Oh no! Don't EVEN think you're talkin' to a non-believer in the big guy up there. The big story covers a lot of stuff that can't otherwise be explained. I simply look at the whole thing with a questioning stance.

 

Some of you question whether the Bible can be trusted since it has gone through so many translations. Well, I was looking through my Bible last night and came across this.

Dead Sea Scrolls
In the spring of 1947 an Arab sheperd chanced upon a cave in the hills overlooking the southwestern shore of the Dead sea that contained what has been called "the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times." The documents and fragments of documents found in those caves dubbed "Dead Sea Scrolls," included Old Testament books, a few of the Apocrypha, apocalyptic works, pseudepigrapha (books that purport the works of ancient heroes of the faith), and a number of the books peculiar to the sect that produced them.

Approximately a third of the documents are Biblical, with Psalms, Deuteronomy and Isaiah-the books most often quoted most often in the New Testament-occuring most frequently. One of the most remarkable finds was a complete 24-foot-long scroll of Isaiah.

The scrolls have made a significant contribution to the quest for a form of the OT texts most accurately reflecting the original manuscripts; they provide copies 1,000 years closer to the originals than were previosly known. The understanding of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic and knowledge of th development of Judaism between the Testaments have been increased significantly. Of great importance to the readers of the Bible is the demonstration of the care with which OT texts were copied, thus providing objective evidence for the general reliability of those texts.

 

Isn't that amazing? Of course if it is all inspired by God (and I believe it is) then wouldn't it make sense that He would see to it that it's meaning stayed intact?
The King James translators added a few things that the original manuscripts didn't have, but they don't really compromise the Bible in any way. The New American Standard is considered by many scholars to be the most accurate and was translated by a large group of scholars and not just a rewritten version of an existing translation.
Contrary to popular belief, God does not speak 15th century Kings English. lol

 

The Devil! Right, why didn't I think of that. If it's bad and can't be explained using logic, it MUST be the Devil.

true4.2,

I've read all your responses, you have not replied to a single one of bigd's points in a method that would be acceptable in a debate. While your attempts to refute the irrefutable have been admirable, not once have you answered the questions with logic, or for that matter, even answered the basic question posed. God's perfection. That, in and of itself, is sufficient evidence that your "theory" cannot be supported beyond the level of a personal belief.

As for the miracle revival church, until you supply me with medical records of actual people, your story is nothing but pure fantasy.

Waxy

 

I think the point that was made by this series of posts, and is my point here as well, is that belief in God cannot be based in logic or reason. Plain and simple, it is flawed at it's very base. It must therefore be based in personal belief and faith.

There is nothing wrong with that, it's a matter of personal choice, and I can respect that. However, IMHO, even the faithful should accept it as that, rather than try to portray it as absolute truth.

Waxy

 

Waxy, the one thing a lot of us have over non believers is the fact that we have been on both sides, which does give us a better understanding of the situation compared to a person who has never persued a relationship with God. There are a few backsliders that may argue but most people like myself, that lived a good bit of our lives barely acknowleging there was a God or arguing against Him so we could justify maintaining a destructive lifestyle, really know in our hearts it was not only the right decision but the only one. I spent my youth on a barstool not a church pew and I think I am qulified to judge the difference better than the guy that never got off the bar stool.

 

That's the most common argument made for christianity by born-agains and born-again prisoners being interviewed by parole boards.

It does not take into consideration that many people do not wish to pursue a relatonship with, to non-believers, a figurehead of mythology. Any matchbook cover degree psycologist can point out the substitution of one dependency for another, be it a barstool for god or vice-versa. The social aspect of either is determined by the peer group, which is the enabler, or influence. Condemming those who don't subscribe to a belief system because they haven't tried it, regardless of the degree of involvement, is just another method of rationalizing a dependency. Closed-end rationalizations are attempts to justify thoughts and beliefs that can't be substantiated. Parole boards flunk a lot of born-agains when they use just the christianity approach to rationalize their past actions because the parolees incorrectly think piety can be substituted for the reality of forgiveness.

 

Willowbilly3,

Please don't take this personally but...

Poor judgement in youth hardly guarantees good judgement later in life.

Don't get me wrong, I judge anything that saved your life as good, but that doesn't make it true.

 

The Bible is full of real history and has had such confirmed many times. Unfortunately the fact that as a historical document it can stand scrutiny does not indicate anything about divine authorship.

 

willowbilly3,

Again, I disagree.

I find that most people, in my experience anyway, that are strong "non-believers" were raised in Catholic households and have come to the realization that the church especially, but God too, have nothing to offer them. I was raised in a Catholic home, went to Catholic schools, and most of my family remains Catholic. My fiancee's family is actually quite religious.

I examined the church and God, and determined it wasn't for me. I have seen both sides, and I've made my choice. One that I am very comfortable with.

I think the decline in parish sizes, rapidly aging parish populations, lack of ordained priests, and declining church revenue in North America are pretty good support for my point.

Waxy

 

willowbilly, all -

We are never going to be able to prove what we know is Truth. We cannot pull out from our spirit what cannot be seen with the naked eye. We cannot produce that Incorruptable Seed that LIVES within us. No matter how hard we try. Sinjin and Waxy and the others are very intelligent men and have made their case. We have made ours to the best of our ability and that is all we can do.
How long will this thread have to go on to show that?

 

THANK YOU!!!! THIS ARGUMENT IS FUTILE AND ONLY SPAWNS BAD FEELINGS. I HAVE TAKEN PART IN THIS CONVERSATION AND STATED MY VIEWS, AND THE ONLY THING THAT COMES OUT OF IT IS CONTROVERSY.

NEITHER SIDE CAN BE PROVEN RIGHT OR WRONG BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON PERSPECTIVE. MOST NONBELIEVERS SAY "LOOK AT THE WORLD. HOW CAN GOD EXIST?" I SAY "LOOK AT THE WORLD. HOW CAN GOD NOT EXIST." IT'S ALL PERCEPTION AND POINT OF VIEW. I CAN NO FURTHER PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD THAN THE NONBELIEVERS DO THE OPPOSITE. IT CAN'T BE DONE IN THIS LIFE. WHEN WE DIE, THEN WE'LL KNOW.

 

I don't really try not to condem those who haven't tried it, I just think that your understanding is limited if you haven't been there.
The barstool analogy was a figure of speach.
And if you are using the Catholics as a measuring stick then you are really misinformed and I wouldn't blame you for forming negative opinions of Christianity. Just because they are high profile and have great numbers does not mean that their rituals actually represent a relationship with God. There are some Catholics that are very good Christians but most of them I grew up around weren't any different than the average Joe off the street in the way they conducted their lives. I can't count the number of times that a couple of my buddies sat through mass so totally hung over they would have to leave with the dry heaves.
As far as the converted prisioners go many are sincere but it is just a ploy by a good many of them to get a favorable review at the parole hearing.
Bigorn, You are right and I realize that no amount of head knowledge can replace true wisdom. But I am comissioned by my Lord and Savior to try. Hopefully just one silent observer has had a seed of hope planted in his life by what they read here. Changing the minds of the other participants in the discussion isn't really the objective, but you never know. God works in strange and mysterious ways. And I will leave it at that. God bless you ALL!!

 

This is where we should agree to disagree because IMHO it is absolute truth. I know it isn't to you, but it is to me. I wouldn't believe in God so much if I thought it wasn't absolute truth. You are absolutely right when you say it ultimately has to do with faith and belief because I honestly can't prove God's reality. We know this. All I try to do is tell him to others who haven't heard his message, then they can decide whether he's real or not for themselves. That's one of my main missions in life as a follower of Christ. It's not something that a Christian just does for the heck of it. It's something that God has called us to do. Like we've already said, this is a never ending circle. Splitmaster hit the nail on the head when he said:

God bless -



True

 

I enjoy exercising the ol' noggin every once in a while on topics that are abstract in nature. I appreciate everyone else's view point, and I hope that I didn't get anyone too fired up. I hope that what ever you choose to believe in brings you a sense of "actualization" to your life. Until the next thread, see ya later!