Bliss Roots Cbd Gummies™ Exclusive...
Food & Drink11 mins ago
Is there a god?
750 Answers
Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LeedsRhinos. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I do rebel, though, when you and the others are not willing to provide any evidence for that strongly held position. Again, I state that you are exhibiting all the traits of "faith" when you choose to believe anything... anything, based on feeling or conjecture alone.
I've attempted to provide a reasoned, sound basis for my beliefs. You, and others, choose to discount or discard those basis out of hand. For example, I've discussed at length the proven reliability of the ancient texts. One of the most fundamental (I'm repeating myself) tenets of textual critisism is... how alike are the most ancient copies as compared to the most modern copies. Any divergence certainly makes the end results suspect. This is demonstrably not true with the Scripture. I provided examples would be happy to provide those sources. No, they are not Dr. Hugh Ross'. Additionally, how many ancient copies are extant... my discussion of that provoked Merlin to state that he had "an I didn't know that moment".There are far more copies to compare of Scripture than any other similarly ancient texts.
Immediatley after that exchange, the question was posed by Merlin; "redaction"... which was the entire purpose of my examples. Redaction is not and cannot be demonstrated when addressing Scripture. These are not my conclusions, but the conclusions of truly learned men with all the requisite letters following their names.
They are the ones that say what constitutes valid ancient textual study. Argue with them.
So, Ok... prophecy...
Firstly, King Jehoiakim (nee Eliakim)(2 Chronicles 36:4-6)didn't change his loyalty to the Babylonians... they, under Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt and tool Judah by force. Jehoiakim then was made the vassal of Nebuchadnezzr (2nd Kings, 23: 34 through 24: 4). Obviously, you are quoting your source without verifying it, for there is no reference to Jeremiah being given a place of honor for urging the Jews to submit to them. Quite the contrary...
Had it not been for the support of Ahikam, a temple priest, Jeremiah would have been handed over to his own people for death. (Jeremiah 26:24).
Throughout Jeremiah's ministry he prophesied only one theme... the nation of Israel must repent and return to the Lord. This discussion could continue, but it does provide a segue to your third concern... a very convenient passage, etc. When you take a passage out of context you (intentionally?) weaken or completely change its meaning. You quote Deuteronomy 18: 21-22, however you do not quote the verse in their entirety. It's clear that the penalty for prophesying in the name of the Lord when He has not directed is death! Dt. 18:20b. That has to put a big emphasis on not uttering things not directed by the Lord.
I have to ask, why would you omit such an important phrase? Oh, well.
Now for Daniel... (I really wanted to discuss your favorite... evolution)
Again, Either you haven't read the pertinent passages or you choose to deconstruct them to suit your needs... Daniel did not predict the for kingdoms. At his request he was brought before Nebuchadnezzar to save the lives of his friends, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (Daniel 2:170. Without Nebuchadnezzar telling Daniel what his troubling dream had been, Daniel revealed the meaning of the dream (Daniel 2:29-44). What, exactly, is your problem with the interpretation? Is it that the Daniel describes the next three kingdoms that come along? You say,'history was interpreted in a contrived way so that the prediction could be interpreted as having been fulfilled.' Who interpreted history in a contrived way? When was history contrived? Where is there any indication that this is true? Hmmmmmmmmm??
Again, in answer to all of your snide (something struck a raw nerve with you, didn't it?) comments in your paragra (4)The views I have presented are my views. To rely on sources to validate them is exactly what is accomplished on a daily basis in places of higher learning throughout the world. When (if) we discuss evolution, are the views you plan to present only 'yours' or will they relate to Darwin, etc.? I do rely on accurate resources, not conjecture nor 'feelings'. The studies on prophecy extend as far back as the prophecies themselves. There is no need for me to count, etc.
I've refrained from putting words in your mouth, so I expect the same in return. I did not have, nor do I now have a clue re: 'parenthisis' You say,'if an infallible God... etc." I say that's an argument from silence since you've not alleged that God has announced what you were going to decide. What I've said, is that God knows the end from the beginning... i.e., He knows everything aobut you (and me) from before the world was created. His "knowing" doesn't restrict your free will in any way. I fail to see what is difficult to grasp about this concept.
For the last sentences of your last paragraph to be true you would have to demonstrate that any of God's prophecies are false. Your free will is always intact.
You have the free will to say 'no' throughout your life to Yeshua Ha'Mashiac, and Yahweh will certainly honor that...
The hour is late and I fully intended to reply to bobbyx and alexiel, but that will have to wait.
Hi clanad. Just one little question that's been bugging my mind. Consider the case of Judas. It was prophesied that Jesus would be betrayed, and Judas did it. Did he have any choice in the matter? Can he be blamed for acting out God's will? And also, at that point, could he possibly be acting out of "free-will"??
I.R... Thanks for the question. The betrayal of the Messiah was foretold in the OT, for excatly the amount of money the Judas accepted.
Notice what the narrative says in Luke 22:3. Satan entered Judas... etc.od knew that His Messiah would be betrayed and He also knew (since before the creation) who would do it. Judas freely chose to be the fait accompli. However, he could have chosen not to be the one. Again, it seems reasonable to me, when discussing God, and all that's inherent in such a "being", His knowledge of events that unfold is completely seperate from the ability of man to freely choose. To believe otherwise indicates a god who creates robots who have no choice as to returning his love or not... which is what the protagonists on this site would adovocate. That position is not supported in scripture...
sweetheart (that is extremely difficult to say to an entity that is a series of 1's and 0's), you've entered this forum at an opportune time, since I am advocating for the the "big bang" once the concept is fully understood in the light (no pun intended)current scientific investigation. You may wish to back up several pages and review some of the evidence supporting such a beginning and how this favorably compares to the description found in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2. More about that later
Obviously, you object to that line of reasoning. May I respectfully ask on what basis you make your decision? Thanks for your interest...
Merlin, I see in review that I missed a question from you concerning the preservation of OT scripture through the Genesis flood, since Moses did not exist at that time. It is beleieved my scholars that Moses wrote the Penteteuch, as well as Psalms that are attributable to him, during the 40 years in the desert of the Exodus. We do know that oral transmission of history was (and still is in parts of the world)a highly developed and accurate method of preserving important events in the life of a race, tribe or individual. The skill is beyond our "modern" understanding of its accuracy.
I think it was el duerino that appealed to the Sumerian Gilgamesh comparison of creation and especailly the Noahaic flood account. It is well known that the writings to which he refers were preserved in oral tradition for inumerable years before being set down in writing.
Merlin, you are exactly correct in stating that any of us participants could post web site addresses and hope that those to whom we are speaking will seek out their own information. My experience has been that that rarely happens. But you seem to be saying (at the risk of being redundant) that before one can present any argument, one has to re-create all the data, research and writings before they are valid. Come on... think about that position and see if you really want to defend it.... Everyone uses pre-existing information to reach some conclusion, even in every day life matters. If you don't you must have a difficult time in using your new dishwasher...
Alexiel, I'd like to address your post, if I may. You state in your last paragraph "It's (religion) the biggest cause of war". Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia, Hitler in the 1930's and 40's, Stalin and all the other tyrants in history have certainly killed millions upon millions of people with no basis in relgion. So I don't think that's a good comparison. Additionally, "religion" by whatever name, rarely lives out the tenets of its founder(s). To point at Christianity, for example, and reference the injustices of the Inquisition and the Crusades without a fair comparison to what Yeshua taught is biased in the extreme. If...if Christians could live up to those ideals on a daily basis, the entire world would be better. But Yeshua taught only love and that we are to love our fellow man. (Tough to do, wouldn't you agree?)
Earlier, I talked briefly about the recent awarding of the Nobel Prize in physics for the study of sub-atomic particle structure. This entire field of science is dependent on very esoteric mathmatics. Yet, I venture to wager that you believe their findings. I can guarantee you that "quarks" and other sub-atomic structures will never be "provable" when dependant on being "corporeal or visible" as you state. I would only ask, as I have often in the forum... what constitutes REAL evidence to you? I'd be glad to address your answer... with respect for your position. I've said it before, I'll say it once more, I'm not here to convert anyone. I can only present my evidence, it's you're business to make the judgement on it...
Clanad
I know what happened � I contracted rantitis from El Duerino and now I�ve passed it on to you. NHF, I have to admit that a bit of a nerve must have been poked � I guess it was just a little unjustified disappointment rather than anything else. Anyway, let�s untwist our knickers and we shall continue. I shall try to address all your points in order and objectively. I have to damn the absence of bold, italics etc and the utter lack of any capability to convey tone.
BTW � your point to alexiel is very well made (crawl): If a person�s actions cannot be favourably judged by the cross, then he is not Christian and cannot truthfully claim to take action in Christ�s name. See Jurgen Moltmann�s �The Crucified God� � heavy going at times but very interesting.
I did assume that it was your own knowledge and wit and I am well rebuked for my assumptions. It wasn�t the fact that it was a website being quoted, it was the iconoclasm I suffered when, having assumed that I was engaging with a superior mind (and it still might be, of course!), I accidentally came across the very words that you used in a website. (Can you imagine my �What the��..??� reaction?) I was researching (slightly) prophecies so that I could address the argument you raised. I quoted the source of my info expecting you to retort that it was a Noddy site and I should have looked elsewhere. Of course it�s expected that one should look to authorities for assistance in an argument. I prostrate myself and beg a kick.
Basis for belief. I maintain that I do not have to prove, support or provide backup for my view. I have apparently not explained myself sufficiently. I shall use two analogies to try to illustrate it.
A) I have a television at home. It works very well. I understand how it works and I see how all the components fit together. You are a salesman knocking at my door wanting to sell me a new television without demonstrating it. I can see that it is more expensive, it is more complicated and I do not understand how it can possibly work. So I say to you, �This is too expensive, it is too complicated and I don�t see how it can possibly work at all � I�m happy with the one I�ve got, so I don�t want to buy a new one.� It would then be for you as the salesman to show that your product is superior, not for me to show that it is not. It may well be, but I just don�t see it.
B) I am an Indian in the deepest Amazon. I am very familiar with my environment and I have a system of belief that explains everything about the world. Nothing is a mystery. My beliefs may be wrong, for all I know, but they explain everything and I am happy that there is no mystery in my world. Then you come into my village as a missionary with a story of one God (and everything that goes with it). Would you, in those circumstances, expect me to disprove your view?
I am willing to entertain the notion of God, but so far I have never heard a description of God that has integrity.
3. Your beliefs: I do not discount your beliefs out of hand. Far from it. When you quoted a description of Elohim, I raised some valid questions about the integrity of that description. When you raised an argument from prophecy, I tried as best I could to engage with that. What I am most interested in is the nature of God as you understand it and the implications that prophecies have for the nature of God.
4Prophecy
OK ok, I freely admit that I did very little to check the quotes and passages. This was because, while considering prophecies generally, it occurred to me that it may be more useful to try to deduce the implications that prophecies had for the nature of God. We don�t have to see whether individual prophecies are accurate. We can assume, for argument�s sake that either all, some or none of them are accurate and move on from those assumptions.
BTW, Deut 18:20 � how would anyone know whether a false prophecy had been made in order to know whether the false prophet should be executed? This passage seemed irrelevant to the point.
Another BTW: while looking for a prophecy to use in an illustration later in this posting, I looked at a site http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/prophecy.htmand it says �Scholars suggest that there are about 1,000 prophecies altogether in the Bible --- some 800 in the Old Testament and about 200 in the New Testament.�. This is rather at odds with what you said. And there does indeed appear to be a multitude of prophecies concerning the future of Israel � there must be some doubles in there! I�m not suggesting anything at all other than the possibility that we could argue over the facts and interpretations of prophecies until kingdom come and we ought to move on and consider the implications of them.
Another BTW. The flood prophecy was in a book that was written after the event. An irrelevant point, perhaps, but a fact nonetheless.
5 Evolution but not yet. I would like to get this prophecy thing progressed before we go on to evolution - let�s not �change the subject�. I freely re-confess to not reading the material properly � you can�t imagine my shame. That, however, has no bearing on my point that we should make assumptions about the validity of prophecies and explore the consequences of them.
I thought I was making a valid hypothetical case to illustrate the logic that flows from certain premises about God and prophecies. I shall rephrase it in what I hope will be a better example.
In 2 Chronicles 36:22, God moves Cyrus to act in a particular way so that the prophecy made by Jeremiah could be fulfilled. This seems to me that Cyrus had no choice but to act as he then did. I was hoping to find a prophecy that predicted that a named person would act in a particular way in a particular place at a particular time, but I have not yet found one. Do you know of one? The Jeremiah prophecy did not name Cyrus, as I understand it, but in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled, someone had to act in a particular way and not out of free will.
I�m not putting words into your mouth, I am constructing a hypothetical argument for discussion:
The question: Let us assume for argument�s sake that God is infallible. If God made a prophecy that said � This person �X� will do action �Y� in year �Z�, then come the year �Z�, that person �X� will do action �Y� � he has no choice but to do it. He therefore has no free will in the matter.
What I would ask of you is to explain what I have got wrong in this equation.
Dear all chaps and chapesses.
I think the answer that may be forthcoming is that God, being present at all times, is present when I make a decision out of free will, is simultaneously present later to see the consequences and is simultaneously present earlier in order to make a prophecy. This, in itself, is a coherent explanation of this particular narrow subject but does not fully satisfy, to my mind, the question of whether free-will can exist when a prophecy is made. Theists must argue in support of free-will whatever. Please don't draw inferences from that statement - it just is that way for better or worse. If that is the answer, and indeed if it is not, there is a related question about God's knowledge of the future.
The question is this:
If God knows without fail what is going to happen, what an individual will do and what cities of people are going to do - even before creation - why does he get angry about it when these things happen? It's not as though he would be surprised that any particular event occurred. Please see Numbers 20 (about that chap's donkey), for example. That's a strange one. God told him to do something, he did it, God got angry. There's a double case of why get angry?
Quite often, my daughter runs down the stairs with only socks on her feet. Every time I see her do it, I say �If you keep doing that, you are going to fall down the stairs one day and hurt yourself�. It�s not a prophecy because she can choose to do it again or not do it again. As a prediction, it is qualified by the conditional and, in my estimation, there is a high probability that it will come to pass if the conditional is met. I cannot know for certain sure that it will happen, though. If, soon after a warning, she again runs down the stairs with only socks on her feet and falls and hurts herself, I will be angry with her (amongst other things, of course). And, naturally, I will say �I just knew that would happen!� (When strictly speaking, I didn�t).
Let us now suppose that I knew well in advance exactly when she was going to fall down the stairs. I could just stand there and watch as she fell and say �I told you so!�, but I would have no right to be angry for three reasons: 1. I knew it was going to happen, 2. I could have prevented it, 3. I could have let it happen, but mitigated the consequences. Personally, I would favour option 3 � it reinforces the warning and avoids injury and thus I best fulfil my responsibilities as a parent.
What does God do in these circumstances? � He lets it happen AND gets angry about it!!
There must be something wrong with my assumptions or my understanding of God�s nature or my reading of the Bible � can I possibly be more caring than God is? Could I possibly have greater self-control than God has?
I invite advice to set me right on this one, please.
