Why do you believe the Bible?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sigh! RAM you're worse than Job. At least Job believed in God even though God didn't answer his questions.

That's an odd comparison. Job is an "ideal" that most people strive for. If we were talking about painting, your comment would be like saying "Sigh! You're worse than Rembrandt!"

Job is the perfect example of irrational belief. Like you said, God did not answer his questions. Job had no reason to believe that God is good or righteous. Basically, God told him "Shut up you ignorant human!" That does not sound like a "righteous" way to answer, and neither is it a very nice way to talk to people. It certainly does not show any kind of "love" or care that most people attribute to God. And while we are talking about the story of Job, look at how it treats human lives as utterly worthless. God played a game with Satan using human lives like throw-away props. Job's children were all killed for no reason and then merely replaced at the the end of the story as if that made everything better! What about the lives that were destroyed? They don't matter? This God is supposed to be the foundation of OBJECTIVE MORALITY. That means you can't just go around killing people to make a theological point! But that's exactly what the "God" of the Bible did. Why are Christians so blind to the moral abominations attributed to God throughout the Bible?

It's a good thing Job is just a story, rather than real history. Nothing like it ever really happened. It is not historical in any way at all. But then again, it doesn't matter if it's historical or not because it is presenting ideas that are supposed to be "true" about God. And that's a real problem.

[gilgal]

That's an odd comparison. Job is an "ideal" that most people strive for. If we were talking about painting, your comment would be like saying "Sigh! You're worse than Rembrandt!"

Job is the perfect example of irrational belief. Like you said, God did not answer his questions. Job had no reason to believe that God is good or righteous. Basically, God told him "Shut up you ignorant human!" That does not sound like a "righteous" way to answer, and neither is it a very nice way to talk to people. It certainly does not show any kind of "love" or care that most people attribute to God. And while we are talking about the story of Job, look at how it treats human lives as utterly worthless. God played a game with Satan using human lives like throw-away props. Job's children were all killed for no reason and then merely replaced at the the end of the story as if that made everything better! What about the lives that were destroyed? They don't matter? This God is supposed to be the foundation of OBJECTIVE MORALITY. That means you can't just go around killing people to make a theological point! But that's exactly what the "God" of the Bible did. Why are Christians so blind to the moral abominations attributed to God throughout the Bible?

It's a good thing Job is just a story, rather than real history. Nothing like it ever really happened. It is not historical in any way at all. But then again, it doesn't matter if it's historical or not because it is presenting ideas that are supposed to be "true" about God. And that's a real problem.

Ravi Zacharias:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-msCm_NmX3U

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Job is the perfect example of irrational belief. Like you said, God did not answer his questions. Job had no reason to believe that God is good or righteous. Basically, God told him "Shut up you ignorant human!" That does not sound like a "righteous" way to answer, and neither is it a very nice way to talk to people. It certainly does not show any kind of "love" or care that most people attribute to God. And while we are talking about the story of Job, look at how it treats human lives as utterly worthless. God played a game with Satan using human lives like throw-away props. Job's children were all killed for no reason and then merely replaced at the the end of the story as if that made everything better! What about the lives that were destroyed? They don't matter? This God is supposed to be the foundation of OBJECTIVE MORALITY. That means you can't just go around killing people to make a theological point! But that's exactly what the "God" of the Bible did. Why are Christians so blind to the moral abominations attributed to God throughout the Bible?

It's a good thing Job is just a story, rather than real history. Nothing like it ever really happened. It is not historical in any way at all. But then again, it doesn't matter if it's historical or not because it is presenting ideas that are supposed to be "true" about God. And that's a real problem.

Ravi Zacharias:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-msCm_NmX3U

Why did you post that link? Ravi began by asserting that we need God as an example of perfect morality since otherwise we will have nothing to use a standard. But what do we see when we look to the God of the Bible? Do we see examples of OBJECTIVE MORALITY? Of things that are actually "good?" Nope. We see just the opposite. We see God destroying lives in a bet with the Devil. Is that moral?

[TheDivineWatermark]

If "Adamic life" is "cursed" and "Eternal life" is "blessed,"
how is the "taking away" of the "Adamic [cursed] life" and
replacing it with the "Eternal [blessed] life" (by the action of God)
considered "immoral" of Him?

If a murderer enters my home with the intention of killing my family, I would not hesitate to pull the trigger in order to protect my precious family.
The "murderer," in this case, would be considered "immoral" for his evil intentions, but my action in defending my family would not be considered "immoral," even though the end result of both "actions" would have resulted in someone's death.
"Death" is ultimately due to "Sin," in this cursed world, but our good God works all things together FOR GOOD to those who love Him. "Death" does not win, He does (as do those who trust in Him), because He has provided Eternal LIFE, and at great cost to Himself.


Oh, and one more thing...
People die every day, as a result (ultimately) of "Sin" (the Adamic "Sin principle" we've inherited from Adam), but our gracious God offers Eternal LIFE, by grace through faith in the Person and Finished Work of Jesus Christ.




"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have LIFE, and that they might have it more abundantly."
- John 10:10

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If "Adamic life" is "cursed" and "Eternal life" is "blessed,"
how is the "taking away" of the "Adamic [cursed] life" and
replacing it with the "Eternal [blessed] life" (by the action of God)
considered "immoral" of Him?

The morality of actions in this life is not measured by what happens to the victims in the next life. You seem to be thinking along the same lines as William Lane Craig who says that God did no wrong to the children he commanded to be killed because they all went to heaven. If we use that logic, then neither did abortionists do any harm to the children they killed.

The real problem is that God is supposed to be the foundation of all morality. It is argued that without God setting down the law, we would have no justification for any moral judgments. I think this argument is entirely fallacious, but it's worse for Christianity if it is true because many of the actions of the God of the Bible are not "moral" in any sense at all. Therefore, if the Argument for God from Morality is true, then it proves the God of the Bible is not the true God.

If a murderer enters my home with the intention of killing my family, I would not hesitate to pull the trigger in order to protect my precious family.
The "murderer," in this case, would be considered "immoral" for his evil intentions, but my action in defending my family would not be considered "immoral," even though the end result of both "actions" would have resulted in someone's death.
"Death" is ultimately due to "Sin," in this cursed world, but our good God works all things together FOR GOOD to those who love Him. "Death" does not win, He does (as do those who trust in Him), because He has provided Eternal LIFE, and at great cost to Himself.


Oh, and one more thing...
People die every day, as a result (ultimately) of "Sin" (the Adamic "Sin principle" we've inherited from Adam), but our gracious God offers Eternal LIFE, by grace through faith in the Person and Finished Work of Jesus Christ.




"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have LIFE, and that they might have it more abundantly."
- John 10:10

You are assuming that physical death is the penalty for sin. If this were true, then why would Christians (who have had all their sins forgiven) still die? We discussed this at length in the thread called Is Physical Death the Penalty for Sin?. I think the answer is conclusively a "No."

Also, you are assuming that the Bible teaches there is something called an "Adamic nature" or "Sin Nature." That is not correct. The Bible teaches that there is a conflict between spirit and flesh, but "flesh" does not mean "sin nature." I explained this in one of my first threads when I made this forum back in 2007 called Sin Nature - the Phlogiston of Christian Theology?.

All the best.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

. Especially since the prophecy itself spans only a few verses in Daniel and it's not particularly lucid and many if not most Christians don't even recognize it as fulfilled in 70 AD.

Hi Richard;
This is where understanding Daniel's 'time of the end' prophesies as being additional clarity and information of prophecies given by Moses 1000 yrs earlier [or even by Israel to his sons in Gen 49]. They are part of God explaining his purposes and freeing will to mankind via the negative principles of ritualistic religions.

In connection with the other thread, the 'end purposes' or foundations and principles of God and relationship with Him were coming into open revelation.

But that doesn't really "do it" for me because I have no reason to believe the premises about "sin" and the need of "redemption" and "forgiveness" and all that. So though I agree that there is evidence for the Bible, I see little evidence for the various "Christianities" that are supposedly derived from it.

The original concept of 'sin' is simply that of an archer missing the mark of the target [even in gullibility and ignorance]. I believe that the concept of 'justification by faith' and being declared righteous and "perfect" by faith in Christ could be better portrayed by the archer either not having to shoot at the target at all or hitting the center of the bulls-eye. That state of righteousness is declared to be that of gaining knowledge [John 17:3] about God through the revelation of him found in His incarnation in Christ, and thus his words as having the very authority of God and having the words, freedom and Spirit of positive life.

I do agree that some various aspects of 'Christianites' are in error and based on faulty interpretations and practice.

As for Islam - that's just a Judeo-Christian heresy of little real significance from a religious point of view. It contains no new concepts - it's just a confused copy-cat mish-mash of ideas lifted from Christianity and Judaism.

Of this we agree. In the little I know about it, Islam seems to be built on similar principles as Judaism mixed with some aspects of Catholicism and of seeking blessing and approval through conditional, legalistic, even corporal means by nationally following certain laws. Mohammed and the different codified systems of law replace the talmud.

The real contender for an alternate point of view comes from our own minds. We are just now (from a historical point of view) awakening from the primitive ignorance that produced all the religions in the world. There is no reason to think any of them are "true" in the sense that they "should be believed" by modern folks. We don't believe the earth is flat or that diseases are caused by demons. Why believe any of the other superstitions of ignorant ancestors?

I don't know that all our ancestors believed those things. I also question the motives of the designers of some of our educational systems, including the higher educations. There is a focus on certain historical facts and events to mis-represent some things in a negative light while projecting others in a positive light; and this for the humanist, evolutionary, communistic and subordinating, enslaving goals of govt.

This is also evident in our historical education about the formation and progress of our country. The progress of the government through exalting certain men or groups of men as 'illuminaries' may actually be a regression. The objective evaluation of the historical activities is usually not considered. For example; "We" or the armies of the Incorporating "Fathers" did NOT fight the British but the Hessians in the revolution. The British refused to fight against their cousins. The King was basically owned by Amschel Mayer, the founder of the Rothschild banking empire, and forerunner of the IMF. Mayer bought Hessian soldiers; forced the King to borrow money from him to pay them $1/day and paid the soldiers .50/day. This following article even states that many of the 'founders' were double agents for "the king" with the motivations of enslaving the population. See pages 4 and 5 of the linked article for one account. You like to read; the whole article should be interesting to you.

Likewise, exalting certain men of science as 'illuminaries' may actually be a regression and the education systems which exalt them as gods may have ulterior motives. Their doctrines may be perpetuated by approved accreditation; similar to how the accredited approval of bible colleges hinges on the acknowledgment of the futurists interpretations. Parts of the accredited, 'approved' education thus becomes a brainwashing and an indoctrination with ulterior Judaic, enslaving motives.

Well, if I begin by believing that God is Good and Intelligent then I cannot believe the Bible is "his word" in the sense understood by most Christians, or that he would care what I opinions I have about his existence. As soon as we begin with our own presuppositions like "the Creation is of a Good, Living Creator who is Good, truthful, omniscient, omnipotent etc." then we have committed ourselves to our own understanding of those terms, and the Bible does not stand up under such high standards. At least not the way it is usually understood.

I don't view or consider them as 'pre-suppositions' but of reasonable considerations and possibilities from the same free thinking view that you claim.
You, on the other hand would believe that the molecules of the spaceship accumulated themselves from the sky without the aid of a designer.... but perhaps 1 molecule every 100 yrs...[atheistic evolution] and they all 'happened' to fall in the right place at the right time.

Whether from the sky... or from the ground, the implications, parallels and models of a spaceship and the divine origen and ownership of a human life are similar except the spaceship doesn't have the additional aspects of feelings or thoughts or of a divine will, intellect, 'soul' or organic [living] materials needing oxygen daily and needing two sexes and reproduction in order to perpetuate. [in some cases of species, reproduction within a lifespan of only a few days]

Objectively and truthfully speaking....which model belongs in the nuthouse.??

And neither is the concept of a "Good God" who goes about "doing things" like creating universes.

"Good" God is a reference to the moral character of his creation and of life, and to his good intentions and for the happiness of life itself. A persons 'smile' and the endorphins released by various activities alone testify to the intent of Goodness and happiness far beyond any undesigned, unfeeling and un-intelligent spontaneous generation. What makes a child smile when they run?? What causes vocal cords to formulate into a laugh? Why??
Even the most basic documents of human constitutions of peoples state [still at the present time] that the free rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are to be held in esteem.

The more I understand science, the less I see a need for a "designer." Folks used to think there had to be a God to design every variety of bug. We now know that they evolved. Sure, there's questions about the origin of DNA, but there is no question about evolution. And this brings up the problems in the Bible again - such as Noah's ark. That story simply is not true, yet Christ referred to it as fact. This creates huge problems for anyone who wants to believe Jesus was infallible. If you want to pursue these topics, I think they'd make a great thread.

I think there may already be a thread elsewhere. I won't take time to interact at this time. I question and refute your declaration of them being 'not true' and of "knowing" that they evolved and of evolution, but will not debate or discuss at this time.

Again, see the comment about multi-generational education systems and curricula being designed from certain subjective viewpoints and to accomplish and accommodate certain goals including a religion of socialist, communist, atheist, or humanist goals. A german philosopher named Hensel [or similar] was supposedly one of the founders of modern education. He proposed, believed or at least entertained the concept that 'the state' was GOD walking the face of the earth. Sounds like a religion, doesn't it. The pope convinced King George that he was God walking the face of the earth.


I think we also mentioned this before, that Peter and the apostles believed, understood and 'knew' of some sort of physical 'flood' of Noah. Doesn't the talmud even record of people knowing the location of the ark? According to Peter's analogy of 2 Peter 3; If they did not consider that flood as physical, they would have no reason to expect and preach the physical removal of the mosaic ordinances and principles as physically coming. The physical fulfillment of the desolation of Jerusalem 'as a flood' was pre-figured by the flood of Noah and the saving of 8 in the ark. 8 being the sign of the new creation, and new beginning apart from and contrast against the law of sin/death [the first Garden] from knowledge of God [due in part to gullibility, inexperience and ignorance] and apart from and contrast against the law of Moses.

Why then is he absent? He exists only in the minds of people who believe in him. How then is he different than any other illusion?

He exists elsewhere; in lives and politics, in nature. Did the earth physically quake at his death? Did the temple curtain tear and the wool not turn white never again after the cross.? Was a voice heard from Heaven. Did the apostles see him after the cross?

You mentioned before that you do not believe the miracles of Christ. [and in doing so, basically reject the historical account, and of his claim of Deity and being lord of the earth and Creation.] But the evidence and historical accounts of the desolation of Jerusalem still stands and is difficult to deny. You have no foundation or logic to declare the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD as the fulfillment of prophecy and referred to by Christ, the OT prophets and the apostles, but then renounce Jesus' miracles or his referal to [at least some physical reality of] Noah's flood as being historical and also referred to by them. Could there possibly be evidence for Noah's flood which you have not discovered or considered yet?

Remember, if you dont' believe that the spaceship was designed and formed by a higher intelligence than yourself; you can't be an astronaut and participate in it's flight. You'll crash and burn.

What about the Indians belief and experiences with 'the Great Spirit'??

The Bible is a book made of words. I have no choice but to judge according to the meaning of its words to the best of my abilty. And the words in the Bible contain much that is not consistent with itself, let alone with the concepts such as justice, love, mercy, and goodness.

I believe that sometimes you judge by the letter of the words, not the spirit in the same manner as the dispy's. Or you judge by the claims and interpretations of others, or through the lens of other religious indoctrinations and educations you may have experienced; some of which may not be truthful. We talked about this before in this forum; that only one axiom need to be faulty before the whole house of cards comes down. No need or time to repeat.

Take care.
I was going to clip most of this; due to not wishing to interact in the evolution, creation debate at this time but decided to let it posted. The first paragraph is the one to focus on.

[heb13-13]

Also, you are assuming that the Bible teaches there is something called an "Adamic nature" or "Sin Nature." That is not correct. The Bible teaches that there is a conflict between spirit and flesh, but "flesh" does not mean "sin nature." I explained this in one of my first threads when I made this forum back in 2007 called Sin Nature - the Phlogiston of Christian Theology?.

All the best.

That is true, Richard. I believe the NIV introduced the "sin nature". We are not schizophrenics with two natures. The conflict indeed is against "Flesh" and spirit.

All the best,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Also, you are assuming that the Bible teaches there is something called an "Adamic nature" or "Sin Nature." That is not correct. The Bible teaches that there is a conflict between spirit and flesh, but "flesh" does not mean "sin nature." I explained this in one of my first threads when I made this forum back in 2007 called Sin Nature - the Phlogiston of Christian Theology?.

All the best.

That is true, Richard. I believe the NIV introduced the "sin nature". We are not schizophrenics with two natures. The conflict indeed is against "Flesh" and spirit.

All the best,
Rick

I'm glad we agree about that. It solves a lot of problems. And yes, the NIV introduced the word "sin nature" as a "translation" of the Greek sarx (flesh). That "version" is not worth of being called a "translation." It's pure crap. Too bad it's the most popular modern translation. Go figure, eh? If the Christian scholars are producing crap Bibles and all the Christians accept them, it's no wonder the religion is such a confused mess. It's even stranger if you believe there is a God watching over this whole mess and letting it all happen....

[jce]

Contradiction anyone? After all, the world is full of them and there are certainly some apparent contradictions in the Scriptures, and they do indeed rise above human reason, but... might not that be the problem?

Contradiction is frustrating. That's why there is a law against it. Even physics has its challenges (unifying theory?). Why can't we just figure this one out? Phooey on revelation, who needs it? We just need to "work the problem people". "We don't need no stinking" revelation on the matter (dark anyone?). "But wait, there's more". Isn't it possible that somebody knows a little more about it than us? I mean after all, us guys here, the big thinkers (stinkers)... aren't we the ones managing the planet... kinda runnin' the show? We're doin' okay on that one aren't we?

Why looky here, we're even on the verge of solving the common cold and servin' up a reliable, accurate weather forecast. Don'tcha think it's about time to demand a complete explanation of the Biblical Mystery from God? I mean, why is this guy holdin' out on us? I suppose he expects us to get in line behind all them Futurists, Preterists, Millennialists, Dispensationalists, along with the likes of Daniel, Paul, Thomas, Richard (Dawkins?) and all them other thinkers waitin' on an answer. Why can't the Big Guy stand up like a man and act like one. I mean hey, he needs to explain a few things around here! He ought to act like a man (you know, like torturing little flies & spiders, and tying things to the cat's tail and maybe even scorching some men with great heat thru that big magnifying glass in the sky. That's pretty manly stuff eh?

Seriously, is that what we really want? Do we want God to behave like a man? Or should we prefer that he patiently challenge our mental capacities as he tries to push us past 20% to the gallon??

Consider the debate between the Preterist and Futurist. Both sides present a somewhat defensible case, but are either arguments totally conclusive? Not in my humble opinion (but what do I know?). I will say this, I have been enriched through that debate simply by studying the more thoughtful (and graceful) posts in those threads and comparing them to the scriptures. Take Matthew 24 as an example. For many years, I simply assumed that it was all about the end of the world (silly me). After studying the Preterist view, I'm pleased to say that I have a much broader understanding of Matthew 24 and its relationship to AD 70. Not only was it fun in the discovery, but it strengthened my faith by providing another accurately fulfilled prediction. Furthermore, I can now speak to others about it having a better understanding on the subject. The point being... debate can be very beneficial. Mystery's foster debate and debate forces logic. Does God really want to just feed us the same old same old stuff over and over (manna anyone?)?

Bottom line, we all benefit in some way from intellectually thoughtful and graceful debate on the hard stuff. Now, if quality debate creates a learning atmosphere and stimulates thinking, why shouldn't God provoke a little debate over His Character and His Word? I mean, if it was too simple, it wouldn't even satisfy the simpleton. It must necessarily be difficult for the intellectually gifted.

And so Richard (not Dawkins) the questions you are raising here are important. If you give up on the Bible now, you leave us all less enriched. Even Jesus endured doubt, why should you be the exception? AFTER ALL, WHAT GOOD IS FAITH IF THERE IS NO DOUBT.

Your Brother in the Faith,

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Contradiction anyone? After all, the world is full of them and there are certainly some apparent contradictions in the Scriptures, and they do indeed rise above human reason, but... might not that be the problem?

Contradiction is frustrating. That's why there is a law against it. Even physics has its challenges (unifying theory?). Why can't we just figure this one out? Phooey on revelation, who needs it? We just need to "work the problem people". "We don't need no stinking" revelation on the matter (dark anyone?). "But wait, there's more". Isn't it possible that somebody knows a little more about it than us? I mean after all, us guys here, the big thinkers (stinkers)... aren't we the ones managing the planet... kinda runnin' the show? We're doin' okay on that one aren't we?

Why looky here, we're even on the verge of solving the common cold and servin' up a reliable, accurate weather forecast. Don'tcha think it's about time to demand a complete explanation of the Biblical Mystery from God? I mean, why is this guy holdin' out on us? I suppose he expects us to get in line behind all them Futurists, Preterists, Millennialists, Dispensationalists, along with the likes of Daniel, Paul, Thomas, Richard (Dawkins?) and all them other thinkers waitin' on an answer. Why can't the Big Guy stand up like a man and act like one. I mean hey, he needs to explain a few things around here! He ought to act like a man (you know, like torturing little flies & spiders, and tying things to the cat's tail and maybe even scorching some men with great heat thru that big magnifying glass in the sky. That's pretty manly stuff eh?

Seriously, is that what we really want? Do we want God to behave like a man? Or should we prefer that he patiently challenge our mental capacities as he tries to push us past 20% to the gallon??

Consider the debate between the Preterist and Futurist. Both sides present a somewhat defensible case, but are either arguments totally conclusive? Not in my humble opinion (but what do I know?). I will say this, I have been enriched through that debate simply by studying the more thoughtful (and graceful) posts in those threads and comparing them to the scriptures. Take Matthew 24 as an example. For many years, I simply assumed that it was all about the end of the world (silly me). After studying the Preterist view, I'm pleased to say that I have a much broader understanding of Matthew 24 and its relationship to AD 70. Not only was it fun in the discovery, but it strengthened my faith by providing another accurately fulfilled prediction. Furthermore, I can now speak to others about it having a better understanding on the subject. The point being... debate can be very beneficial. Mystery's foster debate and debate forces logic. Does God really want to just feed us the same old same old stuff over and over (manna anyone?)?

Bottom line, we all benefit in some way from intellectually thoughtful and graceful debate on the hard stuff. Now, if quality debate creates a learning atmosphere and stimulates thinking, why shouldn't God provoke a little debate over His Character and His Word? I mean, if it was too simple, it wouldn't even satisfy the simpleton. It must necessarily be difficult for the intellectually gifted.

And so Richard (not Dawkins) the questions you are raising here are important. If you give up on the Bible now, you leave us all less enriched. Even Jesus endured doubt, why should you be the exception? AFTER ALL, WHAT GOOD IS FAITH IF THERE IS NO DOUBT.

Your Brother in the Faith,

John

That's a great post!

Some kinds of contradictions are signs of reality colliding with our limited systems of thought. Such contradictions have played an essential role in the development of science. People finally realized that epicycles couldn't account for all the problems of the geocentric cosmology. And Quantum Mechanics is so "contradictory" that it drives some physicists nuts.

Simple systems are the product of simple minds, and when they encounter reality, their shortcomings are quickly exposed.

This is the kind of thinking that makes folks think the Christian "mysteries" like the Trinity are a sign of truth from God, since no human would want to make up such an apparently contradictory system. I think there is some merit in that.

But then there are contradictions that don't fit this model. For example, the eternal evil of hell looks more like the product of a wicked human imagination of hatred against one's enemies than a teaching from God.

Well .. it's dinner time. This is a very interesting topic. I'll comment more after dinner (it's date night with my baby ).