Creepier Belief system (1 Viewer)

[CrossEyed]

No where in the bible does it say that it is the word of god. This is a position taken by religious scholars and believers.PARTS of the bible are historical, parts are rhetorical, parts are hyperbole, and parts are heresy. The historical value of the bible lies in the parts that refer to actual people and places.

Sorry tangfoot, but I have to correct your statement again.1Timothy 3:16 in a variety of translations:16 Everything in the Scriptures is God’s Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live. CEV16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ESV16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,ISV16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:KJV16 Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another—showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God’s way. The Message16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; NASB9516 All Scripture is given by God and is useful for teaching, for showing people what is wrong in their lives, for correcting faults, and for teaching how to live right. NCV16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, NIV16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, NKJV16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. NLT16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,NRSVSure sounds like it claims to be God's word to me.

 

[Gold Dragon]

While ontological arguments and proofs may be faulty, there is still strong evidence that can be interpreted to support a belief in a supernatural being that was and is intimately invovled in the creation of all in existence.Some may call it unfortunate or convenient that it can't be explained by proofs and scientific theories. I consider it a wonderful thing that the God I worship cannot be boxed into a man-made formula, whether that man is a theist or not.

 

[tangfoot]

No where in the bible does it say that it is the word of god.  This is a position taken by religious scholars and believers.PARTS of the bible are historical, parts are rhetorical, parts are hyperbole, and parts are heresy.  The historical value of the bible lies in the parts that refer to actual people and places.

Sorry tangfoot, but I have to correct your statement again.1Timothy 3:16 in a variety of translations:Sure sounds like it claims to be God's word to me.

I guess we have to disagree on the definition of "scripture", then.As in, what is canon, and what is apocryphal? And who makes that determination?Is all Scripture stamped with the seal of the lort?

 

[tangfoot]

there is still strong evidence that can be interpreted to support a belief in a supernatural being that was and is intimately invovled in the creation of all in existence.

I'm calling LINKY here!

 

[shining path]

As in, what is canon, and what is apocryphal?

When questions like this start getting asked, my eyes glaze over.

 

[Jericho]

As in, what is canon, and what is apocryphal?

When questions like this start getting asked, my eyes glaze over.

Go back and look at the bearded dragon in the santa hat again. That thing's like Red Bull and PCP all mixed together. You can take on anything after seeing that cute little critter.

 

[CrossEyed]

No where in the bible does it say that it is the word of god.  This is a position taken by religious scholars and believers.PARTS of the bible are historical, parts are rhetorical, parts are hyperbole, and parts are heresy.  The historical value of the bible lies in the parts that refer to actual people and places.

Sorry tangfoot, but I have to correct your statement again.1Timothy 3:16 in a variety of translations:Sure sounds like it claims to be God's word to me.

I guess we have to disagree on the definition of "scripture", then.As in, what is canon, and what is apocryphal? And who makes that determination?Is all Scripture stamped with the seal of the lort?

Why is it that when I show your statements to be incorrect you try to twist your way out of your original statement?

 

[Rocco]

God does not require proof. God, or any deity, requires faith. so lets move on from that.However, when people complain about Creationist theory not being taught in school as an alternative to Evolution, there is a problem:Evolution is taught in science class, and is subject to the rigors of the scientific theory. Since Creationism relies upon the existence of a supreme being capacble of acting as a force on the universe, without being constrained by the very laws of that universe, you have an unproveable theorem. Foucault's last theorem remained non-science for several hundred years because it could not be proven. Beta as a measure of correlating one stock to the movement of the Market remained unprovable as data continues to be gathered.Being equally 'unproveable' does not allow Creationism to be brought into the same conversation with evolution. It must be subject to the same rigors as evolution, which is, an evolving scientific principle.

 

[cocoagirl]

Good debate going on here.

From one poster:

According to Quantum Physics, energy comes in "packs". And this "packs" have a certain amount of energy. Energy has many frequencies. Matter is just one of the frequencies. We can't detect anything beyond 299,792,458 m/s. God is not made by matter, so, we can't detect Him. And He is an Spirit, so we are. And Life is a type of energy too that cannot be detected because is beyond the limit established by light.

How do I know that there is something beyond the limit? Where do you think that those particles from the Vacuum come from? Think about it...

Is the bolded part true?

 

[tangfoot]

Why is it that when I show your statements to be incorrect you try to twist your way out of your original statement?

I'm actually John Kerry.

 

[Jericho]

Is the bolded part true?

Some yes, some unknown.Energy does exist in discrete packets ('quanta'), and the speed given is the speed of light. Energy does have many frequencies. The energy/matter relationship he's talking about here is part of string theory which not only is not accepted yet, but also isn't even a theory (meaning it's currently untestable).Edit again: Or that may be part of quark theory. I don't remember. I'm no expert.

 

[CrossEyed]

Why is it that when I show your statements to be incorrect you try to twist your way out of your original statement?

I'm actually John Kerry.

That would explain it.

 

[Rocco]

Why is it that when I show your statements to be incorrect you try to twist your way out of your original statement?

I'm actually John Kerry.

Well, I'll be voitng for you Sen. Kerry.

 

[tangfoot]

Why is it that when I show your statements to be incorrect you try to twist your way out of your original statement?

I am not a biblical scholar, nor have I read it extensively.I have read a lot of it, but I do not try to memorize it. You called me out, and were right. But just because this passage claims that all scripture is written by God, which is fine, it doesn't go very far in telling me what "scripture" is.

 

[Statorama]

Regardless of whether or not you believe...If you would capitalize Jamal Lewis or Tony Gonzalez, at least have the common courtesy to capitalize the first letter in God.Even Santa Claus gets the caps benefit.

 

[cocoagirl]

Is the bolded part true?

Some yes, some unknown.Energy does exist in discrete packets ('quanta'), and the speed given is the speed of light. Energy does have many frequencies. The energy/matter relationship he's talking about here is part of string theory which not only is not accepted yet, but also isn't even a theory (meaning it's currently untestable).

That's very interesting. I'll have to read up on this.

 

[tangfoot]

common courtesy to capitalize the first letter in God.

You are talking in specifics, I am referring to any supernatural being.

 

[Jericho]

Regardless of whether or not you believe...If you would capitalize Jamal Lewis or Tony Gonzalez, at least have the common courtesy to capitalize the first letter in God.Even Santa Claus gets the caps benefit.

When I talk about god(s), I am not referring to any one specific god. I'm referring to any conceivable godlike supernatural omnipotent entity. Therefore I use the common noun and not the proper noun.

 

[shining path]

Good debate going on here.

From one poster:

According to Quantum Physics, energy comes in "packs". And this "packs" have a certain amount of energy. Energy has many frequencies. Matter is just one of the frequencies. We can't detect anything beyond 299,792,458 m/s. God is not made by matter, so, we can't detect Him. And He is an Spirit, so we are. And Life is a type of energy too that cannot be detected because is beyond the limit established by light.

How do I know that there is something beyond the limit? Where do you think that those particles from the Vacuum come from? Think about it...

Is the bolded part true?

The first sentence is true. The second sentence is literally true but doesn't say anything that wasn't said in the first sentence. The third and fourth sentence look pretty suspicious - I'm not sure a physicist would call matter a "frequency" of energy. The fifth sentence is again literally true but a non sequitor. He seems to be taking the speed of light as a frequency, which it isn't. It's a speed. Light of all frequencies travels at the same speed. Plus his grammar sucks.That looks like an attempt by someone who doesn't understand what he's talking about to use what he doesn't understand to prove what he wants to believe in the first place.

Oh, and this sentence is great:

And Life is a type of energy too that cannot be detected because is beyond the limit established by light.

Edit - btw this isn't just picking on Creationists. This is a common feature of nearly all New Age and "Post Modern" forays into the realms of the physical sciences. Just string enough fancy words together to let the Moon Children know that science digs their vibe, and you got yourself an audience.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Regardless of whether or not you believe...If you would capitalize Jamal Lewis or Tony Gonzalez, at least have the common courtesy to capitalize the first letter in God.Even Santa Claus gets the caps benefit.

When I talk about god(s), I am not referring to any one specific god. I'm referring to any conceivable godlike supernatural omnipotent entity. Therefore I use the common noun and not the proper noun.

Many of our most respected posters here at FBGs are not capitalized either.

 

[Gold Dragon]

there is still strong evidence that can be interpreted to support a belief in a supernatural being that was and is intimately invovled in the creation of all in existence.

I'm calling LINKY here!

Firstly1) Evidence need not be scientific. Science is not the sole possesor of all that is true. Only that which is observable and testable. 2) Evidence is not proof but can provide basis for faith.Evidence I was considering:A. The Bible. Obviously it is not scientific evidence, but literary and sometimes historical evidence, with the understanding that Genesis may or may not be historical. While the Bible can be interpreted in a way that doesn't support Theism and creationism, it obviously can also be interpreted in a way that does.B. Jesus. The historical person of Jesus is difficult to deny with the ancient extrabiblical non-Christian writings that historians have. His claims of divinity and other teachings may be questioned but their uniqueness and impact on human beings is surely evidence to be considered.C. Christians. We have the witness of the personal life change and resulting societal impact of people who have become Christians and impacted the world as a result of their belief. Obviously many Christians have produced a negative impact on the world and that evidence must be considered too.I was trying to make a statement more about how we look at evidence and value some types of evidence over another because of the scientific worldview that we currently hold. I don't claim that science is capable of proving the existence of God or that he created the universe.

 

[tangfoot]

That looks like an attempt by someone who doesn't understand what he's talking about to use what he doesn't understand to prove what he wants to believe in the first place.

Story of my life, pal.

 

[shining path]

Regardless of whether or not you believe...If you would capitalize Jamal Lewis or Tony Gonzalez, at least have the common courtesy to capitalize the first letter in God.Even Santa Claus gets the caps benefit.

When I talk about god(s), I am not referring to any one specific god. I'm referring to any conceivable godlike supernatural omnipotent entity. Therefore I use the common noun and not the proper noun.

Many of our most respected posters here at FBGs are not capitalized either.

This is true.

 

[urbanhack]

Regardless of whether or not you believe...If you would capitalize Jamal Lewis or Tony Gonzalez, at least have the common courtesy to capitalize the first letter in God.Even Santa Claus gets the caps benefit.

When I talk about god(s), I am not referring to any one specific god. I'm referring to any conceivable godlike supernatural omnipotent entity. Therefore I use the common noun and not the proper noun.

Many of our most respected posters here at FBGs are not capitalized either.

This is true.

 

[Jericho]

I'm not sure a physicist would call matter a "frequency" of energy.

No, but that's a dumbed down version of string theory, where frequencies of vibrating strings could make one group a quantum of x-ray light (energy), or another a proton (matter). So it's not that matter is a frequency of energy, but that energy and matter are both specific frequencies of strings.

 

[tangfoot]

A. The Bible. B. Jesus. C. Christians. I don't claim that science is capable of proving the existence of God or that he created the universe.

You are extrapolating quite a bit here to go from the belief of a minority of the world's population to evidence for a supernatural creator of the whole of existence.I don't make that claim about science either, but I do claim the exact opposite of it.Science is capable of disproving the existence of any god, and that no supernatural being is responsible for the creation of the universe. Perhaps not soon, but it will happen. The question is whether the devout will believe it...

 

[shining path]

I'm not sure a physicist would call matter a "frequency" of energy.

No, but that's a dumbed down version of string theory, where frequencies of vibrating strings could make one group a quantum of x-ray light (energy), or another a proton (matter). So it's not that matter is a frequency of energy, but that energy and matter are both specific frequencies of strings.

When you say it it makes sense, but do you really think the guy that wrote that passage has any insight into string theory?Anther edit - actually it doesn't make sense, but what the hell do I know about theoretical physics. I get lost midway through the first chapter of A Brief History of Time.

 

[cocoagirl]

A. The Bible.  B. Jesus.  C. Christians. I don't claim that science is capable of proving the existence of God or that he created the universe.

You are extrapolating quite a bit here to go from the belief of a minority of the world's population to evidence for a supernatural creator of the whole of existence.I don't make that claim about science either, but I do claim the exact opposite of it.Science is capable of disproving the existence of any god, and that no supernatural being is responsible for the creation of the universe. Perhaps not soon, but it will happen. The question is whether the devout will believe it...

You see, I believe the exact opposite. I believe science will prove the existence of God. Or at least prove we have a soul. But will science allow this information to come forward?

 

[ScottNorwood]

A. The Bible. B. Jesus. C. Christians. I don't claim that science is capable of proving the existence of God or that he created the universe.

You are extrapolating quite a bit here to go from the belief of a minority of the world's population to evidence for a supernatural creator of the whole of existence.I don't make that claim about science either, but I do claim the exact opposite of it.Science is capable of disproving the existence of any god, and that no supernatural being is responsible for the creation of the universe. Perhaps not soon, but it will happen. The question is whether the devout will believe it...

You see, I believe the exact opposite. I believe science will prove the existence of God. Or at least prove we have a soul. But will science allow this information to come forward?

Yes.

 

[Gold Dragon]

You are extrapolating quite a bit here to go from the belief of a minority of the world's population to evidence for a supernatural creator of the whole of existence.I don't make that claim about science either, but I do claim the exact opposite of it.Science is capable of disproving the existence of any god, and that no supernatural being is responsible for the creation of the universe. Perhaps not soon, but it will happen. The question is whether the devout will believe it...

Science has succeeded in casting reasonable doubt about supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon, but I don't believe that science will ever be able to disprove the existence of God. The supernatural is beyond the scope of science.Proving the lack of supernatural influence on Creation is equally impossible for science. Time travel may help to solidify what actually happened from a naturalistic point of view, but even with that, science would never be able to prove that there wasn't a supernatural power behind it.What kind of scientific experiments would be able to test these hypotheses?

 

[CrossEyed]

Why is it that when I show your statements to be incorrect you try to twist your way out of your original statement?

I am not a biblical scholar, nor have I read it extensively.I have read a lot of it, but I do not try to memorize it. You called me out, and were right. But just because this passage claims that all scripture is written by God, which is fine, it doesn't go very far in telling me what "scripture" is.

Well I don't necessarily consider myself a scholar either, but here is what I know. At the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, the Old Testament had been already accepted as Scripture. So it's pretty clear that from Genesis to Malachi we're safe. In Paul's writings, he was already referring to other New Testament books as Scripture. I don't have all of the references and don't have time to look them up right now. If I can get to that I'll try to post it.Admittedly, it does take some faith to believe that the Bible as we have it is the complete and final compilation of God's word. But many great Christians over many years used criteria to determine whether or not the NT books should be a part of Scripture. It wasn't decided over night. Some of the criteria used to determine inspired Scripture include Prophetic/Apostolic origin or sanction, a book’s contents, its moral effect, its spiritual impact, acceptance and use by believers, tradition and, clearly, the witness of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, to have such books recognized so quickly, the witness of the Holy Spirit to the divine content of the message had to be evident from the beginning. Again, requiring a measure of faith.

 

[Windmuffin]

You see, I believe the exact opposite. I believe science will prove the existence of God. Or at least prove we have a soul. But will science allow this information to come forward?

The Stephen Hawking Code, by Dan Brown?

 

[shining path]

A. The Bible. 

B. Jesus. 

C. Christians.

I don't claim that science is capable of proving the existence of God or that he created the universe.

You are extrapolating quite a bit here to go from the belief of a minority of the world's population to evidence for a supernatural creator of the whole of existence.I don't make that claim about science either, but I do claim the exact opposite of it.

Science is capable of disproving the existence of any god, and that no supernatural being is responsible for the creation of the universe. Perhaps not soon, but it will happen. The question is whether the devout will believe it...

You see, I believe the exact opposite. I believe science will prove the existence of God. Or at least prove we have a soul. But will science allow this information to come forward?

Yes.

You foolish, foolish person. Science already has a secret journal, Journal of Results That Would Tend To Prove The Existence of God and the Human Soul, but it's kept under tight wraps. Sort of our own little Area 51, really.

 

[tangfoot]

Or at least prove we have a soul.

These may or may not be mutually exclusive.I definitely believe in spirituality, but not in a divine creator.

 

[Rocco]

Why is it that when I show your statements to be incorrect you try to twist your way out of your original statement?

I am not a biblical scholar, nor have I read it extensively.I have read a lot of it, but I do not try to memorize it. You called me out, and were right. But just because this passage claims that all scripture is written by God, which is fine, it doesn't go very far in telling me what "scripture" is.

Well I don't necessarily consider myself a scholar either, but here is what I know. At the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, the Old Testament had been already accepted as Scripture. So it's pretty clear that from Genesis to Malachi we're safe. In Paul's writings, he was already referring to other New Testament books as Scripture. I don't have all of the references and don't have time to look them up right now. If I can get to that I'll try to post it.Admittedly, it does take some faith to believe that the Bible as we have it is the complete and final compilation of God's word. But many great Christians over many years used criteria to determine whether or not the NT books should be a part of Scripture. It wasn't decided over night. Some of the criteria used to determine inspired Scripture include Prophetic/Apostolic origin or sanction, a book’s contents, its moral effect, its spiritual impact, acceptance and use by believers, tradition and, clearly, the witness of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, to have such books recognized so quickly, the witness of the Holy Spirit to the divine content of the message had to be evident from the beginning. Again, requiring a measure of faith.

In other words, it was edited by like minded thinkers.

 

[Gold Dragon]

In other words, it was edited by like minded thinkers.

Canonization is not an editorial process but one which determines if existing writing is considered sacred or not. In fact, that process would discourage editing for fear of altering sacred scripture.

 

[tangfoot]

At the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, the Old Testament had been already accepted as Scripture.

So in essence, this is really just Paul's opinion on how God feels about Scripture?Hmmm...I'm going to have to revoke my earlier retraction and say that this isn't really a reasonable basis for the Bible validating itself.

 

[CrossEyed]

Why is it that when I show your statements to be incorrect you try to twist your way out of your original statement?

I am not a biblical scholar, nor have I read it extensively.I have read a lot of it, but I do not try to memorize it. You called me out, and were right. But just because this passage claims that all scripture is written by God, which is fine, it doesn't go very far in telling me what "scripture" is.

Well I don't necessarily consider myself a scholar either, but here is what I know. At the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, the Old Testament had been already accepted as Scripture. So it's pretty clear that from Genesis to Malachi we're safe. In Paul's writings, he was already referring to other New Testament books as Scripture. I don't have all of the references and don't have time to look them up right now. If I can get to that I'll try to post it.Admittedly, it does take some faith to believe that the Bible as we have it is the complete and final compilation of God's word. But many great Christians over many years used criteria to determine whether or not the NT books should be a part of Scripture. It wasn't decided over night. Some of the criteria used to determine inspired Scripture include Prophetic/Apostolic origin or sanction, a book’s contents, its moral effect, its spiritual impact, acceptance and use by believers, tradition and, clearly, the witness of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, to have such books recognized so quickly, the witness of the Holy Spirit to the divine content of the message had to be evident from the beginning. Again, requiring a measure of faith.

In other words, it was edited by like minded thinkers.

To an extent, yes. But it's not as conspiratorial as you make it sound. There was agreement very early in the process as to which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Very little was changed along the way as far as acceptance or exclusion of these books.

 

[Jericho]

When you say it it makes sense, but do you really think the guy that wrote that passage has any insight into string theory?

Anther edit - actually it doesn't make sense, but what the hell do I know about theoretical physics. I get lost midway through the first chapter of A Brief History of Time.

I think that person probably watched the same PBS or Discovery channel programs as me and is trying his best to remember these things from memory. I don't think they have any special insight, but I don't believe they're just talking out of their ### either.

 

[tangfoot]

Canonization is not an editorial process but one which determines if existing writing is considered sacred or not.

Yet, different sects have different canons. So at some point, there is editorializing going on, even if it is in the determination of what is "holy" and what is "apocryphal".Esther is a good example. I think it's Esther...

 

[Rocco]

In other words, it was edited by like minded thinkers.

Canonization is not an editorial process but one which determines if existing writing is considered sacred or not. In fact, that process would discourage editing for fear of altering sacred scripture.

not editing for content, editing for inclusion. The Gnostic gospels would fall into this issue, believe them or not.

 

[CrossEyed]

At the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, the Old Testament had been already accepted as Scripture.

So in essence, this is really just Paul's opinion on how God feels about Scripture?Hmmm...I'm going to have to revoke my earlier retraction and say that this isn't really a reasonable basis for the Bible validating itself.

All Scripture had human authors, including the Old Testament. God didn't write stuff down and drop it from heaven. He inspired human writers and used them to communicate His word. It's not an issue of Paul's opinion. Again, there is a measure of faith involved.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Canonization is not an editorial process but one which determines if existing writing is considered sacred or not.

Yet, different sects have different canons. So at some point, there is editorializing going on, even if it is in the determination of what is "holy" and what is "apocryphal".Esther is a good example. I think it's Esther...

Yes it is editorial in that some writings are excluded because they do not meet the criteria for "sacredness". However no it is not editorial in that the contents of the writings are not altered.

 

[Gold Dragon]

In other words, it was edited by like minded thinkers.

Canonization is not an editorial process but one which determines if existing writing is considered sacred or not. In fact, that process would discourage editing for fear of altering sacred scripture.

not editing for content, editing for inclusion. The Gnostic gospels would fall into this issue, believe them or not.

Agreed. The Gnostic writings were excluded because they failed to meet almost every criteria for canonization. I guess it could be argued that canonization itself was a reaction to gnosticism and by definition could not include gnostic writings.

 

[Rocco]

Why is it that when I show your statements to be incorrect you try to twist your way out of your original statement?

I am not a biblical scholar, nor have I read it extensively.I have read a lot of it, but I do not try to memorize it. You called me out, and were right. But just because this passage claims that all scripture is written by God, which is fine, it doesn't go very far in telling me what "scripture" is.

Well I don't necessarily consider myself a scholar either, but here is what I know. At the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, the Old Testament had been already accepted as Scripture. So it's pretty clear that from Genesis to Malachi we're safe. In Paul's writings, he was already referring to other New Testament books as Scripture. I don't have all of the references and don't have time to look them up right now. If I can get to that I'll try to post it.Admittedly, it does take some faith to believe that the Bible as we have it is the complete and final compilation of God's word. But many great Christians over many years used criteria to determine whether or not the NT books should be a part of Scripture. It wasn't decided over night. Some of the criteria used to determine inspired Scripture include Prophetic/Apostolic origin or sanction, a book’s contents, its moral effect, its spiritual impact, acceptance and use by believers, tradition and, clearly, the witness of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, to have such books recognized so quickly, the witness of the Holy Spirit to the divine content of the message had to be evident from the beginning. Again, requiring a measure of faith.

In other words, it was edited by like minded thinkers.

To an extent, yes. But it's not as conspiratorial as you make it sound. There was agreement very early in the process as to which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Very little was changed along the way as far as acceptance or exclusion of these books.

hehe, we read into what we want. Not intending to sound conspirational, though that is certainly the New Age spin. Merely suggesting that the Hand of Man often moves between the Word of God and the Book of God.

 

[Statorama]

Regardless of whether or not you believe...If you would capitalize Jamal Lewis or Tony Gonzalez, at least have the common courtesy to capitalize the first letter in God.Even Santa Claus gets the caps benefit.

When I talk about god(s), I am not referring to any one specific god. I'm referring to any conceivable godlike supernatural omnipotent entity. Therefore I use the common noun and not the proper noun.

Many of our most respected posters here at FBGs are not capitalized either.

That's GOLD fatguy! GOLD!

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

At the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, the Old Testament had been already accepted as Scripture.

So in essence, this is really just Paul's opinion on how God feels about Scripture?Hmmm...I'm going to have to revoke my earlier retraction and say that this isn't really a reasonable basis for the Bible validating itself.

All Scripture had human authors, including the Old Testament. God didn't write stuff down and drop it from heaven. He inspired human writers and used them to communicate His word. It's not an issue of Paul's opinion. Again, there is a measure of faith involved.

How does this sort of thing fall in line with "free will" that we are supposed to have. We are supposed to be imperfect and intentionally created that way by God yet we are supposed to believe that we got the right things written down in the Bible? You will tell me that there was divine intervention yet I thought that he didn't do that? If man is flawed and the Bible is written by man, who is to say that it isn't flawed? If you get to make up explanations for everything it is pretty damn easy to explain damn near anything.

 

[shining path]

When you say it it makes sense, but do you really think the guy that wrote that passage has any insight into string theory?

Anther edit - actually it doesn't make sense, but what the hell do I know about theoretical physics. I get lost midway through the first chapter of A Brief History of Time.

I think that person probably watched the same PBS or Discovery channel programs as me and is trying his best to remember these things from memory. I don't think they have any special insight, but I don't believe they're just talking out of their ### either.

lol No offense, but using poorly remembered and poorly understood quantum physics learned from PBS specials to prove the existence of God pretty much qualifies as "talking out of your ###".

 

[CrossEyed]

At the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, the Old Testament had been already accepted as Scripture.

So in essence, this is really just Paul's opinion on how God feels about Scripture?Hmmm...I'm going to have to revoke my earlier retraction and say that this isn't really a reasonable basis for the Bible validating itself.

All Scripture had human authors, including the Old Testament. God didn't write stuff down and drop it from heaven. He inspired human writers and used them to communicate His word. It's not an issue of Paul's opinion. Again, there is a measure of faith involved.

How does this sort of thing fall in line with "free will" that we are supposed to have. We are supposed to be imperfect and intentionally created that way by God yet we are supposed to believe that we got the right things written down in the Bible? You will tell me that there was divine intervention yet I thought that he didn't do that? If man is flawed and the Bible is written by man, who is to say that it isn't flawed? If you get to make up explanations for everything it is pretty damn easy to explain damn near anything.

Yes, man does have free-will and is fallible. But at the same time God is sovereign and in control of everything. Can I explain how that works? Nope. Do I believe it to be true? Yep.

 

[Jericho]

When you say it it makes sense, but do you really think the guy that wrote that passage has any insight into string theory?

Anther edit - actually it doesn't make sense, but what the hell do I know about theoretical physics.  I get lost midway through the first chapter of A Brief History of Time.

I think that person probably watched the same PBS or Discovery channel programs as me and is trying his best to remember these things from memory. I don't think they have any special insight, but I don't believe they're just talking out of their ### either.

lol No offense, but using poorly remembered and poorly understood quantum physics learned from PBS specials to prove the existence of God pretty much qualifies as "talking out of your ###".

I didn't read his post as an immutable attempt to prove the existence of god, I read it as a sincere attempt to squeeze a view of god into the knowledge we have on the world as it is now. Thinking aloud. I can respect the attempt even if I disagree with the conclusion.