Dan56

People have different truths, what's true to one is false to another.. Nothing wrong with pointing out to someone why their truth is wrong or unbelievable. I never have a problem with that, in fact, I can relate to it because I haven't always believed what I believe. Relating to how someone else thinks is how to maintain decorum. The difference is like telling a girl that you disagree and disapprove with her youthful indiscretions, as opposed to calling her a complete whore . One comment is a tactful interjection, while the other is just plain rude.

Allah ask his followers to exact vengeance, while the biblical God reserves vengeance for himself. Look at the lives of Mohammad and Jesus, they are completely different. I could go on, but suffice to say, there's a multitude of differences between what Christians and Muslims believe and follow. The tombs opening was fulfilled prophecy (Ezekiel 37;1-14), and Jesus foretold it; "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (John 5:25).. You want archeological evidence of people who rose from the grave and are gone? I guess its the same evidence that Christ did likewise - 'Empty tombs!' Jesus didn't say "magic" would destroy the temple, just that it would be torn down. I don't believe the Temple was destroyed after the gospels were written, otherwise they would have recorded the event as a proven prophecy. Nor do I believe the gospels were altered by scribes. Your arguing that there's no proof by presenting evidence that cannot be backed by facts. Even if the original gospels were preserved, I suspect you wouldn't believe them.

The books are different, Allah and God are different. Don't we all put our faith into something? You can put your faith in the bible, in the koran, or into what you think. Time will tell who's right. The same book is available to all, so it can be dismissed or accepted equally by all.. A persons skepticism doesn't put them at a disadvantage, they just desire more evidence than a believer. Its sufficient for me, so I choose to believe. Then name anything that doesn't gist with biblical archaeology. Jesus taught in the temple in Jerusalem and prophesied that the temple would be torn down. The temple wall (foundation) still exist, but the same temple was destroyed in 70 AD.. That's a lot more descriptive than attributing a stone age tool as proof of Fred Flintstone..

No one can prove an old book to be true.. But what archeological evidence disproves the bible? I'd like to know some of those archeological claims that prove the bible is inaccurate, because I have found none. Name one city that Jesus or Paul claimed to visit that didn't actually exist? Consider that any senior archaeologist that frowns upon ancient claims, may not have an open mind themselves? Not necessarily... Many people find it very easy to believe. Many just won't believe, perhaps that's the purpose; "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is" (Hebrews 11:6) If God purposely inspired a book that required belief to accept, then a perfect being succeeded. I have no burden of proof because the bible is a book accepted by faith, and when a person accepts it by faith, they automatically accept it as an accurate work of history. Just as your satisfied that the Gettysburg Address is accurate, I'm satisfied with the bible. As I mentioned before, Jesus called us to come by faith, not proof. There's a reason he did that.

True... Its a belief, and the only documentation is the bible. Whether a person accepts it as being historically accurate is up to them. There is some archaeological evidence which suggest that the cities, people, and events were real, we also have the record (writings) of those who witnessed what happened. But we can't even prove whether Trump molested women or the validity of the Clinton WikiLeaks emails, so the authenticity of any past event can be questioned. And the only proof of who inspired the bible is the bible itself. For me, it validates itself through prophecy, and the inability of anyone to disprove the accuracy of stories recorded thousands of years ago, certainly lends credibility to what they wrote.

So you trust contemporary writers more than ancient ones? Two or three million people left Egypt with Moses, none of which revised what he documented, And if the authors were inspired by an omniscient God, It certainly needs no revision to be accurate. You can't possibly know if Moses was fictional.. Nor can you know that the exodus never happened because you weren't there. I'm guessing you think William Shakespeare was fictional too? You guys selectively choose what history you think is valid.

How would you revise or correct the exodus from Egypt recorded by Moses? How would you correct the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel without undermining the authors? The only verification comes from those who wrote the books, and those who witnessed what they wrote about. You can no more correct the bible and reduce it to a pamphlet anymore than you could correct Lincolns Gettysburg address and reduce it to a single sentence.

Do you believe that all history books depict the literal truth? For years people believed Columbus discovered America. Much of the ancient history that we read about is taken on faith, there's nothing absolute about any of it. I disagree.. God created free thinking individuals for a purpose. Being omniscient doesn't make God guilty of what we choose to do. Just as a man marries his wife despite his knowledge that some women cheat, it doesn't make him guilty of her infidelity. That's the purpose, to separate the faithful from the unfaithful. "For thy pleasure they are and were created" (Revelation 4:11). A common working definition of God is recorded in the bible, How can mere mortals define God to anyone's satisfaction? "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Yes, I was speaking of a literal Adam and Eve, and I believe the story of sin entering the world through Adam is history.. .I personally believe the "forbidden fruit" is allegorical, but disobedience to God was literal, and that sin is where the knowledge of evil came from.

Satan was not a flawed creation, he just had the same free will that you agree humans have. So God created Satan, who independently decided to sin. This does not make God responsible, it makes the entity of which sin emanates responsible. "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." (Ezekiel 28:15). If sin is a product of choice, it didn't come from God, but is directly produced by those who freely chose it. You can't say that a person has free choice, and simultaneous assign those choices to a creator, especially when there is no sin in God.

Sin did not exist before everything,. Sin did not pre-date God.. Sin originated with Satan, who was the serpent in the garden.. So sin existed before man, but did not originate with God. There's no circular argument there, angels rebelled against God before Genesis 1&2 ever took place. The verse in Ezekiel 28 was referring to Satan, not man; "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God.. Thou art the anointed cherub (angel) that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.. thou hast sinned:Therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub" (verses 13-19). He wasn't created with sin, he independently and freely chose to sin. So my point is that whether its man or angel, neither was created with sin. God did not create sin, there is no sin in God, sin is contrary to God.. Sin originates within the entity from which it emanates, God did not put it there. God is not responsible for sin because we sin, anymore than a contractor who built a house is responsible for the pyromaniac who burnt it down.

The fact that God had a plan to address unrighteousness does not make God responsible for unrighteousness. Yes, the author knew the story (the beginning from the end), but the circumstances that facilitated what came to be originated with rebellion against God. God created him, but he did not create him sinful. "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee" (Ezekiel 28:15)

The origin of sin took place before Adam and Eve were created. The beginning of sin took place prior to the creation of the heaven and earth (Genesis 1). Remember that before Adam sinned, there was already a sinful creature who was in the Garden of Eden and who was in a fallen and wicked condition (Revelation 12:9). There is no sin in God,. Jesus was the living manifestation of God in the flesh and he knew no sin.. I don't claim that God did not give us the option of sinning, but that the choice to sin is ours. We are therefore responsible for our own choices. God tells us not to sin, so when we disobey him, who's responsible?

Christ (God) was not punished, but voluntarily gave himself. This was an act of love, no different than a parent paying a debt for their child.. Just as a parent is willing to endure some hardship for their child, God was willing to sacrifice for His children.. Nothing evil about that.

I don't personally believe in the OSAS doctrine.. Not because God isn't faithful, but because I've seen one-time believers have a change of heart.. As long as a person can change their mind and lose their faith, salvation isn't guaranteed.. Paul said; "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith" (2 Timothy 4:7). That's a prerequisite

God did know sin would come, it already existed prior to creating man, but man's choice brought sin into the world that is. The fact that God knew that sin would result from creating man, does not make God compliant.. Imo, if we truly have free will, then our decisions are 100% our own, and God cannot be culpable. If God had programmed us like robots, then he'd be responsible for our actions, because God would have had direct influence over our decisions. Since sin pre-existed mankind, God created the world knowing full well that sin would occur and that sin would equate to the death of every soul.. In my view, God's purpose was not to enable sin, but to answer sin. What we're living and experiencing now is the result of sin, foreknown by God. The intent was not to create a world of sin, but to create an opportunity to repent from sin; "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). So if the consequences of sin is death and God knew all would sin, what was the real purpose of creating the world? To separate the wheat from the chaff.

The knowledge of evil is not an education, its a rotten experience. What's moral about affliction, suffering, and dying? If God's objective was to create free thinking individuals who were capable of independently making choices, then God has not failed to create perfectly. The fact that we freely chose to be disobedient to God is no reflection on his perfection. Just as parents allow their children to screw-up in order to learn, God does likewise.

The chain of reason is clear enough: God Created all things There was no evil Then God created man An all good God did not create evil Man chose sin, which produced evil God good... Man bad.

Correct, sin was not created, its a bi-product of man. I don't see it as a mere semantic difference, but a profound one. Since there is no sin in God, since sin is contrary to God, since sin is disobedience to God, since God opposes & discourages sin, and since God has separated himself from sin, I hardly think God can be blamed or held responsible for sin. If a contractor built a house and someone set it on fire killing everyone inside, is the contractor to blame for the occupants deaths? I kinda don't believe that... The first church in Antioch was not Roman Catholic, the RCC was established a couple hundred years later, and it spread 'religion'. The Crusades originated by the RCC to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims who forcibly stole it. And imo, the Inquisitions were about establishing and maintaining dominance by persecuting Christians, suppressing the Gospel, and silencing Protestant Reformation. Christianity was alive and well pre-RCC, it was established throughout the Byzantine Empire and expanded the Hellenistic world beyond the Roman Empire.

Yes, sin is the result of possibility, the possibility of free thinking individuals to independently choose to defy God, or be obedient. Without possibilities, choice is moot, free will can't exist. If you can only go one way, you can't choose another direction. Sin was not created, but the result of choosing to go the wrong direction. I do agree that we can't distinguish good without the knowledge of evil. "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law" (Romans 7:7) True Its not really evidence of a deity, just different explanations of who's accountable for sin. You say God is, and I think we are.. If its any consolation, I believe sin will be wiped-out one day... Problem solved. .

I agree that God allowed sin by allowing choice, but not that God created sin. Your analogy would be correct if a gun could think for itself, but its an inanimate object. That's why we never arrest the manufacturer of a gun, but blame the free thinking individual who decided to misuse the gun.. God does likewise. If I created a being capable of making its own independent decisions, then I'd be absolved of the decisions that being made? Just as good parents aren't held liable for creating a kid who grew-up to be evil. The bottom line is that when we freely choose to be bad, we can't blame the cause of our existence as an excuse.

Why isn't the world righteous? Free will. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31). What transpired afterwards is that sin entered the world, and God told Adam; " Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake" (Genesis 3:17) So using my own logic, the world that was originally created good, was corrupted by man's choice to be disobedient to God. Since God did not create sin, the fallen state of the world is a direct result of those who freely chose unrighteousness. We wanted the knowledge of evil, so God complied and allowed us the satisfaction of choosing our own way.

Let me try to simplify it for you.. We are all born of sin, your parents were sinful. We were all born in sin, the world is sinful because its full of sinners. But we weren't born with sin, a baby is innocent because it has not sinned. I wrote; "A righteous God cannot create something contrary to himself".. How you misconstrued that to me having demonstrated that God is not righteous is beyond me? In plain English, God is righteous.

Yes, Satan's fall preceded mans.The 'sin nature' is what makes man rebellious against God. Sin nature refers to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin; given the choice to do God s will or our own, we will naturally choose to do our own thing. God is only culpable to the extent that He gave us a choice, but imo, He's not culpable for our choices. While we may have a natural inclination to take our own way, there's no arm twisting on God's part, quite the opposite. If someone holds the truth in disregard, if someone clings to their own ideology and rejects the truth, if someone hypocritically spurns what's been revealed and shown to them, then yes, I believe the revelation of what's true is wasted on them. I believe its why God turns them over to their own ways and allows them to believe a lie; "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs" (Matthew 7:6)

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 makes sense when taken in context of what Paul is saying; "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness". God doesn't send a lie, the lie is already with them, God just sends delusion which blinds them to the truth. When the truth is withheld, all that's left is delusion and confusion. " Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them...When they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened...Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts...Who changed the truth of God into a lie" (Romans 1:19-25) "God is not a man, that he should lie" (Numbers 23:19) "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" (Titus 1:2) "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews 6:18)