Stories are my business too. I live by them. The Bible is full of them. Yes, I would love to continue to frame our discussion based on the stories we know.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
you read stories -- good for you.
Stories are my business -- care to discuss a few?
That is the best way! I want ALL the information when I am dealing with such important issue.Quote by rjc
Sure, I'll stick it on the end of my backlog of books to get through
Be aware that I'll be reading it alongside with a published rebuttal.
That is the best way! I want ALL the information when I am dealing with such important issue.
I verify Citizenship/legal residence (U.S. Dept of Homeland Security), criminal records, income, assets, expenses, etc. in order to approve federal funds for housing.
If I mess up with verifications my butt is in big trouble! Because something looks like it is truth and can be very convincing, does not mean it is truth. I have learned to rely on evidence quite a bit.
posted by sdmsanjose http://www.christianforums.com/t7548635-20/#post57198560
That is the best way! I want ALL the information when I am dealing with such important issue.
I verify Citizenship/legal residence (U.S. Dept of Homeland Security), criminal records, income, assets, expenses, etc. in order to approve federal funds for housing.
If I mess up with verifications my butt is in big trouble! Because something looks like it is truth and can be very convincing, does not mean it is truth. I have learned to rely on evidence quite a bit.
Reply by rjc
Then I'm sure you can see why I hold the position that I do on this all-important issue, right?
Rjc
Faith in the belief that God loves you and while we were in sin He sent Christ to die for us, and then raised Him from the dead so that you and I can be reconciled back to God upon our death will never be a fact that will be verified in our lifetime. Faith and a fact that has been verified are not the same.
REPLY BY rjc
And I guess that's where the split is between most believers and non-believers. I tried faith for a while, but I became concerned not with what I wanted to be true, but what was objectively true.
Classical Atheism and Liberal Christianity versus Conservative Christianity
This thread has been a very explicit statement of the Atheism and Liberal Christianity versus Conservative Christianity.
I am proud when Atheists call be a bigot and criticize me for taking a strong stand on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Atheists do not like the concept of "The wages of sin is death", because that means they should be executed for their evil deeds.
Atheists are usually socialists and pacifists, that oppose war and the death penalty, because they are the ones that should be executed. Opposition to the death penalty is a survival concept for evil people.
I do not believe Christians that allow evil people to advocate, condone and participate in sinful activity are in God's will.
When I say, the only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing, I am stating that the good men that are doing nothing are people that call themselves Christians.
The Bible does state that disobedient children should be brought before the elders. I believe those that reject the concept of bringing disobedient children before the elders are rejecting God. In present day, legal system that would be to bring the disobedient child before a judge. I have never advocated disobedient children should be executed every time they are brought before a judge as the Atheists would state, but one must always keep open the option that some children are so disobedient that they should be executed.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
Christians need to read the Old Testament to understand how God intended a nation be governed in order for the nation to remain a Christian Nation. If Christians fail to govern, then I believe God will take the nation from the Christians.
Even the New Testament of the Bible, state that a man that does not provide for his family is worse than a infidel. Are Christians to condone people that are infidels or should Christians support Civil Law that deals with infidels, even to the point of execution?
PS - I do not agree with faith guardian position that Christians should be pacifists. I believe Christians have a responsibility of waging war on those that would advocate evil concepts. If Christians had not fought in WW II, Norway would probably be nothing more than an iron mine for the Nazis. I believe faith guardians concept of Christians is the Liberal Christian position.
I advocate the three levels of action relative to evil, and that means the death penalty and war should be kept open as an option.
I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - rebuke it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.
The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world. No one should be forced to be a Christian, but all should be judged by Civil Law based on Christian Principles. All rebuke by Christians should be based on scripture from the Bible.
Tolerance is allowing for a mistake. Too much tolerance is a mistake. Tolerance is allowing for a mistake, too much tolerance is accepting an habitual mistake (Atheistic Lifestyle of sin).
PS The theme of the Bible is a God of both Love and Righteousness. Too many people that call themselves Christians will only discuss the Love of God. I consider those that will only discuss the concept of a God of Love to be Liberal Christians.
PS - It drives Atheists crazy when you show America was founded as a Christian Nation, even though America did lie to the Muslims in the Treaty of Tripoli.
Having said the above I do believe that Christianity does not require blind faith in all things. For example there are some pretty good historical records (other than the Bible) that state there really was a Jesus Christ that was crucified on the cross. This information came from Roman records and Jewish historians that would not be inclined to endorse such evidence. The book, “New Evidence That Demands a Verdict” has archeological, geological, and historic presentations that substantiate some of the biblical claims. Many of those presentations are not from the Christian religions but from secular sources.
Rjc, I am interested in your studies at the university. I hope that you will share them with us when you can.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html
Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus
Is It Reliable?
Jeffery Jay Lowder
Last Updated: May 15, 2000
Although I agree with McDowell that there was a historical Jesus, I shall argue that most of McDowell's sources do not provide independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.
There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus.[3] On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the Christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q.'[4]
sdmsanjose replyRjc reply
Also, mind if I make the small request of your replies being in plain text? It's a bit of a pain sorting through all of those tags to find the text I want to reply to!
Reply by Abraham
Here's the problem as I see it. So faith is required for salvation, right? Eh Protestants?
Does faith require some particular action or decision? Perhaps it is the decision to forego what might have been but turned out not to be a rager. Perhaps it is the decision not to sleep with one's GF. Perhaps it is the decision to pray and ask for forgiveness.
If my salvation is based, ultimately, on my decision to act or speak or think in a particular way, then the theology being presented is one of works righteousness.
Sure, sure, God might be responsible for amplifying my paltry prayers into something worthy of salvation. But, if without MY ACTIONS and MY DECISION salvation cannot be brought to pass, then I am the one who is ultimately responsible for salvation
You have to choose, folks, does God save us because God loves humankind and is gracious to us? Or does God save only those who deserve salvation owing to their own righteousness?
That is the fundamental flaw of contemporary fundamentalisms. They mistake the inches deep pool of their own penitence and reverence for the deeps of God's love. They hold onto only those things that they can control and count God as an amplifier of their actions, instead of the One who acts for us to save us.
Reply by sdmsanjose
Here are a few verses that address salvation
John 3:15-17 (King James Version)
15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ephesians 2:8-10 (King James Version)
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast
In my opinion Gods grace comes first then our faith. So for me it is a two person ordeal; God and you. That is just my opinion and I would recommend you studying the scriptures with prayer to have your own conclusion.
Here's the problem as I see it. So faith is required for salvation, right? Eh Protestants?
Does faith require some particular action or decision? Perhaps it is the decision to forego what might have been but turned out not to be a rager. Perhaps it is the decision not to sleep with one's GF. Perhaps it is the decision to pray and ask for forgiveness.
If my salvation is based, ultimately, on my decision to act or speak or think in a particular way, then the theology being presented is one of works righteousness.
Sure, sure, God might be responsible for amplifying my paltry prayers into something worthy of salvation. But, if without MY ACTIONS and MY DECISION salvation cannot be brought to pass, then I am the one who is ultimately responsible for salvation
You have to choose, folks, does God save us because God loves humankind and is gracious to us? Or does God save only those who deserve salvation owing to their own righteousness?
That is the fundamental flaw of contemporary fundamentalisms. They mistake the inches deep pool of their own penitence and reverence for the deeps of God's love. They hold onto only those things that they can control and count God as an amplifier of their actions, instead of the One who acts for us to save us.
Sdmsanjose reply
I see no reason to disagree with Infidel.org on the above statements. We all agree that there was an historical Jesus. That is one of the main reasons that I recommend Evidence t That Demands a Verdict is to show that Jesus was not a fictional character. I did not know that even those that oppose the Bible agree that Jesus was real. Thanks rjc for that link as it encouraging.
My reading of the ETDV talks about ISSUES such as [/I]
Adultery, obedience to Authority, Character development, parenting, nature and revelation of God. It seems that Infidel.org is not talking about the subject matter (ISSUES) that ETDV is talking about.
It seems that two MAIN issues above are agreed upon by Infidlels.org and ETDV. Those two issues are:
Jesus was a real live person that existed
The Bible is Unique
As for the topics of:
Jesus is the son of God and is the messiah that died so that all can have a chance a being reconciled back to God
God raised Jesus from the grave
The two above comes down to mostly faith and it would be futile for me to try and prove this with evidence.
sdmsanjose reply
I dont mind at all and I would be glad to accommodate your request but I do not know how. I type my post in MS-WORD then paste into Christian Forums. I color code the text so that I can keep straight who is saying what. If you can give me step by step instructions on how to accommodate you while using MS-Word I would do it.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
I have studied the scriptures, and do study the scriptures, and have come to the conclusion that there is a difficult theological sticky-wicket as regards salvation.Reply by sdmsanjose
Here are a few verses that address salvation
John 3:15-17 (King James Version)
15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ephesians 2:8-10 (King James Version)
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast
In my opinion God’s grace comes first then our faith. So for me it is a two person ordeal; God and you. That is just my opinion and I would recommend you studying the scriptures with prayer to have your own conclusion.
It's not that we oppose the bible, but more like we enjoy some of the teachings and literature in it. We do not however believe any of the supernatural claims made though.
(And although almost all of us have the opinion that there may have been a historical Jesus, I also express doubts as to most of the claims about his life. That said there are many different hypotheses about the story that I love to research and look into, as I find them very interesting! Of course my favorite is the Jesus Mushroom hypothesis)
I think the main reason they skipped those parts is that the book is supposed to be evidence for a historical Jesus who did the things documented in the Bible... I see no reason why they should cover any of these others things in such a book.
I think most atheists believe that there was some sort of Jewish rabbi named Jesus who preached around the time he lived, or that perhaps he even did claim to be the messiah (of which there were many, many claims at the time).
And there's my stumbling block. I'm glad you're at least humble enough to admit that these two claims are not backed by evidence, and must be taken on faith. There a some out there (such as famous apologist William Lane Craig) who make futile attempts to argue that Jesus physically rising from the grave is the best explanation for the evidence... (And for a rebuttal to that I'd recommend any of the recent books by Bart Ehrman).
I physically cannot take anything 'on faith'. My brain won't let me.
Oh that's fine then, don't worry about it. Although if you did something different here, it worked, as there was certainly a lot less clutter!
Hope you're having a wonderful day.
sdmsanjose reply
As for the topics of:
Jesus is the son of God and is the messiah that died so that all can have a chance a being reconciled back to God
God raised Jesus from the grave
The two above comes down to mostly faith and it would be futile for me to try and prove this with evidence.
rjc reply
And there's my stumbling block. I'm glad you're at least humble enough to admit that these two claims are not backed by evidence, and must be taken on faith. There a some out there (such as famous apologist William Lane Craig) who make futile attempts to argue that Jesus physically rising from the grave is the best explanation for the evidence... (And for a rebuttal to that I'd recommend any of the recent books by Bart Ehrman).
.Reply by Abraham
Namely, do I need to do some things or say some things or think some things in order to be saved?
Or, on the other hand, does my salvation depend on the gift of God?
In my opinion, people read the John 3 and Romans 10 passages and fail to recognize the radical teaching that God saves us. I do not save myself, I am not even playing John Stockton to God's Karl Malone in salvation pick and roll. God has saved me. Period
IMO William Lane Craig or anybody else that tries to prove that the two Christian beliefs above with explanations and evidence are counterproductive to faith. If we had evidence of that which we claim take faith then it would seize to be faith.
Again I have to have some real life experience in order for me to make the above statement. Let me tell you of my experience. When my son was very little I used to put him up on a block fence and tell him to jump and I would catch him. My little son did not hesitate and jumped and I caught him. He believed and trusted me.
Now what if my little son said, dad you have to show me evidence and prove to me that you are going to catch me or I am not going to jump, that would not be the same. Instead my son jumped because he trusted me and had faith in me that I would catch him. That made me beam. Having to present evidence to him and prove that he was going to be caught would mean that he did not trust me. Furthermore, under the evidence and proof method everyone would be the same to my son because he was guaranteed he would be caught. I would just be another body that guaranteed him safety so that he could get a thrill out of jumping and being caught. Me having to provide proof and evidence to my son would kill the special bond that we have for each other and would be counterproductive to faith.
The trust that my son had in me and my motivation to protect that trust came from somewhere. I say it came from the invention of faith and it was not invented by mankind IMO.
Rjc
You are a very upfront and honest person. I can dig a cat like you Yes I am from the 1950s/1960s!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?