Honour Amongst Christians

Wrong that was Islam described not Christianity Christians do good deeds because we should yes but we do them out of the kindness of our hearts we aren't credited with a good deed unless done for a good reason

As a Christian I would say that any "good deed" I do is done out of the kindness of his heart beating in me.My bad deeds are my own.To God be the glory. Amen

Christian nice to see one at a place like this. Edited by TheTruth, : chat won't open on this browser

Of course, there is debate about what constitutes a Christian - so we'll have to give each other the benefit of the doubt.Welcome to EvC

we seem to be agreeing on what a christian is thank you for the welcome

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I think I agree with you. This is what I said from that message: When I said 'help people just because it's nice to help people', I meant the same thing as 'out of the kindness of their hearts'.I was trying to say that Christians also do good things for the same reasons that everyone else does good things... out of the kindness of their hearts.

not to rip on a specific relgion but some catholics believe that the good deeds they do get them to heaven and thats not true its the fact that when we do the good deed its meaningless unless under in fellowship with God

I'd say that people who believe such are not limited to catholics or even abrahamic-related-religions.But I can understand where you found my wording confusing. Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that christians (or anyone else) believed in a 'good deeds get us into heaven' mentality. Even though some people do believe such, the point is irrelevant to what I was trying to say. I should have been more careful to stay away from it.

I agree I was just making an example. I do like the conversation though it is a good one you have a point about non believers doing good deeds because they're good to

---

"People call me strange does that make me a stranger
My best friend was born in a manger"

Thank you. Of course, I must concede that not all non-believers do good deeds out of the kindness of their heart. Some are selfish and do good things to get respect from peers, or in order to gain trust so that they can get away with bad things later.My main point is that we should be honest as best we can (that is, if integrity is important to us). This way, we can try our best to keep our motives as pure as we are capable of. We will make mistakes, as we all do. But an honest person can recognize those mistakes and attempt to correct them for the future.Now here's the basic focus of this thread:The best honesty I'm capable of in evaluating this reality has led me to believe that God does not exist.I may certainly well be wrong, but is it right for me to lie to myself in order to gain the approval of other people who believe I'm totally wrong?
If I am wrong, and there is a God who wants me to change, shouldn't I be as honest and open and receptive of change as I possibly can in order to follow that God when (if?) He attempts to change me?My honesty has led me to believe that many people say things that are not true (for whatever reasons, it doesn't really matter). This leads me to rely on verification of claims about reality before I accept their validity.This puts me in an awkward position. What if God exists, and expects people to believe in Him without the ability to verify Him in any way? Am I doomed to be 'in the bad books' with God because of the way my best attempts at honesty has led my life? How can I tell the difference between a person telling me about an unverifiable fake-God or an unverifiable true-God?I do not require obejective, strict, physical verification (although that would be prefered since it is easily understood). I only require some sort of verification that I can do myself which allows me to identify a true-God as opposed to a fake-God.If someone gives me such a verification method, and I attempt it, and it shows me that they are mistaken... How can I be sure I attempted the method correctly or if it is indeed a fake-God?If you read the thread, many people have mentioned that my situation is not one to worry about, and any being worthy of being called God would have no problem with me being honest and trying my best. Others have different opinions.Welcome to EvC, and enjoy the thought-exercises.

as far as verification I have some things you may want to look up, but the rest of it amen, I agree!
Depending on the "validity"(I believe it to be valid) of the bible, be you Christian or not, here are some bible prophecies fulfilled later on in the bible.
Prediction | Fulfilment
----------------------------
Gen. 12:1-3 | Josh 11:23
Gen. 16:10 | Gen. 25:12-16
Gen. 25:21-23 | 1 Chr. 18:13
Gen. 37:5-11 | Gen. 42:6
Gen. 40:12,13 | Gen. 40:21
Gen. 40:18 | Gen. 40:22
Job 19:25-27 | John 5:28,29/Gal. 4:4/Eph. 1:7,11,14
Ps. 2:1-12 | Matt. 3:17/Mark 1:11/Acts 4:25,26/
| Acts 3:33/Hebrews 1:5;5:5/Rev. 2:26,27;19:15,16
Ps. 16:8-10 | Acts 2:27/Acts 13:35/Acts 26:23PHHH well that was fun, I don't know if that was what you were looking for but check it out anyway its pretty neat

---

"People call me strange does that make me a stranger
My best friend was born in a manger"

Thank-you for your time and effort. And I agree that the Bible certainly is 'pretty neat' (as an understatement) I'm not sure how this can help with my problem, though. I agree that the Bible does contain fulfilled prophecies within itself. The problem is with your first statement: I certainly agree that the validity of the Bible has no bearing on me being Christian or not. But I'm at a loss as to how I can verify that the Bible is valid. You already believe it to be, I (I'm afraid) do not. I don't mean to insult your beliefs, it's just what my life experiences (quite possibly very corrupt) has led me to.You see, to me the Bible is a book as much as any other book we have from the past is a book. It's a great tool for us to use to get insight in how people of the past thought. And, as far as morals and values are concerned, the Bible is an excellent resource to compare our morals of today with what people thousands of years ago thought. We can then see which morals are still important (like most of the New Testament) and which are... not so much (like most of the Old Testament). Then we can compare the ones we share in common, and see if the reasons we share them in common are still valid. And we can also compare the ones we no longer agree with, and see if our reasons for discarding those values are valid.However, as a book representing an accurate picture of historical reality, I am forced to treat the Bible as I would every other book I look at in the context of historical reality. That is, we look around us to see if any evidence is left behind in order to attempt to confirm any claims. We can also compare with other books from that time period (if any are available) to see what others from the same time and place had to say about events.In a historical context, when reviewed along with other historical documents and evidence, the Bible doesn't seem to agree with what most of the other books agree on. And things the Bible takes as extremely important events just aren't mentioned in other historical documents recording supposedly 'important' events.This doesn't mean that the Bible can't be 100% true, or that it contains no truth, but it makes me lean in the direction that the Bible is more a collection of thoughts and stories from a religiously-bent faction rather than an accurate piece of historical reality. That is, an excellent tool for comparing our cultural morals, but not so great when trying to look at historical accuracy.Again, I certainly could be wrong. But the only data I have to compare against the Bible shows me that the Bible is either missing data itself, or a bunch of other historical data (that all seems to relatively agree together) is incorrect. This doesn't mean that the Bible contains nothing of historical value. It simply means that the historical value of the Bible should be treated the same as any other book's historical value. Each and every seperate historical claim should be examined to see how it stands on it's own merits.I personally believe that it's dishonest to say that something is 'a part of reality' simply because it was written in the Bible. This may be an incorrect belief, but I've had many experiences where people have written things down when they just aren't true. I've also had plenty of experiences where people have written down that 'God wants' this or that, and I don't find that very convincing either. For the same reasons, I don't find the written word of the Bible (people's written word of what 'God wants' from thousands of years ago) very convincing. To me, it's just another person's thoughts. Or (more likely) a large group of many different people.

Hi Stile, Stile the Bible teaches: You can't believe if you do not hear and you cannot hear without a preacher. Since you will not listen to a preacher and must make the decision for yourself I asked you to read the book of John. I don't know if it will help or not. I do know it is God's Word. If you are true to yourself and read those words with an open mind I believe God will speak to you.I would suggest you read it at least 3 time before thinking too strongly about what it is saying. Then read it slowly and thoughtfully while saying Lord if you are there please speak to me. But if at anytime you have thoughts this is true that is God speaking. The same voice that is telling you now that this is just a bunch of bunk you can't trust in it will also be there. Just as he has been for most of this thread. The voice of God has also been there you just keep saying no.The word has to speak to you and since you will not listen then the only way you can hear it is to read it. If you read 200 words a minute it should take you less than an hour. A thousand words a minute should take about 15 minutes.Now can you be honest with yourself.I say if you don't do as I have suggested you are lying to yourself and not being honest.You say what if it don't work. Then I will continue to pray for you as I have been doing.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Okay well to answer your question of validity. If the bible is true its all true it can't be kind of true cause one error discredits the entire thing. I dug around and found some websites. I am unsure of all prediction but I checked against the verses they listed and some of the history and it seems to match up;
A Bible study which proves the Bible is true
This one's a little shorter but I like the title
Bible is True
Those were the only two I could find so far. For those of you who are wondering what this has to to with the topic. If the bible can be proven as true or false then we can move on, but with out that we will have random arguements like this for a long while.

---

"People call me strange does that make me a stranger
My best friend was born in a manger"

History written in a book can never be taken as 100% true, this is a simple fact of historical research.To accept something as 'likely' you need to have a good reason for doing so.For example, that semitic tribes followed well-known pastoral nomad routes is not an unreasonable thing to accept, and MAY be true.Something such as a man living for 930 years or 969 years is impossible and can safely be accepted as untrue.So if you are an all or nothing person regarding the Bible, i.e. if there's one mistake then ditch the whole thing, then you need to ditch the whole collection of biblical texts.Taking a literal view of the Bible does the Bible a disservice.Brian.