So thinking you are superior to others.

You are a loving family man who volunteers as a Big Brother and also at the local hospice when not working as the director of the community food bank. You awaken this morning to discover the global news media ablaze with the first-ever, easily understood, irrefutable scientific proof that there is no God. What will you probably do?
A. Quit your job and become a full-time rapist
B. Abandon your family and go on a murder rampage
C. Become a professional burglar
D. Continue your life pretty much as usual

What a joke! I love the subtlety of this quiz. It's so obviously skewed to get a certain result. It doesn't seem to even hide that fact. Rubbish like this will only help to reinforce the beliefs of those who believe there is no God and those who believe there is a God will just laugh at the absurdity of the argument.

Amen, Warrior. What extreme examples! How about these options:

A. Commit suicide because, without God, you see no reason for living.
B. Leave your wife after ten years because you aren't in love with her anymore but you are in love with someone else.
C. Quit being a Big Brother and directing your local food bank to work on your golf swing because it's less stressfull and is better for your health.
D. Continue your life pretty much as usual.

Since I have seen attempts at that situation via Dawkins and Hawking's books "There is no God" and others, I take unlisted Option E: Don't believe a word they say and Continue your life pretty much as usual.

These types of questions are along the same lines of "Can God create a rock big enough he can't lift?" It doesn't matter how you answer it, it's going to be wrong. The reality though is the question itself is wrong. There is an easy way to answer this question, once you get past this one: "What is greater than infinity?" If you can answer that, you can ask the first question legitimately. The point is, you can't put limited, physical restraints on a being that is not physically limited and is infinite. It doesn't work.

I really dislike questionaires like these. They are filled with loaded questions. Ten years ago, I needed to see a psychiatrist to see about getting tested about driving because I was still autistic enough that we weren't sure if I should drive or not. He gave me a 100-some T/F question test that had absolutely nothing to do with our question. At least a quarter of them were along the lines of "I hold alcohol better than my friends. True or False" or "My sex life is better than my friends. True or False." I'm sitting there and I wouldn't answer them because I knew it didn't matter how I answered it, it would give a false result. Sex, drugs, alcohol are flat out not part of my life, so I answered false for all those, because that's what they told me to put for 'N/A'. Now get this, the psychiatrist accused me of being inwardly focused, not truthful, and hiding information. He wouldn't believe that I don't do these things. And in the 5-minute talk we had with him, he boasted about his credentials on how to treat my stuttering and never addressed the driving issue. (And for the record, 10 years later, my parents and I feel and I ready without any 'special aid'. I'm have my permit and expect to get my license at the end of the month.) The point is, these are prime examples of questions you do NOT use for questionairs and surveys, unless you are purposefully trying to trip someone up. I'm not buying it.

No, I know that you can believe in something without having all the questions answered. Look at how many people believe in aliens. In fact, in some ways I have a hard time seeing how believing in an infallible Bible is so different from believing in, say, Bigfoot.

. . . Nobody clobber me for saying that, please. Hey, I think cryptozoology is cool.

In all seriousness, though, I think a Bigfoot believer could say the same things to a skeptic.

What I have difficulty with is presenting something to others as a fact, and viewing it myself as a fact, when I know fully well that it is nothing more than my personal belief which I could be completely wrong about. I want to keep it in perspective if I can, and to look at it as it is: a belief. Not a fact, or at least not one that's likely to be a widely knowable fact in this lifetime.

There is a huge difference in between believing there is a Bigfoot and believing the Bible is infallible. The difference is your eternity. Whether or not you believe in Bigfoot has no bearing on how you live you life and what happens after death. Believing the Bible is infallible does.

So what I'm getting from you is that you are a Christian, but you aren't sure the Bible is infallible? Then you are staking your eternity on a personal feeling. Mino feels there is no God. Are you saying that your feeling is more accurate than his? Muslims feel that killing themselves while killing infidels (anyone not a Muslim) earns them an afterlife in a gorgeous garden with *cough* lots of gorgeous wives. Are you saying your feeling is right and theirs isn't?

This way of thinking is Man Determines Truth. That means that every man, woman or child can believe in their own way by their own judgement.
For Government, this is absolutely the way it should be. The Government is run by humans; they have no right to impose upon us their own beliefs because they are not morally superior to us.

If all you have is your own feelings to guide you, you are no different than an atheist. Your core principals are the exact same. Man Determines Truth.
If man determines truth, there are no moral absolutes.

Example:
Jake is 36 years old and had a long day. He goes to the bar and drinks a beer while chatting with his friends, then drives home to snuggle with his wife.

Joe is 36 years old and had a long day. He goes to the bar and drinks a beer while chatting with his friends. The beer felt really good and seemed to lift his cares a bit, so he has another one. That one felt good too, so he has another one. Then another one. Then another one. Then he drives home to snuggle with his wife but misjudged the distance between him and another car, crashing into it accidentally. The car had two teens coming home from a date. They both drowned when the car fell into the water below the bridge.

Was Joe morally wrong? Stella is a teetotaler and she says YES: All beer is evil and you should NEVER drink it. Mike likes to take his beer home and share with his girlfriend and he says SORTA: He should have brought home a twelve-pack and drank it all while at the house where his actions couldn't hurt anyone else. Don is fed up with the world and feels that life is only worth living for the fun you get out of it and he says NO: Joe should do what makes him feel best and everyone else should get out of the way.

Who's right?
Stella? She's terribly judgmental. Mike? He has no concept of how excessive alcohol can damage your liver. Don? He doesn't care about anyone or anything else but himself.

There are probably way better examples out there, but that's the first one that came to mind. The point is, how can one determine what was right or wrong in that instance? You could say that the only one truly wrong is Don because he's the only one whose "solution" would have broken the law. But do any of the three of them really care about the law? Maybe. But is the law a good way to judge moral behavior?
Did you know that it is against the law to spit on the sidewalk in Texas? I'm not kidding. It's a leftover from the days that men chewed tobacco and the sidewalks were made of wood. Sticky slimy tobacco spit could cause the ladies to slip, or offend their dainty noses.
So... Is it morally wrong to spit on the sidewalk? Duh, obviously not. Maybe at the time it was discourteous, but never more than that.
So this means we're back to where we started from. Some of the law might be morally correct, some of it isn't. If that is how we judge things, we have to pick and choose for ourselves. Again, Man Determines Truth.

If Man Determines Truth, then you take away the sovereignty of God, because you have the ability to say whether or not He is right or wrong. God is no longer God. If God is no longer God, Jesus is no longer Jesus. If Jesus is no longer Jesus, there is no possible way you can trust him to be the propitiation for our sins and make you Blameless and Holy before a Righteous and Almighty God because now he is as fallible as a human. If Jesus is fallible, Christianity falls apart and you are left with ashes.

Some years back, I was assailed by doubts that my God was the right god. I think I was about 15 or 16. I realized that with the knowledge I currently had, there was no way to tell who was right and who was wrong. I tend to have faith in things until it is irrevocably proven to be misplaced. Jehovah never gave me cause to doubt Him and I never thought there was no god at all, but I wondered if I had the right one. How could I know, for instance, that Allah wasn't the right God? I mean, look at how many Muslims there are! How could a little teenager be more right than millions of highly intelligent adults?

Since then, I have learned many things. I have learned the extreme differences between Jehovah and Allah. I have learned some of the extreme differences between the Bible and the Koran (someday I want to read the Koran, just to get a better understanding). I have learned why believing the Bible makes logical, scientific sense, MORE so than evolution or atheism. And I have learned that it really doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. It IS true because God Determines Truth.

I learned these things through various sources, but this man in this video series is one of the key people who really helped wrap this particular issue of the Bible up and bring it home to me.

I pray you find the answers that you seek, my friend Thorny.

P.S. I think cryptozoology is cool too.

You are a loving family man who volunteers as a Big Brother and also at the local hospice when not working as the director of the community food bank. You awaken this morning to discover the global news media ablaze with the first-ever, easily understood, irrefutable scientific proof that there is no God. What will you probably do?

"Irrefutable scientific proof that there is no God" is a contradiction in terms, given that God is a logically necessary being (ie: He exists in all possible worlds).

TBG

Muslims feel that killing themselves while killing infidels (anyone not a Muslim) earns them an afterlife in a gorgeous garden with *cough* lots of gorgeous wives. Are you saying your feeling is right and theirs isn't?

You may want to consider using the term 'extremist Muslims' next time you use this analogy, sweeping generalisations help no one.

You may want to consider using the term 'extremist Muslims' next time you use this analogy, sweeping generalisations help no one.

"Extremist Muslims" is a popular term. I wonder, why don't we use the term "extremest Christian"?

These "Extremist Muslims" are the ones who follow the Koran to the letter. They do not even consider those who do not follow the Koran to be true Muslims. So yes, it is true that there are peaceful "Muslims". But they are like the Christians who come to church every Sunday and are not saved. They live like a Muslim culture, not a Muslim religion.

Before anyone starts shouting "racist", religion has nothing to do with race. I don't even believe there is such thing as race (because we all descended out of Adam) and few things make me so angry so quickly to hear of any discrimination because of melanin or culture. But God discriminates against sin and killing people is sin and that is what the Koran dictates.

This exact subject of "extremist Muslim" seems to usually end up a political one. I can't recall a single discussion in which this topic has not dwindled into Conservative vs. Liberal, unless the people are already agreed in politics.
I believe it is a very important topic not because of politics (at all!!), but because I believe there are some people in this world who would blind us to the true nature of our enemies (and God says that those who are not for Him are against Him). Why else would looking at a topic that is directly related to God, the Bible and how we believe be so muddled by political views?
I have more I could say on this subject, but I'm not sure if it's really on topic, since this it the Christianity, Religion and Philosophy thread? Guess it could be sorta Philosophy related... I dunno. You mods can decide that.

All I'm saying is I don't think I made a generalization. I judged a religion by what their moral compass tells them to do. If a person does not execute what their moral compass tells them to do, that's fine. But they still associate themselves with those people by their own free will, or through their ignorance of their own religion, or through their fear of losing everything they have by rejecting their religion.

^Granted I'm no expert on the Islam religion, but I believe the quote you speak of depends on the interpretation. In other words I've never read it, and until I do I cannot believe that it specifically says killing a non-Muslim would gain one immediate access into heaven. And I know for a fact that whether or not it is in the Qur'an the vast majority of Muslims do not think that way. I might also add on that the revearse belief was taught to Christians during the Crusades (one who killed a Muslim or Jew would get automatic entry into Heaven) and the majority believed it. Of course the majority of Christians nowadays have read their Bible enough to know that's not true (Granted not all of them... ) But if someone could find the actual quote from a non-biased site and that was translated well I'd feel more comfortable speaking on the matter...

Rose, you don't know me very well, but I'm a fairly naturally skeptical person. You can't say "it's just a belief": that's just silly. You only believe something if you think it's true: a fact. I look at the world and find myself realizing that it all points to the fact that God is there. This isn't like belief in Bigfoot: now maybe one could examine evidence and come to the conclusion that Bigfoot exists. However, this isn't how I came to believe in God---I believe in God because I know Him and know that He's there.

Theologian John Calvin talks about a cognitive faculty that he calls the sensus Divinitatus that is aimed at giving us knowledge of God. Because of sin, this faculty has been almost irreparably damaged such that only by Divine grace can it be repaired. So to you, it might seem as if I'm talking nonsense when I'm speaking of the fact that I know God, when in reality, it's akin to my trying to explain redness to a colorblind man.

You don't know me very well, either. I am not an atheist, nor am I an agnostic. I believe in God. I suppose one could say my "sensus Divinitatus" was kicked into high gear when I was a young teenager.

I'm not talking about the belief of God, I am talking about the belief of an infallible Bible. To me, those are two separate issues.

Hey Coura!

I'm going to just respond to the gist of your post—I am trying so hard to keep my posts from becoming massive again —but if you feel like I've missed something important, shoot me a PM on it or we can talk about it in chat.

There is a huge difference in between believing there is a Bigfoot and believing the Bible is infallible. The difference is your eternity. Whether or not you believe in Bigfoot has no bearing on how you live you life and what happens after death. Believing the Bible is infallible does.

Actually, I've never run across a verse that says one must believe the Bible is the inerrant word in God or else be condemned. If you know of one, I'd be interested in seeing it.

My basic understanding of salvation is that if you accept Christ as lord (which also means living by his example and rules, I should assume), and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9.

What I haven't been able to find in the Bible is God communicating directly to anyone which books should be put in the Bible, et cetera. So just by Man involving himself with so critically important a task as anthologizing the Bible, it ceases to be a case of "God Determines Truth." Man determines Biblical truth.

It's not that I'm not willing to consider that my views on life aren't 100% correct and right. I know that, though I do my best and I hope my intentions are at least good.

What I am unwilling to do is trade my belief system for another man's, or a hodgepodge of beliefs from hundreds of ancient humans, which are just as flawed, if not more flawed. (I'll say more flawed because I hope I don't contradict myself as much as the Bible, from my standpoint, seems to do so.)

As long as I feel that the Bible is largely the product of Man, believing it is the inerrant word of God is just not an option for me.

I've followed these threads for. . . gosh, I guess it's going on about five years now. I've seen just about every issue tossed about, and watched people on here debate and disagree and discuss 'til the cows come home. Yet most of the time, the people who are disagreeing with each other all believe in the Bible as the infallible word of God. It's like. . . when everyone sees something different in the shape of a cloud.

Even if the Bible were infallible (and even then, which version/translation would it be?), it seems to me that Man achieving an infallible understanding/interpretation of it is impossible.

Honestly, if understanding and believing in every aspect of the Bible was such an important issue, God should have put it in a form that could not be clouded by language, translation, and semantics. A form that is universal and everyone can truly understand, so instead of rejecting through misunderstanding, they can actually reject it with the nature of their hearts instead of the fallibility of their minds.

I learned these things through various sources, but this man in this video series is one of the key people who really helped wrap this particular issue of the Bible up and bring it home to me.

I pray you find the answers that you seek, my friend Thorny.

I'll check out the videos as soon as I have time. And thanks for the prayers and taking the time to write your post, Coura, I appreciate it.

You may want to consider using the term 'extremist Muslims' next time you use this analogy, sweeping generalisations help no one.

"Extremist Muslims" is a popular term. I wonder, why don't we use the term "extremest Christian"?

We sometimes do here in the UK, actually Indeed, I've heard similar terms used by Christians to explain the behavior of people who do terrible things in the name of their god (murder of certain figures, etc). This isn't something I criticise either, it's sensible to acknowledge that there are people twisting your religion for wrong and to separate yourselves from them.

These "Extremist Muslims" are the ones who follow the Koran to the letter. They do not even consider those who do not follow the Koran to be true Muslims. So yes, it is true that there are peaceful "Muslims". But they are like the Christians who come to church every Sunday and are not saved. They live like a Muslim culture, not a Muslim religion.

Before anyone starts shouting "racist", religion has nothing to do with race. I don't even believe there is such thing as race (because we all descended out of Adam) and few things make me so angry so quickly to hear of any discrimination because of melanin or culture. But God discriminates against sin and killing people is sin and that is what the Koran dictates.

This is the exact opposite (and yet the exact same one!) of the straw man argument I hear so often that tries to explain why people who call themselves Christian and yet stray from the path were never Christians at all - if someone is Muslim and doesn't adhere to a life of violence, they must never have been truly Muslim, despite calling themselves one. Therefore, there must be no peaceful Muslims!

I didn't not mention race or racism, nor did I intend to accuse you of it. It is fortunate for you that you 'don't believe' in race, but it is all the same a reality that millions of people must live within.

This exact subject of "extremist Muslim" seems to usually end up a political one. I can't recall a single discussion in which this topic has not dwindled into Conservative vs. Liberal, unless the people are already agreed in politics.
I believe it is a very important topic not because of politics (at all!!), but because I believe there are some people in this world who would blind us to the true nature of our enemies (and God says that those who are not for Him are against Him). Why else would looking at a topic that is directly related to God, the Bible and how we believe be so muddled by political views?
I have more I could say on this subject, but I'm not sure if it's really on topic, since this it the Christianity, Religion and Philosophy thread? Guess it could be sorta Philosophy related... I dunno. You mods can decide that.

I can't think of a better place for this discussion myself, but you're not wrong that it is one that quickly descends into politics. I'm curious then, as to why you said it in the first place when you were aware of its connections to politics.

All I'm saying is I don't think I made a generalization. I judged a religion by what their moral compass tells them to do. If a person does not execute what their moral compass tells them to do, that's fine. But they still associate themselves with those people by their own free will, or through their ignorance of their own religion, or through their fear of losing everything they have by rejecting their religion.

And I maintain you did make a generalisation, and now we've discussed it further it turns out it was one that came with the assumption that you know what makes a real Muslim, that any peaceful Muslim is incapable of understanding their own religion, or afraid to leave it.

I can't think of the exact verse in the Qur'an (and I'm not expert on it either), but yes, it does say that those who sacrifice themselves to kill the 'infidels' will have seven virgin brides waiting for them in heaven. (or something to that extent). Qur'an also teaches a practice where Muslims are not the majority 'practice peace and lie about the real intentions'. Yes, Islam teaches it's followers to lie in order to advance their mission. So whether the vast majority of Muslims report that they don't believe this or not, you really don't know that. What we do know is that in countries where the Muslims are in power, anyone who believes otherwise is truly risking their lives to say so.

And yes, the Crusades are not the best example of 'Christian living'. It didn't help that only the clergy could read the Bible and taught only they had the privilege of reading it. The knights that fought only did what they were taught and believed to be true. They didn't have Scripture for themselves to make an accurate judgement.

I'm not talking about the belief of God, I am talking about the belief of an infallible Bible. To me, those are two separate issues.

But they aren't. Unless you accept the Scriptures as containing the self-revelation of God, then how do you know anything about Him? To me, it seems that you are simply projecting yourself onto God, in which case the god that you worship is no God at all. Your god isn't there.

TBG

Ohhh! I just though of a question... semi-related to the topic...

-What do you think of the fact that in the Middle Ages that only the clergy were allowed to read the Bible? Was it wrong? Why or why not?

Personally, I see that as extremely wrong, since it specifically says in the Bible to read it. I think though they made that a rule because it made it easier to control the masses. The Church was the political center after all in those days (*tries really hard to avoid any further political discussion regarding modern issues*). So basically it made it easy to spread lies and propaganda if know one could read the Bible and discover the truth for themselves. That's why it's very important to read and know your Bible, so that you can use it as a check. In other words I think they lied.

That's also why I don't like talking about things that I don't know about (like other religions) because it's so easy to get caught in the generalizations and propaganda surrounding a subject. I'm comfortable talking about Christianity, because I'm a Christian and I believe I know it in it's true form. I'm comfortable talking about science because I'm a scientist (or will hopefully be one anyway) and I know enough about the subject to know what it teaches. (For the record a good example of one of those false generalizations is that evolution teaches that humans came from chimps/apes/monkeys. It doesn't teach that, it hypothesises that humans, apes, and monkeys all came from the same extinct ancestor- Not that that's true, but it's an important distinction to make if you ever want to argue your case for Christianity to an atheistic scientist and not have them wave you off as a religious lunatic who doesn't take the time to learn what they're arguing about. )

I can't think of the exact verse in the Qur'an (and I'm not expert on it either), but yes, it does say that those who sacrifice themselves to kill the 'infidels' will have seven virgin brides waiting for them in heaven. (or something to that extent). Qur'an also teaches a practice where Muslims are not the majority 'practice peace and lie about the real intentions'. Yes, Islam teaches it's followers to lie in order to advance their mission. So whether the vast majority of Muslims report that they don't believe this or not, you really don't know that. What we do know is that in countries where the Muslims are in power, anyone who believes otherwise is truly risking their lives to say so.

The Qur'an, like the Bible, is subject to historical and social factors. Just as in the Bible we find verses in the Old Testament that seem to contradict the peaceful and loving life Jesus instructs us to live, so in the Qur'an we find passages that contradict the peaceful life its followers are told to live. You are willing to make this distinction for the Bible, but not the Qur'an - why?

You are willing to make this distinction for the Bible, but not the Qur'an - why?

Because the Bible is an unfolding of revelation: in it, God reveals Himself progressively. Q'uran, in Muslim theology, is eternal and unchanging. That's why, in Scripture, we can reconcile these qualities, where in Q'uran, we cannot. They are two different birds.

TBG