bgoalie35

I'm going to try to respond rationally and calmly here. If anything does not sound that way, please forgive me, it is not intended any other way. I feel I need to set the record straight, one last time. After that, I will leave you alone. But you had quite a few things to say about me, and I am not leaving you with the idea that you were correct.

Thank you for that answer. I see your point about faith. After all, all throughout history people have believed in God(s) and other supernatural things to explain that which they do not know. I could even go as far as to say, that faith is a part of humanity (or so it seems). However I have two problems with the concept of faith. 1) Why can't one be satisfied with not knowing the answer to a yet unanswered question. 2) There is little orientation for faith. By that I mean, that since there is no rational or evidential evidence for the answers offered (whatever they might be), how can you choose one faith over the other? The same question, asked differently: How do you know your faith is correct and all others wrong (or at least flawed), when others think the same of you? 1.) I am satisfied with not knowing the answer. I don't know where God comes from, or how something exists outside of time. I do know from Einstein, though, that time is not absolute, which makes the idea that something could exist outside of time all the more likely to me. As a follow up, I do not know where the universe comes from either, but I accept its existence. 2.) Why have faith in Christianity as opposed to other religions? Because I studied the roots of where Christianity came from. Christianity is a historical religion based on the accounts of witnesses who claim to have seen something extraordinary. When studying all of the evidence, I believe these witnesses are trustworthy, even to their own torture and deaths. So, I believe what they claim. Welcome to the site. I hope you find what you came here for.

Refer to my last PM. God bless, Brian

sc, Thank you for spending all the time to respond to each person here individually. It shows a lot of commitment and thought on your part. You asked how to love God. I can't give you a perfect answer to that question as I often fail at that myself. I can tell you two things though, if they are helpful at all: 1. I never truly loved God until I almost lost Him. When I was lost, when I felt like I didn't have hope, when I thought that maybe God wasn't there, then I really understood what it was to love God. There was a time when I KNEW God was there, and I had no doubt at all. But in reality, I was just a shallow believer who really didn't take the time to think about what it was I was believing in. Once I did this, doubt creeped in, and I wasn't sure of God at all anymore. In that period of doubt, I grew to truly appreciate what God is: One who gives us life, renews us, saves us, and offers us a chance to experience the best of life for eternity. My appreciation for all of that resulted in my wanting to return God's love. 2. Matthew 25:40 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' You have already said you love everyone. In giving your love to other people, you are giving your love to God. Feed the hungry, clothe the poor, care for your brother. That is loving God here on earth. One side note on authors, I misspoke when I said Strobel wasn't thoughtful, and I think you phrased it much better when you said he keeps it simple and writes in layman's terms. Thank you for the correction. The first book I read to help me out of my darkest period of doubt: Philip Yancey, "The Jesus I Never Knew". Now why didn't I remember that and recommend him to you a week ago? He's a good author, someone who lives on the fringes between doubt and belief. I think that makes him a good candidate to write to people who spend a lot of time in the same place. God bless, Brian

I agree, Leonard rules. That was hilarious (Gooooooooooooduhhh). I just wanted to add something as the member of a large, rather diverse church (the building I attend worship at, angels is right that the "church" can also refer to the entire body of believers). We have many people from many different backgrounds, and what works for some does not work for others. Some people are inspired by quiet, thoughtful services that intellectually stimulate and theologically challenge. Some are inspired by clapping, rejoicing, dancing in the aisles and making the most noise possible to signal a celebration of faith. Our position, as a church, has always been to try our best to mix up our services between the different types of either "traditional" or "modern" types of worship, to appeal to what works for everyone. As long as something has a sound base in scripture and does not violate the laws set out for believers, what is the harm in incorporating different services for different people? If McDonalds Christianity works for some, good for them, at least they are getting some spiritual nourishment (McDonalds is high in cholestoral and fat, but its better than not eating at all ) Suggestions/corrections to my naive idea are welcome. Brian

I would completely agree about Strobel not being strong enough. Strobel takes a cosmetic approach to apologetics, without really digging into all the issues. He's not nearly as thoughtful and insightful about these issues as you are sc Apothanein brings up some good authors, I might also add some biblical history from Luke Timothy Johnson and N.T. Wright. Two guys that write REALLY long books, but they are packed full of good stuff. It may be a lot to digest, and if its too much, I apologize. Others (wiser than me) here may can recommend better reading if you would like. Haven't heard from you since your opening post, and I'm hoping you are doing OK. Drop us a line and let us know if we are any help at all, or refocus us if not. Hope this finds you well, Brian

Agree but disagree. You cannot believe everything you read. Often people are pushing an agenda and you can't trust everything in this world. BUT, if you only trust yourself, and do not rely on anyone else, how do you know that you are not in fact deceiving yourself? This relies on your own ability to reason without fallacy. Who decides what is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all? Would you trust Hitler or Stalin to make that decision, based on their own introspection?

I didn't vote at all. I can't even view the results man. Wish I could say otherwise, I'm not a liar. It won't let me do this. Just like I can't post a picture of myself for some reason. matt Yeah, I know you're honest. If you're curious about the results, PM me and I'll feed them over to you. We won't let you put your picture up because we like to pretend atheists don't really exist. You know I'm kidding. Any moderators that can help matt with his problems? Brian

Matt, c'mon, it let you vote. There were at least 2 votes for not the word of God, you and Shamrock. larry, "A question I pose to anyone that thinks that the Bible "contains" the Word of God, "Just how do we tell which is which if the Word is immeshed in the Bible. Just where does the true Word begin and where does it end." That would be directed toward me. Good question. When I figure out the answer I will let you know That's what scriptural discernment is all about. I do think it is important to know as much about the original context as possible in order to best understand what the original author meant. A lot of what we think is plain fact in the Bible may not be so simple if we do not understand the world it comes from. Proper discernment is difficult and dangerous, but when you consider the fact that we are English speaking people 2000 years removed from the composition of the bible, it is unavoidable.

1. Original Sin

Tubal.. I believe the verse you are referring to is: No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9 NASB You should not that the tense of the verb "practices sin" in the greek speaks of ongoing habitual sin. It does not say that a person who is saved will never sin Good excuse for continuing to sin. So, you must be saying that there is sin in God. Since you CLAIM to be born of God, yet you still sin. You claim that only christians are born again, yet there are people in every society and every religion who have strong moral values and choose to live a righteous life. According to you, they are not born of God, they just choose to live that way. Personally, I see no difference in them and you. If you sin, you obviously do not have a "christ nature". You've just made a choice to TRY not to sin. And that is no different than the devout members of every other religion....the ones you claim are lost. You seem to think that Christians are saved because of what they do. Have you encountered Christians who believe they are going to heaven because they are good people? If so, they are wrong. Christianity is based on grace. We are no better than anyone else, and there is no moral difference between us and any other person who chooses to live a moral life. We are saved because Jesus sacrificed himself for us, all of us (all humanity). Our trust in him is the only thing that saves us. Maybe you should cite some scriptures that Christianity has twisted to come up with its core belief. Please note I am not saying cite scriptures that scattered individuals erroneously cite. People make mistakes all the time. Atheists, Christians, Muslisms, whoever, all make mistakes. I am asking you to cite scriptures that are necessary to the heart of Christianity that have been twisted.

Thank you EricH for explaining it in a much more educated and eloquent manner than I could. I was trying to say the same thing, but I came up short.

Tubal Cain: Would you agree that there is room to believe in Christianity or not believe? In other words, God is not obvious to the point that you could not possibly believe in anything else, but you also cannot disprove the existence of God. Keeping that in mind, here is an interesting short with a Christian perspective on the recurrence of the zodiac throughout religions around the world. You can choose to accept or reject what the author is trying to say. I think on this issue and many others like it, there is room to believe the Christian perspective or the atheist one. It just comes down to faith. I'm sorry if the answer is not as concrete as you may like, but this is all I have for now. Feedback is welcome: Zodiac Signs and Bible Truth The word zodiac comes from the Greek zodiakos meaning a circle. It is often assumed that the connection is with animals (living creatures, from the Greek zoe "to live" and the English zoo. However, the root meaning of zodiakos has nothing to do with living creatures, but instead comes from the primitive root zoad, meaning a path or way or going by steps. In this connection, it is used to denote the way along which the sun appears to move through the stars in the course of the 12 months. This course is repeated every year as the apparent position of the sun returns to almost the exact spot that it occupied on the same date a year before. So the path through the sky along which the sun travels (or appears to travel) is called the zodiac and is divided into 12 segments. Each of these segments is marked by a group of stars which is easily recognized. These 12 groups of stars (constellations) have names that are familiar to most people and are known as the "signs" of the zodiac. Each of the 12 signs pictorially represents a prophetic event in relation to the unfolding story of salvation in the history of the world. Please keep in mind that the star groups (constellations) do not necessarily look like the objects for which they are named, but each is associated with the picture of the object. The fact that the signs of the zodiac bear little resemblance the pictures associated with them should be of great interest to observers of the night-time sky. Every ancient culture with any knowledge or tradition concerning the stars recognizes the same 12 star groups and the same names or meanings of names. Examine the star knowledge of whatever ancients you choose (Babylonia, China, India, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Central America.....) and everywhere the same constellations are identified and associated with the identical or similar meanings and names. The only explanation for this fact is that there was one original Source who identified the constellations with their meanings before the dispersion of the peoples of the earth. God is that Source. The 12 signs as originally given by God were a prophetic outline of the purpose of God in the history of salvation. They are understood, however, only if they are seen in their proper order. Since they form a circle, the problem is in knowing where to begin and finish. Astrologers begin with Aries, but this does not correspond with Biblical revelation. A comparison of the prophecies in the heavens with the prophecies in the Bible clearly shows that the starting point is the divine promise concerning the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), and the ending point clearly coincides with the climax of Scripture in the triumph of the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Jesus Christ) - (Revelation 5:5). The promise of the Seed in the first book of the Bible (Genesis) is seen in the constellation Virgo (the woman). The promise of the triumphant Lion, seen in the last book of the Bible (Revelation), is displayed in Leo. So the outline begins with Virgo and ends with Leo. Confirmation of this is found in one of the very old zodiacs dating back to 2000 B.C. or before. It is called the zodiac of Dendereh and was found on the ceiling of the portico of the temple of Esneh in Egypt. In this zodiac there is placed between the signs of Virgo and Leo a picture of the Sphinx. The Sphinx (with the head of a woman and the tail of a lion) confirms the starting and finishing points for the zodiac. Many scholars think that this was in fact the main purpose of the Sphinx and thus solves its "riddle." Note: For more information concerning the Biblical truths of the Zodiac, see the article "Horoscope Signs and the Bible." Material in this article from Kenneth Fleming's God's Voice in the Stars.

I don't think you are going to reach Tubal by ignoring his post and calling it garbage, nor do I think the casual observer will be persuaded that Christianity is the answer from your response. He addresses a real issue that should be addressed inside an "Apologetics" forum. There are many issues that could lead to doubt for believers, or outright rejection for unbelievers. Instead of dismissing what the unbelievers are saying with circular arguments and name calling, why don't we try to understand where they are coming from and try to refute what they are saying? That is apologetics isn't it? Defending the faith? I don't think we give a very convincing defense of his criticism of Revelation by saying scripture is from God cause it says so and we have to believe it cause its from God. I'm not trying to be rude here, I just see this all too often in an "Apologetics" forum where atheists raise a question and people go on the defensive or attack without listening to the question. Is there no room in our faith to consider what they say and give a response to their questions? Tubal Cain: I can see where you get the ideas of your last post, but I think you are mis-interpreting the Bible. People who are born again sin just like everyone else. But having God in your life changes your life as a whole. Hopefully, over time, you begin to turn away from sin and turn towards God. Even for the best of Christians, it is a journey that is never complete. I would also say you cannot object to Jesus being in two places at one time if he is a supernatural being. If he can rise from the dead, how hard is it to be in two places (or more) at once? You raise an excellent argument about Revelation, and I would like to research it further.