Quizzes & Puzzles8 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.
sorry i know this doesnt fit in the conversation but i just thought i'd say what i think!
Personally i don't believe in god and i think that religion, belief in god, and life after death, is just created by humans as a response to fear. Fear that one day we might actually die and will cease to exist, and fear that our lives have no purpose. To me it seems completely illogical to assume that some superior being created us, and that when we die we will continue to live in another world. WHY? can we not just accept that maybe, (just maybe as nobody can claim to know the truth) when we die that is it, everything is as it appears to be and we cease to exist. I can't see a logical argument for why there would be an eternal life after this one, surely we are just scared of death being the end and of our lives having no defined purpose?
I'm trying to understand what you mean but not quite sure if i've got it! Are you suggesting that belief in life after death is independent from religion and is an innate belief? I could agree with this but then i seem to have an innate belief that there isn't life after death! seems its different for different people (which is obvious anyway)
An invitation to Clanad and IR and the world to respond.
Prophecies, free will and God�s anger
Consideration of Clanad�s argument from prophecies led me to this question:
There are passages in the Bible that tell us that God became angry from time to time (Exodus 4. 13-14, Numbers 11.1, Numbers 25.1-3 et al) and there is at least one passage wherein God predicts that he will become angry (Deuteronomy 31.16-17).
If everything that a man does is a result of how God intended that he will be, and if God knows what a man will do (and knew even before that man was created), then how can God�s anger at that man�s actions be justified or explained?
It can only be explained by that man�s failure to do something else that would not have angered God � something else that he could have done instead< /EM>. But how can this be reconciled with God�s knowledge of the future?
The Gospel according to who?
Consideration of IR�s claim that the Bible is literally correct and true has led me to this question:
1. Matthew 28 says that the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go, when they saw him. The distance from Jerusalem to Galilee is about 120 miles.
2. Luke 24 says that JC was with 2 disciples in Emmaus in the evening of the Sabbath � about 7 miles from Jerusalem. They returned to Jerusalem where they met the eleven and others, JC appeared to them, led them to Bethany and then ascended. The disciples then stayed continually at the temple, praising God.
What version of the Gospel story could allow the disciples to be on the way to Galilee while staying all day in Jerusalem?
1210GMT.
Prophecies, free will and God�s anger
Consideration of Clanad�s argument from prophecies led me to this question:
There are passages in the Bible that tell us that God became angry from time to time (Exodus 4. 13-14, Numbers 11.1, Numbers 25.1-3 et al) and there is at least one passage wherein God predicts that he will become angry (Deuteronomy 31.16-17).
If everything that a man does is a result of how God intended that he will be, and if God knows what a man will do (and knew even before that man was created), then how can God�s anger at that man�s actions be justified or explained?
It can only be explained by that man�s failure to do something else that would not have angered God � something else that he could have done instead< /EM>. But how can this be reconciled with God�s knowledge of the future?
The Gospel according to who?
Consideration of IR�s claim that the Bible is literally correct and true has led me to this question:
1. Matthew 28 says that the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go, when they saw him. The distance from Jerusalem to Galilee is about 120 miles.
2. Luke 24 says that JC was with 2 disciples in Emmaus in the evening of the Sabbath � about 7 miles from Jerusalem. They returned to Jerusalem where they met the eleven and others, JC appeared to them, led them to Bethany and then ascended. The disciples then stayed continually at the temple, praising God.
What version of the Gospel story could allow the disciples to be on the way to Galilee while staying all day in Jerusalem?
1210GMT.
IR
Well, I don't see that. I can see a "need" for a transcendent belief of some sort being driven by the response of consciousness to the basic instinct for survival - and maybe the concept of a God emerged from that. It's not a fully developed theory that I have, just an idea.
You apparently believe these two references are happening the same day. Luke 24:1 clearly describe the resurrection morning, Luke 24:13 states "Now, on that same day..." and describes the road to Emmaus experience. Luke 24:33, says that after that experience the two got up and returned to Jerusalem, where Jesus appears to all eleven. Obviously, the Lord was on earth 40 days, so the narrative in vs 50 is many days later. The same holds true with the Matthew account. Any fair reading of Matthew 28:1 through 15 is a recounting of the events of the resurrection day. At some time later, the eleven go to the mountain where thay had been told to go. Again 40 days elapse between vs 15 and vs 16.
Anger of God. I can't explain everything you can possibly ask to your complete satisfaction. However, in each of the references you cite, El Shaddai has clearly revealed Himself to the people he has chosen. They have, each one of them, witnessed His presence and miracles. He expresses His anger that they are so wishy-washy. The Exodus verse you reference are reflecting God's exasperation with Moses. The other recitations are again anger aroused by their refusal to believe that which they have witnessed. This, in itself, I believe proves the point of free will. God could have "directed" in each case a precise outcome, with no diversions, but, instead, He chose to express righteous anger to achieve His will. None of this has any bearing on God's knowledge of events fromt he beginning to the end.
Trying to answer every possible question to the complete satisfaction of all involved is impossible. It's somewhat akin to trying to drink from a fire hydrant.
Through out this debate, I have stressed, and will again, it is completely your choice to believe or not. I do not have the power, nor do I seek it, to convert anyone. I can only attest to what has happened in my life, and the peace "that passes all understanding" that has come to me. I believe I am a rational, thinking, "educated" individual that has been involved, for many years in an avocation demanding decision making skills, sometimes in life or death situations that all indicate I am not believing some myth. I have investigated this concern for many years, relying on many different authors with many differnt points of view. I have considered all rational arguments and have come to the conclusion... firmly... that while I may not be able to answer every question, I am "prepare to give an answer to everyone who asks me to give the reason for the hope that I have" (1 Peter 3:15. The next verse admonishes me to do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience..."
Each one has to answer for himself the ultimate question... why should anything exist? Following that, what is the purpose of our existence? I've found the answer to both and it resides in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and clearly illuminated by the revelation of Yeshua Ha'Mashiac.
Gospel according to who? (1): In Luke there is clear continuity from very early in the morning until well into the evening. The 2 that were in Emmaus had their evening meal with JC. When they realised who he was, he disappeared. They had an exchange of words to confirm their realisation to each other, then they �got up and returned at once� to Jerusalem. I guess it would have been sometime around 7.00-8.00 p.m. by then. There they found the 11 and told them what had happened and �while they were still talking about this�, JC appeared to them and spoke with them and ate with them. And still with obvious continuity in the narrative, JC told them to stay in the city.
You could argue that the rest of Luke�s version took place some time later, but how is it �obvious� that JC was on earth 40 days (isn�t that just an indeterminate period anyway?) and that that vv 50-53 is �therefore� many days later? In any case it is somewhat irrelevant because they would still have stayed in the city at JC�s command. According to Luke, they were in Jerusalem all that Sabbath.
You could argue that the rest of Luke�s version took place some time later, but how is it �obvious� that JC was on earth 40 days (isn�t that just an indeterminate period anyway?) and that that vv 50-53 is �therefore� many days later? In any case it is somewhat irrelevant because they would still have stayed in the city at JC�s command. According to Luke, they were in Jerusalem all that Sabbath.
Gospel according to who? (2): In Matthew, continuity of the story proceeds from v10 to v16 (vv 11-15 are a �meanwhile, back at the ranch� aside). So you are interpreting Matthew in such a way that the women met JC, JC told them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, then there was a period of som e weeks before they actually went?????? That is taking contrived interpretation too far � it is simply not credible that they would have delayed their journey for any longer than it would have taken to get their kit together and go. According to Mark, the disciples were still in Jerusalem a week later � if they went to Galilee and back within a week, they would have had to have left Jerusalem immediately. It is inconceivable that they would have delayed their journey by a week.
Whichever way you look at it, the versions of the Gospel are sufficiently inconsistent to show that they cannot all be factual accounts throughout. Something else to consider is this: the more one is able to contrive and interpret the content of a document, the less reliable is the meaning of that content.
Whichever way you look at it, the versions of the Gospel are sufficiently inconsistent to show that they cannot all be factual accounts throughout. Something else to consider is this: the more one is able to contrive and interpret the content of a document, the less reliable is the meaning of that content.
God�s anger (1): My dear Clanad, I am not asking you to explain everything that I can possibly ask � that would clearly be unreasonable of me. I am asking only this one question at the moment and you, I�m afraid, are evading the argument I have laid out. I did not expect you to be able to answer the question about God�s anger. My point was that God�s anger is inconsistent with his knowledge of the future. His anger does indeed most definitely have a bearing on his knowledge of the future. God is responsible for human nature and God knows to the minutest detail what each individual will do in his lifetime. God�s anger at anyone�s action is therefore unjustifiable.
Dear AB Editor: There is still a little problemette with the 'bold' continuing past where it was selected for, when formatting is executed after pasting the text into a posting.
God�s anger (2): This clearly demonstrates that there is a gaping hole in an argument for God�s existence from Biblical prophecies. Not that God does not exist, nor that prophecies are false necessarily, just that the argument you use is untenable. Again, I am not asking that you answer every question that I raise � just asking that you use an argument that has integrity. From most of your second posting, I get the impression that you are conceding that your argument from prophecy is untenable and retreating to fideism, which is OK with me � it signifies the end of that particular debate! :-).&nbs p;
If you now want to take up the evolution or the Trinity cudgels to beat me with, I would suggest that you post a new question and let us know what it is here. Good chat, that one, I have not had prophecies and the truth of the Bible as arguments before!
http://www.islamicfinder.org/faq/list.php?lang=english#18
{There is no god but god, Muhhamed is the messenger of god}
During the forty days between His resurrection and ascension, the Lord Jesus is recorded to have appeared to His own followers on ten occasions, the first five of these being on the day of resurrection. The order of the appearances seems to be: (1) to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18); (2) to the women returning from the tomb with the angelic message (Matthew 28:8-10); (3) to Peter, probably in the afternoon (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5); (4) to the Emmaus disciples toward evening (Mark 16:12, Luke 24:13-32), (5) to the disciples, Thomas being absent (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25); (6) on the next Sunday night, the appearance to the disciples, Thomas being present (John 20:26-31; 1 Corinthians 15:5); (7) to the seven beside the Sea of Galilee (John 21); (8) to the apostles and "more than five hundred of the brothers" (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18; 1 Corinthians 15:6); (9) to James, the Lord's half-brother (1 Corinthians 15:7); (10) His last recorded appearance and His ascension from Olivet (Mark 16:19-20; Luke 24:44-53; Acts 1:3-12). It is also recorded that, after His ascension, Christ appeared one or more times to three men: (1) to Stephen, at his stoning (Acts 7:55-60); (2) to Paul: (a) at his conversion (Acts 9:3-8,17; 22:6-11,14-15; 26:12-19; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8); (b) at Corinth (Acts 18:9-10); (c) in the Temple at Jerusalem (Acts 22:17-21); (d) later at Jerusalem (Acts 23:11); (e) in another vision (2 Corinthians 12:1-4); (3) to John, the apostle, on Patmos (Revelation 1:10-19, and other visions in Revelation.
BTW, Jesus' 40 days on earth is recorded in Acts 1:3. I don't think it can be interpreted as "an indeterminate period of time".
Additionally, I primarily use Scofield's edition of the NIV (New International Version) for reference.
I
