Dan56

Its true that the bible is its own best evidence. I've studied it in-depth and found no untruths, so its truth becomes self-evident in the absence of any falsehoods. And its fair to say that every book inspired by God corresponds with every other book compiled into the bible, so there is collaborating material written by multiple authors. i.e; Isaiah doesn't contradict Ezekiel, Matthew doesn't contradict Mark. Using the assumption that the bible is the Word of God, what other possible source could establish confirmation of that fact? Consider the prophesies of Christ that predated his birth by 10 centuries, when realized, did in fact establish a truth to be self-evident, whether one accepts it or not, facts are facts. "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me" (John 8:18).

You wrote "It hurts too much" and I replied that "It shouldn't hurt".......... I just assumed the pain you were experiencing was in regards to not being able to convince me that God does not exist? And that's why you wrote "I give up"... That's why I responded by saying that your under no obligation to convince me of anything. You've gotten irritated and frustrated before, so I assumed you felt like you failed your mission and surrendered (again). My simple point was that believers aren't convince by non-believers and non-believers aren't convinced by believers, so its not a battle for either side to persuade someone that their position is correct. An argument is a disagreement, two points of views that can't be reconciled. I defined it as silly because there's no resolution to me believing in something that you guys don't. My additional comment was just explaining why belief isn't based on direct evidence, but in a desire to accept a message that appeals to you and rings true. That's not an argument, just my definition of faith.

Not really an argument as much as it is people just saying what they think.. I just say what and why I believe as I do, but never anticipate a consensus to validate it.. I'm fully aware that you guys find it difficult to believe anything that you can't get direct confirmation of, but unfortunately "beliefs" don't afford us that kind of direct evidence. I want to believe, and am convince its true. You want to know, but are convinced of nothing. That's why we are called by faith, you can accept a message you love, but are non-receptive of a message you hate. Don't be too hard on yourself.. It shouldn't "hurt" to hear views you disagree with. Your not obligated to convince anyone of anything, so don't get irritated and turn yourself into an emotional wreck over it.

The odds of me being right are 100%, my opinion of course.. The odds of all other religions being wrong are 100%, my opinion of course. When you believe God is real, its not a waste of life, its an assurance of everlasting life.. And its true scriptures are ancient, but I've read what those authors wrote and I've read what you've written, and I can attest to the fact that the biblical authors knew more than you or I do, my opinion of course. We agree with being surrounded by lies, deception, and corruption, but it wasn't Christ who lied, deceived, or corrupted. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not" (John 8:44&45), his proclamation of course. When confronted by a Savior, it is good to look behind the tombstone, and if there's nothing there, he's a genuine Savior.. That pretty much dispels the Atheist argument, my opinion of course. And I agree, "Thou shall not steal" is a moral attribute that helps encourage people from stealing silverware These arguments are getting silly again, they resolve nothing, we're still left with: To believe or not to believe, that is the question

No problem, I understand your reluctance to believe anything that can't be proven. Its not easy to trust a 2000 year old book, especially when you don't like the message. But my point was that a spiritual truth can't be proven by physical or material evidence, so a black & white matter-of-fact mindset can't accept it. Its difficult to intellectually rationalize God, but we can't have faith in anything not seen until we first surrender to what we think we know, which is really nothing. We live in a world of lies, deception, and corruption, so its difficult for anyone to believe anything they hear or read. That's why Christians take solace in a Truth beyond the reality of what is evident. If Dan is wrong, he's no worse off than you.. But consider if Dan is right? Nothing but up-side for the guy who for some reason is referring to himself in the third person. There's no penalty for believing, just a promised reward.. The real question is; Where's the potential reward for having faith in nothing beyond the here & now? Where's the hope? I simply believe that everyone has/is a spirit, possessing a self-aware consciousness that doesn't die with the body. And I believe everyone has an unction from the Holy Spirit which prompts a yearning to know and return to the Spirit that created us. Its why we search for answers, but there's just one "quickening spirit" that soothes the soul.

The bible encourages believers to spread the Word (gospel), but not to convince non-believers. There's no flaw, just a difference in how a person thinks God is perceived, "These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God" (2 Corinthians 2:10). So putting God on trial to prove Himself is not how people find the Truth. Searching for physical evidence can never establish a spiritual truth, its like trying to prove water is wet without having ever seen water. A prophecy simply tells a future occurrence, and when its fulfilled as written, its a true prophecy. A nonbeliever can't accept a fulfilled prophecy about Christ because they don't believe Christ was real either. So there's no debate to be had when the premise is denied, all the evidence in the world would not suffice. Belief is an individual choice based on a need, desire, and quest to know, but without those inherent attributes, there's no convincing anyone of anything. Sorry, but Fundamentalist Christians believe there is one Truth, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Its scripture not propaganda, and the sole arbiter of truth is Christ. I wouldn't be much of a Christian if I waivered from that belief. I understand this may be irritating to nonbelievers, but its the faith. I don't believe you can hate what you don't believe, but you can evidently get bored hearing about it.

It doesn't need to name him, who else on earth did what he did? Sometimes the reader needs to put 2 +2 together Actually, there was a complete Isaiah scroll recovered from the Dead Sea find, and it predated Christ by 200 years. Attitude in how one approaches scripture makes a difference. "God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble." (James 4:6). Demanding God prove himself is not how one receives a revelation. Jesus told many that he healed, "Thy faith has made the whole", and not 'your knowledge has made you whole'. Its been my experience that you can't read the bible like a story book or comic book and expect to digest its divine truth. "Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matthew 11:25). In other words, when the Word is accepted by faith, its a quickening spirit that opens its Truth, but when every verse is questioned, its only challenged and not absorbed. "Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?" (Mark 8:18). The bible is also Christian scripture, remember that the new testament was written by Jews and a Benjamite. We also follow a Jewish/Levitical leader who declared himself the living fulfillment of those Jewish scriptures. So in effect, Christians were taught by a Jewish teacher (Rabbi) who was quite familiar with all scripture. That's why Christians never get bored in discovering what the scriptures mean.

Yes, I'm aware that Judaism doesn't interpret anything to be about Christ, which is why they don't recognize Christ as Messiah or Savior. That's what differentiates the faiths. But Christ fulfilling this prophecy with 100% accuracy and sublime consistency is not happenstance. The fact that others assign a prophecy to mean something else is confusing, but I don't attribute that confusion to God.. It was written to mean one thing, but different interpretations is what sows confusion. Its all pretty straightforward to me, if a prophecy didn't fit, you must acquit, but its a clear reference to the person of God's Anointed, who would suffer on behalf of God's people, and that to me is solid evidence.

Well, there's no compromise or resolution to how people exegete scripture, they will interpolate what they choose to believe. But I think Isaiah 53 is pretty plain, nothing confusing about it, and since the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, its solid evidence for being true.

It seems it all come down to proof, one mans evidence is another man's trash, so where one believes another doesn't. But what's missed by Atheist is that the spiritual realm cannot be undisputedly proven by scientific evidence or physical observation. "God has revealed it to us by the Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:10). So while Christians may believe in part by what can be physically observed, it's generally not what solely convinces them that God exist. Evidence such as Isaiah 53 is dismissed by nonbelievers, but they have no explanation of who its written about. Written around 700BC, the prophecy foreshadowed the life and mission of Jesus, describing how Messiah would be rejected and despised. That's evidence to a Christian, but just a lucky guess to an Atheist. So the divergence between believers and naysayers boils down to what constitutes acceptable evidence. It might also be divided by philosophical arguments, a persons perception of what's logical, natural, and likely to be true, differs from person to person. What's sensible to one may seem like a crazy notion to another. And finally, its a difference in attitude, i.e; prove to me its right verses prove to me its wrong. Bottom line is that belief is not based on tangible evidence, proving that something is factually true by conventional means establishes it as a fact, which invalidates the necessity of belief. Belief is a choice, but its not blind faith. While it may not be factually substantiated to a degree that satisfies those who reject it, there's enough evidence for many to embrace it. ..Just my cents

I must admit that I had never looked at the rules before, I guess I was confident that my extremely polite demeanor would suffice ... But I just took a look at ; http://ulc.net/forum/topic/14791-forum-policies/?tab=comments#comment-203509 I think for the most part I've abided by the rules, but must admit that I've skirted one section on occasion; Section 6c: Conduct of Posts, *Further, if any topic or reply is designed to entice a specific negative response, it shall be considered "baiting" and is inappropriate for this forum." I shall attempt to refrain from making accusations or conclusions that might solicitate an angry response. Its usually not my intent to incite negativity, but others have pointed out that some of my comments & opinions have been provocative. Not all are deliberately meant to "bait" others, but I can certainly re-phrase things to be less of an annoyance.

No problema, Inglés es preferible.

Not good enough... It won't stop until you concede ... Time to give in, not give up 🏳️

And don't expect a substantive response either.. People with no answers of their own get stumped by biblical answers. I guess its tough to argue with a book that's true, so they tend to resent the messenger instead. It boils down to the position of "I don't know nothing" verses "I believe something". Some folks care enough to seek answers and others don't.. Some have faith in creation by intelligent design (God), and others think everything just mysteriously fell together out of nothing. What amazes me is that they can't believe the former, but solidly embrace the latter. Where's the evidence that everything evolved from nothing? They can't prove it, but they have faith that its true? And they think Christianity is a fairy tale

Kind of a juvenile response... You do seem to enjoy your emoji's. But I understand that you don't get why biblical answers give people hope beyond the grave. Your content not knowing or caring, but most people trust that God exist, and the bible gives their lives direction, meaning, and destiny. I can't imagine living in the valley of the unknown, it would seem like a vacuum void of purpose and no hope. You also seem to be under the impression that faith is blind, but its rooted in Truth, and one way to distinguish the truth is to observe that there are an absence of lies attached to it. I can give you 10 scientific theories that turned out to be false, but I'm guessing you can't give me 10 biblical prophesies that weren't true. So let wisdom dictate what can be trusted.

It may be an honest answer, but its also a worthless answer. Never fabricate an answer, but never be content to "not know" the answer.. Biblical answers may require some faith to accept, but at least your not left in ignorance wondering what your life, origin, purpose, and meaning are all about. Yes, there are many warnings to test; "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). There's a difference in testing and denying though. The testing is to distinguish between true and false teachers. "Do not treat prophecies with contempt, but test all things. Hold fast to what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21). "The prophets are prophesying lies in My name," the LORD replied. "I did not send them or appoint them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a false vision, a worthless divination, the futility and delusion of their own minds" (Jeremiah 14:4). And Jesus warned; "Beware of false prophets". So the test is to use scripture to identify the truth, not to challenge the scriptures themselves. For instance, if a prophecy is not fulfilled, it was not given by inspiration of God. Over 300 prophecies of Christ were fulfilled, while other imposters never even fulfilled one. All prophecies total about 2,500 and about 2,000 have been fulfilled, so based on past performance, I have faith that the rest will come to pass. Close examination of the book does demonstrate divine evidence, so I'd question your methodology of testing, rather than the book which hasn't lied. Yes, faith is required, but at least your not left in a "I don't know nothing" dilemma.

That's probably why you have no answers. You actually prefer answers that you can accept, because you can't possibly verify whether an answer is fabricated without evidence. The truth cannot always be proven to your satisfaction, but it can be a truthful answer none-the-less.

Feelings & love don't literally emanate from the heart, that's just an expression. The heart pumps blood, it doesn't feel emotions. You may be confusing Valentines Day with medical science Of course the mind, brain and heart exist.. But allow me to assist you, they aren't all the same thing. A man’s soul is the means by which he has self-consciousness, and even nonreligious people seem to have that awareness, although I'm beginning to wonder

There ya go.... that's where you learn it, because it ain't in no science books. Its difficult to explain to a layman, but your spirit has nothing to do with your brain, no more than your heart has anything to do with your emotions. Distinguishing between spirit, soul, mind, brain, and heart, even confuses me. I may have described 'spirit' wrong, but it is simply a consciousness that never dies, it is given by God and goes back to God. This site best describes it, along with explaining the difference between soul and spirit. https://www.getbibleanswers.org/spirit-soul-heart-mind.html

Its not hypocrisy, just 2 original thoughts that are diametrically opposed.. There can be no meeting of the minds when the premise of thought is discarded as false or unproven. But Christianity is all about 'thinking outside the box', its a spiritual understanding that surpasses conventional thought. God is Spirit, Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36), so trying to prove what is spiritually perceived by gathering physical evidence on earth is not how believers function. Its not so much about your wrong and I'm right, but more about spiritual revelations that nonbelievers ignore, are unaware of, or can't believe exist. The bible refers to it as 'hardened hearts' (Romans 9:18), because its not about intellectually proving to yourself that God exist.. "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2: 9-11). In the absence of spiritual discernment, nonbelievers can only presume Christians are wrong, because the only thing that can be right to them must be deduced by proven observation. But not all 'truth' is derived from a patented learning process, which severely limits understanding and provides no real answers to the origin, purpose, or destiny of mankind. Remove the spiritual aspect and your left with an empty, limited, and meaningless existence.

Lobotomies were used to treat a variety of mental illnesses and psychiatric problems, so I doubt it would interfere with a persons spirit? Might change a persons demeanor, depression,, or pain, but I don't know enough about them to comment on the affect on someones spirit.

I believe its 100% true, so yes, its not mythology to me. It certainly explains a lot of things that science has no answers for. And night/day aren't concepts hard to grasp, so perhaps God didn't deem it necessary to explain it more than He did. "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night... And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also" (Genesis 1:4-5 &16).

I was talking about spirituality, although I understand that its mythological to you. The soul is the nonphysical essence of your being (who you are), and the spirit is the intellect or consciousness of your soul. Tell me how metaphysics explains intangible things like spirit, soul, love, hate? If your thoughts are the result of energy transferred between neuron cells in the brain, what do those thoughts become when the brain dies? A spirit can't be killed by conventional means, only God can destroy it. While its not His desire, the bible says it will be a reality. A spirit is only immortal until God decides otherwise, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28)

Its all essentially the same thing, the difference is just a play on words that you seem to struggle with.. I understand that you simply find it annoying to listen to a hellfire preacher because you resent someone trying to instill fear in you. I may have phrased it a little differently, but you did write that you weren't afraid, so I inferred that you didn't agree with the terror tactics used and resented someone trying to put the fear of God into you in a threatening fashion... The only thing I misunderstood was how someone could feel threatened by something they don't even believe, but you've plainly explained that its only the attempt to make you afraid that you resent. No problem, some Christians don't like it either, so they just listen to Joel Osteen to avoid being offended, he's more of an upbeat motivational speaker who never mentions hell.

Can't say I didn't see that coming down 5th Avenue