Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

The Buybull is composed mainly of superstitious beliefs and inventions. It is seasoned with a little good advice and a few historical facts, which are the only parts worth taking notice of.

I like 'Buybull', Len - may I borrow the term from time to time, if that is o.k. with you?

[Stranger]

Of course I have.

And every time I read it I get new insights into my Christian faith.

Your previous remarks about "relatively trivial contradictions" would suggest otherwise.

Quite apart from actual the contradictions - the thing just doesn't fit together - the monstrous, jealous, vindictive genocidal god in the OT doesn't really fit with the supposed loving god that one can see in parts of the NT and that many Christians talk about.

In short, it's an inconsistent mess.

Try reading it again and pretend you don't already know what the message is supposed to be....

[Alan Burns]

Yes, it is so easy to pick faults with Christianity.
And from personal experience I can confirm how difficult it is to defend in our increasingly secular world.

So why do I persist in trying to defend it?

Because I know it to be true.

[Shaker]

Yes, it is so easy to pick faults with Christianity.
And from personal experience I can confirm how difficult it is to defend in our increasingly secular world.

So why do I persist in trying to defend it?

Because I know it to be true.

You believe it to be so.

[Stranger]

Because I know it to be true.

How - apart from the silly stuff about answered prayer (whatever happens is the answer) and some internal feelings...?

[BeRational]

Yes, it is so easy to pick faults with Christianity.
And from personal experience I can confirm how difficult it is to defend in our increasingly secular world.

So why do I persist in trying to defend it?

Because I know it to be true.

You believe it to be true, it is not a fact that it is true.

Your reasoning and grasp of logic is demonstrably poor, so your assertions of knowledge, by more reasoned people look laughable.

[Leonard James]

I like 'Buybull', Len - may I borrow the term from time to time, if that is o.k. with you?

It isn't my invention, Gordon ... I read it someplace recently and liked it, so go ahead! 

[Rhiannon]

Yes, it is so easy to pick faults with Christianity.
And from personal experience I can confirm how difficult it is to defend in our increasingly secular world.

So why do I persist in trying to defend it?

Because I know it to be true.

We don't need to pick faults. It's not known at the Holey Bible for nothing.

(Can't believe I just said that)

[Shaker]

Neither can I 

[Gordon]

Yes, it is so easy to pick faults with Christianity.
And from personal experience I can confirm how difficult it is to defend in our increasingly secular world.

Perhaps that is because the bit of the world you are in is now far less credulous than it once was, and is therefore less susceptible to fallacious arguments from tradition and authority to the extent that the influence of organised religion is declining.

So why do I persist in trying to defend it?

Because you are one of the declining number who remain susceptible to the fallacies associated with theism in general, and Christianity in particular.

Because I know it to be true.

You don't, Alan, because you don't have knowledge.

[Leonard James]

Because I know it to be true.

No, Alan, you don't KNOW any such thing ... you merely BELIEVE it to be true.

Many years of constant repetition and false deductions have completely overridden your ability to distinguish between belief and fact.

[Alan Burns]

No, Alan, you don't KNOW any such thing ... you merely BELIEVE it to be true.

Many years of constant repetition and false deductions have completely overridden your ability to distinguish between belief and fact.

How I wish you could enter my mind, Len, and see the loving God who has made Himself known to me.

[Shaker]

How I wish you could enter my mind, Len, and see the loving God who has made Himself known to me.

Loving but ineffectual if your friend Becky is anything to go by.

[Leonard James]

How I wish you could enter my mind, Len, and see the loving God who has made Himself known to me.

I'm afraid you've gone too far this time Alan! 

As you can SEE this deity, please describe his appearance to me.

[Sassy]

They aren't 'relatively trivial' though, are they? And if this is God-breathed they shouldn't exist at all. It would make for much better evidence.

You aren't considering the whys of the contradictions here at all. Why do Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the Nativity? Why doesn't Mark mention it at all? This is theology 101 stuff, Alan. What are your answers?

How do Matthew and Luke contradict themselves on the Nativity?

The fact is that neither Matthew or Luke witnessed the Nativity.
Mary or Christ would have told them. However these are not the teachings of the Prophets and the OT.
These are events which happened after Christ and the facts are the OT was fulfilled concerning Christ.

King James Bible
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

It matters not one iota if Matthew and Luke do not say the same things. Because it was only the OT that is classed as scripture when it comes to the inerrant word of God spoken about within them.

There is no mention of Simeon in Matthew but we know that it took place.
Though these books written by different people - we know some of the contents were not personally witnessed by the disciples but were third party especially from Mary and Jesus.

I personally do not think anything in the NT can be seen as contradictory when it comes to the teachings of the OT about OT teachings and scripture. The fact is the new Testament are mainly a collection of events which included those not witnessed but related to the people writing. Luke writing an account for someone and the letters addressed to different Churches and People.

We need to stop trying to find fault where none exists.

[Rhiannon]

You know that details in the Nativity stories were put there to give them the appearance of fulfilling OT prophecy, right, Sass?

[Alan Burns]

I'm afraid you've gone too far this time Alan! 

As you can SEE this deity, please describe his appearance to me.

I see beyond the limitations of my physical senses to perceive the spiritual nature of my soul, and its personal relationship with the Creator.  It goes beyond what mere words can express, which is why you would need to enter my mind to see it as I see it.

[ippy]

How do Matthew and Luke contradict themselves on the Nativity?

The fact is that neither Matthew or Luke witnessed the Nativity.
Mary or Christ would have told them. However these are not the teachings of the Prophets and the OT.
These are events which happened after Christ and the facts are the OT was fulfilled concerning Christ.

It matters not one iota if Matthew and Luke do not say the same things. Because it was only the OT that is classed as scripture when it comes to the inerrant word of God spoken about within them.

There is no mention of Simeon in Matthew but we know that it took place.
Though these books written by different people - we know some of the contents were not personally witnessed by the disciples but were third party especially from Mary and Jesus.

I personally do not think anything in the NT can be seen as contradictory when it comes to the teachings of the OT about OT teachings and scripture. The fact is the new Testament are mainly a collection of events which included those not witnessed but related to the people writing. Luke writing an account for someone and the letters addressed to different Churches and People.

We need to stop trying to find fault where none exists.

Since you cant establish that there is evidence that would support that the words in the bible are gods own or inspired by it, why don't you get the proof first and then it might be worth having a discussion about who said what whom, so really without any supporting evidence, as it is at the moment, why bother Sass?
Now "Star Trek"?

ippy

[Stranger]

How I wish you could enter my mind, Len, and see the loving God who has made Himself known to me.

Which returns me to the earlier question of why this god of yours hides from other people?

Have you ever thought it might exist only in your mind?

[ippy]

I see beyond the limitations of my physical senses to perceive the spiritual nature of my soul, and its personal relationship with the Creator.  It goes beyond what mere words can express, which is why you would need to enter my mind to see it as I see it.

That post of yours is delusional Alan, go see someone.

ippy

[Leonard James]

I see beyond the limitations of my physical senses to perceive the spiritual nature of my soul, and its personal relationship with the Creator.  It goes beyond what mere words can express, which is why you would need to enter my mind to see it as I see it.

 

Oh dearie me, my friend! You really are lost beyond help. 

[Alan Burns]

Which returns me to the earlier question of why this god of yours hides from other people?

Have you ever thought it might exist only in your mind?

I know of many other Christians who perceive the same God.

[Sassy]

You know that details in the Nativity stories were put there to give them the appearance of fulfilling OT prophecy, right, Sass?

I believe the experience of knowing the OT prophecy is fulfilled comes from personal experience of Christ and God in your life.
You see where they stayed and where Christ was born is immaterial. Just as the number of shepherds and wise men.
The OT shows that God and a persons faith in him are based on an actual relationship.

If it was just fulfilling of prophecy that made a person a believer then the Jews would not have continued to stone and kill the Prophets when their Prophecies came true in their own life times.

The two main things I get from the OT, is that Gods words come to pass and those who believe have  personal relationships with him. The NT was written so people would know the Messiah had come and that the truth he reveals leads to a relationship with God and eternal life.

If the bibles were burned throughout the world tomorrow, Gods word would still exist. The truth would be told.
Because it has always been the Spirit of God who put Gods words in the mouth of mankind.
No man of God speaks of themselves. The Holy Spirit gives them the words to speak.

Before the written words given to Moses, GOD was in a relationship with his people. Covenants he made with Abraham and even Noah. Gods people are living people not just stories.

[Shaker]

I know of many other Christians who perceive the same God.

Since we can't even, on any level (philosophy/physics/whatever), say this about colour, how can you claim it about God?

[Stranger]

I know of many other Christians who perceive the same God.

Or have built a similar one in their own minds.

You do understand that many, many people make similar claims about 'knowing' a different god to yours, don't you?

What do you think about them?