Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Other Religious Writings Can They Be From God, Too?
Source:
Answers In Genesis
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/art ... v2/n4/other-religious-writings
Published: Dec 8, 2009
Author: Bodie Hodge
Post Date: 2009-12-08 00:45:52 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 9565
Comments: 33
The answer seems too simple: other alleged divine writings are not from God because they are not among the 66 books of the Bible and, in fact, they contradict the Bible. A Presuppositional Approach This is a “presuppositional” approach, which means to presuppose that God exists and that His Word, the Bible, is the truth. This is the starting point or axiom. God never tried to prove His existence or prove that His Word is superior to other writings. God simply opens the Bible with a statement of His existence and says His Word is flawless (Genesis 1:1; Proverbs 30:5). The Bible bluntly claims to be the truth (Psalm 119:160), and Christ repeated this claim (John 17:17). In fact, if God had tried to prove that He existed or that His Word was flawless, then any evidence or proof would be greater than God and His Word. But God knows that nothing is greater than His Word, and therefore He doesn’t stoop to our carnal desires for such proofs. The Bible also teaches us to have faith that God exists and that having faith pleases Him (Hebrews 11:6). Accordingly, we are on the right track if we start with God’s Word. So how do we know that other religious writings are not from God? God Will Not Contradict Himself In the Bible, we read that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). This is significant because it means that God’s Word will never have contradictions. Though skeptics have alleged that there are contradictions in the Bible, every such claim has been refuted. This is what we would expect if God’s Word were perfect. Yet the world is filled with other “religious writings” that claim divine origin or that have been treated as equal to or higher than the Bible on matters of truth or guidelines for living. In other words, these writings are treated as a final authority over the Bible. Any religious writing that claims divine inspiration or authority equal to the Bible can’t be from God if it has any contradictions: contradictions with the Bible, contradictions within itself, or contradictions with reality. Examples of Contradictions in Religious Writings A religious writing can be tested by comparing what it says to the Bible (1 Thessalonians 5:21). God will never disagree with Himself because God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18). When the Bible was being written and Paul was preaching to the Bereans (Acts 17:11), he commended them for checking his words against the Scriptures that were already written. If someone claims that a book is of divine origin, then we need to be like the Bereans and test it to confirm whether it disagrees with the 66 books of the Bible. Paul’s writings, of course, were Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). Religious books, such as Islam’s Koran, Mormonism’s Book of Mormon, and Hinduism’s Vedas, contradict the Bible; and so they cannot be Scripture. For example, the Koran in two chapters (Sura 4:171 and 23:91) says God had no son, but the Bible is clear that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (Matthew 26:63–64). The Book of Mormon says in Moroni 8:8 that children are not sinners, but the Bible teaches that children are sinful, even from birth (Psalm 51:5). Few would dispute that the Vedas and other writings in Hinduism are starkly different from the Bible. Also, such religious writings contain contradictions within themselves that are unanswerable without gymnastics of logic. In the Koran, one passage says Jesus will be with God in paradise (Sura 3:45) and another states that He will be in hell for being worshiped by Christians (Sura 21:98). The Book of Mormon, prior to the 1981 change, says that American Indians will turn white when they convert to Mormonism (2 Nephi 30:6). If such writings were truly from God, such discrepancies couldn’t exist. Since such alleged holy books are not from the perfect God, who are they from? They are from deceived, imperfect mankind. Mankind’s fallible reason is not the absolute authority. God and His Word are. Other books may have tremendous value, such as historical insight; but they are not the infallible Word of God. The Bible warns that false philosophies will be used to turn people from the Bible (Colossians 2:8). So people need to stand firm on the Bible and not be swayed (1 Corinthians 15:58; 2 Thessalonians 2:15). So there are two options: place our faith in the perfect, all-knowing God who has always been there, or trust in imperfect, fallible mankind and his philosophies. The Bible, God’s Holy Word, is superior to all other alleged holy books. God will never be wrong or contradict Himself. So start with the Bible and build your faith on its teachings so that you please Him. Quick Comparison
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
I'd always thought that the older I got the more I'd seek God. Fear of dying and all that. The opposite has occurred. The more I see, the less I want to do with God.
Archaeology, New Testament. The science of archaeology has brought strong confirmation to the historicity of both the Old Testament (see ALBRIGHT, WILLIAM F.; ARCHAEOLOGY, OLD TESTAMENT) and the New Testament. Archaeological evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is overwhelming (see NEW TESTAMENT, DATING OF; NEW TESTAMENT, HISTORICITY OF). This evidence will be summarized in three parts: the historical accuracy of Luke, the testimony of secular historians, and the physical evidence relating to Christ’s crucifixion (see CHRIST, DEATH OF). Historical Accuracy of Luke. It was once thought that Luke, writer of the most historically detailed Gospel and of Acts, had concocted his narrative from the rambling of his imagination, because he ascribed odd titles to authorities and mentioned governors that no one knew. The evidence now points in exactly the opposite direction (see ACTS, HISTORICITY OF). The Census in Luke 2:1–5. Several problems are involved in the statement that Augustus conducted a census of the whole empire during the reign of both Quirinius and Herod. For one, there is no record for such a census, but we now know that regular censuses were taken in Egypt, Gaul, and Cyrene. It is quite likely that Luke’s meaning is that censuses were taken throughout the empire at different times, and Augustus started this process. The present tense that Luke uses points strongly toward understanding this as a repeated event. Now Quirinius did take a census, but that was in A.D. 6, too late for Jesus’ birth, and Herod died before Quirinius became governor. Was Luke confused? No; in fact he mentions Quirinius’ later census in Acts 5:37. It is most likely that Luke is distinguishing this census in Herod’s time from the more well-known census of Quirinius: “This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” There are several New Testament parallels for this translation. Gallio, Proconsul of Achaia. This designation in Acts 18:12–17 was thought to be impossible. But an inscription at Delphi notes this exact title for the man and dates him to the time at which Paul was in Corinth (A.D. 51). Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene. Lysanias was unknown to modern historians until an inscription was found recording a temple dedication which mentions the name, the title, and is in the right place. The inscription is dated between A.D. 14 and 29, easily compatible with the beginnings of John’s ministry, which Luke dates by Lysanias’ reign (Luke 3:1). Erastus. In Acts 19:22, Erastus is named as a Corinthian who becomes a co- worker of Paul. If Luke were going to make up any names, this would seem to be the best place to do it. How would anyone know? In excavating Corinth, an inscription was found near the theater which reads, “Erastus in return for his aedileship laid the pavement at his own expense.” If these are the same men, then it explains why Luke would have included the detail that a prominent and wealthy citizen of Corinth had been converted and had given his life to the ministry. In addition to these, Luke gives correct titles for the following officials: Cyprus, proconsul (13:7–8); Thessalonica, politarchs (17:6); Ephesus, temple wardens (19:35); Malta, the first man of the island (28:7; Yamauchi, 115–19). Each of these has been confirmed by Roman usage. In all, Luke names thirty- two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without an error. This led the prominent historian Sir William Ramsay to recant his critical views: "I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth." [Ramsay, 8] In full agreement, Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White says, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted” (Sherwin-White, 189). The critical theories spawned in the early 1800s that persist today are left without substantiation. Archaeologist William F. Albright says, “All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are therefore, since they were built in der Luft [in the air], quite antiquated today” (Albright, 29). Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (46–47). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
Superstition ain't science,and when archeologists dig up copies of "The Weekly World News" 2000 years from now and prove that Elvis really did exist,that won't be proof that he impregnated the Loch Ness Monster. BUT.....,there is nothing preventing you from creating a "Religious Issues" or "Religious History" ping list and pinging this thread with that. I'll even go so far as to say it would be a popular ping list.
No it isn't. But when the Bible makes a claim then it is backed up by archelogical evidence. Then that becomes physical support for the words found in Gods word the Bible. Then when that is multiplied several times or hundreds of times it adds even more support. But no science can't prove or disprove the Bible. There is much scientific evidence to support the claims in the Bible and very little or none to support the man made theory of evilution. It is impossible to please God without faith.
Fear of dying and all that. The opposite has occurred. The more I see, the less I want to do with God. Your dislike of God isn't a good thing. 1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
This is an excellent read. Thank you.
Fully agree. A lesson I've learned from experience other alleged divine writings are not from God because they are not among the 66 books of the Bible and, in fact, they contradict the Bible. This is where I would tend to stray from the evangelical. The Bible is the inspired word of God, yes. But when you look at the history of the Church (all denominations) and the way books were decided upon as well as during the times of major translations (KJV for example) some of the decisions were based on politics rather than faith. Course I suppose you could say that God caused those decisions to happen to I suppose. But as for the general premises within the Bible itself (God is who He says He is, Christ is the Son of God who died for my sins and rose again, Holy Spirit, etc.) those are irrefutable to me.
Religion is based on faith,not science. Finding a wall or a temple,or finding the 300 AD version of The National Enquirer or WND may be archeology,but it doesn't prove any of the miracles written about were true. That's why I suggested he start a "Religion" or even a "Religious History" ping list. Most people are believers,and it would probably result in popular threads. Especially a ping list related to Religious History. BTW,you are the site owner. You want to be the co-owner of all the ping lists I created? That way if you ban me,I die,or I just thrown my computer out in the yard one day,you can take over the ping lists and look for new co-owners,and the ping lists don't just hang there forever without anybody being able to ping to them.
Feel free to add me to any ping lists you desire.
Sure thing. I'll do it in just a few minutes. BTW,there is a glitch in your software. When I go to subscriptions,it shows I'm not subscribed to about half the ping lists I created at the top,but when I go to the bottom of the page where it shows my ping lists,I can clearly see the arrow in the box beside all of them showing I am subscribed.
Religion is based on tradition, liturgy, and heirarchy. It is also often based on lies. Faith is faith and does not require a religious order. Faith in Christ does not equal adherence to any religion. Adherence to any christian" religion does not require faith in Christ. Faith in Christ results in eternal salvation. Adherence to religious order has benefits that are immediate and temporal.
The software was created by Pinguinite. Maybe he can look into this. Thanks for the information.
Here's a related applicable piece; http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/12/01/written-by-men Was the Bible Simply Written By Men? A Bigger Problem Than You Might Think It truly is a secular age. I had the opportunity to be at a state school a couple of years ago for a student led club. I began answering some questions that the students had at the end of the lecture. Even though there was a very negative tone coming from many of the questioners, I remained courteous in each response. Most of the questions were common and fairly easy to answer. The questions first began with the creation-evolution debate, dealing with dinosaurs and radiometric dating. After those were answered, the questions became more impassioned and were directed towards God and the Bible: "Who created God?" and "Isn’t the Bible full of contradictions?" At the end, one question came up that I did not have an opportunity to answer. A student asked "Was the Bible written by men?" The bell rang and out they went. I wished this question would have come up sooner because it gets closer to the heart of the issue. I didn’t realize the importance of this question until I saw a statistical analysis of young people who had walked away from the church. Out of 1,000 young adults who have left church, 44% of them said that they did not believe the accounts in the Bible were true and accurate. When asked what made them answer this way, the most common response (24%) said that the Bible was written by men (not God, albeit inspiring men). The remaining results are shown below.1 Survey Results Even though 24% question the accuracy of the Bible because it was written by men, there are other related answers in this study. For example, 11% believe the Bible contains errors. This implies that “God could not have been involved,” since God does not make errors (Psalm 12:6; Deuteronomy 32:4; Hebrews 6:18). Also, 15% claim that the Bible contradicts itself. This implies that God was not involved since God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13) and, thus, contradict Himself. So at least 50% would, in one way or another, dispute that a perfect God was responsible for the Bible! So What Is The Answer? When it comes to authorship of the Bible, of course men were involved. Christians would be the first to point this out. For example, Paul wrote letters to early churches that are included in the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15–16). David wrote many of the Psalms. Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). In fact, it is estimated that over 40 different human authors were involved.2 So, this is not the issue. The issue is this: did God have any involvement or not? Did God inspire the authors of the Scriptures?3 When someone claims that the Bible was written by men and not God, this is an absolute statement that reveals something extraordinary. It reveals that the person saying this is claiming to be transcendent! When one claims that God was not inspiring the human authors of the Bible, that person is claiming to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent! 1. Omniscient: they are claiming to be an all-knowing authority on the subject of God’s inspiration, to refute God’s claim that Scripture was inspired by Him (2 Timothy 3:16). 2. Omnipresent: they are claiming that they were present, both spiritually and physically, to observe that God had no part in aiding any of the biblical authors. 3. Omnipotent: they are claiming that if God had tried to help the biblical authors, then they had the power to stop such an action. So, the person making the claim that the Bible was written by men is claiming to be God; but these three attributes belong solely to God. This is a religious issue of humanism versus Christianity. The person is claiming (perhaps inadvertently) that they are the ultimate authority over God and are trying to convince you that God is subservient to them. This needs to be addressed in responding to them. What Is A Good Response? I like to respond in ways that reveal this issue in a question—and there are several ways to do it. For example, you can address “omnipresence” by asking, “Do you really believe that you are omnipresent? The only way for you to prove that God had no involvement in the writing of the Scriptures is for you to be omnipresent.” Then point out that he/she is claiming to be God when they made the statement that God had no involvement in the Bible. Or perhaps respond with the question, “How is it that you are powerful enough to stop God from inspiring the authors of the Bible?” Or you can direct the question to the rest of the listeners by simply asking, “Do the rest of you think that this person is God? The only way to refute that God inspired the Bible is by claiming attributes of God for yourself, such as omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience.” You may have to explain further at this point so that the listeners will better understand. You can always lead them down the path by first asking an easier question: “How do you know that God was not involved?” But then you will have to listen to their response in order to know how to proceed after that. Other methods of responding are to undercut the entire position by pointing out that any type of reasoning apart from the Bible is merely arbitrary. So, the person trying to make a logical argument against the claims of the Bible (i.e., that God inspired the authors) is doing so only because he/she is assuming the Bible is true—that logic and truth exist! It is helpful to point out these types of presuppositions and inconsistencies.4 Someone may respond: “What if I claim that Shakespeare was inspired by God—then you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent to refute it.” Actually, it is irrelevant for me to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent to refute it. God, who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, refutes this claim from what He has already stated in the Bible. Nowhere did God self-authenticate Shakespeare’s writings as Scripture. However Christ, the Creator-God (John 1; Colossians 1; Hebrews 1), approved the Old Testament prophetic works and the New Testament apostolic works. The canon is already sealed.5 God has repeatedly authenticated the supernatural character of Scripture through prophecy. In Isaiah 40–46, God states that He is distinguished from the other so-called gods in many ways (He is the Creator; He is the One who sits above the circle of the earth; etc.). God alone can tell the future (see especially Isaiah 41:21–29). Since the Bible alone contains detailed predictive and fulfilled prophecy, it alone can qualify as being authenticated by God. Conclusion Sadly, in today’s society, children (churched or not) are being heavily exposed to the religion of humanism, which reigns in state schools. So, it is logical that the next generation would be thinking in terms of humanism and apply that to the Bible. The student about whom I previously spoke was applying the religion of humanism (i.e., man is the authority, not God) to the Bible when he claimed that it was written merely by men. He viewed himself as the authority and not God. He further reasoned that there is no God at all, and, therefore, the Bible could not have had God’s involvement. Therefore, his statement that the Bible was written by men was a religious claim—he was claiming to be God. Many follow this same thought process but fail to realize its implications and problems. You shall have no other gods before Me (Exodus 20:3). If one can expose the false religion of humanism, then others may be more open to realizing the deception. After all, the person is not the enemy; rather, it is the false principalities and dark powers that are at work trying to deceive (Ephesians 6:12) that we must demolish (2 Corinthians 10:5).
Fear of dying and all that. The opposite has occurred. The more I see, the less I want to do with God. Have you ever asked yourself why? God will honor your request when you die.
Which ones are you referring to in particular? Books/letters that is.
Hello Ronin! If you are the Ronin from the FR days,it's been a long time since I've seen your screen name. If nobody else steps up to the plate,why don't YOU create a "Religious History" ping list? Seems like you and a lot of others have an interest in this subject.
There may be a few I suppose. Not saying a mistake was made at any of the conferences either at Nicea or when James I commissioned the translation he did. But at least with the KJV translation (whose history I'm more familiar with) there was a concerted effort to translate accordingly to maintain the divine right of kings was from God. Not saying I disagree with that either, as I don't, but it's just always made me curious if there were books that could have gotten in but political decisions made it otherwise
The greatest words I've ever found written on the subject of God and the Christian Bible: http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm When it comes to bull****, big-time, major league bull****, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bull**** story. Holy ****! But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is ****ed up. Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of **** you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man. Thank you for your life, George Carlin.
What's the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and other parts of her body? Only some of the things that don't come out of her mouth are retarded.
The Council of Nicea was already a Catholic thing back then. It had already gotten to and represented most of which Christ stood against, and not for what Christ stood for, namely simplistic faith in him, by then. i.e., things had already been corrupted by then.
Nope. Thanks, but no thanks. Just enjoy chiming in when I deem it good to do so.
It seems to me that God could have avoided this entire problem by blasting his words permanently into the side of a mountain for all to see. Instead, He lets men decide what words are His and what words aren't. That's a guaranteed way to total chaos, which should be quite obvious to everyone today.
It had already gotten to and represented most of which Christ stood against, and not for what Christ stood for, namely simplistic faith in him, by then. Have to admit readily I don't know a lot about the early history of the church. Been watching a documentary on BBC presented by Diarmaid MacCulloch that I've learned a lot from. The first 2-3 episodes dealt with early history and the rise of the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic. You are right about one thing though. There's a lot of 'rules' now in churches and less about the simplistic faith in Christ.
Superstition ain't science,and when archeologists dig up copies of "The Weekly World News" 2000 years from now and prove that Elvis really did exist,that won't be proof that he impregnated the Loch Ness Monster. Granted, superstition is not science, but are we dealing with superstition? BUT.....,there is nothing preventing you from creating a "Religious Issues" or "Religious History" ping list and pinging this thread with that. I have always respected your right to reject the Bible and Christ, and never once attacked your views. My ping was to show the veracity of Luke, the historian's statement, which he ties together with 6 recorded events on the same day. For that and other reasons Luke is considered one of the greatest historians. Religion is based on faith,not science. I will challenge your statement. Faith is NOT a leap into the dark, rather it is an action based on the confidence one has in the object of their belief. Do you have confidence in a parachute opening is an example. Likewise, please do not confuse scientific and historical evidence. The former can be repeated in a laboratory, whereas the latter cannot. Historical evidence can be used to prove an event took place. Additionally, the scientific method can and is applied to both theology and history. That is why theology is known as the Queen of Science. I will respect your right to avoid all religious issues and not ping you on this subject.
You are right about one thing though. There's a lot of 'rules' now in churches and less about the simplistic faith in Christ. Well that's just it, Paul even had to chastise the Corinthian Church for already creating what were in essence early denominations; Likewise, did the Pope, Joseph Smith, a priest, the Catholic Church get crucified for [you] or otherwise account for [your] entry into eternity with God? Many do get baptized into a church, but that isn't the same as the symbolic baptism into the true Church, the bride of Christ. Peter was no more the "first pope" than I was POTUS ever. i.e., it began to disburse almost immediately following the time of Christ. And look at the Jewish religious order. Christ did away with it, but the Catholic Church today is the biggest example of the Jewish religious structure led by those he termed "blind guides, hypocrites, snakes, and a brood of vipers" in Matthew 23, robes, pointed hats, and all.
Create a Religious History ping list,and ping away. I can ignore pings if I'm busy or not interested,and there is a chance I might sometimes be interested in such a thread if it is based mostly on history and not so much on faith. I probably won't post on it,but I will lurk and read.
I'm curious about this, because the same software running LF also runs 4um and TPF, and I've not received any comments about this before. I'm showing you own 10 ping lists and are subscribed to 14, though just because you created a ping list doesn't mean your subscribed to it. It's possible to create a list and not be subscribed to it. I did find one item that should be unrelated which I fixed, but please confirm the problem is still there. Nothing seems wrong in the data. I'd need to sign in as you to follow up on this. Thanks.
ping
Here is what I see on my setup page. "Subscription Ping Lists to which you are not subscribed: Archeology and Digs Border Invasion Coral Snake Song Parodies Crime and Corruption CS Bites Ping List Environmental News Gun Porn Humor Kook Watch Movie and Book Review Music Politics and Politicians Religious History and Issues Science and technology SOCOM Space News World history" I am subscribed to ever one of those ping lists but two of them.
Good news,Gary. I will be surprised if that doesn't turn out to be one of the most popular ping lists. I've even subscribed to it.
You are referring to the Religious History and Issues ping list. Hopefully, it will, however, many of our folks are missing who made the discussions interesting, especially Vicomte13 and APole.
You are referring to the Religious History and Issues ping list. Yes,I am. Hopefully, it will, however, many of our folks are missing who made the discussions interesting, especially Vicomte13 and APole. True,but that doesn't mean they won't show up,or that others won't show up with the same level of interest. Or even posters you don't suspect might take an interest in certain threads. For example,I consider Martin Luther to be one of mankind's greatest heroes,and it is probably safe to say that I am not the most devoutly religious person you know.
Most of the ex-SF I know were not religious while in the service or until years later, but I have found the majority became Christians later in life. This may surprise you, but I was a genuine Christ hater for many years. It started when I went to KU and later the service. When I went to work representing my present company several of the Christians in the office were shocked when I threw items at them, and occasionally spat at them. I was Mr. Nasty, and thought I was a real bad a$$, however the 115 lb pit bull I was married to taught me who was really bad. Everyone who knew me said my becoming a Christian wouldn't last 6 months. One former agent is now a pastor and has a sermon titled, The meanest man I ever met. He said, "Gary is the last person I ever expected to become a believer. BTW, here is my favorite quote. It's by Martin Luther. "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point. " Martin Luther
"Big Mac" (I'm sure you know who I mean or can find out easily enough) is said to have became a preacher after he retired,and he was plenty damn scary as a SGM.
#2. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#0)
#3. To: GarySpFC (#2)
Archaeology, New Testament.
#4. To: sneakypete (#3)
Superstition ain't science,
#5. To: WhiteSands (#1)
I'd always thought that the older I got the more I'd seek God.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#4)
It is impossible to please God without faith.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#4)
No it isn't. But when the Bible makes a claim then it is backed up by archelogical evidence.
#9. To: sneakypete (#8)
#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)
Feel free to add me to any ping lists you desire.
#11. To: All (#8)
Religion is based on faith,not science.
#12. To: sneakypete, pinguinite (#10)
BTW,there is a glitch in your software. When I go to subscriptions,it shows I'm not subscribed to about half the ping lists I created at the top,but when I go to the bottom of the page where it shows my ping lists,I can clearly see the arrow in the box beside all of them showing I am subscribed.
#13. To: All (#0)
Other Religious Writings Can They Be From God, Too?
by Bodie Hodge
December 1, 2009
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
#14. To: WhiteSands (#1)
I'd always thought that the older I got the more I'd seek God.
#15. To: nighttrain2008 (#7)
This is where I would tend to stray from the evangelical. The Bible is the inspired word of God, yes. But when you look at the history of the Church (all denominations) and the way books were decided upon as well as during the times of major translations (KJV for example) some of the decisions were based on politics rather than faith. Course I suppose you could say that God caused those decisions to happen to I suppose.
#16. To: Ronin (#13)
#17. To: Ronin (#15)
Which ones are you referring to in particular? Books/letters that is.
#18. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#19. To: nighttrain2008 (#17)
There may be a few I suppose. Not saying a mistake was made at any of the conferences either at Nicea or when James I commissioned the translation he did. But at least with the KJV translation (whose history I'm more familiar with) there was a concerted effort to translate accordingly to maintain the divine right of kings was from God. Not saying I disagree with that either, as I don't, but it's just always made me curious if there were books that could have gotten in but political decisions made it otherwise
#20. To: sneakypete (#16)
Hello Ronin! If you are the Ronin from the FR days,it's been a long time since I've seen your screen name.
If nobody else steps up to the plate,why don't YOU create a "Religious History" ping list? Seems like you and a lot of others have an interest in this subject.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Always look on the bright side of life.
#22. To: Ronin (#19)
The Council of Nicea was already a Catholic thing back then.
#23. To: sneakypete (#8)
#24. To: nighttrain2008 (#22)
Have to admit readily I don't know a lot about the early history of the church. Been watching a documentary on BBC presented by Diarmaid MacCulloch that I've learned a lot from. The first 2-3 episodes dealt with early history and the rise of the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic.
10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
#25. To: GarySpFC (#23)
I will respect your right to avoid all religious issues and not ping you on this subject.
#26. To: sneakypete (#10)
BTW,there is a glitch in your software. When I go to subscriptions,it shows I'm not subscribed to about half the ping lists I created at the top,but when I go to the bottom of the page where it shows my ping lists,I can clearly see the arrow in the box beside all of them showing I am subscribed.
#27. To: sneakypete, *Religious History and Issues* (#25)
#28. To: Pinguinite (#26)
I'm curious about this, because the same software running LF also runs 4um and TPF, and I've not received any comments about this before. I'm showing you own 10 ping lists and are subscribed to 14, though just because you created a ping list doesn't mean your subscribed to it. It's possible to create a list and not be subscribed to it.
#29. To: GarySpFC (#27)
#30. To: sneakypete (#29)
#31. To: GarySpFC (#30)
#32. To: sneakypete (#31)
For example,I consider Martin Luther to be one of mankind's greatest heroes,and it is probably safe to say that I am not the most devoutly religious person you know.
#33. To: GarySpFC (#32)
Most of the ex-SF I know were not religious while in the service or until years later, but I have found the majority became Christians later in life.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]