belief by faith

[intensity]

religion is based on faith, which is believing without real proof. right? blind fiath is when you believe something in this case religion in fear of alternatives. for those who believe out of faith, why do you believe?

[Christ Guy]

For a multitude of reasons.

[rasp]

I can't really explain why I believe either. I just do, as ridiculous as that may sound.

[Eddy]

See? No logical reason.

[Daniel]

There are many reasons. Here are a few quick I thought up:

1) faith
2) most logical and believable
3) science in the Bible
4) historical accuracy
5) fullfilled prophecies
6) consistency in it's teachings
7) scientific facts not know at time
8) no controdictions
9) most logical in a sense; the created needs a creator

[RWD]

There are many reasons. Here are a few quick I thought up:

1) faith
2) most logical and believable
3) science in the Bible
4) historical accuracy
5) fullfilled prophecies
6) consistency in it's teachings
7) scientific facts not know at time
8) no controdictions
9) most logical in a sense; the created needs a creator

1- I wont argue with
2- Hmmm, most brain washable maybe.
3- What science, it was written by a bunch of unknowns with no other documents to provide proof. If they are documents, the Vatican is doing a grand job at hiding it
4- No proof, how can we claim it is accurate
5- ??
6- Full of contradictions as I have posted elsewhere
7- Scince explains alot more about evolution than the bible
8- rubbish, see my No6
9- Yes the created needs a creator, but what form was this creator? was the 'creator' the elements that caused the big bang?

[StradivariusTV]

3) science in the BibleWell, the Bible is vague enough about such concepts that a significant amount of scientific findings can be read into it. That's not the same as the Bible explicitly concuring with scientific knowledge.

[Illuminatus]

1) faith


Faith is just a short way of saying 'because I do'


2) most logical and believable


Circulus in demonstrando, argumentum ad ignorantiam.


3) science in the Bible


Like melting snails, insects with four feet, snakes that eat dirt?


4) historical accuracy


There's accurate bits and completely inaccurate bits, accuracy in a few parts doesn't mean the whole things is historically accurate. The Qu'ran is historically accurate, too.


5) fullfilled prophecies


Fiction can also fulfill it's own prophecies.


6) consistency in it's teachings


ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

---

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God can't be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

---

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

---

Want anymore?


7) scientific facts not know at time


Obviously they were known or they wouldn't be in the bible, there aren't are none anyway.


8) no controdictions


See above, there's plenty more.


9) most logical in a sense; the created needs a creator

It is no more logical to suggest God doesn't need a creator than it is to suggest the world doesn't.

[Panthrophile]

Belief in God is akin to cannibalism.

http://www.lifeisadisease.com/showpost.php?p=816&postcount=4

I hope you can infer the meaning that statement, even if you do have faith.

[Daniel]

Faith is just a short way of saying 'because I do'

Blind faith, yes. But I consider my faith a lot more than blind.


2- Hmmm, most brain washable maybe.

Most "believable" as in most believable compared with other major world religions.

3- What science, it was written by a bunch of unknowns with no other documents to provide proof. If they are documents, the Vatican is doing a grand job at hiding it

There are several scientific facts, (as well as hygiene, etc) that weren't known or widely accepted at the time.

Like melting snails, insects with four feet, snakes that eat dirt?

Well, as I recall I've discussed this before with you, at least in the aspect of the hoofed camel or whatever. I'm not to interested in getting into a huge debate on this, but if you'd provide the scripture references, that'd be great.

Most of these situations are deeply centered on the actual words and language, as they can have different meanings and interpretations. Secondly, there is a huge difference between insect/bug facts and the doctrine of the scripture and it's scientific accuracy.

As for the "snakes that eat dirt", I assume you from this passage:

Genesis 3:14

So the Lord God said to the serpent: ?because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.

Now that's a very poor example of the lack of scientific evidence for the Bible.

1) Snakes do take particles from the air with their tongue to "taste the air", which is really their sense of smell.

2) There are other accounts of people or things "eating" or "licking" the dust in scripture. It's also a fairly common saying in our culture... eat the dust. It's a way to show humiliation or defeat.

4- No proof, how can we claim it is accurate

It's historically accurate in the aspects of world history that are "proven".


There's accurate bits and completely inaccurate bits, accuracy in a few parts doesn't mean the whole things is historically accurate. The Qu'ran is historically accurate, too.

I'd say it's extremely accurate. There are more than "a few" parts that are accurate.

5- ??

Fiction can also fulfill it's own prophecies.

There are hundreds of prophecies that were fullfilled, though yes, if the Bible was "edited" that could be manipulated. There are other prophecies that were fulfilled later, but you'd likely dismiss them as coincidence.

6- Full of contradictions as I have posted elsewhere

And which I'll gladly go over if you'd stop copying and pasting contradictions form elsewhere. If you want to discuss or debate, let's discuss or debate.

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Deuteronomy is talking about some basic, miscellaneous laws. Isaiah is talking about Lucifer, his destruction, and evil doers. In Isaiah they're speaking of Lucifer and his followers/evildoers, whereas Deuteronomy, as I said, are some laws that the Israelites should abide by. I see no contradiction.

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God can't be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)


To lesser people, God would appear as a pillar or a cloud. To prophets God would appear in visions and dreams. And to Moses, God appears to him "face to face" as the above text indicates. Moses saw God, but not in all his glory. God is a spirit, so, in theory, anything physical wouldn't be God himself in all his glory, but a manifestation of God, such as the burning bush.

I believe that when the scripture says "face to face", it says "mouth to mouth" in the King James version, as opposed the New King James Version. I did a bit of brief research, and supposedly it that would be more correctly translated as the Hebrew would "peh", which means 1)mouth (of man) b) mouth (as organ of speech)

So basically, I believe that in this context it's referring to talking rather than an actual face facing another face. The original Hebrew and text would have to be used to determine this and if my above assumption is correct.

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

Genesis 22:1, NKJV - "Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."

Now, yours is the KJV, the above one I quoted is NKJV. One says tempt, one says test. I think to be certain, we'd have to go back to ancient Hebrew and the ancient Biblical text. I believe that the word "tempt" or "test" that is used when referring to the Genesis 22:1 passage is indeed test. It's a trial that God is putting Abraham through - God has no intent to seduce or betray Abraham or to lead him to wrong.


Want anymore?

If you think they're necessary.


7- Scince explains alot more about evolution than the bible

What's your point? That doesn't disprove my point at all.

Obviously they were known or they wouldn't be in the bible, there aren't are none anyway.


Well, yes, I see your point. They weren't widely known. There are several things and aspect of things such as hygiene demonstrated in the Bible, where the people had no apparent knowledge of the benefits of whatever they were doing, yet they did it anyway because it was the law - a law given by God, which probably helped keep them clean and helped with hygiene, etc. This isn't specifically limited to hygiene, but that's one bit.

8- rubbish, see my No6

See above, there's plenty more.

Some things may be apparent contradictions, but if you look closer and at the original writing or surrounding text of scripture, they can be explained. And even if there are "contradictions" they're not something one would consider significant - it's not a contradiction in the primary theology or doctrine.

9- Yes the created needs a creator, but what form was this creator? was the 'creator' the elements that caused the big bang?

Well, I don't believe that there was a Big Bang, so no. I believe God always was.

It is no more logical to suggest God doesn't need a creator than it is to suggest the world doesn't.
I can see how you think it this way, but try to consider this:

God always was. There was no "Time" in the sense that we understand it. God creates time, and since he created it, he is outside of it. That's basically how I see it.

[Illuminatus]

There are several scientific facts, (as well as hygiene, etc) that weren't known or widely accepted at the time.

There are a few valid recommendations on hygiene, but there are other equally valid hygiene rules in other religions that weren't widely known. Such as the Zoroastians and their measure to avoid STDs.


Well, as I recall I've discussed this before with you, at least in the aspect of the hoofed camel or whatever. I'm not to interested in getting into a huge debate on this, but if you'd provide the scripture references, that'd be great.


PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.


Most of these situations are deeply centered on the actual words and language, as they can have different meanings and interpretations. Secondly, there is a huge difference between insect/bug facts and the doctrine of the scripture and it's scientific accuracy.


But what scientfic accuracy beyond what was widely known at the time?


As for the "snakes that eat dirt", I assume you from this passage:
Now that's a very poor example of the lack of scientific evidence for the Bible.

1) Snakes do take particles from the air with their tongue to "taste the air", which is really their sense of smell.

2) There are other accounts of people or things "eating" or "licking" the dust in scripture. It's also a fairly common saying in our culture... eat the dust. It's a way to show humiliation or defeat.


Ok, that was a poor example open to interpretation, but I'd like to think the 'word of god' made some effort to be obvious, not ambigious.


It's historically accurate in the aspects of world history that are "proven".


Such as the complete lack of a census around the time of Jesus? Herod being dead at the time of Jesus' birth?


I'd say it's extremely accurate. There are more than "a few" parts that are accurate.


And there are more than a few parts that aren't, such as Joshua being unable to have destroyed the city of Ai, as it was destroyed over a thousand years before he was born. The same for the walls of Jericho. There's also no evidence of the Exodus at all, no camps in the wilderness, mentions in non-biblical sources etc. No evidence for king solomon or david either, or their nation.


There are hundreds of prophecies that were fullfilled, though yes, if the Bible was "edited" that could be manipulated. There are other prophecies that were fulfilled later, but you'd likely dismiss them as coincidence.


Only the formation of Israel, which is more of a self-fullfilling prophecy.


Deuteronomy is talking about some basic, miscellaneous laws. Isaiah is talking about Lucifer, his destruction, and evil doers. In Isaiah they're speaking of Lucifer and his followers/evildoers, whereas Deuteronomy, as I said, are some laws that the Israelites should abide by. I see no contradiction.


Yes, and the law contradicts Isaiah's rant. Isaiah isn't talking about literal children of lucifer, because there's no such thing (we're all gods children, aren't we?) he's obviously referring to sinners.


To lesser people, God would appear as a pillar or a cloud. To prophets God would appear in visions and dreams. And to Moses, God appears to him "face to face" as the above text indicates. Moses saw God, but not in all his glory. God is a spirit, so, in theory, anything physical wouldn't be God himself in all his glory, but a manifestation of God, such as the burning bush.

I believe that when the scripture says "face to face", it says "mouth to mouth" in the King James version, as opposed the New King James Version. I did a bit of brief research, and supposedly it that would be more correctly translated as the Hebrew would "peh", which means 1)mouth (of man) b) mouth (as organ of speech)


That's quite possible, but it does still state 'seen', the hebrew word for 'seen' is not the same as 'spoken'.

So basically, I believe that in this context it's referring to talking rather than an actual face facing another face. The original Hebrew and text would have to be used to determine this and if my above assumption is correct.


That's quite possible, but it does still state 'seen', the hebrew word for 'seen' is not the same as 'spoken'.


Now, yours is the KJV, the above one I quoted is NKJV. One says tempt, one says test. I think to be certain, we'd have to go back to ancient Hebrew and the ancient Biblical text. I believe that the word "tempt" or "test" that is used when referring to the Genesis 22:1 passage is indeed test. It's a trial that God is putting Abraham through - God has no intent to seduce or betray Abraham or to lead him to wrong.


On futher research, you're absolutely right there.


If you think they're necessary.


What about the completely different nature of God in the Old Testament and New Testament? It also state that Jesus was born of a man:

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;


Some things may be apparent contradictions, but if you look closer and at the original writing or surrounding text of scripture, they can be explained. And even if there are "contradictions" they're not something one would consider significant - it's not a contradiction in the primary theology or doctrine.

Yes, the bulk of contradictions are little things like who bought potters field and the like. But if I were to follow a religion I'd expect it to be completely consistent in it's holy books.


I can see how you think it this way, but try to consider this:

God always was. There was no "Time" in the sense that we understand it. God creates time, and since he created it, he is outside of it. That's basically how I see it.

Yes, I know that. But time didn't exist before the 'big bang' either. I'm an agnostic anyway.

[Daniel]

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

A bit of research turns of that the word used is "temec", which appears only once in the Bible. the word supposedly means liquefaction. Slugs and snails do leave behind a trail as they move, as I'm sure you know. It sort of dissolves in a way of dehydration as opposed to melting, and leaves a trail, and will eventually shrivel away in a hot desert climate.

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

Apparently they didn't count the back legs of insects/locust as legs. This could be for several reasons, but simply because they considered them more as "feet" than "legs". The function and appearance of the hind legs are vastly different from the other four, so they may not have counted them for that reason. It could be as simple as that they didn't count them as legs because they didn't consider them legs. Perhaps they didn't see them accurately and did misrecord, or because they're rare, though I suspect the first possibility is accurate.

But what scientfic accuracy beyond what was widely known at the time?

Blood-clotting in newborn children, the earth is suspended in space, the earth is round, "the life of the flesh is in the blood", washing hands, circumcision, other cleanliness/sanitation issues. In Jerimiah it says there are "innumbearble hosts of heavens" - meaning virtually uncountable amount of stars/planents. In another passage, it demonstrates the water cycle.

Such as the complete lack of a census around the time of Jesus?

This does nothing to refute the historical accuracy of the Bible. However, were there a record of a census, it would strengthen it ('s historical accuracy).

Herod being dead at the time of Jesus' birth?

We don't know the exact time of Jesus' birth, so we can't say Herod was dead. We can theorize within a few years. For example:

6 BC – possible birth of Christ
4 BC – Herod the Great's death

And there are more than a few parts that aren't, such as Joshua being unable to have destroyed the city of Ai, as it was destroyed over a thousand years before he was born. The same for the walls of Jericho.

I'd have to do a bit of research for an answer on that... what's your source to say that he didn't? I would have guess that it's so old you wouldn't be able to accurately make a claim such as that.

There's also no evidence of the Exodus at all, no camps in the wilderness, mentions in non-biblical sources etc. No evidence for king solomon or david either, or their nation.

Once again I'd like to point out: lack of evidence for something is not in any way disprove something's accuracy.

Yes, and the law contradicts Isaiah's rant. Isaiah isn't talking about literal children of lucifer, because there's no such thing (we're all gods children, aren't we?) he's obviously referring to sinners.

Well, it was written at different time periods. In Isaiah it says "prepare slaughter for "his" children, being Satan. This could possibly be directed towards wrong doing in general/sin.

It could also be that in Isaiah it's the use of poetic language saying that Babylon would be completely destroyed.

What about the completely different nature of God in the Old Testament and New Testament?

It’s not for us to judge God or say what he can or can’t do.

It also state that Jesus was born of a man:

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

This only means that Jesus was a descendant of David.

[Mr. Random]

What about the completely different nature of God in the Old Testament and New Testament?


It’s not for us to judge God or say what he can or can’t do.

That answer, IMO, is not sufficient. If you compare the harsh god of the old testament, killing his people, letting them wander the wilderness, and also demonstrating aspects of greed and jealosy with the god of the new testament who is loving, forgiving, etc... you see a vast difference.

[Daniel]

That answer, IMO, is not sufficient. If you compare the harsh god of the old testament, killing his people, letting them wander the wilderness, and also demonstrating aspects of greed and jealosy with the god of the new testament who is loving, forgiving, etc... you see a vast difference.

Well, if you honestly wish to continue/start a discussion on this, I'll do so, but you're going to have to be more specific. And also realize that I personally don't see the problem.

[barrybert]

Like melting snails, insects with four feet, snakes that eat dirt?



Resume Writing Services (http://www.resumedocket.com/)