| LIFE What about God? Is He or isn’t he?

bcracker

Mentis Splendidus
Member
I didn’t know exactly how to title this thread, so hopefully it will suffice for all who are interested.

So, @ElephantStomp, as we mentioned in the COVID thread, how is it that you came to doubt what you previously believed? As for me, It is impossible that God does not exist. Again, I’m sincerely interested in that process that led you to where you are now.

an aside, have patience with me regarding responses. I’ll be out of the country for a few days, and I‘m not sure what the status of wifi will be.

I look forward to the discussion.
 
Theologically there is no proof that God exists. The Bible says so but that is not proof. However there is historical facts that Jesus lived. You can't believe in God unless you have faith. I believe Jesus taught that message.

The Bible has many confusing themes but if you keep reading and thinking about those things you will find out what is truth.
 
The statement that the Bible can’t be the literal word of God relies on the belief that God is perfect. Where does that belief stem from? The Bible. Using a belief of part of the Bible ( God is perfect) to disprove and not believe the Bible (there is an instance where dates don’t align so it’s imperfect and can’t be from God). Not trying to argue, just trying to get my head around that.

I guess my question is, what do you base your belief that God is perfect on if you discount the Bible?
 
All proof of God as the literal God of the Bible assumes the Bible is correct in what it says. Proving it is wrong in one aspect means that all other aspects of it must be assumed to be suspect until proven correct. Since the only proof the Bible is correct is the Bible itself, there is no proof it is correct at all. Even showing some events happened as they were told would only prove those events correct, not a single thing about the rest of it. In the end, I do believe in God but I do not believe in any of the religions men created.
 
One argument against the Bible is that it is not even consistent with itself. Matthew and Luke placed the Nativity 10 years apart.
The problem with that statement is the argument is not proven with statements made by Mathew and luke. His birth date is not really known. Herod died in 4 BC and before he died he ordered the death of all baby boys 2 years and younger. This would mean to most biblical scholars he was born around 6 BC. Mathew and Luke don't contradict each other but they both leave out facts that make critics make that claim. Jesus being born around 6 BC means the calendar makers got it wrong also.
 
Matthew very plainly puts the Nativity in the rule of Herod which ended in 4 BC. Luke refers to the census which occurred during the reign of Quirinus which was in 6 AD. Ten years minimum.
Quirinius was actually governor twice in Syria (from roughly 10-7 BC and then again in 6 AD), according to inscriptions found in Turkey (Asia Minor), including some found on the walls of the ruined temple of Augustus at Anakara, which contained the autobiography of the emperor. These inscriptions refer to two censuses. Both not only contain the numbers of those enrolled, they each mention Quirinius presiding over both as governor. The first, the one mentioned by Luke, was supposed to occur around 8 BC, but was for some reason delayed until around 6 BC. The second census, which had a view toward taxation, occurred in 6 AD. This is the one referred to in Acts 5:37. Luke is not referring to the census of “6 AD”. That is why the more modern English translations read, “this was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” So, there is actually no discrepancy between Matthew and Luke.
 
One argument against the Bible is that it is not even consistent with itself. Matthew and Luke placed the Nativity 10 years apart.
You’ve been reading a whole lot online from people who are hostile to Christianity. Try balancing that by speaking with a pastor who knows Scripture … and please do so with an open mind. Who knows … you might find the discrepancies aren’t really discrepancies after all? In any event, you’ll have more information to base your judgment. By doing so, I pray you find the Truth.
 
I am not hostile to Christianity. I am hostile to all religions equally. Every one has proof they are the correct one and none are right.
None of them claim to be the correct one except the Muslims. Muslims are the newest one. Jews are the oldest. All Christians are a social branch of catholics in my opinion. The message is more important than what color your priest wears.
 
The message is exactly what you're preacher says, which is the biggest issue.

Talking to a preacher is often what convinces someone to become an atheist in reality.

Edit:. At this point you have to prove the whole Bible is accurate as opposed to anyone proving any part of it is wrong. Inability to do so means the whole basis of your religion is not factual but just your belief
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom