would be a bit hard to get around. In other words, there are arguments on two levels--one in regards to events and the other in regards to what these events mean. If you prove the former, it helps with the latter.

    If someone rose from the dead three days after being executed, that would certainly be outside of what is considered normal.
    If someone spontaneously heals the sick, or blindness or turns water into wine or literally walks on the surface of a body of water, or reattaches someone's ear with a touch, that would lend itself to the credibility of the person performing those acts.

    And of course, if you prove that Jesus factually existed, you put to rest various contrary claims (like the Jesus Myth theories), even if you cannot prove his divinity by his existence as a human.

    KAM
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #606  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Actually, many many people do say this, and live and preach accordingly. There really is no denying this.
    Do you have children? If yes, would you want your child to live a lawful life because he was scared of getting punished by you?
    Or wouldn't you want him to be a good citizen because he knew that it was the right thing to be, not because he was afraid of the consequences if he wasn't.
    The fact that people do this does not define that as being an accurate Representation of what a given Religion is or states. I would suggest that someone who claims this is in fact rejecting Christianity. You cannot simply obey the rules to gain salvation, nor can good works earn you salvation in Christian belief.

    Obviously in your question, the second is preferred (obvious to me). However, what I'm telling you is that in your analogy the first is not a valid Christian position for salvation. It must be the second (well, to the limits of your example at least). As I said--you cannot fake salvation...at least not with God. You can in fact "fake" good behavior while harboring evil thoughts or intentions in our Earthly interactions with each other.

    KAM
  7. #607  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Actually, many many people do say this, and live and preach accordingly. There really is no denying this.
    Do you have children? If yes, would you want your child to live a lawful life because he was scared of getting punished by you?
    Or wouldn't you want him to be a good citizen because he knew that it was the right thing to be, not because he was afraid of the consequences if he wasn't.
    It is a shame.
    Scare tactics to motivate the masses to tow the line a church sets.
    Think about this;
    You tell your son if he doesn't obey you, you'll burn him with a cigarette. Sick, Sick people.

    It doesn't jive with justice. A guy sins as bad as he can for 70-80 years, and he deserves eternal torment in fire?
    This is a sad, sick misunderstanding of what the bible teaches.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #608  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, that is basically true. However, if Jesus existed and rose from the dead, that would be a bit hard to get around. In other words, there are arguments on two levels--one in regards to events and the other in regards to what these events mean. If you prove the former, it helps with the latter.

    If someone rose from the dead three days after being executed, that would certainly be outside of what is considered normal.
    If someone spontaneously heals the sick, or blindness or turns water into wine or literally walks on the surface of a body of water, or reattaches someone's ear with a touch, that would lend itself to the credibility of the person performing those acts.

    And of course, if you prove that Jesus factually existed, you put to rest various contrary claims (like the Jesus Myth theories), even if you cannot prove his divinity by his existence as a human.

    KAM
    No, it's not "basically" true. It is the simple truth. I said "Proving the Bible's events as being historically factual, or proving whether or not certain peoples existed as described, does not prove or disprove the existence of God."

    Rising from the dead doesn't qualify has "historically factual". It's a belief, not based on proven fact.... but on faith. You choose to believe he rose from the dead. That's fine, but it's not historically proven.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. Xerlot's Avatar
    Posts
    8 Posts
    Global Posts
    10 Global Posts
    #609  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    No, it's not "basically" true. It is the simple truth. I said "Proving the Bible's events as being historically factual, or proving whether or not certain peoples existed as described, does not prove or disprove the existence of God."

    Rising from the dead doesn't qualify has "historically factual". It's a belief, not based on proven fact.... but on faith. You choose to believe he rose from the dead. That's fine, but it's not historically proven.
    Neither Is "Big Bang" or Evolution but we seem to be teaching my child that on a daily basis in the school system. What you seem to leave out is that alot of what you believe from "history" is also not proven but believed to be the truth based on the information we have. The same goes for Christianity. I have the Bible and it tells me that this is true and I chose to believe it.
  10. #610  
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerlot View Post
    Neither Is "Big Bang" or Evolution but we seem to be teaching my child that on a daily basis in the school system. What you seem to leave out is that alot of what you believe from "history" is also not proven but believed to be the truth based on the information we have. The same goes for Christianity. I have the Bible and it tells me that this is true and I chose to believe it.
    The Big Bang theory is a model that is well defined, right up to that tiny little microsecond before it happened. From there, it falls apart, and we don't know what happened. You can call this lack of Knowledge "God", if you choose.

    Evolution, also a theory, has strong supporting evidence. This is how science works. Science != faith.

    Btw, what's an 'alot'?
  11. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #611  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Ok, here is one example:

    "The great scholar Erasmus was so moved to correct the corrupt Latin Vulgate [Bible], that in 1516, with the help of printer John Froben, he published a Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament. The Latin part was not the corrupt Vulgate, but his own fresh rendering of the text from the more accurate and reliable Greek, which he had managed to collate from a half-dozen partial old Greek New Testament manuscripts he had acquired."

    And this is merely one example of hundreds throughout history where the bible has been translated, edited, re-written, and then reproduced. If this is true (no way to know for sure) than the Bible has to be discounted as a historically accurate manuscript and accepted for what it is -- a collection of interesting stories, nothing more.

    Can't post the link, but you can find it at wwwDOTgreatsiteDOTcom/timeline-english-bible-history/
    But, you see, that's why the current translations can be trusted. We have thousands of manuscripts and partial manuscripts to use to corroborate the translations. So, rather than the vast majority of ancient texts which have relatively few editions and translations still in existence, and the oldest of those being many centuries departed from the originals, the perceived importance of the Bible lead to its copying and translating many, many times over the last two millennia. Aside from the thousands of manuscript fragments in existence, we have the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus from the 4th Century and the Ephaemi and Alexandrinus from the 5th Century. All of which contain most of the New Testament books and all of which are used, to a greater or lesser extent, in our current Greek translations. We don't have to rely on just the Vulgate/Textus Receptus translation.

    My point is that if you disregard the Bible as a reliable version of the original text then you have to disregard every other ancient text as well because the Bible is the most corroborated and most archeologically supported ancient text in existence.
  12. #612  
    Even if someone decides to believe that the Bible is historically accurate.....as in who lived when, where they traveled and what they were thinking, that doesn't mean any of the magical things in it ever happened or took place.
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #613  
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerlot View Post
    Neither Is "Big Bang" or Evolution but we seem to be teaching my child that on a daily basis in the school system. What you seem to leave out is that alot of what you believe from "history" is also not proven but believed to be the truth based on the information we have. The same goes for Christianity. I have the Bible and it tells me that this is true and I chose to believe it.
    Please note that I did not say whether or not I personally believe in God. Only that proving an event occured or that someone existing as stated in the text of the Bible, does not "prove" the existence of God.

    I believe that simply because I am here, there is a God. But that's my personal belief, and based on my own reasoning. Just as you've based your beliefs on your own reasoning.

    So both of us apparently believe in God, Xerlot. I haven't said anything that disproves or attempts to disprove Christianity. Just stating a simple truth.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #614  
    Quote Originally Posted by knobbysideup View Post
    Btw, what's an 'alot'?

    Alot is a town and nagar panchayat in the Ratlam district of Madhya Pradesh, India.

    Alot is home to an ancestral temple of Shiva, which is more than 5,000 years old, and where it is said that Hanuman took rest while picking Sanjivani Booti, leaving a footprint still visible.

    Every year on Kartik Purnima Alot holds a mela for a livestock market.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. #615  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    No, it's not "basically" true. It is the simple truth. I said "Proving the Bible's events as being historically factual, or proving whether or not certain peoples existed as described, does not prove or disprove the existence of God."

    Rising from the dead doesn't qualify has "historically factual". It's a belief, not based on proven fact.... but on faith. You choose to believe he rose from the dead. That's fine, but it's not historically proven.
    I completely agree!
    I would think though that the church would set out to prove or disapprove what may be extreme examples of history, and label those as disproven but used to ellaborate on the morals it portrays instead of truth.
    Of course ones that can be proven, set an expedition to find the ark, find Jesus' tomb (interestingly the Discovery Channel set an expedition to do this and may have found it [coffin])dscDOTdiscoveryDOTcom/convergence/tomb/tomb.html]The Lost Tomb of Jesus: Discovery Channel[/url]
    I know that the majority of the world already is sold and has complete faith in the bible but it would be a better sell to those that are not, to actively try and prove these major historical events.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #616  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Even if someone decides to believe that the Bible is historically accurate.....as in who lived when, where they traveled and what they were thinking, that doesn't mean any of the magical things in it ever happened or took place.
    Well, if the Bible is accurate then the biggest miracle, the one upon which the faith hinges, was actually witnessed by over 500 people, most of whom were still alive at the time of its writing.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #617  
    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    I know that the majority of the world already is sold and has complete faith in the bible but it would be a better sell to those that are not, to actively try and prove these major historical events.
    I guess I'm asking.... why worry about proving history or events in order to prove the existence of God, when the evidence that He exists is the fact that you're here trying to answer the question? Kind of a paradox, ain't it?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #618  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Well, if the Bible is accurate then the biggest miracle, the one upon which the faith hinges, was actually witnessed by over 500 people, most of whom were still alive at the time of its writing.
    The crucifiction? That wasn't a miracle. That was common practice.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #619  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    The crucifiction? That wasn't a miracle. That was common practice.
    No, the part that came after.
  20. #620  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Well, if the Bible is accurate then the biggest miracle, the one upon which the faith hinges, was actually witnessed by over 500 people, most of whom were still alive at the time of its writing.
    This is one of the problems with historical facts based on a writing... 500 people may have seen something but it was only written by a select few... going back to crime scene phenomina, 500 people can all see the same thing but it is interpreted differently by each person. And thats human nature "the telephone game". Instead of trying to prove that Jesus rose from the grave something completely unprovable today, proof of ancient history is solidified by physical evidence (outside of writings), and if things can be proved w/ physical findings it would make the more "unbelievable" things believable

Posting Permissions