|
I love dinosaurs--I just don't accept the straightjacket that says you must believe they predate man by millions of years, or else you can't talk about them.
Good on you.
Personally I think dinosaurs are fascinating. But you start espousing ideas about dragon slayers and such and you get really weird looks. People much prefer talking about politics and root canals. :/
So let's not go there. :P
Kirth, I was looking for any discussions of fossils where they are not supposed to be and did find a page that I thought interesting. It will probably mean more to you than me. Geology is not really my first interest (again my father on the other hand - geology and chemistry are his favorite branches of science).
|
|
Why are there no contemporary miracles and prophecies that could be verified by non-partial observers? God was laying the smack-down throughout the entire Old Testament. Did god get bored and wonder off?
Why are there no miracles and prophecies in the Old Testament that could be verified by non-partial observers. Would there be such a thing as a "non-partial" observer?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I love dinosaurs--I just don't accept the straightjacket that says you must believe they predate man by millions of years, or else you can't talk about them.
Except it's not a belief. It's a fact. It can be verified independently. It can be disproven easily, as Kirth has laid out above.
Making inferences from facts and testing those inferences is not speculative science. It is logical and rational thought.
Look at "bat".
I did not mean to say that words can not have more than one meaning. I accept that.
What I am saying is it appears that these answers are complex machinations attempting to put meaning into all of these anomalies. How can you know which parts are poetry and which are literal commands?
|
Specifically referencing Evolution and Creation Science Evolution - The Bible Taught It First!.
I do not know. That does seem like a lot of hoop jumping to me.
your right it is a lot of hoop jumping. And the fact that it is quite close to ancient Babylonian texts makes it so much more of a hoop jump. My suggestion is to look at this as an alegory and as such the only thing we can surmise is that G~d created to Universe and did so in an ordered way for a purpose.
|
1. Every word of Genesis is literally correct, and all observations dealing with the past are wrong unless they're cited word for word in the Bible. All of geology and paleontology are renounced on this basis, with no need to study them. All observations of the fossil record are off-limits. Example: QXL99.
Not at all--that kind of thinking got Galileo into trouble. I love science, just not speculative science. I am more concerned with what science can do for us now and in the future. If the weather can ever be accurately predicted, huzzah!
I love dinosaurs--I just don't accept the straightjacket that says you must believe they predate man by millions of years, or else you can't talk about them.
I appreciate geology for assisting miners, oil drillers, and those who want to build communities that won't be flattened by earthquakes. They also make it safe to build dams and skyscrapers, for which I am grateful.
Some words of Genesis cannot be taken at face value, because they are symblic--and many disagree over the amount and type of symbology. But I believe everything written in the Bible is important--aside from theological reasonbs, the ancients either transmitted information by memorization or laborious handwriting--it is only in the age of movable print, carbon copies, photocopying and electronic media that unneccessary words have become a luxury.
But your definition of 'speculative science' (which is an odd phrase as literally all science is speculative) seems to be 'science I don't like the outcome of'. All science, including that you apparently approve of, has a default set of assumptions, one of which is that the rules today will be the same as the rules tomorrow which were the same as the rules yesterday. Without that assumption, no prediction or inference could be made. If you reject that, as you have, then there is no such thing as science.
After all, if the rules can change without any warning and leaving no trace, how can you plan for anything? Tomorrow the air might be poisonous and water burn like acid.
As for only believing in 'useful' science, I presume that includes genetics? Given all the advances in the treatment and diagnosis of disease, not to mention DNA fingerprinting, I presume that falls into your definition of science you approve of. But it also provides evidence for evolution and life extending way beyond the beginnings of mankind, which makes it speculative science and therefore wrong.
Why are there no contemporary miracles and prophecies that could be verified by non-partial observers? God was laying the smack-down throughout the entire Old Testament. Did god get bored and wonder off?
Actually, miracles have occurred in two intense flurries. The first batch of miracxles started in Exidus with Moses in Egypt, and gradually peterede out by the time of King David. The second batch of miracles happened during Jesus' ministry, and petered out (sorry!) with the death of Peter and the other apostles.
God uses miracles for many reasons, but chief among them is establishing faith. With the Exodus, God started shaping the Israelites into a nation devoted to Him; thus a lot of miracles, flashy and performed one on top of another, established a foundation for the nation's future.
Jesus repeats this pattern. He established a new kingdom (the Church)and performed a lot of spectacular miracles to prove His credibility as the foundation for that kingdom.
Jesus said "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed." God values faith that doesn't demand the crutch of a miracle. You don't demand that a loved one prove their love to you.
|
|
Why are there no contemporary miracles and prophecies that could be verified by non-partial observers? God was laying the smack-down throughout the entire Old Testament. Did god get bored and wonder off?
That's a misconception. The Old Testament has several long periods of time where there were no miracles. These were highlighted by periods of intense miraculous activity. Most of the prophets were not miracle workers. This is even highlighted in the New Testament with John the Baptist. Jesus commended John as the greatest of prophets and yet the scriptures testify he performed no signs.
Noted periods of miracles are the days of Moses, Elijah and Jesus. The immediate followers of these three also experienced miracles (Joshua, Elisha, and the apostles). There are of course miracles recorded in connection with some other figures (Gideon and Jonah for instance) but these were normally one off events that occurred around them but not necessarily through them. Most of the old testament though seems to have happened without miracles occuring.
|
|
Actually, miracles have occurred in two intense flurries. The first batch of miracxles started in Exidus with Moses in Egypt, and gradually peterede out by the time of King David. The second batch of miracles happened during Jesus' ministry, and petered out (sorry!) with the death of Peter and the other apostles.
Three. As I wrote above. You're forgettng Elijah/Elisha. :)
It is interesting and significant that the three periods of miraculous activity also coincide with the three transfigured on the mount. At least it is to me as a believer.
|
|
What I am saying is it appears that these answers are complex machinations attempting to put meaning into all of these anomalies. How can you know which parts are poetry and which are literal commands?
It's not easy. As I said, I'd hate to be a translator, where whatever you put down, people will take as "law" for the rest of time.
"Literal commands"? The Genesis account is not a command. It doesn't tell us to do anything. It says that God created everything and I'm not sure how important the belief in a literal seven day creation or old earth creation is in the grand scheme of things -- especially when it comes to "salvation".
Hebrew poetry (as I understand it) isn't that hard to identify and most Bibles have those passages indented and broken up to signify what it is. It isn't less important than the rest of scripture, but typically poetry was used to glorify and bring honor to God.
. Kirth, I was looking for any discussions of fossils where they are not supposed to be and did find a page that I thought interesting.
That's an interesting reference -- thanks for the link! What it suggests are that, in some cases at least, certain spore- or pollen-bearing plants might have evolved slightly earlier than was previously realized (Ordivician age is just before Silurian, for example, so you're not looking at tens of millions of years' difference or anything). In other cases, we're seeing very light remains in very slightly later strata, as if they were suspended in sediment for a time, released through erosion or water-born removal of the sediments, and then settled and properly "set" in the rock.
Nothing in the table immediately suggests to me anything outside of the realm of day-to-day evolutionary theory, if that's what you're asking. Rather, it does underscore two important points: 1. the first known occurrance of something is almost always slightly later than the first actual occurrence; and 2. the Earth's surface is not static.
|
|
You don't demand that a loved one prove their love to you.But, I do demand that they at least communicate with me and make me aware of their existence. Otherwise, they're not a loved one - they're a stranger at worst and imaginary at best.
Damn He figured out that everyone he knows is imaginary... it's time to send Mr. Smith to deal with our pony friend.
|
|
You don't demand that a loved one prove their love to you.But, I do demand that they at least communicate with me and make me aware of their existence.
Heh. :-) To which we respond, that God has communicated to us and we are aware of his existence.
To which you respond that doing it in a book that you find questionable at best is a silly way to do it.
I think we have been over this ground. To those of us who believe, the message of God is the deepest of wisdom. To those who don't believe, it is utter foolishness. I read that somewhere and it does seem to be true.
May I ask what exactly the apostles gained by making the claims that they did concerning Jesus? They sought no riches. Established no armies. And 12 out of thirteen of them died violent deaths for what they preached. What exactly was the vested material interest?
The apostles work in mysterious ways. :P
Please correct me if I am wrong here, did not the apostles wait many years before they wrote down all that they had witnessed? We all know that our memory can be flawed. Granted, I seriously doubt anyone’s memory would become so distorted as to add in a resurrection.
I also understand there is some question that the gospels were written by the apostles. Mark’s apprentice may have been given to embellishment.
The First Council of Nicea shaped the bible as we know it today by deciding which books made the cut. That is nearly 300 years after the fact and I seriously question their motives.
The apostles were martyred because the Nazarenes were a cult at the time and they were upsetting the Romans.
|
|
. Kirth, I was looking for any discussions of fossils where they are not supposed to be and did find a page that I thought interesting.
Nothing in the table immediately suggests to me anything outside of the realm of day-to-day evolutionary theory, if that's what you're asking.
I wasn't actually asking anything. I'm still pretty comfortable as a catastrophist, your refutations notwithstanding. :)
I just thought you would find it interesting.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think we have been over this ground. To those of us who believe, the message of God is the deepest of wisdom. To those who don't believe, it is utter foolishness. I read that somewhere and it does seem to be true.
Not at all. I don't dispute for a minute that the Bible contains the distilled wisdom of men and is a valuable resource. I just don't see any support for the idea that the source of that wisdom is something other than men.
You've pretty much said that you don't even want to see him.
When did I say that?! I do not doubt you. I have inherited an irritating trait from my mother of saying one thing one day and something completely different the next day. I am a hopeless flip-flopper.
|
|
You've pretty much said that you don't even want to see him.When did I say that?! I do not doubt you. I have inherited an irritating trait from my mother of saying one thing one day and something completely different the next day. I am a hopeless flip-flopper.
Perhaps you didn't. I'm not terribly thrilled with the idea of going through the last 300 posts to try and find what I thought you said. If I misquoted, my apologies.
|
|
May I ask what exactly the apostles gained by making the claims that they did concerning Jesus? They sought no riches. Established no armies. And 12 out of thirteen of them died violent deaths for what they preached. What exactly was the vested material interest?The apostles work in mysterious ways. :P
Please correct me if I am wrong here, did not the apostles wait many years before they wrote down all that they had witnessed? We all know that our memory can be flawed. Granted, I seriously doubt anyone’s memory would become so distorted as to add in a resurrection.
I also understand there is some question that the gospels were written by the apostles. Mark’s apprentice may have been given to embellishment.
The First Council of Nicea shaped the bible as we know it today by deciding which books made the cut. That is nearly 300 years after the fact and I seriously question their motives.
The apostles were martyred because the Nazarenes were a cult at the time and they were upsetting the Romans.
Matthew and John were both apostles. Traditionally Matthew was said to have written his pretty early. It was obviously written for a Jewish audience and this ties in with the fact that the church was predominately Jewish for the first few years.
Mark was not an apostle. He worked with both Peter and Paul and was a member of the original Jerusalem church. He wrote his gospel after the death of Peter and there is a school of thought that says he wrote it down largely based on Peter's sermons. Mark wrote his gospel in Rome about 35 years after the fact and his gospel is of such a nature to appeal to its roman audience.
Luke was a companion of Paul and also not an apostle. He wrote his gospel about twenty years after the fact and based it on the testimony of people he interviewed. Luke's gospel is written with a gentile audience in mind.
John's is the only gospel that could have been said to have been written late. It is generally dated about 60 years after the fact and John was an apostle. John's gospel is partially a discourse on the dual nature of Jesus and can be seen, in part, as a refutation of some of the gnostic elements that were beginning to creep into the church at the time.
The council of Nicea did not establish the cannon. They did have a council discussing the books but the contents of the New Testament were finished and accepted by the second century. Revelation was the last book written and it was written before the end of the first century. In fact, the majority of the New testament was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Peter and Paul were both killed, as I think I noted in an earlier post, in AD 64 so it would have been tricky for them to have written much after this. But this means that the New Testament was mostly finished within about forty years of the cross.
The core message is summarized succinctly as "The Four Noble Truths"
I am not sure I can buy into that all suffering is due to craving/grasping/ego. I still do not fully understand the need for meditation. I saw this come up time and again whenever I researched Buddhism.
I have a friend who is not a Buddhist, but does meditate. I asked him, but I was never fully satisfied with his answers. What’s the deal?
Would there be such a thing as a "non-partial" observer?
Point.
And the fact that it is quite close to ancient Babylonian texts makes it so much more of a hoop jump.
Are not the first several books suspected plageries?
You don't demand that a loved one prove their love to you.No, but if they constantly treat me badly they may find they are no longer a loved one.
To which we respond, that God has communicated to us and we are aware of his existence.
No, you have a book that says he responded to us. A book that has been translated through a couple different languages, some portions inexplicably dropped and which, in many places, seems to disagree with world we observe around us.
If I misquoted, my apologies.
I may have said it. Right this minute, I am completely open to meeting god. I do have a few questions though.
I am not sure I can buy into that all suffering is due to craving/grasping/ego.
I didn't, either. At all. I came to believe in the efficacity of the prescription only after trying it and seeing results. I am vastly more empathetic, and vastly less miserable, than I ever dreamed of being before starting on this road (and I was pretty happy, for the most part... but not when things went poorly, if you see what I mean).
I still do not fully understand the need for meditation. I saw this come up time and again whenever I researched Buddhism. I have a friend who is not a Buddhist, but does meditate. I asked him, but I was never fully satisfied with his answers. What’s the deal?
Think of it this way: your mind picks up all kinds of stuff during the course of a normal day, and pieces of your mind continue to chew on it and worry at it. Your surface thoughts might still focus well, but your subconscious is all over the place. When you sleep and dream, your conscious mind relaxes and your subconscious is given free reign to go nuts and assemble things in whatever manner it sees fit. This is an essential function. Meditation allows BOTH parts of your mind to quiet down (but not shut off), so that all of the random stuff has a chance to settle down into appropriate places, conscious and subconscious, where you can make more sense out of it. That's a "how it seems" explanation; there's a lot of current work regarding brainwave patterns and synapse activity in different parts of the brain that can probably provide a much better technical explanation of its usefulness.
The long and short of it, though, is that it works, once you really get into it.
I'm still pretty comfortable as a catastrophist, your refutations notwithstanding.
Like I said, take a class and see what's really out there before you decide. It's no fair asking someone who's never picked up a Bible to decide right then and there whether to believe in Christ. Likewise, it's foolish to expect anyone to accept something like evolution unless they've seen the evidence firsthand. In either case, it's premature to reject these things as well.
Matthew and John were both apostles. Traditionally Matthew was said to have written his pretty early.
You need to get over to Wikipedia and do some editing. :)
I say this in jest because I realize Wikipedia is a questionable source.
|
|
To which we respond, that God has communicated to us and we are aware of his existence.No, you have a book that says he responded to us. A book that has been translated through a couple different languages, some portions inexplicably dropped and which, in many places, seems to disagree with world we observe around us.
My Bible has been through exactly one translation: Greek to English. Though if you want, I have a couple of greek bibles as well as a greek interlinear.
I am also not aware of portions that have been inexplicably dropped. You seem to be under the misconception that the refusal to accept the gnostic scriptures is the same as dropping them. This is akin to accusing us of dropping the book of Mormon or the Quran. We did not drop them - we never believed them (I say, speaking for the conservative christian community at large). We are under no obligation to accept everybook anyone anywhere ever believed in. The books we do accept are apostolic in nature (meaning they were either written by apostles or by those close to the apostles).
|
|
To which we respond, that God has communicated to us and we are aware of his existence.No, you have a book that says he responded to us. A book that has been translated through a couple different languages, some portions inexplicably dropped and which, in many places, seems to disagree with world we observe around us.My Bible has been through exactly one translation: Greek to English. Though if you want, I have a couple of greek bibles as well as a greek interlinear.
I am also not aware of portions that have been inexplicably dropped. You seem to be under the misconception that the refusal to accept the gnostic scriptures is the same as dropping them. This is akin to accusing us of dropping the book of Mormon or the Quran. We did not drop them - we never believed them (I say, speaking for the conservative christian community at large). We are under no obligation to accept everybook anyone anywhere ever believed in. The books we do accept are apostolic in nature (meaning they were either written by apostles or by those close to the apostles).
Wicht,
And we're back to the old argument, so far unresolved, of why your divinely inspired text is better than everyone else's divinely inspired text. What is it about the Bible that makes you believe that it's true rather than the Torah or the Qu'ran, or even the Book of Mormon?|
|
Matthew and John were both apostles. Traditionally Matthew was said to have written his pretty early.You need to get over to Wikipedia and do some editing. :)
I say this in jest because I realize Wikipedia is a questionable source.
Scholars[who?] generally date the synoptic gospels as having been written after the epistles of Paul and before the gospel according to John, thus between 60 and 115 AD.
There are scholars who say this. They are basing it on source criticism, of which I have already made my feelings plain. There are also scholars who deny this.
Polycarp who was a disciple of John, one of his student wrote that Polycarp taught Matthew wrote his Gospel first, Mark wrote Peter’s Teachings, Luke wrote Paul’s teachings and John wrote his last
I accept the word of Polycarp here. He was alive during the events in question. He was also, as wikipedia says, a disciple of John and one of the last of his generation of Christians. If you are not familiar with the story of Polycarp, it is well worth looking into.
|
|
Wicht,
And we're back to the old argument, so far unresolved, of why your divinely inspired text is better than everyone else's divinely inspired text. What is it about the Bible that makes you believe that it's true rather than the Torah or the Qu'ran, or even the Book of Mormon?
I hesitate to answer this because I have tried really hard to not attack the faith of others in this thread while defending my own. I think there is a place for sharp debate and rhetoric but I also suspect my answers could get this thread closed pretty fast. :)
Without mentioning then why I do not accept these other books let me give my reasons for accepting the Bible.
The manner of its writing, (including time span, cohesion, and linear plot) strike me as improbable for a book of human devising.
The prophecies within the Bible, accepted honestly without bias, are staggering in their accuracy (I cannot read Psalm 22 and not be compelled into a position of faith).
The resurrection of Christ, if true, is an event of untold magnitude, especially coupled with what he taught. Having examined the evidence, I accept the resurrection as fact and thus accept what Christ taught, which includes a reverence for the scriptures.
The conversion of the apostle Paul (i.e. his change from zealous persecutor to zealous missionary) is another event that, as I examine it, leads me to trust that he believed his testimony.
Finally, and in honesty, not least, having lived my life according to the principles of the Bible and having made a study of it a major part of my life, I grow more and more confident in the life lessons it teaches.
These are, in part, my reasons for faith in the Bible. I doubt this resolves the debate though. :)
|
|
Wicht,
And we're back to the old argument, so far unresolved, of why your divinely inspired text is better than everyone else's divinely inspired text. What is it about the Bible that makes you believe that it's true rather than the Torah or the Qu'ran, or even the Book of Mormon?I hesitate to answer this because I have tried really hard to not attack the faith of others in this thread while defending my own. I think there is a place for sharp debate and rhetoric but I also suspect my answers could get this thread closed pretty fast. :)
Without mentioning then why I do not accept these other books let me give my reasons for accepting the Bible.
The manner of its writing, (including time span, cohesion, and linear plot) strike me as improbable for a book of human devising.
The prophecies within the Bible, accepted honestly without bias, are staggering in their accuracy (I cannot read Psalm 22 and not be compelled into a position of faith).
The resurrection of Christ, if true, is an event of untold magnitude, especially coupled with what he taught. Having examined the evidence, I accept the resurrection as fact and thus accept what Christ taught, which includes a reverence for the scriptures.
The conversion of the apostle Paul (i.e. his change from zealous persecutor to zealous missionary) is another event that, as I examine it, leads me to trust that he believed his testimony.
Finally, and in honesty, not least, having lived my life according to the principles of the Bible and having made a study of it a major part of my life, I grow more and more confident in the life lessons it teaches.
These are, in part, my reasons for faith in the Bible. I doubt this resolves the debate though. :)
Nope, but I wasn't really expecting it to. By this point, I'm a pretty hardened anti-religionist. God I'm still open to, but people will have to really work hard to get me to believe in any religion as the one and only true path.
I appreciate the explanation, however. And I'm sure you'll be shocked when I say it doesn't work for me. ;-)
|
|
What is it about the Bible that makes you believe that it's true rather than the Torah or the Qu'ran, or even the Book of Mormon?
Isn't the Old Testament part of the Torah? (My wife and I will be looking a lot deeper into Judaism this weekend.)
Given how the Qu'ran came about, what is actually found in it and what it's about -- I don't know. I guess one thing that I like about the Bible that is different is that the Bible came from a number of different people rather than one person.
The Book of Mormon isn't even in the same class as the other documents. (And I say the following knowing that some of my best friends are Mormon.) There is no "original text" to go back to for comparison of translation. Yet the book has gone through a number of changes for no apparent reason. Ancient Hebrews would never have written their holy book in the language of their "masters". Items, creations, animals and such (steel, brass, horses, etc.) were not in the New World during the time in question. And I have a really hard time believing that God made a mistake in his plan for his barges making them air-tight in 800-1000 bc (was that even possible at that time?) such that the son of somebody (he's so important being tasked with this that he doesn't have a name) has to tell God that he won't be able to breathe and so God tells him to put an air-hole in the bottom of the boat. That does not coincide with the God that I know or want to know.
Don't get me wrong. Mormons are great people. And they do a LOT of things well and right. But I really feel that the Book of Mormon is seriously wanting as a reliable religious document -- even moreso than the others mentioned. Besides, most Mormons will tell you that they really get more out of their Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants.
5. The Bible is not even worth reading, except to make fun of. Those people are superstitious fools. Example: Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins suggests that people should read the Bible, actually. The article linked, of course, gives a snide clergyman the last word.
Reading it as a science book is of course still wrongheaded.
Again, I sincerely thank you for your input, Wicht.
We are under no obligation to accept everybook anyone anywhere ever believed in.
...and neither am I.
I am sure this is going to sound like an attack, but here goes...
I didn't, either. At all. I came to believe in the efficacity of the prescription only after trying it and seeing results.
This is what I am hearing from many of the Christians participating in this debate. I suspect most religions do this for believers. Please do not take that as me trying to say you are just like everyone else. Well, o.k., I am, but not in a bad way. I think most religion offers us some kind of comfort. Who wouldn't want that?
In trying to better understand how this might work, does the suffering of loosing a loved one to death come from the desire (as understood by Buddhists) to have that loved one back? I am just trying to wrap my head around all suffering comes from desire. I can certainly concede a great deal comes from it.
Think of it this way: your mind picks up all kinds of stuff during the course of a normal day, and pieces of your mind continue to chew on it and worry at it.
O.k. So what exactly do I need to do to try this? Is it as simple as sitting quietly for 30 minutes? Do I have to be in a place of complete silence? Does the position of my body matter or is it just about comfort?
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I wonder how you miss the point that God uses the test of Abraham to illustrate the immensity of His willingness to give His own Son.I find it more likely a lesson not to question.
Why does god need to give his son?
I hope you sense that I enjoy a civil discussion, but I have to ask this question: have you really checked into this much? It seems you have a lot of notions about what kind fo character this Christian God is, but yet don't understand any of the fundamentals of our (or maybe just my) faith.
In the context of the whole Bible, there is certainly no prohibition against questioning God or trying to understand. The book of Job should illustrate that. The remorse of Isaiah in the presence of God, the wailing of Jeremiah at his own plight, the testimony of Paul. Beginning to end, God is someone we can ask about.
Now, God demands obedience (if there is a god...that would be his right), and God tests faith. Studying the story you mischaracterize, Abraham himself says "the Lord will provide the sacrifice." It's evidence that Abraham knew God's character, and trusted Him not to violate His promise.
God needs to give His son because He has to redeem creation to himself, and that redemption has to be on His terms. Also, there has to be death for forgiveness. You can question that basic tenet of theology, but you ought to try to get it before you assume what we believe.
Got to catch WOlverine. Back later.
|
|
Ok heres a big question. What happened to all the people who lived and never heard the "gospel". Such as those in China up until recently, and South America and other places before christianity spread into it. They obviously didn't go through any salvation process, and they never had a chance to do so. So all those people went to hell without really having a chance?
It seems you have a lot of notions about what kind fo character this Christian God is, but yet don't understand any of the fundamentals of our (or maybe just my) faith.
You may be right. My understanding is that god is all powerful, all knowing, loving and created everything. Am I on the right track?
In the context of the whole Bible, there is certainly no prohibition against questioning God or trying to understand. The book of Job should illustrate that.
Again, I yield that I do not understand the fundamentals of your faith because that is not at all what I get from Job. Job seems like a very stern warning not to question.
Now, God demands obedience (if there is a god...that would be his right)
I have not heard him.
and God tests faith.
You got me there. Being completely absent is a pretty good test of anyone's fidelity.
God needs to give His son because He has to redeem creation to himself
O.k. But god is all powerful so he can just say the word and we are forgiven.
and that redemption has to be on His terms.
Don't you mean “god works in mysterious ways”?
Did you like Wolverine?
|
|
Ok heres a big question. What happened to all the people who lived and never heard the "gospel". Such as those in China up until recently, and South America and other places before christianity spread into it. They obviously didn't go through any salvation process, and they never had a chance to do so. So all those people went to hell without really having a chance?
This one has been debated many times (in my life anyway)
IMHO no carring God would send good people who live their lives by the basic tenants of his teachings, knowingly or by personal virtue, to any form of hell. My own Christian beleifs tell me that no amount of professed faith will ever be more telling than what is in your heart. I know that may not be the most "religious" answer but I never claimed to be on the same page with everything that I was taught. I feel that the spirit of the Bible is sound but there is no way that it should be taken word for word exactly, it's been translated to many times for that.|
|
Ok heres a big question. What happened to all the people who lived and never heard the "gospel". Such as those in China up until recently, and South America and other places before christianity spread into it. They obviously didn't go through any salvation process, and they never had a chance to do so. So all those people went to hell without really having a chance?
There are a number of ways to approach this question and I have used the following with people in personal studies.
1) God is a righteous God who will do the right thing. Part of our faith is to trust Him to do so.
2) Is this your situation? Does the theoritical ability or inability of others affect your responsibility to do what you know you should do?
3) Christ promises that the one who seeks will find. We need to trust that God will open a way for those souls who truly want to be pleasing to Him.
4) Perhaps we are the way through which those of our generation will hear the gospel preached. If you believe the gospel then you should also believe in the necessity of sharing it. We may be the way by which God provides the truth for those who are seeking. As God told Ezekiel to bear the duties of a watchman, so too we bear the duty of warning others.