The bible is written in such a way

Karen Schaeffer's NDE, she was shown her children's future as it would exist if she decided to remain in the light. Because she decided to return, the future she was shown did not happen. This suggests that the future is always changing from moment to moment based upon our current actions and decisions. This principle supports quantum mechanic principles.



One of Margot Grey's NDE research subjects stated:


"During my experience ... I was also shown events that are likely to happen in the near future, but was made to understand that nothing is absolutely fixed and that everything depends on how we choose to use our own free will, that even those events that are already predestined can be changed or modified by a change in our own way of relating to them." (Grey, 1985, p. 123)


NDE experiencer Howard Storm was given information on how the future is not fixed:


"We have free will. If we change the way we are, then we can change the future which they showed me. They showed me a view of the future, at the time of my experience, based upon how we in the United States were behaving at that time. It was a future in which a massive worldwide depression would occur. If we were to change our behavior, however, then the future would be different." (Howard Storm)

Howard Storm was also told how a single person can change the world:


"All it takes to make a change was one person. One person, trying, and then because of that, another person changing for the better. They said that the only way to change the world was to begin with one person. One will become two, which will become three, and so on. That's the only way to affect a major change" (Howard Storm)


During Ricky Randolph's NDE, he was told virtually the same thing:


"You must return and help others to change by changing your life!" (Ricky Randolph)


Dannion Brinkley was told how the future is conditional upon human beings:


"If you follow what you have been taught and keep living the same way you have lived the last thirty years, all of this will surely be upon you. If you change, you can avoid the coming war. If you follow this dogma, the world by the year 2004 will not be the same one you now know. But it can still be changed and you can help change it." (Dannion Brinkley)


Brinkley was also told that the future is not cast in stone:


"The flow of human events can be changed, but first people have to know what they are." (Dannion Brinkley)


Brinkley also gives the following advice on how people can change the world:


"The quickest way to change the world is to be of service to others. Show that your love can make a difference in the lives of people and thereby someone else's love can make a difference in your life. By each of us doing that and working together we change the world one inner person at a time." (Dannion Brinkley)

Matthew 5:44
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

You don't need any NDE experrience to know the above. You can't change the future because the future hasn't happened. All you can do is change a possible chain of events

 

Creation is a novel work. God is its author and creator.

 

I was not talking about the early 4th Century. I was talking about Paul's reaction when he found out that the people had started to doubt his fairy tale.

 

I simply used the 4th century to point out that many of the churches Paul founded had survived and spread during the in-between centuries. When I speak of 'churches' I don't necessarily mean buildings. Many were small groups founded in homes until they joined into bigger groups. There wasn't the ritual and ceremony found in the later church.

 

A billion Galaxy - and expanding - Universe and God creates man on a very unstable, very insignificant world which kills his creation with monotonous regularity. Should the proof reader not have noticed this and corrected it? .

 

Are you familiar with the Roman catacombs? I have been in one. It was huge. And the more I think about it the more that is a problem. https://www.viator.com/tours/Rome/Underground-Rome-Tour/d511-8314P28
Some were supposedly dug out 1800 years ago. Now think about that. You have big tunnels under the ground that were dug without any structural reinforcements. You have had about 1800 years of rain water penetrating the ground, causing cracks and water leaks. But as you walk through you you are distracted by the frescoes and the niches. Is it really reasonable to think that those catacombs are really 1800 years old? Are you being hoodwinked before your very eyes?

https://www.viator.com/Rome-attractions/Roman-Catacombs/d511-a39?subPageType=photos

 

It is estimated that there is over 200 billion galaxies in the universe. To put that into human scale imagine that each galaxy occupies one cubic foot of space. A sphere composed of 200 billion cubic feet would be about 7 miles in diameter. Now imagine our galaxy in one of those 1 cubic foot boxes in that 7 mile diameter sphere. Then continue to zoom down in scale until you reach the Earth and continue down in scale until you reach the 2 acres in the Middle East that the biblical God Yahweh is supposed to be concerned about. Doesn't that make the biblical fairy tale seem asinine?

 

There are large caves in France and South Africa that contain wall paintings estimated 30,000 years old. Read Graham Hancocks 'Supernatural'. It's not about ghosts etc. but ancient cave paintings, therianthropes, etc. Did they lead to Egyptian therianthrope gods like Horus, Anubis, etc.

 

Does that really answer the question? This seems all to be a process that takes place after you've decided to look for truth in established scripture (in fact, the process you've describe seems to have decided on the Bible already).

Given that you've found so many pieces of scripture unsatisfactory, isn't it a reasonable conclusion that people will happily make up all kinds of stuff, leaving it possible that all scripture we know of is false? It seems to me that rejecting all other scripture doesn't "leave you" to believe the one last bit, it is quite possible to conclude that ancient humans simply did not have access to this kind of information, and we are if any thing "left" to believe that the truth is at best unclear.

 

We certainly have gone through this many times. I feel like the information I've been getting from you a lot of the time don't answer my questions so much as regurgitate something I already know about what you believe.

What is it about the Bible that shows the Biblical God as necessary? And what is it about other scripture which fails to do so?

For instance, much of the Jewish tradition is found in Christianity, it would seem to me that if the Biblical God is necessary, then the Jewish interpretation must have been necessary as well. It seems to me that the Biblical God changes in various ways in response to things happening on earth, that seems to me contrary to that God being necessary (in the sense you seem to mean it).

I seem to recall you saying that volition/emotion/intellect has to originate in something else which has those attributes, does that rely on some kind of logic, or is it just an observation? Is intellect fundamentally something different to a robot's databank (plus logic/whatever), is emotion something other than a natural response?

Again, my main issue is with you finding yourself "left to believe" it, but I guess that is addressed above.

That being said, isn't the decision to create Jesus, in whatever way, a contingent decision? "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son" seems to indicate God's contingency on the world.

 

If the question is,
'The bible is so confusing! There are different interpretations, denominations, beliefs, and opinions about the bible, how can you know what is true?'

..then the strategy above is valid.. as it is for any question about source material. If you were deciding whether something was true, or not, how would you go about it?

1. Avoid the source, and immerse yourself in biased, bigoted echo chambers of propaganda and Indoctrination.
2. Study the source with an open mind, using reason and common sense to deduce its meaning and intent.

It depends on the goal. Is it seeking Truth and understanding, or affirmation of indoctrinated biases?

Books, treatises, opinions, & speculations about the bible are legion. But why rely on 3rd party speculations to determine the intent of an author, if you can go to the author directly?

 

Have you dispelled 100% of these contradictions?

http://bibviz.com/

 

If your deity is "infinitely sovereign over his creation" then he is both good AND EVIL.

 

I can!

www.biblevizdebunked.com

Debating is easy! Just post links inferring my arguments, and they do them for me!

 

Ah, my bad, I assumed the last two post I responded to was by Bricklayer, since it was a response to my response to him. Parts where I refer to "you" in the last messages might not make sense.

Well, that is not the question. Fundamentally, the question is what reason do we have to believe it to be true, even if we set aside the question of interpretation.

That being said, interpretation is also an issue. The fact that there are different interpretations highlights the fact that the source material is ambiguous, or that people are able to unknowingly take it upon themselves to introduce ambiguity into it.

 

The ability to introduce ambiguity does not imply inherent ambiguity in the texts.

It is my contention that there is no such 'ambiguity', but there is a clear, exegetical intent by the author. The few areas of uncertainty of intent are easily ignored, with no detriment to the intended message.

 

I did not consider the belief of truth, just the intent of the author. Whether he is believed or not is another issue. The intent of the message was the question, that my list addressed.

As far as answering the Larger Question, 'What is Truth?'.. that is a deeper philosophical subject. There are many strategies for a quest for Truth, that is another topic all its own.

 

Your BOGUS source does not exist!

Looks like you just debunked your own credibility again!

 

I don't understand this post. I am asking the question "What makes us justified in believing things like the Bible?". I don't care whether the author believed (except insofar it answers my actual question). I don't care about the fundamental nature of truth (except insofar it answer my actual question). The strategies for arriving at truth is the topic I'm asking about, it is not a different topic. There are plenty of valid answers to it (for various kinds of truths) but for some reason nobody seems to bother telling me the answer in this particular context.

I don't really care where the ambiguity turns up, the fact that different interpretations turn up means it is not a reliable way of arriving at truth.

 

Really?
I presumed, wrongly it seems, that the text in my 'link' would be obvious, that it is intended as a jab at link debates, where nothing is said by the posters, just proof links that speak for them.

But I'm glad you were entertained, if just briefly.

Oh, and here is another good one!

www.derideorefuted.com

..every post from this poster can be referred to this site, for automatic refutation!

 

Thank you for once again DISQUALIFYING yourself from any any meaningful interaction since it clearly beyond your limited abilities as far as this topic is concerned.

Have a nice day!

 

To determine the truth of some author, clarity and exegetical intent are prerequisites.

How can you know if someone speaks the truth, if you don't understand what they say?

Ambiguity can 'turn up' anywhere. It can be manufactured where none exist. Quote the book you find ambiguous, or confusing. There is likely a simple, plain intent.

If you can only 'know!' Truth where there are no lies, confusion, or ambiguity, the quest for truth will be very short, indeed.

 

..shrug..

You seemed to want a link debate, so i complied. My link was just as pretty as yours..

 

You FAILED to provide a functional link which means that you are incapable of understanding how it even works but that is entirely your problem, not mine!

 

Yes, but clarity and intent are not sufficient. It is also a prerequisite that the author isn't mistaken to begin with.

We know that religions have sprouted up all over the place, so we know for a fact that false information can turn up (unless all religions are all true). Indeed, even if we were to accept some religion as true, it is clear that someone coming up with a false religion is way more common than someone coming up with a true one, so the default stance should probably be at least to not lend credence.

I mean, yes, it does mean that we're stuck not knowing a lot of stuff, is that a problem? Or more to the point, is it more of a problem than believing things for no reason would be?