Are the bible stories real?

[Ken-1122]

Well you can never know anything with 100% certainty - unless you make first hand observations. What you may want to do is look at the sources and see what their credibility is and if they may have some kind of ulterior motive.

Imagine if you were interested in buying a car. The car salesman - who stands to make a hefty commission if he sells you the car - says it has the best reliability record of any car out there. Another guy who has no vested interest in you buying that car tells you the car has a horrible reliability record. Without any more information, who would you be more inclined to believe?

Who has more motivation for embellishing their belief? The atheists who say the Bible is not true or the Christians - with their multi-million church business that relies largely on contributions from its members - who say the Bible is true? Think about it.

Not sure what your point is, but it sounds like you are not on God's side; and you neglected to answer the question as well

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

And if He did speak to you this way, would you drop to your knees in grateful submission to Him, yielding the rest of your life to whatever He wished? Would you set aside every aspiration, every goal, to wait upon Him? This is what seeing God your Maker face-to-face would require.

I doubt it. In my opinion; any God that would require me to degrade myself in a way that I wouldn’t even ask of my dog! I don’t think is a God worthy of worship nor respect.

Do you doubt the existence of Napolean, or Shakespeare, or Alexander the Great? How about Einstein, or Hitler, or Babe Ruth? None of these people have spoken to you in person.

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']I don’t doubt the existence of these people because there is empirical evidence that they exist. The same can’t be said about your God

Why would you be satisfied to listen to a man speak for God when God Himself has spoken to you? I mean, if He has spoken once, why not again, and again, and again?

Oh you mean like, just because he spoke in the old testament why not speak today? Yeah I can understand some people asking that question.

Why isn't the fact that other men have been convinced that the Bible is the Word of God not been the least convincing to you? Many of these men were at one time just as skeptical as you. Did they have a change of mind because they were all just not as smart, or careful, or as skeptical as you?
Selah.

I don’t believe what these men say because they can’t agree on who God is, what he says, what he wants, or what he expects of us thus they have no credibility with me. Now if God spoke to me….. well you know

K

PS I am reminded of a saying; A foolish mans account of a wise mans words are never accurate; because he must translate what he hears into something that he can actually understand"

Now I'm not saying these men who speak for God are foolish, but if God is all wise, compared to God they are thus they aren't (IMO) qualified to speak for God, God should speak for himself.

 

[razeontherock]

I don’t doubt the existence of these people because there is empirical evidence that they exist. The same can’t be said about your God

This is not sound reasoning. You're comparing apples to apples, and saying it's a banana.

 

[Ken-1122]

This is not sound reasoning. You're comparing apples to apples, and saying it's a banana.

I disagree! you can't compare the existence of Napalean or Einstine to the existence of God! We have proof that these men existed. We have documents with their signature on it. What proof do you have of God? Faith??? The problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth! No my friend; I'm comparing apples to apples.

Ken

 

[razeontherock]

Yes, you're comparing apples to apples. And in the case of one, you refuse to accept that it's an apple. This is not sound reasoning

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, you're comparing apples to apples. And in the case of one, you refuse to accept that it's an apple. This is not sound reasoning

Okay enough with the fruit already; explain exactly why what I said does not make sense.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

My point is without first hand observation, one cannot know for sure if something really occurred.

Let's say you've never been to Paris. You've seen photos of Paris, read about it and talked about it with people who said they've been there. This is typically enough for you to believe the city of Paris exists. But what if those photos were of a different city or perhaps were doctored? What if what was written about it was made up? And what if the people who said they went there were making that up as well? Humans are capable of fabricating things like this.

To know simply means to be convinced of beyond any shadow of doubt. It does not mean you are right, it does not mean you can prove you are right; only that you are 100% convinced you are right. In the above scenario, I would know Paris existed and eventually find out that I was wrong.

Ken

 

[aiki]

And if He did speak to you this way, would you drop to your knees in grateful submission to Him, yielding the rest of your life to whatever He wished? Would you set aside every aspiration, every goal, to wait upon Him? This is what seeing God your Maker face-to-face would require. I doubt it. In my opinion; any God that would require me to degrade myself in a way that I wouldn’t even ask of my dog! I don’t think is a God worthy of worship nor respect.

Well, keep in mind that you didn't create your dog and you don't sustain every moment of its existence as God has you. Your dog doesn't owe its very being to you, and you aren't the omnipotent, perfectly holy Creator of the Universe. What you might require, then, from your dog by way of allegiance and obedience is not going to be what God has the right to demand of you.

So, God must not only put in a personal appearance in order for you to believe in Him, but He must also behave in a way that suits you, if you're going to interact with Him. Who's calling the shots here? It sounds like you are. But that would make you superior to God, would it not? If God must jump through your hoops rather you through His, who's in charge? Not God, obviously. The problem, here, though, is that He is God, which by definition means He is inferior to no one and answers to no one. By His very nature, God is your infinite Superior and therefore deserves all of the obedience and worship He demands of you.

Part of entering into fellowship with God is recognizing your utter dependence upon Him. But this requires humility, which is precisely what God demands of us in order to walk with Him. Unfortunately, as your comments above indicate, you are full to the brim with human hubris. You don't seem to bat an eye at the thought of making demands of God. Given God's vast superiority over you, such a thing is staggering in its arrogance! Really, though, this arrogance is always at the root of people's objection to God. We resist God because we resent His being the Boss. God knows this, of course, and works specifically to challenge this attitude (by not jumping through our hoops) in the process we must go through to knowing Him.

Do you doubt the existence of Napolean, or Shakespeare, or Alexander the Great? How about Einstein, or Hitler, or Babe Ruth? None of these people have spoken to you in person. I don’t doubt the existence of these people because there is empirical evidence that they exist. The same can’t be said about your God

I think you give "empirical evidence" far too much weight in your reasoning. Please show me the empirical evidence which proves that only empirical evidence is trustworthy in establishing reality. Are you aware that science itself rests upon many unproveable assumptions, beliefs for which there is no empirical evidence? We call them "brute facts," which are philosophical givens without which science could not exist.

You have shifted the goalposts, you know. First, you required a personal, verbal message from God in order to believe in Him. But you don't require the same thing in believing in historical figures like Napolean, or Alexander the Great. Instead, of acknowledging this inconsistency, you say that the real proof of a being's existence is the empirical evidence for that being, which sounds a lot like your saying now that God doesn't need to speak to you directly, He only needs to provide to you empirical proof of His existence. Okay. So, what empirical proof do you have for believing Alexander the Great existed? Or Napolean?

Why would you be satisfied to listen to a man speak for God when God Himself has spoken to you? I mean, if He has spoken once, why not again, and again, and again? Oh you mean like, just because he spoke in the old testament why not speak today? Yeah I can understand some people asking that question.

What about you? What possible reason might God have for simply recording what He wanted each of us to know in a book, rather than appearing to every one individually to tell them?

Why isn't the fact that other men have been convinced that the Bible is the Word of God not been the least convincing to you? Many of these men were at one time just as skeptical as you. Did they have a change of mind because they were all just not as smart, or careful, or as skeptical as you?

I don’t believe what these men say because they can’t agree on who God is, what he says, what he wants, or what he expects of us thus they have no credibility with me. Now if God spoke to me….. well you know

I think you're being overly general in your description of skeptics turned Christians. In fact, the men I know of who were/are skeptics turned Christians agree very well about what they believe about God. Lee Strobel and Josh MacDowell, for instance, two initially highly anti-Christian skeptics, have enormous common doctrinal and theological ground as Christian believers.

I think its entirely too easy an out for you to simply dismiss the radical change these one-time skeptics have had in their worldviews because you think they disagree. This is kinda' intellectually lazy, actually. The facts are rather different than your general perceptions. You might want to examine the difference some time...

Selah.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, keep in mind that you didn't create your dog and you don't sustain every moment of its existence as God has you. Your dog doesn't owe its very being to you, and you aren't the omnipotent, perfectly holy Creator of the Universe. What you might require, then, from your dog by way of allegiance and obedience is not going to be what God has the right to demand of you.

I can demand anything I want of my dog. I can even beat my dog if I wanted to; but that would mean I am a horrible person. I just don’t think a person can be good and expect someone below him to grovel at his feet at the same time, a good person would be too modest for something like that.

So, God must not only put in a personal appearance in order for you to believe in Him, but He must also behave in a way that suits you, if you're going to interact with Him.

I never said a personal appearance was necessary, and I never said he must behave to suite me; but if he expects me to believe he is good, he must behave as if he is good.

Who's calling the shots here? It sounds like you are. But that would make you superior to God, would it not?

Nobody is calling shots. If I met you and you disrespected me, if I thought you were a mean person does that mean I am calling the shots? Does that mean I am making demands of you? No. it only means I’ve formed an opinion of you due to your actions.

I think you give "empirical evidence" far too much weight in your reasoning. Please show me the empirical evidence which proves that only empirical evidence is trustworthy in establishing reality.

I never said empirical evidence was the only way of proving reality; I’m just making the point that if they could be observed using one or more of my 5 senses, that’s good enough for me.

You have shifted the goalposts, you know. First, you required a personal, verbal message from God in order to believe in Him. But you don't require the same thing in believing in historical figures like Napolean, or Alexander the Great. Instead, of acknowledging this inconsistency, you say that the real proof of a being's existence is the empirical evidence for that being, which sounds a lot like your saying now that God doesn't need to speak to you directly, He only needs to provide to you empirical proof of His existence. Okay. So, what empirical proof do you have for believing Alexander the Great existed? Or Napolean?

First of all I never said the only way I would recognize God is if he spoke to me verbally, You asked me how would God need to speak to me in order for me to recognize that it was him speaking; to which I answered; in English in an audible voice. Assuming God existed there are plenty of ways he could get my attention and cause me to recognize his existence

What about you? What possible reason might God have for simply recording what He wanted each of us to know in a book, rather than appearing to every one individually to tell them?

God recording what he wanted us to know in a book? Jesus did not write the bible, flawed and imperfect men wrote books then other flawed and imperfect men decided which books should be used for the bible and which ones should be discarded. Now if Jesus wrote the bible, that would be another story.

I think you're being overly general in your description of skeptics turned Christians. In fact, the men I know of who were/are skeptics turned Christians agree very well about what they believe about God. Lee Strobel and Josh MacDowell, for instance, two initially highly anti-Christian skeptics, have enormous common doctrinal and theological ground as Christian believers.

I think its entirely too easy an out for you to simply dismiss the radical change these one-time skeptics have had in their worldviews because you think they disagree. This is kinda' intellectually lazy, actually. The facts are rather different than your general perceptions. You might want to examine the difference some time...

Selah.

Actually there was a slight misunderstanding on my part concerning your question which is why I answered the way I did, so let me answer this way;
Why isn’t the fact that other men have been convinced that God does not exist the least convincing to YOU? Many of these men were at one time were just as much believers as you. Did they have a change of mind because they were all just not as smart, or careful, or as you?

Ken

 

[aiki]

I can demand anything I want of my dog.

Sure, but can he deliver? I mean, what if you demanded a pizza of him, or that he wash the dishes?

In any case, you may make demands of your dog, but, unlike God, you don't have the same right to do so that He does as your Creator and Sustainer.

I can even beat my dog if I wanted to; but that would mean I am a horrible person. I just don’t think a person can be good and expect someone below him to grovel at his feet at the same time, a good person would be too modest for something like that.

Well, there is modesty, which is simply not exaggerating one's strengths, skills, and virtues beyond what they are and then there is false modesty, which would be denying one's strengths, skills and virtues in order to magnify one's modesty in the eyes of others. God is perfect, and all-powerful, and supreme in power; He is the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. It is not modesty but false modesty for Him to carry on as though these things aren't true of Him. It is His full and perfect right to demand of us our very lives because those lives came from Him and are sustained every moment by Him. It is not arrogant of Him to make such a demand of us, nor is it immodest; it is His Sovereign right as God, it is what every human who depends so utterly upon God ought to give to Him.

Is it immodest for the winner of the Olympic 100 meter sprint to raise his arms in victory and receive a gold medal for his athletic achievement? No. Is it immodest for the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize to accept the 1 million dollar prize for his outstanding achievement? No. These people deserve what they are being acknowledged and praised for; they ought to be praised, for they have done something praiseworthy. How much more, then, is the God who created the entire universe worthy of our worship, praise, and service? And it is not immodest of Him to accept these things from us any more than it is immodest for the gold-medalist sprinter or the Nobel Peace Prize winner to accept praise and awards for their achievements.

By the way, God doesn't demand that we "grovel at his feet" in a manner you wouldn't require of your dog, but that we acknowledge appropriately who He is and behave accordingly. In a sense, behaving as the inferior creatures we are before God's supreme superiority isn't demeaning but merely honest.

I never said a personal appearance was necessary, and I never said he must behave to suite me; but if he expects me to believe he is good, he must behave as if he is good.

From where do you derive your idea of what is good? To what and who's standard are you trying to make God accountable?

Nobody is calling shots. If I met you and you disrespected me, if I thought you were a mean person does that mean I am calling the shots? Does that mean I am making demands of you? No. it only means I’ve formed an opinion of you due to your actions.

Well, I don't know...It seems to me that if God is required to meet your standard of conduct, your code of morality, that you are "calling the shots." This seems especially clear in how you make your continued positive interactions with God dependent upon His meeting your standard. You wrote,

"In my opinion; any God that would require me to degrade myself in a way that I wouldn’t even ask of my dog! I don’t think is a God worthy of worship nor respect."

It seems here like you're saying that if God doesn't behave in the way you want Him to, you will neither worship nor respect Him - which sounds to me like you're calling the shots as far as relating to Him goes. Am I wrong?

I never said empirical evidence was the only way of proving reality; I’m just making the point that if they could be observed using one or more of my 5 senses, that’s good enough for me.

I never said that you said that empirical evidence was the only way of proving reality. I just think you may give too much value to what the empirical method can tell you about reality and what is true. In fact, the empirical method is pretty restricted. It can't provide any answers at all to the Big Questions in life: Where did everything come from? Why do I exist? What is the meaning of life (if there is any)? Is this life all there is? Your five senses will never enable you to discover the answer to these questions, either. I'm hoping maybe you'll see that your five senses might need some help in discovering the truth about life.

Assuming God existed there are plenty of ways he could get my attention and cause me to recognize his existence

I'm glad to know you haven't demanded God communicate along one narrow means! So, what sort of empirical evidence do you want from God in order to believe He exists? Certainly, the kind of evidence available for believing Alexander the Great existed is also available for establishing God's existence. Do you require more in God's case?

What about you? What possible reason might God have for simply recording what He wanted each of us to know in a book, rather than appearing to every one individually to tell them? God recording what he wanted us to know in a book? Jesus did not write the bible, flawed and imperfect men wrote books then other flawed and imperfect men decided which books should be used for the bible and which ones should be discarded. Now if Jesus wrote the bible, that would be another story.

You didn't actually answer my question...Anyway, does God using flawed and imperfect men to write down His truth necessarily mean that what they wrote is flawed and imperfect? It seems suggesting that this is so diminishes God's ability to control their efforts. Your comments above also seem to ignore the many things flawed humans write that are flawless. For example, I read a set of instructions on how to assemble a chair the other day and the instructions were flawless in their explanation of how to do so. Every detail of how to assemble the chair was explained without error. I followed the instructions and assembled the chair with ease! It seems to me, then, that the fact that people are flawed does not necessarily mean that everything they write is also flawed. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Actually there was a slight misunderstanding on my part concerning your question which is why I answered the way I did, so let me answer this way;
Why isn’t the fact that other men have been convinced that God does not exist the least convincing to YOU? Many of these men were at one time were just as much believers as you. Did they have a change of mind because they were all just not as smart, or careful, or as you?

Ah, so you've answered my question with a question! Hmmm...doesn't actually answer my question, though, does it?

You know, your response brings to the fore the point I was going to make by asking you the question I did. How is it men who are reasonable, intelligent, and thoughtful can arrive at such different and even contradictory points of view on the same thing? Is it the facts that produce such widely varying conclusions, or something else? It seems to me the facts are what they are. They aren't varying or changing. And the rational capacities and intelligence of people on both sides of the question of God are more or less equal. So why the big disagreement? Personally, it seems to me that the issue isn't the facts, or degree of intelligence, but something else entirely. I wonder if you could guess what it might be?

Thanks for the very engaging conversation!

Selah.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, there is modesty, which is simply not exaggerating one's strengths, skills, and virtues beyond what they are and then there is false modesty, which would be denying one's strengths, skills and virtues in order to magnify one's modesty in the eyes of others.

Modesty is simply a refusal to be boastful and vain of your strengths.

God is perfect, and all-powerful, and supreme in power; He is the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. It is not modesty but false modesty for Him to carry on as though these things aren't true of Him.

You can be all that without demanding those less than you grovel at your feet like a beaten dog!

[/font]Is it immodest for the winner of the Olympic 100 meter sprint to raise his arms in victory and receive a gold medal for his athletic achievement? No. Is it immodest for the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize to accept the 1 million dollar prize for his outstanding achievement? No

If those winners were to rub their victory in the face of those who lost, it would be immodest. If your God demands I grovel at his feet, that would be immodest.

By the way, God doesn't demand that we "grovel at his feet" in a manner you wouldn't require of your dog, but that we acknowledge appropriately who He is and behave accordingly.

Your exact words were: “And if He did speak to you this way, would you drop to your knees in grateful submission to Him, yielding the rest of your life to whatever He wished? Would you set aside every aspiration, every goal, to wait upon Him? This is what seeing God your Maker face-to-face would require
Sounds like groveling to me!

From where do you derive your idea of what is good?

If you don’t know the definition of “good” grab a dictionary; that’s where I get my idea of good

To what and who's standard are you trying to make God accountable?

Good IS the standard.

Well, I don't know...It seems to me that if God is required to meet your standard of conduct, your code of morality, that you are "calling the shots." This seems especially clear in how you make your continued positive interactions with God dependent upon His meeting your standard. You wrote,
"In my opinion; any God that would require me to degrade myself in a way that I wouldn’t even ask of my dog! I don’t think is a God worthy of worship nor respect."

It seems here like you're saying that if God doesn't behave in the way you want Him to, you will neither worship nor respect Him - which sounds to me like you're calling the shots as far as relating to Him goes. Am I wrong?

I think I see where you are getting at here. If I am given the free will to serve God or not, I am calling the shots. If God were calling the shots as far as weather I worship him or not, then I wouldn’t have free will in that area right? So to answer your question, I guess each of us are calling the shots.

I'm glad to know you haven't demanded God communicate along one narrow means! So, what sort of empirical evidence do you want from God in order to believe He exists?

Well obviously a voice from the sky would work, but even if his existence could be proven via science that would probably work for me as well

You didn't actually answer my question...Anyway, does God using flawed and imperfect men to write down His truth necessarily mean that what they wrote is flawed and imperfect? It seems suggesting that this is so diminishes God's ability to control their efforts. Your comments above also seem to ignore the many things flawed humans write that are flawless. For example, I read a set of instructions on how to assemble a chair the other day and the instructions were flawless in their explanation of how to do so. Every detail of how to assemble the chair was explained without error. I followed the instructions and assembled the chair with ease! It seems to me, then, that the fact that people are flawed does not necessarily mean that everything they write is also flawed. Do you see what I'm getting at?

hat about the people who decided which books should be included in the bible and which ones discarded; Were they perfect too?

[/font]Ah, so you've answered my question with a question! Hmmm...doesn't actually answer my question, though, does it?

Okay I’ll answer your question. The reason skeptics who become religious doesn’t convince me to become religious is because there are just as many religious people who become skeptics. It goes both ways

You know, your response brings to the fore the point I was going to make by asking you the question I did. How is it men who are reasonable, intelligent, and thoughtful can arrive at such different and even contradictory points of view on the same thing? Is it the facts that produce such widely varying conclusions, or something else? It seems to me the facts are what they are. They aren't varying or changing. And the rational capacities and intelligence of people on both sides of the question of God are more or less equal. So why the big disagreement? Personally, it seems to me that the issue isn't the facts, or degree of intelligence, but something else entirely. I wonder if you could guess what it might be?

My guess is people will naturally bring their own prejustices, preferences, and points of view in how they see things.

Thanks for the very engaging conversation!

Thank you as well

Ken


[/quote]