Where did sin come from?

[loco]

If it's really not that hard to understand, perhaps you'd care to explain to me, with specific references to the Bible of course, whether one is saved by faith alone? I don't quite understand the issue and am eager to.

Genesis 15:6
New International Version (NIV)
Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.


Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Romans 4:5
However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

[avxo]

I am not sure what either one of you are asking or saying here.  Are you implying that if the God of the Bible did indeed exist, and if the Bible were His Word, then He would have created and then taught the writers some divine, non-human language just for the Bible?  Then what?  What about the rest of the world?  Wouldn't you still need people to translate it into human languages for everyone else?  Wouldn't these human languages change over time, making it necessary to update the translations?

I am saying that the excuse that human languages are the problem is laughable. If God is all powerful, then it would be trivial for him to produce his inerrant word in a form that would not require any translations, interpretations or explanations. Plus, if you really think that human languages are the problem, then you cannot even claim that the Bible, written in those problematic human languages, is the inerrant word of God.

how interesting that you should mention J.R.R. Tolkien to support your argument.  I am sure you already know that Tolkien was a brilliant philologist who happened to also believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

I know he was a brilliant philologist, but his personal beliefs on the Bible and its supposed inerrancy are of no concern to me.

[avxo]

Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Phillipians 2:12: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

John 5:29: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

So, which is it?

[loco]

I am saying that the excuse that human languages are the problem is laughable. If God is all powerful, then it would be trivial for him to produce his inerrant word in a form that would not require any translations, interpretations or explanations. Plus, if you really think that human languages are the problem, then you cannot even claim that the Bible, written in those problematic human languages, is the inerrant word of God.


I know he was a brilliant philologist, but his personal beliefs on the Bible and its supposed inerrancy are of no concern to me.

It's not an excuse, it's a fact.  Human languages change over time, making it necessary to update any texts, not only the Bible.

What do you mean "produce his inerrant word in a form that would not require any translations, interpretations or explanations"?  That is very abstract or vague.  Can you provide an example?

The belief of many Christians is that the Bible is inerrant in its original Hebrew, its original Aramaic and its original Greek, which are no longer available to us.  What is available to us are copies of the originals which have been translated into other languages.  Any typo, misspelling, omitted word, "error", etc. in the current copies and/or translations do not change the meaning of the most important, overall message: The authority of scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, the substitutionary atonement, Christ's resurrection, Christ's second coming and Christ's teachings.

J.R.R. Tolkien, whom you brought up in this discussion, was a brilliant philologist, yet he had no problems accepting that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God no matter the form in which it was given to us.  Philology is the study of language in written historical sources.  It is a combination of literary studies, history and linguistics.

[avxo]

It's not an excuse, it's a fact.  Human languages change over time, making it necessary to update any texts, not only the Bible.

So the omnipotent god is bound by temporal constraints and human language?

What do you mean "produce his inerrant word in a form that would not require any translations, interpretations or explanations"?  That is very abstract or vague.  Can you provide an example?

I can try: we could all be born with the gospel already in our heads, for example. And I'm not even omnipotent - the Christian God supposedly is, meaning that everything is open to him. Making sure that his word was delivered accurately across time doesn't sound like too big a deal for an omnipotent deity.

The belief of many Christians is that the Bible is inerrant in its original Hebrew, its original Aramaic and its original Greek, which are no longer available to us.  What is available to us are copies of the originals which have been translated into other languages.

So the belief is that the original is lost, so let's believe this other thing that's sort-of, kind-of like the original, except translated, edited, modified, picked apart, put back together, edited some more, translated again. Sounds reasonable.

Any typo, misspelling, omitted word, "error", etc. in the current copies and/or translations do not change the meaning of the most important, overall message: The authority of scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, the substitutionary atonement, Christ's resurrection, Christ's second coming and Christ's teachings.

How do you know the overall message hasn't been changed? Perhaps the original was nothing more than the latest novel of that era's J.R.R. Tolkien?

J.R.R. Tolkien, whom you brought up in this discussion, was a brilliant philologist, yet he had no problems accepting that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God no matter the form in which it was given to us.  Philology is the study of language in written historical sources.  It is a combination of literary studies, history and linguistics.

Again, Tolkien's personal beliefs are of no concern to me. If he believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, good for him. If he didn't, good for him also. I don't substitute Tolkien's judgement for my own.

[loco]

So the omnipotent god is bound by temporal constraints and human language?


I can try: we could all be born with the gospel already in our heads, for example. And I'm not even omnipotent - the Christian God supposedly is, meaning that everything is open to him. Making sure that his word was delivered accurately across time doesn't sound like too big a deal for an omnipotent deity.


So the belief is that the original is lost, so let's believe this other thing that's sort-of, kind-of like the original, except translated, edited, modified, picked apart, put back together, edited some more, translated again. Sounds reasonable.


How do you know the overall message hasn't been changed? Perhaps the original was nothing more than the latest novel of that era's J.R.R. Tolkien?


Again, Tolkien's personal beliefs are of no concern to me. If he believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, good for him. If he didn't, good for him also. I don't substitute Tolkien's judgement for my own.

Of course God could have created us "with the gospel already in our heads."  God can do whatever He wants to.  God could have written the Bible Himself, but instead God chose to do things differently, having humans participate in His plan.  The same can be said about everything else, sin, good works, poverty, pain, suffering, sickness, death, etc.  Why didn't God just create everything and everybody perfect?

The message of the Bible has not been changed, as you claim, and that to us Christians is more evidence that the Bible is the word of God.  Just one example is the "The Great Isaiah scroll", which was found in the Dead Sea Caves in 1947.  It is dated at about 100 BCE and is the oldest copy of Isaiah known to exist. Previously, the Codex Leningrad, dated at 1,000 AD, was the oldest known copy of the Hebrew Bible (including the book of Isaiah) in existence. The Great Isaiah scroll is 1,100 years older than the Codex Leningrad and gives us the opportunity to compare the Biblical text over the centuries.

This copy of Isaiah contains many minor differences from the later Masoretic text (the text which forms the basis of the modern Hebrew bible). Most of the differences are simply grammatical (for example, spelling certain words with an extra letter that does not alter the pronunciation). Of the remainder, for example some added words, most do not significantly alter the meaning of the passage.

That's pretty impressive compared to any other ancient text, secular or religious, for which we have any remaining copies.

You are the one who brought up J.R.R. Tolkien in this discussion.  Tolkien understood literary studies, history and linguistics much better than you and I do, and he had no problems accepting that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God no matter the form in which it was given to us.

[Necrosis]

avxo, My fucking long winded response was deleted. Here is the main points.

In your example, no matter what the constraints it appears that you are saying as long as you make a decision it's free will.

However, free will in order to have human authorship in my mind must either have control of the laws governing existence or the antedecent states leading to the circumstances. You haven't defined anything besides decision making from my perspective. Also, in the fork in the road example, say the person was previously put to the same decision, yet he choose right before. This resulted in a poor outcome, thus he is now likely to choose left, a decision was made, but was it free of "some" constraints (still not sure what this even means). how can we claim authorship of a decision freely that was confined in options with which we had no say in? Your defying gravity argument is moot for more reasons then one, firstly the option is impossible, but perhaps we want to go straight in the fork example, and could have if the previous condition of only two lanes wasn't already decided for us. An assembly line can choose an alternate belt if the load becomes heavy or high on one belt, a decision, nothing free about it, it was determined based off of previous states with which no control could be exerted, the decision turned out that way because it could not turn out any other way. Just like our brains. The whole argument i was making about the processes in the brain are that thoughts, or decisions are created via the subconscious, that is neural acitivity occurs before we become aware of the choice represented by that activity, how is that free will, how is it the I making the decisions when the thought created was done so before your minds eye witnessed it. It's an illusion.

http://phys.org/news186830615.html

[avxo]

Of course God could have created us "with the gospel already in our heads."  God can do whatever He wants to.

And he chose to transmit his inerrant word using imperfect languages and the writings of sheepherders, collected over millenia, edited and reinterpreted by thousands. Seems reasonable, especially for a being that can do whatever he wants to.

God could have written the Bible Himself, but instead God chose to do things differently, having humans participate in His plan.

Your dictionary must have an interesting definition for the word "participate." If the Christian God exists and his plan is what we understand it to be, then I'd hardly call humans participants. At best, we're rats, dropped in a maze and made to hunt after a piece of supernatural cheese.

The same can be said about everything else, sin, good works, poverty, pain, suffering, sickness, death, etc.  Why didn't God just create everything and everybody perfect?

Good question... do you know the answer? Oh, and "works in mysterious ways" doesn't cut it.

The message of the Bible has not been changed, as you claim, and that to us Christians is more evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

First of all, I didn't claim that it hasn't been changed - I claimed that it could have, and you wouldn't necessarily know. Difficult as this concept may be for you to understand, it's important that you at least try to: Words have meaning.

Now, with that said, it's ridiculous to say that the message of the Bible hasn't been change. For crying out loud, Christians can't even agree on what exactly, constitutes the Bible. The Bible of Protestants is very different than the Bible of Catholics, which, in turn is very different from the Bible of Orthodox Christians.

Just one example is the "The Great Isaiah scroll", which was found in the Dead Sea Caves in 1947.  It is dated at about 100 BCE and is the oldest copy of Isaiah known to exist. Previously, the Codex Leningrad, dated at 1,000 AD, was the oldest known copy of the Hebrew Bible (including the book of Isaiah) in existence. The Great Isaiah scroll is 1,100 years older than the Codex Leningrad and gives us the opportunity to compare the Biblical text over the centuries.

I'm by no means a Biblical expert, but at least according to Wikipedia, your representation doesn't seem quite accurate. Selected quote from the wiki, referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls: "copies of some Biblical books found at Qumran reveal sharp divergences from the [Masoretic Text]."

This copy of Isaiah contains many minor differences from the later Masoretic text (the text which forms the basis of the modern Hebrew bible). Most of the differences are simply grammatical (for example, spelling certain words with an extra letter that does not alter the pronunciation). Of the remainder, for example some added words, most do not significantly alter the meaning of the passage.

And yet, according to Michael Barber, the copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal sharp divergences from the Masoretic Text...

That's pretty impressive compared to any other ancient text, secular or religious, for which we have any remaining copies.

A significant number of ancient Greek texts, quite accurate and completely unchanged, are available to us today. Is that evidence of Zeus?

You are the one who brought up J.R.R. Tolkien in this discussion.  Tolkien understood literary studies, history and linguistics much better than you and I do, and he had no problems accepting that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God no matter the form in which it was given to us.

I brought up J.R.R. Tolkien and this means that I must accept every position that Tolkien had? That's some crazy logic right there. Besides, appeals to authority are logical fallacies, and logical fallacies don't fly with me Tolkien's personal beliefs are of no concern to me.

[loco]

And he chose to transmit his inerrant word using imperfect languages and the writings of sheepherders, collected over millenia, edited and reinterpreted by thousands. Seems reasonable, especially for a being that can do whatever he wants to.


Your dictionary must have an interesting definition for the word "participate." If the Christian God exists and his plan is what we understand it to be, then I'd hardly call humans participants. At best, we're rats, dropped in a maze and made to hunt after a piece of supernatural cheese.


Good question... do you know the answer? Oh, and "works in mysterious ways" doesn't cut it.


First of all, I didn't claim that it hasn't been changed - I claimed that it could have, and you wouldn't necessarily know. Difficult as this concept may be for you to understand, it's important that you at least try to: Words have meaning.

Now, with that said, it's ridiculous to say that the message of the Bible hasn't been change. For crying out loud, Christians can't even agree on what exactly, constitutes the Bible. The Bible of Protestants is very different than the Bible of Catholics, which, in turn is very different from the Bible of Orthodox Christians.


I'm by no means a Biblical expert, but at least according to Wikipedia, your representation doesn't seem quite accurate. Selected quote from the wiki, referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls: "copies of some Biblical books found at Qumran reveal sharp divergences from the [Masoretic Text]."


And yet, according to Michael Barber, the copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal sharp divergences from the Masoretic Text...


A significant number of ancient Greek texts, quite accurate and completely unchanged, are available to us today. Is that evidence of Zeus?


I brought up J.R.R. Tolkien and this means that I must accept every position that Tolkien had? That's some crazy logic right there. Besides, appeals to authority are logical fallacies, and logical fallacies don't fly with me Tolkien's personal beliefs are of no concern to me.

As I have already stated, the main and most important message of the Bible has not changed.  And Christians, no matter the denomination, agree on these:  The authority of scripture, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, Christ's resurrection, Christ's return and Christ's teachings.  


As for wikipedia on the book of Isaiah and preservation of the message:

"This copy of Isaiah contains many minor differences from the later Masoretic text (the text which forms the basis of the modern Hebrew bible). Most of the differences are simply grammatical (for example, spelling certain words with an extra letter that does not alter the pronunciation). Of the remainder, for example some added words, most do not significantly alter the meaning of the passage."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Isaiah_scroll

And I personally have read the Bible in many versions, in two different languages and you are incorrect to say that the message has changed.  

And it's funny about J.R.R. Tolkien.  You bring him up to support your argument in this discussion when it turns out Tolkien would disagree with you.  So now J.R.R. Tolkien is suddenly of no concern to you in relation to this discussion.     

[avxo]

As I have already stated, the main and most important message of the Bible has not changed.  And Christians, no matter the denomination, agree on these:  The authority of scripture, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, Christ's resurrection, Christ's return and Christ's teachings.

Even if they do agree on all of that - and that's a big if - you can hardly say that there are no significant differences between Protestants, Catholic and Orthodox Christians! Catholics, for example, believe that the death of Christ created merit that is shared with sinners through the sacraments, whereas Protestants believe that the death of Christ was a substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied God's justice. That's a pretty significant difference.

That's not to say you can't claim that Christians agree on all the things you quote. You can. It would be a lie, but you can and hell, you might even believe it. But what you say and believe don't necessarily have any bearing on reality.

As for wikipedia on the book of Isaiah and preservation of the message: "This copy of Isaiah contains many minor differences from the later Masoretic text (the text which forms the basis of the modern Hebrew bible). Most of the differences are simply grammatical (for example, spelling certain words with an extra letter that does not alter the pronunciation). Of the remainder, for example some added words, most do not significantly alter the meaning of the passage."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Isaiah_scroll

Even if true, this only refers to the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament - there's the New Testament too. Besides, it still leaves open the issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, again, according to Michael Barber "reveal sharp divergences from the [Masoretic Text]."

And I personally have read the Bible in many versions, in two different languages and you are incorrect to say that the message has changed.

Oh well, if you say I'm incorrect! Anyone who's read the Bible in two languages. Shit! That's like some crazy Biblical scholar level knowledge right there!

And it's funny about J.R.R. Tolkien.  You bring him up to support your argument in this discussion when it turns out Tolkien would disagree with you.  So now J.R.R. Tolkien is suddenly of no concern to you in relation to this
discussion.     

You need to learn to read. I didn't bring J.R.R. Tolkien up to support my argument. I brought him up to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your argument that interepretations and ambiguity are necessary because of flawed human language. If Tolkien, a mere human, could construct several highly complicated languages, from the ground up, complete with a runic alphabet, then surely God could have created just one language that could express his message perfectly since, by your own admission, the human languages of the time failed him.

I do understand what it is you're doing though: You try to misconstrue what I write, in an effort to force to continue to elaborate and explain my argument in more and more detail, in the hope that I'll finally get bored and move on, at which point you would claim "victory". That technique - which I've seen before - relies on a pretty big assumption: that I am willing to accept that you're genuinely trying but failing to understand my argument because of my own fault. But that game won't work. I have absolutely no qualms about calling you out on the fact that you're either (a) purposefully misconstruing what I say in an attempt to annoy me and get me to drop this conversation; or (b) an actual idiot who genuinely cannot understand. In either case, the problem is caused by you - your unwillingness or your inability to read.

[Man of Steel]

Even if they do agree on all of that - and that's a big if - you can hardly say that there are no significant differences between Protestants, Catholic and Orthodox Christians! Catholics, for example, believe that the death of Christ created merit that is shared with sinners through the sacraments, whereas Protestants believe that the death of Christ was a substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied God's justice. That's a pretty significant difference.

That's not to say you can't claim that Christians agree on all the things you quote. You can. It would be a lie, but you can and hell, you might even believe it. But what you say and believe don't necessarily have any bearing on reality.


Even if true, this only refers to the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament - there's the New Testament too. Besides, it still leaves open the issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, again, according to Michael Barber "reveal sharp divergences from the [Masoretic Text]."


Oh well, if you say I'm incorrect! Anyone who's read the Bible in two languages. Shit! That's like some crazy Biblical scholar level knowledge right there!


You need to learn to read. I didn't bring J.R.R. Tolkien up to support my argument. I brought him up to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your argument that interepretations and ambiguity are necessary because of flawed human language. If Tolkien, a mere human, could construct several highly complicated languages, from the ground up, complete with a runic alphabet, then surely God could have created just one language that could express his message perfectly since, by your own admission, the human languages of the time failed him.

I do understand what it is you're doing though: You try to misconstrue what I write, in an effort to force to continue to elaborate and explain my argument in more and more detail, in the hope that I'll finally get bored and move on, at which point you would claim "victory". That technique - which I've seen before - relies on a pretty big assumption: that I am willing to accept that you're genuinely trying but failing to understand my argument because of my own fault. But that game won't work. I have absolutely no qualms about calling you out on the fact that you're either (a) purposefully misconstruing what I say in an attempt to annoy me and get me to drop this conversation; or (b) an actual idiot who genuinely cannot understand. In either case, the problem is caused by you - your unwillingness or your inability to read.

avxo, I appreciate your desire to debate, research and educate yourself, but if you truly seek the truth then you'll need to fill in the gaps of your research and try a bit of application.  If you want concrete proof that the Christian God does not exist, that Jesus Christ is not the risen Lord, then you'll need to take a new approach and go directly to the source.  What I mean to say is, you'll need to switch gears and opt for a reversed, emotional position for research purposes.  You'll need to humble yourself, maybe even take a knee and be willing to pray...better yet, admit you are a sinner and that if Christ is risen that you believe, that you will surrender, that you will accept his will for your life.  If you do this with a truly humbled heart....a heart that genuinely seeks God he will reveal himself to you (even if everything in your life to this point conflicts and tells you the opposite).   Take that approach, fill in the gaps in your research, engage in the application honestly, sincerely and humbly.  If absolutely nothing comes of this honest investment then you can stamp out this nonsense for the rest of  your life.  You must remember that the Lord knows the contents of your heart, but since from your chair the heart is merely a muscly organ that pumps blood then simply consider that the Lord knows your thoughts and your intent.  I'm not suggesting you test him, I'm suggesting you honestly submit with a genuine desire to engage the divine and try a leap of faith.  Set aside all debate, human reasoning and any other contradictory evidence you've compiled and relent to his will...just surrender honestly and cry out for God.  Cry out that his will be done, not your own and desire that he impact your life.  If you're willing to do that you'll go the entire step of the way.  You'll have to honestly seek to know and submit to the God you currently attempt to discredit despite all logic and evidence to the contrary.

[avxo]

So if I want proof that God doesn't exist I need to act as if God exists? That seems counterproductive. What would I hope to gain from this exercise? After all, if he doesn't exist, then all I will habe done is pray to something that doesn't exist. By your own statements, if I were to pray and nothing happened the experiment would prove nothing. How is that helpful?

You operate under the assumption that faith is a means of acquiring knowledge. It is not. Faith and reason aren't two different kinds of tools geared towards knowledge.

[Man of Steel]

So if I want proof that God doesn't exist I need to act as if God exists? That seems counterproductive. What would I hope to gain from this exercise? After all, if he doesn't exist, then all I will habe done is pray to something that doesn't exist. By your own statements, if I were to pray and nothing happened the experiment would prove nothing. How is that helpful?

You operate under the assumption that faith is a means of acquiring knowledge. It is not. Faith and reason aren't two different kinds of tools geared towards knowledge.

I did say it was a different approach, but please don't simply define away or reason away what I suggested.  Take it to the source honestly and humbly.  Yes, if you want to disprove Christianity then you'll have to walk a mile in a Christian's shoes......counterproduc tive or not at first blush.

[avxo]

I did say it was a different approach, but please don't simply define away or reason away what I suggested.  Take it to the source honestly and humbly.  Yes, if you want to disprove Christianity then you'll have to walk a mile in a Christian's shoes......counterproduc tive or not at first blush.

I don't have to disprove Christianity anymore than I have to disprove Fluing Spaghetti Monsterism. But let's pretend that I decide to walk a mile a Christian's shoes. How could that, possibly, disprove Christianity?

[Man of Steel]

I don't have to disprove Christianity anymore than I have to disprove Fluing Spaghetti Monsterism. But let's pretend that I decide to walk a mile a Christian's shoes. How could that, possibly, disprove Christianity?

Forget the semantics, I think you know exactly what I'm suggesting.  You've read the bible in english and latin (if I remember correctly) and this type of debate isn't your first rodeo.  You're versed in scripture.  You know what Christ called his body of believers to do and I realize that you disagree or don't believe or both.  You seem like a reasonable person though.  You do challenge almost every word that is written by believers and almost every opinion that is presented as justification for the Christian God....right, wrong or indifferent.  I'm asking you to suspend the semantics, the jargon, the debate and fill in the gap and truly see whether or not there is a God for yourself.  For a brief time, forget denominational differences, forget other gods/goddesses, forget objections to scripture you have, forget the problem of evil, forget discussions on free will, forget all your higher learnings and try Christ on for yourself with honesty and a desire to truly know him.      

[avxo]

Forget the semantics, I think you know exactly what I'm suggesting.  You've read the bible in english and latin (if I remember correctly) and this type of debate isn't your first rodeo.  You're versed in scripture.  You know what Christ called his body of believers to do and I realize that you disagree or don't believe or both.  You seem like a reasonable person though.  You do challenge almost every word that is written by believers and almost every opinion that is presented as justification for the Christian God....right, wrong or indifferent.  I'm asking you to suspend the semantics, the jargon, the debate and fill in the gap and truly see whether or not there is a God for yourself.  For a brief time, forget denominational differences, forget other gods/goddesses, forget objections to scripture you have, forget the problem of evil, forget discussions on free will, forget all your higher learnings and try Christ on for yourself with honesty and a desire to truly know him.

But that's my point - I can't honestly try something I don't believe exists. You are asking me to believe despite the absence of evidence, so that the evidence can then be revealed to me. But if I already believe what point is there to evidence? To put it bluntly, you are asking me to blind myself so that I may see. Sorry, but I can't do that.

[syntaxmachine]

Man of Steel, I appreciate your desire to debate, research and educate yourself, but if you truly seek the truth then you'll need to fill in the gaps of your research and try a bit of application.  If you want concrete proof that the invisible gnomes do not exist, that the Almighty Gnome is not the Lord Risen, then you'll need to take a new approach and go directly to the source.  

What I mean to say is, you'll need to switch gears and opt for a reversed, emotional position for research purposes.  You'll need to humble yourself, maybe even take a knee and be willing to pray...better yet, admit you are a sinner and that if the Almighty Gnome is risen that you believe, that you will surrender, that you will accept his will for your life.  If you do this with a truly humbled heart....a heart that genuinely seeks the Almighty Gnome he will reveal himself to you (even if everything in your life to this point conflicts and tells you the opposite).  

Take that approach, fill in the gaps in your research, engage in the application honestly, sincerely and humbly.  If absolutely nothing comes of this honest investment then you can stamp out this nonsense for the rest of  your life.  You must remember that the Gnome knows the contents of your heart, but since from your chair the heart is merely a muscly organ that pumps blood then simply consider that the Gnome knows your thoughts and your intent.  I'm not suggesting you test him, I'm suggesting you honestly submit with a genuine desire to engage the divine and try a leap of faith.  

Set aside all debate, human reasoning and any other contradictory evidence you've compiled and relent to his will...just surrender honestly and cry out for Gnome.  Cry out that his will be done, not your own and desire that he impact your life.  If you're willing to do that you'll go the entire step of the way.  You'll have to honestly seek to know and submit to the Gnome you currently attempt to discredit despite all logic and evidence to the contrary.

[syntaxmachine]

Do you see a problem with the above attempt to convince you, Man O Steel? In order to avoid talking out your ass on this issue, you must respond that the above Emotional Plea to Accept the Almighty Gnome is somehow different from your  Emotional Plea to Accept Jesus. Your response will be a reason for differentiating the Almighty Gnome from Jesus. Therefore, it is impossible to "put aside reason," as you say. We necessarily traffic in reasons when it comes to establishing worldviews.

That is where you get caught in the bear claw trap of logic, since there just isn't any good reason for believing that christianity is true. Your cheap attempts at backing out of using reason by appealing to emotion thus fall short because these appeals themselves make use of reasons (otherwise, you won't be able to differentiate them from emotional appeals to accept the Almighty Gnome, and should treat both just as dismissively). In other words, it is impossible that there isn't some reason for being Christian, and the problem is that all such reasons on offer are inadequate, which makes christianity in good company with the rest of the religions on offer.

[syntaxmachine]

P.S. I don't doubt that people really have "religious" experiences. The point about these experiences -- which those raised in Christian societies almost invariably interpret as God, those raised in Buddhist societies interpret as becoming one with the universe (or some other such thing; I'm no expert on Buddhism), etc. -- is that they need explaining.

The beliefs and contextual clues we have laying around will help us explain the experiences. In other words, the experiences aren't "pre-theoretical" and we either have a theory onboard (e.g., Christianity) that helps us automatically interpret the experience, or otherwise we go looking for one. The fact that these experiences can be elicited from the use of ilicit drugs producing certain chemical reactions in our brains, however, ought to make anyone question whether the experiences are as magical as certain ancient theories would have us believe.

[loco]

Even if they do agree on all of that - and that's a big if - you can hardly say that there are no significant differences between Protestants, Catholic and Orthodox Christians! Catholics, for example, believe that the death of Christ created merit that is shared with sinners through the sacraments, whereas Protestants believe that the death of Christ was a substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied God's justice. That's a pretty significant difference.

That's not to say you can't claim that Christians agree on all the things you quote. You can. It would be a lie, but you can and hell, you might even believe it. But what you say and believe don't necessarily have any bearing on reality.


Even if true, this only refers to the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament - there's the New Testament too. Besides, it still leaves open the issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, again, according to Michael Barber "reveal sharp divergences from the [Masoretic Text]."


Oh well, if you say I'm incorrect! Anyone who's read the Bible in two languages. Shit! That's like some crazy Biblical scholar level knowledge right there!


You need to learn to read. I didn't bring J.R.R. Tolkien up to support my argument. I brought him up to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your argument that interepretations and ambiguity are necessary because of flawed human language. If Tolkien, a mere human, could construct several highly complicated languages, from the ground up, complete with a runic alphabet, then surely God could have created just one language that could express his message perfectly since, by your own admission, the human languages of the time failed him.

I do understand what it is you're doing though: You try to misconstrue what I write, in an effort to force to continue to elaborate and explain my argument in more and more detail, in the hope that I'll finally get bored and move on, at which point you would claim "victory". That technique - which I've seen before - relies on a pretty big assumption: that I am willing to accept that you're genuinely trying but failing to understand my argument because of my own fault. But that game won't work. I have absolutely no qualms about calling you out on the fact that you're either (a) purposefully misconstruing what I say in an attempt to annoy me and get me to drop this conversation; or (b) an actual idiot who genuinely cannot understand. In either case, the problem is caused by you - your unwillingness or your inability to read.

The Catholic church admits that what you have listed as an example above is not based on the Bible, but on their own traditions.  Christians do agree on the fundamental beliefs that I listed, which we base on the Bible.

Which brings up a good point.  The Roman Catholic church for centuries had the power and the means to "modify" the Bible, yet they did not.  To this date, the Bible omits hundreds of their traditions, rules and beliefs.  And many parts of the Bible actually contradict them.  They could have "modified" the Bible just for these reasons, but they did not.

Just because human languages change over time, requiring texts to be updated, and just because all humans do not speak the same language, it does not follow that human languages have "failed God", like you said.   God's Word has done, is doing, and it will continue to do what God intended it to do.

You still fail to explain your reference to J.R.R. Tolkien, a brilliant linguist who happened to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.  So please tell us.  How would God creating one perfect language, just for the Bible, really work?  Would we all understand this one perfect language?  Otherwise, wouldn't we all need translators anyway?  And how would we humans keep later generations from adding new words to this language, while forgetting older words?  Wouldn't that eventually require updating the Bible anyway?

And no, you do not understand what I'm doing here.  I am not trying to get you bored and to move on so that I can claim "victory."  Arguing on the Internet is like the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you are still a retard.  

And even if that's what I wanted to do, I have neither the time nor the patience for it.  I do have a life and a real job.

[Man of Steel]

But that's my point - I can't honestly try something I don't believe exists. You are asking me to believe despite the absence of evidence, so that the evidence can then be revealed to me. But if I already believe what point is there to evidence? To put it bluntly, you are asking me to blind myself so that I may see. Sorry, but I can't do that.

Yes, in a sense, that is exactly what I'm asking you to do.   You understand completely and have made your choice.  I won't pester you any further about this; although, if later on down the road you suddenly desire to wanna try God on for size and I happen to be around don't hesitate to ask me.  You can become your own evidence for Christ...that's the point.

[loco]

Phillipians 2:12: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."


John 5:29: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

So, which is it?

It says "work out", not "work for" your salvation.  You cannot workout that which you do not have.  We receive salvation through faith, and then we are commanded to "work out" our salvation.

As for John 5:29, though we are not saved through good works, those who have received salvation also receive the desire and the power to do good works.  And God intended for us to do these good works anyway.

Ephesians 2:8-10
New International Version (NIV)

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do


Another thing about John 5:29.  There is one good work which we must do to receive salvation.  Jesus Christ himself told us what this good work is:

John 6:28-29
New International Version (NIV)

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

[Man of Steel]

Do you see a problem with the above attempt to convince you, Man O Steel? In order to avoid talking out your ass on this issue, you must respond that the above Emotional Plea to Accept the Almighty Gnome is somehow different from your  Emotional Plea to Accept Jesus. Your response will be a reason for differentiating the Almighty Gnome from Jesus. Therefore, it is impossible to "put aside reason," as you say. We necessarily traffic in reasons when it comes to establishing worldviews.

That is where you get caught in the bear claw trap of logic, since there just isn't any good reason for believing that christianity is true. Your cheap attempts at backing out of using reason by appealing to emotion thus fall short because these appeals themselves make use of reasons (otherwise, you won't be able to differentiate them from emotional appeals to accept the Almighty Gnome, and should treat both just as dismissively). In other words, it is impossible that there isn't some reason for being Christian, and the problem is that all such reasons on offer are inadequate, which makes christianity in good company with the rest of the religions on offer.

All I asked was that avxo try a different approach and suspend his position for a time.  From your chair I understand completely why you think my suggestion is bizarre....doesn't make it wrong though. 

[Man of Steel]

P.S. I don't doubt that people really have "religious" experiences. The point about these experiences -- which those raised in Christian societies almost invariably interpret as God, those raised in Buddhist societies interpret as becoming one with the universe (or some other such thing; I'm no expert on Buddhism), etc. -- is that they need explaining.

The beliefs and contextual clues we have laying around will help us explain the experiences. In other words, the experiences aren't "pre-theoretical" and we either have a theory onboard (e.g., Christianity) that helps us automatically interpret the experience, or otherwise we go looking for one. The fact that these experiences can be elicited from the use of ilicit drugs producing certain chemical reactions in our brains, however, ought to make anyone question whether the experiences are as magical as certain ancient theories would have us believe.

When the Holy Spirit washes over a believer in a moment of prayer or worship it's quite an experience....I pray you can experience that some day in your own life.  There's nothing like calling on the name of Jesus and feeling his presence and feeling fear or darkness or evil flee.  Again I pray you have the opportunity to experience that for yourself someday....it's not out of your reach by any means.

Believe it or not, I pray for the members of this board all the time.

[loco]

Do you see a problem with the above attempt to convince you, Man O Steel? In order to avoid talking out your ass on this issue, you must respond that the above Emotional Plea to Accept the Almighty Gnome is somehow different from your  Emotional Plea to Accept Jesus. Your response will be a reason for differentiating the Almighty Gnome from Jesus. Therefore, it is impossible to "put aside reason," as you say. We necessarily traffic in reasons when it comes to establishing worldviews.

That is where you get caught in the bear claw trap of logic, since there just isn't any good reason for believing that christianity is true. Your cheap attempts at backing out of using reason by appealing to emotion thus fall short because these appeals themselves make use of reasons (otherwise, you won't be able to differentiate them from emotional appeals to accept the Almighty Gnome, and should treat both just as dismissively). In other words, it is impossible that there isn't some reason for being Christian, and the problem is that all such reasons on offer are inadequate, which makes christianity in good company with the rest of the religions on offer.

Jesus Christ, whether you believe in him or not, changed human history.  Christianity grew exponentially in the first few centuries, peacefully, and despite the fact that they were being persecuted, tortured and killed.  The Bible is the number one, all time best seller, whether you believe the Bible or not.  Christianity is by far the largest religion in the world.  Billions of lives have been changed by the message of the Gospel.  Billions of poor people, orphans, widows and victims of catastrophes around the world have been assisted by Christians and Christian organizations.  I could go on and on, but I do not have the time.

None of these are proof of the existence of God, the existence of Jesus, or of his deity, or of his miracles, or proof that the Bible is the word of God, or proof that Christianity is true.

However, the "Almighty Gnome", nor the "Spaghetti Monster", nor "Thor" nor "Odin" can claim a fraction of the above claims to Christianity, God and Jesus.  So I am sorry, but yours an avxo's arguments comparing God, Jesus, the Bible and Christianity to the "Almighty Gnome" and the "Spaghetti Monster" are ridiculous and a failure.