God is love. God is just.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

There is a difference between learning new things, and simply rejecting that certain things in the Bible are true. God will never contradict the Bible. He will never say, "The Bibles says this..., but the Bible was wrong."

You're probably right, but how can you be so sure?

Because the Bible is authored by God. Man could not have written what is contained in the Bible, because the Bible is contrary to human nature. Man believes that He is basically good. God says man is basically sinful. Man left to his own devices would never had come up with a book like the Bible at least on the moral grounds that the Bible espouses. Mankind would not have created a book that condemned homosexuality or sex outside of marriage.

Mankind would have created a book that treats truth as relative. Mankind prefers to think of truth as something he creates for himself. Therefore, it would be a form of truth that appeals to the lusts and appetites of the individual. The Bible says that God and God alone is the sole author of truth. Jesus said that the Word of God is, TRUTH.

If mankind had written the Bible, there would be no standard by which we measure what is true or false regarding God. Every person would have simply written according to his own sensibilities and dispositions regarding what is true or not. The Bible offers itself as the sole arbitor, the final court of appeal on all matters of Christian faith and practice. It offers itself as the plumline by which all other "truths" are measured. Haven't you noticed that it is the Bible that comes under the most scrutiny? It is always the Bible that everyone is trying to disprove and discredit. No other religious leaders have their names taken in vain. Only Bible believers are made to look like loons while the followers of Buddhism and Hinduism are made to look enlightened. Mankind could not have written the Bible.

If mankind had written the Bible, he would have allowed for many different paths and means of coming to God and attaining salvation. Mankind would not have created a system where there is ONE way to God, and all other religious systems would be deemed invalid/false. The Bibles says that there is salvation in no one else other than Jesus.

Mankind would not have created a God that he was accountable to. He would not have a created a God like what we see in the Bible. The God of the Bible is offensive to many in the world, demonstrating that if the Bible were of human origin, would not look at all like it looks right now. There would be no sin, no punishment, no accountability, no holiness, no standard by which we measure truth. It would be every man for himself.

The writers of the Bible, the prophets were killed for what they wrote and said. Prophets did not have long life expectancies. They were some of the most despised people in all of Israel. Many were stoned to death. Isaiah was sawn in half. The apostles were martyred for their messages. No one left to their own senses, would deliver a message that was sure to bring about their own death. That someone would die for what they know is not true, is insane.

But as this topic relates to this thread: If a nation behaved the way Israel behaved in (much of) the OT, I would think they need to be stopped--not just because they break international law but because that action is against very basic moral and ethical principles--even Jesus' own--even if this nation claimed that God told them to do what they do. If the Israelis today started butchering the Palestinians because of some command they say came from God, I would not believe them and I would want them stopped. I assume that you would tend to believe them.

Israel has had to defend itself against against 5 Arab instigated wars. Three of those wars were fought when Israel was out numbered over 70 to one on the battlefield, and often fighting with inferior weapons. Every threat Israel faces, they face alone. For the last 57 years of its existance, the nation of Israel has been subjected to nonstop day and night terrorism. It is a war of attrition that intentionally targets the most vulnerable members of the Israeli Jewish community (babies, children, the elderly). This terorism is fed by continuous calls for Israel's annihilation. The Arab world makes no secret about its agenda to see Israel destroyed and every Jews in the Middle East drowned in the Mediteranean. Israel has bent over backwards to help the Palestinians and even allows them live off of the Israeli economy, and Israel is repayed in blood shed.

Yet, are there calls from people like you for the Arabs/Palestinians to be stopped???? Not at all. Palestinians butcher Israelis all of the time and there are no sanctions passed against them. Relatively few in the international community are morally outraged when Jews are slaughtered in their own streets. Israel is expected to "negotiate" with these monsters. They are called on to adhere to peace processes and road maps. If Israel attempts to defend itself by destroying the terrorist cells, the world goes nuts with UN resoluctions, threats of sanctions and cutting off diplomatic ties. If Israelis are butchered in grocery stores, and shopping malls, Israel is expected to "show restraint" which only highlights how worthless Jewish blood is in this world. No other nation would follow the demands they place upon Israel, were they facing similar threats.

The same world that pretends some moral outrage about certain events in the Bible are silent when the similar scenarios are played out in our day. When the Southern Sudanese are being slaughtered into extinction, when the Tibetanese are under brutal Chinese occupation, when certain tribes in Africa brtualize and slaughter other tribes, we see little moral outrage. The world could not have cared less about the Nazi practices of genocide.

[Copper Scroll]

You're probably right, but how can you be so sure?

Because the Bible is authored by God.

(It's silly and off-topic, I know. Because we both agree that this would not happen, but) what if God did deny authorship of the Bible to you personally? Would you think that you were going crazy?

Haven't you noticed that it is the Bible that comes under the most scrutiny? It is always the Bible that everyone is trying to disprove and discredit. No other religious leaders have their names taken in vain. Only Bible believers are made to look like loons while the followers of Buddhism and Hinduism are made to look enlightened.

The reason why this is is not because of the Bible itself, it's because of the words and deeds of Christians. Unlike Hindus and Jews, Christians actively spread Christianity--and some do this agressively. Often this has been done in conjunction with brutal colonial imperialism. Some Christians have put themselves out there for Christianity to be made the target of criticism and scrutiny. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Christians have a responsiblity to spread the Gospel--so we also have a responsiblity to stand up to scrutiny (instead of using people's guilt and fear against them, as is more often done).

If mankind had written the Bible, he would have allowed for many different paths and means of coming to God and attaining salvation. Mankind would not have created a system where there is ONE way to God, and all other religious systems would be deemed invalid/false.

I don't see why not. Telling people there's only one way to reach your most important life goal sounds like a good way of controlling how they'll live their life. It insures the survival of the religious institution.

Mankind would not have created a God that he was accountable to. He would not have a created a God like what we see in the Bible. The God of the Bible is offensive to many in the world, demonstrating that if the Bible were of human origin, would not look at all like it looks right now.

Many other religions have these same features. Most every animistic and polytheistic religion has angry gods that might be personally offensive. Every religion has had conflicts between the divine and the mortal.

The writers of the Bible, the prophets were killed for what they wrote and said. Prophets did not have long life expectancies. They were some of the most despised people in all of Israel. Many were stoned to death. Isaiah was sawn in half. The apostles were martyred for their messages. No one left to their own senses, would deliver a message that was sure to bring about their own death. That someone would die for what they know is not true, is insane.

This has always happened and is even happening today in various religions. In fact, Christians today seem to be the only ones not dying for our faith. Muslims martyr themselves (if you can call it that) and there is constant conflict between India and Pakistan over religion. Tibet has been under threat for a long time because of religion. The list goes on.

But as this topic relates to this thread: If a nation behaved the way Israel behaved in (much of) the OT, I would think they need to be stopped--not just because they break international law but because that action is against very basic moral and ethical principles--even Jesus' own--even if this nation claimed that God told them to do what they do. If the Israelis today started butchering the Palestinians because of some command they say came from God, I would not believe them and I would want them stopped. I assume that you would tend to believe them.

Israel has had to defend itself against against 5 Arab instigated wars. Three of those wars were fought when Israel was out numbered over 70 to one on the battlefield, and often fighting with inferior weapons. Every threat Israel faces, they face alone. For the last 57 years of its existance, the nation of Israel has been subjected to nonstop day and night terrorism. It is a war of attrition that intentionally targets the most vulnerable members of the Israeli Jewish community (babies, children, the elderly). This terorism is fed by continuous calls for Israel's annihilation. The Arab world makes no secret about its agenda to see Israel destroyed and every Jews in the Middle East drowned in the Mediteranean. Israel has bent over backwards to help the Palestinians and even allows them live off of the Israeli economy, and Israel is repayed in blood shed.

Yet, are there calls from people like you for the Arabs/Palestinians to be stopped???? Not at all.

I had put something in my last post about the Palestinians but then took it out--thinking that it would be unnecessarily distracting. But now I see that it is more distracting to have left it out.

You don't know if I've called for the Palestinians to be stopped. If anything, I should have given you the impression that I have. The argument I present in my last post stands pretty strongly against any form of religiously inspired violence, terrorism, acts of war, etc.

The same world that pretends some moral outrage about certain events in the Bible are silent when the similar scenarios are played out in our day. When the Southern Sudanese are being slaughtered into extinction, when the Tibetanese are under brutal Chinese occupation, when certain tribes in Africa brtualize and slaughter other tribes, we see little moral outrage. The world could not have cared less about the Nazi practices of genocide.

If they are morally outraged about it happening in the Bible, why wouldn't they be morally outraged by it happening today? It doesn't make sense. You may be viewing the secular world as one big thing with a singular public opinion, but it's not so. Many seculars and non-Christians called for intervention in the Darfur massacres (mainly people on the political left) and the Chinese occupation of Tibet (mainly Buddhists).

Edited March 4, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Mar 3 2006, 08:41 PM)

QUOTE

You're probably right, but how can you be so sure?

Because the Bible is authored by God.

(It's silly and off-topic, I know. Because we both agree that this would not happen, but) what if God did deny authorship of the Bible to you personally? Would you think that you were going crazy?

No, I would simply know that the being was not God.

QUOTE

Haven't you noticed that it is the Bible that comes under the most scrutiny? It is always the Bible that everyone is trying to disprove and discredit. No other religious leaders have their names taken in vain. Only Bible believers are made to look like loons while the followers of Buddhism and Hinduism are made to look enlightened.

The reason why this is is not because of the Bible itself, it's because of the words and deeds of Christians. Unlike Hindus and Jews, Christians actively spread Christianity--and some do this agressively. Often this has been done in conjunction with brutal colonial imperialism. Some Christians have put themselves out there for Christianity to be made the target of criticism and scrutiny. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Christians have a responsiblity to spread the Gospel--so we also have a responsiblity to stand up to scrutiny (instead of using people's guilt and fear against them, as is more often done).

It may have some to do with that, but more of it is because the claims of Jesus and the Bible itself is are unique. Jesus does not allow for Himself to be regarded as nothing but a mere prophet. He does not allow anyone to come away from His teachings with the imipression that He has presented Himself as one of many valid religious figures. He presents Himself as God, and the only way to God. The Bible presents a message that runs counter to humanity.

QUOTE

If mankind had written the Bible, he would have allowed for many different paths and means of coming to God and attaining salvation. Mankind would not have created a system where there is ONE way to God, and all other religious systems would be deemed invalid/false.

I don't see why not. Telling people there's only one way to reach your most important life goal sounds like a good way of controlling how they'll live their life. It insures the survival of the religious institution.

Well the fact that "one way to God" is treated with so much repulsion, and the fact that most of humanity recoils in disgust at such an assertion demonstrates that the depravity of human nature would not subject itself to what it offends it.

QUOTE

Mankind would not have created a God that he was accountable to. He would not have a created a God like what we see in the Bible. The God of the Bible is offensive to many in the world, demonstrating that if the Bible were of human origin, would not look at all like it looks right now.

Many other religions have these same features. Most every animistic and polytheistic religion has angry gods that might be personally offensive. Every religion has had conflicts between the divine and the mortal.

The difference being, that other religions had gods who were flawed. The gods had very human character flaws. Not only that, but there no sense of ultimate accountability. The gods did not provide a standard of moral conduct to which the greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians or any other group was expected to live up to. Since the Greek's standard of living was so radically opposite that of the Bible, they certainly would never have created a god that would have held them to a standard different than what they deemed acceptable in their eyes. Laws were made by Kings, not gods. In mythology, especially greek mythology, men were nothing but pawns. There was no saving relationship, no need or desire to be give or recieve love from men. The differences between the mythological gods and the God we see in the Bible could go on and on.

QUOTE

The writers of the Bible, the prophets were killed for what they wrote and said. Prophets did not have long life expectancies. They were some of the most despised people in all of Israel. Many were stoned to death. Isaiah was sawn in half. The apostles were martyred for their messages. No one left to their own senses, would deliver a message that was sure to bring about their own death. That someone would die for what they know is not true, is insane.

This has always happened and is even happening today in various religions. In fact, Christians today seem to be the only ones not dying for our faith. Muslims martyr themselves (if you can call it that) and there is constant conflict between India and Pakistan over religion. Tibet has been under threat for a long time because of religion. The list goes on.

The difference being that the prophets were killed by their own people for bringing the Word of God telling them of the impending judgment of God.

Muslim martyrs don't compare because they not being murdered for a particular message. They kill themselves to go to heaven. Neither does the conflict between India and Pakistan. India and Pakistans differences are not merely religious, but political as well. None of the examples you give, fit the context or have any similarity to the example I gave.

The point I was making was that no one would die for what they know is not true. No one would willingly suffer persecution, torture, and death as a prophet of God, knowing full well that the message they spoke did not really come from God. Since prophets were regularly stoned to death in ancient Israel, no one wanted to be a prophet. The fact that these men willingly died for their proclamations can only lead to the conclusion that they knew that their messages came from God, and it was the Spirit of God that gave them the courage to speak and write in His Name even though it would mean certain torture and death.

[Guest truespirit]

There comes a point when a person's only way to finding God is by accepting the true message and meaning of Jesus Christ, and all of the LOVE that comes by that very message. That's the only way a person can understand the true inspiration of God, and why, in fact, God does = LOVE. I really believe that. We have our obligations, most certainly, but the life of Christ is the key to understanding the Faith.

There are many scary stories in the Bible, the Old Testament in particular. Yet, it seems like the moment that we find anything at all that scares us, or might seem to go against the loving message, which in fact is the reality, there is something inside of us that says, "This is man's work, this writing."

What we can overlook at that point is the fact that God was in the process of establishing an entire society for the world, a way of life that He wanted.

And while there are certain things that I might not necessarily understand in this life in respect to those days that preceeded the life of Jesus Christ, the fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ was sent for us, we who are completely unworthy of His graces.

Mankind is capable of every sin and evil in the world. One look at today's world or any point in history proves that premise. Fornication/adultry, murder, corruption/greed, any temptation that one can imagine, man has been guilty of it at some point in time. Even the greatest Christian today fails. If we were perfect, afterall, we would never put ourselves before others. We could never be content, not for a single moment, living in this world, knowing there are others being tortured in other countries, or starving children right here at home.

Jesus Himself was very peaceful, loving. He gave us warnings about what might come of us if we didn't live our lives the right way, but even within the content of such warning, look at the real message-

Matthew 25 40:46-

"And I, the King, will tell them, 'When you did it to these my brothers you were doing it to me! Then I will turn to those on my left and say, 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. For I was hungry and you wouldn't feed me; thirsty, and you wouldn't give me anything to drink; a stranger, and you refused me hospitality; naked, and you wouldn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'

"Then they will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?'

"And I will answer, 'When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing to help me.'

"And they shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into everlasting life."

At first glance, some might conclude by these words that even our loving King spoke with fury and so forth, etc. But look closer-who is He really warning?

Probably that guy down the block that won't extend any compassion or personal effort to those less fortunate, right?

Mankind can attempt to define "Good" and "Bad" all we would like to, but the fact of the matter is that it would take a pretty cold heart to ignore the needs and pain of children that go without food or medicine, love, etc. That said, it would seem to me that while there might be some that might find this type of statement to be one of those "Scary ones," the meaning that Jesus had with it was truly beautiful deep down. How many world leaders have we witnessed over the centuries that hoard enormous wealth while their own people die of starvation for the sake of preserving enrormous wealth for the powers that be.

How many people do you know that sit around day and night worrying only about their own goodwill or fortunes while their neighbor sits in suffering? How many of us, Christians, spend our days worrying about this or that Biblical passage and whether or not we're being "Perfect," when we could be making the effort now and than to be out helping those in need?

Matthew 16 24:26-

Then Jesus said to the disciples, "If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For anyone who keeps his life for himself shall lose it; and anyone who loses his life for me shall find it again. What profit is there if you gain the whole world-and lose eternal life?"

But there's the catch, isn't it. For the person that doesn't love and admire the life of Jesus Christ and the ultimate, selfless sacrifice that He made for us, not to mention the PERFECT, LOVING example and ministry that He gave to all while He was here on earth, what good would there be in doing these good acts? They wouldn't be done out of LOVE, meaning for Christ and others, but they would be done because they "Are needed for my OWN salvation." Meaning, there probably wouldn't be much meaning behind any of it, would there. The only exception I will put in here though is that regardless of how cold one's heart might be, regardless of how selfish they might be, I really believe that one might just embrace the true calling from within if he/she was to actually go out and spend a day at a nursing home, or volunteer at a homeless shelter, if only for a day. You never know where there might be a lesson for the heart sitting in hiding, you know?

Matthew 17:5

"This is my beloved Son, and I am wonderfully pleased with him. Obey him."

Jesus Christ was the least bit self centered person to have ever walked the earth. He gave immense love to all of those that embraced Him, and the message that He came to deliver. He felt great compassion for the poor, the weak, the sick. He gave His life for all of us that are not worthy of His salvation, given our sinful nature.

And He was GOD's perfect Son. Clearly, God does = love, and He loves us in a way that we as humans cannot begin to embrace.

As for some of the passages of the Old Testament, like Numbers 31, etc, I won't lie-I don't understand all of it, and I'm not totally comfortable reading about the violence in those passages. However, though I love my Father, I can't understand each and everything about His master plan, either. When it comes to some of the brutality of the Bible in those early days, like in Numbers 31 where babies were evidently ordered to be killed, knowing that our time here on earth is but a blink of the eye in the bigger picture of things, who's not to say that God immediately delivered these children up to Heaven? I'm not saying that's the case, I'm not God. But before we get upset with Him when we come across passages like this one in the Bible, I think we have to understand that we're not God, either. Only He knows what comes of things for us.

The focus for us, as Christians, should be to embrace the wonderful message of hope and love to be found in the life of Jesus Christ, He who has more love for us than we can ever begin to understand, He who was sent by God Himself.

Matthew 22 37-39

Jesus replied, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second most important is similar: 'Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself."

Again, God ='s love.

God has complete power over our lives. Unlike any king of this world, however, the true King simply asks that we humble ourselves to Him and obey His law, law that betters our own lives. How much happier would we all be if we hadn't ever told a lie, fornicated, committed a crime, envied our neighbor's wealth, obeyed our parents so that we didn't hurt their feelings, or had not been greedy when in fact we could've provided for those less fortunate than ourselves.

Before those of us that might have the tendancy at times to look at these rules and say, "Impossible! What type of life is that!" -imagine the type of world that we would have if we actually did obey Him, a world where we picked up our fallen and embraced them with love.

A world where we didn't lie to get ahead of others, one in which we didn't feel jealously for our neighbor's possessions, not because we want them, but because little do we always understand at any given point that the life they are leading is a one way highway to depression and a life of falsehood. Self centeredness, for sure. Or one in which we didn't take advantage of others sexually early on in life only to one day marry another, the one that you will spend the rest of your life. Imagine the type of world we would have where there were no others that went hungry, one in which we didn't have starving children, a world where we would help rescue our neighbors when they were heading down a wrong path before the consequences of such would go onto to cause pain for their children, which in turn might lead to other problems down the road.

The Bible is our foundation as Christians. It's our backbone. There comes the point, however, I honestly believe that we have a duty to truly embrace the message, LOVE, God's love, and to go out and live it, rather than concern ourselves about this or that thing in our own lives each and every single day. Satan will always try to attack our minds when we are here. He might give us a false sense of wisdom in certain circumstances that will lead us to into these types of questions, a false sense of philosophy.

But we always have Him to turn back to, to rescue us. If we repent and love Him and accept Him as our personal savior. Jesus talked about the need for us to have a childlike faith, and I am finding more and more meaning in that statement as the days go by. The older I get, the more I realize our children are our true "Scholars." The rest of us, by living in this world, are more prone to the devil's trickery, and that's an understatement.

Edited March 4, 2006 by truespirit

[Copper Scroll]

(It's silly and off-topic, I know. Because we both agree that this would not happen, but) what if God did deny authorship of the Bible to you personally? Would you think that you were going crazy?

No, I would simply know that the being was not God.

I wonder, then, what makes the Bible not an idol.

Most every animistic and polytheistic religion has angry gods that might be personally offensive. Every religion has had conflicts between the divine and the mortal.

The difference being, that other religions had gods who were flawed. The gods had very human character flaws. Not only that, but there no sense of ultimate accountability. The gods did not provide a standard of moral conduct to which the greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians or any other group was expected to live up to. Since the Greek's standard of living was so radically opposite that of the Bible, they certainly would never have created a god that would have held them to a standard different than what they deemed acceptable in their eyes. Laws were made by Kings, not gods. In mythology, especially greek mythology, men were nothing but pawns. There was no saving relationship, no need or desire to be give or recieve love from men. The differences between the mythological gods and the God we see in the Bible could go on and on.

...as could the similarities: You spoke of human character flaws. One human character flaw I can think of is wrath. But God is wrathful (at least for most Christians). You can make an argument for why it's okay for God to be wrathful but not okay for humans, but you can't deny that it's a flaw for humans that God has. You spoke of accountability, an idea that figures prominently in Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Eastern worldviews as karma. Hinduism (at least many forms of it) and Islam both provide standards of moral conduct.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing here. My point is that to the objective eye, not particularly tied to one culture or another, little distinguishes Christianity from other religions and philosophies. Christianity, of course, has unique features--but every religion and philosophy has unique features.

The difference being that the prophets were killed by their own people for bringing the Word of God telling them of the impending judgment of God.

From my understanding, the Buddha and his followers were also persecuted in India. I don't really see what makes this a significant difference though.

Muslim martyrs don't compare because they not being murdered for a particular message. They kill themselves to go to heaven. Neither does the conflict between India and Pakistan. India and Pakistans differences are not merely religious, but political as well. None of the examples you give, fit the context or have any similarity to the example I gave.

You can't deny the similarity--people being willing to die for their faith. Of course they are not identical to your example, but they are not even identical to each other. They all have different contexts.

The point I was making was that no one would die for what they know is not true. No one would willingly suffer persecution, torture, and death as a prophet of God, knowing full well that the message they spoke did not really come from God.

Of course not. When a Muslim terrorist suicide bomber blows himself up he or she "knows" he or she will be rewarded in heaven. I, of course, disagree. I was in no way saying that the prophets "know" their message isn't true. I would say that not ever person who claims to "know" something is true is correct in this.

Since prophets were regularly stoned to death in ancient Israel, no one wanted to be a prophet. The fact that these men willingly died for their proclamations can only lead to the conclusion that they knew that their messages came from God, and it was the Spirit of God that gave them the courage to speak and write in His Name even though it would mean certain torture and death.

I won't disagree with your conclusion in itself, but I disagree that your premise leads necessarily to that conclusion. If it did then everyone who is willing to die for a certain belief validates that belief just by being willing to die for it. That pretty clearly is not true.

[Copper Scroll]

Thanks for your message, truespirit.

[Guest shiloh357]

No, I would simply know that the being was not God.

I wonder, then, what makes the Bible not an idol.

Because we are simply stating that the Bible is of Divine origin. We are not setting it up to worshipped or calling it, "God."

as could the similarities: You spoke of human character flaws. One human character flaw I can think of is wrath. But God is wrathful (at least for most Christians). You can make an argument for why it's okay for God to be wrathful but not okay for humans, but you can't deny that it's a flaw for humans that God has. You spoke of accountability, an idea that figures prominently in Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Eastern worldviews as karma. Hinduism (at least many forms of it) and Islam both provide standards of moral conduct.

OK, a couple of things here.

The Wrath of God is just, because God is without sin. He is able to meet out justice because His knowledge of a particular situation is infinitely greater than ours. I would also point out, that God is consistent. His wrath is never immediate, or prejudicial. God always sends messengers ahead to warn of the impending judgement to come. This was true in the days of Noah. Noah preached 120 years, warning the people of the flood. God sent Jonah to Ninevah. God sent prophet after prophet to Israel. God gave Pharoah nine times to repent. He has sent His gospel into the world, and is again calling on men to repent before the dreaded Day of the Lord, when repentance will be too late.

Secondly, Karma is hardly a means of accountability. Karma offers no standard of right and wrong. Karma is an impersonal law of retribution, and has nothing to do with being accountable. You can only be accountable to a person, not an impersonal, somewhat ambiguous law. Karma is not rational, either. If I see a man drowning in a river, according to Karma, I must help him or risk falling to the same fate in another life. However, that man is obviously being punished by Karma, and if I interfere with karmic justice, I will inherit his karmic debt along with my own. So if I don't help, or if I do help, I am cursed. Add to that, if Karma is true, I am also not aware of a past life, so I am being punished without the benefit of knowing what I did to deserve such punishment. That is not accountability, that is simply cruel. The notion that we pay for our sins in another life is does not square with real life.

QUOTE

The difference being that the prophets were killed by their own people for bringing the Word of God telling them of the impending judgment of God.

From my understanding, the Buddha and his followers were also persecuted in India. I don't really see what makes this a significant difference though.

QUOTE

Muslim martyrs don't compare because they not being murdered for a particular message. They kill themselves to go to heaven. Neither does the conflict between India and Pakistan. India and Pakistans differences are not merely religious, but political as well. None of the examples you give, fit the context or have any similarity to the example I gave.

You can't deny the similarity--people being willing to die for their faith. Of course they are not identical to your example, but they are not even identical to each other. They all have different contexts.

The prophets God sent are different in one way. They were genuine prophets who words came to pass. The thing that sets them apart is not merely the persecution they face, but that even though they were killed, they were vindicated when the words they spoke came to pass. The prophets were killed for bringing a warning from God about judgement and that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea would be sacked, and these things came to pass just as they had said.

Daniel gave a prophecy about the coming of Messiah, in Daniel nine. It came to pass on the very day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the foal of donkey. We can look into the Scriptures and see all of the prophecies that came to pass just as they said. Sometimes it was years later, but still they came to pass.

I was in no way saying that the prophets "know" their message isn't true. I would say that not ever person who claims to "know" something is true is correct in this.

Well the prophets knew, and we know they knew, because their words came to pass perfectly. The prophets of God are batting 1000. They have not been wrong yet. That is the difference between false religions who "know," and the prophets of God. The proof is the fruit, the outcome. The accuracy with which their prophecies came true, will not allow us to lump them in with other people of other religions, and paint them as basically the same.

If it did then everyone who is willing to die for a certain belief validates that belief just by being willing to die for it. That pretty clearly is not true.

Except that no one has ever given their life for a cause or purpose they did not believe in, or knew was false. There are many proponents of false religions who would die for it because they believe it is true. They would not die for it if they did not believe in it. I would not die for Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

I am simply addressing why the Scriptures, and those we see written about in the Scriptures, demonstrate that what is written there is not of human origin.

[Copper Scroll]

as could the similarities: You spoke of human character flaws. One human character flaw I can think of is wrath. But God is wrathful (at least for most Christians). You can make an argument for why it's okay for God to be wrathful but not okay for humans, but you can't deny that it's a flaw for humans that God has. You spoke of accountability, an idea that figures prominently in Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Eastern worldviews as karma. Hinduism (at least many forms of it) and Islam both provide standards of moral conduct.

OK, a couple of things here.

The Wrath of God is just, because God is without sin. He is able to meet out justice because His knowledge of a particular situation is infinitely greater than ours. I would also point out, that God is consistent. His wrath is never immediate, or prejudicial. God always sends messengers ahead to warn of the impending judgement to come. This was true in the days of Noah. Noah preached 120 years, warning the people of the flood. God sent Jonah to Ninevah. God sent prophet after prophet to Israel. God gave Pharoah nine times to repent. He has sent His gospel into the world, and is again calling on men to repent before the dreaded Day of the Lord, when repentance will be too late.

You'll note that in my last post I acknowledge this (in bold above). My point was simply that God possesses something that would be considered a flaw among us if one of us had it--wrath. (You'd previously argued that God didn't have any human character flaws.)

Secondly, Karma is hardly a means of accountability. Karma offers no standard of right and wrong. Karma is an impersonal law of retribution, and has nothing to do with being accountable. You can only be accountable to a person, not an impersonal, somewhat ambiguous law.

Accountability is being held responsible for one's actions. In karma, the way this is done is by returning to an agent the degree and quality of what he sends out in the word through his actions. A person is held responsible for their wrong deeds by ultimately suffering them and repaid for their good deeds by ultimately enjoying them. This is a means by which a person is held accountable to "the universe". I never offered an argument in favor of karma or defended its rationality. My point is that other religions do hold their adherents accountable.

The prophets God sent are different in one way. They were genuine prophets who words came to pass.

In my last post I wrote: " My point is that to the objective eye, not particularly tied to one culture or another, little distinguishes Christianity from other religions and philosophies." Now, in order for what you write above to be accepted as true to this objective person, he first has to accept that the Gospel is true. If he has already accepted that the Gospel is true, you would not need to prove anything to him about Christianity as opposed to other religions. This is circular.

[Guest shiloh357]

You'll note that in my last post I acknowledge this (in bold above). My point was simply that God possesses something that would be considered a flaw among us if one of us had it--wrath. (You'd previously argued that God didn't have any human character flaws.)

Yes, but you were comparing our relationship with God to the relationships that the ancients had with their gods. There is simply no comparison. The point I was making is that the gods of the ancients were created out of flawed minds and thus possessed the same human characteristics of lust, selfishness, deceptiveness, and therefore the ancients had no real need to be accountable to these "gods" since they were committing the same sins. Furthermore you are trying to compare God's wrath, with man's wrath, and there is no comparison. Man's "wrath" amounts springs from losing one's temper and is often reactionary. God's wrath is an expression of righteous indignation and is not reactionary or instant. God does not "lose his temper." Even when Jesus cleaned out the money changers in the Temple, He was measured and controlled in His response. He could have struck everyone dead if He had wanted to. A mere man probably would have. God's does not possess the same trait of "wrath" that man possesses, so to say that God possesses a human character flaw is incorrect. Man's "wrath" is tainted by sin, and thus it is a character flaw. God's wrath is just, and is not tainted with sin, and therefore is not a human character flaw that He possesses.

QUOTE

Secondly, Karma is hardly a means of accountability. Karma offers no standard of right and wrong. Karma is an impersonal law of retribution, and has nothing to do with being accountable. You can only be accountable to a person, not an impersonal, somewhat ambiguous law.

Accountability is being held responsible for one's actions. In karma, the way this is done is by returning to an agent the degree and quality of what he sends out in the word through his actions. A person is held responsible for their wrong deeds by ultimately suffering them and repaid for their good deeds by ultimately enjoying them. This is a means by which a person is held accountable to "the universe". I never offered an argument in favor of karma or defended its rationality. My point is that other religions do hold their adherents accountable.

Karma does not hold anyone accountable for two reasons. Number one, Karma does not provide a standard against which right and wrong can be measured. From what I have seen, Karma is an impersonal law not unlike gravity. I have noticed that those involved in New Age, or Far East religions tend to see morality as relative. Truth is what one perceives it to be. So, how does Karma pay retribution for right and wrong in a culture or religion where there is no set standard against which to measure one's behavior?

Number two, when one returns in a new life, he/she does not remember their past lives, and thus do not remember their past wrong doings. Even there were set standard of right and wrong with Karma, you are incapable of remembering the good or bad you have done. The point behind accountability, is behavior modification. When you know you are accountable, and you know what the expected behavior is supposed to be, you order your conduct to be in line with those expectations. Again, for that to work you have to know what is expected. Karma does not allow a person to learn from past mistakes, and punishes them for things that they do not realize they have done. Without a plum line, rule, or standard, there is nothing to be held accountable to.

QUOTE

The prophets God sent are different in one way. They were genuine prophets who words came to pass.

In my last post I wrote: " My point is that to the objective eye, not particularly tied to one culture or another, little distinguishes Christianity from other religions and philosophies." Now, in order for what you write above to be accepted as true to this objective person, he first has to accept that the Gospel is true.

Not true. For the objective person to accept what I said above as true, they would simply need to study history against the prophecies the prophets made to see that they were 100% correct. The issue of whether or not their words were from God, would be settled once and for all by the perfect way these things came to pass. The beautiful thing is that often many of the prophecies were fulfilled by those who were the enemies of the prophets and the enemies of God, who had no interest in validating the words of the prophets. Sometimes, people will say that future generations can read prophecies and then orchestrate their fulfillment, to give the impression that the words of the prophets came true. But when one looks at the historical record this argument usually falls flat.

You are wrong on another point. There is quite a bit that distinguishes the Christian faith from other faiths when you get underneath the superficial, somewhat deceptive "similarities." Other religions are about man trying to reach God or reach some perfect state of consciousness. Christianity teaches that it is God reaching out to man. God is the one who is pursuit of man. Other religions do not offer a god who loves them, and gave His life for them.

Other religions do not offer a god who is particularly interested in each of them as an individual, and loves each person equally. In other religions you have no assurance that your good deeds are enough to garner the favor of your "god." Your eternal life is based upon (hopefully) doing enough good works, to outweigh the bad works, and maybe that will make you acceptable. In Christianity, we are made acceptable in Christ and on the basis of His finished work on the cross. We have a "know-so" salvation. We can know today that we are saved and that eternal life is a gift of grace we possess today through our faith in Christ. We don't have to wait until we die to find out.

In other religions there is the "quest for truth." People are always looking and searching "the truth." The Bible teaches us that truth is not some evasive concept hiding in dark corners. Truth is evident in every sphere of our existence. Jesus called Himself the "the Truth." We find in the Bible, that one does not have to go looking for the Truth. Truth came looking for us.

[Copper Scroll]

Yes, but you were comparing our relationship with God to the relationships that the ancients had with their gods. There is simply no comparison. The point I was making is that the gods of the ancients were created out of flawed minds and thus possessed the same human characteristics of lust, selfishness, deceptiveness, and therefore the ancients had no real need to be accountable to these "gods" since they were committing the same sins. Furthermore you are trying to compare God's wrath, with man's wrath, and there is no comparison.

There is a comparison. They are both called "wrath". They are both characterized by anger in reaction to a wrong done. All you do is justify God's wrath and condemn human wrath. I won't argue against your points. But you pretend that the difference between a Christian's religious worldview is different from other religious worldviews in ways that set Christianity further apart from the rest of the pack than other religions. You pretend that Christianity should appear obviously special to an objective person without ties to any religion.

Karma does not hold anyone accountable for two reasons.

Here it happens again. You argue against karma. I won't participate in this argument because for the most part I agree with you. My point is simply that the issue is debatable. That karma is not a legitimate for of moral accountability is not obvious.

For the objective person to accept what I said above as true, they would simply need to study history against the prophecies the prophets made to see that they were 100% correct.

This is also debatable. The purpose of this thread is not to debate this issue though.

You are wrong on another point. There is quite a bit that distinguishes the Christian faith from other faiths when you get underneath the superficial, somewhat deceptive "similarities." Other religions are about man trying to reach God or reach some perfect state of consciousness. Christianity teaches that it is God reaching out to man.

So does Islam.

Other religions do not offer a god who is particularly interested in each of them as an individual, and loves each person equally.

Another debatable issue.

In other religions you have no assurance that your good deeds are enough to garner the favor of your "god."

Even some Christians believe in the salvific value of good works.

Look, you present many examples of what makes Christianity special. But I am unconvinced that these features set Christianity any further a part from other religions as other religions are set a part from each other--to the objective eye. Now, my eye is somewhat unobjective. I agree with most of what you wrote. But if I take myself out of my shoes and place them in those of someone from another culture, much of what you wrote (and I agree with) sounds like a hustle. Christians can be as agressive used car salesmen or as subtle as con artists. How is someone supposed to know that Christianity is the right "option"?