For the sake of argument, let's say God exists

[Darkeonz]

Then you're a poor spokesman, no offense.

No Christian would capitalize "Gods" without an apostrophe.

A spokesman... what are you talking about?

can't you argue for more then a few posts before you start forgetting what the original discussion was all about?

It's called " For the sake of argument, let's say God exists"

And you are deliberately trying to avoid any debate by changing the topic around.



Originally Posted by Darkeonz

My question was what makes you go from believing in god, to believing in the god of the bible

It wasn't about if he created the world or not



​

And


Originally Posted by Darkeonz

So why isn't the Bible "Diabolical Plagiarism" ?




​

 

[AV1611VET]

-- do you really think your opinion is worth anything?

I sure do.

 

[Darkeonz]

Because It is God's Autobiography.

And there! now we are back to the original question

How did you go from believing in a God, to believing the Bible is the Autobiography of god?

 

[AV1611VET]

And there! now we are back to the original question

How did you go from believing in a God, to believing the Bible is the Autobiography of god?

And I've already answer that -- and I'm not in the mood to repeat myself to a newbie.

No offense.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Because It is God's Autobiography.

God would have used spell check.

 

[Darkeonz]

And I've already answer that

By saying the prophecies came true in the bible, you are asserting the stories written in the bible actually happened. Whoever wrote the bible, knew about those prophecies before they wrote it.

-- and I'm not in the mood to repeat myself to a newbie.

No offense.

No offense taken, because I realise this is a defence mechanism

 

[CaliforniaSun]

What is most telling is that the supposed prophecies attributed to Jesus regarding his return have yet to happen. Prophecies regarding proposed events can be self fulfilling as long as specific details are not included.

 

[AV1611VET]

By saying the prophecies came true in the bible, you are asserting the stories written in the bible actually happened. Whoever wrote the bible, knew about those prophecies before they wrote it.

That's not the post I was talking about.

This one is: 9

And I think, Paul's advice is appropriate here:

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

And I won't even mention the next verse --

 

[AV1611VET]

What is most telling is that the supposed prophecies attributed to Jesus regarding his return have yet to happen.

Ya -- we call those: unfulfilled prophecies.

Prophecies regarding proposed events can be self fulfilling as long as specific details are not included.

Self-fulling a prophecy can be done at the rate of a dime a dozen.

The trick is to keep them from happening.

Once again, here is one of my favorite quotes, from Adam Clarke, concerning King Josiah:

1 Kings 13:2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

This is one of the most remarkable and most singular prophecies in the Old Testament. It here most circumstantially foretells a fact which took place three hundred and forty years after the prediction; a fact which was attested by the two nations. The Jews, in whose behalf this prophecy was delivered, would guard it most sacredly; and it was the interest of the Israelites, against whom it was levelled, to impugn its authenticity and expose its falsehood, had this been possible. This prediction not only showed the knowledge of God, but his power. He gave, as it were, this warning to idolatry, that it might be on its guard, and defend itself against this Josiah whenever a person of that name should be found sitting on the throne of David; and no doubt it was on the alert, and took all prudent measures for its own defence; but all in vain, for Josiah, in the eighteenth year of his reign, literally accomplished this prophecy, as we may read, 2Ki 23:15-20.

 

[Darkeonz]

That's not the post I was talking about.

This one is: 9

And I think, Paul's advice is appropriate here:

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

And I won't even mention the next verse --

And then we are back to my original question once again. How many times do you want to go in circles? I'll keep going till you give me a straight answer or till you put your tail between your legs (again)


You are using verses from the bible to tell me why you believe in the verses in the bible. I asked you how you went from believing in a god to believing in those very verses you quote

 

[AV1611VET]

And then we are back to my original question once again. How many times do you want to go in circles? I'll keep going till you give me a straight answer or till you put your tail between your legs (again)


You are using verses from the bible to tell me why you believe in the verses in the bible. I asked you how you went from believing in a god to believing in those very verses you quote

I'll put my tail between my legs (again).

But for the record, I don't buy that circular-logic-is-wrong junk; since science verifies science.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Ya -- we call those: unfulfilled prophecies.

Self-fulling a prophecy can be done at the rate of a dime a dozen.

That's an understatement. Was it your intention to support our statements?

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

 

[Darkeonz]

I'll put my tail between my legs (again).

That doesn't surprise me. It would probably be the best thing for you to do

But for the record, I don't buy that circular-logic-is-wrong junk; since science verifies science.

That's a generalisation of the word science. Lots of hypothesis's gets rejected by science because they are not supported by enough evidence. To say science verifies science indicates that all science that is put on the table is accepted.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I'll put my tail between my legs (again).

But for the record, I don't buy that circular-logic-is-wrong junk; since science verifies science.

Insofar as it's demonstrable and independently verifiable.

Otherwise, circular arguments are circular.

You would have thought that it would be easy to answer a question regarding that which you hold to be more important than anything else in your life.

 

[Ar Cosc]

AV, can you at least admit that for a fledgeling religion, it would have been of benefit to stretch the truth, or simply make stuff up about your leader, to attract more followers?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I'll put my tail between my legs (again).

But for the record, I don't buy that circular-logic-is-wrong junk; since science verifies science.

Circular logic is fallacious. It simply is not a logical statement to have a premise be the exact same statement as the conclusion. If you want to demonstrate a point, you can't use the point as your evidence!

Science does not permit this. You need evidence for a claim, and the claim itself does not count as evidence.

If you want to show that the Bible is correct, you can't use a premise that presumes the Bible to be correct already. Like, "the Bible is correct, because this Bible verse says so."

 

[Golden Yak]

I see a lot of people claiming something as complex as the life here on earth must have a creator. Now my question is for those who claim the God of the Bible is the one. How do you make the leap from there having to be a creator, to the creator being the God of the Bible?

I don't know that many Christians start believing generally in a God first, and then later on read the Bible and decide 'ah, this must be about the Guy.' I'm sure there are those that do, but I think it's likely that most of them come to believe the Bible first, either by reading it or hearing it from someone else, and then from there believe in the God it speaks of. That's been my experience.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

I see a lot of people claiming something as complex as the life here on earth must have a creator. Now my question is for those who claim the God of the Bible is the one. How do you make the leap from there having to be a creator, to the creator being the God of the Bible?

Why not? Further how is it a "leap"?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Why not? Further how is it a "leap"?

Because there are tons of options. Why is the Christian God better than the others?

 

[Golden Yak]

Because there are tons of options. Why is the Christian God better than the others?

Or rather, 'why is He more believable than the others?'