Wouldn't any omniscient being worth his salt know that this would be the outcome? Didn't he do just that already?
You won't reach a logical conclusion with religion because they always have the 'infinite' argument. Anything you expand to the infinite perspective exceeds human logic. It would be like scientist agreeing on what existed before the Big Bang or what the smallest form of energy and matter are. It goes beyond our ability to have information.
Bingo. We are able to do good works because of Jesus not FOR Jesus. We had an inclination for evil but being born again and having the Holy Spirit, Jesus has transformed us to LOOK for all things good and holy. Of course, we won't still be perfect at any day at our lives but the point is to have our eyes set on the One who died for us. Being Christian is all about being a work in progress, a journey to be a spotless bride so when we meet eternity's shore, Jesus is there waiting to be with Him and the Father. Do you want to live your life for Jesus and at the when it's all over, he says "Well done, good and faithful servant." Or only realize the truth at your very last day and God will say He barely knew you? It's time to go into a quiet room and really assess life...open up the bible and see who God is all about. Not simply reading on the internet what it's about. Not simply boasting about your history with the bible as if youve read it a half dozen times... If you seek an encounter with God, you have to be AVAILABLE with your heart and ACKNOWLEDGE who He truly is.
Explained much better than I did. That was really good. If you're referring to the flood, then how do account for Noah and his family? Again, if he wanted to, he could have acted like He was playing Sims, delete His "file" and start over from scratch. The world, and everything in it became SO overcome with wickedness. There were no thoughts of man that was not evil and even the animals killed one another (which was not His original plan). He had to save us and did. There's a thought out there that it wasn't God who created the flood but it was the effects caused by such sin that overcame the world.
It is not that simple. The atheist person will NEVER get to Heaven. The terrible ass-hole will only go there if he truly believes. Saying you believe and actually believing are two different things. Also, when a person truly accepts Christ, they are given the gift of the Holy Spirit which changes you. The ass-hole would probably not be an ass-hole any more or least not as much of an ass-hole. This video below may be a little cheesy but it does properly illustrate how you are saved by Jesus. Once you accept him, he has already taken on your sin and has been punished. That does not mean Christians do not sin, but the price has already been payed for their sin by Jesus at the cross.
I watched the videos, which were 4 parts of a single lecture on the books of the Bible. His argument focused on dismissing the theory, put forth by the author of the Da Vinci code (amongst others, I assume), that the books of the present day Bible were put together only hundreds of years after Jesus from a larger pool of candidate texts that were discarded. He argued there is good evidence for believing that all the books of the Old Testament, and no others, were canon prior to the times of Jesus. And, similarly, there's good evidence to believe that the books of the New Testament were settled upon in just the decades after Jesus's death, rather than hundreds of years later. That was what I took away from the lecture. His lecture didn't really deal with the particular claims being made by Ehrman in that video, however.
How can you make yourself "truly" believe if you've got a inherent psyche that requires empirical evidence? It's like you are doomed to hell from your genetics and socialization. 90% of people "believe" the same religion as their parents. That should tell you something about how true belief is derived.
I do not know what to tell you on this. It takes faith. If you want something concrete, I suggest looking at Bible prophecy. Things like the rebirth of Israel were prophesied thousands of years ago and it happened in 1948. Just think about that. Since 70 AD most of the people of Israel were scattered amongst the nations. They did not assimilate into the cultures where they were, they kept their Jewish identity for which many were persecuted for their beliefs. How many people end up living in another nation and do not assimilate into that culture. Just look at Americans coming from Europe. We did not keep the European culture we evolved into an American culture. Heck, most do not even know their roots and that has been only a few hundred years. The Jews have kept their identity for thousands of years living in other lands. The Bible prophesied that the people of Israel would be scattered to the four corners of the world and one day would return. This has happened just as it was prophesied. There are many examples of this type of accuracy in Biblical prophecy.
I have to say, this would be more impressive if the prophecy included details like the year it would happen and the names of the people who'd be involved, and also if the people behind the movement to restore Israel weren't already fully aware of historical Israel and the narrative that Israel should one day be restored. As you say, I guess in the end it takes faith and the willingness to believe based on little to no evidence.
Oh the evidence is there if you want to look. The prophecies of the return of Israel were VERY specific and happened just as they were prophesied. The prophesies also talk about how Israel is almost a wasteland when the people return and it becomes very successful and agriculture blossoms in the nation. It is all there if you care to read it. Even Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) made references to how the land Israel is on today(the same land they had before they were scattered) was such a barren wasteland. How can you explain Israel still being there when all the neighbors want to destroy her. It was prophesied God would protect Israel once it is reborn. Military leaders do not even bother to study Israels battle victories since the re-founding in 1948 because they are basically impossible.
As I'm not a historian, so I can't offer detailed explanations. From the Wikipedia article covering Israel's war of independence, this was a summary of the initial military assessments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War#The_Arab_League_as_a_whole [rquoter] Though the state of Israel faced the formidable armies of neighbouring Arab counties, yet due to previous battles by the middle of May the Palestinians themselves hardly existed as a military force.[88] The British Intelligence and Arab League military reached similar conclusions.[89] The British Foreign Ministry and C.I.A believed that the Arab States would finally win in case of war.[90][91] Martin Van Creveld says that in terms of manpower, the sides were fairly evenly matched.[92] In May, Egyptian generals told their government that the invasion will be "A parade without any risks" and Tel Aviv "in two weeks".[93] Egypt, Iraq, and Syria all possessed air forces, Egypt and Syria had tanks, and all had some modern artillery.[94] Initially, the Haganah had no heavy machine guns, artillery, armoured vehicles, anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons,[50] nor military aircraft or tanks.[44] The four Arab armies that invaded on 15 May were far stronger than the Haganah formations they initially encountered.[95] On 12 May, three days before the invasion, David Ben-Gurion was told by his chief military advisers (who over-estimated the size of the Arab armies and the numbers and efficiency of the troops who would be committed — much as the Arab generals tended to exaggerate Jewish fighters' strength) that Israel's chances of winning a war against the Arab states were only about even.[94] [/rquoter] So, even with the Arab forces having, at least initially, a major advantage in terms of military-grade weaponry, tanks, and aircraft, the assessment at the time was that they Israelies and Arabs were about equal in terms of man-power. Also, Ben-Gurion's own military advisers believed Israel's chances of winning of the war was "about even" -- and that's with an overestimation of the strength of the opposing forces. So, from that, I see no reason to view Israel's victory as so improbable that it must have entailed divine intervention.
From this, I take it that you believe there is no firm evidence that can be presented to convince the non-believer. To believe, one must have faith, and that faith is acquired through reading the Bible and prayer. To be clear, I have no particular desire to be a believer in Jesus. If I did have this desire, I would take up your advice and strive to attain the level of faith that you have. I'm just interested in understanding what it is Christians think and why. To that end, I think I will trying reading from the Bible, as time permits. I see there are a ton of translations out there. Which English ones would you suggest? Also, do you suggest reading from beginning to end, or skipping ahead to certain sections?
So you keep asking for evidence or proof on his existence. Do you have definite proof disproving his existence? If so please share, and if no. How can you be so sure with your FAITH of a nonexistence? You question believers, but nonbelievers run almost parallel with believers. just in opposite directions. We are both banking on things we won't find out till we do. So why the big ( I can't understand it ) attitude of why or how we choose to think? I just don't understand it ( pun intended). And as far as what to read or other things to look for,There would be no point in trying to help those who don't actually seek it. DO WHAT THOU WILT.
Where did I ask for evidence? I made a comment to the effect that belief in biblical prophecies are faith-based and not evidence-based, and you seem to agree. cml750 offered what he considers to be a good historical example of evidence, and I merely responded that I did not find it compelling. I didn't ask for nor expect any evidence. I don't think I have any such faith, but it might be that I'm understanding the term "faith" differently from you. Personally, I just subscribe to the philosophy of believing in things when I find there is sufficient reason to think it true. Faith, to me, is believing in something prior to having good reasons to think it true. For instance, believing in something out of a desire for it to be true. I think its good to understand how other people look at things. And Christian doctrine has obviously had a major influence on Western thought (you could say its been THE major influence), on people's perspectives regarding various social issues, foreign policy to some extent, really everything. So its a relevant matter for Christians and non-Christians alike. I assume we're living in the same country. So why shouldn't we try to understand one another. You feel differently?
What you should tell me is that reasonable good people can be agnostic without damning them to hell. Both conditions live in the grey area of uncertainty.
Im not into Christian/religious persecution like a lot of atheistic liberals on here, however this bit is a crock. Christians are often just as scummy as any other non Christian. I dont believe for a second that some pompous Christian douchebag who 'checks' all the right boxes will have a better chance of getting into heaven than an atheist who devotes his life to good will. This is one of the many arrogant beliefs that has pushed me away from mainstream religion. For some odd reason, Christians feel they have the right to judge who is and isn't going to Heaven when the Bible clearly states there will be a judgement day, and that its God, not Christians who will judge who is righteous.
My understanding is that Christians should not judge others as sinners, because Christian doctrine teaches that all people are sinners. But warning others that they may go to Hell if they don't do what is prescribed in the Bible seems like a decent thing to do, if that's what one truly believes will happen. So, I personally don't take offense over it.
But according to the bible a Christian doesn't know and isn't the judge about whether anyone else will go to hell or not. They can believe, but according to the bible only God is able to judge whether or not another person will go to hell. In fact the bible advises Christians not to even worry about whether another person will go or not and it says that each person will stand or fall to their own master. This bit is from Romans 14 and advises that each person should be convinced that what they do is for good, and Christians shouldn't interfere and say they are wrong because they aren't the judge.
Given that Hindu's figured out the Big Bang thousands of years before science did...I'd say that's a bigger deal than predicting the re-creation of a small country.Shouldn't you be a Hindu if we are going to weigh the power of religions to predict things accurately?
