Figuring Out Religion

[Fred]

I think you also are thinking outside the box, just in a different direction than I.  It is those who pick and choose the parts of Scripture that fit their personal agendas that I wonder about - the lukewarm types described in Revelation 3:16.  "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." 

That's a cool way of looking at it. Neither one of us is lukewarm. Reminds me of scene in the movie Patton where he wouldn't drink with the Russians but he finally agreed to it as one son of a bitch to another.

I like that movie a lot.  Good old General Patton was damn sure of what was right and wrong in the military sense.  George S. did a great job of playing George P.  I wonder how George P. would be handling the middle east mess, or his jello in chief? 

... M

Patton seemed to be mostly about my army can beat your army which proved to be correct so it's hard to say what he would think about the nuances of modern warfare like Vietnam where the enemy didn't come out to meet you face to face on the battlefield.

There is probably a religious point to be made there but I'll have to retreat and think of it because it's not coming to me right away.

[Mountaineer]

This testimony is interesting on multiple levels.  The economist is Eric Falkenstein whose background is that hybrid Wall Street Master of the Universe-B-school academic, top flight academic credentials and social network combined with real world application. 

http://falkenblog.blogspot.kr/2016/02/a ... ad-to.html

... M

Just some of the interesting things (copied from another source):
a) PCA style presbyterianism (i.e. Tim Keller) continues to be able to speak to "elites".  Reformed Christianity, even as its popular evangelical form is emotionalism, still has a robust intellectual style and presentation grounded in Calvin.
b) The power of the basic metaphysics.  "Why does anything exist" continues to be the first question.  Hyper-rational people can still see that the modern version of evolution doesn't really answer that.  And when they make that admission, teleology must come it.  "We were created for something" or as Heidelburg would ask "what is the chief end of man?"  Being, Consciousness and Bliss as the proper place of apologetics in the modern world.
c) The role of submission first/fear of God as the beginning of wisdom.
d) The capital T Truth of scripture in describing the heart of man
e) To what extent is such a hyper-rationalist faith still faith?  (i.e. if everything can be proven, is it faith?)  This probably ties into some very old Lutheran-Calvinist arguments in regards to election, the secret things of God and Formula Of Concord Epitome XI.
f) The unflinching 3rd use of the law in his final summary - "The purpose of life is to practice virtue inspired by the love of something transcendently beautiful".  Yes, love is the inspiration, and the confession is of Christ, but it is a very intellectual image, except in the application - virtue.  And the virtue is defined by the scriptures. 
g) Virtue as a graceful way of talking the law.  Was Luther's animus contra Aristotle tossing the baby out with the bath water?
g) The guts of writing something like this in today's climate.
h) Differences between the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) focused, and the "humanities".  It is interesting to me that those willing to "bet their lives" on serious theology and thought often come from STEM type backgrounds.

People are endlessly fascinating and surprising in their actions.

[Xan]

The homily at Justice Scalia's funeral was really good.  Delivered by the deceased's son, Paul Scalia.

We are gathered here because of one man. A man known personally to many of us, known only by reputation to even more. A man loved by many, scorned by others. A man known for great controversy, and for great compassion. That man, of course, is Jesus of Nazareth.

Video:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/476566252500 ... in-scalia/

Transcript:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /80667122/

[Fred]

This testimony is interesting on multiple levels.  The economist is Eric Falkenstein whose background is that hybrid Wall Street Master of the Universe-B-school academic, top flight academic credentials and social network combined with real world application. 

http://falkenblog.blogspot.kr/2016/02/a ... ad-to.html

... M

Just some of the interesting things (copied from another source):
a) PCA style presbyterianism (i.e. Tim Keller) continues to be able to speak to "elites".  Reformed Christianity, even as its popular evangelical form is emotionalism, still has a robust intellectual style and presentation grounded in Calvin.
b) The power of the basic metaphysics.  "Why does anything exist" continues to be the first question.  Hyper-rational people can still see that the modern version of evolution doesn't really answer that.  And when they make that admission, teleology must come it.  "We were created for something" or as Heidelburg would ask "what is the chief end of man?"  Being, Consciousness and Bliss as the proper place of apologetics in the modern world.
c) The role of submission first/fear of God as the beginning of wisdom.
d) The capital T Truth of scripture in describing the heart of man
e) To what extent is such a hyper-rationalist faith still faith?  (i.e. if everything can be proven, is it faith?)  This probably ties into some very old Lutheran-Calvinist arguments in regards to election, the secret things of God and Formula Of Concord Epitome XI.
f) The unflinching 3rd use of the law in his final summary - "The purpose of life is to practice virtue inspired by the love of something transcendently beautiful".  Yes, love is the inspiration, and the confession is of Christ, but it is a very intellectual image, except in the application - virtue.  And the virtue is defined by the scriptures. 
g) Virtue as a graceful way of talking the law.  Was Luther's animus contra Aristotle tossing the baby out with the bath water?
g) The guts of writing something like this in today's climate.
h) Differences between the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) focused, and the "humanities".  It is interesting to me that those willing to "bet their lives" on serious theology and thought often come from STEM type backgrounds.

People are endlessly fascinating and surprising in their actions.

I might actually post something in response to this if I actually understood a word of it.

[Mountaineer]

Some thoughts:

Faith is finally that, faith.  There is no proof, strictly speaking, for the existence of God, any god.  In the end, faith is a gift from God, not something that can be reasoned into by humans, even exceptionally smart humans.  Although, from the human point of view, finally arriving at faith may involve God using human reason, just as from a human point of view it may appear to be a human decision.

However, while there are definite limits to how far reason can take you, faith is reasonable.  Faith need not be some sort of existential leap, or faith against reason.

That word -- "proof" -- is IMHO misused by atheists and other non-theists.  As they use the word, there is no "proof" for the Big Bang, or a multiverse, or any of numerous other things they accept on less than concrete evidence.  And, of course, there IS "proof" for God's existence, strictly speaking, if one is willing to reason from facts or evidence. 

Such as the empty tomb.

Now, that is not scientific proof, but then, neither is multiverse theory supported by scientific proof.  In the end, we all rest on "faith," assuming beforehand that we do not have one definition for "faith" as applied to atheists and non-theists and another as applied to theists.  And, in the end, nobody's faith is blind -- we all support our beliefs with reason.  The real problem is they wish to apply one standard to themselves and a wholly different standard to us, a logical fallacy known as special pleading.

Edit to add:  Robert Jenson makes the salient point that behind all of our posturing, when one digs deeply enough, one is left with "because God says so". Even the purest secularist that will bandy about "scientific consensus" or whatever, is finally basing their confession on an article of faith in a god of their choosing - "scientific consensus has to be truth because we believe it so....".  We are people of faith, like it or not.


... M

[murphy_p_t]

http://study.com/academy/lesson/st-thom ... f-god.html

Short video here about Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God, which are not dependent upon faith.

[murphy_p_t]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

Proof for existence of God, based not on revelation, but on logic and reason. Thomas Aquinas examines this question, addressing objections to the premise in this classic format.

Question 2. The existence of God

Is the proposition "God exists" self-evident?
Is it demonstrable?
Does God exist?

[Fred]

Question 2. The existence of God

Is the proposition "God exists" self-evident?
Is it demonstrable?
Does God exist?

Having attained the only state of mind where I think one can truly be at peace with God, this question does not interest me.

[Greg]

I too find William Lane Craig a bit abrasive at times, while being informing. In my latest quest, I came upon Dr. James White and really enjoy him. He's been studying Islam for a long time and is able to read it in Arabic and provides for a lot of really good debates and detailed analysis on Christian Apologetics. He originally started Apologetics to try to learn more about his own faith when compared against the Mormon faith.

He has an organization in Phoenix, Arizona  called Alpha Omega Ministries with a website too with tons of videos. Very insightful. He comes from a presuppositional evangelical Calvinist background (I think some southern baptist as well).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag7VYU3Evt4 I liked this video a lot, it was the first I watched of his (what every Christian needs to know about Islam). Note however that the beginning is just audio for a few minutes before video kicks in.

[Mountaineer]

This is an interesting pamphlet on "What Happens When I Die?".  See the Dropbox link for the pdf.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndsz5kqawqspo ... F.pdf?dl=0

Topics covered:
* How can I be sure the Bible is accurate?  Seven reasons.
* What happens to us physically and spiritually when we die?
* The moment of death.
* What about those who see ghosts?
* Heaven is.
* Hell is.
* 12 FAQs.

... M

[Fred]

This is an interesting pamphlet on "What Happens When I Die?".  See the Dropbox link for the pdf.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndsz5kqawqspo ... F.pdf?dl=0

Topics covered:
* How can I be sure the Bible is accurate?  Seven reasons.
* What happens to us physically and spiritually when we die?
* The moment of death.
* What about those who see ghosts?
* Heaven is.
* Hell is.
* 12 FAQs.

... M

How Can I Be Sure The Bible Is Accurate?

The Bible is a book of verifiable facts.

No rational human being should have to read any more than that to realize that this is complete and utter nonsense of the highest order. Mountaineer, you never cease to amaze me with these kinds of assertions, but this one has to really take the cake if you really believe that statement.

[Mountaineer]

This is an interesting pamphlet on "What Happens When I Die?".  See the Dropbox link for the pdf.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndsz5kqawqspo ... F.pdf?dl=0

Topics covered:
* How can I be sure the Bible is accurate?  Seven reasons.
* What happens to us physically and spiritually when we die?
* The moment of death.
* What about those who see ghosts?
* Heaven is.
* Hell is.
* 12 FAQs.

... M

How Can I Be Sure The Bible Is Accurate?

The Bible is a book of verifiable facts.

No rational human being should have to read any more than that to realize that this is complete and utter nonsense of the highest order. Mountaineer, you never cease to amaze me with these kinds of assertions, but this one has to really take the cake if you really believe it.

Thank you Fred, but as I've said before, there is much more to knowledge than reason.  Want to share a virtual beverage of your choice as we ponder all the evidence that is mentioned?  I'm curious why you chose not to comment on the rest of the material in the paper.  Maybe it would be of more interest to you to go back and read the Thomas Aquinas link that murphy_p_t posted.  Much heavier on logic.  Much more stuff to chew on.

... M

[Fred]

Thank you Fred, but as I've said before, there is much more to knowledge than reason. 

That's not what the quote said. It said that the Bible is a book of verifiable facts. Do you really want to go through a list of "verifiable facts" in the Bible? Feel free to present them for us. I know there are some verifiable facts in the Bible, to be sure, but this does not make it "a book of verifiable facts".

Something I notice you do is that when you are confronted with overwhelming reason you retreat and say it isn't about reason but about faith and then you come back later and assert that faith really is reasonable. So someone arguing with you really can't win but I already know that.

[Fred]

Maybe it would be of more interest to you to go back and read the Thomas Aquinas link that murphy_p_t posted.  Much heavier on logic.  Much more stuff to chew on.

I'm not interested in Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God or anybody else's. If God wanted to prove that he existed, he could do it in a heartbeat without all the philosophical mental gymnastics so these kinds of arguments are irrelevant to me. Call it my "personal relationship" with God.

But I do think you are an asshole for suggesting I'm not heavy enough on logic like you are.

[Mountaineer]

Maybe it would be of more interest to you to go back and read the Thomas Aquinas link that murphy_p_t posted.  Much heavier on logic.  Much more stuff to chew on.

I'm not interested in Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God or anybody else's. If God wanted to prove that he existed, he could do it in a heartbeat without all the philosophical mental gymnastics so these kinds of arguments are irrelevant to me. Call it my "personal relationship" with God.

But I do think you are an asshole for suggesting I'm not heavy enough on logic like you are.

Um, I'm pretty sure Mountaineer meant that the Thomas Aquinas link is much heavier on logic than the link he posted.

Yep, you nailed it Desert.

Fred, I forgive you for the personal attacks.  I realize when uncomfortable facts and evidence stare one in the face, one has to use other methods to try and escape the truth.  It is human nature to try to preserve self worth at any cost - been there done that.  Blessings Dude.

... M

[Mountaineer]

Thank you Fred, but as I've said before, there is much more to knowledge than reason. 

That's not what the quote said. It said that the Bible is a book of verifiable facts. Do you really want to go through a list of "verifiable facts" in the Bible? Feel free to present them for us. I know there are some verifiable facts in the Bible, to be sure, but this does not make it "a book of verifiable facts".

Something I notice you do is that when you are confronted with overwhelming reason you retreat and say it isn't about reason but about faith and then you come back later and assert that faith really is reasonable. So someone arguing with you really can't win but I already know that.

The Bible IS a book of verifiable facts, as the pamphlet illustrates.  Just because every last detail in the Bible has not YET been verified, does that make it all wrong?  If you believe that it does, you best throw out chemistry, physics, genetics, medicine, evolutionary hypothesis, geology, ethics, philosophy, etc. as well.  Those fields are full of the unverified and from my perspective, require even more faith in "something" than the faith required to believe in the promises of the Triune God as described in Scripture. 

What I think I have said several times is that a fuller knowledge has three components:  knowledge gained by experience (e.g. learning to walk), knowledge gained by cognition/reason (e.g. engineering and plumbing), and knowledge gained by revelation (e.g. hearing God's Word having faith in His promises).

Thus, it isn't ONLY about reason, or ONLY about experience, or ONLY about revelation.  It is not an EITHER OR, but a BOTH AND.  From my perspective, my portrayal of our lives is about reason, is about experience, and is about faith.  Obviously, if you discount faith, my words will not make sense to you as you are not using all the capability that God offers to understand.  When others do not accept revelation as a source of knowledge, I'm OK with that.  But, if you want me to believe what you are serving up, you have to do is prove I'm wrong.  I'm all ears.  I guess I don't understand what you are so afraid of to acknowledge that I might just be right - you present your case in a vitriolic fashion instead of using the facts you value so highly ......

Blessings, and best wishes on this beautiful day God has made!  Got to go now and get ready to go hear God's Word proclaimed and receive His blessings and gifts.

... M

[jafs]

I think a better way to say it might be that the Bible contains "some testable claims".

As in "it rained for forty days and nights" - it's possible that we might be able to check this claim out in some way and find out whether or not it actually happened as claimed.

But, the big stuff isn't like that - ie. that God exists, created the universe in 6 days, and rested on the 7th, etc.  Those are untestable claims, and one has to either believe them or not believe them.

[Fred]

I think a better way to say it might be that the Bible contains "some testable claims".

As in "it rained for forty days and nights" - it's possible that we might be able to check this claim out in some way and find out whether or not it actually happened as claimed.

But, the big stuff isn't like that - ie. that God exists, created the universe in 6 days, and rested on the 7th, etc.  Those are untestable claims, and one has to either believe them or not believe them.

The only testable claims I can think of in the Bible are when there is some corroborating historical or archaeological evidence that goes along with the story but even this doesn't make the story itself true. For example, there is some interesting archaeological evidence for the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but does this prove that God rained down fire on the cities to punish them for their wickedness, that Lot fled to the mountains and had sex with his daughters, or that his wife was turned into a pillar of salt? I think not. I believe a reasonable person would conclude that those things are all legendary.

And then take the New Testament. How could it possibly be testable that the demons recognized that Jesus was the Son of God and cried out? I have never heard a demon cry out myself. Or Jesus temptation by the devil in the wilderness. Who was there to even see it? Or the whole trial scenario before the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate. Who was there to corroborate any of this? And that's just the beginning. I could go on and on.

I suspect that if you were to tabulate all the claims in the Bible vs what could be tested and proven the percentage would be extremely small which is why I found the statement in Mountaineer's article to be complete nonsense and didn't bother to read the rest of it.

[murphy_p_t]

The Bible IS a book of verifiable facts, as the pamphlet illustrates.

Where is this claim, in the Bible?

I heard a priest say that the Bible is a library, collection of books, assembled by the Church. The books contained take various forms. Some are poetry, some parts are literature, some parts are factual. It seems counter-productive to insist that every part of every book is subject to scientific/historical verification and misses the point, at least from the perspective of historic Christianity (before the man-made assertion of Sola Scriptura). In particular, where there are parts which require interpretation.

[Mountaineer]

The Bible IS a book of verifiable facts, as the pamphlet illustrates.

Where is this claim, in the Bible?

I heard a priest say that the Bible is a library, collection of books, assembled by the Church. The books contained take various forms. Some are poetry, some parts are literature, some parts are factual. It seems counter-productive to insist that every part of every book is subject to scientific/historical verification and misses the point, at least from the perspective of historic Christianity (before the man-made assertion of Sola Scriptura). In particular, where there are parts which require interpretation.

murphy_p_t,

This claim in the Bible?  Why do you ask?  I'm not sure, but I do not ever recall it being stated this claim was in the Bible.  I also do not recall personally saying every part of the Bible is subject to scientific/historical verification; if I did, it was in error.  Supernatural happenings can not be verified as far as I know.  Perhaps there is confusion between the terms proof and evidence?  Perhaps I've not been clear in my posts?  Or perhaps they have been misread?  I don't know if you have had a chance to read the various appologetics articles that Desert has posted in this thread.  They delve into this subject of trustworthiness of the Scripture much more deeply than the brief statements in the booklet below.

In reference to what the priest said: I agree as far as the statement goes, except for the part where the priest apparently disagrees with the five Solas - the five Solas being:
Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”): The Bible alone is our highest authority.
Sola Fide (“faith alone”): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
Sola Gratia (“grace alone”): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
Solus Christus (“Christ alone”): Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King.
Soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”): We live for the glory of God alone.

This is the relevant section from the booklet "What Happens When I Die?", pages 2 and 3, I posted in the earlier link in case you could not access.  There are many Scriptural references included in the booklet.  The booklet's main purpose is to help people understand what happens when they die; it is not a comprehensive treatise on Biblical accuracy (my opinion).  However, also in my opinion, skeptics find it far easier to go after the tangential material instead of the substantive material in publications or forum posts, perhaps as a way to avoid having to confront truth.  And before your knickers get in a twist, I am not saying you are one of those people.  Peace brother. 

... M

How Can I Be Sure  the Bible Is Accurate?

What makes the Bible more trustworthy than other books, personal experiences, movies and the reasonable opinions of highly educated people? That’s a fair question and it deserves an honest answer. There are at least seven reasons why I put sole confidence in God’s Word as the standard by which all other opinions can be weighed:

1. The Bible is a book of verifiable facts. Though the events, places and people cited in the Bible represent ancient history, their existence can be confirmed to a significant degree. It is not a theological book only; nor is it merely a book of wise sayings, like many other so-called “holy” books. You can investigate the Bible, and when you examine its history, archaeology and geography, you will  find the facts of the Scriptures are verifiable.

2. The Bible is a book of prophecy and fullfillment. Someone has said there are no fewer than 8,000 prophecies made in the Bible. Some of them were fulfilled almost immediately. Some of them took years or even centuries to be fulfilled. Some have not yet been fulfilled. Not one of God’s prophecies has ever been proven inaccurate. If the promises of God have been proven truthful, then the teaching contained in God’s Word can also be trusted.

3. The Bible is an historic book that has recorded events corroborated by other historic texts outside its pages. The events of Scripture have been verified by the writings and records of other ancient civilizations like Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome.

4. Archaeological  finds frequently verify the reliability of the biblical record. For centuries archaeologists have used Scripture to locate specific sites and learn more about cultural practices and people not documented or rarely documented elsewhere. Biblical records once doubted have been verified by evidence unearthed in ongoing excavations and discoveries.

5. There is a case to be made for textual agreement. You won’t  find something in one book of the Bible disputed or contradicted by another book of the Bible written by an author in some other century. Written by more than 40 different authors over a period spanning more than a thousand years, Scripture tells an amazingly united story of God’s love and His plan to redeem the whole earth from the destruction of sin, death and the devil.

6. The Bible has survived the test of time. There is no other book that has borne the test of time that Scripture has endured without the need to change the message, the facts or the truth of its pages in order to accommodate new discoveries.

7. For all these reasons—and the Bible’s own claim to be divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit—believers accept the Scripture as God’s Word. For believers the Bible is not merely the isolated opinion or  first-hand experience of a person who may be well intentioned, but self-deluded. It is, quite simply, God’s eternal and inerrant message for mankind. “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For    prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

[murphy_p_t]

The Bible IS a book of verifiable facts, as the pamphlet illustrates.

Where is this claim, in the Bible?

I heard a priest say that the Bible is a library, collection of books, assembled by the Church. The books contained take various forms. Some are poetry, some parts are literature, some parts are factual. It seems counter-productive to insist that every part of every book is subject to scientific/historical verification and misses the point, at least from the perspective of historic Christianity (before the man-made assertion of Sola Scriptura). In particular, where there are parts which require interpretation.

murphy_p_t,

This claim in the Bible?  Why do you ask?  I'm not sure, but I do not ever recall it being stated this claim was in the Bible. ...

In reference to what the priest said: I agree as far as the statement goes, except for the part where the priest apparently disagrees with the five Solas - the five Solas being:
Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”): The Bible alone is our highest authority.
Sola Fide (“faith alone”): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
Sola Gratia (“grace alone”): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
...

I ask because the 3 "solas" above are extra-scriptural. If one claims their only guide is what is written in the Bible, one contradicts himself...he is following a man-made doctrine which is not found in Scripture. Furthermore, this contradicts the Tradition of the Church. These 3 "sola" doctrines are doctrines invented by men centuries after Jesus walked the earth. "Scripture alone" seems to contradict scripture itself, ie it is not found within the scripture. Accepting this means one is following a doctrine which Scripture does not teach.

That a heretical monk proclaimed his novel doctrine does not make it worthy of belief.

From Galatians 1:

6I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

Peace to you, Mountaineer.

[Xan]

"Tradition" is a tricky word.  One might think that it means sticking with what has always been believed.  This is the normal definition.  The Roman Church means precisely the opposite: "Tradition" means that they can make up whatever and go with it.

[Fred]

1. The Bible is a book of verifiable facts. Though the events, places and people cited in the Bible represent ancient history, their existence can be confirmed to a significant degree. It is not a theological book only; nor is it merely a book of wise sayings, like many other so-called “holy” books. You can investigate the Bible, and when you examine its history, archaeology and geography, you will  find the facts of the Scriptures are verifiable.

As i argued in an earlier post this provides no evidence for any supernatural claim or even that the narrative associated with verifiable places is true. If I write down that I walked from Main Street to Elm Street and on the way God appeared to me and told me the world was coming to an end next year does it mean that it has to be true because Main Street and Elm Street are real places?

2. The Bible is a book of prophecy and fullfillment. Someone has said there are no fewer than 8,000 prophecies made in the Bible. Some of them were fulfilled almost immediately. Some of them took years or even centuries to be fulfilled. Some have not yet been fulfilled. Not one of God’s prophecies has ever been proven inaccurate. If the promises of God have been proven truthful, then the teaching contained in God’s Word can also be trusted.

II Samuel 7:16, spoken to king David:  Your house and your kingdom will continue before me for all time, and your throne will be secure forever.

I think this is a great example of one of the 8,000 prophecies. David's kingdom didn't last forever but all you have to do is to say that this was referring to the eternal throne of Christ and the problem is solved. Similar things are done with the prophecies of Nostradamus.

3. The Bible is an historic book that has recorded events corroborated by other historic texts outside its pages. The events of Scripture have been verified by the writings and records of other ancient civilizations like Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome.

Same as item #1. This proves nothing and when you say the "events" of Scripture do you mean to say that there is corroborating evidence that an event like the Red Sea being parted for the Israelites to cross over and then drowning the Egyptian army following behind actually happened? Or the ten plagues of Egypt? Or the conquest of Canaan? If there is any corroborating evidence in other cultures for these events recorded in the Bible I am unaware of it.

4. Archaeological  finds frequently verify the reliability of the biblical record. For centuries archaeologists have used Scripture to locate specific sites and learn more about cultural practices and people not documented or rarely documented elsewhere. Biblical records once doubted have been verified by evidence unearthed in ongoing excavations and discoveries.

Archaeological finds frequently cast doubt on the reliability of the biblical record...

According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

5. There is a case to be made for textual agreement. You won’t  find something in one book of the Bible disputed or contradicted by another book of the Bible written by an author in some other century. Written by more than 40 different authors over a period spanning more than a thousand years, Scripture tells an amazingly united story of God’s love and His plan to redeem the whole earth from the destruction of sin, death and the devil.

Why wouldn't the Bible authors be in some agreement with one another? If they didn't agree they wouldn't have made it into the Bible.

6. The Bible has survived the test of time.

Not with me.

7. For all these reasons—and the Bible’s own claim to be divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit—believers accept the Scripture as God’s Word. For believers the Bible is not merely the isolated opinion or  first-hand experience of a person who may be well intentioned, but self-deluded. It is, quite simply, God’s eternal and inerrant message for mankind. “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For    prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

I'm going to let the other recent poster deal with whether the Bible claims to be divinely inspired.

[Michellebell]

So I have had a really hard time finding any Christian denominations I agree with, based on what I've read and experienced.  I was searching today and discovered that there is a Christian Universalist group, which I think fits me the best.

I would probably still be an atheist if I didn't experience a moment when I was 20 where I felt that God spoke to me directly.  I was beyond floored by the experience, but after that I felt like I knew God is real and that he LOVES me.  He loved me even when I was committing sins left and right and refusing to believe in Him. 

The issue I have had with most Christian denominations though is their intolerance of other beliefs.  My father is a wonderful man but he's an atheist.  He's very scientific and has never experienced a reason to believe in God.  But he's a wonderful loving person.  I don't believe he is doomed to suffer eternally just because he objectively considered the information he perceived and decided he'd believe what science has shown him instead of what the bible says. 

However I feel I need some spiritual guidance.  I spent several months years ago trying out different religions but felt like they all fell short.  The bible contradicted what science said and had parts I just had a really hard time believing.  Buddhism was easier for me to believe but left me feeling like there's no point to life.

At one point I went for a walk in the woods and silently asked God to give me a sign as to what religion would be the best for me.  I ended up walking off the path and climbed on top of a hill, where there were a bunch of broken bricks or stones that looked like the remains of an old structure.  I looked down and facing me was a huge perfectly symmetrical cross on the ground.  No one put it there; the bricks just broke that way naturally.  So I took that as a sign that Christianity was probably right for me.  That was years ago.  I still wasn't ready to dive into it.

Anyway I have some unusual views.  I read a lot of near death stories that resonated with me.  I believe in reincarnation and that there are many different levels of heaven and hell.  I believe we are all kind of working our way up or evolving toward a more Godlike state.  Every one of us, Christians and the rest of us, make mistakes, but we are all trying our best.  Sometimes I doubt that anything I believe is right, as we really have no proof, but then I go back to thinking I probably am right.

The problem I've had though is that my feeling that God loves us all unconditionally gives me some peace but also gives me no guidance while I'm here.  That's why I had a problem with the Unitarian church.  It was so open I felt it had nothing to offer. 

So I was recently reminded of all this from the religious-themed articles I've been reading and thought, it's probably time to consider Christianity again with a more open mind.  So my plan as of now is to dig out my Bible and start reading it again slowly and really thinking about what it means and how to apply it to my life. 

I don't know if other Christians would even consider me "saved" for my beliefs.  I don't think being saved depends on our beliefs though.  The truth is there whether we recognize it or not.  2 + 2= 4 even if we think it's five.  I think we're all saved, eventually.  What about the people who never were exposed to Christianity?  The whole redemption through faith in Jesus doesn't make sense to me.  But at the same time I think I will be closer to heaven, both in this life and after death, if I really try to apply what Jesus taught.  It's like, I am choosing to be a Christian because I think it will help me be the best I can be, rather than choosing it out of fear.

I just read a near death story of a man who asked if the Bible was true, and he was told yes, so he asked why it only seemed to have one contradiction after another .  And he was told that the problem was he was looking for contradictions, rather than looking for spiritual truth and reading it prayerfully.

Oh and I also do believe we can sin, but sins are more like mistakes or actions that hurt us or hold us back from our goals, and when we sin we suffer natural consequences for them.

[murphy_p_t]

Luther in his own wordshttp://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetic ... luther.htm

Do Lutherans accept these like they do  the "solas"?