My Religion

[Guyver]

How can we discuss the Bible with you Brother Guyver? [emoji848]

How could you not discuss the Bible with me Brother Kode? I am certainly educated enough about it to discuss it rationally.

Time and time and times again many have made the attempt to discuss the Bible on these forums with you.But in mid flight you either bash the Bible and redirect to science or atheism.

With all your respect. Are you willing to discuss with an open mind?

Brother Kode, how many times do I have to tell you that I am not an atheist before you actually believe me?

Is this thread not about my religion?

Is is so hard to understand that there are many, many people who believe in God who have beliefs that are different from your own?

I just don't understand how this is so complicated.

If you wish to discuss things with people who believe exactly as you do.....good luck with that. Have you not seen the way these "believers" do each other around here?

I think I understand Atheism well enough to discuss it, though I am not an atheist. I believe I understand science and mathematics well enough to be able to discuss intelligently, though I am not a scientist or a professional mathematician.

My mindset is one of logic and reason. I am happy to discuss things logically, and reasonably. If that suits you....then it is my pleasure to discuss whatever you wish.

 

[k0de]

How could you not discuss the Bible with me Brother Kode? I am certainly educated enough about it to discuss it rationally.

Brother Kode, how many times do I have to tell you that I am not an atheist before you actually believe me?

Is this thread not about my religion?

I know you're not an atheist. I said because on this thread it isn't clear what your religion is. So what is your religion?

Is is so hard to understand that there are many, many people who believe in God who have beliefs that are different from your own?

No not at all. At one point in time Christianity it self face these challenges when in first began in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I just don't understand how this is so complicated.

If you wish to discuss things with people who believe exactly as you do.....good luck with that. Have you not seen the way these "believers" do each other around here?

It's unfortunate that some believer's don't know how to control their emotions when sharing the Bible. But that is ok because they mean well and we all know that they will receive their rewards because the Lord knows their hearts.

I think I understand Atheism well enough to discuss it, though I am not an atheist. I believe I understand science and mathematics well enough to be able to discuss intelligently, though I am not a scientist or a professional mathematician.

Discussing something and trust in it is another.

My mindset is one of logic and reason. I am happy to discuss things logically, and reasonably. If that suits you....then it is my pleasure to discuss whatever you wish.

This not possible. How can anyone logically and reasonably explain the miracles of Jesus and have a rational and logical discussion with you about the Bible?[emoji848]

 

[JudgeRightly]

Whoa! Slow down for a minute.....I'm going to have to stop you right there. . . . .....are you sure that you have spoken truly? Don't you think you should have said the best way to study what MEN THINK about God is to study the Holy Bible?

That's not what he said.

I'm sure if that's what he wanted to say, then he would have phrased it that way.

But he said:

The best way to study YHWH God is to study His Word the Holy Bible (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4).

Would you agree that if someone from two thousand years ago wrote a book about himself, would not the best way to learn about that person be from his book?

At least answer that question before question begging that the Bible isn't God's word.

You are beginning with the assumption that the Bible = God's Word.

Would you care to argue why it is not instead of question begging that it is NOT God's word?

I mean, it literally says "the oracles of God were given to the Jews," among the many other direct quotes of God...

When you write a book or a paper, do you use a pen, pencil, or other writing utensil? Sure you do!

In the same way, God used 40 men to write His book.

Out of all the many hundreds of religious texts or holy books which exist in the world......

Only one of them can accurately be claimed to be given by God.

you have chosen the bible, and assumed that would teach us about God, or allow us to study him.

Personal preference has nothing to do with it.

Personally, I have been convinced by the evidence that has been presented to me that the Bible is not only God's word, but contains an accurate record of the history of creation, the fall of man, the judgement of the world in the flood, Babel, the history of God's chosen people, the nation of Israel, the coming of the promised Messiah, Jesus, and His ministry on earth, the rejection of the Messiah by His people, God's cutting off of unbelieving Israel and grafting in of the Gentiles, and the prophecy of the coming Kingdom of God.

Why did you not include the other relgious texts?

Here is a list from one link. Link.

No other religious text or holy book can hold a candle to the claims of the Bible being established by the evidence.

I have studied the bible for 37 years. I have read it cover to cover several times, and studied large portions of it for thousands of hours in all. So, I know the bible....as I said before.

But you apparently haven't learned anything.

Which is so much time wasted no understanding anything written in the Bible.

But, lets discuss the Bible.

Which one? I assume you mean the Protestant Bible, which is a collection of 66 books. The Protestant Bible is derived from the Catholic Bible, which contains 73 books....that would be 7 books more than the Protestant Bible, for those who are interested in the numbers. 66 and 7, two interesting numbers for those who are into numerology.

The 7 books that are excluded from the protestant Bible are excluded because they were not inspired by God, and if I recall correctly, some of them are fiction, not historical fact.

So, the first important point about the Bible that should be stated, is that it is a work in progress.

In what way?

I don't see anyone adding to or taking away from the Bible, do you?

Many books that used to be in the bible are not there now,

Care to provide an example other than the 7 books in the Catholic Bible that have been removed because they are not God-given?

and that means that PEOPLE - MEN - have decided which books the Bible would contain and which books the Bible should not contain.

When was the last time something like what you described happened?

Even within Christianity itself, there exist differences in the idea of what the Bible actually is.

And yet, somehow, the overall message contained within the Bible has not changed since the individual books were penned...

:think:

Here is a link that demonstrates how great a variation there is with respect to what Christians themselves consider the Bible to be.

LINK

No one has denied that there are disagreements within Christianity.

I would like to state that I object to the use of the term YHWH as a reference to the real God.

We're discussing the Bible, which uses "YHWH" as the name of the God of the universe, and you object to calling God by his name?

:think:

You realize that's a form of idolatry, right? Making up a god that isn't called "YHWH" and calling him "God"...

FWIW. I would be happy to discuss this topic using the term "God" as it generally refers to the "Supreme Being" that most people accept as an accurate idea of what God is.

Which is simply idolatry. God calls Himself YHWH.

You have made up a being according to how you think he should exist and have set him in place of God.

Now, let's talk about this assumption here, in and of itself.

You just said that the best way to study God is to study His Word, the Holy Bible. I'd like to know how it is that you know the Holy Bible is the actual "Word of God."

In what way is the evidence that the Bible is the word of God not convincing?

And, what do you mean by using that term. Are you suggesting God wrote the Bible?

No, I am telling you that God wrote the Bible using 40 men.

I hope not, because we already know that God did not write the Bible so that would be a foolish thing to believe.

This is called begging the question.

The onus is on you to disprove something that has been established, in this case, that's that God wrote the Bible.

Men wrote the Bible.

Rather, men who were inspired by God wrote the Bible.

There's a difference.

Now, perhaps you'd like to argue that God wrote the individual books that comprise the collection of books we call the Bible - by working directly through men. And, if that's the case....fine. I will accept that argument.

Supra.

So, now all you have to do is prove that the Bible is divine in origin rather than the work of the minds of men.

In what way is the evidence that is readily available not convincing that the Bible is God's word?

If you do that......YOU WIN!!!!!!!!!

Have at it, and it will be my pleasure to hear your arguments, and examine your proof.

Supra.

How could you not discuss the Bible with me Brother Kode? I am certainly educated enough about it to discuss it rationally.

If education were all it took to discuss the Bible, everyone who's ever had any sort of education would believe in God.

But there's more to it than that.

It takes humility, honesty, and a desire to know the truth.

. . . My mindset is one of logic and reason. I am happy to discuss things logically, and reasonably. If that suits you....then it is my pleasure to discuss whatever you wish.

:think:

 

[Guyver]

I know you're not an atheist. I said because on this thread it isn't clear what your religion is. So what is your religion?

Brother, it has been clear what my religion is. This thread is all about it. My religion is called Rejective Knowism.

It's unfortunate that some believer's don't know how to control their emotions when sharing the Bible. But that is ok because they mean well and we all know that they will receive their rewards because the Lord knows their hearts.

Eh....I think it's unfortunate that these people who call themselves Christians treat their own brothers and sisters with such disrespect and contempt. But, whatever....I understand your point.

Discussing something and trust in it is another.

True.

This not possible. How can anyone logically and reasonably explain the miracles of Jesus and have a rational and logical discussion with you about the Bible?[emoji848]

Brother Kode, this is not only possible, but you and I are doing it right now. We are actually being examples to the other people of this forum, by demonstrating that people who have different religions and beliefs can treat each other with love and respect.

And maybe that's one reason God has us here Kode. Maybe he's sick and tired of watching these people who claim to know God treat other people who claim the same thing with hatred, insults and disrespect.

If you would like to discuss the miracles of Jesus.....it would be my pleasure to hear you and participate.

 

[Guyver]

Would you agree that if someone from two thousand years ago wrote a book about himself, would not the best way to learn about that person be from his book?

At least answer that question before question begging that the Bible isn't God's word.

There you go term dropping again, inappropriately.

But you apparently haven't learned anything.

Does it make you feel superior when you insult other people? Does it make you feel good? I guess it does since you do it so frequently.

Based on your poor behavior and treatment of others.....myself included..... I'm going to ask you to participate in another thread and stay out of this one.....even as you did to me on another thread.

And I would like to remind you that when you requested I leave the thread, I did so, and did not post in that thread again.

Thank you.

 

[bibleverse2]

Mathematics is largely based upon logical axioms which are self-apparent.

Note that you said "largely", and nothing is "self-apparent" truth, unless it can be proven to be true.

For two different people can hold "self-apparent" truths which contradict each other.

Also, see Gödel for how even all of mathematics (and logic) is ultimately based on unprovable assumptions.

When you reference Hume, you need to be much more specific and precise as his work is voluminous.

Hume showed that causality cannot be proven.

(And almost all of science is based on assumptions of causality.)

Romans 1:20 isn't true in a literal sense. How do we know? We know because "unreached peoples" have been encountered in the past few centuries and their beliefs and practices have been documented.

Note that there are no atheist "unreached peoples". Also, if they as individuals never believe what God's Word the Bible teaches, then they are nonelect individuals. For all elect individuals will eventually be reached by God's Word and will eventually believe it (Acts 13:48).

Also, Romans 1:21 makes clear that Romans 1:20 does not take away the free will of those who reject the Bible.

 

[bibleverse2]

Don't you think you should have said the best way to study what MEN THINK about God is to study the Holy Bible?

No, for the Bible is not what men merely think about God, but what God inspired men to write:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . .

2 Peter 1:16 ¶For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

1 John 1:1 ¶That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Why did you not include the other relgious texts?

Because they contradict the Bible. And:

1 Corinthians 14:33 . . . God is not the author of confusion . . .

Also, see post #347 above.

--

Even within Christianity itself, there exist differences in the idea of what the Bible actually is.

But no part of Biblical Christianity includes any book which contradicts any other book.

Where you get into problems is with Gnostic Christianity.

Gnostic writings are rejected by Biblical Christians as not being from God. For Gnosticism reviles YHWH, the God of the Bible, as an evil god, while Jesus Christ affirms that YHWH is the one true God (Mark 12:29-31, quoting from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18). Also, Gnosticism denies that Christ is in the flesh (2 John 1:7), while Jesus Christ affirms that He is in the flesh (Luke 24:39, John 1:14, Romans 1:3, Hebrews 2:16-17). Also, Gnosticism claims that the Old Testament is false because it was written by YHWH and His followers, while Jesus Christ affirms that the Old Testament is true (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44-48). Also, even where Gnostic writings teach something not in the Bible which does not contradict anything which Jesus taught, the Gnostic writings still do not pass the test of Biblical Christians being able to recognize if something said is from Jesus (John 10:4,27) or only from "a stranger" (John 10:5). Biblical Christians are able to do this because they have received a measure of God's own Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-13), Jesus Christ's own mind (1 Corinthians 2:16).

Gnosticism was one of the greatest enemies of the early Church. And Gnostic ideas will be revived worldwide by the future Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast"), who will make war against Biblical Christians (not in hiding), and physically overcome them in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13). As a Gnostic, the Antichrist will utterly revile YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36). And he will deny that Christ is in the flesh (1 John 4:3). The Antichrist will also deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22).

The "gnosis" of Gnosticism is the so-called "knowledge" which Christians must be careful not to be deceived by: "avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of gnosis falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20; see the original Greek).

Besides being a Gnostic, the future Antichrist will at the same time also be a Luciferian, that is, a Satanist (Revelation 13:4, Revelation 12:9).

 

[Guyver]

Note that you said "largely", and nothing is "self-apparent" truth, unless it can be proven to be true.

Thank you for responding.

So, I disagree with your statement that nothing is self-apparent. Innumerable things are self-apparent.

It is self-apparent that there are 12 inches in 1 foot. It is true, and it can be proven by simply taking out a ruler and counting the number of inches that comprise one foot. Then, go get another ruler and repeat the exercise. You will find it consistent every time you do it. You may also compare other rulers with the same standard of measure and find that they are equal.

For two different people can hold "self-apparent" truths which contradict each other.

And at least one of them would be wrong - or - they don't agree upon the definitions of things which contradict.

Also, see Gödel for how even all of mathematics (and logic) is ultimately based on unprovable assumptions.

Now, why in the world would I do that? I just demonstrated that the idea is false to begin with (in the case of 12 inches = 1 foot) and using the name of an author to attempt to prove a point is a very weak and inappropriate method of arguing. As I said before with Hume, mentioning an author in conversation proves nothing.

And what is it you're attempting to argue? That there is no truth? That truth cannot be known? Truth can be known as we understand and evaluate the world in which we live. Truth then, is at least relative to our own understanding.

Hume showed that causality cannot be proven.

Newton showed that it could.

(And almost all of science is based on assumptions of causality.)

Please provide some examples.....I don't know what you're talking about here.

 

[Guyver]

No, for the Bible is not what men merely think about God, but what God inspired men to write:

That is a belief - not a fact.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . .

So, you believe that the Bible is the Word of God because it says it is. That is your argument. Do you believe that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God also?

Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon claims to be the inspired Word of God, and is attested to by writers and eyewitnesses. Do you accept that it is inspired by God as the Bible?

 

[Guyver]

Because they contradict the Bible. And:

Since you provided no details, I have no idea what you're referring to. You didn't mention which Holy Book contradicts the Bible, but you used the word "they" which would indicate a "collective."

So, it seems your saying that all other holy books in the world contradict the bible. Since comparing all other holy books in the world to the bible would take more time than I have to offer, I can't prove or disprove your statement. I can say that it is my experience, that certain principles found in the bible can be found in other holy books and other writings which are not necessarily considered "holy."

1 Corinthians 14:33 . . . God is not the author of confusion . . .

Also, see post #347 above.

But, the Bible says that he is. See.....

Exodus 23:27
Deuteronomy 28:20
Deuteronomy 28:28
Psalm 60:3
Isaiah 34:11
Jeremiah 20:11
Zechariah 12:4

 

[Guyver]

But no part of Biblical Christianity includes any book which contradicts any other book.

That statement is completely false. So, what you have just said is NOT true, but you offered it as a statement which is true. Why would you do that?

There is one example above. You found a bible verse that says God is not the author of confusion, but then I offered many examples of verses also from the Bible which claim that he is.

That is a contradiction.

There is one example that demonstrates how what you have said, and believed to be true is not only not true - but it is demonstrably false. I have provided one witness already, I will give you two more so that every word may be established by two or three witnesses.

The Bible contradicts itself about what it means to be justified.

Matthew 12:37 - By your words you will be justified or condemned.

Romans 3:28 - A man is justified by faith - not words.

Romans 5:9 - A person is justified by the blood of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 6:11 - A person is justified by the Holy Spirit

Titus 3:7 - A person is justified by God's grace.

James 2:21 - A person is justified by works.

There are two examples of how the Bible contradicts itself, when you said that it doesn't. I will provide one more example on the next post. That way, you will be able to stand corrected for speaking something that was not true.

 

[Guyver]

But no part of Biblical Christianity includes any book which contradicts any other book.

Yes it does. Here are two books from the Bible that directly contradict each other regarding the sin of David in numbering Israel.

1 Chronicles 1:21 - Satan caused David to number Israel.

2 Samuel 24:1 - God caused David to number Israel.

 

[7djengo7]

Yes it does. Here are two books from the Bible that directly contradict each other regarding the sin of David in numbering Israel.

1 Chronicles 1:21 - Satan caused David to number Israel.

2 Samuel 24:1 - God caused David to number Israel.

You fail.

• The contradictory of the proposition, 'Satan caused David to number Israel', is 'Satan did not cause David to number Israel'; it is not 'God caused David to number Israel'. For Scripture to have directly contradicted 'Satan caused David to number Israel', Scripture would need to have affirmed 'Satan did not cause David to number Israel'. This, obviously, Scripture did not do.
  
• The contradictory of the proposition, 'God caused David to number Israel', is 'God did not cause David to number Israel'; it is not 'Satan caused David to number Israel'. For Scripture to have directly contradicted 'God caused David to number Israel', Scripture would need to have affirmed 'God did not cause David to number Israel'. This, obviously, Scripture did not do.
  
• No direct contradiction of 'Satan caused David to number Israel' occurs, whatsoever, in affirming that 'God caused David to number Israel'.
  
• No direct contradiction of 'God caused David to number Israel' occurs, whatsoever, in affirming that 'Satan caused David to number Israel'.

Since you manifestly fail in your claim of direct contradiction, perhaps you'd now like to change your story, instead, to a claim of indirect contradiction? In that case, now, you are left with needing to try to explain why it is you imagine that the propositions, 'Satan caused David to number Israel' and 'God caused David to number Israel', are contrary one to the other. That is, since those two propositions are clearly not the contradictories of one another, you're now left with trying to explain why you think they must, instead, be contraries of one another. Definitely not an enviable position for you to be in! And, believe me, if you wish to pursue it, I'll be right here to help you learn just how unenviable a position it will be.

Your error is as base and as dismally shortsightedly committed as it would be for you to say that the propositions, 'The Pacific Ocean borders North America' and 'The Atlantic Ocean borders North America', are contradictory to one another.

 

[Guyver]

No.

But, at least one person liked what you had to say. Sadly, the only thing that shows is how far someone will go to avoid calling a spade a spade. So anyway.

 

[7djengo7]

No.

But, at least one person liked what you had to say. Sadly, the only thing that shows is how far someone will go to avoid calling a spade a spade. So anyway.

Are you talking to yourself? If not, to whom did you mean to address your post?

 

[Guyver]

Are you talking to yourself? If not, to whom did you mean to address your post?

You knew who I was talking to.

 

[Cntrysner]

The penalty for sin is death...something religion can't accomplish.

 

[7djengo7]

You knew who I was talking to.

Oh, so you were just being cowardly by not replying to me directly. I read ya.

 

[Guyver]

Oh, so you were just being cowardly by not replying to me directly. I read ya.

Is silly a good word for your post? I didn’t quote you because your silly post didn’t warrant me going upstairs to get on my computer and responding by quoting you directly.

You attempted to argue that a contradiction as plain and obvious as contradictions come was not actually contradictory. So yeah, what more need be said?

A thinking person wouldn’t be able to accept the post you made, unless their thinking was overshadowed by cognitive bias driven by religious indoctrination and fear.

Is that better?

 

[Guyver]

The penalty for sin is death...something religion can't accomplish.

Everyone dies whether they sin or not. Can you think of people who have never sinned but die anyway?