Geiste questions (RQ2)

[geiste37]

Okay I'll start this thread to avoid possible confusion since I am going to start labeling questions.

1) What day is the Sabbath or is it even really a set day?

2) I've heard many a theist say that they do not believe in the Big Bang because every effect must have a cause. What is god's cause?

3) Do you see yourself as more of a "moderate" or "fundamentalist"?

[Tanya~]

Okay I'll start this thread to avoid possible confusion since I am going to start labeling questions.

1) What day is the Sabbath or is it even really a set day?

The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week. We call it "Saturday."

2) I've heard many a theist say that they do not believe in the Big Bang because every effect must have a cause. What is god's cause?

God is self-existent. He has life in Himself. It is because of this that He is able to give life. Everything else including us, had to be given life, and we cannot retain our own life. We can't stop ourselves from dying, because we don't have the power of life that God has. But God is the Living God, self-existent, uncreated, uncaused.

3) Do you see yourself as more of a "moderate" or "fundamentalist"?

I would need you to define those terms.

[geiste37]

From dictionary.com

moderate- a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, esp. in politics or religion.
( I would also say in my opinion that, on top of this, they are willing to accept new POVs if it either has more evidence behind it or their original thought is disproved.)

fundamentalist- a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
( So to me someone who says the Bible is 100% inerrant and believes so no matter what else is put in front of them.)

[Tanya~]

From dictionary.com

moderate- a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, esp. in politics or religion.
( I would also say in my opinion that, on top of this, they are willing to accept new POVs if it either has more evidence behind it or their original thought is disproved.)

fundamentalist- a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
( So to me someone who says the Bible is 100% inerrant and believes so no matter what else is put in front of them.)

I think you've posed a little bit of a false dichotomy here. Holding to the truth of Scripture isn't an 'extreme' view, it's simply taking the Scriptures at face value. A person who denies these 'fundamentals' of the Christian faith isn't a Christian. The physical resurrection in particular is absolutely essential to salvation, as is belief in the sacrificial atonement of Christ. These are spelled out in Scripture. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, then a man was his father and He is not the only begotten Son of God.

But these are not extremist views. Believing that Jesus rose from the dead isn't 'extremist' but it is fundamental. Apparently a person would be moderate if they sort of believed in the resurrection but that it doesn't really matter so much.

It would be extremist if Christians forced others to "become Christian" but it is not extremist for Christians to believe the tenets of the Christian faith.

[geiste37]

Here's the way I see the two.

When told the Earth is round and presented with satellite pictures.

Moderate- Okay yes I see that the Earth is round.

Fundy- Those are fake the Bible is right.

[Tanya~]

But that's not the "fundie" position. The Bible doesn't say "the earth is flat."

[Xel'Naga]

Okay I'll start this thread to avoid possible confusion since I am going to start labeling questions.

1) What day is the Sabbath or is it even really a set day?

2) I've heard many a theist say that they do not believe in the Big Bang because every effect must have a cause. What is god's cause?

3) Do you see yourself as more of a "moderate" or "fundamentalist"?

1. Would have been Saturday, that said, it's not a big issue.

2. God is uncaused. God is considered a being that can give life but is also life itself. There's no logical contradiction.

3. Neither, only because people tend to define those words in extremes


Here's the way I see the two.

When told the Earth is round and presented with satellite pictures.

Moderate- Okay yes I see that the Earth is round.

Fundy- Those are fake the Bible is right.

Well like Tanya said, the Bible doesn't say the earth is flat. Not that those responses are representative of the moderate or fundamental position.

[markinro]

Here's the way I see the two.

When told the Earth is round and presented with satellite pictures.

Moderate- Okay yes I see that the Earth is round.

Fundy- Those are fake the Bible is right.

Support your claim that fundamentals would ignore satellite pictures. We have answered your questions. Please do not insult your hosts by using slang terms.

[Slug1]

Here's the way I see the two.

When told the Earth is round and presented with satellite pictures.

Moderate- Okay yes I see that the Earth is round.

Fundy- Those are fake the Bible is right.Geiste37, do you believe the earth is round cause of what you were told since you were a child and cause of "photos"? Or cause you have seen the earth from space with your own eyes? Just asking cause so many people want "evidence" about God and even when they are presented with evidence they deny it. I can give testimony of God, I can present people to you who have been cured of cancer (for example), present the xrays and doctors reports and people still don't believe. Because the adult mind says.... FAKE! But it was faith that made this healing possible... it's very real.

As a child when a parent tells us the world is round, when a teacher tells us the world is round and floats in space even without presenting pictures... we believe it... Why?

Faith of a child... that is why God tells us to be like a child.

BTW, I believe the earth is round. It's also stated in the Bible it's round and that was way before anyone could research such a fact.

[dljc]

Here's the way I see the two.

When told the Earth is round and presented with satellite pictures.

Moderate- Okay yes I see that the Earth is round.

Fundy- Those are fake the Bible is right.Did you ever consider those "photo's" are fake? They are flat aren't they? :D The image in the photo is round, but the paper you are looking at is flat isn't it? ;)

No where in the Bible does it say or even give the impression that the earth is flat. A mere drop of water balling up as it falls, is a good indication of that of a 3 dimensional sphere that is the earth as well. At a slight elevation at sea level, one can see the beginnings of the curvature of the earth. Even if the Bible were just written by men, don't you think they would have seen this? Just because science has discovered what God already knew, doesn't mean He didn't write the Bible through these men.

Why does man describe the rotation of the earth in the scheme of things, by these comments "sunrise" and "sunset"? The sun doesn't revolve or orbit around the earth does it? No, not at all, quite the opposite. So why does man use these terms if we fully understand that the earth revolves and orbits the sun, not the other way around.

Your questions are presuppositions that many have, that believe the Bible says the earth is flat. Who told you that the Bible says this?

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Man is corruptible and fallible, God isn't.

[geiste37]

Prov 8:26-27 NRSV) when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isa 40:22 NRSV) It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in

The Ends of the Earth
Deu 13:7, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Deut 28:49&64, 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8


Sky dome, geocentric Earth, etc.
Gen 1:6-7, Gen 1:14-17, Mark 13:24-25, Job 37:18, Prov 8:28, Job 22:14, 2 Chr 6:26, Mal 3:10, Rev 11:6, Gen 7:11-12, Psa 93:1, 1 Sam 2:8, Josh 10:12-13

[Tanya~]

geiste,

Did you have a question about these passages?

[dljc]

Prov 8:26-27 NRSV) when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isa 40:22 NRSV) It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in

The Ends of the Earth
Deu 13:7, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Deut 28:49&64, 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8


Sky dome, geocentric Earth, etc.
Gen 1:6-7, Gen 1:14-17, Mark 13:24-25, Job 37:18, Prov 8:28, Job 22:14, 2 Chr 6:26, Mal 3:10, Rev 11:6, Gen 7:11-12, Psa 93:1, 1 Sam 2:8, Josh 10:12-13gieste,

I asked you "Who told you that the Bible says this?". Thank you for the clue Skydome, geocentric Earth. All I had to do was google that, and found my answer. Even I'm not allowed to link to an atheist site. Those scriptures you used above are verbatim from that site. It's too bad you will listen to a man, instead of searching for Him.

[geiste37]

gieste,

I asked you "Who told you that the Bible says this?". Thank you for the clue Skydome, geocentric Earth. All I had to do was google that, and found my answer. Even I'm not allowed to link to an atheist site. Those scriptures you used above are verbatim from that site. It's too bad you will listen to a man, instead of searching for Him.


A bit of info about me. At one point I was a Christian. I did search for him. I prayed to be given a sign of his existence. I spent 10 years actively praying and going to church. After 10 years with no answer, I finally started to look for answers myself. In doing so I only came up with more questions. To me, weather you share views with a man in this time or you read words written by men from thousands of years ago, we are all just listening to other people.

[geiste37]

Anyway, moving on. I've heard a lot of people who say that the English versions of the Bible are simply mistranslated. I've also noticed a lot of things that have been either left out of the Bible or found after its publishing (such as the book of Judas). Why does someone or a group of people simply find the most original version of the book and redo it? Some may say that it would be too much for one book. Then make it in volumes. Why does no person or group of people do this?

[mcgyver]

Anyway, moving on. I've heard a lot of people who say that the English versions of the Bible are simply mistranslated. I've also noticed a lot of things that have been either left out of the Bible or found after its publishing (such as the book of Judas). Why does someone or a group of people simply find the most original version of the book and redo it? Some may say that it would be too much for one book. Then make it in volumes. Why does no person or group of people do this?

I can probably help you out in this department, as it has to do with textual criticism, manuscript streams, and the "process" of canonization...however it's 1:16 A.M. here...so I'll come back tomorrow and give you some info, if that would be acceptable. :)

[dljc]

A bit of info about me. At one point I was a Christian. I did search for him. I prayed to be given a sign of his existence. I spent 10 years actively praying and going to church. After 10 years with no answer, I finally started to look for answers myself. In doing so I only came up with more questions. To me, weather you share views with a man in this time or you read words written by men from thousands of years ago, we are all just listening to other people.I would agree with you on this statement, but I know better. Not just because 2 Timothy 3:16 says what it does.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

God knew your heart then and He knows it now. He knows whether you were just going to church for the social part of it, or whatever it might of been. He knew your intent even if you didn't. Just as He knows my heart.

All I can say about the scriptures you gave above is, the answers are there. I'm not going to argue each one with you, because you've already made up your mind what you want to believe.

The only advice I can give you is; keep searching for the Truth, you'll find it leads right back to Him.

[geiste37]

I would agree with you on this statement, but I know better. Not just because 2 Timothy 3:16 says what it does.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

God knew your heart then and He knows it now. He knows whether you were just going to church for the social part of it, or whatever it might of been. He knew your intent even if you didn't. Just as He knows my heart.

All I can say about the scriptures you gave above is, the answers are there. I'm not going to argue each one with you, because you've already made up your mind what you want to believe.

The only advice I can give you is; keep searching for the Truth, you'll find it leads right back to Him.


I do not wish to make any enemies here, so I to will leave this be. The main reason I am here is a quest for answers. I hope I find them. TanyaP has given me some good answers to a couple of my questions, so this forum may be different than others I have tried and people I have spoken with before.

[tango]

A bit of info about me. At one point I was a Christian. I did search for him. I prayed to be given a sign of his existence. I spent 10 years actively praying and going to church. After 10 years with no answer, I finally started to look for answers myself. In doing so I only came up with more questions. To me, weather you share views with a man in this time or you read words written by men from thousands of years ago, we are all just listening to other people.

Let me ask you something here. You say you prayed for "a sign of his existence" - what sort of sign were you expecting, and what sort of sign would you have accepted as being the "proof" you sought.

The reason I ask is that it's very easy to make some comment about waiting for God to provide "a sign", and then discounting any sign as having a natural explanation. Aside from the daft party-trick kind of sign (such as Woody Allen's request for several million dollars in a Swiss bank account), most things could be explained away if you are sufficiently determined to not believe that God even exists.

[mcgyver]

Anyway, moving on. I've heard a lot of people who say that the English versions of the Bible are simply mistranslated. I've also noticed a lot of things that have been either left out of the Bible or found after its publishing (such as the book of Judas). Why does someone or a group of people simply find the most original version of the book and redo it? Some may say that it would be too much for one book. Then make it in volumes. Why does no person or group of people do this?

I want to go ahead and address this question, as it is a very common question, which IMO is based upon a lack of understanding as to how we ended up with our New Testament.

Let me preface by saying that literally hundreds of volumes have been written on this subject, so obviously I can only give the broadest of overviews. If you're serious about knowing more, then I recommend the following books:

The Canon of the New Testament by F.F. Bruce,

and three books by Bruce Metzger:

The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance

The New Testament : Its Background, Growth, and Content

The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration

Now let me address what I perceive to be your three basic questions here: (A)“Why were some books left out of the bible?”, (B)“Why doesn’t a group get together to put them in?”, and (C)“How do we know (because of translation) that they’re reliable?”

(A) First of all, we must have a basic understanding of the criteria involved in deciding whether something is “holy writ”, and in the early church there were 4 basic criteria used to make this determination. They are:

1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? (Apostolic Authority)
2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large?
3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching?
4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

It is vital to understand that the early churches did not live in a “vacuum”…they regularly talked to each other, they regularly visited each other and exchanged manuscripts, etc. This is important in that there were people alive who had seen Christ, heard him teach, etc. In fact in 1 Corinthians Paul makes mention that there were over 500 who had seen Christ alive after His resurrection, and that the majority of them were still around. The ramifications are obvious: If there was a letter or script that was being circulated there would be someone who’d pop up and say: “hey wait a minute…I was there and this isn’t the way it happened” or “Hey, I know Levi (Matthew) and that doesn’t sound like him!”…The early church therefore was very, very careful as to what they accepted…and didn’t just “jump on something” because it mentioned Jesus.

How do we know that the letters/gospels were written early enough that people who had been with Christ were still alive? Good Question!!!

Primarily by internal evidence and versional witnesses. As an example (Internal evidence): The authorship of the Pauline epistles has never seriously been challenged…we know historically that Paul was martyred in the reign of Nero, and that Nero himself was murdered in AD 67, ergo Paul’s various epistles were written between AD 50 and AD 67. Christ was crucified in AD 33, so you can see these were well within the life-span of those who had walked with Christ. Same thing goes with the Gospel of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles. Also significant is the failure to mention in any of the Gospels the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, both an earth-shattering event in Judaism and a fulfillment of Jesus' words that "one stone would not be left on top of another". Although in and of itself the lack of such mention is not conclusive, yet it gives weight to authorship and circulation of the Gospels prior to AD 70.

The Gospel of John for example would fall under the "versional witness" category...the earliest fragment we have is P52 (Rylands), and it's been dated anywhere from AD 100 to AD 170...but yet the Apostle John (who was the only Apostle to die a "natural death") passed away circa AD 100 in Ephesus...and Polycarp (an early "church father") who was a disciple of the Apostle John makes mention of certain passages from the Gospel in his writings and quotations...certainly evidence that the Gospel of John was in early circulation...which leads to the other versional witnesses we have in the early church fathers as a whole.

I think it was Josh McDowell (I'm not sure here) who asked the question: "What would happen if every New Testament were to disappear today?"...He found that with the exception of about 11 clauses and a paragraph or two...the entire NT could be re-constructed from the quotations of the Anti-Nicene Fathers. Once again, powerful evidence of early circulation and transmission.

The books that were not accepted: e.g. The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas, etc. simply failed therefore (miserably I might add), to stand up to the tests of canonization as given earlier.

I'll address items (B) and (C) above (hopefully to your satisfaction) in subsequent posts...:)

[Xel'Naga]

Anyway, moving on. I've heard a lot of people who say that the English versions of the Bible are simply mistranslated.

I know this has already been answered somewhat, but let me provide my own view, as I don't believe it's been mentioned (I only read the previous responses quickly). I'm going to use the New Testament as an example, since I am more familiar with Greek than I am with Hebrew.

English is known as a Syntactic language. To give you an example, in English it is a very different thing to say "God is love" as opposed to "love is God". In switching those two words you find yourself with phrases that have very different meanings. Greek, however, is an Inflective language - the way you write the text is not as important (though it is very important) as the way you verbalize the text. In Greek it doesn't matter if you write "God is love" or "love is God", what matters is how you verbalize what is written. Depending on how you speak what's written, 'God is love' and 'love is God' could mean the same thing, or something different.

When you come to English versions of the Bible, which are very much translations, you find yourself putting a lot of trust in the translators of the text as they must figure out what is meant by a verse. As word usage is also very important in Greek (Inflective language, after all) those translators must decide context and which verse is best to use. The New Testament really is a translation of the text in every meaning of the word translation, and even with experts working from the original texts (which we don't have), there is still disagreement on the meanings - not enough to cause major issues, but enough to cause disagreement.

The entire English Bible isn't mistranslated, but there are places where it's debatable the translation chosen.

[geiste37]

Okay a follow-up question. Wouldn't it be more helpful to the church to include everything? And I don't mean as individuals I mean the church or the faith if you will as a whole.

[Xel'Naga]

Okay a follow-up question. Wouldn't it be more helpful to the church to include everything? And I don't mean as individuals I mean the church or the faith if you will as a whole.

I don't quite follow you; you mean have one church encompassing every denomination, version of the Bible, belief about God, etc (within Christendom)?

[geiste37]

All denominations are worshiping the same god aren't they. If you put everything ever discovered into the commonly used texts then it could serve several purposes. A) It could unite all denominations into a single religion. B) It could help in the quest to get people to worship that god. C) It could grant a better understanding of what the true message in the Bible may be.

To me it seems that this would be so much of a benefit to the religion that it would almost be foolish to not at least reconsider doing it.

[Xel'Naga]

All denominations are worshiping the same god aren't they. If you put everything ever discovered into the commonly used texts then it could serve several purposes. A) It could unite all denominations into a single religion. B) It could help in the quest to get people to worship that god. C) It could grant a better understanding of what the true message in the Bible may be.

To me it seems that this would be so much of a benefit to the religion that it would almost be foolish to not at least reconsider doing it.

It's the perfect ideal, isn't it? Unfortunately not all denominations worship the same God; common text or not. The first challenge is this: what's "Christian"? Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christian? Are Mormons Christian? Are Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox church and the Anglican church Christian? If you ask a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon if they are Christian they will tell you that they are. If you ask anyone from any other denomination the same question, they will tell you that they aren't - who's correct? Keeping with the same topic; do you argue using the New World Translation (the only translation the Jehovah's Witnesses use), or one of the "modern" translations: NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. Do you accept the modern translation but then further add the book of Mormon as revealed scripture? Is God a Trinity - three extant persons who make up one God, or is God modal in nature: at one time the Father, at another time the Son and still at another time the Holy Spirit?

Even if we come out of this 'extreme' example, let's compare Protestantism with Catholicism. Should we venerate Saints or not? Should the Pope be considered infallible or not (or should such a position even exist?). Is Jesus Christ the only way to Heaven or is every religion a different path leading to the same God? Is Mary the mother of God and worthy of praise or not (to the extreme of Catholicism)? Do the communion wafer and wine (grape juice) actually transubstantiate into the blood and body of Christ or not? Was evolution God's means of creation or was 'Creationism' God's means of creation? Am I saved by faith or by adhering to the seven sacraments. Am I going to heaven because my good deeds outweigh my bad? Does purgetory exist? Is there such a thing as ignorant grace? Still to extreme?

Let's keep it within Protestantism. Are we Pre-destined or do we have free choice to come to God? Is water baptism a part of the salvific process or not? Am I saved completely by grace or must I also add works? If I sin, have I lost my salvation or have I retained it? Is the Bible the word of God, or does it merely contain the word of God? Should we preach sin and repentence of a more 'friendly' message? How is God to be understood? Was Jesus Christ real flesh and blood or an illusion?

See what I'm getting at? I absolutely don't believe we need to have as many denominations as we now have... But at the same time I believe them to be necessary, especially with some of what I mentioned above. Make no mistake, the church will unite as one church - but only after the coming of Jesus Christ.

[RoadWarrior]

All denominations are worshiping the same god aren't they. If you put everything ever discovered into the commonly used texts then it could serve several purposes. A) It could unite all denominations into a single religion. B) It could help in the quest to get people to worship that god. C) It could grant a better understanding of what the true message in the Bible may be.

To me it seems that this would be so much of a benefit to the religion that it would almost be foolish to not at least reconsider doing it.

I'd like to give you a simple answer. The Bible contains the writings which are inspired by God. The other writings might have some good sayings or might have historical value, but they are not the inspired Words of God.

This is why we have the Bible, and it doesn't include all those other writings which have been "discovered." Some of those are not what they purport to be, but are fakes.

There is not a single "religion" but there is One God. The goal is to be like Him, not like each other.

[Tanya~]

All denominations are worshiping the same god aren't they.

Actually no, they aren't. For just one example, the Muslim God Allah is not a father, he has no son, and he cannot be known. But the Biblical God Yahweh is the Heavenly Father and His Son is Jesus Christ, and all who come to faith through Christ are also children of God. Moreover, He desires and is pleased for us to seek Him and come to know Him personally because He can be known.

If you put everything ever discovered into the commonly used texts then it could serve several purposes. A) It could unite all denominations into a single religion. B) It could help in the quest to get people to worship that god. There are far too many contradictions between the different religions to truly unite them. However, the Bible does predict that one will come and unite the whole world to worship him. This is "the Beast" spoken of in the Book of Revelation who will deceive the whole world, who will force all the world to worship him. The system will be set up so that economic activity is directly tied to worship of the Beast. People who do not worship the beast will not be allowed to buy or sell, and they will be hunted down and killed.

This system will be able to be established because the masses will be under a delusion -- under great deception. They will believe his lie and willingly follow the Beast and worship him.

C) It could grant a better understanding of what the true message in the Bible may be. The true message of the Bible is actually quite plain and simple. In a nutshell, mankind was made by God, in His image, for the purpose of fellowship with God. But man sinned, which separated us from Him. SO God redeemed mankind by providing the way for our sin to be removed from us and forgiven. He did this by sending His Son Jesus to take our sin upon Himself and suffering in our place, dying, and overcoming death by rising from the dead. Jesus is the ONLY one who could do this because He alone is God in human flesh. He is both completely God, and completely human (He Himself is perfect and absolutely without sin). By believing God, by accepting His terms for reconciliation, we can be saved.

That's the message.

To me it seems that this would be so much of a benefit to the religion that it would almost be foolish to not at least reconsider doing it.What is foolish is to reject the means of salvation God provided for all mankind.2 Cor 5:17-21
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
NKJV

[geiste37]

Actually no, they aren't. For just one example, the Muslim God Allah is not a father, he has no son, and he cannot be known. But the Biblical God Yahweh is the Heavenly Father and His Son is Jesus Christ, and all who come to faith through Christ are also children of God. Moreover, He desires and is pleased for us to seek Him and come to know Him personally because He can be known.

There are far too many contradictions between the different religions to truly unite them. However, the Bible does predict that one will come and unite the whole world to worship him. This is "the Beast" spoken of in the Book of Revelation who will deceive the whole world, who will force all the world to worship him. The system will be set up so that economic activity is directly tied to worship of the Beast. People who do not worship the beast will not be allowed to buy or sell, and they will be hunted down and killed.




Actually I meant the denominations of Christianity. Such as Mormon, catholic, etc. Basicly all those that think Jesus was their savior and worship the Abraham god.

[Xel'Naga]

Actually I meant the denominations of Christianity. Such as Mormon, catholic, etc. Basicly all those that think Jesus was their savior and worship the Abraham god.

Well it's like I explained; the beliefs between a lot of these 'denominations' (and Christian cults - Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness) are too disparate to each other to reconcile. We don't hold the same core doctrinal tenets and we don't all worship the same God. With that I'll also just ask that you be careful when 'invoking' the God of Abraham - This could also be a reference to Islam.

[Steve M]

Okay I'll start this thread to avoid possible confusion since I am going to start labeling questions.

1) What day is the Sabbath or is it even really a set day?


I never really saw anyone give you an all-encompassing answer to this, and I thought you might like one.

Sabbath was the last day of the week. (seventh. Saturday) The Jews kept this as their day of worship. When Christianity split away, they changed their day of worship to the first day of the week, which is the we believe our Lord walked out of the grave. (so, a little bit important to us) However, many Christians feel we ought to still observe the Sabbath on Saturday, as God commanded the Jews to do.

So we all know when Sabbath is; there is some dissension among Christians as to whether we ought to worship on that day or the next day.



2) I've heard many a theist say that they do not believe in the Big Bang because every effect must have a cause. What is god's cause?


Any philosophical construct on the nature of reality must come to one of two conclusions. A) a first cause, or B) the eternal nature of matter. B. leaves all the problems of where everything came from entirely un-addressed.

That doesn't bother a scientist so much, who is only trying to account for the immediate cause of the effect he is seeing. It must bother a philosopher or he isn't thinking very hard.

If there is a God, then He must needs be the Ultimate First Cause. Otherwise... He would just be a papering over of the problem, another domino in a line leading back through causes to somewhere where we must find that first cause. (or the eternal nature of all we see...)

3) Do you see yourself as more of a "moderate" or "fundamentalist"?

I don't like labels.

But I see myself as a fundamentalist.

[geiste37]

Do you believe in free will or god's will?


BTW- I'm sorry I've been absent. I've had a lot to do lately and my sister just gave birth so I've been helping her out too.