Stu said, "...we're presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain..." I spent a lot of time listening to your arguments and challenging questions and would have continued to do so until you became malicious and blasphemous in your responses. Malicious: purposefully addressing Expiated, knowing that he would not see what you wrote, so that you could say, "This from someone who can’t answer anything directly." Malicious and blasphemous towards God: You could have respectfully asked the question, "How can you believe God is good when the Old Testament has so many places showing God pouring out terrible judgments on people?" Instead you chose to write many posts in ways that were disrespectful and blasphemous of God to reveal your hatred of God. I refuse to continue to try to discuss and answer you with such disrespectful behavior. Twisting my words: Just one example--"That is an astonishing thing to say. To think you are prepared to sacrifice reason and logic, two things which if there were a God, it endowed you with." I have never even hinted that I was sacrificing reason and logic to have faith in God and the Bible. The clear point I was making is that Good1's beliefs seem to be based on HIS OWN reason and HIS OWN logic and apparently HIS OWN religious experiences. His is rejecting, as you are, the truths presented in the Bible that come from God's revelation of Himself to us. The point I made was that we cannot get to know God from within ourselves, from within our own imaginations of what we do and don't want Him to be. God's revelation of Himself is the ONLY way to know Who He is and what He is like. The Bible, contrary to all that the skeptics and false teachers are saying, is VERY unified although written over a very long time span, approximately 1,500 years. The Bible contains many prophecies that were fulfilled in their time in the Old Testament, and in the person of Jesus Christ. It also contains many prophecies of what is to come in the future. The Bible reveals a consistent character of God, even though written across such a large timespan. ANY PERSON who truly studies these evidences alone, will find enough reasons to find belief in the God of the Bible to be logical and reasonable. There are also other reasons and evidences outside of scripture to support a belief of scripture. I gave you a chance to discuss things with me and you "didn't play fair." I'm undecided if I will continue to comment on what you write. At this point, I don't plan to enter into a dialogue with you any more, because of your behavior.
Thought I'd post this article, "Is Christianity Evidence-Based" written by a medical doctor in the UK. It seems very few people on Elite Trader know that there is evidence to support a belief in the Bible and therefore, a belief in Jesus. This article does a good job of summarizing several areas where such evidences can be found and I hope if there are any genuine seekers of God out there that this article will be of help. https://www.cmf.org.uk/resources/publications/content/?context=article&id=326 Just a few quotes from it: Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable’(Henry Mecken).[1] Many share Mecken’s view that real faith occurs in spite of evidence to the contrary. However, the fact is that everyone has a ‘faith’, a worldview they live by to understand the world, to provide a moral framework and a purpose for which to live. We justify medical decisions on the scrupulous weighing of evidence, such as which antacid to use for dyspepsia. How much more important is it to pick the right worldview, by which we think, live and trust in for our future beyond death? General arguments for the existence of GodCosmological Theologians through the ages have pointed to the need for a ‘first cause’, the divine hand which first started the process of cause and effect. In contrast, the Mayans, Greeks and Communists believed in an endless succession of events that had no beginning. Stephen Hawking[2] points out that the Big Bang Theory, based on Hubble’s evidence of an expanding universe, fits with the biblical view of a beginning for time and space. Teleological Observations indicate that at 10 -43 seconds after the Big Bang the universe was expanding at a fantastically special rate of speed, with a total density close to the critical value on the borderline between recollapse and everlasting expansion. Hawking estimated that even a decrease of one part in a million million when the temperature of the universe was 1010 degrees would have resulted in the universe’s recollapse before life could get started; a similar increase would have precluded the galaxies from condensing out of the expanding matter.[3] If any of the fundamental constants of the universe were even slightly altered the universe would not sustain life. For instance, changes in either the gravitational force or electromagnetism by only one part in 1040 would have spelled disaster for stars like the sun, essential for the survival of all life. The constants are independent of each other, yet each seems perfectly set to create a universe that would nurture life. In biology and medicine too, there is a natural sense of awe and wonder. From the stunning complexity of the clotting cascade, with its fine web of self-regulation, to the rich beauty of a tropical rainforest, the material world points to a creative mind behind it all. Experiential Many people still testify to God’s life changing power and personal touch. For instance, John Newton is famous for writing ‘Amazing Grace’. Formerly a slave trader, God turned him around. He eventually campaigned successfully for the abolition of slavery. Moral The concept of an ‘ought’ demands an agency outside of ourselves, to whom we are accountable. Atheistic ‘explanations’ lack coherence and remove the obligation to follow conscience. A common formulation is that ‘morality is just the rationalisation that doing good to others will eventually benefit the individual’. This surely is self-interest, the opposite of altruism! Why then sacrifice your interests when it is clear you will not benefit, such as caring for a demented patient whom you will outlive? This is not to say that you cannot be an atheist and act morally, only that a materialist worldview neither demands nor justifies it. Democratic Of the 5 thousand million people on the planet in 1995 there were 1,700 million Christians, 1,300 million Muslims and 13 million Jews4. Therefore theism, a belief in a personal God, is the number one worldview (60%), and Christianity is the most popular form of theism. Our atheistic culture is an anomaly both historically and geographically. A majority view does not make Christianity true (any more than it would a belief in UFOs), but any majority view does demand serious consideration. Despite their differences, the three theistic religions hold to a common history: the creation, fall, flood, and the importance of one man, Abraham, and his offspring. All three also agree on the existence of a supreme being, who is all powerful, all knowing, morally perfect, creator and sustainer of the universe, and a self-revealing God. This God has chosen to speak to us through acts in history, prophets, inspired writings, and through a special relationship with one nation Israel. They agree on the rebellion of man leading to broken relationships and a fallen world. And they each warn of a judgement leading to a real heaven or a real hell. Incarnational Christians, however, believe that God has taken a giant step further to make himself known, when he clothed himself in human skin and actually entered human history personally, 2,000 years ago. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this. Hebrews 1:3 states ‘The son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being’. Thus to meet Jesus is to meet God himself. Speculation has ended. That was OK for the disciples who walked, talked with and learned from Jesus, but how about for us 2,000 years later? We cannot meet Jesus physically today. But we can learn about Jesus through the historical documents that recorded his life and teaching, the Bible. The Bible The Bible is the most important book ever written. It is quite unique in its: Circulation. The Bible has been read by more people in more languages than any other book in history. Up to 1932 alone more than 1,300,000,000 Bibles had been printed and by 1966 at least one book in the Bible had been translated into 1,280 languages. Survival. Great care has been taken in its transmission over 3,500 years. The Jews had whole classes of men whose sole duty was to pass on every letter and digit with near perfect fidelity. No other text can compare. Who ever counted the letters and syllables of Plato or Aristotle? Even Shakespeare’s writing from recent history has hundreds of readings in dispute. In contrast, with maybe ten to twenty exceptions, the text of every verse in the New Testament is settled by general consent of scholars. Continuity. A collection of books written over a 1,500 year time span, by over 40 authors from every walk of life. Kings, herdsman, soldiers, legislators, fisherman, statesmen, courtiers, priests and prophets, a tentmaking rabbi and a Gentile physician have all contributed, writing from three continents. The writing is diverse, including history, law (civil, criminal, ethical, ritual, sanitary), poetry, parable, allegory, biography, personal correspondence, personal memoirs and diaries, prophecy and apocalyptic. Yet there is a unity, which binds the whole together, a singular voice speaking through it. Influence. The history of Western art, literature, law, ethics and culture can only be understood with reference to the Bible. It is a scandal that many otherwise educated people have not read it for themselves. As historian P Schaff has summarised: ‘Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine than all the philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of schools, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times.’ So the Bible has been influential, but is it actually true, historically accurate? Lets look at the common objections. He then moves into evidences for the gospels and Jesus. Here is one quote about Jesus' resurrection: Jesus returns Jesus appeared to Mary and the other women at the tomb, which is interesting. If the story had been made up, a woman’s testimony would have been a bad invention, because legally, a man’s testimony was worth that of ten women. Jesus later that day appeared to all eleven of the disciples, even walking the seven miles to Emmaus without a limp (Lk 24:13-35). Pretty impressive if he had swooned on the cross and broken out from a sealed guarded tomb after three days without food or water, not to mention a penetrating chest wound and deep punctures to wrists and ankles. In fact the disciples weren’t expecting Jesus to come back from the morgue! They were the last people to fake his resurrection. They were demoralised and scared. It’s clear they were utterly dependent on their leader. Without him they were very ordinary men, or more honestly a motley crew of country yokels, with a full house of character flaws. Peter, impulsive but cowardly, James the mother’s pet, John the show-off, Thomas the sceptic. So on the day of the resurrection they met behind locked doors, unable to cope without Jesus. He appeared against all their expectations, and transformed them into great leaders who would alter the course of history. Jesus appeared to many on many occasions: to the seven at Tiberias, James, the eleven several times, Paul more than once, Stephen, John, and over 500 others in one place.20 It wasn’t some kind of private club; Jesus came to announce publicly his victory over death. Extraordinary evidence convinced these men and women of the extraordinary claims of historic Christianity. Hallucination would not explain these events. Anyone who has seen someone hallucinate on the wards will confirm that the experience is highly individual, and a distortion of reality; no two hallucinations are the same. These patients are anything but convincing. After making a few more points he gives this quote: Thomas Arnold, Professor of History at Oxford, and a specialist in Roman times has written ‘there is no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair enquirer than that of the resurrection’.[21] God has given us enough evidence to validate a reasonable faith in Himself, as He is revealed in the Bible. No twisting by false teachers or imposing our own imaginations onto His being is needed, and no picking and choosing which Scriptures are believable and which ones aren't. God has spoken. God has revealed Himself. His conclusion is one that I also agree with: Conclusion God has given us ample evidence for his existence and his rescue plan for mankind. He took the initiative by revealing himself in history, through a special relationship with Israel, culminating in his arrival as a human being, Jesus of Nazareth. The apostle Paul explained that there is no longer any room for agnosticism, for sitting on the fence. ‘In the past God overlooked ignorance but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.' (Acts 17:30) We ask for evidence for God’s work in the world. His name is Jesus.
studentofthemarkets What's obvious is we certainly approach the question of religion from entirely opposite directions . You are clearly prepared to accept scripture as true and defend it unreservedly and without question, whereas I am not. However the one over reaching difference between us is, I am always prepared to change my mind on anything which I currently hold to be true. My contention is you are not. Should such things face overwhelmingly compelling evidence to the contrary, I'd reject them accordingly. Can you think of any circumstances where you can even imagine your religious beliefs to be mistaken and wrong, so as to make you change your mind? It works both ways you know. I spent time carefully considering what you were saying too. Malicious and blasphemous now is it? Last time I checked we both sounded pleased to be telling each other about our courteous and civil conversation. Are you seriously trying to tell me it is "Malicious" to address Expiated because he's chosen not to see what I write? Is he supposed to have awarded himself some kind of a special immunity in choosing to ignore everything he can't or won't deal with directly? Quite clearly you don't appreciate the irony of him not for the first time - ignoring me - by referring to me - through you. Only In the way I hope I would be against any murderous, tyrannical figure, imaginary or not. I suggest you go back and re-read. Here's just one of those questions I asked about the Old Testament which has so many places showing God pouring out terrible judgments on people, which I respectfully asked after your proxy buddy chirped in again from his place of special immunity. expiated said: "Again, I commend you for engaging Stu. I could not even begin to do so because so much of what he says is not even true." stu said: "Not true? Let’s check… Genesis 6:7 Genesis 7:23 So is it you being untruthful here or the Bible?" studentofthemarkets said: "I laughed when reading your response to Expiated because there is so much that you wrote that isn't true, that it was kind of funny (although it's actually pitiful)." At this point I would respectfully suggest.."You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Perhaps you could have respectfully asked the question, "Why do you have to quote actual Bible verses that confirm your point instead of dodging the issue like I'm going to do next by just saying... OUT OF CONTEXT! " Isn't that what you are doing by selecting, excusing, dismissing all and anything that "God's revelation" actually reveals in the Bible of that extremely dysfunctional imaginary character, who is so angry it could only resolve to smote and smite left right and center, but maybe love you if you love it first? "YOUR OWN reason and YOUR OWN logic and apparently YOUR OWN religious experiences." I can assure you I am doing quite the opposite and not rejecting those "truths" presented in the Bible which are only some of the many problems with the whole thing. If the Bible is as true as you say it is, then to quote this well known summary and indeed, according to the Bible itself, God is... jealous and proud of it, petty, unjust, unforgiving, vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleansing misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully of a control-freak. But if you love God then God'll love you back (maybe, maybe not). I'd suggest that is possibly one of the worst arguments you could make. It merely confirms all the terrible and atrocious characteristics of Bible God as revealed in Bible text are 'VERY unified, even though written across such a large time span.' Funny that, 'cause I look at it more in the way of.... I gave you the chance. OMG you've sent me to the Jesus naughty step? Dude really..can you not sense my despair? Whatever. Sulk if you must. But before I go here's that question again I respectfully asked earlier . Being able to change your mind is a good way to know you still have one. So if there were ever any overwhelming compelling evidence of Bible God which meant what I consider true was mistaken or wrong, it would be necessary for me to change my mind . If there were ever any overwhelming compelling evidence which meant what you consider true about Bible God was mistaken or wrong, would, or even could you change your mind? Careful, or you may have to join me up here in the naughty place.
Stu wrote: But before I go here's that question again I respectfully asked earlier . Being able to change your mind is a good way to know you still have one. So if there were ever any overwhelming compelling evidence of Bible God which meant what I consider true was mistaken or wrong, it would be necessary for me to change my mind . If there were ever any overwhelming compelling evidence which meant what you consider true about Bible God was mistaken or wrong, would, or even could you change your mind? OK, I plan to answer your question, thoroughly (since you asked respectfully). Just give me some time....writing on ET has been taking up a lot of my time lately, so I don't know when I'll get back to you, but I'll try to address it as well as I can.
Where do babies go when they die? Copied and pasted from a blog I wrote on September 29, 2015 (Also, see Post #113) Some say that everyone is born in sin, and therefore, only elect children can be saved. Rigid Catholics might teach that only baptized children go to heaven. However, the uniform teaching of Scripture is that God judges each of us according to our deeds, and in the case of babies, they have not yet committed sins from which they need to be forgiven. Second Corinthians 5:10 states that each individual is “recompensed” for his or her deeds in the body, according to what that person has done, whether good or bad. Likewise, Romans 2:6 confirms that God will judge everyone according to his deeds. The book of Revelation repeatedly emphasizes how God will deal with people according to what they have done (2:23; 20:12; 22:12) this is also what Jesus teaches in the 16th chapter of Matthew, verse 27. Matthew 12:36 is also worth noting: “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” However, what has a baby done to displease god? Nothing, so a baby does not need to have sins forgiven or atonement made. A baby does not need to repent. God holds us responsible for our actions. Since a little baby has not yet developed to the point of making a conscious decision to sin against God, a baby does not need to, and in fact, is unable to exercise faith in God for forgiveness. In the 39th verse of the first chapter in Deuteronomy God speaks of little children as not knowing the difference between good and evil. This concept is repeated in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. And in the 18th chapter of Matthew, Jesus implies that there is a certain innocence, trust and humility in children that qualifies them to enter God’s kingdom. If one stands before God guilty, their guilt is not in what Adam did, but what they themselves did. So why would little babies be condemned and punished for sins they never committed? It seems highly unlikely, and if they are not going to be judged and sentenced to eternal damnation for wrongs they never perpetrated, about the only other option is to admit them into heaven.
In John 14:12 Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” Well, Jesus walked on water and raised the dead. So, why don’t we see Christians going around doing these same kinds of things? Was this or was it not a universal promise? And was Jesus referring to miracles, or did He simply mean that believers would invite an innumerable number of the lost to follow the Messiah, far more than Jesus ever did while He walked the earth? The phrase for “the one who believes in me” is used repeatedly in Scripture and it does not simply refer to the twelve apostles anymore than “whoever believes in me will never hunger” or “whoever believes in me will have eternal life” only refers to the twelve apostles. So, it is definitely a universal promise. And in context, it is talking about miracles. But keep in mind that not every miracle was performed by the twelve apostles, and they were definitely believers (or at least eleven of them were). For example, only Peter walked on water, and even then, it was for barely an instant. And none of the apostles turned water into wine as far as we know. So, we can gather that the statement does not mean that all believers will do everything Jesus did. But it does mean that we should see evidence of the miraculous in our lives, and that something is therefore missing if we don’t. If one believes the Word of God, then one certainly ought to have such expectations. Consider however that throughout the entire “body” of Christ, that is to say, the supposed two-and-a-half or so billion adherents to Christianity in the world—amazing things are happening. It’s just not as much as we should see. And since it is happening to everyday ordinary people who are not well known—hardly anyone is aware of it. Consider also that it is the same in other areas. For example, the Bible promises victory over sin. But, how many believers are living perfect lives free of all sin? Of course, the answer is none. So then, we know there must be more, and God is honored by our continuing to go to Him asking for and expecting more, despite the fact that in this life, we will never have the Spirit without limit in the way John 3:34 says Jesus did. In fact, it is even stated in 1 Corinthians 12:11 that “all these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.”
Expiated said: But it does mean that we should see evidence of the miraculous in our lives, and that something is therefore missing if we don’t. If one believes the Word of God, then one certainly ought to have such expectations. I agree. It's always puzzled me when people I know abandoned their faith. If they are open to discussion, I've tried to talk with them about what happened. The last 2 people I talked with both had similar experiences. They both said they believed the same as everyone in church, both had a born again "experiences" and both said that God was never there for them. I asked one of them if God had answered any of his prayers. He could only think of one prayer he ever prayed that God had answered. Other than that, he said he never had answers to prayer. I knew this guy for a while while he was in the process of leaving and at one point after a church service (he had previously been open about his struggles) I asked him why he was coming to church, was he getting anything from it? His answer was really surprising to me. He said even though his beliefs were changing, it was a nice experience being in church. People were happy. But he wasn't experiencing anything personally of God's presence....this last sentence I'm paraphrasing, because I don't remember exactly how he worded it, but the rest is pretty close to his actual words. The other person repeatedly said she felt like she had to be a Christian (because she grew up going to church) and thought it was the only option. She tried to be good and do what everyone else did because she thought she had to. She did say she had trusted Jesus as her Savior and we talked through what that had meant to her. I really couldn't find anything wrong with her understanding of the gospel message. Her words were really sad to me at one point. She said she really tried to seek God, had read her Bible and prayed a lot and He wasn't there....very similar words to what the other guy said. There are others I've talked to as well that have abandoned their faith, and their stories have been very similar to the 2 above. These responses have always been puzzling to me because they do not reflect my experience. But here is a story who started off with an experience similar to the 2 people mentioned above, yet later entered a genuine faith with God. A woman in my church shared her testimony recently of how she began going to church as a young adult and thought she had been born again. She stayed at the church for a while and then stopped going. She went through a difficult time...divorce, and some other things. Then she had a day when God showed her her sin. She had never experienced that before. She wasn't clear on this....was she seeking God? Praying? Reading her Bible? Having an emotional crisis? She didn't say, so I don't know. But she said when she saw her sin, it was at that point that she trusted Jesus as her Savior and was truly saved. From then on she began to have a real relationship with God. Repeatedly in her testimony she would say how God continues to show her things (her sin was one of them) and work in her life, and she gave examples. One of them was changing her heart to be restored to her daughter....I won't give out personal details of her life, but it was very impactful to hear what happened. The key point in sharing this is that she was very clear that there was a time in her life she thought she was born again but did not have a genuine relationship with God. Then God "opened her eyes" were the words she used, for when she did begin to actually experience God's presence in her life. Wish I could think of another way to make this concept clear, but I can't. All I can say is that it seems there are genuine seekers who appear to be saved and aren't. And there are those who are saved and have a walk with God, experiencing the "miraculous"....I actually haven't used that word in this way to describe it, but it does fit what I'm trying to explain. I haven't yet met someone who walked away from God who also said that they had previously been experiencing God through His word and answers to prayer and communion with Him. Maybe that's because I haven't talked to enough people....maybe they are out there...or maybe it's because those who come into a genuine relationship don't leave, because they "hear His voice." Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice." John 10:27 Where does that leave someone who does want to be saved? It would almost seem like I've said, "Trust in Jesus, but it might not work, you need God to 'open your eyes.'" I have a hard time knowing what to say to that. I know that there is a clear gospel message presented in the Bible...."For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the rightousness of God in Him." 2 Cor 5:21 NKJV And the Bible says, "In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit." A genuine born again experience is going to result in the Holy Spirit indwelling a person. Those that have Him are born again. Those that do not, are not His. But what about those who want salvation, and yet aren't saved? The Bible encourages all people to seek God. That, of course, does not mean go to your own imaginations to seek Him, but to call on Him in the way He has explained in the Bible. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 ESV Matthew 7:8: "...the one who seeks finds." Isaiah 55:6-7: "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." No calling on God will save unless it's through receiving Jesus as your substitution. "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9:22