If you read the Bible you can find out God’s plan of salvation for yourself, and understand that Jesus loves you and died for you. But you seem to be busy looking for reasons to hate it.
I don't think anyone here hates the Bible or is trying to find reasons to hate it. Our arguments are directed at the various claims made for the Bible, such as that it is the word of God or that it is inerrant or that contains many accurate prophecies, and not at the Bible itself. It would make no more sense to hate the Bible than any work of historical fiction.
Your posts here make clear that you believe the Bible is the word of God, but what evidence do you have? We do have a little evidence for some authorship, since most of the Pauline epistles are believed to have been written by Paul, but Paul isn't God. I'm not aware of any evidence that God wrote any of the books of the Bible.
Let's just grant for the sake of discussion that God exists. What evidence do you have that God wrote anything in the Bible?
My belief in the Bible as being the word of God is mainly a matter of faith, so my claim is not something that I can support at this moment with the kind of evidence you would require to acknowledge it.
Okay, so no evidence of God's authorship. And the only evidence of authorship we have is by men. In fact, the only evidence we have for authorship of anything, let alone the Bible, is by men. We have no evidence of anyone but men ever writing anything.
However I do know there's plenty of evidence around. All universe, living and not living things testify of the existence of God, things didn't just happened the way evolutionists think.
This is another topic, and I already granted the existence of God for the sake of this discussion.
I know you don't believe in anything of this and think that mainstream scientist have everything figured out.
I don't at all think scientists have figured everything out. What I do think is that scientists have evidence for what they*have* figured out.
But this is my faith and I'm sure I'm doing well.
No one's questioning your faith. If you want to believe something on faith, that's your business. The question is why anyone else should accept your belief that is based only upon faith. You believe the Bible was written by God. Great, go ahead and believe that, I don't care. But why should anyone else believe that? If faith is all you got, then all the world's religion got that, so your belief that your sacred scribblings are written by your God have no greater claim on truth than the equivalent claims of the adherents of any other religion.
I don't have much knowledge about this things that I present as evidence, but I now there are creationist scientists (even if you wouldn't call them scientists) working in understanding our universe from a biblical perspective.
This is off topic, but "creation science" is a contradiction in terms. They are science denialists. Because their beliefs are based upon faith instead of evidence, creation science, like religion, is divided into many different beliefs.
Now while the Bible may have not been physically written by God, it was revealed, which give it the same value. The texts there were revealed by God to Moses, Paul and the prophets. And not, I don't have evidence of that either, but I do choose to believe it.
That's fine by me. And even though you don't believe in periods at the end of the last sentence of a paragraph, I do, and I even have evidence that that's correct. The point is that if you don't have evidence for something, why are you arguing for it? Go off and get some ammunition, then come back.
It baffles me how you seem to think that God is only an evil monster when the Bible clearly shows His character to be very different.
Okay, he's only sometimes an evil monster. That he's also sometimes loving and compassionate, how does that make his character "very different"? Seems more like a very abusive parent. "Oh, did I murder all of mankind except your family? I am just so sorry. I promise to never do it again, and I promise to be kind and loving from now on." Until the next blow up, of course.
You're just in love with what you believe. Doesn't matter what it is. If you believe it, you love it and think it is good. The facts don't seem to matter. You gotta take a step back and take a look at what the Bible really says about God, this time not ignoring or rationalizing the bad stuff. Some things *are* evil and immoral, even when a god does them.
The mayans depicted the same deities depicted in mesopotamia, as the ones in ancient India and Peru.
You didn't really answer the question posed by NoNukes in Message 105: "Which deities are the same?" We're not so much interested in similarities between gods in different South American civilizations as between those in South America versus those in the Middle East and India. I'm particularly interested in this claim:
What technology they used to communicate and create this story to later confuse humans? thats a total mystery.
But it turns out you have no evidence that the Mayans and Aztecs had deities similar to the Sumerians, so there's no reason to think they were in communication, particularly since the Sumerians predate the Mayans by a bit, and the Aztecs by a lot.
I'm curious why you think ancient writings by people like the Sumerians are so accurate if they thought there were many gods instead of only one true God.
Christianity monoteist was invented by constantine in the 5th century AD.
By "Christianity monoteist" do you mean Christian monotheism? I'm not aware of much Christian monotheism, unless you're thinking of religions like Unitarianism. The beginnings of Christianity's trinity trace back to the Constantine's Council of Nicaea (4th century AD, not 5th) where Jesus's codivinity with God was declared.
If these beings really existed, and were traveling from one continent to other, and from earth to orbit back and forth, they HAVE to be wearing some sort of special suits and helmets that is inconceivable for us to understand or imagine. Now imagine a 2,000-3,000 year old human how ion the world would understand, even worst explain what he was seeing. An ancient human will try to exemplify it with the closest thing known to him. In this case, a serpent head with a plummed body.
Ancient astronauts? Seriously? At least it explains your interest in the Book of Enoch.
Percy, yes all the ancient texts contradict the belief of modern Christian religion for the same reason stated before that Christian religion was an invention by man. It is not the truth. Or at least, not the whole clear picture. Just part of it is used and by the way was imposed by the sword to create some sort of control on the society and power for authorities.
I guess I'm still looking for where evidence informs your judgment of what is true and what is not.
I realize that Trinitarianism is confusing, but we see it as monotheistic.
Trinitarianism is more entertaining than confusing, for instance when trinitarians try to explain how when God says, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," or when Jesus cries out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" it's not just God talking to himself.
It's matters not to me what people believe privately, but when they publicly offer their unevidenced rationales they shouldn't expect others to respond, "Oh, that makes perfect sense." If it makes sense to you that's all you should require.
No, you provided no evidence. What you did was offer a very brief and unevidenced rationale plus a link to a religious apologetics webpage of 7000 words. If there's evidence you didn't describe it.
But you nevertheless feel free to oblige me to require no more than it make sense to me? Where do you get the authority to tell me I should be content with what makes sense to me and not try to persuade others of these things?
As I said, if you're going to publicly claim your rationale is evidenced and makes sense then you can't reasonably object when people merely call attention to the fact that there's neither evidence nor logic.
In the messages you linked to, the links to Blue Letter Bible say, "Oops. Page Not Found." You're attempting to shift the task from yourself by pointing elsewhere and claiming, "The proof lies there," but it would be preferable if you made the effort yourself, and anyway, as Theodoric notes, religious apologetics are not evidence nor even logical.
If you have actual evidence and rational arguments then you should just present them in a message, but it's akin to the ancient argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
You're not going to prove the trinity quoting verses made up by men.
Funny, that's how the Trinity was first formulated, from the verses in the Bible that add up to such a concept.
I know you don't believe the Bible is just the words of men, not God, so I don't know why you'd say this. Maybe you didn't get my point. I meant that there's no point proving the Bible says there's a trinity if it's just words that men made up and not the sacred and inerrant word of God. You can use Great Expectations to prove that Pip served as a companion to Miss Havisham, but it isn't something true about the real world because Great Expectations is a work of fiction. And that's the central issue of this thread, whether the Bible is the inerrant word of God or just the canonization of fictional myths and legends.
But that's fine, I don't want to waste my time trying to show you something you'll just ignore anyway.
I think you're wasting your time anyway. You say God is a threesome: God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. That's like saying there are three political parties in the United States: political parties, Democrats and Republicans. Even if the Nicene creed were a verse in the Bible, it still wouldn't make sense.
And when somebody doesn't even try to understand the Trinity it's awfully hard to discuss it,...
Not being interested in the details of the conflated maze of illogic Christians use to justify the Trinity within their own minds is not the same as not understanding the Trinity. I understand the Trinity perfectly well enough to know it's nonsense, and the details of the peculiar Christian pathology that allows them to accept it anyway do not interest me. If you want to take us on a traipse through your own personal Alice in Wonderland then I shall watch in fascination, but discussing the details holds no interest for me.
...but you have to understand the concept to know how to read these things.
All religions have their own particular peculiarities requiring unending apologetics, and they say the same things you do. About Islamic apologetics one website says, "Muslim scholars emphasize on the need to understand the CONTEXT of every verse to understand its implication better," which is very similar to what you just said about understanding the Trinity.
What you believe is simply what you've been taught since childhood. You've been a Unitarian (heretic) all your life, right? So you don't have to bother thinking about the Biblical basis for the Trinity, you "know" it's nonsense because that's what you've been taught.
This would be incorrect. Unitarianism is very respectful of the beliefs of all the world's religions. That the Trinity is nonsense becomes clear just from watching Trinitarians try to explain the Trinity. For a real hoot read the Wikipedia article on the Trinity - it's where Phat got his diagram.
You're ignoring the key point: Your apologetics differ from the apologetics of all other religions only in their details. Why should the particular nonsense of Trinity apologetics interest me any more than, say, Islamic apologetics about the Koran stating that sex is determined after conception? By the way, Islam holds that the concept of the Trinity is a denial of monotheism, which makes perfect sense to me and was my original point to Djufo.