[NeedKarma]

Thanks trueblooe, that was funny. :)

[deist]

the bible itself is the foundation and pinnicale of all christian thought the bible itself does not lie there are no contradictions in it nor are there half truths as many claim In fact if you could find one prophecy in the old testamnt to be proven wrong then you can throw the bible away as being faulty and wrong The bible is like a wild lion in a cage you don't put the lion in the cage to protect him you put the lion in the cage to protect the reader if are realy serious about the bible and you believe it to be Gods revealed revelation to man then it will defend itself No need to have some one defend it just open the cage door and examine it yourself I DARE YOU

If I can find one prophecy in the Old Testament that could be proven to be wrong huh ? How's this ? Ezekiel 29: 9-12 & 30: 4-16 is a prophecy that Nebuchadrezzar will destroy the land of Egypt, cause it's inhabitants to cease, the land will be made a desolate waste, Egypt would not be inhabited for 40 years, & there would never be another ruler in Egypt. The prophecy failed on all counts. Nebuchadrezzar did not destroy Egypt, it's inhabitants did not cease, the land was not made desolate & waste, it has never been uninhabited a day in it's history, & there has always been a ruler in Egypt even today. The prophecy was meant for Ezekiel's day & not some future fulfillment, for the prophecy states that Nebuchadrezzar would do it. In order for prophecy to be true it must be fulfilled literally exactly as prophesied, & they must be fulfilled 100 % of the time.

[deist]

So if the basis for your belief in god, and the definition thereof is in part dependent upon your culture, do I understand you to say then that each culture much have a different god?

Also, how could a god dependent on culture of man be the one true Almighty God that created man?

My belief in God is not based on my culture, but on the findings of science & the fact of existence. All my other beliefs, however, are based on the culture I live in.

[jillianleab]

Then what is your standard of truth? What do you base your beliefs upon?

Tj you might want to check out the thread linked below for more information on where non-theists get their standard of truth and their morals. It's a long thread, but it might give you a better understanding. As far as I know, deist has not contributed to the thread, but many others on this site have.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/spirit...ow-111864.html

[savedsinner7]

Jesus said that the Father hid the revealed knowledge of the Bible from those who are perishing. If you are not seeking to understand and know the LORD you will not understand the Bible. The Holy Spirit reveales the meanings of the verses to those who belong to Jesus, not to the world. The world cannot know or understand because the world hates the LORD Jesus and who He really is.

the bible itself is the foundation and pinnicale of all christian thought the bible itself does not lie there are no contradictions in it nor are there half truths as many claim In fact if you could find one prophecy in the old testamnt to be proven wrong then you can throw the bible away as being faulty and wrong The bible is like a wild lion in a cage you don't put the lion in the cage to protect him you put the lion in the cage to protect the reader if are realy serious about the bible and you believe it to be Gods revealed revelation to man then it will defend itself No need to have some one defend it just open the cage door and examine it yourself I DARE YOU

[Tj3]

My belief in God is not based on my culture, but on the findings of science & the fact of existence. All my other beliefs, however, are based on the culture I live in.

The findings of science. So can you describe with specifics what findings of science have taught you about the nature of God?

[deist]

The findings of science. So can you describe with specifics what findings of science have taught you about the nature of God?

Astronomy & biology points to the fact that the Creator is very powerful (I don't know if It is omnipotent, but it was powerful to create the universe). These branches of science also points to the Creator being very wise, & that It must be good to have provided us with all we need in the creation, & with the capacity to reason & learn through science. That is all I can say about God, nothing else can be known of It. The so-called revelations of God in the Torah, the Bible, & the Quran, are not revelations at all. A revelation is when someone tells you something directly to you. The bible is hearsay. Hearsay is when that someone tells something to someone else, & they tell you that's what the original source said. Hearsay can be many times unreliable, that's why it's not generally admissible in a court of law. The bible is not firsthand revelation, it is secondhand hearsay.

[Tj3]

Astronomy & biology points to the fact that the Creator is very powerful (I don't know if It is omnipotent, but it was powerful to create the universe). These branches of science also points to the Creator being very wise, & that It must be good to have provided us with all we need in the creation, & with the capacity to reason & learn through science. That is all I can say about God, nothing else can be known of It. The so-called revelations of God in the Torah, the Bible, & the Quran, are not revelations at all. A revelation is when someone tells you something directly to you. The bible is hearsay. Hearsay is when that someone tells something to someone else, & they tell you that's what the original source said. Hearsay can be many times unreliable, that's why it's not generally admissable in a court of law. The bible is not firsthand revelation, it is secondhand hearsay.

You declare it to be heresay, but then why do you believe that George Washinton existed?

Why do you believe that the Roman Empire existed?

The evidence for these historicals realities and millions of other were not given to you directly, so why do you not reject the records of them as heresay?

[deist]

You declare it to be heresay, but then why do you believe that George Washinton existed?

Why do you believe that the Roman Empire existed?

The evidence for these historicals realities and millions of other were not given to you directly, so why do you not reject the records of them as heresay?

The stories of George Washington & the Roman empire are not filled with ridculous accounts of the supernatural... miracles & angels & such. And I don't believe everything I read about Washington & the Roman empire. I know the story of Washington throwing a coin across the Potomac is only legend, & the story of Romulus & Remus being raised by wolves is only legend.

[Tj3]

The stories of George Washington & the Roman empire are not filled with ridculous accounts of the supernatural...miracles & angels & such. And I don't believe everything I read about Washington & the Roman empire. I know the story of Washington throwing a coin across the Potomac is only legend, & the story of Romulus & Remus being raised by wolves is only legend.

So if anything does not agree with what you believe to be possible, am I correct in understanding that you reject it?

And I did not ask if you believe everything that you read - I asked why you believe that they existed. You did not answer that.

[deist]

So if anything does not agree with what you believe to be possible, am I correct in understanding that you reject it?

And I did not ask if you believe everything that you read - I asked why you believe that they existed. You did not answer that.

I reject the clearly impossible, & I accept what is written in the history books unless it is later disproven.

[Tj3]

I reject the clearly impossible, & I accept what is written in the history books unless it is later disproven.

So you reject what you believe to be clearly impossible. Remember that over the years, what man have considered clearly impossible has changed dramatically, so this means that you are requiring God, your definition of God, to be molded according to what you believe to be possible.

So you accept some history books, as long as they relate to secular events, but not history books which speak about events which may speak about God (i.e. the Bible)... is that correct?

[savedsinner7]

Can you see electricity? How do you know it exists? Can you see the wind? How do you know it exists? Can you see God? How do you know He does not exist? The Bible is written documentation of His love for us and of His plan for your life. Jeremiah 31:3 (New Living Translation)
3 Long ago the Lord said to Israel:
“I have loved you, my people, with an everlasting love.
With unfailing love I have drawn you to myself.

I reject the clearly impossible, & I accept what is written in the history books unless it is later disproven.

[deist]

So you reject what you believe to be clearly impossible. Remember that over the the years, what man have considered clearly impossible has changed dramatically, so this means that you are requiring God, your definition of God, to be molded according to what you believe to be possible.

So you accept some history books, as long as they relate to secular events, but not history books which speak about events which may speak about God (i.e. the Bible)...is that correct?

The bible has a "little" history in it,& much of that is questionable, but it is not a history book. The history books I read don't contain incredible accounts of the miraculous, they just report history. You're not going to brainwash me with your christian propaganda & myths. I'm not gullible. Save it for the gullible.

[savedsinner7]

http://www.thetruthproject.org/
Check out this website for Truth.

The bible has a "little" history in it,& much of that is questionable, but it is not a history book. The history books I read don't contain incredible accounts of the miraculous, they just report history. You're not going to brainwash me with your christian propaganda & myths. I'm not gullible. Save it for the gullible.

[Tj3]

The bible has a "little" history in it,& much of that is questionable, but it is not a history book. The history books I read don't contain incredible accounts of the miraculous, they just report history. You're not going to brainwash me with your christian propaganda & myths. I'm not gullible. Save it for the gullible.

My point here is that in each of the questions that I have asked, you conclusion has NOT been based on validated factual evidence, but rather on your perception, your beliefs. You thus have effectively established yourself as the standard by which truth is established, and thus, that being the case, any god resulting from that belief system would be a god of your own design or making.

That is the key difference between Christianity and your belief - the standard of truth. We accept the Bible as the standard of truth. Now you question it's credibility - that is okay as long as you are willing to validate that belief. I believe that the evidence for the credibility of the Bible is equal to or greater than that found for any of the history books that you may be thinking of.

I notice with the history books that you also did not establish their credibility but rather said that you would believe it until proven wrong. With the Bible, you just assume that it is wrong, so you are applying a completely different standard to secular history and to Christian history, which again places you as the standard by which you make that determination.

If everyone took that same approach, we would each worship different gods, and thus that approach effectively denies that there is one true God.

[deist]

My point here is that in each of the questions that I have asked, you conclusion has NOT been based on validated factual evidence, but rather on your perception, your beliefs. You thus have effectively established yourself as the standard by which truth is established, and thus, that being the case, any god resulting from that belief system would be a god of your own design or making.

That is the key difference between Christianity and your belief - the standard of truth. We accept the Bible as the standard of truth. Now you question it's credibility - that is okay as long as you are willing to validate that belief. I believe that the evidence for the credibility of the Bible is equal to or greater than that found for any of the history books that you may be thinking of.

I notice with the history books that you also did not establish their credibility but rather said that you would believe it until proven wrong. With the Bible, you just assume that it is wrong, so you are applying a completely different standard to secular history and to Christian history, which again places you as the standard by which you make that determination.

If everyone took that same approach, we would each worship different gods, and thus that approach effectively denies that there is one true God.

I have already invalidated the bible, in the threads "Failed prophecy" & "Failed prophecies of Jesus".

[Tj3]

I have already invalidated the bible, in the threads "Failed prophecy" & "Failed prophecies of Jesus".

I did not see the first thread, but the second I participated in and every point that you raised was clearly refuted.

[deist]

I did not see the first thread, but the second I participated in and every point that you raised was clearly refuted.

I don't feel that you have refuted me at all, & I doubt that any non-christians who might have seen the thread think you have either.

[Tj3]

I don't feel that you have refuted me at all, & I doubt that any non-christians who might have seen the thread think you have either.

You can believe as you wish.