DeepThinkr wrote:i'll be happy to reply to your questionings, questioner.
First off, i do not associate myself with a denomination. i base my beliefs solely on what the Bible says about salvation; it says nowhere in the Bible that you must be baptised to be saved.
Incorrect.
Matthew 3:11 - I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mark 1:4 - John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
I can keep pasting these if you still feel you are correct.
Quote:God gave the "feeling" that there is a God. but feelings aren't very specific, are they. And God did put the answer everywhere. the Bible is the answer, and there's one in every hotel room and in 50 percent of homes in america. Anyone can read it if they want to learn about it.
Once again, the bible is not the answer. There are many religions, all with "bibles", some of which go back further than christianity's own. The bible is the answer for those that believe it to be truth. For those with a modicum of doubt it is nothing more than "another religion".
Quote:This is where satan comes in. Satan plants a seed of laziness whenever someone starts to read the Bible. This is why people almost always ask other people for answers about God. This is what you're doing, No?
No, it's not. As stated before, I was a christian for 26+ years. Very active in the church etc etc. I've read the bible many times, and am capable of discovering answers from it through study and research. I ask questions of people I deem to be logical on the topic. I do not deem you to be such a one, which is why i'm questioning your theories.
Quote:This is how the Bible gets misinterpreted, people misunderstand each other, like the game whisper down the lane, the message becomes more and more distorted as it is passed along. My point is this: God causes people to look. It's misinterpreted because people look in the wrong places.
I understand your point, I just happen to believe it's wrong. So far you've just reiterated what you stated earlier, not really explaining or showing evidence of why you believe as you do.
The bible is misinterpreted because people have their own agendas when reading it. The need for "belief" is nothing more than man's fear of the unknown. Early man didn't have the benefit of science to aid in gathering clues and discovering the reasons things happen the way they happen. Religion is man's response to dealing with the unknown. If several memebers of your tribe get attacked by a lion and you can't fathom why, it must be because the god of the animals is angry. Thus you pray, offer sacrifices, whatever to the god of the animals to appease him.
[/quote]
Quote:Oh, and by the way, God did go the extra mile. He died for everybody. And the Bible is common enough for people to find it. It's like a neon sign that people always look past. He did make it simple.
He didn't die for everyone. He died for the people that are baptised and believe in him. For the rest that feel no calling towards christianity altogether he pretty much just turned his nose up and walked off.
And don't answer my questions out of context. I asked why god would instill such a vague notion of his presence in everyone that they would be confused and begin looking other places? (this is in reference to your statement that such a thing was done)
Quote:in saying that most religions are alike, I mean that they all believe in the supernatural one way or another. this is what God put on our hearts. but again, feelings aren't specific.
So people that believe in ghosts and poltergueists are actually only sucumbing to god's little "belief" installment? To say that THAT is the reason all religions are alike is painting with a rather large brush, and one that most people in other religions would take offense to.
Quote:now on the validity of the Bible: this is a topic i could go on and on about. yes the books are all written by different people, but they all affirm one another.
Really, you've read them all then? Including the ones that have never seen mass print?
Quote:all of these writings agree, and yet any one could not have been written solely based on the writings of the other books. this shows that each author throughout time had some encounter with the same God that holds the same views and principles.
Ever read a fiction series with a crossover? They can get pretty accurate as well.
Quote:This is affirming in its validity because it shows that the Bible isn't just the radical imaginings of one man, but rather many men who did not know each other, who came up with similar material that came from the same devine being.
Sorry, it really affirms nothing. Since the agendas of the men that wrote these books is unknown it is entirely guesswork on your part that these writings were "divinely" inspired.
Quote:The gospels are eyewitness accounts of jesus. if these books did not agree, but rather contradicted themselves, i would not believe them. Point: the revelations of many men all affirm each other somehow, yet they did not know each other. this is enough to make the Bible different from other documents.
The gospels pertaining to the life and death of Jesus were largely written by the men that accompanied him throughout life, and were a part of it all. The men that wrote them were all friends. Why WOULD they contradict each other?
Your statement that they did not know each other in this instance is incorrect.
Quote:On its assembly by man: those who assembled the Bible carefully went through all the religious documents and recognized that these books affirmed one another and that they most adequately explained life and its meanings.
Or they had an agenda and possibly made mistakes in leaving information out.
Quote:Also, i believe that God was present during the assembly of the Bible. this is the most crucial part in getting His message out. I don't think He would have wanted anyone to mess up. Therefore, I believe that God directed the assembly of His book.
Any more questions/comments- please, do tell.
That god was in attendance is pure speculation and conjecture. You're using the product of the writings to validate the pureness of the writings.
I respect that you have the right to believe what you want, but the reasoning and evidence behind the beliefs you've posted appears to be rather terminally flawed.
Of course microevolution is pretty solid, but I'm yet to be convinced that a single-celled organism is my ancestor.
