My Journey From Being an Atheist to an Agnostic to an Calvinist Christian

[BL2KTN]

I see. You don't have time to cite references, so you plagiarize in the name of God. Gotcha. You don't know Greek, but you figure out how obvious contradictions in the bible can be nullified with word tricks in the language you don't understand as posited by people you don't know and whose scholarship is ungiven. I see.

It doesn't matter which word for "to buy" is used in Acts, it still says Judas bought the field. It does so when it precedes the verb with the phrase "this man," directly after referring to Judas. It is clear to anybody not dedicated to warping the text that Acts says Judas bought the field. It is also clear that in the middle of the field, his innards burst out and he dropped face-first to the ground. It is clear that there is no writing of him hanging from cliffs, pharisees buying plots of land for him with the money they just gave him, nor of any other preposterous added content.

 

[Faith Unites]

If this "contradiction" caused an issue with my theology I would probably spend more time on understanding it, but I don't so I don't. You are the one that brought it up.

 

[BL2KTN]

And you are the one who tried to defend it, unsuccessfully.

 

[Faith Unites]

Well to keep it simple we can just look at this from a logical perspective. Matthew does not describe the death of Judas only that he hanged himself. Therefore, Acts is not contradicting Matthew. Both things can happen. Contradiction is an assertion of the contrary. That does not happen here.

 

[BL2KTN]

Really? I think the author of Matthew probably felt saying "then he went and hanged himself" described the death of Judas. I could have sworn saying someone was hanged described their death.

But apparently, Judas must have unhanged himself, then bought the field that the Pharisees also purchased with the money that he also gave back to them, then intestinally exploded in that field, the same which had not owned before but now did own, and which is called the Field of Blood for two different reasons. We've exegesised! Now the stories make sense =D

 

[Faith Unites]

Acts is most likely highlighting the graphic nature of what happened to judas after he hanged himself and Matthew just says he hanged himself. The two stories merge quite easily. Judas gave the money back to the pharisee who then bought the potters field with the blood money. Judas then hanged himself in the field , a branch broke and his body burst open when it hit. Judas' deeds bought the field.

 

[BL2KTN]

Acts is most likely highlighting the graphic nature of what happened to judas after he hanged himself and Matthew just says he hanged himself. The two stories merge quite easily.

Ah, I see. So Matthew says he hanged himself, and Acts says nothing of the sort. Acts instead says that his innards burst out on the ground (minus the hanging) because that is way more important than him hanging himself, and that he fell head-long... which is impossible if he hanged himself, but let's add some more magic to make it work. Let's say that when his innards burst out, it also untied the rope at the same time, allowing him to fall head-long to the ground... because not only did the rope untie at the same time, but a gust of wind pushed his head forward at the exact same moment, so that he didn't fall feet first like you would normally expect.

Now we're getting somewhere. But you wanted to add a cliff, right? I forgot to add a cliff to the story.

Judas gave the money back to the pharisee who then bought the potters field with the blood money. Judas then hanged himself in the field , a branch broke and his body burst open when it hit. Judas' deeds bought the field.

I see, so even though Acts says Judas bought the field with the money, he actually secretly used Monopoly money so that the pharisees did in fact buy the field with the money they had given him for betraying Jesus. Then when Judas hanged himself, a limb broke that we're not told about, and because he had been hanging for days which we're not told about, his innards burst out when he hit the ground. Now the reason that he fell head-long probably still needs to be a gust of wind to make this work. It's not there, but he's gotta fall in the middle of the field, so let's ditch the cliff idea and go with wind.

And all of this has to fit together because otherwise people might question that a rib-woman was tricked by a talking snake into giving her dirt-husband a magic fruit that caused us all to have invisible, undetectable badness in our invisible, undetectable ghost-soul-spirits... which is solvable if we telepathically accept Jesus, who was his own dad, as our zombie savior because he sacrificed himself to himself to forgive us for our invisible badness, because he loves us and doesn't want to have to set us on fire for a trillion years like he designed.

Got it.

 

[Faith Unites]

Who Bought the Potter’s Field?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The description of Judas’ death is not the only problem skeptics have with Acts 1:18. Since Matthew 27:5-6 says the chief priests used the betrayal money that Judas threw on the temple floor to purchase the potter’s field, critics contend that a contradiction exists because Acts 1:18 indicates that Judas purchased the field with the blood money. Obviously, Judas could not have purchased the field because he gave the 30 pieces of silver back to the priests before hanging himself. Thus, to say that Judas bought the potter’s field is incorrect…right? Wrong!

I suppose if common sense and unbiased reasoning were omitted from this discussion, then one might conclude that these differences represent a legitimate contradiction. If one believes it is wrong to say a father bought a car for his son, when in actuality the son purchased the car with $5,000 his father gave him, then I suppose that Acts 1:18 and Matthew 27:5-6 are contradictory. If one believes that it is wrong to say an employer purchased a meal for his staff, when it really was one of the employees who handed the money to the waiter, then the events recorded in Acts 1:18 could be considered fictitious. But what reasonable person would reach such conclusions as these?

Acts 1:18 simply informs us that Judas furnished the means of purchasing the field. One is not forced to conclude that Judas personally bought the potter’s field. As in modern-day writings and speeches, it is very common for the Scriptures to represent a man as doing a thing when, in fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. For example, Joseph spoke of his brothers as selling him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5; cf. Acts 7:9), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). John mentions that “the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)” (John 4:1-3). And when the Bible says, “Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him” (John 19:1), most people understand that he simply ordered Jesus to be scourged, not that he actually did the scourging himself. The same principle is recognized in law in the well-known Latin maxim, “Qui facit per alium, facit per se” (“he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself&#8221.

Whether one says that Judas “purchased a field with the wages of iniquity” (Acts 1:18), or that the chief priests “bought with them the potter’s field” (Matthew 27:7), he has stated the same truth, only in different ways.



I'm done talking about this. You win =D

 

[BL2KTN]

Your reference is unpersuasive. Matthew does not say that the priests bought the field and deeded it or gave it to Judas. It simply says they bought the potter's field. In Acts it does not say that Judas received the field from anyone else, but that he himself purchased the field with his money.

However, that's the least of your worries. You've still got the whole hanging versus exploding intestines problem, why it's called the field of blood, how a hanged person can fall head-long, etc, etc, issues to deal with. But I mean, this is one of hundreds and hundreds of legitimate contradictions in the bible. Even just in Matthew, it has Jesus riding on two animals at once because it misreads the Hebrew in the Hebrew bible (whereas the other gospels that refer to it did get the Hebrew prophecy right and have him riding on one animal).

 

[dhh712]

Your reference is unpersuasive. Matthew does not say that the priests bought the field and deeded it or gave it to Judas. It simply says they bought the potter's field. In Acts it does not say that Judas received the field from anyone else, but that he himself purchased the field with his money.

However, that's the least of your worries. You've still got the whole hanging versus exploding intestines problem, why it's called the field of blood, how a hanged person can fall head-long, etc, etc, issues to deal with. But I mean, this is one of hundreds and hundreds of legitimate contradictions in the bible. Even just in Matthew, it has Jesus riding on two animals at once because it misreads the Hebrew in the Hebrew bible (whereas the other gospels that refer to it did get the Hebrew prophecy right and have him riding on one animal).

It seems clear to me that you state you believe there are contradictions in the Bible. I think it is also clear that we have our reasons for believing that though they may seem like contradictions, they aren't (to our perspective). Ultimately, this doesn't have much to do with our main concern here which is our wish for all to know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. From what I can tell, one of your reasons for not doing so is that there are contradictions in the Bible (there well may be other reasons, but that is the one apparent to me from your statements here).

Your icon designates you are a Deist so you have come to the understanding that a god has created the world; I would imagine that you have come to this partly based on some logical thought-progression which does not contain any contradictions to your understanding (though maybe it was something else, I for sure cannot know of this). What I'm not sure you understand about the Christian faith--at least, it is not apparent to me in your statements here--is that we do not come to God based on our logical apprehension of Him. We know the God who is revealed to us in the Bible because of His intervention in our lives and we submit completely to the authority of the Bible, which means we understand it to be inerrant, infallible, and the only true description of God's revealed will to us.

I've only stated this to try to get across the idea that, at least with me, presenting logical arguments that promote the idea that the Bible is not infallible will have no consideration with me; I trust that it is true and infallible (though I may not understand how it is at the moment) and that God will reveal how it is that way to me, if it is His will, in His own time. For the moment, I am under complete submission to His authority revealed by His word (that is to say, that my mind will be closed to entertaining the idea that maybe there contains errors in it). Perhaps this may sound close-minded (or something else) to a philosopher who does not know God. Well, that may be to them; it is not a concern with me. My only concern is that they know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour; it won't be had by presenting logical arguments which make that Jesus is God sound like that's about the most reasonable idea out there.

One of the things that changed in me when God intervened in my life is that I no longer have the conviction, concerning the things of God, that what I can logically apprehend of Him is what is the truth or that only what I am able to bring forth into my mind to make sense is what I will believe concerning God. I realized that when I was this way, I was making myself the authority of truth, I was making myself a god and not submitting to God's authority. If the non-believer could understand this of the Bible-believing Christian, they may have a better understanding of him; maybe not.

 

[now faith]

You know it's strange watching someone spending so much time debating a subject they believe is false.
It is as if they seek to be vindicated in their thoughts.

They want to know what drives the Christian faith,to feel the faith in their heart the same way Christians do.
So it is a relentless pursuit to demand that a Christian give them the fulfilment that only God can give.
A person is so very out of balance when they rely only on their human comprehension,and have no discernment of spiritual things.


Romans: 8. 5. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. - Bible Offline

 

[BL2KTN]

It seems clear to me that you state you believe there are contradictions in the Bible. I think it is also clear that we have our reasons for believing that though they may seem like contradictions, they aren't (to our perspective). Ultimately, this doesn't have much to do with our main concern here which is our wish for all to know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. From what I can tell, one of your reasons for not doing so is that there are contradictions in the Bible (there well may be other reasons, but that is the one apparent to me from your statements here).

The only things you "know" about Yeshua, whom you call Jesus, come from the New Testament. The New Testament is a collection of writings, selected by a man named Iraneaus and then canonized later with some changes by the Roman Empire's request for a physical collection of Christian scripture. The gospels which you use to know about Yeshua were selected from over thirty other gospels - four of those other gospels were Jewish gospels cited by church fathers. They were not only kept out of the bible, but they were destroyed. The gospels selected instead are obvious hoaxes - books which pretend to be written by direct, Jewish observers, but which repeatedly mess up Jewish traditions, laws, customs, etc, all while trying to explain them to Roman gentile audiences. One of the worst examples that I often give is that the author of Matthew can't read Hebrew, and thus has Jesus ride two animals at once into Jerusalem because he messed up the meaning of "and" and "even" when reading a supposed prophecy. It's silly.

The reason you have four gospels? Iraneaus thought that since there were four winds (there aren't), there should be four gospels. And it wasn't enough to exclude other accounts of what really happened... they destroyed the other accounts. What you have left are four books that agreed with what people like Iraneaus wanted - even if they contradict one another, mess up geography, Jewish information, etc, they support the theology he wanted.

Your icon designates you are a Deist so you have come to the understanding that a god has created the world; I would imagine that you have come to this partly based on some logical thought-progression which does not contain any contradictions to your understanding (though maybe it was something else, I for sure cannot know of this). What I'm not sure you understand about the Christian faith--at least, it is not apparent to me in your statements here--is that we do not come to God based on our logical apprehension of Him. We know the God who is revealed to us in the Bible because of His intervention in our lives and we submit completely to the authority of the Bible, which means we understand it to be inerrant, infallible, and the only true description of God's revealed will to us.

What you are saying has not one shred of evidence, but is presented as the same reasons that Muslims follow the Quran, Mormons follow the Book of Mormon, etc. I'm not opposed to the occasional miracle, but the idea that the Creator is intervening in your life on a regular basis is delusional. There are those who will try to say such - Heissonear is one example - but then when you ask them for any sort of detail, they frolic until the coast is clear to perpetuate the same story sans available, corroborating evidence.

I've only stated this to try to get across the idea that, at least with me, presenting logical arguments that promote the idea that the Bible is not infallible will have no consideration with me; I trust that it is true and infallible (though I may not understand how it is at the moment) and that God will reveal how it is that way to me, if it is His will, in His own time. For the moment, I am under complete submission to His authority revealed by His word (that is to say, that my mind will be closed to entertaining the idea that maybe there contains errors in it). Perhaps this may sound close-minded (or something else) to a philosopher who does not know God. Well, that may be to them; it is not a concern with me. My only concern is that they know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour; it won't be had by presenting logical arguments which make that Jesus is God sound like that's about the most reasonable idea out there.

You call him Jesus when that wasn't even his name. You might as well call him Bob the Lord and Savior. His name was Yeshua, not Jesus. At the same time, you tell us all that you're uninterested in logic. That's fine, but please don't be offended if you are taken seriously by zero persons. Let's say somebody comes up to me and says the following:

"I'd like to build a house for you, but I won't be using logic. Instead I will be using ancient, Mediterranean texts on architecture and trusting they are right no matter what."

I would respond to them, "What is wrong with you? No, you're not building anything for me. That is insane."

But you don't want to build a house. You want people to adopt a book that tells them how to build their entire lives. And that makes it even more crazy. You're not asking people to throw logic away in regards to driving, building, or personal hygiene. You're asking people to throw logic to the side to believe a book that instructs rapists to purchase their rape victims according to Yahweh.

One of the things that changed in me when God intervened in my life is that I no longer have the conviction, concerning the things of God, that what I can logically apprehend of Him is what is the truth or that only what I am able to bring forth into my mind to make sense is what I will believe concerning God. I realized that when I was this way, I was making myself the authority of truth, I was making myself a god and not submitting to God's authority. If the non-believer could understand this of the Bible-believing Christian, they may have a better understanding of him; maybe not.

You have not submitted to God - you have submitted to the parts of the bible you find applicable and according to the way you and your church find them usable. God says to not let a sorceress live, yet you're not out there killing witches. You'll say "that part is gone," or "that doesn't apply to me," event though Yeshua said not one dot of one letter would be made void.

The bible says there is as raqia above us - a hard, dome-like structure - that holds back the rain. You don't believe that because you've seen and heard of airplanes and satellites. So, my guess is you'll find anyway you can to deny that the bible says it, even though it absolutely does. You'll do that because this isn't about the truth... it's about your belief being right because you want it to be right so badly. It's too uncomfortable to change.

 

[BL2KTN]

You know it's strange watching someone spending so much time debating a subject they believe is false.
It is as if they seek to be vindicated in their thoughts.

Both sides think the other's side is false. You must find debates very strange.

They want to know what drives the Christian faith,to feel the faith in their heart the same way Christians do.
So it is a relentless pursuit to demand that a Christian give them the fulfilment that only God can give.
A person is so very out of balance when they rely only on their human comprehension,and have no discernment of spiritual things.

No. I am a deist and I believe in the Creator. Try again.

When you have something to actually add to the discussion, I'll be happy to bounce ideas with you.

 

[dhh712]

The only things you "know" about Yeshua, whom you call Jesus, come from the New Testament.

The entire Bible is a description of Jesus.

What you are saying has not one shred of evidence, but is presented as the same reasons that Muslims follow the Quran, Mormons follow the Book of Mormon, etc. I'm not opposed to the occasional miracle, but the idea that the Creator is intervening in your life on a regular basis is delusional. There are those who will try to say such - Heissonear is one example - but then when you ask them for any sort of detail, they frolic until the coast is clear to perpetuate the same story sans available, corroborating evidence.

Evidence will not bring about the knowledge that Jesus is God. The intervention I am talking about is that God condescended to me and regenerated my dead spirit.

you tell us all that you're uninterested in logic. That's fine, but please don't be offended if you are taken seriously by zero persons. Let's say somebody comes up to me and says the following:

"I'd like to build a house for you, but I won't be using logic. Instead I will be using ancient, Mediterranean texts on architecture and trusting they are right no matter what."

I would respond to them, "What is wrong with you? No, you're not building anything for me. That is insane."

But you don't want to build a house. You want people to adopt a book that tells them how to build their entire lives. And that makes it even more crazy. You're not asking people to throw logic away in regards to driving, building, or personal hygiene. You're asking people to throw logic to the side to believe a book that instructs rapists to purchase their rape victims according to Yahweh.

Many Christians can use logic to present an argument for God; I'm not one of them. I use logic to deal with things of the world. I do not have the ability to logically apprehend God completely or to present a logical case for the Gospel. That will not be what brings about belief anyway.

The bible says there is as raqia above us - a hard, dome-like structure - that holds back the rain. You don't believe that because you've seen and heard of airplanes and satellites. So, my guess is you'll find anyway you can to deny that the bible says it, even though it absolutely does.

It's not about what I know in terms of evidence, but what I trust and what I have been given to understand from God. You can continue to think I haven't submitted to God, yet He alone knows what is in my heart. It is no use to speculate. It seems that you have a different idea of who God is (from a source other than the Bible). Since you do not believe the Bible is the word of God though (or at least, it certainly seems that you don't believe it is), you disregard it for some other form of revelation. Apparently, you seek to try to demonstrate why my belief is contradictory and/or does not come from God, and all you present are reasons as for why I should understand it as such. Again, that is of no concern to me. I have already said what my only concern is.

You'll do that because this isn't about the truth... it's about your belief being right because you want it to be right so badly. It's too uncomfortable to change.

If that is what you want to believe. The belief I've been given is the only way to be in communion eternally with the Biblical God; it doesn't matter if I want it to be that way--that is the way stated in the Bible, which I am convicted is the holy word of God. I suspect you might try to demonstrate other reasons as to why you imagine my belief is contradictory (and it may appear very clearly to you that it is). Truth cannot be had in any other way outside of the Bible, no matter if we understand it or not or if it appears contradictory to us (or if examples are given as to how someone appears to have beliefs that are contradictory to what is stated in the Bible).

 

[BL2KTN]

The entire Bible is a description of Jesus.

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. -- Deu 22:28-29 NLT

Being forced to marry your rapist... is that a description of Jesus?

Evidence will not bring about the knowledge that Jesus is God. The intervention I am talking about is that God condescended to me and regenerated my dead spirit.

Any proof of that, or is this all invisible, undetectable, magical nonsense?

Many Christians can use logic to present an argument for God; I'm not one of them. I use logic to deal with things of the world. I do not have the ability to logically apprehend God completely or to present a logical case for the Gospel. That will not be what brings about belief anyway.

Well I can tell you that I'm not believing anything without logic and reason. So good luck.

It's not about what I know in terms of evidence, but what I trust and what I have been given to understand from God. You can continue to think I haven't submitted to God, yet He alone knows what is in my heart. It is no use to speculate. It seems that you have a different idea of who God is (from a source other than the Bible). Since you do not believe the Bible is the word of God though (or at least, it certainly seems that you don't believe it is), you disregard it for some other form of revelation. Apparently, you seek to try to demonstrate why my belief is contradictory and/or does not come from God, and all you present are reasons as for why I should understand it as such. Again, that is of no concern to me. I have already said what my only concern is.

Yes, you are rather like a person holding dynamite, preparing to light the fuse, and refusing to listen to reason because it means nothing to you. If you are impervious to truth, facts, knowledge, wisdom, reality, reason, logic, etc, then we will find little to converse about.

If that is what you want to believe. The belief I've been given is the only way to be in communion eternally with the Biblical God; it doesn't matter if I want it to be that way--that is the way stated in the Bible, which I am convicted is the holy word of God. I suspect you might try to demonstrate other reasons as to why you imagine my belief is contradictory (and it may appear very clearly to you that it is). Truth cannot be had in any other way outside of the Bible, no matter if we understand it or not or if it appears contradictory to us (or if examples are given as to how someone appears to have beliefs that are contradictory to what is stated in the Bible).

Let me very clear about this: the god, Yahweh, found in the bible fits every definition of the term "evil". He is misogynistic, genocidal, infanticidal, racist, sadistic, and more. The bible (whichever version you have) was edited and compiled first by very different Hebrew priests, each trying to mold it into his beliefs. Eventually a New Testament was put together, this time by a man called Iranaeus, who chose books based on his belief in the four corners of the earth and the four winds.

Now, let's drop the charade for a moment. You obviously are not an idiot in that you can use the English language to type a message. So, I want you to answer a very important question:

Is there, or is there not, a solid domed structure in the sky that holds rain water back?

It is a very simple question. Yes or no.

 

[Cearbhall]

You know it's strange watching someone spending so much time debating a subject they believe is false.
It is as if they seek to be vindicated in their thoughts.

What you're observing is called "education" and the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.

Some of the statements I see on this website are so strange. Never before in my life have I been asked why on Earth I would want to talk to people who have different beliefs than myself and discuss concepts and philosophies with which I disagree.

 

[now faith]

Both sides think the other's side is false. You must find debates very strange.



No. I am a deist and I believe in the Creator. Try again.

When you have something to actually add to the discussion, I'll be happy to bounce ideas with you.

I would assume you could believe yourself as the creator,since natural theology is based
On human observation.

It appears to be a ancedotal theology with no foundation except the individuals feelings about good and evil.

You refute the Bible because you think it is not true.
Have you ever considered the prophetic truth between Old and New Testament?
Have you ever considered the odds of one man fulfilling only a few of the prophecies in the
Time span that transpired between them?

You would site that all cultures have a deity of sorts.
Instead of thinking all are wrong we can not rule out that only one is correct.

Or maybe we are subject to how we feel about God and his role we allow him to have.

 

[Cearbhall]

Have you ever considered the prophetic truth between Old and New Testament?

There's also prophetic truth between Star Wars movies. It's just literature to us, perhaps with certain historical events being construed to resemble ancient prophecies.

 

[dhh712]

Yes, you are rather like a person holding dynamite, preparing to light the fuse, and refusing to listen to reason because it means nothing to you. If you are impervious to truth, facts, knowledge, wisdom, reality, reason, logic, etc, then we will find little to converse about.

That would be correct in conversing about God (in that I understand reason cannot apprehend Him; therefore if something does not seem reasonable in what is taught in the Bible, it is that He has not given it to me to understand that about Him yet and I will wait on the Lord to reveal it to me in His own time). My only basis for my understanding of Him is what is in the Bible. I don't know of the things you are talking about in it, except what you have said here of the law; I don't think you understand it very well. Regardless of what you say about that--likely, you have to your understanding a very thorough understanding of it--until you humble yourself and submit to the authority of the Lord of all then I will not discuss particular matters of it with someone who considers it false. If only for that I am just beginning to study the Bible, so have not a thorough and complete knowledge of it except that which the Lord has given me to understand. It really doesn't interest me to discuss biblical concepts with someone who does not consider it to be the true word of God with their objective seemingly to point out errors and contradictions. I approach the word of God with the conviction that there are no errors and contradictions in it, regardless of anything else I understand of it. When others approach it with the possibility of it containing errors and contradictions, they place their authority for truth in something outside of it.

I have stated my purpose in speaking with you here. What I have perceived in your replies to mine are demonstrations of why I am incorrect in my beliefs or that they are contradictory. Would you care to tell me what your purpose is in telling me these things?

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. -- Deu 22:28-29 NLT

Being forced to marry your rapist... is that a description of Jesus?

At the late hour I was rushed in my message--the whole Bible contains descriptions of Jesus, not just the four Gospels in the New Testament; I had thought something like this might be your reply, but was too anxious to go to sleep to have it be too much of a concern. Some like to read Christ into every verse, but that seems not to be how it is.

Any proof of that, or is this all invisible, undetectable, magical nonsense?

There will never be any proof of it which can be perceived by any of the physical senses.

Well I can tell you that I'm not believing anything without logic and reason.

Then you will never believe in the God of the Bible.

Let me very clear about this: the god, Yahweh, found in the bible fits every definition of the term "evil". He is misogynistic, genocidal, infanticidal, racist, sadistic, and more. The bible (whichever version you have) was edited and compiled first by very different Hebrew priests, each trying to mold it into his beliefs. Eventually a New Testament was put together, this time by a man called Iranaeus, who chose books based on his belief in the four corners of the earth and the four winds.

I continue to regard this as more demonstrations of someone who does not know God; therefore, they will have no effect on what I believe concerning the Bible. My belief in it does not rest upon what something of the world has given me to understand, though you may perceive that differently.

Now, let's drop the charade for a moment. You obviously are not an idiot in that you can use the English language to type a message. So, I want you to answer a very important question:

Is there, or is there not, a solid domed structure in the sky that holds rain water back?

It is a very simple question. Yes or no.

I will choose not to answer it since I think you already know the answer (though if this is what God has given me to understand from reading His word, I would believe it without question). The logical conclusion, I would imagine, you would derive from that is that my beliefs are contradictory or partial. That my belief may seem like a charade to you seems to have been demonstrated already in your other posts. My purpose in writing to you is not to dissuade you from that idea; I'm not here to win an argument. I have already told you what my purpose in speaking to you is. I would like to know what yours is.

You refute the Bible because you think it is not true.
Have you ever considered the prophetic truth between Old and New Testament?
Have you ever considered the odds of one man fulfilling only a few of the prophecies in the
Time span that transpired between them?

None of these things will convict a non-believer of the truth of the Bible. As someone stated, they will believe it is just a book that was written like any other book and that is why everything in it is correct (if someone does happen to convince them by logical arguments that everything in it is correct). It is the belief which I had before God intervened in my life.

 

[BL2KTN]

I would assume you could believe yourself as the creator,since natural theology is based
On human observation.

Since I did not create what I observe, that would be incredibly stupid.

It appears to be a ancedotal theology with no foundation except the individuals feelings about good and evil.

I'm a deist, not a natural theologian.

You refute the Bible because you think it is not true.
Have you ever considered the prophetic truth between Old and New Testament?
Have you ever considered the odds of one man fulfilling only a few of the prophecies in the
Time span that transpired between them?

I have considered them, I have studied them, I have found they are not impressive. I've given the example of where Matthew sees a prophecy in the Old Testament, so he tries to have Jesus fulfill it. Unfortunately, the author of Matthew can't read Hebrew very well, so he mixes up the words "even" and "and"... the result? Jesus ends up riding two animals at once in the book of Matthew, but one in all the other gospels. I have an entire 1,000 word post about prophecies in the Formal Debate "The Bible is Not the Inspired Word of God" -- see my signature.

You would site that all cultures have a deity of sorts.
Instead of thinking all are wrong we can not rule out that only one is correct.

Or maybe we are subject to how we feel about God and his role we allow him to have.

Your god is a mix of two gods: El, the chief god of the Canaanites, and Yahweh, a war god of the Canaanites worshiped in Judah. I rule them out. You can see why by clicking on the link in my signature.

That would be correct in conversing about God (in that I understand reason cannot apprehend Him; therefore if something does not seem reasonable in what is taught in the Bible, it is that He has not given it to me to understand that about Him yet and I will wait on the Lord to reveal it to me in His own time). My only basis for my understanding of Him is what is in the Bible. I don't know of the things you are talking about in it, except what you have said here of the law; I don't think you understand it very well.

I understand you think God is beyond comprehension, but why do you believe the god found in the bible is the one? Why not Zeus or Thor? Why not Allah? Why not the god of the Book of Mormon?

And as for my knowledge of the law in the bible, I have a degree in biblical studies. I understand the law, I gave you an example of a very specific law in which a rape victim must marry her rapist, and you ignored it. This is what you do when you see things in the bible that even you know can't be right. You pick and choose.

Regardless of what you say about that--likely, you have to your understanding a very thorough understanding of it--until you humble yourself and submit to the authority of the Lord of all then I will not discuss particular matters of it with someone who considers it false. If only for that I am just beginning to study the Bible, so have not a thorough and complete knowledge of it except that which the Lord has given me to understand.

So let me get this straight... you're trying to convince me to believe in a god which you only know about through a bible which you have yet to truly study. You don't know jack squat about the thing you're trying to convince me is true. How the heck can you even do that with a straight face?

It really doesn't interest me to discuss biblical concepts with someone who does not consider it to be the true word of God with their objective seemingly to point out errors and contradictions. I approach the word of God with the conviction that there are no errors and contradictions in it, regardless of anything else I understand of it. When others approach it with the possibility of it containing errors and contradictions, they place their authority for truth in something outside of it.

You haven't studied it, so how in the world could you possibly even know what you think about it? It's like a kindergartner telling me what her favorite Dr. Seuss book is before anybody's read it to her.

I have stated my purpose in speaking with you here. What I have perceived in your replies to mine are demonstrations of why I am incorrect in my beliefs or that they are contradictory. Would you care to tell me what your purpose is in telling me these things?

To have you actually use that very powerful, God-given brain between your ears rather than exist as a mindless follower, spouting absolute nonsense and buffoonery from the Bronze Age in order to affect the world that I happen to also live in.

You believe in something you don't even know or understand. There is no possible way for you to follow the god of the bible, because you haven't read the bible to see what kind of god it is.

At the late hour I was rushed in my message--the whole Bible contains descriptions of Jesus, not just the four Gospels in the New Testament; I had thought something like this might be your reply, but was too anxious to go to sleep to have it be too much of a concern. Some like to read Christ into every verse, but that seems not to be how it is.

I see. You thought seeing something like God commanding rapists to marry their victims might be my reply? I very much don't think you had any idea something like that was in there. I could give you hundreds of examples of such evil.

There will never be any proof of it which can be perceived by any of the physical senses.

Then it is purposefully hidden.

Then you will never believe in the God of the Bible.

Correct. I will believe in God, just not three-thousand year old Canaanite gods known as El and Yawheh, which you think are real. Somehow, out of over seventy other Canaanite gods, you've decided those two mixed together should be the creator.

I continue to regard this as more demonstrations of someone who does not know God; therefore, they will have no effect on what I believe concerning the Bible. My belief in it does not rest upon what something of the world has given me to understand, though you may perceive that differently.

You haven't read the bible, so the idea that you could even pretend to determine if someone knows the god from that book is ridiculous. I would give you an F in a bible course, probably while you told me that the grade is something from the world.

I will choose not to answer it since I think you already know the answer (though if this is what God has given me to understand from reading His word, I would believe it without question).

Okay, so you're not going to answer the question, and we all know it has everything to do with not wanting to get it wrong (not because you think I know the answer). Additionally, you're telling us that if the bible says there is a firmament in the sky that holds back the rain water (and it does), then you will believe it without question.

Alright, let's try that then:

7 God made the dome and divided the water under the dome from the water above the dome; that is how it was, 8 and God called the dome Sky. So there was evening, and there was morning, a second day. -- Genesis 1:7-8

So, you must now believe that the sky is a dome, holding back the rain water from the ground water. And to believe that, you're going to have to make some changes in your life, otherwise we know you're pretending. First, your phone works by using satellites above the planet... however, we know that satellites certainly can't have crashed through the dome, otherwise the water would have all ran out! You need to throw away your cell phone because it is working against the rules of the bible. It must be from Satan. Secondly, you need to never look at the weather forecast again. It pretends that rain comes from clouds and that cloud patterns are somewhat predictable. The truth is that rain comes from a solid dome in the sky (raqia) and that the windows of it are opened to let the water out when clouds pass by. You will need to discard all weather forecasts because they are idiots who don't even realize the sky is a hard dome.

You ready to truly believe the bible?

The logical conclusion, I would imagine, you would derive from that is that my beliefs are contradictory or partial. That my belief may seem like a charade to you seems to have been demonstrated already in your other posts. My purpose in writing to you is not to dissuade you from that idea; I'm not here to win an argument. I have already told you what my purpose in speaking to you is. I would like to know what yours is.

Answered.

None of these things will convict a non-believer of the truth of the Bible. As someone stated, they will believe it is just a book that was written like any other book and that is why everything in it is correct (if someone does happen to convince them by logical arguments that everything in it is correct). It is the belief which I had before God intervened in my life.

God may have intervened in your life, but it wasn't an ancient Canaanite god such as you find in the bible. You haven't read the bible yet, so you can stop telling us how wonderful and perfect it is. It's like reviewing a movie after seeing the trailer.