Calling all Christians!

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by LittleEric
as for the Saint/Captain Veggie debate .. i think im going to have to feel slightly with where Saint is coming from.

Cap'n i think a lot of what you said is valid, but you come off as kind of pretentious, and making any menion of "proof" is just plain wrong. no one can prove God exists/doesnt, and no one can "prove" any miraculous feat in the bible, if it was possible, there'd be no debate.

there is nothing wrong with questioning your faith, it in the end will probly make you grow stronger, and there is nothing wrong with questioning someone elses faith, as Saint is doing. i think its healthy and people as tangible creatures like things to be proven, and he is requesting evidence to validate certain things in the Bible, which is great. i hope his search for questions leads him to answers.

unfortunately, like i said, if you're looking for forensic proof which is submissible in court, you might be dissapointed - as Christianity is a religion, and as such you find yourself going a lot of times on Faith, which is a hard thing to do.

Rezo is trying to use Human philosophy to dissprove Theological truths, for that reason and that reason alone his argumants are inherently flawed, though i will concede that the "God cant create something greater than himself, therefore is limited" thingy was neat, i havent heard that one before, but when did God say he couldnt create something greater than himself ? anyway im sure there is a better "answer", or more appropriately a "response", but ill have to ask one of the scholarly types next time im in church.

i dont have an answer to that right now, and i have no problem admitting it, course i could say you dont understand cause he's God, and there would be a lot of truth to it, but it gets us nowhere.

Well said.

I don't know why people seem I have something to prove. I'm simply stating what I believe. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.

There is no proof as far as God is concerned. As Eric said, if it was provable faith would be worthless.

I'm not arguing to persuade anyone. Just stating my case.

[Saint of Killers]

No seriously. Read this:http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_15.asp

Specifically:

"Most Christians agree that the world, with time, degenerates. Morals have degenerated since 1611. Character has degenerated since 1611. Even our atmosphere has degenerated. Are we then to believe that education has gotten better? Only a worshiper of education could pretend to believe such a fairy tale. Education has degenerated along with the entire world system and could never produce a scholar equal to those of nearly four hundred years ago."

Anyone that's going to claim that education was better 400 years ago is not worth paying attention to. I'm sure the Rev. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. slaps on the leeches the second he starts feeling ill.

And the only other websites I could find to back up your supposition that the Dead Sea Scroll Bible fully supports the King James Bible were those run by similar hyper-religious nuts.

[Captain Vegetable]

Nick:

Do me a favor? Spell out all of the questions you have here, in this thread.

I've gone back through the other topic and can find nothing I didn't already answer.

So, whatever you were dissatisfied with, let me know.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by Nikorasu


Captain Vegetable.

when I argued with you on the virtues of joypad vs Mouse control in FPSs I did not realise that I would be agreeing with you whole heartedly on your beliefs about God.

at the moment I am living away from home without my Bible - so I think I'm off to buy another;-)

God bless you captain!

Your reply, Nikorasu, is being mentioned specifically because it did the most for me.

I was in the crapper like you wouldn't believe last night, questioning my methods and my beliefs.

I spent some time with my fiancee and prayed. I felt much better afterwards.

But your post brought a smile to my face. I'm talking ear to ear, showing teeth, nearly cracking smile.

Thanks, bro. And God bless you too!

[Nick]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable

I've gone back through the other topic and can find nothing I didn't already answer.

Well, since you stopped the debate, you need only look at my last post in the debate to find those questions. Don't look in that post-event "we-cool" stuff.

I was looking forward to your answer to this:

"So the people who are impossible to save, since God has not chosen them, will be burned alive? I don't think I like your version of things. You are turning it into a popularity contest, non?"

The most difficult questions for Christians to answer involve the concept of Hell. What you seem to be saying about predestination makes Hell a whole lot worse.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by Saint of Killers
No seriously. Read this:http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_15.asp

Specifically:

"Most Christians agree that the world, with time, degenerates. Morals have degenerated since 1611. Character has degenerated since 1611. Even our atmosphere has degenerated. Are we then to believe that education has gotten better? Only a worshiper of education could pretend to believe such a fairy tale. Education has degenerated along with the entire world system and could never produce a scholar equal to those of nearly four hundred years ago."

Anyone that's going to claim that education was better 400 years ago is not worth paying attention to. I'm sure the Rev. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. slaps on the leeches the second he starts feeling ill.

And the only other websites I could find to back up your supposition that the Dead Sea Scroll Bible fully supports the King James Bible were those run by similar hyper-religious nuts.

I'll see what I can do about validating the Bible:

Here's what's up. You know that game "whisper down the lane" that you may or may not have played as a young'un? You whisper something to someone like, "All cows eat grass," and then the next person whispers to the next person whispers to the next person until at the end of the line the last person says what they thought was said to them and it comes out as, "Mall brows beat ass."

The Bible argument goes the same way. This guy copied this guy who copied this guy who copied this guy, each, presumably, adding or subtracting certain bits as they saw fit.

That's not the way it went. A more accurate portrayal would be more like the first kid telling two people, who each tell two people, who each tell two people, and at the end you'd have dozens and dozens of versions of the original statement. If the original sentence was, "Jesus is Lord," and you get one result that is, "Jesus is bored," another is, "Pieces of board," and yet another is, "Freeze us a gourd," you have a pretty good idea that the original message was distorted.

But what happens if all the final versions are the same? All of the children anounce that the sentence they ended up with was, "Jesus is Lord." Even without knowing what the sentence was at the begining, you'd have a pretty good indication that the original was, "Jesus is Lord."

There are over 5,000 copies of the New Testament manuscripts copied in Greek. 8,000 to 10,000 in Latin. And 8,000 more in other languages such as Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian. Throw in a few miscellaneous other manuscripts, and there are 24,000 New Testament manuscripts in all.

Would you believe that they all say the same thing? Thousands of miles apart, through language barriers, they all say the same thing. There are minor typos and discrepencies, but historians believe minor detail differences actually work in favor of proving the accuracy of a document. Had they all been a lie, the scribes would have made sure to record every detail identically.

It is from one of these manuscripts that King James took and translated the Bible from. And when his translated version is compared to the other manuscripts, it measures up.

Nothing was changed, just translated. The Bible is valid as a historical text. Especially in light of 24,000 copies of the New Testament alone that are virtually the same.

To size that number up, here's a comparison:

The Jewish War by first century historian Josephus has 9 manuscripts to translate from, that all say that same thing.

Plato's writings have 30 manuscripts to copy from, all saying the same thing.

Homer's Iliad weighs in a a whopping 650 manuscripts to translate from, all saying the same thing.

And all of these books are considered valid in the eyes of most, if not all historians. How much more should the Bible be counted as a historically accurate text?

I hope this clears things up. Most of the information in the post comes from Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by Nick
I was looking forward to your answer to this:

"So the people who are impossible to save, since God has not chosen them, will be burned alive? I don't think I like your version of things. You are turning it into a popularity contest, non?"

This is where things concerning predestination and free-will get hairy, so please bear with me for a bit. I'll explain it as best as I can...but have this nagging feeling that I'll fail miserably. And I'll use Bible verses to back up my argument, as that is what you have asked for.

I'll preface this entire explanation by mentioning that there may be holes throughout. Faith is required in order to understand some of these things, and if it were all spelled out, faith would be worthless. And since God states we are to be saved by faith in His Son, He'd ultimatly be lying if He left no room for it.

God does choose us from the womb. Paul writes in Romans 9:11, "(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)." This proves (as it pertains to an active Christian. If you don't believe, it proves nothing) that we are chosen to preform certain tasks from before birth. These words are in parenthasis (which appears in the Bible) because Paul inserted them into the original text to make a point. Thus, it applies to the New Testament covenant. Paul wouldn't have waisted his time talking about it if it didn't have a solid aplication.

Point #1: God chooses us from the womb. As such, we are predestined for what God has chosen us for.

God, however, did create us with the capacity to do evil; evil being defined as disobediance to God's commands. And the Bible notes expressly that for us to disobey Him makes Him troubled and sad.

Point #2: God, though not wanting us to disobey Him, provided the capacity to do evil in His creations.

Just because we have the capcity to do evil, or sin, doesn't mean we have the choice to do so. God may have given us the ability to fathom disobedience, but He still may be exerting His control over our actions, thoughts, and words. Genesis 3:6, however, would tell us otherwise, "The woman was convinced. The fruit looked so fresh and delicious, and it would make her so wise! So she ate some of the fruit. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her. Then he ate it, too."

Point #3: God allowed for our choice. Though not wanting us to sin, God freely allowed for our choice to do evil, without exerting His force, or imposing His desire on us.

So, as far as Christians are concerned, both free will and predestination apply, just in different situations. You read that correctly. Free will and predestination are situational as described by the Bible. Certain things He chooses us for, but other certain things He allows for our choice.

One of the things He allows for us to choose is belief and faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, as described in the most famous of verses, John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Everyone who believes in Him, or everyone who chooses to believe in Him.

We are damned to Hell by our own refusal to submit to Christ. Not because there are those elect to go to Hell and others elect to go to Heaven.

Only in certain cases does predestination apply. Likewise for free will.

[rezo]

Gongos, a god is not necessary for existence. the proof is in god not calling himself into existence. As that is,he would be restricted by the natural laws that are present in his initial state. There is no existence prior to an initial state, of course. As a natural form, whose existence was not created, so could a god not create natural forms.he would be limited to manipulating himself, or manipulating natural forms in general. how did I "prove" god was limited by possibility? it was in CV limiting him by possibility, which would call for a concession to any other manner that limits god by possibility. I too, thought that you considered implementation of "free will/not free will" to be impossible, but I suppose you merely think it wasn't chosen and that god could very well have "free will/no free will" both present in the same circumstance, even though its all "impossible" and such. In any case,explain how a god can defy the laws that part of his definition. Just as we are restricted by the laws of our world, so then would god be by the laws present in the initial state, I , of course, don't believe in god, and so I think that the laws of the initial state are the same ones we have now.


"when we create the circumstances, everything can be true"

[LittleEric]

i was gonna clear UP MKU2000's post but i was beaten to it, so i'll talk about the afformentioned books of Thomas and Mary Mag.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



seriously dude, Jesus says that exact quote in the church approved Gospel of Luke as well

sorry, i think you misunderstood me.

i wasnt doubting the verse, when i said "i was beaten to it" i was referring to CV analyzing it as it appears in Luke.

the second part was me clarifying why i, and others believe the books of Thomas and Mary Mag to be hoaxes.

this was just an extra i through in there, as that particular verse can be found in other books, so arguing it's existence in Thomas as related to your quoting it is pointless. i wasnt arguing the verse, i was just giving some history on the books.


Now Rezo, again like Spartan and I have said, you're using Human Logic to try to "dissprove" Divine principles. in the Christian belief, god wasnt "called into existence", God doesnt have a "natural state" and God doesnt have an "initial state". your trying to use the rules that govern our universe to explain the rules that govern Him, this is simply not possible. i cant stress that enough.

throughout history people have been having trouble trying to explain God in terms a person could understand - even God himself had trouble when Abraham asked him who he was and he simply replied "I Am"

i think John got the closest to understanding God, and as a result his is the most abstract by far of the 4 Gospels.

trying to use mortal human logic to prove or dissprove the divine is like using a Grammar text book to solve a calculus problem.

[LittleEric]

about the predestination/free will debate.

i have to dissagree with you Cap'n. i think that just because an organized religion mandates something doesn't necessarily mean its true. want proof ? look at all the other times something has been church doctrine and the chuch has then turned around and flip flopped its position.

the Bible is open to interpretation by anyone, and even the verse you quoted about God calling from the womb, is open to interpretation.

i believe in free will, not predestination. during conception God breathes life into a person, if he had already decided ahead of time that he was going to damn said person to eternal hell-fire, why would he have even bothered in the first place ?

i think predestination is bad theology.

look what it did to the pilgrims.