Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[Just_A__Follower]

Agreed. Deep down, they know God exists, they just don’t want to admit it. If they genuinely believed He didn’t, they wouldn’t get mad whenever someone mentions Him. They wouldn’t spend time debating others, writing books or articles about Him, etc. But to avoid the burden of proof, they will say atheism is a lack of belief, which is just another way to say I’m agnostic.

I used to debate with Christian friends not as much trying to sway their belief for their benefit but more for my own. When others agree with you it affirms your own beliefs. No different from any other belief besides God. We feel good about ourselves when others agree with us no matter what it is.

 

[GWH]

I believe that’s the way it is with most atheists. When I called myself an atheist I wasn’t technically an atheist. I knew in my heart that there was a god but I didn’t want there to be anymore. After crying out to Him as a young boy battling past trauma, depression, suicidal thoughts, and addiction, I turned and decided to be my own god for the next 20 years. That worked out great . I finally came home. Not much good happened in those years besides I learned many of the tactics used by the evil one. Either way the atheist mindset never made sense to me no matter how many Dawkins videos I watched. I just simply wanted to believe there was no god. Many “atheists” are simply agnostic at most.

Wow! You're prodigal testimony is the opposite of mine. Glad you made it back home.
BTW, everyone is agnostic (without certain proof per 2Cor. 5:7), but some believe in God/Christ and some choose I-dolatry.

 

[Blue155]

@GWH, have you ever had a skeptic or critic mock Christianity due to having blood being required for forgiveness?

 

[GWH]

@GWH, have you ever had a skeptic or critic mock Christianity due to having blood being required for forgiveness?

Yes, that is why I say the following uno where:

Someone unfamiliar with the OT might ask, “Why did God’s plan of salvation include the gruesome death of Messiah?”
The answer is that Jesus’ death not only fulfilled OT prophecies of a “prophet” like Moses (Deut. 18:15) and a “suffering servant” (Isa. 53), but it also completed and ended the Mosaic sacrificial system, as explained in Hebrews 7:18-10:1. It is logical to believe that an all-loving God’s plan of salvation would be just, the best and save the most. Paul taught (in Rom. 5:6-11) that the crucifixion of Jesus not only manifested God’s love but also provided the way for Him to forgive sins justly without abrogating free will and abetting sin.

Jesus bore the just consequences of the sins of all humanity (called “atonement”) so that those who truly repent can receive forgiveness rather than having to experience those consequences or hell. We must underline the word “truly”, however, because God’s free grace is not cheap or unjust, allowing evil to go unpunished (cf. Matt. 7:21, 2Tim. 2:19, Tit. 1:16). A person cannot play games with God, who knows the heart (Gal. 6:7-10, Heb. 4:12-13). Jesus is the only person qualified to be Messiah and atone for others’ sins, because he was innocent of sin even though tempted like every human (Heb. 4:15, 5:7-9 & 6:26-28).

Anyone who thinks God should punish each individual for his/her own sins thinks too highly of himself and too little of the holiness of God. Even though some sins, such as murder, seem worse than others quantitatively, because they cause more obvious harm, all sin—even that of omission (Jam. 4:17)—is evil qualitatively and equivalent to murder for being diametrically opposed to the perfect will of God (Jam. 2:10-11). Thus, while it might seem that the just consequence for your own sins would be a hell much less horrible than for someone like Hitler, all ungodly souls are on Satan’s side and cannot earn heaven by trying to be good without cooperating with God. So instead of seeking salvation our own way, it is wise to be grateful for grace and ask for clarification of one’s (mis)understandings in heaven.

 

[rewriter]

Well, while I would probably agree with the arguments you mentioned, let us not get carried away and think that they "inerrantly prove" anything, because of the possibility of future knowledge showing them to be in error.

I need neither the Bible nor history to define the first beings who were human rather than mere animals as those who attained God consciousness and moral conscience, tautological though it is.

You are correct that without the NT revelation we humans would be in deep doo-doo, without hope of heaven.
However, the NT provides greater evidence for its truth than any other writing IMO. Let me share some more of what I have written:

Imagine that you have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, your immediate concern would be meeting your survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, would you not wonder why you were “born”, how you should behave, and what you ought to accomplish with your life?

Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions.

One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI/God).

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason (the UMI/God, cf. Rom. 1:20). This answer seems more appealing and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

The first type of answer can be called “cosmaterialism”, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses. The second way of believing may be called “moralism”, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (a UMI/God per Rom. 1:20).

The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. Gen. 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide.

A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Until/unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.

Are you tracking before I share more of this train of thought?

I am following this with no problems at all. Cosmaterialism is possible only because some people choose, plausibly for emotional or psychological reasons, to ignore evidence that they find inconvenient. They find ways to explain this evidence away. Such says nothing about their morals or attitudes about life though. But also, that same tendency exists in Christianity, inconvenient evidence can be explained away, such as the earliest known endings to Mark not including any references to the physical resurrection, something easy to add, but unsettling to take away.

 

[GWH]

I am following this with no problems at all. Cosmaterialism is possible only because some people choose, plausibly for emotional or psychological reasons, to ignore evidence that they find inconvenient. They find ways to explain this evidence away. Such says nothing about their morals or attitudes about life though. But also, that same tendency exists in Christianity, inconvenient evidence can be explained away, such as the earliest known endings to Mark not including any references to the physical resurrection, something easy to add, but unsettling to take away.

Your following my train of thought is a minor miracle per some on CC!
Yes, wasn't there a movie about Inconvenient Truth?
Yes, the ending to Mark has a couple of those, but drinking poison and handling poisonous snakes did not catch on.

Since you are so simpatico, I am encouraged to continue my train of thought:

The second watershed decision flows immediately and implicitly from the moralist viewpoint (like major rivers from one side of the Divide)—choosing what (or who) to believe gives existence meaning and under-girds moral conscience. As one analyzes the variety of moralistic beliefs, there seem to be three main atheistic denominations: 1. the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. Gen. 11:4), 2. there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. Gal. 6:7), and 3. there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. Rom. 2:14).

Humanism has three sects including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?)

The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?). The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist). And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right). In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.

Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality (a UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).

The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. Matt. 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH (“might makes right”).

Pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in Matt. 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 28:5-7) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.

The only viable alternative to atheism is NT theism, the belief that a/one supernatural Supreme Being exists, who has a moral will for humanity, with which humans may cooperate or not (cf. Gen. 17:1). NT theism reformed the OT concept by revealing that the one almighty God is also all-loving. (The NT concept of God is described more fully in Parts III and IV, but at this point see 1Tim. 2:3-7.) It views God as creating and communicating by means of His Word (Logos in John 1:1), and it affirms that the world is created intentionally rather than accidentally “banged” from a “singularity” (Rom. 1:20&25).

(Pausing for air :^)

 

[rewriter]

Many people have trouble with deeper discussions, one of the issues I have in my writing. But I trust you are aware of Games Theory which provides a nontheistic basis for morality, moral behavior is simply the best approach for success. Even business schools will often teach that moral behavior is beneficial, or at least an outward appearance of morality is. "Beyond Materialism" by Kelly, Kelly, Crabtee and a few others is the first in a collection of three very deep but also very good books refuting materialism if you are not aware of them.

But you downplay polytheism, one specific form of which is henotheism, there are many gods but only this specific one is worthy of worship, and all polytheists accept the concept of one supreme deity over and the source of all the rest. And heaven forbid, there is evidence of henotheism in the scriptures as well as in archeology lasting far longer than many Christians would find comfortable.

 

[GWH]

Many people have trouble with deeper discussions, one of the issues I have in my writing. But I trust you are aware of Games Theory which provides a nontheistic basis for morality, moral behavior is simply the best approach for success. Even business schools will often teach that moral behavior is beneficial, or at least an outward appearance of morality is. "Beyond Materialism" by Kelly, Kelly, Crabtee and a few others is the first in a collection of three very deep but also very good books refuting materialism if you are not aware of them.

But you downplay polytheism, one specific form of which is henotheism, there are many gods but only this specific one is worthy of worship, and all polytheists accept the concept of one supreme deity over and the source of all the rest. And heaven forbid, there is evidence of henotheism in the scriptures as well as in archeology lasting far longer than many Christians would find comfortable.

A fact of life is death, which apparently GT ignores.
Again, all atheism can offer is a “pyrite suggestion” as KOTH (“might makes right”) continues.
Re henotheism: logically there can be only one omnipotent God.

If you are still tracking, I will share more:

The atheist opinion indicates that the existence of a supernatural Deity is not proven, although it is not disproved either, which means that the evidence needs to be evaluated honestly. Atheists assert that one cannot prove a negative, so the burden is on theists to prove God exists. However, this assertion assumes God is not the positive “I AM” (see axiomatic belief #1). A neutral statement about ultimate reality is the following: “It is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true.” Alternatively, the Bible indicates that the purpose of this life is rather for humans to prove to God they are worthy of—or qualify for—heaven (cf. Deut. 6:16 & Matt. 4:7).

This discussion shows that everyone lives by faith regarding God or ultimate reality (2Cor. 5:7), and the structure of earthly reality forces souls to choose between various contradictory beliefs and to make (albeit sometimes rather subconsciously) the two watershed choices described: between nihilism and moralism, and between the various atheistic beliefs and the highest type of theism, NT Christianity. (For reasons explained in the next parts, I believe the last is best: Let there be God!)

Atheists claim there is no more evidence for the existence of God, the Creator and Judge of humanity, than for the reality of obviously fictional entities, such as Odin or unicorns. However, four types of evidence or reasoning may be viewed as supporting rational belief in God, although they do not prove He exists: the unique universe, theocentric human history, existential need and moral conscience.

Current scientific theory states that the universe began with a “bang”, when a marble of matter or a singularity of energy suddenly exploded, and that it will end with a “whimper” when the stars eventually fade to darkness. This unique universe theory is compatible or consistent with belief in a God who created the universe “ex nihilo”, who sustains it by His power, and who will judge its moral agents at the end of time.

Current knowledge of world history suggests that humanity descended from one genetic source and evolved into various cultures. Throughout history humanity has perceived deity to be the ground of meaning and morality. The first people to perceive God were named Adam (Gen. 2:7) and Eve (Gen. 2:22 & 3:20). Theocentric history reached its apex or spiritual climax with the NT teaching that there is one almighty and all-loving God, who desires all humanity to live in harmony on earth and also in heaven, and who allows humanity to experience earthly existence including pain and disappointment (KOTH) for the purpose of teaching them their need for Him (cf. Heb. 12:10).

Current existential reality indicates that mortals need God in order to obtain immortality, that morality needs God for a universal imperative and ultimate justice, and that the NT offers the best hope that this “duo of desirables” (DOD) or heaven and justice/hell can be attained. Just as physical needs are satisfied by material realities, perhaps our metaphysical needs indicate the reality of supernatural solutions (the God of the DOD).

Moral conscience indicates and logically requires accountability to a moral authority, and the supreme Authority would be God. Paul wrote (in Rom. 1:32 & 2:15) that people “know God’s decree that those who do evil deserve death” and that their consciences “show that the requirements of the [God’s moral] law are written on their hearts.” Our feeble attempts at earthly justice may reflect or serve as evidence of God’s perfect justice. This view is similar to Platonic idealism (cf. 1Cor. 13:12, Heb. 8:5, 9:23 & 10:1). We may perceive perfect justice partially (1Cor. 13:9-12) using spiritual eyes/intuition/a sixth sense along with inference, logic, and even imagination.

 

[rewriter]

A fact of life is death, which apparently GT ignores.
Again, all atheism can offer is a “pyrite suggestion” as KOTH (“might makes right”) continues.
Re henotheism: logically there can be only one omnipotent God.

If you are still tracking, I will share more:

The atheist opinion indicates that the existence of a supernatural Deity is not proven, although it is not disproved either, which means that the evidence needs to be evaluated honestly. Atheists assert that one cannot prove a negative, so the burden is on theists to prove God exists. However, this assertion assumes God is not the positive “I AM” (see axiomatic belief #1). A neutral statement about ultimate reality is the following: “It is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true.” Alternatively, the Bible indicates that the purpose of this life is rather for humans to prove to God they are worthy of—or qualify for—heaven (cf. Deut. 6:16 & Matt. 4:7).

This discussion shows that everyone lives by faith regarding God or ultimate reality (2Cor. 5:7), and the structure of earthly reality forces souls to choose between various contradictory beliefs and to make (albeit sometimes rather subconsciously) the two watershed choices described: between nihilism and moralism, and between the various atheistic beliefs and the highest type of theism, NT Christianity. (For reasons explained in the next parts, I believe the last is best: Let there be God!)

Atheists claim there is no more evidence for the existence of God, the Creator and Judge of humanity, than for the reality of obviously fictional entities, such as Odin or unicorns. However, four types of evidence or reasoning may be viewed as supporting rational belief in God, although they do not prove He exists: the unique universe, theocentric human history, existential need and moral conscience.

Current scientific theory states that the universe began with a “bang”, when a marble of matter or a singularity of energy suddenly exploded, and that it will end with a “whimper” when the stars eventually fade to darkness. This unique universe theory is compatible or consistent with belief in a God who created the universe “ex nihilo”, who sustains it by His power, and who will judge its moral agents at the end of time.

Current knowledge of world history suggests that humanity descended from one genetic source and evolved into various cultures. Throughout history humanity has perceived deity to be the ground of meaning and morality. The first people to perceive God were named Adam (Gen. 2:7) and Eve (Gen. 2:22 & 3:20). Theocentric history reached its apex or spiritual climax with the NT teaching that there is one almighty and all-loving God, who desires all humanity to live in harmony on earth and also in heaven, and who allows humanity to experience earthly existence including pain and disappointment (KOTH) for the purpose of teaching them their need for Him (cf. Heb. 12:10).

Current existential reality indicates that mortals need God in order to obtain immortality, that morality needs God for a universal imperative and ultimate justice, and that the NT offers the best hope that this “duo of desirables” (DOD) or heaven and justice/hell can be attained. Just as physical needs are satisfied by material realities, perhaps our metaphysical needs indicate the reality of supernatural solutions (the God of the DOD).

Moral conscience indicates and logically requires accountability to a moral authority, and the supreme Authority would be God. Paul wrote (in Rom. 1:32 & 2:15) that people “know God’s decree that those who do evil deserve death” and that their consciences “show that the requirements of the [God’s moral] law are written on their hearts.” Our feeble attempts at earthly justice may reflect or serve as evidence of God’s perfect justice. This view is similar to Platonic idealism (cf. 1Cor. 13:12, Heb. 8:5, 9:23 & 10:1). We may perceive perfect justice partially (1Cor. 13:9-12) using spiritual eyes/intuition/a sixth sense along with inference, logic, and even imagination.

You are citing only one of the three "proofs" for at least a deistic god from science. You are citing what is called the Thermodynamic one, there is also the Anthropomorphic or Fine Tuning, and both of these come from physics. Then there is Cellular Complexity from biochemistry and biology. Still being fully articulated is a fourth that at least a couple people have referred to as the "paranormal proof" which like Cellular Complexity one relies at least in part on experimental evidence. At present, this approach seems to be the only one capable of requiring a theistic god, in the last form that I saw it would mandate such a deity, mandate divine love and justice, but also raise serious questions regarding the nature of both sin and salvation. Both would still exist, but in different forms that are commonly expressed, although even the NT implies things not widely accepted, such as at least two methods of atonement, possibly all three that were accepted in 2nd Temple Judaism, not just the bloody sacrifice.

As for world history, if one looks at genetics, modern day humans carry traces of DNA from at least three distinct species in the genus "Homo", which would place any universal human ancestor well before anything resembling humans today and actually cause trouble for the Genesis accounts where all are to procreate after their own kind. One really needs to be careful in some arguments and make certain that the facts being cited conform to the scriptures or else concede that the scriptures contain scientific errors, something many Christians do not want to admit.

The questions of immortality and ultimate justice are no proofs either. They are ideals, but there is no concrete evidence apart from faith that these ideals actually exist.

Moral consciousness as a basis also has the flaw of ignoring games theory which indicates, as I noted before, that moral behavior is beneficial for personal survival without the need for any outside entity.

 

[GWH]

You are citing only one of the three "proofs" for at least a deistic god from science. You are citing what is called the Thermodynamic one, there is also the Anthropomorphic or Fine Tuning, and both of these come from physics. Then there is Cellular Complexity from biochemistry and biology. Still being fully articulated is a fourth that at least a couple people have referred to as the "paranormal proof" which like Cellular Complexity one relies at least in part on experimental evidence. At present, this approach seems to be the only one capable of requiring a theistic god, in the last form that I saw it would mandate such a deity, mandate divine love and justice, but also raise serious questions regarding the nature of both sin and salvation. Both would still exist, but in different forms that are commonly expressed, although even the NT implies things not widely accepted, such as at least two methods of atonement, possibly all three that were accepted in 2nd Temple Judaism, not just the bloody sacrifice.

As for world history, if one looks at genetics, modern day humans carry traces of DNA from at least three distinct species in the genus "Homo", which would place any universal human ancestor well before anything resembling humans today and actually cause trouble for the Genesis accounts where all are to procreate after their own kind.

One really needs to be careful in some arguments and make certain that the facts being cited conform to the scriptures or else concede that the scriptures contain scientific errors, something many Christians do not want to admit.

The questions of immortality and ultimate justice are no proofs either. They are ideals, but there is no concrete evidence apart from faith that these ideals actually exist.

Moral consciousness as a basis also has the flaw of ignoring games theory which indicates, as I noted before, that moral behavior is beneficial for personal survival without the need for any outside entity.

Yes, the astro-physical theory I cited as evidence for a Creator God (that the unique universe beginning from a marble of matter or a singularity of energy suddenly exploding) is compatible with what is said in Genesis 1.

The argument from cellular complexity would seem to come under the history of humanity evidential category. Genetics traces the history back to the time humans became different from animals, which would appear to be because of God consciousness combined with moral conscience (knowing right from wrong, perhaps per the golden rule).

Yes, Christians need to realize that the Scriptures were written for the purpose of revealing God's plan of salvation, not earth sciences.
The arguments from eternal life and ultimate justice are rational or not disproved, concretely or otherwise. Disbelief in these ideals is just that.

Again, GT has the flaw of being short-sighted by ignoring these arguments and viewing earthly survival for a few years as success.

Over...

 

[rewriter]

The cellular complexity goes all the way back to the simplest living single cell organism from well before any humans existed. Human cells are not more complex than these very simple cells when compared to the most complex non-living collection of molecules. There is a qualitative difference in complexity between that which is living and that which is non-living. As for when humans became distinct from non-human animals, when that occurred is not clear.

As for why the scriptures were written, the clarity is not as simple as you present it. A large part of them seems to be a response to political issues and seems to be reassurance that the people will recover. Judaism as it was when Jesus lived, and as has continued to this day with concern about the "Law" as expressed in the Torah seems to date all the way back to the early 2nd century BCE, despite the claims that occur in the OT. Also, archeology has uncovered evidence of outright lies in some of the biblical record. A lot has been confirmed, to be certain. but other parts have been contradicted. This includes evidence for at least 5 Jewish temples, most of the time there being two existing at the same time, including from the early 2nd century BCE into the CE era, two temples with the last falling 3 years after the Jerusalem temple.

 

[GWH]

The cellular complexity goes all the way back to the simplest living single cell organism from well before any humans existed. Human cells are not more complex than these very simple cells when compared to the most complex non-living collection of molecules. There is a qualitative difference in complexity between that which is living and that which is non-living. As for when humans became distinct from non-human animals, when that occurred is not clear.

As for why the scriptures were written, the clarity is not as simple as you present it. A large part of them seems to be a response to political issues and seems to be reassurance that the people will recover. Judaism as it was when Jesus lived, and as has continued to this day with concern about the "Law" as expressed in the Torah seems to date all the way back to the early 2nd century BCE, despite the claims that occur in the OT.

Also, archeology has uncovered evidence of outright lies in some of the biblical record. A lot has been confirmed, to be certain. but other parts have been contradicted. This includes evidence for at least 5 Jewish temples, most of the time there being two existing at the same time, including from the early 2nd century BCE into the CE era, two temples with the last falling 3 years after the Jerusalem temple.

What do you think makes humans distinctly different from animals?

Yes, the history of the Bible is comparable to making sausage, but why do you think most of the Scriptures were written?

What archeological evidence disproves what biblical record and does it matter?

(Curious minds want to know.)

 

[rewriter]

What do you think makes humans distinctly different from animals?

Yes, the history of the Bible is comparable to making sausage, but why do you think most of the Scriptures were written?

What archeological evidence disproves what biblical record and does it matter?

(Curious minds want to know.)

Archeological evidence, as well as recorded evidence from Jewish sources recognizes more temples than scripture admits, such as a second temple existing from the 9th century at latest to the late 6th or early 5th within sight of the first Jerusalem temple, a time period that extends past when all worship sites other than the Jerusalem were supposedly destroyed for one thing. The Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Talmud, recognize a second Jewish temple existing form the early 2nd century BCE until 73 CE that was acceptable for sacrifices and where it was possible for a second deity to be worshipped. Communication between the 2nd Temple (early in the period) and the Elephantine temple in Egypt showed no indication of a written record of laws regarding festivals and avoidance of worshipping foreign deities, yet according to scripture, the Torah was known during this period. I will avoid the evidence that suggests problems in gospel accounts except to reference that somethings suggest an individual who might have been known as Joseph Caiaphas of Arimathea.

 

[GWH]

Archeological evidence, as well as recorded evidence from Jewish sources recognizes more temples than scripture admits, such as a second temple existing from the 9th century at latest to the late 6th or early 5th within sight of the first Jerusalem temple, a time period that extends past when all worship sites other than the Jerusalem were supposedly destroyed for one thing. The Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Talmud, recognize a second Jewish temple existing form the early 2nd century BCE until 73 CE that was acceptable for sacrifices and where it was possible for a second deity to be worshipped. Communication between the 2nd Temple (early in the period) and the Elephantine temple in Egypt showed no indication of a written record of laws regarding festivals and avoidance of worshipping foreign deities, yet according to scripture, the Torah was known during this period. I will avoid the evidence that suggests problems in gospel accounts except to reference that somethings suggest an individual who might have been known as Joseph Caiaphas of Arimathea.

Good morning. Is there some reason you answered only one of my questions?

 

[rewriter]

Good morning. Is there some reason you answered only one of my questions?

Well, the difference between humans and other animals, gets rather complex and to answer properly, with full explanations could take several pages. But in brief, humans have the ability to love individual members of other species and to teach other species to love humans and individuals from different species, something not unheard of without human intervention but also extremely rare in most cases.

 

[GWH]

Well, the difference between humans and other animals, gets rather complex and to answer properly, with full explanations could take several pages. But in brief, humans have the ability to love individual members of other species and to teach other species to love humans and individuals from different species, something not unheard of without human intervention but also extremely rare in most cases.

Yes, love is the key difference, understood as consciousness of God's love, and as moral conscience, understood as God's golden rule.

Now, what about the other question: Understanding that the history of the Bible is comparable to making sausage, why do you think most of the Scriptures were written?

 

[biblestudent78]

I agree with your main point, but would point out that the key question is how true Christians should be discerned,
and the answer of Jesus was stated in John 13:35 (cf. 1John 4 for context). Love can be manifested in numerous ways,
with having a foster child being one way. My son is one of the 28% and 15%, but at least he is not part of the 50% and 65%.
And keep in mind that singleness was recommended by Jesus and Paul for those who can be celibate.

I disagree that the key question is "how true Christians should be discerned." I suggest it is about how Christians live. Lynch pins. Jesus said "I came not to be served, but to serve." One on axis, Christianity is all about who you serve. As Bob Dylan so accurately put it, "You've got to serve somebody." The world is looking for those who serve others in the same way they serve themselves. i.e. Love God and love your neighbor. You can't claim to love God with validity if you do not love your neighbor. On the other axis, Christianity is all about who you are becoming. 1st Corinthians 13, Galatians 5:22-26 and Matthew 25 paint a clear picture of who we must become if we are led by the Holy Spirit having been born again. Life change toward becoming a more loving, caring, serving, selfless, reconciler and healer is validation that everyone around us can see. If our life invalidates our words, the world will not listen, nor should they.

 

[biblestudent78]

I am largely in agreement with you, but one key question is, can you prove it without the Bible?

Attempting to "prove the bible" without the visible life change power claimed by the Bible is a hill too far. In Jesus metaphor, we are to be a bright light on a hill that attracts the attention and admiration of the world as they see the living love of God. It was not a light in the pulpit, or the Internet. It was a life changed from our common human nature to a new creation, a new set of priorities, a new and ever deepening love for those created by and loved by God. Our personal experience of life change is the greatest expression of our faith and the greatest "proof" that our faith is not in vain.

 

[GWH]

I disagree that the key question is "how true Christians should be discerned." I suggest it is about how Christians live. Lynch pins. Jesus said "I came not to be served, but to serve." One on axis, Christianity is all about who you serve. As Bob Dylan so accurately put it, "You've got to serve somebody." The world is looking for those who serve others in the same way they serve themselves. i.e. Love God and love your neighbor. You can't claim to love God with validity if you do not love your neighbor. On the other axis, Christianity is all about who you are becoming. 1st Corinthians 13, Galatians 5:22-26 and Matthew 25 paint a clear picture of who we must become if we are led by the Holy Spirit having been born again. Life change toward becoming a more loving, caring, serving, selfless, reconciler and healer is validation that everyone around us can see. If our life invalidates our words, the world will not listen, nor should they.

I think your point agrees with what Jesus said in John 13:35, so both are aspects of the key question or issue regarding witnessing.
Sorry if I seemed to divorce loving from living.

Are you a Bob Dylan fan? I love his Slow Train Coming album!
I hope he is still a Messianic Jew/Christian.

 

[biblestudent78]

I think your point agrees with what Jesus said in John 13:35, so both are aspects of the key question or issue regarding witnessing.
Sorry if I seemed to divorce loving from living.

Are you a Bob Dylan fan? I love his Slow Train Coming album!
I hope he is still a Messianic Jew/Christian.

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You might be a socialite with a long string of pearls
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody

Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

Might be a rock 'n' roll addict prancing on the stage
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage
You may be a businessman or some high-degree thief
They may call you doctor or they may call you chief
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes, you are
You're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)

You may be a state trooper, you might be a young Turk
You may be the head of some big TV network
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame
You may be livin' in another country under another name
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes, you are
You're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)

You may be a construction worker workin' on a home
Might be livin' in a mansion, you might live in a dome
You may own guns and you may even own tanks
You may be somebody's landlord, you may even own banks
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Yes, you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil or it might be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)

You may be a preacher preaching spiritual pride
Maybe a city councilman takin' bribes on the side
May be working in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair
You may be somebody's mistress, maybe somebody's heir
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
Yes, you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)

Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk
Might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread
May be sleeping on the floor, sleepin' in a king-size bed
But you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Yes indeed, you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

You may call me Terry, you may call me Timmy
You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy
You may call me RJ, you may call me Ray
You may call me anything, no matter what you say
You're still gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Yes, you're gonna have to serve somebody (serve somebody)
Well, it may be the Devil and it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody