Why Should I Believe In God?

[Magnus Vidar]

No, I'm not a troll. Thanks for asking.

I am simply wondering why I should believe in god. I've tried to find out via other sources, but nothing has given me any solid answers. So maybe you can.

 

[lucaspa]

No, I'm not a troll. Thanks for asking.

I am simply wondering why I should believe in god. I've tried to find out via other sources, but nothing has given me any solid answers. So maybe you can.

For the same reason you believe in anything: evidence that you find personally convincing.

After all, why do you believe deity does not exist? Because of evidence you find convincing.

Apparently you do not have that evidence in regard to the existence of God. I'm not going to try to give it to you. When you get that evidence, then you will change your mind. If you never get it, then you won't.

In the meantime you and I have different beliefs, based upon our different evidence. I can live with that. Can you?

 

[IceJad]

Frankly speaking you don't have to if you're not convinced there is one. Reason to believe in a god varies from person to person. Some for favors, some for inner peace, some for vengeance, etc.

Unfortunately there is no solid answer anyone can give you. I can tell you that if you don't you'll be heading for damnation. However if you're not convinced then what I said holds little value.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you raise the question in the first place. Once you find that out maybe you'll find God. I guess it must be something that is unsettling in you about the existence of God that you have to put to rest. Just a suggestion.

Feel free to drop me any message.

 

[lucaspa]

I can tell you that if you don't you'll be heading for damnation.

I don't think you can. Judgement is the Lord's, not yours. It's not up to us to say that anyone will get damnation. We can't even say that, because we profess to believe in God, that we will be saved. Again, that is up to God, not us.

 

[IceJad]

I don't think you can. Judgement is the Lord's, not yours. It's not up to us to say that anyone will get damnation. We can't even say that, because we profess to believe in God, that we will be saved. Again, that is up to God, not us.

Sorry if I mislead you with what I said. I merely mean even if I gave a religious reason if you don't believe it cannot change your mind. The damnation thing is just an example with very little theological thoroughness. Like a figure of speech

 

[IceJad]

I'm in no way saying everyone besides Christians are going to damnation. Like Jesus said...

[Matthew 25:34-46] 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." NIV

 

[lucaspa]

Sorry if I mislead you with what I said. I merely mean even if I gave a religious reason if you don't believe it cannot change your mind. The damnation thing is just an example with very little theological thoroughness. Like a figure of speech

Ah! Thank you for the further explanation. This is much clearer now.

I agree. An atheist has already discounted the evidence that leads theists to be theists. Obviously. If the atheist has not discounted it, the atheist cannot be an atheist. The most he/she could be would be agnostic.

So no "religious reason" is going to change their mind. They must have their own personal experience of deity before they can change.

 

[salida]

Its first a spiritual decision and secondly intellectual. I can show u info but it still won't make u believe. Visit: www.TheBibleProofBook.com, The Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, Examine the Evidence by Muncaster.

Some info below:

Internal Evidence (prophesies confirmed within bible)
Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10 - Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Lukes time period 60-70 AD)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5 - Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60 - 70 AD)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14 - Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60 - 70 AD)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 - four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of a dream of
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek - Daniel 8:21, 10:20/and the fourth
great kingdom to follow- part iron and clay-which is the Roman Empire. During this empire Christ came and his church was established.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Accuracy
The bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago and has not
been proven incorrect in any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament starts - at 25 years between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Caesar - at 1000 years
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Manuscript Copies-New Testament - 5,686/Homer - 643/Demosthenes - 200/
Plato - 7/Caesar -10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistency/Written by God
Written by at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years and has no internal inconsistencies.
It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. No other religious book makes such claim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Evidences (prophesies outside bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never built again.
Nineveh - Nahum 1:10, 3:7,15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon - Isaiah 13:1-22
Tyre - Ezekiel 26:1-28
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bible before Science- He hangs the earth on nothing-Job 26:7/Earth is a sphere-Isaiah 40:22
Air has weight-Job 28:25/Gravity-Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33/Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago; some scholars think 3000 years ago)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents that Prove Bible is True
Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles
Archeological Finds
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

 

[lucaspa]

Its first a spiritual decision and secondly intellectual. I can show u info but it still won't make u believe. Visit: www.TheBibleProofBook.com, The Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, Examine the Evidence by Muncaster.

Oh boy. Somehow I knew this was going to happen. Salida, we need to go into this because, quite frankly, these all have flaws. I think it better you hear those flaws from a friend than be clobbered with them by some militant atheist seeking to score debating points.

Internal Evidence (prophesies confirmed within bible)
Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10 - Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Lukes time period 60-70 AD)

The gospel writers made sure Jesus' life would fulfill the prophecies. Sorry, you can't use that life as fulfillment when the biographers knew the prophecies before they wrote up the life.

Most of Genesis was written around 500 BC and Genesis is a redacted document from 3 earlier sources. None of the sources go back to 4004 BC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5 - Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60 - 70 AD)

The problem is that Luke's geneology and Matthew's contradict going back from Jesus to David. So you can't use them as evidence. Again, they were trying to put Jesus into the House of David because they were already aware of the prophecy and wanted it to apply to Jesus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Historical Accuracy

The bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago and has not
been proven incorrect in any.

Yes, I am afraid there are historical inaccuracies in the Bible. For instance, the empire described to David and Solomon is much too prosperus according to the archeological evidence. Also, the archeological evidence does not have Jericho being destroyed at any of the possible times for the Exodus and Conquest.

However, the entire premise is wrong. You are saying that, because the history is correct, then the theological statements have to be correct. BUT, you don't accept that for Homer. Recent archeological finds have corroborated much of the Iliad. But you aren't going to decide the Zeus, Athena, Apollo, etc. exist because of that. Sauce for the goose.

(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament starts - at 25 years between original and first surviving copies

Sorry, but first surviving copies date to at least 125 years after Christ. The earliest gospel -- Mark -- is dated to about 70 AD.

Number of Manuscript Copies-

New Testament - 5,686/Homer - 643/Demosthenes - 200/
Plato - 7/Caesar -10

You can't be serious. You are going to go with accuracy based on copies? In that case the Harry Potter universe is real because it has millions of manuscript copies.

Written by at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years and has no internal inconsistencies.

LOL! Sorry, but lots of internal inconsistencies. I only mentioned one: the geneologies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. The crucifixion and resurrection stories in the 4 gospels also have inconsistencies. There are 2 contradictory creation stories in Genesis 1-3. I could go on.

It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. No other religious book makes such claim.

1. 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't make that claim. Instead, Paul claims scripture (by which he means the Torah) is inspired. BTW, in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul explicity says that chapter is pure Paul and is not inspired.

2. Jesus in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 says that the Torah was not "spoken by God" but written by a man. And the man made mistakes.

3. The Quran is claimed to be dictated by God. The Book of Mormon is claimed to have been written by an angel.

External Evidences (

prophesies outside bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never built again.
Nineveh - Nahum 1:10, 3:7,15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon - Isaiah 13:1-22
Tyre - Ezekiel 26:1-28

But Tyre was rebuilt. It exists today.

Bible before Science-

He hangs the earth on nothing-Job 26:7/Earth is a sphere-Isaiah 40:22

Sorry, but the word in Isaiah 40:22 is a circle. There is a Hebrew word for "ball" or sphere, used elsewhere in Isaiah, but not there. The Bible is based on a flat earth cosmology. That flat earth hangs in nothing.

Air has weight-Job 28:25/Gravity-Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33/Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago; some scholars think 3000 years ago)

Which scholars think Job is 3,000 years ago? Anyone who has felt a wind knows that the wind has "weight" because it pushes on you. Not science beyond what was known.
26:7 says nothing about gravity, but just "hangs the earth on nothing".

You are also forgetting all the errors in Job. Those storehouses of snow/hail, seas shut behind doors, etc. Job 38

Documents that Prove Bible is True
Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles

None of them "prove" the Bible true. They do mention many of the same rulers mentioned in the Bible, but that gets us back to historical accuracy is not theological accuracy (the same applies to the archeological finds).

Plus, what you find in the Epic of Gilgamesh is the original flood story that the Bible writers plagiarized and re-worked.

What you can say is that the Bible is a theological document and that it provides evidence for the existence of God. Evidence in the form of personal experiences of people with God, often in the form of God's intervention in human history. But no, the evidence does not demand a verdict. Especially when the evidence is based on misinformation and faulty logic.

 

[drich0150]

I am simply wondering why I should believe in god.

That is the reason for this life. If you do not wish to know God in this life or the next then you shouldn't believe in Him, or any of what He has done. Belief is only for those who truly seek God. If you do not earnestly seek God the belief means nothing anyway.

 

[lucaspa]

That is the reason for this life. If you do not wish to know God in this life or the next then you shouldn't believe in Him, or any of what He has done. Belief is only for those who truly seek God. If you do not earnestly seek God the belief means nothing anyway.

From some historical examples, I would say this is not true. Belief also comes to people who have not sought God and had no wish to know Him. I am thinking particularly of CS Lewis. He was quite content being an atheist. He was so disturbed by the personal experiences he was having that he called friends over because Lewis thought he was going insane.

No, believe is not only for those who truly seek God. Sometimes God takes matters into His own hands and forcibly seeks out individuals.

 

[drich0150]

From some historical examples, I would say this is not true.

It is not from History that i take my examples, but from Scripture.

(Speaking to this portion of my last post: If you do not earnestly seek God the belief means nothing anyway.)

James tells us in Chapter 2:19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

It means nothing to simply believe, or do you believe that demons are indeed among the saved as well?

No, believe is not only for those who truly seek God. Sometimes God takes matters into His own hands and forcibly seeks out individuals.

This can only be true if you do not reconcile scripture with your personal life's philosophy. A more accurate statement that Incorporated scripture has an indivisual confronted by an action or event that can not be explained by a secular understanding, and then an open minded person earnestly begins to seek a greater understanding of God. God is, and is ever present. being so, everyone is given the opportunity to see the hand of God in their lives if they so choose. it takes a serious determination, and a completely closed mind person to ignore every opportunity God gives us to wittiness the shadows of His glory.

Moses, Lot, Noah, Abraham, Job, Paul/Saul, may all have had their differences with God. Even so all had a deep desire to know and worship God. Scripturally the only time God forcibly seeks out individuals are the one who He already knows, but have strayed from the path.

I can't think of one Chapter or verse in scripture, that Mentions a Zeus, Mammon, Bale or even a philosopher, that God simply, yet forcibly converted to His way of thinking. Can you?

 

[lucaspa]

It is not from History that i take my examples, but from Scripture.

(Speaking to this portion of my last post: If you do not earnestly seek God the belief means nothing anyway.)

Real world examples from history are not valid? As I said, these people did not seek God. God sought them. Is their belief nothing?

But now you are using "seek" differently. "Seek" means "to look for". You are using it as "committed to a doing what God wants us to do".

But I see below where you seem to be coming from. You say there is an initial event -- caused by God -- that then causes the person to "seek" God. But you also claim that a closed minded person will ignore God thru force of will.

Unfortunately, your Biblical verse doesn't support your argument.

James tells us in Chapter 2:19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

It means nothing to simply believe, or do you believe that demons are indeed among the saved as well?

That's not the subject you were discussing. Look at verses 20-22:

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? "

James is discussing the depth and expression of faith, not how we got faith in God. You were, with the word "seek", talking about how people come to faith in God.

Would you not agree that CS Lewis' faith has been justified by his subsequent works?

I can't think of one Chapter or verse in scripture, that Mentions a Zeus, Mammon, Bale or even a philosopher, that God simply, yet forcibly converted to His way of thinking. Can you?

We weren't talking "force" as in brainwash someone. We were talking whether a person was seeking God. That is, were they "looking for" God? I would suggest the jailor at Phillippi. He was not seeking God and he was likely a worshipper of Jupiter. The earthquake was quite forceful. Then there is the soldier when Jesus died. Again, a worshipper of Mithras or Jupiter. Or Moses. AS an Egyptian he would be a worshipper of the Egyptian gods.

Also, I would also suggest that you get your nose out of scripture a bit. Scripture is not the only place to learn about God. God does things not written in scripture.

 

[brinny]

No, I'm not a troll. Thanks for asking.

I am simply wondering why I should believe in god. I've tried to find out via other sources, but nothing has given me any solid answers. So maybe you can.

That's between you and the God/god you're asking about. Ask that God/god.

 

[drich0150]

Real world examples from history are not valid?

"Real world examples from History" can be subject to personal interpretation, and may even be more myth than truth. There is a saying among History professors, "when the myth becomes greater than the man, print the myth." That's why we know names like Alexander Gram Bell, Paul Revere, and Christopher Columbus, but scarcely remember the names of the men who actually did the things that made those other men so famous.

Your example of the conversion of CS lewis, directly by intervention from God is a misinterpretation of the events, and a possible misunderstanding of basic free will.

This is why "real world events" are not valid. Especially when there is no biblical president for such an event.

Unfortunately, your Biblical verse doesn't support your argument.

It does indeed support what I had to say, If you follow the chain of logic I intended in my original post.
I said:
(If you do not earnestly seek God the belief means nothing anyway.)

Why seek God if not to believe? Why Believe in God if not to Love Him?

If The ultimate Goal in seeking God, is to Love Him, then one must first Seek to believe. It is to these first to steps That I left the verse in James 2:19.
It was not left as a sermon on works, but as qualifier that Seeking or believing with out Love is meaningless. For, again The Demons "Believe." yet they do not Love. So my point was why would one seek, only to believe, but not Love God?

The one Who earnestly seeks God, will find belief as a necessary step in the ultimate direction of Love.

The one who seeks God as an experiment, or out of a luke warm curiosity may indeed find belief, but may not always find the necessary love that makes belief valid.

So that said, why would you openly promote a path to God that may or may not produce the fruit we need to become righteous before the Lord?

But now you are using "seek" differently.

I use the word "seek" as Scripture uses the Word.. Why, when speaking of God would you use a word in a way that doesn't support what you are speaking of?

Unfortunately, your Biblical verse doesn't support your argument.

Don't just tell me and expect me to accept your personal doctrine, show me some chapter and verse. If my interpretation is not found in scripture, then surly your is..

Would you not agree that CS Lewis' faith has been justified by his subsequent works?

Are you trying to change the subject? If not please explain how his works can testify to the Idea the God forced him to be a Christian Against His will?

We were talking whether a person was seeking God. That is, were they "looking for" God? I would suggest the jailer at Phillippi. He was not seeking God and he was likely a worshiper of Jupiter. The earthquake was quite forceful. Then there is the soldier when Jesus died. Again, a worshiper of Mithras or Jupiter. Or Moses. AS an Egyptian he would be a worshiper of the Egyptian gods.

Tell me how does your explanation, defy or over turn my explanation of these events?

My original explanation:
A more accurate statement that Incorporated scripture has an indivisual confronted by an action or event that can not be explained by a secular understanding, and then an open minded person earnestly begins to seek a greater understanding of God. God is, and is ever present. being so, everyone is given the opportunity to see the hand of God in their lives if they so choose. it takes a serious determination, and a completely closed mind person to ignore every opportunity God gives us to wittiness the shadows of His glory.


Your examples of Paul's jailer was apart of the inspiration to the above explanation.

Also, I would also suggest that you get your nose out of scripture a bit. Scripture is not the only place to learn about God. God does things not written in scripture.

You know I have NEVER been told by a Brother that I should read the bible less, and that i should look to the world to learn about God...

I will start by saying that without a doubt God can not be contained with in the pages of a book, that said, do you honestly believe that you, your church, or even your denomination (if they infact believe as you do) can fully understand the complete workings of the infinite God?

If not, then you must admit that what you see outside of scripture: good, bad, or indifferent" is merely subject to your personal interpretation. So that leaves a very important question.. Who are you to Judge, Weigh, and or Identify the works of the one true God? Not only that, who are you to take his completed work in the scriptures and set them aside to teach your new doctrine? I say new Doctrine because if it were not new, you would simply reference what was found in scripture.
(Kinda like the whole "Sometimes God takes matters into His own hands and forcibly seeks out individuals." thing.)

This is precisely why God Gave us His Completed Work in the Bible. So we would not have to go out into the world with our finite understandings or be lead by our finite teachers to try and find a infinite God.

God has compiled enough information with in the pages of scripture to keep a humble man busy for the rest of his life.
If you can not find God in scripture and you need to experience Him as you see him, beyond the limitations of the bible, then I should say it is not God in whom you seek.

 

[lucaspa]

"Real world examples from History" can be subject to personal interpretation, and may even be more myth than truth.

Since I am taking examples of what people wrote themselves, your objection does not apply.

Your example of the conversion of CS lewis, directly by intervention from God is a misinterpretation of the events,

Then tell me what the real events were.

I think there is a basic misunderstanding here. Yes, there is:

If not please explain how his works can testify to the Idea the God forced him to be a Christian Against His will?

Here's the basic misunderstanding. Where did I say "against his will"? Where did I say "forced"? drich, you are reacting against something I did not say.

Instead, I am saying that Lewis was not seeking God when God contacted him. This is what Lewis himself wrote of the event. And the contact was in such fashion that it was impossible for Lewis to dismiss it as "a bad bit of beef" or some such.

Just like Jesus' contact with Saul on the road to Damascus was such that Saul could not dismiss it or what God wanted of him. Was Saul "forced against his will" to believe in Jesus as Son of God? No, not forced. But presented with overwhelming evidence.

It does indeed support what I had to say, If you follow the chain of logic I intended in my original post.
I said:
(If you do not earnestly seek God the belief means nothing anyway.)

Why seek God if not to believe? Why Believe in God if not to Love Him?

If The ultimate Goal in seeking God, is to Love Him, then one must first Seek to believe. It is to these first to steps That I left the verse in James 2:19.

But that isn't what James 2:19 is saying. James 2 is saying that belief means nothing if it is not backed up ("justified") by actions. It doesn't talk about that first step at all. It talks about what happens after you believe.

The one who seeks God as an experiment, or out of a luke warm curiosity may indeed find belief, but may not always find the necessary love that makes belief valid.

I would not use the word "valid" here. To me, "valid" relates to the objective truth or falseness of the idea. So the belief is valid in that God exists. It's also valid in the sense that the person does believe in God.

However, that belief would not result in the full experience of a personal relationship with God. And that is what I think you mean when you say "valid".

I can think of one contemporary example that would fit what you are saying. Anthony Flew seems to be one of those who now has an intellectual belief in God, but no personal experience.

So that said, why would you openly promote a path to God that may or may not produce the fruit we need to become righteous before the Lord?

Exactly how and when did I do that?

I use the word "seek" as Scripture uses the Word.. Why, when speaking of God would you use a word in a way that doesn't support what you are speaking of?

"Seek" is used in scripture to "look for". For instance,

Deut 4:29: "But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find [him], if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."

Matthew 7:7: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:"

Matthew 28:5: "And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified."

Luke 11:29: "And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet."

Hebrew 11:6: "But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

You know I have NEVER been told by a Brother that I should read the bible less, and that i should look to the world to learn about God...

Serveral people told you that, but I doubt you realized it:

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

But the point I wanted to make was that each of us are supposed to strive for and have a personal relationship with God. As you noted, God isn't in a book. The book is a compilation of the personal experience other people have had with God. Those personal experiences didn't stop with the last book of the Bible. God is still speaking to people. God should be speaking to you. We can learn from the personal experiences God has with people today as well as the experiences the people written about in the Bible had.

God has compiled enough information with in the pages of scripture to keep a humble man busy for the rest of his life.

But that isn't what scripture is supposed to be used for. Scripture is a steppingstone to get to a personal relationship with God. Anyone who spends all his time reading scripture but not talking to or listening to God is not worshipping God. They are worshipping a book.

If you can not find God in scripture and you need to experience Him as you see him, beyond the limitations of the bible, then I should say it is not God in whom you seek.

Now you are confining God to the bible. Did Moses find God only in scripture? Did Paul? They could not have, because there was no scripture in Moses' day and only part of the OT in Paul's day. Yes, I need to experience God. To talk to Him every day. To listen to Him every day. Christ is Risen. He's not in a book. He lives. And thus we experience Jesus and God "beyond the limitations of the Bible."

 

[If Not For Grace]

Because the Tomb was empty.

Bottom line, it's just that simple.

 

[Rose_bud]

Im new to this forum so bear with me... I dont have some theological evidence to why you should believe...but I can tell you why I do... I believe because I chose to... and I hope one day you do too...

 

[drich0150]

Since I am taking examples of what people wrote themselves, your objection does not apply.

If someone wrote down what they think of an event, then could that not be considered a personal interpretation? If that is the case, then do you not know what "Personal Interpretation" Means?

My "objection" Speaks directly to the fact that a personal interpretation is often times skewed.. So if Someone says They Believe XYZ about their spiritual beliefs,Or if you believe it for them, it is all still a Personal Interpretation. That Speak to exactly what it is I was trying to say!!!

Then tell me what the real events were.

you seem to fancy yourself a student of History and personal interpretation, so look it up.

Where did I say "forced"? drich, you are reacting against something I did not say.

Post #11

God takes matters into His own hands and forcibly seeks out individuals.

You are now changing your original comment into something different.. Either that or your system of belief changes to suit your current situation, either way this furthers my point in the alignment of all Doctrine with Scripture.

Instead, I am saying that Lewis was not seeking God when God contacted him. This is what Lewis himself wrote of the event. And the contact was in such fashion that it was impossible for Lewis to dismiss it as "a bad bit of beef" or some such.

The contact that lewis speaks of, is a storytellers way of describing the always open invitation that God has for everyone, everyday. (It was His way of selling books) Lewis's "revelation" was not because God force Himself upon him. Lewis was confronted the ever present Hand of God. His eyes may have been open by a specific event, but only because his heart was not intent on being closed off to the Idea of God.

Which again, is what i have said from the beginning. Your Original version has God taking free will from people and forcing belief upon them.

Just like Jesus' contact with Saul on the road to Damascus was such that Saul could not dismiss it or what God wanted of him. Was Saul "forced against his will" to believe in Jesus as Son of God? No, not forced. But presented with overwhelming evidence.

As I stated in Post 12:
Moses, Lot, Noah, Abraham, Job, Paul/Saul, may all have had their differences with God. Even so all had a deep desire to know and worship God. Scripturally the only time God forcibly seeks out individuals are the one who He already knows, but have strayed from the path.

Saul was no different. Saul Love the Lord and persecuted Christians because at the time he saw the christian movement as a terrible heresy, and an affront to the God He loved. The events on the road to Damascus were God's way of helping Saul redirect the love He had for Him in accordance to His will.. Paul wasn't Forced to love a god He did not know or want any apart of. God Helped Paul to do what He wanted to Do.

But that isn't what James 2:19 is saying. James 2 is saying that belief means nothing if it is not backed up ("justified") by actions. It doesn't talk about that first step at all. It talks about what happens after you believe.

If you look at James 2:18-22 you will receive the message that you keep wanting to default to. But if you only look at verse 19, with in that greater message we see that belief in of itself means nothing, because even the demons believe simply believe.

So the question one should ask is: If belief demons believe and are not saved then what separates our belief from demon belief. The rest of the message indicates works, but if we look at the rest of scripture we are told works in of themselves mean nothing, so unless you think you have found a contradiction in the scripture one would ask What separates the works of James, and the Faith of Paul? The answer can be found in the greatest command. And that is a complete Love for God.

So to go back to my original statement:

(If you do not earnestly seek God the belief means nothing anyway.)

"Why seek God if not to believe? Why Believe in God if not to Love Him?

If The ultimate Goal in seeking God, is to Love Him, then one must first Seek to believe. It is to these first to steps That I left the verse in James 2:19."
_____________________________________________________________________

"So that said, why would you openly promote a path to God that may or may not produce the fruit we need to become righteous before the Lord?"
​

Exactly how and when did I do that?

In Post 11:
"I would say this is not true. Belief also comes to people who have not sought God and had no wish to know Him."

Did you forget? or has your doctrine changed again? Because for the general population if one believed he could simply wait God out, or that God would seek him out and force Him to believe.. then would that not "Openly promote a path to God that may not produce the Spiritual Fruit we need to become righteous before the Lord?"

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficiency in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

So your suggesting that because someone one has taken their personal philosophy, and put it to paper and if that paper should be old, then it should supersede scripture?

But the point I wanted to make was that each of us are supposed to strive for and have a personal relationship with God. As you noted, God isn't in a book. The book is a compilation of the personal experience other people have had with God. Those personal experiences didn't stop with the last book of the Bible. God is still speaking to people. God should be speaking to you. We can learn from the personal experiences God has with people today as well as the experiences the people written about in the Bible had.

Which is exactly why I wrote:
This is precisely why God Gave us His Completed Work in the Bible. So we would not have to go out into the world with our finite understandings or be lead by our finite teachers to try and find a infinite God.

God has compiled enough information with in the pages of scripture to keep a humble man busy for the rest of his life.
If you can not find God in scripture and you need to experience Him as you see him, beyond the limitations of the bible, then I should say it is not God in whom you seek.

Now note I did not say it was wrong nor a sin to seek God out in the world. I simply was trying to say that if the God you find in the world does not match the God of Scripture, then the god You have found is indeed Not the God of Scripture. I also said that if you have to look solely to the god you find in the world, because you find scripture to narrow or too confining, then it is not God you seek.

But that isn't what scripture is supposed to be used for. Scripture is a steppingstone to get to a personal relationship with God

I would also say scripture is a tool to be used to define that relationship, and used to set parameters in that relationship. Again if you seek a relationship outside the boundaries that scripture provides then again, I'd say you do not seek a relationship with God.

Anyone who spends all his time reading scripture but not talking to or listening to God is not worshipping God. They are worshipping a book.

I would say in this point we agree. But like in your example of the exegesis of James 2:19 if all you know of the book is what you are taught in Sunday school then your "Outside of the book" relationship will be extremely limited. If you Truly Love the Lord with all of your being then "The Book" or what God has made known to us in that book is a big part of your efforts to develop that relationship you seek.

Now you are confining God to the bible. Did Moses find God only in scripture? Did Paul?

Seriously???

Does God speak to you through Burning Bushes? Does He light your paths with pillars of fire? Did Jesus Meet you on the road to work? Does God speak to you in the way He spoke to any of those men? No? Well then I guess what we have is a relationship that has to be defined by the bible.

And thus we experience Jesus and God "beyond the limitations of the Bible."

1Tim6:3If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

Where would sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and Godly teachings come from if not through the "Limitations of the Bible?" Isn't that how Joseph Smith Got His start? "Seeking a god not constrained by scripture?" Is this what you seek? Then if not what separates your "personal Relationship" and the relationship Joseph Smith had with God? Neither one of you uses the bible as a spiritual guide...

​

 

[hlaltimus]

No, I'm not a troll. Thanks for asking.

I am simply wondering why I should believe in god. I've tried to find out via other sources, but nothing has given me any solid answers. So maybe you can.

You should believe in God in view of one, single word: Creation.

Creation simply demands a Creator, and the most scanty or far fetched proposition for random coincidence accounting for our universe and the higher order of creatures in it, aught to be considered as sheer nonsense to any intelligent mind. I know that many intelligent minds do believe that animate and inanimate creation is the outcome of natural, random coincidence, but that doesn't make something untenable tenable! It simply cannot be...Someone of inconceivable attributes had to have deliberately and intelligently constructed us and it all, and if He is that big, then we had best get to know Him as we cannot afford to do otherwise. I covet to know Him as an ally, but dread the thought of His being an opponent. What kind of friend would such a mighty and profound Being make?