I’m sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were questioning what was in the Bible rather than its very standing as the revealed word of God.
Obviously I cannot prove to you that the Bible is the real deal. If that were possible, smarter folk than me would have done it already and there would be no need for discussions like this! I can offer you evidence, based on literary research and the experiences of many millions of people all around the world over many centuries, but they would not be a scientific type proof. In the end, all I can say is that my study of it leads me to believe it to be a sound basis for my life, one that in turn challenges, comforts, educates and affirms. I would commend it to you!
As an aside, there really aren’t all that many holy books. The Jews accept the Bible as being the true word of God, but only the first three-quarters that we call the old testament. Muslims accept the Bible as being true, they think of the Koran as a further revelation, as do the Mormons with the book of Mormon. Pagans, Buddhists and Humanists don’t have a holy book and Confucianism is a philosophical concept, not a religion.
As for “who should I believe and why?” I’m sorry, but I’m afraid you are really going to have to work that one out for yourself. I can answer your questions (to the best of my ability), and offer you advice – even instruction, but in the end it is your responsibility. God has made you the custodian of your life.
That's your faith and I respect that. However, if you want me to believe you you must show me that other Christians are wrong and you are right.>/i>
I kind of thought I had already done that, both from a scriptural and a logical point of view. The Bible does say that God will call an end to all things, but it also says, on several occasions, that the time and date will not be revealed to us. Therefore Mr Camping is claiming he knows when the second coming will be, based on research on the very book that says that such information will not be revealed to him! It must take a particularly convoluted thought process to get round that.
And logically, people who believe that the cares of this world will end on a set date will have no interest in trying to ease those cares, or help to resolve those issues here and now. How can that be a good thing?
I deal with a lot of Christians and they all have different versions of 'official truth'.
I know that it can be very confusing and I don’t deny that Christians do sometimes disagree (and worse) with each other, in ways that are not very honouring to their calling. In partial (and only partial) mitigation I would say that these matters are of the utmost importance to them, and people can get very worked up about things that are close to their hearts.
But such disagreements are found in other fields of life as well. If you were to start a discussion on these boards on “what should be the GOP ticket for 2012?” you would get a dozen different answers, probably – shall we say ‘forcefully’ asserted – and yet everyone on these boards would call themselves a “conservative”. Like every example of every kind of person you meet, Christians are individuals, not robots. They come from different backgrounds, and different cultures. They have had different influences upon them, and of course, they are at different stages of development. The great thing is that God treats us as individuals. One of the most common things you hear from Christians when quoting the bible is that "all scripture is god-breathed, and suitable for teaching, disciplining and so on" And that is true, but that doesn't mean that all of scripture is equally relevant to all of us all the time. So, one Christian you know might be really into the concept of faith at the time you talk to them, while Christian two is wrestling with applied eschatology or whatever. In the end, the differences may stand out, but there are far more similarities.
It's possible that I misunderstood you. If you read what you wrote it came across that Camping was just plain wrong, period.
In all humility I suspect you might be reading more into my statements than was there, probably based on reactions you have had from other people. I’ve never met Mr Camping or heard him speak. I know very little of his background and teaching and therefore I would not presume to judge him. All I know is that stating the day and time of the second coming has no logical or scriptural basis.
Why am I being facetious? You said you had to do good things, etc. My question was reasonable: how many good things do you have to do? And if you don;t have to do them, why did you say you had to do them? Or at least that's what I thought you said (I can't go back now and check).
Because I was saying those things as an illustration of why it is wrong to live in the future, not as a statement of what I personally believe or “have” to do. I don’t HAVE to do any of those things, at least not to secure my salvation. The point is that every encounter anyone has is an opportunity, to help, to encourage, to affirm or whatever. (It’s also a danger, because you might hurt, or hate, or upset). But if you believe that all things will end tomorrow, what do you care? To you it isn’t going to make any difference.
Faith is being certain about that which you cannot really know. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Frankly, that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. You strike me as being “a child of the enlightenment”! Unfortunately belief in God and therefore in what God says is not something that you can logically work out or prove. (A lot of atheists get very smug about that, overlooking the fact that you can’t logically work out unbelief either).
Let me try and illustrate what i mean. I believe there is a country called Australia, even though I have never been there or seen it. I’ve met people who say they have. I have met people who claim to be Australians. I’ve looked in atlases and encyclopaedias and seen pictures of it. But if you think about it, in all those instances I am ultimately taking people’s word for the very existence of the place. It could all be some grand conspiracy to fool me.
In the same way, I believe there is life after death, even though I cannot possibly be sure about that (not having ever died). I’ve read up on theories about life after death by eminent scholars and philosophers. I have assurances from the Bible. I have talked to people right on the very verge of death. But I do not actually know. Once again, it could all be some grand conspiracy to fool me.
In both of those instances here is a step of faith involved – a combination of logic, reason, intuition and gut instinct leads me to believe that, on balance, there is an afterlife (and – depressingly - Australia really does exist). We all of us make these kinds of calls all the time. People who don’t take steps of faith like that end up becoming 9-11 truthers or whatever. This is why I said that belief can be very dangerous, so you had better make sure you have the right beliefs.
Gravity you can put to a test. God is a different story.
Why so? Have you ever considered “testing” God out?
But then how can you be certain in your faith (which is not knowledge)? It seems that you are now saying you are certain in your ignorance but uncertain in your knowledge? Is that what you are saying?
Well, I certainly do not claim to know everything - who does? – but that is not really germane to the argument. What I am trying to say is that I have come to faith not just because of some logical or rational process of reasoning. It is also a spiritual and emotional response to a divine calling. This is nothing to be ashamed of. Reason isn’t the be all and end all of everything. After all, we are creatures of passion and emotion as well as logic and reason. Therefore, in giving us faith, God has to make allowances for that.
If the authorship is in quesiton, then what's in it is in question as well.
Obviously I cannot prove to you that the Bible is the real deal.
Hebrews 8:10-11 say there's no need for it. Yet, obviously there is...so somethings not right.
I can offer you evidence, based on literary research and the experiences of many millions of people all around the world over many centuries, but they would not be a scientific type proof
The Muslims, Jews and Hindus can do the same thing. The Hindu scriptures are older than the Jewish ones. And billions of people believe them, and have for milennia.
I have nothing against God. If he does intercede in people's lives then I have a lot to be thankful for. But I don;t know if he does does or not, if he exists or not.
But I do know that I have a buffet of people offering me their version of the Truth. To me they are all human stories full of holes, lacing in proof, or evidence, based on preconceived assumptions and influenced by cultures.
In other words they are human creations, and will not submit my beliefs to a human. I don;t believe God needs "prophets" and 'preachers" to let people know who he is, if he is and what he is.
In the end, all I can say is that my study of it leads me to believe it to be a sound basis for my life, one that in turn challenges, comforts, educates and affirms. I would commend it to you!
I appreciate that and I am glad that it works for you. My study leads me away from that belief. It's not necessarily what I set out to do when I started asking questions, but that's where I arrived. The real world is not how it;s described in the Bible. Period.
They may worship the one and only God if there is such as God, but their Pagans, Buddhists and Humanists don’t have a holy book and Confucianism is a philosophical concept, not a religion.
The Hindu scriptures (the Vedas, visions or knowings) are the oldest scriptures on earth, and they reveal one God who appears to men in many forms (modalism). The Mormons have their own scriptures, and so did many of the various Christian offshoots, such as the Gnostics, etc.
The Christians themselves have a variety of "canons", mutually exclusive, ever since Christians scriptures began to appear.
God has made you the custodian of your life.
How do you know that?
The Bible says you should not love the world.
I know that it can be very confusing and I don’t deny that Christians do sometimes disagree (and worse) with each other, in ways that are not very honouring to their calling
V, I came to this forum 11 years ago as a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian and I became an agnostic on this forum after seeing the hate, discontent and thousands of "official truths" from Christians practicing anything but love and charity. The vile hateful post directed form one group of Christians to another is a plenty on any given day.
And they have no problems then praying to their God who says "love your neighbor as yourself." Hypoctites.
But such disagreements are found in other fields of life as well.
It doesn't matter; it's apples and oranges. Christians are under commandment to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, and love their neighbor as themselves. But, hey, Paul comes along and says all you need is faith, faith makes you "just' in God;s eyes, and nothing you do will change that. So, go for it, lambaste Armenians if you are a Calvinist, call those who doubt names, spout anti-Catholic venom, call anyone who doesn't belong to your church a "heretic", and so on and so on. Disingenuous.
You can' preach love and practice hate and expect others to see the good in you.
I don't care, either God comes first or doesn't. Otherwise it is simply a label. Either they submit, and transcend, their human and cultural and other differences and are of one mind, as they are commanded, or they are hypocrites, and liars. If you believe you overcome.
So, one Christian you know might be really into the concept of faith at the time you talk to them, while Christian two is wrestling with applied eschatology or whatever. In the end, the differences may stand out, but there are far more similarities.
It's a feel-good club, very often very self-righteous, and full of pride and intolerance. Christians are not taught to be individuals but to be one in mind.
Frankly, that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. You strike me as being “a child of the enlightenment”! Unfortunately belief in God and therefore in what God says is not something that you can logically work out or prove.
Why submit to and place your life in charge of illogical beliefs? Even worse, why would God need human "prophets" instead of talk to individuals directly? As is, you have to believe some human "prophet" first.
Let me try and illustrate what i mean. I believe there is a country called Australia...But if you think about it, in all those instances I am ultimately taking people’s word for the very existence of the place.
First, whether you beieve Australia exists or not matters not as regards "afterlife" or "salvation," in other words it's not existentially essential for you or your loved ones.
But, in extremis, Australia is provable. You don;t have to take anyone's word for it. You can actually take the trip yourself. And there are no tens of thousands of different opinions where Australia is, what it is, etc. Apples and oranges.
By the way, the Bible says oyu should not test or tempt your God but only your faith.
This is why I said that belief can be very dangerous, so you had better make sure you have the right beliefs.
And how do you determine they are "right" given that they cannot be subjected to reason. How do you determine that the unreasonable is "right"? Gut feeling? Come on.
Gravity you can put to a test. God is a different story. Why so? Have you ever considered “testing” God out?
I don't even know what God is, how can I put it to test? I know, you will tell me God is a who. Well, before he is a who he is also a what. If you can't define the essence you can't recognize the form. So, what is divine? How do you recognize divine?
What I am trying to say is that I have come to faith not just because of some logical or rational process of reasoning. It is also a spiritual and emotional response to a divine calling.
And how do know that something irrational is divine? What is spiritual? I can understand that certain beliefs are emotional, i.e. that they provide psychological comfort.
Therefore, in giving us faith, God has to make allowances for that.
I noticed a characteristic in western Christianity of subjecting God to a higher necessity ("God has to.."). From an Eastern Christian point of view it is something very, very alien.