The reason I can't get down with one religion hardcore is..

[Rock_Well]

The Ebionites were the only real followers of Yeshua at that time.And they didnt call him Christ. Thats a title, not a proper name. And the title would have been culturally and spiritually offensive to a King of Israel.

Well, I see no argument. Christ is just a designated english word for the Greek term Kristos which is a translation of the Hebrew term for Messiah. which I also understand as being a title, not regarded as a name per se.

 

[Rock_Well]

Why did you choose that book solely over any other?

Several reasons.

A few of the main being - one, I've found it to be completely accurate in what it teaches in all areas of life, history, and morality. Even down to where all of the nationalities come from. Two, no other text has the support the bible has under it, with the message being backed up by fulfillment of prophecies and or miraculous events. Three, no other text claims to contain the direct words of God. Four, The Bible tells us of the good and the bad, not just the good like most men's writings tend do do. The vast majority of the Bible deals with the failures of men. Such a book would have to have come from God not men.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

Several reasons.

A few of the main being - one, I've found it to be completely accurate in what it teaches in all areas of life, history, and morality. Even down to where all of the nationalities come from. Two, no other text has the support the bible has under it, with the message being backed up by fulfillment of prophecies and or miraculous events. Three, no other text claims to contain the direct words of God. Four, The Bible tells us of the good and the bad, not just the good like most men's writings tend do do. The vast majority of the Bible deals with the failures of men. Such a book would have to have come from God not men.

So the movies based off of mans inability to do things, mans failures, the bad side of man, etc... were all from god as well being that only god would speak about mans failures as you say.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Several reasons.

A few of the main being - one, I've found it to be completely accurate in what it teaches in all areas of life, history, and morality. Even down to where all of the nationalities come from. Two, no other text has the support the bible has under it, with the message being backed up by fulfillment of prophecies and or miraculous events. Three, no other text claims to contain the direct words of God. Four, The Bible tells us of the good and the bad, not just the good like most men's writings tend do do. The vast majority of the Bible deals with the failures of men. Such a book would have to have come from God not men.

What other religious texts have you so thoroughly engulfed yourself in and then turned away from?

 

[VulcanRaven]

Religion is nothing more than a cult.It's all false beliefs.

 

[alissowack]

I don't presume god is bound such and such. If god is any kind of god, god is limitless and boundless, no? It is just rather suspicious that a god would limit itself, if it could, to one book.

I can say (or go "scripture" on you that says) that God is limitless and boundless but it doesn't mean that I "know" what it is to be limitless or boundless in respect to God. You or I are not in a position to answer this question unless you are God.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I can say (or go "scripture" on you that says) that God is limitless and boundless but it doesn't mean that I "know" what it is to be limitless or boundless in respect to God. You or I are not in a position to answer this question unless you are God.

So then by that reasoning, could you in all truthfullness say, that god would limit itself to one book?

 

[alissowack]

Religion is nothing more than a cult.It's all false beliefs.

SAYS WHO YOU....Oh, my bad! I thought you were someone else, I swear!! PLEASE DON'T HURT ME!!!

 

[ThaChozenWun]

SAYS WHO YOU....Oh, my bad! I thought you were someone else, I swear!! PLEASE DON'T HURT ME!!!

Cult - 4.n A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

Yup, pretty much sums it all up and yup every religion is a cult.

 

[alissowack]

So then by that reasoning, could you in all truthfullness say, that god would only put understanding in one book?

Even in that, I can't "know" it to be true. I have what I believe and if what I believe is true, then is only in faith that it is true.

 

[VulcanRaven]

SAYS WHO YOU....Oh, my bad! I thought you were someone else, I swear!! PLEASE DON'T HURT ME!!!

Says common sense.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Even in that, I can't "know" it to be true. I have what I believe and if what I believe is true, then is only in faith that it is true.

So then it is only true in faith that god has limited itself to one book.

 

[Rock_Well]

So the movies based off of mans inability to do things, mans failures, the bad side of man, etc... were all from god as well being that only god would speak about mans failures as you say.

No, we're talking about ancient text. Particularly when it comes to historical events. We expect writings from men to leave the bad parts out.

What other religious texts have you so thoroughly engulfed yourself in and then turned away from?

Not many.

I do have knowledge of most of the cardinal tenants taught within various other religion though.

But a person need not thoroughly engulf themselves in the text before they can know if the faith being practiced is wrong either. They just need to know where the teaching contradicts God's word. And if they smart, they just simply trust and believe God's word on the matter, not the contrary.

When you say such a book would have to come from god what do you mean? I mean what is your opinion of your god then.

I personnally don't have an opinion of a "GOD". I don't think I'm qualified to have one, but I do have one for a Christian god, or Muslim god or any man god that man has claim to know. Again I ask if all the religous text vanish do you think you would find god? You put your faith into the words of people who would stone your child over peity shit! This is who your god talks to and now that man knows better he speaks no more. And those that claim to have spoken with god we call crazy.

I mean in regards to the accuracy of things revealed in the Bible. We don't expect 66 books written by over 40 different men, most of which never met, to fit perfectly together without one single conflict in agreement. Unless the writings came from something greater than man. We don't expect men, absent of technology we have, to be able to accurately write about how water evaporates up from the grass, goes into the clouds, and then come down through rain (the hydraulic cycle). Unless the writings came from something greater than man. We don't expect men, absent of technology we have, to be able to accurately write how the earth is round, and that the earth revolves around the Sun. Unless the men had revelation from something greater.

The Bible has been shown to be highly accurate in several different areas, all the way down to the very insignificant details when it comes to things in life, historical events, and geographical areas. In several areas that no man could have possibly known the answer to, the Bible has proven itself to be accurate...it's things like that that go to show the Bible would have to have come from God.

Sry, i don't do opinions of God. Not my style. I rather just let a person know my beliefs regarding God is outlined within the message taught in the Holy Bible, which they can also examine themselves. And the Bible teaches us that the one God is made up of three beings, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 2:11)

So, in regards to all the religious text vanishing, what would we know about God? Nothing, unless the Spirit of God chose to reveal it to us. Just like we can't know the thoughts of another person, unless that person choose to expose or reveal them.

Feel free to ask any other questions about The Faith if you want.

 

[alissowack]

So then it is only true in faith that god has limited itself to one book.

Faith may find it to be true in the end, but it doesn't mean that faith defines what is true. Someone can have faith in something and it be false. You want me to use faith as a way to make a claim for the things of God.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Not many.

I do have knowledge of most of the cardinal tenants taught within various other religion though.

But a person need not thoroughly engulf themselves in the text before they can know if the faith being practiced is wrong either. They just need to know where the teaching contradicts God's word. And if they smart, they just simply trust and believe God's word on the matter, not the contrary.

Your statement does not make sense. You inadvertantly declare the bible is the truth(your base starting point), and as such, you needn't delve to deep into other religious texts because skimmed from the top you perceived there to be contradictions to the bible, which you preconceived is the most true. If you have not engulfed yourself in these others religious texts like you have the bible, how then can you say they are incorrect and the bible is correct? How can you say in all truthfullness that even if you engulfed yourself in these texts, you wouldn't might then feel they are the most correct text? You cannot say this, because you have not done the delving. You could only say this if you had and then said "I have dug deep into these texts, tried to experience all that I could from them, and still I perceive a lacking".

People tend to want to simplify God.

Who is God?

What (who) is God's wisdom?

After that's answered, then we can talk about in what teachings is the wisdom of God found.

I find your earlier statement quite an irony now that we have dug and delved into your sphere of understanding.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Faith may find it to be true in the end, but it doesn't mean that faith defines what is true. Someone can have faith in something and it be false. You want me to use faith as a way to make a claim for the things of God.

In actuality what I would like for you to do is answer a question in all truthfulness, not speak to me with a serpent tongue in hopes of evasion.

 

[alissowack]

In actuality what I would like for you to do is answer a question in all truthfulness, not speak to me with a serpent tongue in hopes of evasion.

Short version: I don't know.

Again you want me to make a claim for something you feel you have the answer to. You have your presuppositions about God and it would only make sense to you if I "jump on board" to your understanding of God. I wouldn't say that I am evading. My hands are tied. It is where the trail ends for me (and I don't mean the posting).

 

[Rock_Well]

Your statement does not make sense. You inadvertantly declare the bible is the truth(your base starting point), and as such, you needn't delve to deep into other religious texts because skimmed from the top you perceived there to be contradictions to the bible, which you preconceived is the most true. If you have not engulfed yourself in these others religious texts like you have the bible, how then can you say they are incorrect and the bible is correct? How can you say in all truthfullness that even if you engulfed yourself in these texts, you wouldn't might then feel they are the most correct text? You cannot say this, because you have not done the delving. You could only say this if you had and then said "I have dug deep into these texts, tried to experience all that I could from them, and still I perceive a lacking".

I find your earlier statement quite an irony now that we have dug and delved into your sphere of understanding.

Simply understanding and accepting what is taught in scriptures is not an act of simplifying God.

My acceptance of the Bible being the truth comes from intense study, research, and careful examination of facts; not just some vague, preconceived idea.

And sorry, but personal feelings does not constitute proof of whether something is right or wrong. Neither does personal experiences. Personal feelings can be easily manipulated - How often do people find themselves experiencing all kinds of intense emotions during a given scene of an action movie, drama, something they KNOW isn't real? Sure, the feelings are real, but the movie remains not real.

And coming at religion (texts) from the angle you propose has a man putting his own personal wants and understanding above everything else. So is that what it's all about? What i want? Me first, everyone else second, and God last? Surely we got things turned around.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Short version: I don't know.

Again you want me to make a claim for something you feel you have the answer to. You have your presuppositions about God and it would only make sense to you if I "jump on board" to your understanding of God. I wouldn't say that I am evading. My hands are tied. It is where the trail ends for me (and I don't mean the posting).

If anything it is you who feels they have the answer to something(the bible), for which you make claims. You have presuppositions about god and it would only make sense if others 'jump on board' to understand your god, the one you've made claim to.

Indeed you are evading, you are slithering around the question, which was "could you in all truthfullness, say that god would limit itself to one book?". You're hands are tied I can only pressume because if you had answered in all truthfulness you might feel it damages your faith in that one book, gives possible credence to other books, or some other reason.

Simply understanding and accepting what is taught in scriptures is not an act of simplifying God.

How is it not? You think/feel you have found who god is in that one book, you think/feel you have found god's wisdom in that one book, and you think/feel in those teaching is the wisdom of god. What you said in that one post, is exactly what you have done.

My acceptance of the Bible being the truth comes from intense study, research, and careful examination of facts; not just some vague, preconceived idea.

Why have you not "put intense study, research, and careful examination of facts; not just some vague, preconceived idea" into other religious texts? I would gather from previous posts it is because you think/feel the bible is the word of god already, so why bother.

This is essentially what you have said, but using a different object:

You: My city is the only city in America that does things right.

Me: Have lived in the other cities in America to know this is true?

You: No, that is just my belief and in that belief I have much faith.

You could be right, but you could also be horribly wrong^^^^

And sorry, but personal feelings does not constitute proof of whether something is right or wrong.

And if you'd have happened to be born in the middle east, what say you then? The koran or bhagavad gita would the "one" book that is correct or most correct. Beliefs in and of themselves are personal things, though beliefs in and of themselves, do not constitute proof of whether something is right or wrong. So more accurately, on belief through "intense study, research, and careful examination of facts" you believe the bible being truth. It may not be, but you have nothing else to gage it against really because you have not put such intense and rigorous energy into other religious texts.

Neither does personal experiences.

Personal experience is one of the ways we can know if something contains truth. Here is an example:

You: Do not put your hand in the fire, it will get burnt.

Me: *puts my hand in the fire* it gets burnt.

It was through experience that I found what you said had truth in it. If I had not experienced it, I would have to believe what you said was true and then have faith in that belief.

You: Do not put your hand on the fridge, it will get burnt.

Me: Have you ever put your hand on the fridge?

You: No.

Me: Then how do you know it will get burnt?

You: I believe that is what will happen.

Me: *puts hand on the fridge* it does not get burnt.

It was through experience that I found what you said did not contain truth. It is through experience that we are able to learn whether something is truth or not. If you had not experienced personally, truths within the bible, I highly doubt you would give credence to the bible. But like with the fridge burning, you cannot say whether it is actually true or not because you have not experienced whether it is or not, which is my point with other religious texts. You cannot say truthfully they don't contain wisdom or understanding because you have not experienced it, you just believe it. And that's okay, just be forth right and truthful about it.

Personal feelings can be easily manipulated

Only if you have a lack of control over your feelings, only if you are ignorant to the source of your feelings, only if you give no awareness to your feelings.

How often do people find themselves experiencing all kinds of intense emotions during a given scene of an action movie, drama, something they KNOW isn't real? Sure, the feelings are real, but the movie remains not real.

Right, the movie is not real, but the things depicted in movies and shows are most often real things that happen to real human beings. And human being can relate to those things, because they can imagine themselves in those positions in the real world, which really do take place, but people watch it in a movie so they can get close to the experience but at a far enough distance to remain safe.

And coming at religion (texts) from the angle you propose has a man putting his own personal wants and understanding above everything else.

So are you of the opinion that experiencing things to gain understanding is bad? That only personally wanting to experience one thing and the understanding of that one thing is much better? I do not know if you are simply trying to smear me here, but I'd be mindful about the assumptions, they tell more about you than me.

So is that what it's all about? What i want? Me first, everyone else second, and God last? Surely we got things turned around.

Definitely not, keep your eyes one god, at all times.

My overall point, which is getting lost in the posts after posts, is that you and allissowack, cannot in all truthfulness, say that god has limited itself to one book if that is all you've learned from is one book.

 

[alissowack]

If anything it is you who feels they have the answer to something(the bible), for which you make claims. You have presuppositions about god and it would only make sense if others 'jump on board' to understand your god, the one you've made claim to.

Indeed you are evading, you are slithering around the question, which was "could you in all truthfullness, say that god would limit itself to one book?". You're hands are tied I can only pressume because if you had answered in all truthfulness you might feel it damages your faith in that one book, gives possible credence to other books, or some other reason.

There are things that I'm willing to accept as unknowable. You feel that I have to defend something because I have something to prove; an agenda to me. How can you actually explain forever? You can't without explaining away your own explaination for things. Again, my hands are tied. If you were expecting something better...maybe you will soon enough. You just not going to get it from me.