Author Topic: What are you reading? (A quick poll.) (Read 107296 times)

Colin Michael · « **Reply #150 on:** January 31, 2009, 04:29:03 PM »

Quote from: fireninja on January 31, 2009, 04:15:45 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on January 31, 2009, 03:42:51 PM
You can't just "decide" to believe something. If you ask "why" and the "why" cannot be answered, then you cannot make an absolute until the "why" is answered. If I psycologically tricked myself into believing the Bible to be infallible just to save my faith, I would be coating myself in deceiption. Cannot the hypothetical "truth"/ "word of God" stand up to the "why"?
The Bible can stand up to the "why." Prove to me one instance in the Bible that you can PROVE is false. Go ahead. If you can do that, with undisputable evidence, then I will throw my Bible to the ground and renounce Christ. But you can't, because everything is true in the Bible.

Colin, the fact is that you are taking the easy way to be a Christian. In your faith, you don't have to do anything, either God saves you or you don't. You don't need faith, you don't need anything, and you might as well not be a Christian because you don't need faith, and all your focus is on the real world, because the Bible doesn't matter to you.

Do you consider yourself a Christian with this view?

I will prove the Bible wrong right now.

There is no evidence saying that the Bible is the "word of God"; therefore, there is no reason to make such a claim.

lightningninja · « **Reply #151 on:** January 31, 2009, 04:30:30 PM »

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.... and the word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

The Word IS God. He is God, and was with God. So that claim is not valid, and my challenge still stands.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #152 on:** January 31, 2009, 04:33:46 PM »

Quote from: fireninja on January 31, 2009, 04:30:30 PM

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.... and the word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

The Word IS God. He is God, and was with God. So that claim is not valid, and my challenge still stands.

You can't prove the Bible with the Bible first of all. That's an invalid argument.

Second of all, that passage was written 400 years before the Bible even existed.

Third of all, the "word" (from the Greek logos) could mean countless things, the least likely of these things being the Bible itself.

michael/michaelssword · « **Reply #153 on:** January 31, 2009, 04:37:59 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on January 31, 2009, 04:33:46 PM

Quote from: fireninja on January 31, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.... and the word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

The Word IS God. He is God, and was with God. So that claim is not valid, and my challenge still stands.
You can't prove the Bible with the Bible first of all. That's an invalid argument.

Second of all, that passage was written 400 years before the Bible even existed.

Third of all, the "word" (from the Greek logos) could mean countless things, the least likely of these things being the Bible itself.

Heh you both shouldwait until you get a school debating assignment and just print off a good 4 pages of this thread

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #154 on:** January 31, 2009, 04:47:45 PM »

Quote from: fireninja on January 31, 2009, 04:30:30 PM

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.... and the word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

The Word IS God. He is God, and was with God. So that claim is not valid, and my challenge still stands.

FireNinja, I must be missing something. Is it your interpretation that the "Word" in John 1:1 is referring to Scripture?

lightningninja · « **Reply #155 on:** January 31, 2009, 05:24:45 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on January 31, 2009, 04:33:46 PM

You can't prove the Bible with the Bible first of all. That's an invalid argument.

granted. I accept this point, that was invalied. However, by this standard, how can we prove anything? If we can only prove things through experimentation and logic, then there is no God, there is no heaven, there is only us. And if that is true, how did we get here? There must be a God.

This is how I know the Bible is true. There has to be some kind of supernatural force that created us all. And if you believe in the big band theory, well good luck proving that. And out of all the beliefs that exist, the Bible can be proven the most. The Bible has had just about the same meaning and translations for thousands of years(dead sea scrolls). The Bible has historical facts that historians couldn't even prove for later years. But guess what book had already recounted them? The Bible. We have found evidence supporting the Bible, for instance the seven-headed lamp, Moses' tomb, as already stated historical facts, etc. There really is no reason not to believe the Bible. Since so many things in it are true... why shouldn't we beleive it? As I've stated before, there are more faults with any other religion/belief, and there must be something that created us, therefore pointing to the Bible.

Quote

Second of all, that passage was written 400 years before the Bible even existed.

Do you have proof of this? I'm pretty sure that this was part of the Bible, something that John wrote in his gospel.

Quote

Third of all, the "word" (from the Greek logos) could mean countless things, the least likely of these things being the Bible itself.

Why is that the least likely? Then what do you take it to mean?

@EmJayBee, yes, that is how I interpret it to mean. Do you interpret that otherwise?

Colin Michael · « **Reply #156 on:** January 31, 2009, 05:29:44 PM »

Quote

Do you have proof of this? I'm pretty sure that this was part of the Bible, something that John wrote in his gospel.

It's commonly known historical fact that the Bible was not bound together until 400ADish.

Quote

Why is that the least likely? Then what do you take it to mean?

@EmJayBee, yes, that is how I interpret it to mean. Do you interpret that otherwise?
Posted on: Today at 04:47:45 PM
Posted by: EmJayBee83

Naturally, if the Bible did not exist when John wrote it, that verse couldn't mean the Bible. Also, John wasn't arrogant enough to call his own book the "word of God."

Quote

granted. I accept this point, that was invalied. However, by this standard, how can we prove anything? If we can only prove things through experimentation and logic, then there is no God, there is no heaven, there is only us. And if that is true, how did we get here? There must be a God.

This is how I know the Bible is true. There has to be some kind of supernatural force that created us all. And if you believe in the big band theory, well good luck proving that. And out of all the beliefs that exist, the Bible can be proven the most. The Bible has had just about the same meaning and translations for thousands of years(dead sea scrolls). The Bible has historical facts that historians couldn't even prove for later years. But guess what book had already recounted them? The Bible. We have found evidence supporting the Bible, for instance the seven-headed lamp, Moses' tomb, as already stated historical facts, etc. There really is no reason not to believe the Bible. Since so many things in it are true... why shouldn't we beleive it? As I've stated before, there are more faults with any other religion/belief, and there must be something that created us, therefore pointing to the Bible.

Historical validity is not what is being called into question. What is being called into question is whether it is the "word of God" or the "word of man."

New Raven BR · « **Reply #157 on:** January 31, 2009, 05:31:41 PM »

the bible IS the word of God and the word of God is truth,PERIOD!

Colin Michael · « **Reply #158 on:** January 31, 2009, 05:31:49 PM »

I'm reading Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche.

St. Augustine's Confessions was really good.

EDIT:

Quote from: New Raven (trying to change) BR on January 31, 2009, 05:31:41 PM

the bible IS the word of God and the word of God is truth,PERIOD!

Well, that settles it! I guess I've been wrong this whole time.

This word of God v.s. word of man thread already exists, doesn't it?

lightningninja · « **Reply #159 on:** January 31, 2009, 05:37:39 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on January 31, 2009, 05:29:44 PM

It's commonly known historical fact that the Bible was not bound together until 400ADish.

And what does this prove? The Lord of the Rings has been bound together years later. But that doesnt' mean you can't trust that that really is what J.R.R. Tolkien Wrote. That's simply when it was bound together and printed, not when it was written.

Quote

Naturally, if the Bible did not exist when John wrote it, that verse couldn't mean the Bible. Also, John wasn't arrogant enough to call his own book the "word of God."

The Bible was not bound and printed when John wrote it, no, but he was still writing the Bible. And therefore he could have meant the Bible. It's called "divine revelation."

Quote

Historical validity is not what is being called into question. What is being called into question is whether it is the "word of God" or the "word of man."

If it's valid, then it is true, which means that it can prove itself if it is accepted as true. So validity is what this whole thing is about. If you believed it was valid, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #160 on:** January 31, 2009, 05:40:49 PM »

Quote

And what does this prove? The Lord of the Rings has been bound together years later. But that doesnt' mean you can't trust that that really is what J.R.R. Tolkien Wrote. That's simply when it was bound together and printed, not when it was written.

True; however, no matter what you believe, Bono did not write The Lord of the Rings.

Quote

The Bible was not bound and printed when John wrote it, no, but he was still writing the Bible. And therefore he could have meant the Bible. It's called "divine revelation."

Yes, however, there is no evidence to suggest this.

Quote

If it's valid, then it is true, which means that it can prove itself if it is accepted as true. So validity is what this whole thing is about. If you believed it was valid, we wouldn't be having this debate.

You're going to need to re-phrase that, I have no idea what you are saying.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #161 on:** January 31, 2009, 05:41:15 PM »

Quote from: fireninja on January 31, 2009, 05:24:45 PM

@EmJayBee, yes, that is how I interpret it to mean. Do you interpret that otherwise?

I find it a bit difficult to interpret the John 1 "Word" (Logos) as equivalent to Scripture.

Looking at the rest of the chapter we have...

Quote from: John 1:3-4

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

--and--
[quote author John 1:14-17]
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
[/quote]

These seem to me to be very straight forward statements that equate "Word" with Jesus the Christ..

lightningninja · « **Reply #162 on:** January 31, 2009, 05:48:09 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on January 31, 2009, 05:40:49 PM

True; however, no matter what you believe, Bono did not write The Lord of the Rings.

I'm not quite sure what you're proving here.

Quote

Yes, however, there is no evidence to suggest this.

There is evidence to support this. The Bible. which is why(that's what I was trying to say below) it is very important to believe in this discussion if the Bible is true or not. If the Bible is true, then there is no reason to continue this, but if it's not true, then I will have to continue debating.

Quote

You're going to need to re-phrase that, I have no idea what you are saying.

I'm saying that proving the Bible to be valid is what this whole conversation is about. If the Bible is valid and true... then it can prove itself, because it's true. In other words, if everything in the Bible is true, and it says that it is the word of God, then it is, because everything in the Bible is true.

You still haven't answered these two questions.

1. Do you believe the Bible and consider yourself a Christian.
2. Do you believe that there is a God? If you do, and you don't believe the Bible, then what do you believe?

Colin Michael · « **Reply #163 on:** January 31, 2009, 05:54:42 PM »

Quote

I'm not quite sure what you're proving here.

John wrote the Bible. Therefore, why do you say that God wrote it?

Quote

There is evidence to support this. The Bible. which is why(that's what I was trying to say below) it is very important to believe in this discussion if the Bible is true or not. If the Bible is true, then there is no reason to continue this, but if it's not true, then I will have to continue debating.

It was written by men; therefore, it is subject to the opinions and perspectives of the men that wrote it.

Quote

I'm saying that proving the Bible to be valid is what this whole conversation is about. If the Bible is valid and true... then it can prove itself, because it's true. In other words, if everything in the Bible is true, and it says that it is the word of God, then it is, because everything in the Bible is true.

You still haven't answered these two questions.

1. Do you believe the Bible and consider yourself a Christian.
2. Do you believe that there is a God? If you do, and you don't believe the Bible, then what do you believe?

The Bible does not say that it is the word of God. Whether it is accurate or not and whether we accept the philosophy within is up to our own discretion.
You're excluding the middle. The Bible doesn't have to be completely true or completely false. There is an equilibrium.

1. I'm not sure what you mean be "believe the Bible." I consider myself a Christian.
2. Obviously I do. I don't see the neccessity of the inerrancy of the Bible to believe in God, Jesus, or anything else of that nature.

lightningninja · « **Reply #164 on:** January 31, 2009, 05:58:21 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on January 31, 2009, 05:54:42 PM

1. I'm not sure what you mean be "believe the Bible." I consider myself a Christian.
2. Obviously I do. I don't see the neccessity of the inerrancy of the Bible to believe in God, Jesus, or anything else of that nature.

You do consider yourself a Christian? Yet you don't believe the Bible? How do you even know what it is to be a Christian? Isn't that because you read the Bible?

So you believe in God. Why? What makes you believe in God? And what God do you beleive in? The God of the Bible or another God?

Colin Michael · « **Reply #165 on:** January 31, 2009, 06:00:35 PM »

Quote from: fireninja on January 31, 2009, 05:58:21 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on January 31, 2009, 05:54:42 PM
1. I'm not sure what you mean be "believe the Bible." I consider myself a Christian.
2. Obviously I do. I don't see the neccessity of the inerrancy of the Bible to believe in God, Jesus, or anything else of that nature.
You do consider yourself a Christian? Yet you don't believe the Bible? How do you even know what it is to be a Christian? Isn't that because you read the Bible?

So you believe in God. Why? What makes you believe in God? And what God do you beleive in? The God of the Bible or another God?

You have a very narrow view of Christianity. The Bible wasn't considered the word of God until the 1800's. Sola scriptura doctrine was invented by Luther in the 1500's. You're also excluding the middle to say I "don't believe in the Bible." And as for "knowing what it is to be a Christian" I'm not at all concerned with "trying to fit the label of a Christian."

lightningninja · « **Reply #166 on:** January 31, 2009, 06:09:46 PM »

I admit you are very smart. And you are trying to talk circles around me. But I know when someone isn't answering my questions.

What God do you believe in? And how do know he is real.

Red · « **Reply #167 on:** January 31, 2009, 06:11:36 PM »

go Fninja!

Colin Michael · « **Reply #168 on:** January 31, 2009, 06:12:59 PM »

Quote from: fireninja on January 31, 2009, 06:09:46 PM

I admit you are very smart. And you are trying to talk circles around me. But I know when someone isn't answering my questions.

What God do you believe in? And how do know he is real.

I believe in the One. All-knowing, all powerful, non-temporal, and soveriegn over all things; the pure form of existance itself. I know he exists because if he did not, nothing would exist.

Quote from: RED on January 31, 2009, 06:11:36 PM

go Fninja!

This isn't a game or a contest, this is a serious discussion. Let's try to be mature, yeah?

lightningninja · « **Reply #169 on:** January 31, 2009, 06:16:39 PM »

And that's why I said what I did several posts ago.

You created your own God because he's the easiest way. There is no need to search for him, because he's just there. Not because you can prove he's there, but only because you can prove that without him you wouldn't be here. You don't have to do anything to get his love because he's sovereign and you're predestined. You don't have to have faith because he's sovereign. And you don't even need morals because there is no ethics to live by.

But with this standard... what's the point of living? Do you go to heaven? Do you get to see him? What's the point of this world if you're only living for this world?

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #170 on:** January 31, 2009, 06:19:55 PM »

I have to ask, Colin, what is your doctrine? Is the Apostles Creed all that you really believe?

Colin Michael · « **Reply #171 on:** January 31, 2009, 06:20:28 PM »

Quote from: fireninja on January 31, 2009, 06:16:39 PM

And that's why I said what I did several posts ago.

You created your own God because he's the easiest way. There is no need to search for him, because he's just there. Not because you can prove he's there, but only because you can prove that without him you wouldn't be here. You don't have to do anything to get his love because he's sovereign and you're predestined. You don't have to have faith because he's sovereign. And you don't even need morals because there is no ethics to live by.

But with this standard... what's the point of living? Do you go to heaven? Do you get to see him? What's the point of this world if you're only living for this world?

What makes you draw the conclusion "I'm living for this world?"
Also, what makes you think that just because men wrote the Bible I'm throwing out all the Bible's teachings? Christianity survived for 1500 years without the Bible as its infallible standard, why can't I?

Quote from: BubbleBoy on January 31, 2009, 06:19:55 PM

I have to ask, Colin, what is your doctrine? Is the Apostles Creed all that you really believe?

You're making everything into a black or white.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #172 on:** January 31, 2009, 06:23:55 PM »

I wasn't trying to at all, although I think it might help.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #173 on:** January 31, 2009, 06:26:44 PM »

Caleb created a new thread to continue this discussion on. Lets go back to books.

michael/michaelssword · « **Reply #174 on:** January 31, 2009, 06:27:07 PM »

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14320.0
your to fast

News:

Author Topic: What are you reading? (A quick poll.) (Read 107296 times)

michael/michaelssword

michael/michaelssword