Swoosh

The source is Faith, faith in the Most High God, and the fact that His Word is true. Now I know that's hard to understand, as believe it or not many of us were where you are right now. Secondly and something I don't think you have been asked, and considering your requirement for proof of most things before you can believe them, Do you accept that the holocaust occurred and that 6,000,000 people were murdered? I see what you're saying. And by "faith", can you define that? While it may seem like nitpicking, There are many different ways people use the word. To answer that question, I would like to believe that people haven't been massively deceived by some kinda conspiracy to believe the Holocaust happened when it didn't, but I can't say with a large certainty that it did or didn't happen. I haven't actually looked into the issue enough to be able to make either statement. In a way, it would be awesome if it didn't happen, for obvious reasons. But I dont' know.

Did I overlook that question? I didn't mean to if I did. I remember reading it and thought I answered these. I don't believe in the military exploits of Alexander the Great. It would also depend on the individual exploits in question. Can't just lump them all together. Some claims may be true, some may be mere legends. I don't believe that living things evolved out of non-living matter either. Remember, I'm simply saying I'm not convinced, not that these two things are impossible to have happened. Some people don't know the difference.

And this goes back to the issue of why I should believe these are the rules and this is real, especially in the face of other proposed rules by other religions. Part of clearly describing the consequences is distinguishing the truth from non-truth in a way that people fully understand. Then and only then can the consequences be fully on me. Quoting the Bible does not equal telling me why I should believe it is true. Shouldn't God know the potential confusion that not directly revealing himself may cause? If God doesn't feel like/can't show himself to be true, or if others can't show him to be true, there is no denial. There's just me being unconvinced. No. I'm saying that I understand my position of skepticism and that the burden of proof is on people who make Christian claims, including this one.

John 3:16: 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Dr.God did give a remedy for sin,you can apply it to your life or let the sin of unbelieve have it's way and that is ultimately death. Ok. Islam also gave me a proposed remedy to my "sickness". Radical Islam gives a proposed remedy to my sins. Buddhism (though not necessarily mutually exclusive with Christianity) gives a proposed remedy for my sickness too. Which one is right and how do I know? and what about the thousands of other proposed sicknesses and remedies out there? (in keeping with the analogy) Did Mohammed carried your sins? What does Buddism promise you? I will garantee you that when you open the Bible --start to read in the book of John that God will open your heart for the TRUTH so you may understand otherwise he can harden your hearth also,the choice is your until the day when it's to late.. Lets reason and open your Bible and ask before you start reading if God will reveal Himself to you. ,it is YOU who has to make the dissicion,are you happy right now and look forward to the day to be absent from the body and to be walking on streets of gold? I wouldn't even mention the other horrible place you will go if you don't make things right with God, you probably know the place I'm talking about? Just be humble and bow your knees you will not be sorry you did. As I've mention to someone on this thread, I've gone through the process of asking whatever God may be out there to reveal himself. If he doesn't, not much I can do about that.

Actually that is factually incorrect. The theology of Islam regarding sin is not at all what is taught in the Bible. The Bible teaches that sin is problem requiring redemption. The Bible teaches that sin is separation from God and that the problem of that separation is seen in the "sins" we commit. In other words there is a "sin principle" working in the heart which is the source of the sinful deeds we commit. The Bible teaches that the "sin principle" is something man is incapable of addressing and is thus in need of a redeemer or savior to reconcile man back to God. Hence, Jesus is that Savior who satsified God the father's justice against sin and God is at peace with man in terms of his justice. Man must, however, appropriate that peace, by placing faith in Jesus. In the Bible no one goes to heaven for being good and no one goes to hell for being bad. The only people who go to hell are those who reject Jesus. That is why a person can be in prison as serial killer, accept Jesus' payment for his sin and go to heaven when he dies, wheras a "good" person who loves his family, gives to charity, pays his taxes and is an all around decent person can still go to hell on the grounds that he rejected Jesus. Hell is chock full of "good" people. But God's standard isn't goodness. His standard is righteousness and you can only appropriate righteousness from Him. Islam, on the other hand, views sin and good deeds from the vantage point of debts and credits. One must be a pious enough Muslim to offset evil deeds with good deeds. The problem is that one can be a good Muslim, but if he/she wasn't good enough for the time needed sufficient to offset evil deeds you still go to hell. So being a good Muslim doesn't gurantee you anything. Allah, furthermore, is capricious and can arbitrarily send anyone to hell that he wants for no reason at all even if they were a good Muslim. So none of the "requirements" of Islam for going to heaven are binding on Allah. Islam doesn't see sin as a sickness or as something you need to be redeemed from. It sees sin as something you have to work off with good deeds for the possibility of maybe going to heaven. Buddhism doesn't approach life from the standpoint of sin, but from the standpoint of suffering. Buddhism doesn't address any "sickness" of sin, but rather addresses the issue ot alleviating suffering through the process of removing any ability to feel. Life is suffering and all pleasure is an illusion. The goal is to achieve Nirvana and then simply die and exist in limbo. It is amusing to watch atheists like yourself try to lump all religions into the same pot as if they all makes the same claims. It demonstrates the usual deficit of knowledge that people like you possess when you try to talk religion with us. While I appreciate you making sure, I am aware of the ways these religions view sin/suffering. Reading the context of what I said would help you out a bit. The point I was making is that these religions claim there is some type of "sickness" and describe a way to get rid of that sickness, whether it be good deeds, faith in Jesus, or trying to get rid of suffering through Nirvana. The other point of lumping them all together was that neither of them have evidence of this "sickness" and/or their supposed remedy. Of the religions I've mention, the closest one that comes to be confirmed is Buddhism's suffering. But its remedy of Nirvana has no evidence that I know of.

John 3:16: 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Dr.God did give a remedy for sin,you can apply it to your life or let the sin of unbelieve have it's way and that is ultimately death. Ok. Islam also gave me a proposed remedy to my "sickness". Radical Islam gives a proposed remedy to my sins. Buddhism (though not necessarily mutually exclusive with Christianity) gives a proposed remedy for my sickness too. Which one is right and how do I know? and what about the thousands of other proposed sicknesses and remedies out there? (in keeping with the analogy)

I think part of this is the terms we're using for certain ideas. I'm thinking of facts as partly being the events that actually happened. For example, Ruth 1:16 is a claim that Ruth said something. I'm looking at that as an event and fact, using those two terms interchangeably. Are you using the terms "fact" and "events" to talk about different ideas? It would seem that you are. We weren't. Ninhao brought it up when he gave me a link to that thread, so I was really responding to him. I forgot that it may notify you as well.

I don't know of any tests or evidence that can be performed that can convince me. That doesn't mean I'm not objective. I can objectively look at the evidence already presented and judge it as unconvincing. If a scientist in a lab can't think of an experimental design to test a hypothesis, that doesn't mean he's not objective. Just means his creativity is limited in that respect. I see. Thank you. Yes, I am accountable for my choices to an extent. If I know the consequences of my actions and I perform that action, then I am responsible for that. But I would never willingly choose to be tortured forever. Who would? That's absurd. If my actions somehow lead to consequences I honestly didn't know would happen, I can't necessarily say I'm responsible for those consequences,especially when the consequences are brought on by someone else such as God who didn't adequately explain the consequences in a clear manner. Kind of like rules to a game. If the rule maker doesn't adequately explain the rules, how can he hold people who break them accountable? Is it not the doctor's/God's job to give me a diagnosis of this sickness? He supposedly knows more about this sickness than I do. Where is this doctor? I'd like to meet him so we can discuss this sickness in a rational manner. There, I expressed my desire to meet him. If he doesn't come, he either doesn't want to come or can't. Or he may just not exist. As for what is called the "sickness", perhaps the doctor's apparent absence in the face of a direct request to meet him means we should stop relying on him to fix it and start fixing it ourselves.

Stories are made up of facts. Some facts form a primary historical core. Other facts are secondary and as long as the secondary facts don't damage the historical core there is no need to discard the story as untrue. Most secondary facts are not going to be confirmable, anyway. There is no way you can find historical sources that confirm every detail of a story like what person wore, or what they had for dinner, what time they went to bed unless those details are material to primary historical core. If a person choked to death at dinner, then the menu would be part of the historical core and an important part of the record. But if the detail is mentioned in passing then it is likely not something that is going to be of any interest to anyone and is not really material to the story. Just for clarification, I never discarded the story as untrue. I agree, it is practically impossible to get every so called secondary detail for a person's life. From my understanding and your agreement, historians make room for mistakes in these type of details. They don't call themselves "infallible" and "inerrant". There are those who claim that the Bible is infallible though. Where it seems you and I part ways is that I think holding believers' claims up to a higher standard than most historical documents is fair because believers claim infallibility, where as most historians don't do that with their claims. If I claim I can break the javelin throw record, it's fair to hold me up to a higher standard than you would a high school thrower. For summary, I gather that you hold the Bible to be infallible, therefore you believe every detail of every story, whether those details are confirmed or not. When I brought up the room for error that historians and courts leave, you answered that by reaffirming your belief in the infallibility of the Bible. I appreciate the conversation. I got my answer, but if there's anything else you have to add, I'm down for listening and responding.

Stories are made up of individual details. You're saying it makes sense to view a particular unconfirmed detail as true? I see now.

Well, you have those people that say "God = the universe" or "God = love" or "God = ice cream". In that case, I guess I would believe in their god, although I think it's useless to define those terms in that manner. It's safe to say that what most people mean as "God/gods" is likely not believed in by me. I'm not sure what would convince me either. I can't really give any examples that would work with historical claims. Do you believe the supposed consistency of the Bible is evidence of a divine origin? Why so? But the part about him torturing me forever in hell for not believing that Jesus died for my sins is part of it, right? Or if you wanna say I send myself to hell somehow. I've heard that one before too. I'm not sure where to start seeking this god. I've done the whole asking him to reveal himself to me in a way that I wouldn't be able to honestly doubt his existence. Apart from that, I don't see much else I can do. If he is truly so far above me, there is probably nothing I can do apart from what I've already done. Unless he's just expecting me to believe in his existence without him revealing himself to me in that manner.

I appreciate you and some of the others for bring to my attention that that may be how historians actually decide what is true or not. I will have to look into that. Just for clarification, you're saying that any culturally consistent story written about a person that is confirmed to exist (using genealogies or anything else) is considered true by historians unless they have another story that conflicts with it? But even the courts make room for the possibility that they may have been wrong about a ruling when they rule partly based on eye witness accounts. They make room for things like appeals and, with the court's apology, may free a man who is wrongfully punished. Correct me if I'm wrong, but historians make room for their conclusions possibly being wrong as well. When it comes to the way most Christians view the Bible, there is no room for being wrong as there is for historians and court cases. They completely believe it is true. Every detail. Not subject to change. My reason for asking the original question was to understand the source of this confidence.

It's actually not as strange as it may seem. Many people have different definitions of their different divine beings. Even among Christians, there are some that distinguish "God" using different descriptions. I have to know your specific one to answer your question. I'm asking what makes an object "God". What is the defining qualities of this being that separates it from things that are not "God"? In general though, the god/Yahweh presented in the Bible is one that I don't believe in the existence of, so asking me if he created evil is like asking me if Dracula bites people. btw, some may take that comparison as disrespectful, but I only said that to illustrate my view of it. They did what they thought was discipline, yes. And you are correct, short term harm can bring long term joy. It would depend on this supporting data. If it's of the type that has been described already (genealogies and cultural consistency), then I would disagree. Is this the type of supporting evidence you are talking about? I have read parts of the Bible. Could hardly call myself an expert though. The world is sinful and we will go to hell unless we make ourselves believe the claim that Jesus is the son of God and died to take our sins? At least, that's one way it's presented.

I was actually asking for your definition of "God", not evil. Evil is that which brings harm to me. No, I have no conflicting data that may refute that Book. This seems to be going the same direction as I did with someone else concerning the book of Ruth. Are you going to say that me having no conflicting data means that the book of Judges is accurate?

Yes, my view of things is very pragmatic. Learn from historical events so that you might not make the same mistakes. Perhaps by learning about how Hitler came to power, we can be taught important lessons on standing up for what is right, rather than letting someone be in charge simply because they are charismatic. That's just one example of how the Holocaust stories can better society. Evil can benefit society in the sense that learning about how certain evil actions got started can help us combat future evil events. Like the Holocaust example I gave. But evil itself by definition doesn't better society. I would suspect I don't even believe in the existence of your definition of God, so I wouldn't believe he created evil. To be sure though, what is your definition? I wouldn't say objections. Just as with the Book of Ruth, I haven't seen convincing enough evidence to believe all the stories are true. Not that I think it's impossible to have happened. Any concerns I have would be the same as with the Book of Ruth. Would you address my concerns the same way as was done with Ruth on this thread?