SoulGrind

In some ways, yes, especially when it's spelled out for us...

I can't say I found any holes. He presents the evidence fairly clearly and succinctly and builds his arguments based upon readily available facts. Given that position, this would eliminate a great percentage of the Christian population as many do not possess such knowledge. Many people read the Bible and because of lack of understanding of the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, sometimes certain words or phrases lack the true meaning as there is not always a literal translation. For example, when we speak of the love between a man and a woman, we all pretty much know what that means. But when we speak of the love between God and man, we have to take pause and reflect. What kind of 'love' are we talking about? Brotherly love? Romantic love? Emotional love? Erotic love? Or is it something more... We call is "Agape Love." While the word "love" is a correct translation, sometimes the exact meaning isn't entirely understood until it is read in context and with some background knowledge. Additional elements would not rely so much on things such as the Gnostic gospels or the Dead Sea Scrolls, but more in terms of ancient traditions, rituals, etc. For example, when we discuss the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, we say he died on the first day (Friday) and rose on Sunday (the third day). This isn't much of a problem until you start thinking about exact periods of 24 hours. It's not until you understand how ancient Jews kept track of time does it all fall into place. There are many such aspects to the Biblical account. When people merely "skim the surface" it's quite easy to find contradictions. It's not until you dig down and realize there is continuity and harmony and spans 66 books, over 50 authors and a period of 2000 years. And this makes for one of the Bible's most compelling pieces of evidence in it's favor. Anyway - I hope you pick the book up and give it a read. You may or may not agree. But it does sound like you're searching for answers and do have an interest, so I'm glad to help out.

Okay. There is a Johnson who is a lawyer, and a Creationist, and he has written some books. Maybe that's who you had in mind when you said Stroble was a lawyer. My memory was wrong on that one too. I'm not familiar with Johnson... nonetheless, I do recommend Stroble's book. Amazon.com has some nice reviews about the book and I think you'll find additional insight into his writing style. I'm hardly a literary critic you know.

To me Jesus did give to me all those things and i thank Him every day. Blessings I think the point was missed. Too many times, people here the message that "Being a Christian means you'll get everything you want." This is simply not the case. We are never promised such things in the Bible. You've been blessed. I am happy for you. There are plenty of Christians with far less than yourself. If this was a Biblical teaching, everyone would have similar blessings. The problem is, it's not reality and it's not scripturally correct. However, we are promised various spiritual gifts and we are promised salvation. Everything else is just gravy.

BTW - I have to amend my statement about "A Case For Christ" by Lee Stroble... He was not a lawyer, but an investigative journalist. My bad... Lee Strobel, an ex-investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune who describes himself as a "former spiritual skeptic," is a teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church.

By the way, I'm not saying we should "lean on our own understanding." That would be folly. This is where prayerful consideration, Bible reading and meditation and asking God for the Holy Spirit to come upon us is extremely necessary and beneficial. Fellowship with other believers is also necessary as well is going to church/Sunday School. - This is our "training ground" so we may be better prepared to fulfill the great commission and to carry out the will of God. The more we pray, the more we read God's Word, the more we fellowship, and the more we place our faith in God the more we begin to "hear" the Holy Spirit. For me, it's all about being open to being led. It can be difficult at times. There have been times I let my own personal agenda get in the way. A door was opened for me and I acknowledged it and yet, I did nothing. I knew the will of God. All I needed to do was to step through the bloomin' door. Instead, I chose my own path and that door was then closed to me. Later, I felt anguish over it. I had sinned against God. I disobeyed His command and I failed my master. I need to repent and ask God to give me strength, to endure, to resist temptation, and to continue allowing me to see those open doors and to reopen doors I missed and to help me have the courage to step through. And I believe God answers those kind of prayers. I'm not saying God doesn't answer prayers for doors to be opened - yes, we should pray that God will continue to open doors for us. But if we're being prayful and relying upon God to begin with, I think the point is mute and it's really about follow-through. But that's me at this point in my life and in my walk with the Lord. I'm not perfect. I do not know all. I have never made such claims. I fall short every day. Some days more than others. Everyday I need God. Everyday I see my own mortality and my own sinful ways as God reveals them to me. I also try to keep Jesus in front of me on the horizon as my leader and I try, through prayer and Bible study to walk in His footsteps as best as humanly possible. I know I am to do the will of God and I know what I am supposed to do. For me, it's just matter of asking God to teach me how to do it and to help me overcome my own fears and to ask God to help me line up my will with God's will. To quote Brother's Keeper - "I pray that He does surgery on my life and yours. Transplant His heart of love - replace this evil core "

Amen - this is EXACTLY what I am saying.

Another way of looking at it is like this... Let's examine The Great Commission... "Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." - Matthew 28:16-20 Do we sit back and say, "You know - I really need to pray about this. I'm not sure what I am supposed to do here." WAITAMINUTE... This is a command... those are action verbs... GO... MAKE... BAPTIZE... TEACH... We are already told what to do. We have been given our assignment. This is a door that is now open. In order to obey, you must step through. Always be ready to give an answer... "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." - 1 Peter 3:15 (NIV) We need to learn the right questions to ask of the Holy Spirit. We don't need to ask, "God, what's you will?" or "God, should I tell someone about You today?" NO! We need to ask, "God, use me to fulfill your will today. Let me see those doors that you have opened for me and give me opportunities so that I may share my faith." Stop asking God about things you already know. Start asking God to use you. You already know you are the tool. Just ask to be used for the will of God.

Indeed - This does play the pre-dominant role in the entire process. I however was trying to shed some light more on the direct answer given by scripture. Additionally, while I did not mention the Holy Spirit by name, this portion of my original post implies that the Holy Spirit is involved... I am also a firm believer that even if we don't always "hear" the Holy Spirit speaking to us, we need only refer to God's Word to be reminded of the baseline requirements. It's kind of like people who say, "We need to pray for God to open doors for us." I would rather pray, "God, open my eyes so I may see the doors that you have already opened." So from a purely baseline position, we need not wait on the Holy Spirit to give us the will of God - it's right there in the Bible in black and white. However, we do need the Holy Spirit to guide us on our journey so that we will continue to obey and identify the will of God. Again, it's the difference between praying for God to open doors vs asking God to open our eyes to see the doors He's already opened. It's about stepping out in faith. I don't need to ask God to open doors. I just need help finding the open doorways sometimes. I'm ready to go. I just need God to point me in the right direction. This is where I rely upon the Holy Spirit.

A _GREAT_ resource for anyone who struggles with this _EXACT_ same topic owes it to themselves to read Lee Stroble's book "A Case for Christ." Lee Stroble was/is a lawyer/attorney. Lee Stroble was an athiest. Through the process of detailed investigation as though he was preparing evidence against the Bible for some up coming court case, Lee Stroble came to the sobering conclusion that the evidence he was compiling actually supported the Biblical account and testimony. It was through this earnest and honest research that Lee Stroble finally acknowledged that the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus Christ truly is the Son of God and that God is who He claims to be - in other words, Lee Stroble denounced atheism in favor of believing in God. To me, this is a very strong testimony. Here we have a devout atheist who happens to be a seasoned legal specialist; well versed in legal and investigative procedures and through dedicated study and research all on the side of atheism, he came to the conclusion he was wrong and that the Biblical account was indeed true. There have been other such cases throughout history. It begs the question - what was so compelling about their discoveries that these hardened atheists would actually turn and embrace Christianity? Again, I suggest you read the book - this might be a good launch pad for your campaign to learn the truth.

I can not tell you how many people have asked me, "How am I supposed to know the will of God?" My first answer has typically began with "Pray and read your Bible." - This of course assumes I am talking to a fellow believer or someone who is earnestly seeking. But I too have struggled with this answer as it's not a very strong argument. It's over simplified and leaves one wanting and maybe even mystified - as if God is some mystical, intangible being and we need to reach a state of zen to know the will of God. This couldn't be further from the truth. This is not to say that alone time between you and God should be over simplified, but that it's not as direct an answer as I had hoped for. However, the scales over my eyes were lifted this Sunday past when the pastor of the church I attend quoted 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8. I have read and studied 1st and 2nd Thessalonians in the past and honestly, I am not sure how I missed this. But I've got it now... So I am here to share this with everyone who has every asked the question, "How am I supposed to know the will of God?" THE BIBLE ACTUALLY ANSWERS THIS QUESTION DIRECTLY "IT IS GOD'S WILL that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable,not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit." - 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 (NIV) As we can see, this particular passage of scripture sums up the will of God quite nicely. Let's break it down. 1.) We are to be sanctified. 2.) We are to avoid sexual immorality. 3.) We are not to wrong our "brother." 4.) We are to live a holy life. SANCTIFICATION So what does it mean to be "sanctified?" It means to be good, legitimate, or righteous through the salvation of Jesus Christ. This means we have recognized our sins and shortcomings and that we need and rely [solely] upon God and to be a defender and promoter of our [Christian] faith. SEXUALLY IMMORAL We are to avoid sexual immorality. This is fairly self-explanatory. But for those who need a little more definition, I shall quote the following: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV) There are plenty more passages of scripture that expand upon this, but this is probably the best summary regarding this matter. WRONG OUR BROTHER The aforementioned passage of 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 stated that we are not to "wrong our brother or to take advantage of him" through sexual immorality. In other words, it's really a re-statement of the following: "You shall not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14 (NIV) "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." - Exodus 20:17 (NIV) In turn, Christ also stated the following: "'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" - Mark 12:31 (NIV) And to go even further, Jesus had this to say about adultery: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." - Matthew 5:28 (NIV) This in turn is in direct correlation of the following: "You shall not steal." - Exodus 20:15 (NIV) In other words, lustful behavior and adultery is the same as stealing - in a manner, you are stealing another person's spouse. It all boils down to the "golden rule:" "Do to others as you would have them do to you." - Luke 6:31 (NIV) LIVE A HOLY LIFE One of the best ways to summarize this is again by quoting Jesus Christ through the following passage of scripture: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'" - Luke 10:27 (NIV) If this is your mantra, you will of course make an effort to read your Bible for you shall seek to know your maker and you shall pray for you shall desire interaction with your maker and you will of course obey the commandments laid out in the Word of God (the Bible) for you shall "fear" your maker just as a child "fears" their parents and wishes them to be proud of them. IN SUMMARY This my friends is the will of God for our lives. This does not replace our occupations, or our "titles" (i.e. "husband", "wife", "mother", "father" etc.). Instead, this only augments and adds to the responsibilities of our lives. But this responsibility is not a burden as some responsibilities are known to be; rather, it is a joy as there is freedom in knowing that having Christ as our eternal savior, we are free from the threat of eternal suffering. Faith in Jesus Christ will not get you a new car, the pretty girl, or all the money in the world. Faith in Jesus Christ won't prevent illness, physical pain and/or suffering. Faith in Jesus Christ won't protect you from the persecution of non-believers. Faith in Jesus Christ is not the magical, genii in the lamp type of cure-all some people try to make it out to be. Quite the contrary. However, faith in Jesus Christ WILL save your eternal soul and will provide you with opportunities to lead others to Christ so that their eternal soul might be saved as well. "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? "- Mark 8:36 (NIV)

Out of pure curiosity (and the fact that I haven't finished my first cup of morning coffee), why do "people" (aka "them" or "they") refer to Christianity as a "Western" religion? Let's take pause and consider this but for a moment. Q.> Where did Christianity originate? A.> Christianity originated in the city of Jerusalem in present-day Israel. The founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, was born in the small town of Bethlehem, just a few miles southwest of Jerusalem. Based on this information, can we not conclude that the birth-place of Christianity, which began with Jesus Christ, had its humble beginnings in the Middle East? Did the Islamic (Muslim) faith not start in the Middle East as well? And yet, we consider the Nation of Islam / Muslim faith to be an Eastern religion. I can understand that when we enter Asia and Asia minor that this is definitely as far East as we can get, but why the distinction between Christianity whose roots share the same soil as those of other Middle Eastern religions (Islam, Hindu, etc.) Is it because some feel that Christianity broke off ties with the East when it made its way into Rome and then into Europe giving birth and rise to "Christendom" where men with their own personal agendas "came in the name of God?" Do we consider the Jewish faith (that makes up a good percentage of the Christian faith as well) to be an Eastern religion or a Western religion? Please note that the Nation of Israel (Jews) still have land-ties to Jerusalem -- a place in the Middle East. If someone can shed some light on this, that would make my day. Thanks for taking a trip into the curiosity corridors of my mind.

I try not to drink to much caffeine before I go to bed because I've also had nights like that? Have you tried decaf? Hehehe- considering I don't really drink many caffeinated beverages, I doubt that's the issue. ;-)

Uhm... hmmm... you must have traversed backward through my site and came across my online resume / technical journal... WHAT IS DSL? DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) is an alternative to dial-up, cable, or satellite internet connections. WHAT TYPES OF DSL ARE THERE? DSL services typically come in two types of connections; Static and Dynamic. A Static (unchanging) DSL connection provides the end user (the person paying for the DSL connection) the option of having a permanent IP (Internet Protocol) address at all times. A Dynamic (changing) DSL connection provides the end user the option of having an IP address that changes at various time intervals (called "leases") based on when they log on or off their computer. These leases are controlled by the ISP (Internet Service Provider). WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? So why the difference? Depends on what you are trying to do. There are pros and cons to each method. DSL with a static IP address If you are a "power user" or someone who has certain internet services that need an unchanging connection, you may need a static connection. For example, if you wanted to run a web server out of your home, you would need a static IP address. You could essentially use DSL for such a service (although, not the wisest move as DSL is fairly slow compared to other connection types such as T1, T3, etc.). The reason for the static IP address is so when someone visits the web site, they can actually find it. Imagine if the address changed every time the computer rebooted. That would be an internet logistical nightmare. There are other uses for having a static IP address. For example, if you wanted to set up a permanent VPN (Virtual Private Network) between your home office and your corporate office you would need a static IP address. The downside to having a permanent, static IP address is that it's always on and never changes. This could be a potential security risk. And if you don't know what you're doing from a security standpoint, a static IP address could be your downward spiral into being hacked or worse -- identity theft. DSL with a dynamic IP address Dynamic IP addresses are constantly changing based on your ISP's DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) and lease time out settings. Therefore, each time you log into your computer or perform a release/renew on your network connection, you are potentially receiving a new IP address. This is more secure than a static IP address because if a hacker finds you on a Friday for example, and decides to try again in a few days, more than likely, your IP address has changed and it will be much more difficult for the hacker to find you. The downside of a dynamic address is the inability to create a permanent connection (as described in "DSL with a static IP address"). SECURITY No matter which internet connection service type you use (DSL, Cable, Dial-Up, etc.) you should ALWAYS exercise basic internet security practices. For broadband (DSL, Cable, etc.) you should always put your computers behind a router that has an internal firewall and supports NAT (Network Address Translation). If it has the ability to mask your external IP address (the address your ISP gives you if your static), even better. All your computers behind the router are then firewalled and they also receive an internal, private IP address that is only known to you. The router handles the communication between your computers and the outside world by translating the private address into the public address through the use of encryption. If the router supports IP masking, then the router becomes "invisible" to some degree to the outside world as well. Pings won't bounce back and traceroute will fail to resolve (in most cases). Again, security is only as good as the inability of the hacker attempting to crack in. If you're on dial-up, a router is unavailable to you. However, you SHOULD run a software firewall. Windows and Apple systems typically have such abilities built in. McAfee and Norton provide a second layer of firewall prevention as well. And of course, no matter what connection type you are running, if you are on Windows, you should ALWAYS run an AntiVirus package such as McAffee, AVG, or Norton in conjunction with an anti-spyware/anti-malware application such as Windows Defender (produced and freely available from Microsoft). So there you have - plus a little more detail then what you asked for. NOW... Back to our regularly scheduled fellowship...

As a matter of fact... yes. First and foremost, for the believer in Christ, studying the Word is paramount. Not only is the Bible the Word of God, but it is also our guidebook -- our moral compass you might say. 1.) The 10 commandments are a good starting place. 2.) Proverbs are another. 3.) The parables that Jesus spoke of will enlighten us and give us further commandments (lusting=adultery, hatred=murder, go into all the world and spread the Word, etc.). 4.) The teachings of Paul bear much weight on how Christians should behave (don't let your hands be idle, etc.) Even though the Bible is the perfect, infallible Word of God, the biggest problem lies in the fact that WE are imperfect and quite capable of making a myriad of mistakes.. This is where prayer comes into play -- praying for God's will to be done, praying for the mind of God, praying for wisdom, and discernment, etc. Furthermore, some people are blessed with the spiritual gift of discernment and knowledge and are able to read further into God's Word than others. These types typically make the best preachers, ministers and missionaries. The Bible teaches that we are all created with God's Words laid upon our heart -- the ability to distinguish right from wrong, at a most basic, primitive level. And of course, good ole common horse sense and personal experience go a long way too. Hopes this helps.

Not sure how KJV is any holier than any other text as they have all been carefully and painstakingly translated from the same original texts -- bearing in mind a few erroneous versions that have slipped in (such as the Latin Vulgate that had a Catholic agenda for example). In fact, from what I understand, modern translations such as the NASB are among some of the best translations due to a better understanding of the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages. Personally, I still love the KJV as that's what I grew up with and I love the way the words roll off the tongue and how they sound when singing certain hymns and songs... Imagine, singing... "Thy Word" as "Your Word" - while it means the same thing, it just doesn't have the same "ring" to it. Same goes for "Seek ye first the kingdom of God" - just sounds so weird compared to "Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness" as the NIV phrases it. When my wife and I married, we chose to have the pastor speak from the KJV - it's more romantic and reverent feeling and it truly is poetic in form. But when it comes to Bible study... Give me every translation I can get my hands on... I typically use KJV, NIV, and NASB for the most part. Anyway... fun stuff...

My mother, God bless her soul is a Christian woman. She was married two times and divorced two times. Both times, she was married to an unbeliever and the first time, married to an abusive husband. First and foremost, they were unequally yoked. Secondly, the man is to be the head of the household just as Christ is the head of the church. Women are to submit to their husbands. HOWEVER - keeping within context, if Christ is the head of the church and the husband is to model his home life after Christ and the church then there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR ABUSE and I truly believe that is the woman is to resemble the body of the church, then the husband who does not lead his household in a Christ-like manner is a false husband and the woman has the right to divorce her husband just as members of the body of Christ should seek a church where Christ is present vs. sitting in the pews of a dead church body. I don't know of any scripture to corroborate my claim (other than the husband to be the head of his household as Christ is the head of the church) - so this probably falls into the realm of personal opinion. Personally, I believe this to be between the individual and God. I'm sure someone else here might be more adept at guiding you through this.

It all stems from the fact that at one time (still true?) that the name YHWH was (is) held in such reverence that it was not allowed to be spoken. People were (are) scared that they might viloate that command, so they substitute G-d for God. Its all out of revernce to God. If you'll notice in your bible the instances when the name LORD is in all capital letters, that name was substituted for YHWH also. People first used adonai, and later, LORD. Interesting. So those who use "G-d" are substituting it in for "God", which is a noun to describe WHAT God is and not who? I can clearly understand (and have heard about the "YHWH") command, but to not use the term "God" seems slightly misguided. It's no different than substituting "LORD" for "YHWH." Why not write it "L--D" then? That's like saying, My name is Caine. I am human. Do not speak my name. I never said not to call me human, I just said not to speak my name. Strange... Nonetheless... thank you for the explanation. While I understand the explanation, I don't see any justification. However, we are not called to judge one another and therefore, if this is how some people wish to honor God... by all means, go for it!

I have been on WB off and on since 2006 and something has always puzzled me... Maybe someone can answer this for me... Why do some people spell out "G-d" vs just spelling out "God?" What is the purpose? Thanks!

BTW - A friend of mine just forwarded this to me... http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ A little something to test yourself on the validity of absolute truth...

Firstly, I don't make up the definitions - contact Webster, Oxford or whomever if you have issue with the definitions. However, I think the definitions were fairly clear... Truth (according to Oxford): The quality or state of being true, that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality, a fact or belief that is accepted as true. So far, nothing in this definition seems relative to me. So I'm not quite sure what you're on about... As for truth NOT being relative - That was my point - truth is NOT relative... truth is truth. For example - You cannot have both good AND evil. And as the Bible states, there are none that are good. We are all born into sin. It is through the shedding of Christ's blood and our acceptance of His sacrifice that we are atoned and therefore purified through the glory and the grace of God. Now, with regards to the term, absolute... Absolute (according to Oxford): not qualified or diminished in any way; total, viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative, a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things Again, nothing in here about relative. In fact, "not relative" is mentioned in the definition and it seems quite clear on the point. Therefore, when the two words are brought together... Absolute Truth... we can infer that it means Truth is not relative. Truth is universally valid. Now, you do have one thing right... Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, cannot all be truth because they contradict each other. Unfortunately, some people do believe they are all true - the fact is, they all hold some truth in some fashion... but anyone who is a Christian who can testify through personal experience can confirm that Jesus Christ is the living God, and He is the way, the truth and the light. It is through baptism in the Holy Spirit that we are convicted of that truth. And that is personal experience that cannot be denied by anyone because there is no factual proof against it. And while the non-believer might argue that this would prove that absolute truth does not exist (going back to the true for you but not for me kind of reasoning) -- it truly does not prove it. Just because the non-believer has not experienced it for themselves does not make it any less true. If you take the time to study the flow chart and direction of the series of Q&A, you will see that anyone who refutes the existence of Absolute Truth will inadvertently be caught up in an endless loop until they admit that absolute truth exists. That is the point - because absolute truth DOES exist. When I ask someone, "Is there such a thing as absolute truth?" and they reply with, "There is no such thing as absolute truth" my final question is, "Are you absolutely sure that is true?" They are then cornered - they must either concede that yes, there is absolute truth or that they don't know if there is an absolute truth (and that's just a nice return to ask them if that answer is absolutely true as well). Another way of putting it (from Way of the Master) Those who say that there are no absolutes are often very adamant about their belief. If they say that they are absolutely sure, then they are wrong because their own statement is an absolute. If they are not 100 percent sure, then there is a chance that they are wrong and they are risking their eternal salvation by trusting in a wrong belief. God tells us that there is an objective, absolute truth that is not subject to man

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, friends and colleagues, The other night, I was lying in bed and I had a restless sleep. My mind kept racing through an endless loop of questions regarding the subject of, "Absolute Truth." I have heard the arguments on both sides. They sound something like this: Argument 1: Some people say that there is no such thing as absolute truth and what is true for me may not be true for you. Argument 2: Some people say that absolute truth is absolutely true. The question remains, how can we be absolutely sure about the absoluteness of absolute truth? I personally have always believed in absolute truth. But for some reason, my brain wouldn't shut up and let me sleep -- My brain seemed to have a mind of its own and it wanted to absolutely define absolute truth. During my restless slumber, I envisioned a flow chart (those who know me also know my fondness for visual aids). My mind raced through each potential process and decision until I could take it no longer. I jumped to my feet, popped open my favorite flowcharting software (OmniGraffle) and I worked up the flow chart I had been dreaming about. Through the use of this flow chart, I came to a very interesting, LOGICAL conclusion regarding the subject of absolute truth. I then opened up the New Oxford Dictionary to see how it defined the words, "Absolute" and "Truth." Within the definition was a reference to the Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus with a description for the phrase "The Absolute Truth." The definitions contained therein confirmed the conclusion that I had arrived at on my own. Without further ado, I would like to share with you my findings in the form of a flow chart. http://www.sonic.net/~caine/absolute_truth...olute_truth.jpg Take a peek. I think you will find it very interesting. Thanks for reading this far.

Yes, I believe that the holocaust did happen. It is a historical fact. To refute that is akin to putting one's hands over their ears and screaming, "BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!..." Now, onto the bigger question... I know it's become clich

Thank you for asking that question. It's truly a mater of "IF a=b AND b=c THEN a=c" - at least, in my mind. Please allow me to explain. IF Biblical Statement = Historical Evidence AND Historical Evidence is TRUE THEN Biblical Statement is TRUE OR IF Biblical Statement = Archaeological Evidence AND Archaeological Evidence is TRUE THEN Biblical Statement is TRUE Of course, we are ONLY looking at two sets of criteria (history and archaeology), and as you say, the jury is still out on certain facts, yet to be proven or disproven at this juncture in time. So I ask this question... How much evidence is enough? 1% truth, 99% unknown? 33% truth, 66% unknown? 66% truth, 33% unknown? 99% truth, 1% unknown? or a solid 100% truth? There's a problem with this. 100% of the Biblical account is not historically, archaeologically or scientifically reference-able. A good chunk of the Biblical account is based on spirituality - faith in God. So we need to ask ourselves a very important question. If the Bible's tangible, physical elements (pertaining to history, archaeology, science, etc.) are proven to be true, what does this say about the nature of the spiritual areas of the Biblical account? In other words, if everything the Bible has said is found to be true with regards to what we can see for ourselves, isn't it safe to say that what the Bible says about areas we cannot see are more likely to be true than not? Also, keep this in mind - despite the fact that some of the evidence in support of the Biblical account has yet to be 100% confirmed as 100% true (ie: parting of Red Seas, Noah's Ark, etc. [bTW - There is plenty of evidence for both parting of Red Sea and a Great Flood - but that is a post of a different color]), no one has 100% ruled them out either. We have more positive proof for the Biblical account than we have against it. So giving the author (God) the benefit of the doubt, doesn't it stand to reason that there may very well be some truth with regards to the spiritual account? This is where we divert from we can see, touch, taste, and hear and delve into the realm of faith. I personally, take it on faith that the remainder of the Bible must be true because everything else I have witnessed about the Biblical account is either 100% true or has yet to be 100% refuted as a lie. I'm giving the author (God) the benefit of the doubt. Here is one other "proof" - Based on what I have witnessed in my own life and in the lives of others, those who cling to scriptural (spiritual truths) seem to have something many people do not have - hope. From a non-believer's point of view, there is no hope. Look at atheism and agnosticism. If there is no God, then when you die, that is it. You are just a chapter or perhaps only a foot note in the page of history. Where is the hope in that? If you are Muslim, your life relies on the scales tipping in your favor. You need 51% good works to get into Heaven. That sounds VERY stressful to me. Where is the hope in that? If you are of a religion who has no afterlife, but perhaps, reincarnation as another beast (ie Cow), you are destined to be a regurgitated soul. Where is the hope in that? Also, I've known plenty of believers, who in the face of extreme opposition, even to the point of death, have given glory to God and have maintained the strongest spirit of anyone, and yet, others with less hope and faith fail because they have neither. What can be said of this? We cannot scientifically measure such things, for they are unseen and unmeasurable. And yet, the Bible goes to great lengths to explain and describe such events. I'm glad that the Bible has a good, solid foot print in the realm of history and archaeology. But for me, I'm much happier knowing that there is a purpose for our lives, that it's not in vain and that there is something better to come through faith in God (Jesus Christ). So there you have it. You have my logical side as well as my spiritual side. BTW - You said something curious... This is a statement that lacks all logic and reason. This is like saying, "I don't believe in internal combustion engines despite the fact that there are millions of cars on the road." Why would anyone ignore physical, tangible evidence? And yet, there are those who cling to "theories" (ie evolution [please see definition of theory in original post]) which have yet to be proven as "fact" and yet, the Bible, which supports oodles and oodles of [historical and archaeological] facts beyond anything the theory of evolution has yet to produce is looked upon with extreme scrutiny. Which seems the more foolish? The one with the facts or the one who says, "One day I might have facts, but for now, we must contend with nothing more than a theory." Again, for me to believe in something of that nature is just too hard to swallow, especially in light of the facts. I'm guessing that IF we can prove the Bible is fallible, then there's truly nothing to worry about because the remainder of the Biblical account crumbles due to it's lack of credibility. However, if we cannot disprove anything within the Biblical account, the ramifications are huge - it really does mean that there's a Heaven and a Hell and that those who do not chose God and abide by His standards truly are going to Hell. This is a scary thought for some people - especially those who just don't like the idea of having to make such a choice. But in the end, they really did make a choice. There are only two choices. Either chose God, or don't choose God. Those who chose God, get to go with God onto Heaven and those who don't choose God get to stay behind. It's kind of like getting on a bus. Either you're on or you're off - their is no in between state. Personally, from what I have witnessed, this is what non-believers fear most. The reasons are simple - IF the Bible is TRUE and God is TRUE then it means everyone really is going to Heaven or to Hell. It also means that all the things that a lot of non-believers cling too truly are "wrong" and it really does mean that there is a universal, moral code. People don't want to hear such things. They want to know that it's OK to sleep with whomever they want or to talk how they want or behave how they want. People like the idea of being in control of their own lives and potentially in control of other's lives. People don't like the idea of sin or the idea of Hell. Everyone likes to think of themselves as a "Good Person" but in God's eyes, none are good. And because of that, people like to refute God and try to downplay any such notion of God. It makes us feel better when we can say, "I don't answer to anyone. I am my own God! HUZZAH!" Even if we don't say it or think it, it's still something most people do cling to. But if God truly is what the Bible says he is, well, that changes everything and people don't like that. It's easier to turn a blind eye and scream "foul" than to accept God. And many people who say, "Well, if there is a God, he's unfair and unjust!" But do those people ever stop to ask, "By who's standards? Yours or God's?" If God truly is and truly did create us and we truly are imperfect, then who are we to judge God by our own imperfect standards? Anyway - now we've deviated from your original question. For this I apologize - Another soap box for me I spose!

According to the Oxford Dictionary, atheism is defined as: Let's look at the word 'theory' a little closer. As described by Oxford...