10 questions every intelligent Christian must answer

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by ScrawnG

Right. I'll stick to the growing forum. No point in posting in threads where people such as yourself seem to try arguing my own points back at me just so they can fill a post. I'm thoroughly familiar with what a debate is, and this just seems like arguing for it's own sake.

So If I agree with you I am simply arguing your points back at you, and if I disagree with you, I am just arguing for arguments sake? Cool.

[IGotTheCottons]

@LT

I will concede that I was taking the term Vicar in the wrong sense, though I still think it is inappropriate to use said term as a description for clergy -- as it's not listed as a NT Church office (presbyter, prophet, and deacon)...

The "priesthood" you were referring to from the NT is talking about the priesthood of the believer. You remember how I mentioned that the high priest was the only one allowed to commune with God in the Holy of Holies? Even then, if the priest wasn't 100% clean, he'd end up dead from being in God's presense.

Well, it's kind of the same principle. According to Scripture - any saved believer in Christ has access to the holy of holies - thus making them a priest. These verses are not describing an office held in the NT church, they are describing attributes of Christians. When a person get's saved (again, this is according to Scripture), they are viewed as perfect in the eyes of God. He no longer sees their sins, but sees the perfect, atoning blood of Christ, instead. It is this that gives all believers access to the "Holy of Holies" -- or the throne of God, if you will, and makes every believer a "priest" capable of offering up their own sacrifies (prayer, etc.) to God.

You will also see believers described as "rulers with Christ", "kings", and other such honerary terms in the NT. This is because a person, as a believer, is adopted into the family of God, and is "co-heirs with Christ." But I'm sure you already knew this (seeing as how you grew up in church, yourself) and were just bustin my balls

[cannabis]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Claiming I do not know about Christianity is a little bit out there. If someone comes and tells me that Odin is on their roof, I am not going to have difficulty in disbelieving them. They would have to prove to me that Odin was on their roof. Especially if they claimed he was there but I could not even see him. It is not up to me to disprove them, it is up to them to prove what they are saying.

In that sense you are correct but is anyone here trying to convince you God is on your roof? I think you misunderstood my argument i hope i can explain it better.

Some of the Bible gets thrown away to make the rest of it acceptable. Hey, do not worry, I did the same thing myself. The only problem with that is, what kind of truth can it hold if you have to cut it apart for it to make sense?

I agree with you in a way I feel we understand the intentions of the Bible but not the entirety of it. Because it was written so long ago it's hard today to break down every scripture and apply it to today's terms...and as it's gets older more and more is misunderstood and clouded.

What bit of Evolution is not factual? It is up to the religious to prove their religion if they want others to believe it is true, at least, people who depend on reason. Can you prove to me that a tea kettle is not in orbit around Mars right this moment?

Yes if they want others to believe it is true, i'm not attempting to convert ANYONE in this forum...that's not my argument at all. I'm saying you can't disclose something with no proof it's false. And yes I can prove a tea kettle isn't orbiting mars right now...A tea kettle is a visible object so I'll I'd need is a powerful enough Hubble telescope and enough satellites to view the entire planet. :P

I thought you just said...

Yes I don't necessarily believe the Bible was designed perfectly, but its intent isn't to be coded and analysed specifically in order to be understood...

Which parts of the Bible are good and which parts are not exact?

The Bible as a whole is good; is it not? at least it's intentions (sure there's violence and killings within it, but that's human nature...people who try to make an argument about the violence in the Bible sound like babies that's how things were handled back then we know better now) And also IMO the Bible as a whole is correct there are just imperfectionious mistakes in it. It in some ways contradicts itself, it has nothing to do with Christianity it relates to imperfection and possible translation errors.

lol, what validity is there in the Bible?

lol well that's an argument you can make if you don't believe in the Bible, If you think it's false than there is no validity...but it has more than a mere comic book, superman comic books don't make claims that it's stories are factual events that have happened and that superman is a real person.

I would agree that the idea is an assertion, wholeheartedly in fact. Which is to say, it is unreasonable.<blockquote>as·ser·tion /əˈsɜrʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-sur-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.</blockquote>

I don't remember what i was getting at there, and what I meant by 'assertion' but all I was saying is that just because an idea isn't accepted by all doesn't mean people have right to claim it is false without proof.

Where is the proof that the Bible is not a fictional book? It is not stubborn to say something does not exist if there is no proof for its existence. If someone claimed Odin, Thor, Loki, Mars, Osiris, Mog, Baal, Ao, or Atlantis, did not exist would you call them stubborn?

There isn't much proof, hence faith...and so then by that logic it's not stubborn to say something exist with no proof of its existence.
And yes if they had no proof and evidence in their claim that something isn't existent than yes I would call them stubborn.

No evidence? What about the evidence (or lack thereof) that Jesus actually existed? What about the fact that the Gospels were written at least 30 years after the death of Jesus? What about the fact that the books written covering the years between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels only mentioned three things Jesus did. No miracles, no nothing. Just the last supper, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection? What about the promises of God in the Bible being without merit because no one is wandering the streets raising the dead as is promised?

What evidence? all there is is a lack of evidence. If you have evidence of Jesus not existing I'd like to see it. And Gospels being written 30 years after the death of Jesus doesn't say much. Maybe it took them 30 years to find paper we don't know...and maybe they didn't include Jesus' miracles because they felt there were evidence enough that he is the son of God and felt no need to include them in the Bible...again we don't know.

Hell, what about the drastic changes in the faith over the years, the Christianity of today is not like the beginnings of Christianity? I would like some good answers to those questions. Blind faith is not a good answer.

I have an answer it's run by people and humanity as a whole is ignorant.

I mean, what kind of evidence do you want me to bring up to prove an ancient book as fairy tale?

If you're trying to disprove the Bible it's up to you to provide the evidence in supporting your claim, isn't it?

2000 years from now people could be arguing the validity of the the Lord of the Rings (I like this example), some saying it is fact and others saying it is fiction? We would not be around to clear up their confusion.

Could be, yes it's only a possibility and not a likely one. And we have evidence to disprove that crap.

The Bible contradicts itself often, the Gospels barely tell the same story. There is no evidence to support the Bible and every sign points to it being a fairy tale, that should be given the same weight you give the tales of Odin and Thor.

you're right what's your point?

I can say it is fictional. It has all the hallmarks of a good epic (The story of Jesus), the same as many that were produced in the ancient world. Not to mention the similarity between it and a whole slew of stories that came before it. Right down to the virgin birth, sacrifice, death, and resurrection. They should really teach mythology in schools, people would see how close the Bible is to so many other religions that came before it. Some even nicer! At least the Zoroastrians allow everyone to get to heaven!

Mythology and such beliefs have been proven wrong therefore they're not taught or encouraged, don't you see this is basically my entire argument.

For some things yes, for other things, not quite. People could have believed the Earth was flat, but they really had no good evidence to believe that.

Back when people claimed the Earth was flat not a lot of people believed it...Christopher Columbus wasn't the first person to refuse to believe the hypothesis, he just inevitablely proved it was wrong.



Again this argument is pretty pointless I'm honestly tired of arguing against people who claim God doesn't exist when they have no proof of it. Isn't that the whole reason Evolutionist and Atheists believe in Evolution? Because there is evidence of it...to claim an idea is wrong without evidence is completely hypocritical if that's the case for you. (I'm not aiming this at you liquid, I'm speaking in generality).

God could exist, or God could not exist.

Why don't we just leave it at that.

There is no way for anyone to know. Because an old book tells you he does, is not a good enough reason (in my mind) to believe.

True no one knows, It may not be a good enough reason for you. but the bible isn't just some old book to me it's a lot more. I believe people who NEED solid proof in order to believe something lack imagination and intuition....
and Einstein himself said

"imagination is more important than knowledge"

and even:

"The only real valuable thing is intuition"

And since I'm on the page an bored I'll throw this one down too:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshir...einQuotes.html







peace

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Someone - I don't know who :)

Hell, what about the drastic changes in the faith over the years, the Christianity of today is not like the beginnings of Christianity? I would like some good answers to those questions. Blind faith is not a good answer.

Don't know who made that statement... Just wanted to comment on it though...

There ARE churches today who practice the Christianity of the Apostles - though I will admit, they're few and far between.