Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

jenwat3 wrote:I'm trolling again, but I think Sleep's point is that religion has the POTENTIAL to be bad, if the wrong person uses it. Religion in itself is not bad, just like a hammer in itself is not bad. It has the POTENTIAL to be used for good or bad, depending on the person who has it. Same with religion. It's not religion that needs to be done away with, but the people who use it wrongly.

Well at least we agree on something....

Except for that eliminate people part. We don't eliminate people based on their religion... Only their actions....

We sure do not eliminate people based on their religions.... Being accepting of people no matter what their religion is a good Politically Correct way to be. It can also be a good Christian example of Love thine enemy.

Bottom line only ONE religion is correct, they all cannot be correct. As a Christian I will be accepting of other people no matter their religion, BUT I ONLY FEEL MINE IS CORRECT AS A CHRISTIAN.

And to paraphrase what was said below with Sleeps and Jen, all religion has the potential to be bad depending on who is utilizing it in a negative manner.

JCSx2 wrote: Bottom line only ONE religion is correct, they all cannot be correct. As a Christian I will be accepting of other people no matter their religion, BUT I ONLY FEEL MINE IS CORRECT AS A CHRISTIAN.

man. that's a bold statement i'm disinclined to make. i know my own heart and my walk with Him but i dont know that everyone else's is wrong.

i dont think my questions and curiousities about the validity of the bible and the truth of the book is much different that 99% of every christian. i think i'm thinking about it obsessively more and seeking reconcilation on a topic most people dont think twice about. however i think me and the other 99% have the exact same conclusions, i'm just being more serious about my stance.
what i mean by that is--i think almost all christians accept Christ is the ONLY way. but i also think these same christians say someone who doesnt hear the word or know the truth can still love God, not know of christanity and still make it to heaven. most say "who am i to judge, that's for God."

that statement, tho--if you REALLY think about it the way i do, means you dont accept christ as the only way. it's either black or it's grey. if you say christ is the ONLY way, you also have to say native americans go to hell. those who do not hear go to hell. how can christ be the ONLY way if there's OTHER ways for some? and if there is another way for SOME, then logically you have to leave it all grey, a loophole could open for anyone to make heaven.

that's what i mean by 'a more serious stance.' i guess more of a hardline. most christians say christ only then say 'but i dont judge, God does.' that's a contradiction.

that sort of thing is what i find a lot reading the bible. which is what i seek to remedy here.

here's another thing: all my life in church i have been warned of having a 'salt and pepper shaker" relationship with the bible. i think there was a mrs. dash commercial with the slogan "it's in there." i was told it's bad to be this way about the bible, to 1. have that 'oh it's in there someplace' attitude and to 2. just sprinkle bits and pieces of the Word here and there while dismissing others.

there's so much dissension about what's historical data in the bible, what's parable, what's metaphore and what's just face value real.
many jewish scholards believe the bible is not something you just pick up and read without some sort of directions on how to read it.

i've asked this before, but i will again: how can you just pick certain parts of the bible and hold them more relevant than others?
why is john 3:16 pretty much the only part most christians put *complete* stock into while dismissing (or at least rationalizing away their lack of understanding) of so much of the rest?
it gets off to a rocky start, most christians dont fully grasp (or agree about) the creation story.

so do you think some parts of the book are more vital than others?

what about the flood story in the epic of gilgamesh?
what about other historical impossibilities of the bible (such as some biblical cities never actually existing or cronological impossibilities)?

the sleep of reason wrote:

JCSx2 wrote: Bottom line only ONE religion is correct, they all cannot be correct. As a Christian I will be accepting of other people no matter their religion, BUT I ONLY FEEL MINE IS CORRECT AS A CHRISTIAN.

man. that's a bold statement i'm disinclined to make. i know my own heart and my walk with Him but i dont know that everyone else's is wrong.

Christians come in many varieties, and "religion" is quite vague, so I wonder what exactly is meant by this? Do Christians contain the whole truth, and if so which ones (e.g., Creation-wise: YEC, Day-Age, Framework, then what of eschatology - amill, premil, postmil, etc). I think what JCSx2 is really saying is that the truth surrounding Christ is what matters, but I don't want to put words into JCSx2's mouth so will leave him to respond

That said, those religions which say Christ was only a man or only a prophet, did not rise from the dead or was only spiritually risen, or disagree with core Christian doctrines are all contradictory to Christianity. Therefore, while other religions may touch upon other truths in other areas, a Christian has no alternative but to say those other religions (e.g., Islam, JWs, Jews and others) are wrong regarding Christ. This is how truth works. It is not politically correct but divides straight down the line. If A is true than not A is false. If Jesus is God incarnate in Christ, then all those religions who believe otherwise are false. On the other hand, if Jesus is not God, then Christianity is wrong. This is the way truth works.

Regarding the Bible, the core issue which should matter for the Christian is Christ. As such, what can be deduced from Scripture and external sources about Christ, who he was, the resurrection, etc? It is easier to just ask questions than do the necessary reading and seeking out and evaluating such responses. The following are a few good links I have come across which should provide a good start:
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/eas ... /yama.html
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/eas ... /josh.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t008.html
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... odily.html
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... over2.html
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... tomb2.html

If you are more interested in the reliability of Scripture then try:
http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp? ... as-nt.html

Hope this helps.

Kurieuo

you bring up valid points, most of which agree with what I'm saying (tho I'm not sure you meant to?)

about Christian sects:
which IS right? you said perhaps the ideals surrounding the core value of Christianity is what's right, however I beg to differ that semantics do not alter salvation. that is, if I WERE to concede there is but one right religion, I don't believe it could be ANY form of Christianity but rather a specific flavor of Christianity. perhaps music really is wrong in church, or perhaps baptisms are vital to salvation.
I know this: many Christian leaders believe semantics are vital to salvation. upon reading tom couchman's OEC essay, a large group of Christian leaders came together to refute it and to sign an open letter denouncing his OEC ideas but moreover to INSIST that when couchman says the age of the earth is NOT a matter of salvation, he is dead wrong. they go on to say not only is believing the world is YOUNG (<10k years) a matter of salvation, but so is vegetarianism and celibacy. those who do not eat meat are rejecting the Faith of God as outlined by timothy. how then can you say that semantics of the sects are not vital to the core value of Christianity?

as I said previously, to do that would be to dismiss the rest of the bible, to only adhere to john 3:16 and hope that's ok. if that's all that matters, why did God even give us the rest of the book? I can't believe the rest is not as important.

about political correctness:
this isn't a matter of being politically correct; it's about determining God as loving and fair or brutal and unjust.
specifically to you I ask Kurieuo, do you believe that all those living outside the Middle East during the age of the bible went to hell?
I agree, it's true or false. a great wording of my hard-line stance. I'm glad to see you take a hardline, too. but we differ. I see God as just and loving, you see him and unjust and particular to regions. after all, many many civilizations existed in china, western europe, siberia, and the americas during the time of moses. did they not?
these are honest questions, I 'm really curious what your thoughts are on them. and what of the people alive today that do not get adequate information to be saved?
from what data I ve gathered, 32% of the world is Christian and the numbers are dropping. I know, I know, the road is straight and narrow, many fall short of the glory of God and all that. but you have to account that a marginal (if not considerable) percent of these 32% may or may not adhere to the correct sect of christianty and/or might not be practicing (only answered a poll as best they can but are not actively seeking absolution of the lord.)
and I bet a large percentage are catholics, as well. I don't see how Protestants AND Catholics can be both be right. and let's not forget Mormons...
so, not being politically correct, holding no punches--that's a lot of people going to hell.
a whole lot.
and a ton of them were never even given a fair chance. not even a CHANCE. like pre-columbian americans.

so what of all them?
and what of me? my stance is that God IS love and IS fair and gives all humans a fair chance at salvation (what exactly is salvation...that's a new thread there...). so that stance means I reject a one-and-only-one-way salvation and thus I have no chance at heaven.
no matter how much I seek God, pray for his will, glorify and worship Him, I will never make my way to heaven?

about Christ as God:
i've said something about this before, but i dont understand the trinity thing insomuch as if 3 are 1, and 1 is 1, why cant God just be God? why do i have to pray to Jesus instead of God? GOd is still GOd, is He not?
if jesus IS God, was he ALWAYS God? does that mean God died for a few days, and the universe was void of God? if Jesus is God, who did jesus pray to?
i just cant wrap my mind around it. jesus cant be the son of God if God is jesus. the only sense i've ever been able to make of it my whole life is to think of jesus as the human incarnate of God--completely devine, OF God but still man. how else could he die if he was not a mortal incarnation? oneness theology confuses me.
Jesus prays 'not my will, but THINE." that's TWO different wills. i've heard every cute analogy of how to 'process' the trinity, after all i am the son of a preacher and i myself have been in the travelling ministry, through MANY many churches. i'm quite familiar with it all...but no one has given me an adequate way to understand 3 being 1 when 1 being 1 is wrong. that's me. me and sir isaac newton, having trouble accepting the trinity but loving God just the same...

please dont take my questions as ignorance or laziness. i've read extensive amounts of literature and have talked to as many spiritual leaders as will listen to me about this stuff. im looking for other christian's perspectives on these things so please at least attempt to answer. i'm not trying to debate what you believe as being wrong but rather trying to gain insight as to how other christians (if i can even say i am a christian still) process all these conflicts.

all these links to all these other men's articles, it makes me think no one gets what i 'm saying here. i read them, but it's all the same stuff i've researched a trillion times already. i'm not a new christian or theologically uneducated n00b or something, i'm a life-long church goer, son of a peacher and member of active travelling ministry ...and i've researched a lot of this stuff.

something i see on this forum is that a lot of people are trying to logic their way into proving christianity through facts or histories or other tangible proofs. how on earth is that possible to do?
i mean, ok, many people have all these 'scientific proofs' of the bible (manuscripts, dating, confirmation of authorship, etc etc.) but what NO ONE has, (and what my initial post here was addressing) is proof of divinity. yes, you can prove that men wrote this. but the only proof of truth or divinity is within it'self. it is self-insistant on these issues, which are unprovable.

let me try to say it another way. lets say i have a time machine. and lets say i go back to one minute before the bible began to be written. lets say i can go back and talk to any of the authors of the bible themselves. they are unarguably great men. amazing men. some of the greatest men to walk the earth. but the bottom line is i'm still taking their word for it. my salvation rests on the faith that these men are speaking truth without any mix up of words or unclarity of thought. unless God himself tells me, i'm still just trusting some person's word.
all faith is put into these men. yet the bible tells us not to have faith in any men. it doesnt say 'any men EXCEPT for those swearing to be divinely guided.

my walk with God is largely contengian on ONLY what guidance i feel impressed on me by Him (or by the holy spirit to the trinitarians). but according to christianity, this is wrong of me. not just wrong, but the path to hell.

does any of this make sense? if there is but ONE way, the way of Christ (which is the way of the bible),then--
the bible traces back to the men that wrote it, and those men are between God's word and you. therefore christianity can (in other words) be defined as 'making the authors of the bible the conduit between you and God." all your faith is in them, that they speak utter and complete truth, circumventing you being the direct conduit to God. because you are following THEIR penned words, believing they are guided by God. but that's still an awful lot of trust in men.

>>ONE religion is correct, they all cannot be correct...I ONLY FEEL MINE IS CORRECT<<

If a person goes down the block, across the nation, or around the world to each church, synagogue, mosque, or holy place, some fundamentalists of each theology may easily be found. These sub-groups all have the annoying habit of claiming that their group alone, once and for all, has solved the great riddles of life. It seems to me, amongst all that varied dogma, that there is only one way that any one of them or all of them can be right; that being the extent to which that group teaches a theology of tolerance and love.

DB

Kurieuro and Jcsx2 said it very well

Tolerance and love is great

That is a separate issue from the MESSAGES of the holy texts of religions. Given that they provide different means of salvation they cannot all be correct.

The BIble teaches that Christ died for our sins and He is the path for salvation. Any other religion who says otherwise contradicts that Bible. They cannot all be right.

Sleep, did you or have you read "MEre CHristianity"?

I think we are making this way too difficult... We still haven't defined what Christianity is... Who is to say that someone is living more of a Christian life than another? Remember, we can't go by any labels. Even if someone says they are Christian, I believe it really doesn't mean anything... I believe it is something more greater than just facts, figures, the sciences, labels or what we say about ourselves.

I do believe that Christ is the ONLY way. That's a bold statement... Yes. The trick here is defining what we mean by saying He is the ONLY way... I believe any person could actually be living Christ's way of life even though they don't necessarily live under the "Christian" label. Just simplify it...

Does that help?

the sleep of reason wrote:

JCSx2 wrote: Bottom line only ONE religion is correct, they all cannot be correct. As a Christian I will be accepting of other people no matter their religion, BUT I ONLY FEEL MINE IS CORRECT AS A CHRISTIAN.

man. that's a bold statement i'm disinclined to make. i know my own heart and my walk with Him but i dont know that everyone else's is wrong.

i dont think my questions and curiousities about the validity of the bible and the truth of the book is much different that 99% of every christian. i think i'm thinking about it obsessively more and seeking reconcilation on a topic most people dont think twice about. however i think me and the other 99% have the exact same conclusions, i'm just being more serious about my stance.
what i mean by that is--i think almost all christians accept Christ is the ONLY way. but i also think these same christians say someone who doesnt hear the word or know the truth can still love God, not know of christanity and still make it to heaven. most say "who am i to judge, that's for God."

that statement, tho--if you REALLY think about it the way i do, means you dont accept christ as the only way. it's either black or it's grey. if you say christ is the ONLY way, you also have to say native americans go to hell. those who do not hear go to hell. how can christ be the ONLY way if there's OTHER ways for some? and if there is another way for SOME, then logically you have to leave it all grey, a loophole could open for anyone to make heaven.

that's what i mean by 'a more serious stance.' i guess more of a hardline. most christians say christ only then say 'but i dont judge, God does.' that's a contradiction.

that sort of thing is what i find a lot reading the bible. which is what i seek to remedy here.

For those who have not heard of the Bible, it is Gods will to do with them as he will. He is a forgiving God and there probably is a way to get to Heaven without hearing about it. I only assume there is a way on the fact that God is a forgiving God. Though I myself can not fathom how it is done.

As for those who have heard of the word, and reject it; well I can only assume that they will not be accepted in to the house of the Lord.

2 John 1:10-11

10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

What does this verse say to you? To me it says who ever comes to you with Doctrine OTHER THAN the Holy Bible, Do not accept their doctrine do not hear their Doctrine, it is false, it is wrong, it is not the Holy Word of God; spoken by God for man to write down for us to see his word. The Holy Bible is inspired by God and God only, you either believe that or you do not.

You either believe Christ was Killed for our sins so we may get to heaven by accepting him as our Lord and savior or you do not.

It is our Job to put the word out to others in our world so they may have the chance to accept God as their savior, the Bible tells us to do this. If the Bible tells us to do this then it is actually God telling us to do this. (See above about the Bible being inspired by God)

People who hear the Word of God, and ignore it or reject it, Do they go to Heaven? I do not think so, if you think so then tell me why.

Now I have stated I believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God, and I believe that Christ gave his life for our sins. I believe the Bible.

SO believing in the Holy Word of God, and believing Christ gave his life for our sins, I believe Christianity is the ONLY way to get to Heaven. No middle ground, no skirting around the word of God and getting in on a mulligan. If you have not accepted Christ as your savior before your last breath; then to bad for you.

God is forgiving, but Jealous, he will not accept tree worshipers, he will not accept native Americans who reject the word of Christ for some animal spirit; he will not accept some Buddhists who rejects the word of God so they may peruse a path for some Higher plane of consciousnous. (sp?)

You either believe this or you don't, I feel bad for those who reject the word of God, and miss out on an opportunity to have everlasting life, BUT we were given free will and God only wants those who CHOOSE to love him, who CHOOSE to be with him.

There is no other way; no matter what the other Religions think. They are missing out.

As long as you have heard of the Word of God and Christ our savior, you accept it and get in or you reject it and miss out.

Once again as for those who miss out on hearing about the Word of God and Christ, then it is Gods decision on taking care of them and I would like to think that our Forgiving God takes pity on them.

the sleep of reason wrote:Kurieuo

you bring up valid points, most of which agree with what I'm saying (tho I'm not sure you meant to?)

I am sure we agree on a great many things.

sleep wrote:about Christian sects:
which IS right? you said perhaps the ideals surrounding the core value of Christianity is what's right, however I beg to differ that semantics do not alter salvation.

I would not agree with what you said I said... at least not how I am understanding your words.

I pointed to crucial Christian doctrines of a soteriological nature which one needs to come to grips with. These are directly related to our relationship with God, of which Christ Himself made claims to being the Messiah and have the power of God (which would have been clearly understood by His Jewish people) and Jesus Christ Himself claimed to be the only way. Thus, all those links I provided were centered on arguing for Christ since He is the core of Christianity. It is Christianity and as such Christ's teachings are the core.

sleep wrote: that is, if I WERE to concede there is but one right religion, I don't believe it could be ANY form of Christianity but rather a specific flavor of Christianity. perhaps music really is wrong in church, or perhaps baptisms are vital to salvation.
I know this: many Christian leaders believe semantics are vital to salvation. upon reading tom couchman's OEC essay, a large group of Christian leaders came together to refute it and to sign an open letter denouncing his OEC ideas but moreover to INSIST that when couchman says the age of the earth is NOT a matter of salvation, he is dead wrong. they go on to say not only is believing the world is YOUNG (<10k years) a matter of salvation, but so is vegetarianism and celibacy. those who do not eat meat are rejecting the Faith of God as outlined by timothy. how then can you say that semantics of the sects are not vital to the core value of Christianity?

That is nice. I would just say they are wrong. I could state a better informed council, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), in fact affirmed that an Old Earth is in fact compatible with an inerrant reading of Scripture.

However, getting to your point as I understand it, if many disagree on the nature of salvation and requirements, then how can one be right? To such a question I would respond why can't one be right? Or perhaps you are more specifically know how one can know whether they are right? Well, this is an epistemic issue for philosophers to deal with, to which there are many different responses. This is NOT necessarily a Christian issue. This is an issue regarding how we can know truth so your pursuits are better looking at epistemic justification and warranted belief.

Getting back to Christianity, The Christian message is very simple. Do you admit you have done wrong? If yes, then let me say I have done many wrongs too. Now as you would know there is an issue. My nature is now incompatible with God's given He is fully righteous, and I now stand condemned before God and as His child I am deserving of punishment. God being fair would be to in fact punish each one of us, whether it be through God expelling us all from His kingdom and sending us into Satan's kingdom of rebellion (i.e., hell) or what have you. If you answered, "yes" that you have done wrong as I myself did, then we are guilty not even by God judging us, but by our own admittance. So how can you question that it would be unfair for God who is sovereign over us all to punish any one of us? It is only unfair if we are innocent, but from our (?) own admittance we are not innocent.

However, God decided out of His grace to overturn the punishment and create another way for us to be compatible with His righteous nature. Thus, as we read of Christ in the Gospel and in Paul's epistles, a way of grace was offered through Christ who claim to be the way, the truth and the life. (John 14:6) Now I understand this to mean that Jesus was claiming that it is only through Him that our imperfections and we ourselves can be reconciled to God. That it is the truth of Christ which matters. And finally, that those who discover such truth (Christ) will receive eternal life with God. As to whether it is fair some do not discover it in this life, well it is Christs domain to either extend or not extend the offer of salvation through Himself post-death to such people. Yet, we know nothing about any such offer Scripturally, and all the importance appears to be on this life. I certainly would not want to take my chances that such an offer is still on offer after my life here.

sleep wrote: this isn't a matter of being politically correct; it's about determining God as loving and fair or brutal and unjust.
specifically to you I ask Kurieuo, do you believe that all those living outside the Middle East during the age of the bible went to hell?
I agree, it's true or false. a great wording of my hard-line stance. I'm glad to see you take a hardline, too. but we differ. I see God as just and loving, you see him and unjust and particular to regions. after all, many many civilizations existed in china, western europe, siberia, and the americas during the time of moses. did they not?

I think we could perhaps agree with the implication that God would be unfair in such a case, but in a different respect. I do not believe that God is unfair punishing those who lived outside the Middle East or those who did not come across Christ in this life. I have demonstrated that if anything, the God I know through Christianity is unfair by not punishing all of us to instead prefer to send Christ to make another way so that we need not be punished. I therefore see God as gracious, having forgiven all through Christ and being open to reconciliation to with all who decide come to Him through Christ.

sleep wrote:i've said something about this before, but i dont understand the trinity thing insomuch as if 3 are 1, and 1 is 1, why cant God just be God? why do i have to pray to Jesus instead of God? GOd is still GOd, is He not?

Firstly, it is not 3 Gods are 1 God, or that three persons are one person. Rather that three persons share one essence. It is a common JW misunderstanding which says that the Trinity is a doctrine of three gods being one god. It seems from your words further below that you may also have this misunderstanding where you say: "no one has given me an adequate way to understand 3 being 1 when 1 being 1 is wrong." Obviously three beings in one being is contradictory. This is a misunderstanding of the Trinity. Rather, understanding the Trinity in the form of a monistic Social Trinitarianism (as I detail in another thread) avoids such a contradiction.

Now regarding the Trinity, we had a discussion on this board a while ago, and it seemed to be the consensus opinion of most here was that belief in the Trinity is not required to accept Christ and be saved. On the other hand, who Christ is was of importance to us in being saved.

sleep wrote:if jesus IS God, was he ALWAYS God? does that mean God died for a few days, and the universe was void of God? if Jesus is God, who did jesus pray to?
i just cant wrap my mind around it. jesus cant be the son of God if God is jesus. the only sense i've ever been able to make of it my whole life is to think of jesus as the human incarnate of God--completely devine, OF God but still man. how else could he die if he was not a mortal incarnation? oneness theology confuses me.

In Isaiah 9:6 we have: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Does it seem implausible to think that if an all-powerful God exists, that he could indeed take on the form of a man if God so willed to? If this isn't implausible, then whatever seemingly absurd or repulsive solutions are given by Christians to try explain this (i.e., the Trinity), it still remains that this is a real possibility despite one's inability to explain how God taking on humanity, and as such Christ being God, may exactly work.

My own solution is that when God took on human form in Jesus Christ, that the divine was simply took upon himself human form. As Paul writes in Philippians 2:

• 5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
  6Who, being in very nature God,
  did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
  7but made himself nothing,
  taking the very nature of a servant,
  being made in human likeness.
  8And being found in appearance as a man,
  he humbled himself
  and became obedient to death—
  even death on a cross!

We here have Jesus, who was in the very nature God, emptying Himself into human form. Christ appears to have given up His sovereign authority as God which is why He was submissive and obedient to the person we know as His Father, God the Father.

the sleep of reason wrote:something i see on this forum is that a lot of people are trying to logic their way into proving christianity through facts or histories or other tangible proofs. how on earth is that possible to do?
i mean, ok, many people have all these 'scientific proofs' of the bible (manuscripts, dating, confirmation of authorship, etc etc.) but what NO ONE has, (and what my initial post here was addressing) is proof of divinity. yes, you can prove that men wrote this. but the only proof of truth or divinity is within it'self. it is self-insistant on these issues, which are unprovable.

Because 1) everyone believes something; and 2) no position is neutral; so therefore 3) it is a matter of attempting to discovering which position appears to be the most convincing and consistent at answering and satisfying life's questions, the world around us, what we know and experience.

If Christianity does not satisfy criticisms leveled against if by those of other positions whether secular or otherwise, then if fails at being as consistent. Now if someone sees Christianity failing to be consistent in many areas, people tend to automatically assume another position is correct by default. But no. Every position has to answer tough questions. If you think some other position, whether a secular philosophically naturalist perspective is default, then it has tough questions to answer, for example regarding life and truths we all appear to intuit. It also has tough questions about the complexities we see in life, the beginning of the cosmos, and the "design" everything appears to have (a word I hear so often in documentaries involving evolution). Now while no proof may prove Christianity outright, I see that Christianity to be a more coherent and consistent and many factors influence my Christianity including my mind, knowledge, own experiences, relationships, and perceptions.

sleep wrote:let me try to say it another way. lets say i have a time machine. and lets say i go back to one minute before the bible began to be written. lets say i can go back and talk to any of the authors of the bible themselves. they are unarguably great men. amazing men. some of the greatest men to walk the earth. but the bottom line is i'm still taking their word for it. my salvation rests on the faith that these men are speaking truth without any mix up of words or unclarity of thought. unless God himself tells me, i'm still just trusting some person's word.
all faith is put into these men. yet the bible tells us not to have faith in any men. it doesnt say 'any men EXCEPT for those swearing to be divinely guided.

Which is why I say divert your attention to Christ and what is accepted about Him historically and whether such supports the Christian faith.

sleep wrote:my walk with God is largely contengian on ONLY what guidance i feel impressed on me by Him (or by the holy spirit to the trinitarians). but according to christianity, this is wrong of me. not just wrong, but the path to hell.

Why on earth would someone base their belief predominantly upon their feelings? This seems particularly odd to me, especially when for example Paul said to test everything and hold onto the good. I see that such Christianity is often based on the whims and life experiences of the person. Once that person's life falls into, or continues in turmoil, God is gone for such a person. For such a person, God becomes associated with the "impressions" and a "feeling good" experience in worship, prayer, at church or what have you. I have seen such people in life, it seems bitterness usually sets in against God because God must not be there is He does not keep impressing good feelings into them, and they eventually leave with tide of their emotions.

Koukl at Stand to Reason seems to deal with ideas such as yours. For example:

The question is actually two-fold: Is it enough for Christians to simply say, "'You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart.' I have the confirmation of a subjective experience. I feel Jesus.'?"

The answer is no, it is not enough to say that. Because the Mormons feel Jesus. And the New Ager feels Jesus. And a Jehovah's Witness feels Jesus. Lots of people feel Jesus. They have psychological certainty that they're children of God and that they're right with God.

The point I'm making is that the foundation of our confidence cannot be placed on the subjective side, because it's too easy to be misled by subjective elements. There must be something else that gives us reason to believe that our subjective certainty-- our personal confidence that Jesus is ours-- is more than just an empty confidence, but is, in fact, the truth.

Hasn't it been the case, friends, that you've felt absolutely certain about something that later turned out to be false? Of course you did. And the question is: How do we protect ourselves from that error? How do we represent the truth of Christianity to another person who may not be sharing our subjective certitude, or our subjective experience?

We must have some objective foundation. We must be able to point to more than just our feelings to prove the truthfulness of our faith and the legitimacy of our confidence that Jesus is in our lives.

But there's a second step here. There's another factor that goes beyond proving to ourselves or others that Jesus is true beyond our psychological confidence.

"A Private Hot Line to God?" (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5699)

If you don't mind listening to well reasoned Christianity, rather than a touchy-feely Christianity (which there is nothing wrong with, except when on its own), then I would encourage you to listen to the STR radio show every so often. I find Koukl to be quite good in general in reasoning about Christianity honestly and faithfully.

zoegirl wrote:. have you read "MEre CHristianity"?

I am reading it now actually, so far so good.

Very logical and well thought out.

I wish I could express myself in written word better than I do.

Gman wrote:I think we are making this way too difficult... We still haven't defined what Christianity is... Who is to say that someone is living more of a Christian life than another? Remember, we can't go by any labels. Even if someone says they are Christian, I believe it really doesn't mean anything... I believe it is something more greater than just facts, figures, the sciences, labels or what we say about ourselves.

I do believe that Christ is the ONLY way. That's a bold statement... Yes. The trick here is defining what we mean by saying He is the ONLY way... I believe any person could actually be living Christ's way of life even though they don't necessarily live under the "Christian" label. Just simplify it...

Does that help?

i'm defining christianity as 1. accepting the bible as infallible and 2. accepting the trinity and 3. accepting Jesus IS God and that salvation is achieved only through the acceptance of these things.
likewise, to say anyone outside the acceptance of Christ as the only way is therefore unchristian. for example, to believe a rural african, however uneducated on the teachings of Christ will ONLY go to hell is christian, to believe God could somehow loophole them into salvation outside the teachings of christ is unchristian. black and white. God cannot have mercy on the ignorant if christ is the only way. like Kuri said, true can never be false, but also true can never be SOMETIMES true. it can only be ALWAYS true.

i think that's as uncomplex as it gets. CHRIST: yes. NOT CHRIST: no. including those who just lived in the wrong place before westward catholocism spread. to believe native americans who lived here before christianity was spread went anywhere but hell is to be unchristian, by definition.

no?

JCSx2 wrote: For those who have not heard of the Bible, it is Gods will to do with them as he will. He is a forgiving God and there probably is a way to get to Heaven without hearing about it. I only assume there is a way on the fact that God is a forgiving God.

SO believing in the Holy Word of God, and believing Christ gave his life for our sins, I believe Christianity is the ONLY way to get to Heaven. No middle ground, no skirting around the word of God and getting in on a mulligan. If you have not accepted Christ as your savior before your last breath; then to bad for you.

Once again as for those who miss out on hearing about the Word of God and Christ, then it is Gods decision on taking care of them and I would like to think that our Forgiving God takes pity on them.

my point is what you jsut said is a practical impossibility. your statements totally contradict each other. you cannot say Christianity is the ONLY way to get to heaven then say it's God's decision on taking care of them (that didnt hear the word of God). it can only be the ONLY way or you have to say it's one of apparently a FEW ways.

People who hear the Word of God, and ignore it or reject it, Do they go to Heaven? I do not think so, if you think so then tell me why.

this is kind of the only way i think anyone can get to hell, actually. i personally believe God is merciful and just, and that we are judged on the nature of our hearts. i think christianity is a guide for creating GOOD nature in our hearts, but i dont think it's the only way. after all, all the highest levels of godliness that we are to strive for via christianity exist OUTSIDE christianity. that, and that alone, is a massive indication of some universality of Good and evil. people, by nature, are stubborn and regionally diverse. according to the bible, God (the tower of babel) is the reason we have this major world/cultural diversity. tho semantics of how to achieve godliness vary, the core values of godliness are universal.
that's the only thing that makes sense to me.

so. to know of GOd and to hate Him and reject Him is probably a great way to get to hell (unless you have some mental illness of course.) Agnosticism, as i understand it, is a grey area and i have great pity for my agnostic friends. they just dont see 'logical' reasons to believe in God so are ambivalent. personally i have seen His good works and know He is real. i wish they could too. but i think they will be judged differently than atheists, who are just religious in negativity, zealots, raving and spreading the idea of an ungod. that's wrong. for sure. but it's not really the same as agnostics (i dont believe.)