# Who or Whom wrote the old testiment and new testiment.



## piratebob64 (Sep 25, 2013)

What person or persons or deity originally wrote not only the old testiment but the new testiment as well.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 25, 2013)

Roughly 40 different authors, living on3 seperate continents, over a period of 1400 years, all inspired by the Holy Spirit, hence telling one story.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> What person or persons or deity originally wrote not only the old testiment but the new testiment as well.


Here's what I found - I make no claims as to their accuracy.
New Testemant - 
Paul, who was called Saul before he converted to Christianity, was raised Jewish and opposed Christianity for many years. Paul is credited with 13 of the New Testament books including Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon. Only Philemon was written as a personal note from Paul. Most of his writings were considered Christology or eschatology writings. Some argue that Paul probably wrote Hebrews also, but this has not been confirmed.
A wide range of other authors contributed to the New Testament throughout the 50 years it was written. John the disciple wrote several books, including John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation. Peter is the author of 1 Peter and 2 Peter. The tax collector Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. John Mark wrote Mark. A Greek historian and physician, Luke, wrote Luke and Acts. James, sometimes described as a half-brother to Jesus, wrote the book James, and Jude, the half-brother to James, wrote Jude. It is unclear who wrote the book of Hebrews. Past considerations of authors have included Paul, Silas, Luke, Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos or Barnabas.
BibleResources.org identifies James as the oldest book of the New Testament, written in 45 A.D., and Revelations as the final one, written approximately 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic. The first English translation of the works was completed in 1382 A.D. by John Wycliffe.
Old Testament -
Though each author isn’t known for certain, there are many that can be identified.
The Pentateuch is a collection of 5 books in the Old Testament that was written by Moses. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Moses is believed to have written these books because scriptures support his authorship.
It is assumed that Joshua was written by himself, but is never stated clearly.
The following books from Judges to Job have unidentified authors except for Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra was a priest who wrote the book after which he was named and Nehemiah was the cupbearer to a Persian king. Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one book in the Hebrew Bible but were later separated into two.
Various people wrote the book of Psalms. Moses is responsible for Psalm 90 which is more like a prayer than a song. Asaph was the author of two psalms, Solomon and Ezra each wrote two, and David wrote at least 73. The remaining psalms have anonymous authors and Ezra may have been the one who actually compiled the psalms to form the book of Psalms.
Proverbs is a book full of wisdom and short sayings and was probably written by Solomon, though there may have been other authors as well.
The remaining 17 books of the Old Testament were written by their title’s name.

As for these particular books being divinely inspired is a matter of debate. Its a fact that MEN chose what was to be considered inspired and what was not. For me, that alone cancels out any "divine inspiration".


----------



## piratebob64 (Sep 25, 2013)

Did not want to take this, this far back who or whom wrote the Hebrew Bible. 

So the New testament is a book written over a period of 50 or more years that has multible authors some were/had first hand knowledge some of it could be considered second hand. At a time when at least 99% of the comon people were illiterate.  And at time when some of the  Apostles  if I remember right  preached vows of celibacy and and other off wall rules, and at times thought mad! (if I am wrong I know I will be corrected). Then Who gathered all the diffrent books  and combined them as one, Was this done under the Emporer Constantines rule  when he converted to Christianity! 
As for the old testiment I again fall back on the illiterateracy of the population at the time of the writing.  These scholars were just normal  sheep herders and such types. Who or whom gathered all the books of the old testament and combined them into one book.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Roughly 40 different authors Provable, living on3 seperate continentsProvable, over a period of 1400 yearsProvable, all inspired by the Holy Spirit, hence telling one storyAnd these are where the wheels come off....



See above.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 25, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> Then Who gathered all the diffrent books  and combined them as one, Was this done under the Emporer Constantines rule  when he converted to Christianity!



Constantine had fifty Bibles prepared, but he did not decide the canon.  Most of the NT books were well-known to the church long before Constantine was even a gleam in his father's eye.




piratebob64 said:


> As for the old testiment I again fall back on the illiterateracy of the population at the time of the writing.  These scholars were just normal  sheep herders and such types.



What of it?




piratebob64 said:


> Who or whom gathered all the books of the old testament and combined them into one book.



How could anybody know that?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 25, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> As for these particular books being divinely inspired is a matter of debate. Its a fact that MEN chose what was to be considered inspired and what was not. For me, that alone cancels out any "divine inspiration".



I don't really think it's a matterer of debate.... The debate ends right after someone says that it's divinely inspired because it says that it's divinely inspired.... There's no more evidence than that.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 25, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> How could anybody know that?



What if it was the DEvil Himself? If you don't think anyone could know who did it, then it could have been that sneak....


----------



## piratebob64 (Sep 25, 2013)

Okay now we are getting somewhere!  
It has been proven time and time again that the whole meaning a simple word can change in translation. Some laungauges are simply UN-translatable as the there is no meaning  for some words.  SO in your honest opinion how much truth has been lost in  translations.  And no one mentioned the "crazy Christian religious" offshoots of only one I mentioned but there were a multitude of them , started by the apostles them selves or their followers. 
As for the old testament,  We are taking the word of 250 +/- year old men that claim they wrote the books yet 99.9% of the population was illiterate, okayyyyy and we scoff at aliens!


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 25, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> SO in your honest opinion how much truth has been lost in  translations.



Zero.  Greek and Hebrew are not "untranslatable".


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 25, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> And no one mentioned the "crazy Christian religious" offshoots of only one I mentioned but there were a multitude of them , started by the apostles them selves or their followers



There were heresies very early on, but they were not started by the apostles.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 25, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> See above.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg  
Roughly 40 different authors Provable, living on3 seperate continentsProvable, over a period of 1400 yearsProvable, all inspired by the Holy Spirit, hence telling one storyAnd these are where the wheels come off....


Stripe I'm impressed that you grant so much.  Given what you grant as provable(I would suggest not only proven but accepted by scolars and laymen alike), "that it was written by 40 different authors, on 3 separate continents over a 1400 year time period and tells one story" points to not only one author but is nothing short of miraculous in itself.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 25, 2013)

Not that I agree with all of it but I found Richard Elliots Friedmans book "Who wrote the bible" super interesting. You'll be saying, "why did I not notice that". Actually just looked for it to verify the title but could not find it. May have to order another


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 25, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Not that I agree with all of it but I found Richard Elliots Friedmans book "Who wrote the bible" super interesting. You'll be saying, "why did I not notice that". Actually just looked for it to verify the title but could not find it. May have to order another


http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 25, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> SO in your honest opinion how much truth has been lost in  translations.



Not my opinion, but that of fielded scholars is that the Bible, while it does in fact have some minor errors, is an accurate copy of the very earliest texts, is historically accurate, and fundamentally inerrant in its message.


----------



## piratebob64 (Sep 25, 2013)

So what about the dead sea scrolls, It is historically accurate, and fundamentally inerrant in its message.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 25, 2013)

When these are the rules its not suprising that the story agrees, it's inevitable. It was the purpose for making the rules.


> This means that if any book teaches something contrary to what other books teach it cannot be inspired by God. For instance the book of Tobit (which is a book written during the time between the Old and New Testament) teaches that good deeds can atone or make right the evil things that we do. The Old Testament and the New Testament clearly teaches that only the shedding of blood can forgive sins (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22). Another example coms from the Book of Wisdom. It says that God created the universe from pre-existing mater, which the Bible clearly does not teach (Genesis 1:1-2; John 1:1-3; Hebrews 11:3). Any book that does not conform to the others in what it teaches is not inspired.http://www.christfellowshipbg.com


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> So what about the dead sea scrolls, It is historically accurate, and fundamentally inerrant in its message.



Not sure, but from what little I know I think they don't contradict the Bible but corroborate it.


----------



## piratebob64 (Sep 26, 2013)

From what I read there are "diffrences" but not a lot but then the schollars only let out what information they want you to have. 
This is why i issues with "the schollars" debating who wrote the bible, ECT.
 What a nice and pleseant church service we are having huh.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> When these are the rules its not suprising that the story agrees, it's inevitable. It was the purpose for making the rules.





> This means that if any book teaches something contrary to what other books teach it cannot be inspired by God. For instance the book of Tobit (which is a book written during the time between the Old and New Testament) teaches that good deeds can atone or make right the evil things that we do. The Old Testament and the New Testament clearly teaches that only the shedding of blood can forgive sins (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22). Another example coms from the Book of Wisdom. It says that God created the universe from pre-existing mater, which the Bible clearly does not teach (Genesis 1:1-2; John 1:1-3; Hebrews 11:3). Any book that does not conform to the others in what it teaches is not inspired.http://www.christfellowshipbg.com



Something is very wrong when all the words are supposed to be the inspired words of a God and yet man makes the decision which are and are not.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> From what I read there are "diffrences" but not a lot but then the schollars only let out what information they want you to have.
> This is why i issues with "the schollars" debating who wrote the bible, ECT.
> What a nice and pleseant church service we are having huh.



I don't think you have to worry about a conspiracy amoungst the scholars.  Scholars, for the most part, make their living off of credibility.   They live and die by peer review.  In other words if they print something false their peers will call them on it.  Their credibility is shot and they may never get anything they write published again.   One thing to keep in mind regarding this is the more credibility they garner through publishing articles in scholarly journals, the more freedom they get to wonder off the reservation, so to speak.  Once they become renowned they can pretty much say what they like as long as they can back it up, but again they are always mindful of their crediblity.  It's the only currency they deal in.

The Bible is roughly 2000 years old and has been under attack since day one.  It is easily the most critiqued document in History.  Additionally, there are many, many liberal scholars today that have absolutely no problem leveling critical analysis on the Bible.( See Bart Ehrman), yet it has without a doubt stood the test of time and is stronger for it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg
> Roughly 40 different authors Provable, living on3 seperate continentsProvable, over a period of 1400 yearsProvable, all inspired by the Holy Spirit, hence telling one storyAnd these are where the wheels come off....
> 
> ...



The encyclopedia was written by about the same number of people, over the same geographic spread, just not in the same time frame. 

Do you think that this point to divine authorship of the encyclopedia, too? 

As far as giving credit, facts are facts, and beliefs are beliefs. 

Those I "gave credit" to are facts. They can be quantified, measured, and observed. 

So far, God, in any incarnation outside of the Bible itself, is none of those things. We've been over this many times. Facts require objective observation, not subjective experience. Christians say that God is, as any God of any other religion also is, real to them because of the experiences in their lives and this one book, or books written by others extrapolated from the Bible or their own personal experiences that can not be objectively confirmed or denied. It's bad science, if you ask me. 

I'm merely calling a spade a spade, in this instance. I would never presume to tell someone that they can't believe what they wish to believe. I will call someone out when they try passing belief off as factual when it relies on a single source and circular logic.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

For some, they may dismiss my qualms about religion as semantics since, if they could factually prove to me that God exists, I would be on the bandwagon with them. 

However, it is no different than, say, a jury trial. 

Christians argue that God exists, I don't. Since you can't provide proof that something doesn't exist, it's a paradox since absence of evidence doesn't necessarily mean absence of existence, I leave them with the burden of proof as a result of their convictions. 

So far the only evidence is one book written by 40 different people, on 3 different continents, over 1400 years that has been hashed, re-hashed, and gutted so many times by so many people with ulterior motives that it is more suspect to me than Wikipedia, and personal accounts of how God has impacted their lives, in their opinions. 

That's hearsay, and a very shaky reference book. It's not compelling to me, but since this isn't a trial for God's life, if you want to believe it then I can accept that, but I can't accept God as factual for myself, based on the submitted evidence.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not my opinion, but that of fielded scholars is that the Bible, while it does in fact have some minor errors, is an accurate copy of the very earliest texts, is historically accurate, and fundamentally inerrant in its message.



Now it's FUNDAMENTALLY inerrant... Not INERRANT.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Now it's FUNDAMENTALLY inerrant... Not INERRANT.



How do you have errors, of any size, and still be inerrant in any way?



> in·er·rant
> [in-er-uhnt, -ur-]  Show IPA
> 
> adjective
> free from error; infallible



So free from errors, except the parts that have errors.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The encyclopedia was written by about the same number of people, over the same geographic spread, just not in the same time frame.
> 
> Do you think that this point to divine authorship of the encyclopedia, too?



I don't think the encyclopedia tells one story.  Do you?



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> As far as giving credit, facts are facts, and beliefs are beliefs.
> 
> Those I "gave credit" to are facts. They can be quantified, measured, and observed.



I agree and I appreciate your honesty.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So far, God, in any incarnation outside of the Bible itself, is none of those things. We've been over this many times. Facts require objective observation, not subjective experience. .



That I don't agree with.  Some facts can be backed by empirical data.  Others can't, but are facts none the less.  I am happy.  That is a fact, but it can't be proven empirically.  Most of the data we base our decisions on in which to lead our daily lives do not depend on empirical data, but data provided to us by our senses....data that is very difficulty if not impossible to quantify empirically, yet it is data and it is true.  

But, just for the sake of argument, lets say you are correct and the only data that matters is empirical data.  And let's take your next point. 



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Christians say that God is, as any God of any other religion also is, real to them because of the experiences in their lives and this one book, or books written by others extrapolated from the Bible or their own personal experiences that can not be objectively confirmed or denied. It's bad science, if you ask me.



If I accept your given that the only data that can be factual is that which can be empirically proven, and I say OK well we have X amount of Christians that say that God 
has healed them from alcoholism, X amount from drug addiction, X amount from this, X amount from that.  And we have witnesses that corroborate that indeed these changes have taken place in these peoples lives.  That's empirical data that is corroborated.  Yet you say it's bad science.  

Honestly it seems as if you ask for empirical data, but when it is given state that it's not good enough.  Now to be honest I can see your point of view ....to a point.  I work in the medical field where cold,hard,reproducible in a lab, data is imperative to my field of practice, so yes, there are some things that need hard empirical data to back a decision.  But, in all honesty most people don't need this type of data to do their jobs, and none of us can honestly say we live our daily lives depending on what this high level data dictates.  For the most part we live our lives and make our decisions not based on anything even remotely resembling empirical data, but based on our past experiences and the information provided to us by sources we deem credible.  So based on that it would be hypocritical of me to demand more evidence of God than I routinely needto lead my daily life.  What would be the point.  What would I do with the data, and if I knew wouldn't it take some of the wonder out of it.  

Isn't the true wonder and joy of doing science the discoveries that are made along the way to seeking and answer.  My family went to New Mexico last year.  We got as much enjoyment seeing the various sights along the way as we did out of reaching the destination. We enjoyed both.   God has given us both also..... he provides us enough to keep us enthralled along the way with a promised awe inspiring end to the trip.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How do you have errors, of any size, and still be inerrant in any way?
> 
> 
> 
> So free from errors, except the parts that have errors.



The errors don't effect any essential doctrine.  For instance it's always been taught the mark of the Beast was 666.  More recently this has been found to be a copying error.  It's now felt that it is 616.  It doesn't effect any primary or secondary doctrine.  It could be said to affect tertiary doctrine....maybe.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> What a nice and pleseant church service we are having huh.



This is no church service.  More like Dragon Con.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't think the encyclopedia tells one story.  Do you?
> 
> It does. It tells of the real world, much in the same way that Christians interpret the Bible. It deals the genesis of the planet and all of things in the universe. It tells the same story as the bible does, but in scientific terms, without parables, and without the need to couch it in faith. It even describes faiths without relying on any of them for validation.
> 
> ...



Religion is subjective, period statement. It varies from person to person, as each person varies from each other. No two people will experience the same thing, identically, and even if they did, there's no way to prove it in a factual sense. You and Bob could say that the Falcon's game was the best thing that ever happened to you, and while it may be factually true to your own experience, there's no way to prove it to me. Just like if an event occurs there are always 3 versions of it. What person A describes has happened, what person B has described, and what actually happened. 

Just like Einstein's theory of relativity, where time differs depending on the observer, so does the human condition. Sort of a Theory of Existential Relativity, if you will. It can be fact to you, because you experience it, but be open for debate amongst the rest of the universe. 

The only true facts are those which reside outside of the human condition and can be proven from person to person equally, and repeatedly.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The errors don't effect any essential doctrine.  For instance it's always been taught the mark of the Beast was 666.  More recently this has been found to be a copying error.  It's now felt that it is 616.  It doesn't effect any primary or secondary doctrine.  It could be said to affect tertiary doctrine....maybe.



So, if it's not essential, then it's not the Word of God? 

I thought the Bible was wholesale from God, he wrote it all and He is inerrant, as well. 

Who determines the essentiality of the doctrine?

Now we're into religious relativity, which is the whole point. 

Religion is relative to everyone, everywhere, at every time.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't think the encyclopedia tells one story.  Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What about people that overcame their addictions without 'god' or healed themselves with 'magic crystals' or by attending Sweat Lodges?  

Still not proof of god at work (nor proof of the crystal's powers).

As a matter of fact, I don't think that claiming 'god' has healed your addiction is true healing at all, especially when you can claim that 'Satan' is influencing you or that you will be forgiven for failure.  Truly being free of the addiction is being able to say "I have this licked.  I don't need (it) and I don't need a crutch to help me keep my promise to myself."


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I thought the Bible was wholesale from God, he wrote it all and He is inerrant, as well.



Nope, that's the Koran.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Nope, that's the Koran.



So let me get this straight, you're a Christian telling me that the Bible isn't the inerrant word of God. Further that it is subject to errors. 

How is the entire thing, and thus faith as a whole, not suspect at that point?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Religion is subjective, period statement.



Now you know that is too broad a statement to defend




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It varies from person to person, as each person varies from each other. No two people will experience the same thing, identically, and even if they did, there's no way to prove it in a factual sense. You and Bob could say that the Falcon's game was the best thing that ever happened to you, and while it may be factually true to your own experience, there's no way to prove it to me. Just like if an event occurs there are always 3 versions of it. What person A describes has happened, what person B has described, and what actually happened.



You are forgetting what can be corroborated by third parties.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Just like Einstein's theory of relativity, where time differs depending on the observer, so does the human condition. Sort of a Theory of Existential Relativity, if you will. It can be fact to you, because you experience it, but be open for debate amongst the rest of the universe.
> 
> The only true facts are those which reside outside of the human condition and can be proven from person to person equally, and repeatedly.




That statement, even if true, can not be proven by that definition.  It dissolves itself.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 26, 2013)

> yet it has without a doubt stood the test of time and is stronger for it.


According to the facts, at least in our part of the world, that is just not true.
Church attendance. Down
Financial support. Down.
Christian influence in public school. Out.
Numbers of Atheists/Agnostics. Up
Numbers of people following no religion. Up
Numbers of people following religions other than Christianity. Up
At this point in history the Bible is not standing up to the test of time except to the people who believe it. Its influence on the public as a whole is declining. Will that reverse? We don't know. But as we sit here today the above facts are facts.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Now you know that is too broad a statement to defend
> Then you should have no problem proving me wrong. How is a religious experience identical to two people? Because they told you it is? That's not objective and that's not provable.
> 
> 
> ...



Above in red.


----------



## piratebob64 (Sep 26, 2013)

STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What I hoped wold be a calm debate has gone out of control! 
I put thread in the tripple A forum knowing it would be agreat location. 
Bullet head:
You are going down the right path in my oppinion if the bible is the  insprired word of GOD and Jesus and written by those people inspired by Him then how come we have whole books cast out that were written by other people inpired by him and if this is the case then the bible should be like a living document always growing and expanding with added books by those who have been inspired who also have stories to tell.

 Semperfidawg:
There has been one period of time that it can be semi/verified through documented/written reports that Jesus Healed someone! He has not healed a single person since his crucification! Any claims of him healing people today are hearsay and outright lies. The healing may have been aided by their belief in him but was accomplished by themselves. As for knocking other religions please do not do that, it makes you look stupid! You can find the basis and traces of christianity in every religion. When you mock and speak ill of someone elses religion they just shut you out which deprives you the ability to not only teach about god but to gain possible new knowledge to pass along! Remember, MAN WROTE THE BIBLE!  THE CANON TOOK OUT WHAT "THEY FELT" WAS HEIRASY.        
StripRR hunteRR:
I know your veiws from other posts and sometimes in life you have to just say what the heck! I do agree with alot of your veiws. But I will use your own saying -Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow! 

Centerpin :
Yes this one of the best church services I have been to in along time!  Have you not learned something? have you not asked a question or two?  or sought answers to the ones asked?  This, this simple action of open discussions being talked aboutand reveiwed is what I feel the bible and Jesus wanted! Not Joel Osteen and the hacks! Just a bunch of common people coming together to talk and discuss the word! Not be preached "at" or read scripture to by some hack in a suit, look 321 people and counting have veiwed this and 35 have left coments so 286 or so have read this  and of those 100 might have had a question answered or found a new question to research and learn about and pass on that knowledge to another! and another 100 or so Atiests may be asking why not  believe instead of why should I believe?Thist my friend is the most powerful preaching in the world No Hack preacher can even come close!  So again I say   "WELCOME TO CHURCH"!


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 26, 2013)

If religion is NOT subjective then every major decision made within a church by the deacons should be done like this: 

Every deacon individually seek God's guidance through diligent prayer and then each deacon individually write down exactly what God relayed to them as the correct action to take.

When reviewed, every written note should be identical or almost identical if every deacon was truly led by the same God.

Any deacon who wrote something completely different than everyone else should cease to be a deacon.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

One question: Why the yelling to stop?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> If religion is NOT subjective then every major decision made within a church by the deacons should be done like this:
> 
> Every deacon individually seek God's guidance through diligent prayer and then each deacon individually write down exactly what God relayed to them as the correct action to take.
> 
> ...



Eggzachary.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 26, 2013)

So religion is subjective... or does that actually happen somewhere?



HawgJawl said:


> If religion is NOT subjective then every major decision made within a church by the deacons should be done like this:
> 
> Every deacon individually seek God's guidance through diligent prayer and then each deacon individually write down exactly what God relayed to them as the correct action to take.
> 
> ...


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So let me get this straight, you're a Christian telling me that the Bible isn't the inerrant word of God. Further that it is subject to errors.



No, I'm just saying you're confusing the Koran with the Bible (a very common mistake in the AAA forum.)


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> What I hoped wold be a calm debate has gone out of control!
> I put thread in the tripple A forum knowing it would be agreat location.
> Bullet head:
> ...



What if Joel and the hacks are inspired?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> No, I'm just saying you're confusing the Koran with the Bible (a very common mistake in the AAA forum.)



Then those fundamentalists who told me that I needed to follow every word of the Bible or burn in Hades were referring to the Koran, too, right?


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Then those fundamentalists who told me that I needed to follow every word of the Bible or burn in Hades were referring to the Koran, too, right?



Nope.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Nope.



So they were referring to the Bible, like I was, then.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So they were referring to the Bible, like I was, then.



Yep.


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So religion is subjective... or does that actually happen somewhere?



I don't believe that happens anywhere, although it should if one God is guiding His followers in one direction.

I've always wondered why the Pope is selected by the vote of men as opposed to God miraculously selecting the one to lead the Church.  Even with a vote, why is that vote not unanimous?  What possible explanation could there be for God to direct His followers to contradict each other?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Yep.



Then I'm missing why you contradicted what I said in the first place.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> I've always wondered why the Pope is selected by the vote of men as opposed to God miraculously selecting the one to lead the Church.



There is Biblical precedent for it:  Acts 1.


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 26, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> There is Biblical precedent for it:  Acts 1.



Do you think God has any interest in who is Pope?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> I don't believe that happens anywhere, although it should if one God is guiding His followers in one direction.
> 
> I've always wondered why the Pope is selected by the vote of men as opposed to God miraculously selecting the one to lead the Church.  Even with a vote, why is that vote not unanimous?  What possible explanation could there be for God to direct His followers to contradict each other?



Easy, the Catholics got it all wrong...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Easy, the Catholics got it all wrong...



Yeah, they don't have the right interpretation.


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you think God has any interest in who is Pope?



I'll ask again.  Since scripture was in the sole possession of the Catholic Church for over 1000 years and the Pope was in charge of the Catholic Church which in turn meant that the Pope was in charge of the integrity of scripture, do you think God has any interest in who is Pope?


----------



## piratebob64 (Sep 26, 2013)

So how is church going! ANs RR i said stop!!!!! to real things in a littlebit. very easy to get off track with politics er I mean religion. And speaking of my original faith (Catholics) You dont think the old pios one changed things around in the bible! you knw he speaks to GOD for the world right!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> ANs RR i said stop!!!!! to real things in a littlebit. very easy to get off track with politics er I mean religion.



dew hwhut?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Something is very wrong when all the words are supposed to be the inspired words of a God and yet man makes the decision which are and are not.


Good one


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you think God has any interest in who is Pope?



Yes.


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 26, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes.



Then why do such prayerful, Godly men have so much trouble deciding on who God wants to be Pope?


----------



## piratebob64 (Sep 26, 2013)

*ididnotspaceverygoodandaddedwrongwords*



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> dew hwhut?


AND (Stripe) RR I said stop!!!!! meaning to real things in a little bit. very easy to get off track with politics erLOL I mean religion.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Then why do such prayerful, Godly men have so much trouble deciding on who God wants to be Pope?



I dunno.  I'm sure that's not the only issue prayerful, godly men have trouble with.

Also, Acts 1 doesn't say whether or not the vote to replace Judas was unanimous.  My guess is it wasn't.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 26, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I dunno.  I'm sure that's not the only issue prayerful, godly men have trouble with.
> 
> Also, Acts 1 doesn't say whether or not the vote to replace Judas was unanimous.  My guess is it wasn't.



Because any god was just as involved then as he is now.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> AND (Stripe) RR I said stop!!!!! meaning to real things in a little bit. very easy to get off track with politics erLOL I mean religion.



Ok, I get what this means now, you're trying to _reel_ the topic back to the OP. 

Still, my comments on the relativity of religion and personal experience apply here, since the authorship of the Bible is, depending on your viewpoint, either written subjectively by men, or by a deity.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Because any god was just as involved then as he is now.



That's one way of looking at it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> What about people that overcame their addictions without 'god' or healed themselves with 'magic crystals' or by attending Sweat Lodges?



Sorry haven't heard of crystals or swear lodge curing although I'm sure there is ONE out there.



ambush80 said:


> As a matter of fact, I don't think that claiming 'god' has healed your addiction is true healing at all, especially when you can claim that 'Satan' is influencing you or that you will be forgiven for failure.  Truly being free of the addiction is being able to say "I have this licked.  I don't need (it) and I don't need a crutch to help me keep my promise to myself."



Hey, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So, if it's not essential, then it's not the Word of God?







StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I thought the Bible was wholesale from God, he wrote it all and He is inerrant, as well.



Come on Striper.  Are we going to have an intelligent conversation or are you going to start spinning, because if this is really where you want to go with this I'm not going to waste my time.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Who determines the essentiality of the doctrine?



There are three fundamental classes of doctrine.

Primary:  those doctrines that all Christianity hold as true. I.e. the virgin birth, the resurrection, the dirty of Christ, etc.  there are about 13 of them.

Secondary:  these are those that separate denominations.  
Baptism vs. sprinkling, baptizing infants, etc

Tertiary:  those are minor doctrines that individuals in the church may disagree on.  The rapture, what the millenium,  etc.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Now we're into religious relativity, which is the whole point.



Not relativity.  Importance.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Religion is relative to everyone, everywhere, at every time.



O.P.I.N.I.O.N.  and again, you too are entitled to yours.


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 26, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I dunno.  I'm sure that's not the only issue prayerful, godly men have trouble with.
> 
> Also, Acts 1 doesn't say whether or not the vote to replace Judas was unanimous.  My guess is it wasn't.



The difference here is that God has a particular person He wants to be Pope and "Godly" people prayerfully seek His guidance on the issue yet God is somehow unable to effectively relay his wish to people who are seeking God's direction.

If God has one clear goal and "Godly" people prayerfully seek that goal, the result should be unanimous.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> dew hwhut?



I have no idea.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> The difference here is that God has a particular person He wants to be Pope and "Godly" people prayerfully seek His guidance on the issue yet God is somehow unable to effectively relay his wish to people who are seeking God's direction.
> 
> If God has one clear goal and "Godly" people prayerfully seek that goal, the result should be unanimous.



I'm not sure you can make that assumption.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Then why do such prayerful, Godly men have so much trouble deciding on who God wants to be Pope?



When the Cardinals vote it is said they deliberate until God tells them who to vote for and yet no vote is unanimous.....go figure.


----------



## HawgJawl (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> The difference here is that God has a particular person He wants to be Pope and "Godly" people prayerfully seek His guidance on the issue yet God is somehow unable to effectively relay his wish to people who are seeking God's direction.
> 
> If God has one clear goal and "Godly" people prayerfully seek that goal, the result should be unanimous.



If Cardinal "A" says that he sought God's direction on who should be Pope and Cardinal "B" says the same thing yet Cardinal "A" reports that God told him a different candidate than God told Cardinal "B" then one of them is lying. That seems like something that should be investigated by the Church as opposed to it being expected.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sorry haven't heard of crystals or swear lodge curing although I'm sure there is ONE out there.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.



You owe it to yourself to do a little research.  The info is out there.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 26, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> If Cardinal "A" says that he sought God's direction on who should be Pope and Cardinal "B" says the same thing yet Cardinal "A" reports that God told him a different candidate than God told Cardinal "B" then one of them is lying. That seems like something that should be investigated by the Church as opposed to it being expected.



Or both of them are full of caca.....


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 26, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> So how is church going! ANs RR i said stop!!!!! to real things in a littlebit. very easy to get off track with politics er I mean religion. And speaking of my original faith (Catholics) You dont think the old pios one changed things around in the bible! you knw he speaks to GOD for the world right!



I believe Mr. Daniels has the floor right now.....


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You owe it to yourself to do a little research.  The info is out there.



Why bother?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Why bother?



My thought exactly.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 26, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Semperfidawg:
> There has been one period of time that it can be semi/verified through documented/written reports that Jesus Healed someone! He has not healed a single person since his crucification! Any claims of him healing people today are hearsay and outright lies. The healing may have been aided by their belief in him but was accomplished by themselves. As for knocking other religions please do not do that, it makes you look stupid! You can find the basis and traces of christianity in every religion. When you mock and speak ill of someone elses religion they just shut you out which deprives you the ability to not only teach about god but to gain possible new knowledge to pass along! Remember, MAN WROTE THE BIBLE!  THE CANON TOOK OUT WHAT "THEY FELT" WAS HEIRASY.



Not sure where you got your information, but what little of it that is coherent is wrong?  



piratebob64 said:


> THE CANON TOOK OUT WHAT "THEY FELT" WAS HEIRASY.



????????????

On second thought, just deal me out of this one.


----------



## Asath (Sep 27, 2013)

“What person or persons or deity originally wrote not only the old testament (sic) but the new testament (sic) as well. “

Well, I’m not sure how to break this to you, since the whole idea requires Faith, and Belief, and the irrational suspension of Disbelief, and cannot be proven, and cannot, therefore be disproved, and requires the reading of huge amounts of terribly disconnected and hardly rational writings, and often leads one to spiritually euphoric states of transcendence while just as often leading one to depths of potential and very real despair that are ever-present on this very temporal plain – the truth may be a shock to one’s system, is all I’m saying . . .  You ask this question, in all innocence, but I fear you won’t like the answer.

I hope you’re sitting down.  If not, find a chair.  The fact of the matter – and this cannot be refuted by any argument yet presented by the Bible defenders – is that the whole mess was actually written by Jerry Garcia.

I know.  That seems as ridiculous as some sort of ‘born of a virgin, risen bodily from the dead, talking snakes and talking donkeys, burning bush basis of morality, flooding the earth and parting the sea’ sorts of tales, but those folks have it all wrong.  It was Jerry, all along.  They can’t prove it isn’t so.

Jerry is before all was.  And remains.  In the Key of E.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Come on Striper.  Are we going to have an intelligent conversation or are you going to start spinning, because if this is really where you want to go with this I'm not going to waste my time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not the one spinning here. Christianity as a whole is. You guys denounce the ones you don't like as not true believers, or not having the right interpretation. They say the Bible is a direct quote, you guys say it's paraphrasing, or metaphors, or whatever. 

The point is that you all are reading the same texts and coming to different conclusions about the same super friend who is supposedly all powerful. 

If he was so powerful, why can't his own followers, people who claim to have a personal relationship with him through Jesus, get on the same page about anything? 

I understand that all of this is my opinion, and will say that it is so until my dying day. I will not try to treat it as fact and browbeat people into agreeing with me, because it is an opinion about religion relative to me. That's something that escapes most religious people. They feel the need to "educate" the rest of the world on their shared opinions, or individual opinions, and call them facts when they are anything but. 

According to your own words, there are no primary doctrines considering that there is at least one sect that has a different interpretation on every aspect of the Bible. Some consider them metaphors, some consider them literal, some reject them entirely, depending on the passage/parable/psalm, etc., but the point is that Christianity disagrees on every single point, with the exceptions that Jesus lived, and God is his father. That's why there are so many denominations. 

So if there are secondary and tertiary doctrines then the Bible isn't the infallible word of God, but the completely fallible attempt by men to convey something that they know little about and couldn't comprehend because of human limitations, anyway. 

Just so we're clear here:



> rel·a·tiv·i·ty  (rl-tv-t)
> n.
> *1.  The quality or state of being relative.*
> 
> ...



Those are the definitions, in bold, that I am using for relativity. The concepts, ideals, doctrines, and religions are relative to and from every perspective that could possibly be imagined. They are relative to you from the POV of the church, to the church relative to the POV of society, to the church and individual relative to the POV of other religions, and on ad nauseam. 

I admit that my views on the world are opinions, and I'm comfortable with that. It seems that you are incapable of admitting that religion is your opinion on the world and that you choose that with less evidence than I have for choosing mine. I could gather 100 people of the same congregation in one room and interview them on religion and the Bible and come up with 100 different viewpoints on every topic asked. That's something that I would be willing to demonstrate and prove to you. You can't, however, prove to me or anyone for that matter, that God exists or even that the Bible is his true word, other than it says so in the same Book that you're trying to prove. If you approach religion like a research project then you come to the only logical conclusion: there isn't enough evidence to prove anything about God or the Bible that isn't circular in nature, or relative solely to the person expressing the viewpoint. The only source the Bible has is itself, which as you so succinctly put it, was written by 40 different people on 3 different continents, over 1400 years. Think of how well the game grapevine goes. There's a reason why it's fun, and that is that the message gets so garbled by the end of the line that it's comical. That's when human concepts are being conveyed to other humans that can see each other and are sitting right beside each other, whispering from one ear to the next. If you throw in the notion of a deity communicating with a human, over many continents, many years, and many cultures, then you have an almost immeasurable capacity for error, yet we are told that the Bible is inerrant because it says so. 

You and I both know that this is the only book in existence that is given that wide latitude and any other that even attempted it would be laughed off the shelves, unless it was labeled as pure fiction from the onset. The only reasons for this are indoctrination, for some since they learned religion from their parents, or a suspension of logic. You can't apply logic to the Bible or religion because it breaks down, instantly. So you hold it as a belief, which is fine for me and I would allow anyone to do. What I will not do is allow, at least without some challenge, someone to stand here and tell me that the Bible is factual and inerrant, without demanding that they prove it. So far, no one has, because if they had there wouldn't be any AAA forum. We'd all be in the Christianity forum asking how we can repent for our disbelief.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 27, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If he was so powerful, why can't his own followers, people who claim to have a personal relationship with him through Jesus, get on the same page about anything?



Because His followers are human beings, and human beings disagree on everything.  For proof, read any forum on this site.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Because His followers are human beings, and human beings disagree on everything.  For proof, read any forum on this site.



So the human, and his understanding of God, is fallible. How can you be sure the whole thing isn't made up, then, as a result of a misinterpreted dream?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 27, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Because His followers are human beings, and human beings disagree on everything.  For proof, read any forum on this site.



I disagree


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 27, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm not the one spinning here. Christianity as a whole is. You guys denounce the ones you don't like as not true believers, or not having the right interpretation. They say the Bible is a direct quote, you guys say it's paraphrasing, or metaphors, or whatever.
> 
> The point is that you all are reading the same texts and coming to different conclusions about the same super friend who is supposedly all powerful.
> 
> ...



There's so many misconceptions and falsehoods with that response I'm not even going to bother with a rebuttal.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> There's so many misconceptions and falsehoods with that response I'm not even going to bother with a rebuttal.



Nice. I thought you wanted to have a reasoned debate here. 

Where did logic fail me, and why are _you_ the only one to point it out?


----------



## absuches (Sep 27, 2013)

*PART of the reason I beleive God exists, and why "christians" opinions differ*

I'm a Christian. I believe that anyone who believes that Jesus was god's son and died for our sins will go to heaven, period. Some proof in my belief came in 2005. my little brother was in a bad 4-wheeler wreck and the 4-wheeler came back over on top of him hit him in the face and chest. rescue air 1 came on scene to transport him to the hospital, local emt's and ambulances were on scene before transport. 11, I said ELEVEN, PARAMEDICS, not volunteers, not EMT's, not Joe Schmoes, highly trained paramedics that know what they are doing, diagnosed him with a collapsed left lung. Here's your science, the pulled 2 syringes of fluid out of that lung, (20cc's I think, I'm not a paramedic). They did this about 5 mins before he was boarded for flight. flight to North Fulton was 19 mins. when he arrived at the hospital, 3 doctors looked him over, said there was no evidence of a collapsed lung. Stuck with their diagnosis until 8 days later a deep bruise developed on his chest, then reversed their diagnosis. 

his face took the impact of the ignition area between the handle bars. broke bones in his face from eyes down. Doctors said that his face was swelling so fast that it wasn't a matter of if he would have eye damage, but how much. no bone structure to hold his eyes in socket and stretching optical nerve. I worked in roswell at that time and beat helicopter to hospital, saw brother 20 mins after his arrival, his face looked like a 400 lb. sumo wrestler (he was 145 lbs at the time). they immediately gave his medicine to counteract facial swelling but said it would take 2 hours for meds to work. 10 mins later swelling went down, no visual damage to his eyes, thank the lord. 

these are just 2 issues we dealt with in this accident, he spent 15 days in 3 hospitals, came out great. if you didn't know him before you wouldn't even see the small scar on his chin, or the 6 inch plate in his left arm, or the umpteen screws and pins in his face (he has fun at metal detectors! glad we can laugh about it now). there were many other things we dealt with those 2 weeks that "just healed" according to the doctors, with no scientific explanation (doctors that work based on science) one even said "god has a plan for this boy.

What I didn't know at that time, was that within minutes of his wreck, our community and church got on phone and everyone met at the church to pray for him. I prayed for him, all our family and friends prayed for him. Prayer saved, not only my brother's life, but his sight, his physical appearance, and his health. Things happened in those 15 days that, men who make their living based on scientific knowledge and facts, could not explain with scientific knowledge and facts. Well I can explain it, God did not want my brother to die, in fact he wanted him to come out almost as perfectly normal as he was the moment before the wreck. God used his accident to help straighten my sinful life out, get me back on track to being the Christian man he intended me to be, I believe that will all my heart. 

As far as scientific fact to prove God's existence, don't know that I can give you what you want. But think about this, A person sitting in a chair has X resting heart rate, blood pressure, brain activity, etc etc. all measureable factions of body function. That same person, doing exercise, or getting stressed, or dreaming can have measureable differences in these factors. Well, that same person, sitting in a chair, being moved by the holy spirit can have those same measureable factors differ from their resting conditions. May not be the proof you are looking for, but it is a measureable proof none-the-less. 

As far as the deacons all getting the same revelation, I truly believe that if God wanted to give them all the same ideas, then he would. But you have to factor in the human element. No one is perfect on this earth, only Jesus was perfect. therefore man will be moved by many things other than God, his own desires/wants, etc., those men may have been given a sign if you will (gut feeling/vision/circumstantial opportunity) to do the same thing, they just ignored it b/c of what their personal agenda was or weren't smart enough to see it b/c they were focused on what they wanted.

I think that God reveals himself to ALL people in their lifetime (after they have reached an age of accountability, different for every individual) whether they live in Atlanta, or the Amazon jungle. They may have a different name for Him, but they know it. I believe God stirs the heart of ALL, AT LEAST once in their lifetime. It is up to the individual to act upon that open door to accept Him. Some are lucky enough to be give many many opportunities to accept Him. The important thing is to know that God exists, Jesus was his son, and paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins (why we don't have to sacrifice animals/spill blood b/c Jesus was the PERFECT sacrifice, good enough for all of mankind for the rest of earthly time). All we have to do be forgiven for ALL our sins is ask for it. Ask and MEAN it. If you believe these things, you will go to heaven and you will notice a difference in your life. All the other squabbles about religion are differing opinions on how we should live AFTER coming to know Christ. But if you do know Christ, then in your heart you will find the answers to other questions that you seek.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> As far as scientific fact to prove God's existence, don't know that I can give you what you want. But think about this, A person sitting in a chair has X resting heart rate, blood pressure, brain activity, etc etc. all measureable factions of body function. That same person, doing exercise, or getting stressed, or dreaming can have measureable differences in these factors. Well, that same person, sitting in a chair, being moved by the holy spirit can have those same measureable factors differ from their resting conditions. May not be the proof you are looking for, but it is a measureable proof none-the-less.



It's proof that the mind can control the body. 

If you're sitting there, thinking of God, or a romantic evening with your wife, the pleasure centers of your brain are stimulated by the thought and you have a physical reaction. 

It doesn't mean that God reached down into your chest and made your heart beat faster any more than it means your wife did, in the juxtaposed example. 

As far as the medical example, that's a great story and I'm glad it went as well as it did, however our understanding of the human body isn't all inclusive, so it _could_ have been God, it could have also been some interaction with a chemical in his body that they couldn't understand or predict in the time that it occurred. I'm glad that you've found happiness as a result of that, though, sincerely.


----------



## absuches (Sep 27, 2013)

have you ever thought about this.

Instead of trying to prove that God does exist, try proving that he doesn't. Adds a whole other aspect to how your brain works. Maybe my brother's body did have some chemicals react to heal his body, but they didn't prove that either. It's a funny topic, but it is at the core of human existence. Bad things happen, maybe b/c God wants them too, maybe it's just El Nino? Good things happen, maybe it's just coincidence/chance/luck? You can prove some things happen in life for a scientific reason, person get hooked on crack b/c of beginner drugs and a feeling of excitement/experimentation. Same person gets off drugs, says couldn't have done it without the new friends they made. How do you know it wasn't God that put the events in order to introduce those people and have them interact. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. Just another way of looking at God's existence. Try for one week, just one week, walking around seeing things in the eyes of a Christian. think to yourself, wow, God did this or that, that's amazing. You will be surprised at how real he can be if you let him be part of your life. You might even find some of the answers you're looking for as to How he can exists.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 27, 2013)

asbunches... Please read the last 20 or so threads entirely....


----------



## Ridge Walker (Sep 27, 2013)

If you believe God healed your brother, don't you also have to believe God put him in that wreck to begin with?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> have you ever thought about this.
> 
> Instead of trying to prove that God does exist, try proving that he doesn't. Adds a whole other aspect to how your brain works. Maybe my brother's body did have some chemicals react to heal his body, but they didn't prove that either. It's a funny topic, but it is at the core of human existence. Bad things happen, maybe b/c God wants them too, maybe it's just El Nino? Good things happen, maybe it's just coincidence/chance/luck? You can prove some things happen in life for a scientific reason, person get hooked on crack b/c of beginner drugs and a feeling of excitement/experimentation. Same person gets off drugs, says couldn't have done it without the new friends they made. How do you know it wasn't God that put the events in order to introduce those people and have them interact. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. Just another way of looking at God's existence. Try for one week, just one week, walking around seeing things in the eyes of a Christian. think to yourself, wow, God did this or that, that's amazing. You will be surprised at how real he can be if you let him be part of your life. You might even find some of the answers you're looking for as to How he can exists.




No I can't prove that it wasn't God, primarily because God has surrounded himself in mystery from the rest of us, if Christians are to be believed. 

However, I acknowledge, and lean towards, the notion that he doesn't exist, and that I merely don't know. That position doesn't require proof and actually squares pretty well with the observable universe. Evil is here, there are no rocks that say Made By God in an environment where human intervention can be irrefutably ruled out, and God/Jesus has yet to work a miracle in each of our lives to allow those of us with doubts to believe. Instead, it takes the lack of evidence of existence and makes the next logical step. That an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There are 0 concrete factors that are directly and irrefutably attributable to God.

However, Christians allege that this being exists, despite an absence of proof. My position requires none, since I'm not asking anyone to believe in anything that they can't see or touch, but faith/religion does. So, as I've previously said, the burden of proof is on those who allege that God exists. You're asking me to interpret an absence of evidence as evidence of existence and that's not logical.


----------



## absuches (Sep 27, 2013)

ridge walker said:


> if you believe god healed your brother, don't you also have to believe god put him in that wreck to begin with?



at that time in my life i was not living a life that i thought god would approve of, drinking all the time, partying, chasing loose women, lying, cheating, etc. I beleive he put my brother through that ordeal to open my eyes to say, "hey, i'm still here, what are you doing and where have you been, i'm in control, don't forget." as a result i changed the way i was living. I wasn't really happy before that wreck, was trying to have fun and find a way to be happy, when all i had to do was remember that my purpose (and i beleive everyone's purpose) on the earth was to worship god as a choice of my own free will. Since, i am happy all the time, like i was before college. I never stress about anything and i am blessed beyond measure. That's why i think god had him wreck. My brother will give you another reason, as will several others in our lives. Seems like that wreck has helped, beleive it or not, wuite a few folks i know, all in different ways for diferent reasons.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> I'm a Christian. I believe that anyone who believes that Jesus was god's son and died for our sins will go to heaven, period. Some proof in my belief came in 2005. my little brother was in a bad 4-wheeler wreck and the 4-wheeler came back over on top of him hit him in the face and chest. rescue air 1 came on scene to transport him to the hospital, local emt's and ambulances were on scene before transport. 11, I said ELEVEN, PARAMEDICS, not volunteers, not EMT's, not Joe Schmoes, highly trained paramedics that know what they are doing, diagnosed him with a collapsed left lung. Here's your science, the pulled 2 syringes of fluid out of that lung, (20cc's I think, I'm not a paramedic). They did this about 5 mins before he was boarded for flight. flight to North Fulton was 19 mins. when he arrived at the hospital, 3 doctors looked him over, said there was no evidence of a collapsed lung. Stuck with their diagnosis until 8 days later a deep bruise developed on his chest, then reversed their diagnosis.
> 
> his face took the impact of the ignition area between the handle bars. broke bones in his face from eyes down. Doctors said that his face was swelling so fast that it wasn't a matter of if he would have eye damage, but how much. no bone structure to hold his eyes in socket and stretching optical nerve. I worked in roswell at that time and beat helicopter to hospital, saw brother 20 mins after his arrival, his face looked like a 400 lb. sumo wrestler (he was 145 lbs at the time). they immediately gave his medicine to counteract facial swelling but said it would take 2 hours for meds to work. 10 mins later swelling went down, no visual damage to his eyes, thank the lord.
> 
> ...




Brother most here would not believe if God himself came down from Heaven and performed miracles in front of them.  It's not that there isn't evidence, they simply DO NOT WANT him to exist, because they don't want to face the implications.  So, don't get your feelings hurt if they don't believe your testimony, they don't believe His either.

Each and every one of them has no regard for the truth when it comes to God and each and every one of them will resort to denigration, lies or both when the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism is exposed.

That being said, thanks for posting.  Hope you will keep it up.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother most here would not believe if God himself came down from Heaven and performed miracles in front of them.  It's not that there isn't evidence, they simply DO NOT WANT him to exist, because they don't want to face the implications.  So, don't get your feelings hurt if they don't believe your testimony, they don't believe His either.
> 
> Each and every one of them has no regard for the truth when it comes to God and each and every one of them will resort to denigration, lies or both when the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism is exposed.
> 
> That being said, thanks for posting.  Hope you will keep it up.



Truth of God? Where do they keep that again? In the Bible? The *errant* Bible, by your own admission of levels of accuracy earlier? 

Please.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother most here would not believe if God himself came down from Heaven and performed miracles in front of them.  It's not that there isn't evidence, they simply DO NOT WANT him to exist, because they don't want to face the implications.  So, don't get your feelings hurt if they don't believe your testimony, they don't believe His either.
> 
> Each and every one of them has no regard for the truth when it comes to God and each and every one of them will resort to denigration, lies or both when the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism is exposed.
> 
> That being said, thanks for posting.  Hope you will keep it up.



Reminds me why you should be blocked...


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 27, 2013)

> Brother most here would not believe if God himself came down from Heaven and performed miracles in front of them


That's exactly what it would take. If you can arrange that please do.


> they simply DO NOT WANT him to exist


Ridiculous and based on nothing but misinformed opinion.


> if they don't believe your testimony


We believe his testimony and we are all very glad his brother is doing well. When it is proven that a God was responsible for it we'll believe that too.


> Each and every one of them has no regard for the truth when it comes to God


There is no truth, only faith that it is true. Because we have regard for the truth, faith doesn't cut it.


> every one of them will resort to denigration, lies or both


Read through this entire post. There is ONE person and only ONE person who did those things. And the reason that ONE person did those things - 


> intellectual bankruptcy





> no regard for the truth


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> I'm a Christian. I believe that anyone who believes that Jesus was god's son and died for our sins will go to heaven, period. Some proof in my belief came in 2005. my little brother was in a bad 4-wheeler wreck and the 4-wheeler came back over on top of him hit him in the face and chest. rescue air 1 came on scene to transport him to the hospital, local emt's and ambulances were on scene before transport. 11, I said ELEVEN, PARAMEDICS, not volunteers, not EMT's, not Joe Schmoes, highly trained paramedics that know what they are doing, diagnosed him with a collapsed left lung. Here's your science, the pulled 2 syringes of fluid out of that lung, (20cc's I think, I'm not a paramedic). They did this about 5 mins before he was boarded for flight. flight to North Fulton was 19 mins. when he arrived at the hospital, 3 doctors looked him over, said there was no evidence of a collapsed lung. Stuck with their diagnosis until 8 days later a deep bruise developed on his chest, then reversed their diagnosis.
> 
> his face took the impact of the ignition area between the handle bars. broke bones in his face from eyes down. Doctors said that his face was swelling so fast that it wasn't a matter of if he would have eye damage, but how much. no bone structure to hold his eyes in socket and stretching optical nerve. I worked in roswell at that time and beat helicopter to hospital, saw brother 20 mins after his arrival, his face looked like a 400 lb. sumo wrestler (he was 145 lbs at the time). they immediately gave his medicine to counteract facial swelling but said it would take 2 hours for meds to work. 10 mins later swelling went down, no visual damage to his eyes, thank the lord.
> 
> ...


Welcome to Woodys


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 27, 2013)

> But think about this, A person sitting in a chair has X resting heart rate, blood pressure, brain activity, etc etc. all measureable factions of body function. That same person, doing exercise, or getting stressed, or dreaming can have measureable differences in these factors. Well, that same person, sitting in a chair, being moved by the holy spirit can have those same measureable factors differ from their resting conditions. May not be the proof you are looking for, but it is a measureable proof none-the-less.


Its a reaction based on the individual. Hunting, sex, race cars, food, drugs, murder and on and on produce the exact same effect on different individuals. Truth or fact is not whats being measured only what subjects affect the individual. True?


----------



## absuches (Sep 27, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No I can't prove that it wasn't God, primarily because God has surrounded himself in mystery from the rest of us, if Christians are to be believed.
> 
> However, I acknowledge, and lean towards, the notion that he doesn't exist, and that I merely don't know. That position doesn't require proof and actually squares pretty well with the observable universe. Evil is here, there are no rocks that say Made By God in an environment where human intervention can be irrefutably ruled out, and God/Jesus has yet to work a miracle in each of our lives to allow those of us with doubts to believe. Instead, it takes the lack of evidence of existence and makes the next logical step. That an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There are 0 concrete factors that are directly and irrefutably attributable to God.
> 
> However, Christians allege that this being exists, despite an absence of proof. My position requires none, since I'm not asking anyone to believe in anything that they can't see or touch, but faith/religion does. So, as I've previously said, the burden of proof is on those who allege that God exists. You're asking me to interpret an absence of evidence as evidence of existence and that's not logical.



I understand your position and can appreciate it. I am fortunate in that I have had experiences in my life that have led to a development of faith that God does exists. things happen in my life on a regular basis that I attribute to the workings of God in my life, and they make my life easier. When I had quit going to church, my life got harder, work wasn't fun, people I thought were friends lied and stole from me, you know the story. Got back in church and started trying to involve God in my life again and Voila...life got easy, got a good job, married the woman of all men's dreams, yada yada. Your absence of proof is materialistic/scientific. God is not a materialistic/scientific being. Rather a spiritual one. I'm sorry to say that anyone in this world that spends their life searching for that one thing that is missing in their life, if they are only looking for something concrete, measureable, materialistic, then they are probably going to never find it. My belief in God is based on faith, the proof lies in my feelings, my emotions, things that I FEEL. Sure I attribute actual events and material things to the existence of God, but they are not my PROOF that he exists. That proof comes from the spiritual satisfaction I receive knowing that he provided them.


----------



## absuches (Sep 27, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Its a reaction based on the individual. Hunting, sex, race cars, food, drugs, murder and on and on produce the exact same effect on different individuals. Truth or fact is not whats being measured only what subjects affect the individual. True?



I think yes, but if the Holy Spirit is the CAUSE of those reactions, do the reactions not justify that that individual believes it is the Holy Spirit causing them? (I can't say that they prove the existence of the holy spirit, only that they prove That person believes b/c it changes their body functions) That being said, you and I know that SOMETHING caused those reactions, can we not form a theory that the holy spirit is real?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> I understand your position and can appreciate it. I am fortunate in that I have had experiences in my life that have led to a development of faith that God does exists. things happen in my life on a regular basis that I attribute to the workings of God in my life, and they make my life easier. When I had quit going to church, my life got harder, work wasn't fun, people I thought were friends lied and stole from me, you know the story. Got back in church and started trying to involve God in my life again and Voila...life got easy, got a good job, married the woman of all men's dreams, yada yada. Your absence of proof is materialistic/scientific. God is not a materialistic/scientific being. Rather a spiritual one. I'm sorry to say that anyone in this world that spends their life searching for that one thing that is missing in their life, if they are only looking for something concrete, measureable, materialistic, then they are probably going to never find it. My belief in God is based on faith, the proof lies in my feelings, my emotions, things that I FEEL. Sure I attribute actual events and material things to the existence of God, but they are not my PROOF that he exists. That proof comes from the spiritual satisfaction I receive knowing that he provided them.


A very honest post. Quite refreshing.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> I think yes, but if the Holy Spirit is the CAUSE of those reactions, do the reactions not justify that that individual believes it is the Holy Spirit causing them? (I can't say that they prove the existence of the holy spirit, only that they prove That person believes b/c it changes their body functions) That being said, you and I know that SOMETHING caused those reactions, can we not form a theory that the holy spirit is real?


Yes I agree. One theory we can form is that the holy spirit is real to that person.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> I think yes, but if the Holy Spirit is the CAUSE of those reactions, do the reactions not justify that that individual believes it is the Holy Spirit causing them? (I can't say that they prove the existence of the holy spirit, only that they prove That person believes b/c it changes their body functions) That being said, you and I know that SOMETHING caused those reactions, can we not form a theory that the holy spirit is real?



You can use it as an operating theory.  

I theorize that my lucky crankbait is magical.  It works when nothing else will....most of the time....some of the time.  Sometimes it doesn't work but that's just because it works when it wants to or when it is for my own good.  (If I caught bass ALL the time it would get boring).

Sometimes people get in 4 wheeler wrecks and die.  No happy ending.  Things happen whether or not you attribute them to a god or a devil or bad luck.  I suppose we all try to find a way to make sense of that.  I'd ask you to think of the possible costs to following the program that you've adopted.  If you need help identifying those costs, I'm sure there are several here who can help.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> I understand your position and can appreciate it. I am fortunate in that I have had experiences in my life that have led to a development of faith that God does exists. things happen in my life on a regular basis that I attribute to the workings of God in my life, and they make my life easier. When I had quit going to church, my life got harder, work wasn't fun, people I thought were friends lied and stole from me, you know the story. Got back in church and started trying to involve God in my life again and Voila...life got easy, got a good job, married the woman of all men's dreams, yada yada. Your absence of proof is materialistic/scientific. God is not a materialistic/scientific being. Rather a spiritual one. I'm sorry to say that anyone in this world that spends their life searching for that one thing that is missing in their life, if they are only looking for something concrete, measureable, materialistic, then they are probably going to never find it. My belief in God is based on faith, the proof lies in my feelings, my emotions, things that I FEEL. Sure I attribute actual events and material things to the existence of God, but they are not my PROOF that he exists. That proof comes from the spiritual satisfaction I receive knowing that he provided them.



We can be the judge of that.. Post a picture!


Since I have been more firmly agnostic and more decided in my stance against christianity because of the word and the people... My life has also gotten easier.


----------



## absuches (Sep 27, 2013)

triplexbullies said:


> we can be the judge of that.. Post a picture!
> 
> 
> Since i have been more firmly agnostic and more decided in my stance against christianity because of the word and the people... My life has also gotten easier.



touche...i'm glad that we can agree to disagree, but trying to prove what we believe in is always a good thing, it helps us stay more open minded, see others' view points, and for me, it solidifies my standing.


----------



## absuches (Sep 27, 2013)

waltl1 said:


> yes i agree. One theory we can form is that the holy spirit is real to that person.



is there any certain number of people that we would have to test to prove that they beleived in the holy spirit with scientific data, that would lead you to beleive in it's existence? Say, if i was rich (and of course that's a farce) and we set up a testing facility and i proved based on bodily functions that 3 billion of the world's population experienced a moving of the holy spirit, would you be satisfied that it existed?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 27, 2013)

Pretty sure it's been done... and the same bodily functions can be experienced by what the person claims is something other than any holy spirit.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> I understand your position and can appreciate it. I am fortunate in that I have had experiences in my life that have led to a development of faith that God does exists. things happen in my life on a regular basis that I attribute to the workings of God in my life, and they make my life easier. When I had quit going to church, my life got harder, work wasn't fun, people I thought were friends lied and stole from me, you know the story. Got back in church and started trying to involve God in my life again and Voila...life got easy, got a good job, married the woman of all men's dreams, yada yada. Your absence of proof is materialistic/scientific. God is not a materialistic/scientific being. Rather a spiritual one. I'm sorry to say that anyone in this world that spends their life searching for that one thing that is missing in their life, if they are only looking for something concrete, measureable, materialistic, then they are probably going to never find it. My belief in God is based on faith, the proof lies in my feelings, my emotions, things that I FEEL. Sure I attribute actual events and material things to the existence of God, but they are not my PROOF that he exists. That proof comes from the spiritual satisfaction I receive knowing that he provided them.



I hear you, and despite how it may come across, I'm not trying to convince you to abandon your faith. 

Here's the thing though, good things, great things (like marrying my equivalent of your wife, the woman who is so perfect for me that I can't even begin to describe her) AND bad things, that I won't go into detail here about, short of mentioning that I am a cancer survivor myself, have happened to me despite my agnostic views towards God and religion. I had no more faith before or after meeting my wife, or being diagnosed with and in remission from cancer, than I did at any other point in my life, and I can't see any appreciable difference from that than I did with my childhood, when I was actively attending church with my parents. I'm not saying that mere attendance is the path to happiness, for an adult, but what else is there for a child of 8 years old? 

I think that religion offers a path to serenity for some in coming to terms with the randomness of life. They can couch the rough days as tests and the good days as blessed, without really scrutinizing the underlying truth that so much of our lives is out of our hands. That's not to say that you're ignorant to it, merely that you've found a way to process it in a way that makes you happy. 

I applaud those who have their faith, I really do, so long as it doesn't cross certain bounds. The first is when it is no longer a personal belief and expected to be found as a universal truth, the second is when they start trying to convert me or alter my beliefs. This forum allows for both, and we all willingly participate in it. My agnosticism is being tested by talking with you, which is how that I confirm that I still agree with it, as is your faith and the process by which it is reaffirmed within you. 

Going back on topic, the notion that anyone could prove who exactly authored the Bible, beyond the men that wrote it themselves amounts to bull feathers. You can believe that it was written by God and leave it at that and we would each go our merry ways. To try to tell me that you have proof that it was authored by God is tantamount to me telling you that the Big Bang occurred because Hawking said it did and that he, and his scripture, is inerrant.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> is there any certain number of people that we would have to test to prove that they beleived in the holy spirit with scientific data, that would lead you to beleive in it's existence? Say, if i was rich (and of course that's a farce) and we set up a testing facility and i proved based on bodily functions that 3 billion of the world's population experienced a moving of the holy spirit, would you be satisfied that it existed?



No. The effects of that "movement" could be measured, but not the source, beyond the chemicals themselves.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 27, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Going back on topic, the notion that anyone could prove who exactly authored the Bible, beyond the men that wrote it themselves amounts to bull feathers. You can believe that it was written by God and leave it at that and we would each go our merry ways. To try to tell me that you have proof that it was authored by God is tantamount to me telling you that the Big Bang occurred because Hawking said it did and that he, and his scripture, is inerrant.



No Christian believes that, which was my point back in post 32.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> No Christian believes that, which was my point back in post 32.



You would be surprised at Who believes What.
"No Christian believes that.." is quite a statement.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> No Christian believes that, which was my point back in post 32.



Written by man, through divine inspiration, but still authored by God.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> "No Christian believes that.." is quite a statement.



I'm quite a guy.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 27, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Written by man, through divine inspiration, but still authored by God.



If that is your definition of "authored by God", I agree.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You would be surprised at Who believes What.



Agreed.  

In one of the "gay is OK" threads, I _almost_ typed a response saying "no Christian on this board hates homosexuals."

Almost.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm quite a guy.



The ricochet from that deflection should be used in spaghetti westerns.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The ricochet from that deflection should be used in spaghetti westerns.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> If that is your definition of "authored by God", I agree.



That's not my definition, it's the one that I was taught as a child and Christians still tell me. 

I don't believe that anyone but man wrote the Bible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 27, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's not my definition, it's the one that I was taught as a child and Christians still tell me.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Written by man, through divine inspiration, but still authored by God.



I've never heard it put that way.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 27, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I've never heard it put that way.



Ok.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> is there any certain number of people that we would have to test to prove that they beleived in the holy spirit with scientific data, that would lead you to beleive in it's existence? Say, if i was rich (and of course that's a farce) and we set up a testing facility and i proved based on bodily functions that 3 billion of the world's population experienced a moving of the holy spirit, would you be satisfied that it existed?


You would have to explain your entire testing process for me to even begin to answer that question.
The scientific data that would satisfy me that holy spirit existed would in no way have anything to do with the numbers of people that believed in it.
Saying 3 billion reacted to something proves nothing more than 3 billion people reacted to something. It  in no way addresses if that something is real or not.
Are there any certain number of kids that reacted to the mention of the boogy man that would make you believe that the boogy man existed? I can prove to you that they reacted, I can prove to you that they reacted to the boogy man. Therefore the boogy man is real. Right?


----------



## absuches (Sep 27, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> You would have to explain your entire testing process for me to even begin to answer that question.
> The scientific data that would satisfy me that holy spirit existed would in no way have anything to do with the numbers of people that believed in it.
> Saying 3 billion reacted to something proves nothing more than 3 billion people reacted to something. It  in no way addresses if that something is real or not.
> Are there any certain number of kids that reacted to the mention of the boogy man that would make you believe that the boogy man existed? I can prove to you that they reacted, I can prove to you that they reacted to the boogy man. Therefore the boogy man is real. Right?



I like you more every post


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 27, 2013)

absuches said:


> I like you more every post


Not the response I usually get


----------



## Airborne28 (Oct 28, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> For some, they may dismiss my qualms about religion as semantics since, if they could factually prove to me that God exists, I would be on the bandwagon with them.
> 
> However, it is no different than, say, a jury trial.
> 
> ...



The Original text, and basic practice was handed down apostolicaly. 

That same text still is used, just not by many protestants. 

The Bible was not really changed until the reformation, and here we are 30,000 sect of protestanism later all claiming to be the "right" one. 

You can't prove faith with bunson burners, chemical reactions, or graphs and scales. These are not the right instruments.


----------

