Physical, Incontrovertible Proof of God

[Dark Virtue]

I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God... That is one of the requirements for being a Christian.

Is it? Interesting since many Christians do not believe it is inerrant. Are they not "true" Christians since they haven't met your requirement? Where, exactly, is that requirement set forth in the Bible? Since you believe it is inerrant, do you also believe it is completely literal? If not, how do you distinguish between what is literal and what is figurative? For bonus points, please list the requirements for being a Christian.

I do not believe every single translation of the Bible is accurate or right. (KJV, NIV and ESV are mostly correct, but when in doubt I go to the original text and study it out).

Why aren't the translations accurate? Why would God let an inaccurate translation of his work be made? You say the KJV, NIV and ESV are MOSTLY correct, are they not 100% accurate. If not, again, WHY NOT? How do you know what is accurate and what isn't?

As for evidence of the Bible accounts being accurate, simply take a look at Archeology. Both Christian and non-Christian archaeologists have discovered quite a few findings that support the accounts of the Bible.

WHAO, that's REALLY reaching. Because I find presents under the tree on Christmas doesn't mean Santa exists. Are there things in the Bible that are archaeologically accurate? Absolutely! Do those accuracies prove a divinely inspired work? Absolutely not! If you want to talk Archaeology, show me the evidence of thousands of Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years. What about the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai? There are many things that can NOT be historically verified. Again, becuase SOME things can be verified doesn't mean you can attribute correctness to the WHOLE work. Don't you think, that doing so, is intellectually dishonest?

Now honestly, I am not an archaeological expert; and I also hate linking to outside sources, yet because the hour is late I will (for now) refer you to this site which was created by people who are much more familiar with Archeology than myself.

http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html

Thanks, I'll take a look at it!

 

[Dark Virtue]

Moses still had to believe that what his eyes saw was true. Let me ask you, DV... let's say after a long, hard day at work, your computer starts typing out instructions for you on it's screen, even though it's not plugged in. The message states that Jesus is Lord, and that you must go and preach to the local Atheists group at their next meeting. Then, after the message has been delivered, the screen goes blank.

You'd probably think you had hallucinated, and that you really needed to stop arguing with those wacky Christians so much.

Essentially, that's what happened to Moses. That proof would not pass as "incontrovertible" because it could have been passed off as a hallucination or a mirage. A person who saw an image like that in today's society would be Baker Acted and hauled off to the nearest sanitarium.

So, by claiming that Moses had received incontrovertible proof, which is certainly not the case (as I have provided a logical, non-supernatural conclusion to the whole burning bush incident), you're admitting that "incontrovertible" is a subjective standard. What is incontrovertible for me may not be for you. By logical extension, if we have the logical capacity to reject evidence as invalid, then no evidence is incontrovertible for everyone. Incontrovertible evidence cannot exist concurrently with the ability to reject said evidence.

First, where is your non-supernatural evidence for the whole burning bush thing? I must have missed it.

Secondly, incontrovertible proof is not subjective. That's what makes it incontrovertible. True, Moses was the only one to see the bush, but how many people saw the miracles he performed through God? THAT my friend is incontrovertible. Moses had the bush, God talking to him, miracles, God's guidance through the desert, etc, etc. Moses didn't need to have faith in the existence of God because he had PROOF. Moses, however, was a big weinie in the beginning and needed faith that God would actually do what he said he'd do, that is not the same in needing proof to substantiate the existence of God. The same goes for Noah. He didn't need faith to prove God existed, he did, however, need faith to follow through and do what God ordered him to do, like building a boat in the middle of a desert.

I hope you see the difference.

 

[Genesis1315]

I am going to have to go back a couple days since I took Sunday off

Sounds like they had SOME sort of interaction with God prior to the sacrifice.

But aren't you assuming this by the offering that was left. There isn't any concrete data to support that. Even with my faith in God, I have no clue if there was any direct interaction with God. So, wouldn't it take faith to believe that (sorry couldn't help that one DV )

Gen

 

[Dark Virtue]

Not in the slightest.

Who were their parents?

Adam and Eve, right?

With only FOUR people on the entire planet I think there would be enough proof available. How far away do you think they were from the Garden of Eden? A simple journey to the entrance and you could have seen the flaming sword for yourself, right?

WHY were they making an offering? To whom were they making the offering? How did they know what to do? I think there's enough there to support the theory that they had SOME sort of interaction with God prior to the offering. Why would there be interaction after and not before?

It doesn't take faith to make that assumption, it takes cognitive discipline.

 

[Genesis1315]

One could assume that you are a believer in Christ because you post on a Christian forum. Which is not true. It is only because of additional factual information that we know otherwise. I cannot say that Cain or Abel had any interaction with God before making their offering. And, in fact, I could say that if they had had any interaction with God that the offerings would not be a concern because, after having that direct interaction with God, they would know what would be the best offering.

(seems like we have reversed our roles )

But it was by faith that Abel offered that which he did to God.
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

and again (no mention of any direct interaction with God)


Gen

 

[James]

Is it? Interesting since many Christians do not believe it is inerrant. Are they not "true" Christians since they haven't met your requirement? Where, exactly, is that requirement set forth in the Bible?

They are not true Christians if they do not believe in God's own Word. It's actually very simple and logical...

God is perfect, God wrote a book, therefore the book must be perfect.

To pick and choose which parts of the Bible we should follow leads to a "cafeteria mentality", which is where you find all the hypocrites, the ones that are like this:

Oh, I like this scripture about blessings, I'll believe that. Oh but I don't like this about self-control so I won't believe that.

I'm sure you've encountered that type of person before.

Since you believe it is inerrant, do you also believe it is completely literal?

There are some figurative parts concerning prophesy (mostly in Revelation and Ezekiel), but much of the Bible is literal. It's actually fairly simple to distinguish which parts are literal and which parts are figurative.

If not, how do you distinguish between what is literal and what is figurative?

Study, research and prayer. Study the meaning of the text. Most people tend to try and basically speed-read through the Bible because they feel it takes to long; they try to read it like a novel and give up without really learning anything. That's not how the Bible is meant to be read.

Research the ancient culture, some things they refer to seem odd because there is a large generational gap between their lifetime and ours.

Finally, pray. Ask the Holy Spirit to give you wisdom when you read the Bible. If anyone lacks wisdom and he asks for it, God has promised it, as long as he asks with faith. (There's that pesky faith again )

For bonus points, please list the requirements for being a Christian.

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, confess and repent of your sin, accept His sacrifice for your sin and then follow His teachings (that is where the Bible comes in). If you don't believe the Bible is the divinely inspired, infallible Word of God, you won't be motivated to study or follow it.

Why aren't the translations accurate? Why would God let an inaccurate translation of his work be made? You say the KJV, NIV and ESV are MOSTLY correct, are they not 100% accurate. If not, again, WHY NOT? How do you know what is accurate and what isn't?

God gave man free will. Some people think they can make a better Bible than God, therefore there are quite a few "Bible's" that are very inaccurate. Example: The Feminists Bible which has removed all masculine references to God the Father.

When I say mostly correct, I am referring to typos that come from translating the Hebrew, Latin and Greek to modern English. They will happen simply because people of good conscience still make mistakes. That's another reason study and research of the Bible is so important.

Lastly, how do I know what is correct and what isn't? Again, study research and prayer.

WHAO, that's REALLY reaching. Because I find presents under the tree on Christmas doesn't mean Santa exists. Are there things in the Bible that are archaeologically accurate? Absolutely! Do those accuracies prove a divinely inspired work? Absolutely not! If you want to talk Archaeology, show me the evidence of thousands of Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years. What about the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai? There are many things that can NOT be historically verified. Again, becuase SOME things can be verified doesn't mean you can attribute correctness to the WHOLE work. Don't you think, that doing so, is intellectually dishonest?

Most of our modern history is accepted as fact on much less evidence.

 

[[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff]

First, where is your non-supernatural evidence for the whole burning bush thing? I must have missed it.

Moses could have believed he hallucinated the whole thing. I didn't say evidence, I said possible conclusion. Evidence is worthless without an interpretation of it. Since God gave us each the capacity to make our own decisions, what is enough to prove the existence of God to me may not be enough for you; what I would consider incontrovertible may not be for you.

So, say you're Moses. You see the burning bush. It tells you to go rescue Israel.
Conclusion #1: This is the work of God!
Conclusion #2: I need to lay off the peyote.

Moses, however, was a big weinie in the beginning and needed faith that God would actually do what he said he'd do...

I believe that's the first time "weinie" has been used in these forums. Kudos!

 

[Dark Virtue]

One could assume that you are a believer in Christ because you post on a Christian forum. Which is not true. It is only because of additional factual information that we know otherwise. I cannot say that Cain or Abel had any interaction with God before making their offering. And, in fact, I could say that if they had had any interaction with God that the offerings would not be a concern because, after having that direct interaction with God, they would know what would be the best offering.

This is like pulling teeth

How did they know they were supposed to make an offering to God? Who told them? Why is it so inconceivable that God did not speak to the sons of his creation?

(seems like we have reversed our roles )

But it was by faith that Abel offered that which he did to God.
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

and again (no mention of any direct interaction with God)


Gen

In Heb 11:4, the word translated faith is pistis. It can be defined as fidelity, the character of one who can be relied on. This definition fits the context perfectly. Abel didn't have "Faith", faith that God existed, he was FAITHFUL, he had fidelity.

Your line of posts seems to indicate that you believe there is only ONE definition of faith, which is incorrect.

By the way, would someone please explain to me why God didn't have respect for Cain's offering? The Bible never seems to indicate why.

 

[Dark Virtue]

They are not true Christians if they do not believe in God's own Word. It's actually very simple and logical...

Oh NOW you rely on logic

Here we go with the finger pointing and the "true Christian" thing. Your definition of "true Christian" seems to be different than Gen's, would you mind supplying us with your definition?

Those Christians believe that the Bible IS God's word, but that it is not infallible because it was filtered through Man.

God is perfect, God wrote a book, therefore the book must be perfect.

WHOA! The last time I checked, God didn't actually WRITE anything. MEN wrote the Bible. Therefore your analogy is flawed.

To pick and choose which parts of the Bible we should follow leads to a "cafeteria mentality", which is where you find all the hypocrites, the ones that are like this:

Oh, I like this scripture about blessings, I'll believe that. Oh but I don't like this about self-control so I won't believe that.

I'm sure you've encountered that type of person before.

But isn't that EVERY Christian? You call it "cafeteria mentality", I call it "divine inspiration" or whatever man uses to interpret the Bible. If it weren't for the "cafeteria mentality" there wouldn't be hundreds of different sects.

There are some figurative parts concerning prophesy (mostly in Revelation and Ezekiel), but much of the Bible is literal. It's actually fairly simple to distinguish which parts are literal and which parts are figurative.

I understand that, but that wasn't what I asked. Did the flood actually happen? Did a talking snake really exist? How do you determine what is literal and what is not?

Study, research and prayer. Study the meaning of the text. Most people tend to try and basically speed-read through the Bible because they feel it takes to long; they try to read it like a novel and give up without really learning anything. That's not how the Bible is meant to be read.

How do two different Christians study, research and pray and come up with different answers?

Research the ancient culture, some things they refer to seem odd because there is a large generational gap between their lifetime and ours.

How many Christians actually do this? I thought the bible was supposed to be "easy" to understand. Why all the need for researching dead languages, et al?

Finally, pray. Ask the Holy Spirit to give you wisdom when you read the Bible. If anyone lacks wisdom and he asks for it, God has promised it, as long as he asks with faith. (There's that pesky faith again )

Again, doing all these things will lead different people to different answers. How does that happen?

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, confess and repent of your sin, accept His sacrifice for your sin and then follow His teachings (that is where the Bible comes in). If you don't believe the Bible is the divinely inspired, infallible Word of God, you won't be motivated to study or follow it.

Thanks, but I can study the Bible just fine without confessing my sins to Christ. I didn't have to offer my soul to Allah when I studied the Koran either. More importantly, I can study it OBJECTIVELY, something that I don't believe you are capable of, since you seem caught in vicious cycle here.

God gave man free will. Some people think they can make a better Bible than God, therefore there are quite a few "Bible's" that are very inaccurate. Example: The Feminists Bible which has removed all masculine references to God the Father.

So which Bible is "correct"? Which translation is "correct"?

When I say mostly correct, I am referring to typos that come from translating the Hebrew, Latin and Greek to modern English. They will happen simply because people of good conscience still make mistakes. That's another reason study and research of the Bible is so important.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If God is perfect, then why couldn't he inspire his translators to translate his "perfect" work perfectly? The fact that there are errors of ANY kind proves the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

Lastly, how do I know what is correct and what isn't? Again, study research and prayer.

And again I ask why people come up with different answers if they are all guided by God and the Holy Spirit?

Most of our modern history is accepted as fact on much less evidence.

That was a broad, sweeping accusation. Care to back that up with some examples?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Moses could have believed he hallucinated the whole thing. I didn't say evidence, I said possible conclusion. Evidence is worthless without an interpretation of it. Since God gave us each the capacity to make our own decisions, what is enough to prove the existence of God to me may not be enough for you; what I would consider incontrovertible may not be for you.

So, say you're Moses. You see the burning bush. It tells you to go rescue Israel.
Conclusion #1: This is the work of God!
Conclusion #2: I need to lay off the peyote.

I think YOU need to lay off the peyote!

What you are telling me is that if God spoke to you face to face, half of you would believe you were hallucinating? I would think God would be a little more convincing than that.

Either way, you are making my point for me. Each of us has a different level of evidential requirement. Some require very little and some require much more. Does God only fulfill the require of those that require very little? As I have said before, I am not a Christian because I lack the evidence I need to believe. Will God grant me my level of evidence?

I believe that's the first time "weinie" has been used in these forums. Kudos!

LOL, don't cheer too loud, I got reprimanded for using it.

 

[Genesis1315]

This is like pulling teeth

How did they know they were supposed to make an offering to God? Who told them? Why is it so inconceivable that God did not speak to the sons of his creation?

Because they were told to. Look at who there parents were. For example, I say that the Word of God (Bible) must be treated with respect. Those are the rules. Now, you choose to treat it with respect and obey the rules. Not because you believe it to be the Word of God, but because you are told you have to.

Which leads me to the offerings.

3 In the course of time Cain presented some of the land's produce as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also presented [an offering]-some of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions. The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5 but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he was downcast.

Although there is no specific mention as to Cain's offering, it could be logically deduced that he did not offer the first fruits as Abel did.

Now, seeing as there is no mention of direct interaction between Cain, Abel and God before the offering and there was after the offering, could it also be deduced that Abel offered a better offering by faith.

Gen

 

[[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff]

Each of us has a different level of evidential requirement.

Finally, we agree on something! Or wait, do we? A few posts ago, you said:

Secondly, incontrovertible proof is not subjective. That's what makes it incontrovertible.

On the one hand, you've said that we each have a subjective level of evidential requirement, while on the other you've said that the level of proof you require to believe is not subjective. It can't be both. Which is it?

 

[MeridianFlight]

That makes no sense though.

What does it matter if everyone believes or not?

We still have the option to follow him or not, correct?

If we had incontrovertible proof, we would still have the ability to decide whether we would want to follow him or not.

I'm not entirely sure why I decided to pick on this instead of your last reply to me (I'll get to that eventually).

Anyway, does everyone really have the option? No, they don't.

Let's say you've finally got the physical incontrovertible proof you want, because God has alerted everyone to his presence with a giant message in the sky, made out of flames, and personalized to each person (He can't shake your hand by the way, you'd be annihilated in His presence, something about being "unholy").

You're now presented with two "choices." Trust the obviously apparent God with your Life, or tell Him off and go to Hell. Under a rational perspective, is there really a choice?

Are you going to turn around and deny God if you've got this "incontrovertible proof" of yours? Of course not.

You say that God wants us to choose him, but that choice would not be lost in the face of proof.

It's the "why" of the choice that matters. God wants us to choose Him out of LOVE. Not out of pure fear. The choice of love would be lost in the face of your so called "incontrovertible proof." Constant incontrovertible proof that would not cause the previous unbelieving to love God. They'd choose to believe in Him just to save their bacon. That's not love. That's opportunity.

If God wants people to choose Him, and doesn't care why, he wouldn't have given us free will. We'd be automotons, and there'd be no evil. Sounds like fun!

Please explain why you believe faith demonstrates love and why you can't have love in the face of evidence.

Faith demonstrates trust, even in the face of uncertainty.

 

[James]

WHOA! The last time I checked, God didn't actually WRITE anything. MEN wrote the Bible. Therefore your analogy is flawed

When I say that God wrote the Bible, I actually mean that His Holy Spirit inspired the men who wrote it. It's my fault for not being more clear about that, and I apologize for it.

However, so you don't think my answer was completely in error, without God's inspiration, man would never have been capable of putting God's words into paper, so my answer while incomplete, was still correct.

But isn't that EVERY Christian?

No, it is the false Christian and hypocrite who picks and chooses which part of God's Word. The only difference is the ceremonial laws (discussed previously) and the Bible makes it clear that those ceremonial laws were abolished after the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

How do two different Christians study, research and pray and come up with different answers?

Because not every Christians studies from the right sources. As I said, men of good conscience can still make mistakes. And Satan does try to stop people from understanding the Bible as well. That fact cannot be under-stated. A well planned distraction at the right time can stop study and prayer right in their tracks if the Christian isn't strong.

There are plenty of reasons, hopefully you don't expect me to list every single one.

How many Christians actually do this? I thought the bible was supposed to be "easy" to understand. Why all the need for researching dead languages, et al?

You're right, far less Christians actually do this than should -- actually every Christian should; that's why there is this commandment in the Bible:

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

So which Bible is "correct"? Which translation is "correct"?

My picks would be the KJV, NIV, or ESV

 

[Dark Virtue]

Because they were told to. Look at who there parents were. For example, I say that the Word of God (Bible) must be treated with respect. Those are the rules. Now, you choose to treat it with respect and obey the rules. Not because you believe it to be the Word of God, but because you are told you have to.

Wasn't I the one who brought up the parent issue?

Let me get this straight. You are saying that Adam and Eve told Cain and Abel to give an offering to God? Was there any evidence of God around for Cain and Abel to see? How were they supposed to make an offering? What were they supposed to offer? You are saying that A&E gave them instruction on what to do. How did THEY get instruction? If God spoke to A&E, why wouldn't he speak to Cain and Abel? Christians are quick to point God out as a parent, here are his first grandchildren, why wouldn't he talk to them? Why wouldn't he give them proof of his existence? It makes NO sense whatsoever that God would hide himself until after the offering and then start speaking to Cain. The first thing God said to Cain is, "Why are you angry?" Not, "Hello, I'm God". By asking him how he felt, that implies they had a relationship, does it not? The first thing Cain says, is what? A LIE. Again, that implies a relationship because he wasn't scared to lie to God.

Which leads me to the offerings.
Although there is no specific mention as to Cain's offering, it could be logically deduced that he did not offer the first fruits as Abel did.

Good point, I'll buy that. Now use that same logical deduction and apply it to the first part of this post

Now, seeing as there is no mention of direct interaction between Cain, Abel and God before the offering and there was after the offering, could it also be deduced that Abel offered a better offering by faith.

Gen

Please define faith as used here.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Finally, we agree on something! Or wait, do we? A few posts ago, you said:

We dom we do

On the one hand, you've said that we each have a subjective level of evidential requirement, while on the other you've said that the level of proof you require to believe is not subjective. It can't be both. Which is it?

Let me specify, so we're on the same page. We have both said that different people require a different amount of evidence to believe. Evidence should not be subjective, it's EVIDENCE. Evidence is something that furnishes PROOF. Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

Some people believe in Santa Claus based on what they "feel" is evidence, but is not "evidence" in definition.

That set, the amount of evidence required to believe in God can be either subjective or objective (although for the reasons above, it should be completely objective). Think of a graduated beaker. Empty, you don't believe in God, full, you do. Now you can fill that beaker will all sorts of things that you consider "evidence". Theists rely on subjective evidence to fill their beaker since faith is the absence of incontrovertible proof. Think of reason as a filter that fits over the beaker. I filter my evidence to sort the subjective from the incontrovertible. As incontrovertible proof does not exist, my beaker remains empty.

Hope that clears things up!

 

[Dark Virtue]

I'm not entirely sure why I decided to pick on this instead of your last reply to me (I'll get to that eventually).

Anyway, does everyone really have the option? No, they don't.

Let's say you've finally got the physical incontrovertible proof you want, because God has alerted everyone to his presence with a giant message in the sky, made out of flames, and personalized to each person (He can't shake your hand by the way, you'd be annihilated in His presence, something about being "unholy").

You're now presented with two "choices." Trust the obviously apparent God with your Life, or tell Him off and go to Hell. Under a rational perspective, is there really a choice?

Satan did, didn't he? Obviously the choice CAN be made both ways.

As it is now, my choices are to believe in God or not. As a rational human being, I can not, in good conscience, believe in something without proof. Extraordinay claims require extraordinary proof, which is why on this subject, I require incontrovertible proof.

Are you going to turn around and deny God if you've got this "incontrovertible proof" of yours? Of course not.

Eh? Doesn't the bible say that men would still deny God even though they have proof of his existence? Look at the example of Moses and the Israelites. They continually denied God at every turn!

Why/how did the 1/3 of the angels make a CHOICE that you claim is impossible?

It's the "why" of the choice that matters. God wants us to choose Him out of LOVE. Not out of pure fear. The choice of love would be lost in the face of your so called "incontrovertible proof." Constant incontrovertible proof that would not cause the previous unbelieving to love God.

Are you married? I have constant incontrovertible proof of the existence of my wife. That doesn't diminish my love for her.

They'd choose to believe in Him just to save their bacon. That's not love. That's opportunity.

AGREED! How many Christians became Christians because of the threat of HELL? How is that a decision made of love? Those people made a decision based simply on the reward. This is precisely why I abhor Pascal's Wager! Just believe to save your hide in case you're wrong.

If God wants people to choose Him, and doesn't care why, he wouldn't have given us free will. We'd be automotons, and there'd be no evil. Sounds like fun!

Love and free will can exist together, I don't understand why you don't believe that's possible. What's the point in giving us free will if our choices are follow me and live or deny me and burn for eternity? THAT is your idea of free will? What was the biggest decision you've made in your life? Buying a home? A car? How much research did you put into buying your car? Did you visit the dealer? Take a test drive? How much MORE important is the decision to follow God? I think I'd need MUCH more research. And that beings with proof.

Faith demonstrates trust, even in the face of uncertainty.

I don't deny that for a second. Have you ever heard the addage, "trust must be earned"?

 

[Dark Virtue]

When I say that God wrote the Bible, I actually mean that His Holy Spirit inspired the men who wrote it. It's my fault for not being more clear about that, and I apologize for it.

However, so you don't think my answer was completely in error, without God's inspiration, man would never have been capable of putting God's words into paper, so my answer while incomplete, was still correct.

Gotcha! I'll have to skip down below to find out what you said about mistranslation.

No, it is the false Christian and hypocrite who picks and chooses which part of God's Word. The only difference is the ceremonial laws (discussed previously) and the Bible makes it clear that those ceremonial laws were abolished after the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

Would you mind defining "false Christian"? What are the origins of the different sects of Christianity? Each one has picked and chosen which rules they want to follow, which translations they like best.

Because not every Christians studies from the right sources. As I said, men of good conscience can still make mistakes. And Satan does try to stop people from understanding the Bible as well. That fact cannot be under-stated. A well planned distraction at the right time can stop study and prayer right in their tracks if the Christian isn't strong.

How do you know what is a "right" source and what's a "wrong" source. If you are being guided by the Holy Spirit, why would you use a "wrong" source?

There are plenty of reasons, hopefully you don't expect me to list every single one.

That was enough

You're right, far less Christians actually do this than should -- actually every Christian should; that's why there is this commandment in the Bible:

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

AGREED! But I have found that very few actually do that.

My picks would be the KJV, NIV, or ESV

Why?

 

[MeridianFlight]

Satan did, didn't he? Obviously the choice CAN be made both ways.

I edited out of my post that only a lunatic would choose the other option. There will be those who choose complete defiance. Besides, Lucifier's rebellion was out of greed. He wanted to be God. If someone doesn't want to spend eternity with God, they'll most likely choose the opposite route.

As it is now, my choices are to believe in God or not. As a rational human being, I can not, in good conscience, believe in something without proof. Extraordinay claims require extraordinary proof, which is why on this subject, I require incontrovertible proof.

If you had incontrovertible proof, what purpose would faith serve? You wouldn't need it. You'd know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God was there, and if you chose Him, it certainly wouldn't require any faith. That's not what God wants though.

"Then Jesus told them, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen me and yet have believed.'" John 20:29 (NIV)

Now of course, the skeptic looks at this and says "That's total crap! Of course that's in the Bible, it keeps the curious ones from poking around for the truth! Ignorance is bliss!"

This perspective has some validity to it. Everytime I read up on evolution and see a new discovery that supposedly validates the theory, I get a little worried. I believe the Bible and evolution, at least the evolution of spieces, are incompatible. One has to be right, the other has to be wrong. It's not long before someone in the apologetics community responds to this however, and tears into the proposal not with theological rhetoric, but with counter arguments from the scientific realm. Now of course both sides label the opposition as religious fundamentalists, guilty of violating the objective standards that govern science. That's another topic (which you know doubt want to object to), however. I'm reminded of how I lacked faith, and had to restore my confidence in the Genesis account of creation through the possibly fallible (as Creationists aren't perfect either) theories of man. It feels cheap and shallow to me to have not trusted God. How do you think God feels?

Faith is central to your relationship with God. He wants you to genuinely trust Him. Faith builds character (cliche!), so during those times when you have to walk in darkness and cannot see the light you'll trust God, knowing He's there. He wants unrestrained devotion. This is faith.

How is part of faith built? By wrestling with doubt. After all, without doubt, or uncertainty, how could you have faith? Doubt tests and refines faith and trust, or destroys them completely. You can't have faith is there are complete absolutes, as in constant irrefutable incontrovertible proof staring you straight in the face.

Eh? Doesn't the bible say that men would still deny God even though they have proof of his existence? Look at the example of Moses and the Israelites. They continually denied God at every turn!

Yes, John 6:36 is an example.

I do believe I said there was only one rational choice. I'm not suggesting everyone would make that rational choice, nor have they made it in the past.

Why/how did the 1/3 of the angels make a CHOICE that you claim is impossible?

I didn't say it was impossible, but it is irrational.

Are you married? I have constant incontrovertible proof of the existence of my wife. That doesn't diminish my love for her.

Are you looking for "Made by God" stickers under rocks?

AGREED! How many Christians became Christians because of the threat of HELL? How is that a decision made of love? Those people made a decision based simply on the reward. This is precisely why I abhor Pascal's Wager! Just believe to save your hide in case you're wrong.

Well, you'd hope the majority of Christians who follow God follow them because they love Him and want to spend eternity with Him, not because they don't want to go to hell.

As for Pascal's wager, it's certainly possible to get the initial impression that choosing Christianity can be a safe and shallow exercise. I'm not too terribly fond of the quote because it suggest a sort of "hedging of the bet" half-hearted attempt at receiving salvation. Is that what Blaise Pascal really meant though? It's probably just to illustrate the "What if you're wrong?" scenarios associated with each decision.

Love and free will can exist together, I don't understand why you don't believe that's possible. What's the point in giving us free will if our choices are follow me and live or deny me and burn for eternity? THAT is your idea of free will? What was the biggest decision you've made in your life? Buying a home? A car? How much research did you put into buying your car? Did you visit the dealer? Take a test drive? How much MORE important is the decision to follow God? I think I'd need MUCH more research. And that beings with proof.

Wait, what? I didn't say love and free will couldn't exist together. In fact, they may well be mutually exclusive, as far as choosing love is concerned. You can't truly choose love unless you have the option not to, which requires free will.

As far as follow God or go to hell, is this really such a conundrum? Humans were created by Him. He's God, He can do what He wants. He could have smited humans at any point, yet He choose to send his Son as a way to redeem the human race, so they could spend eternity with Him. You choose Him, you choose life, you don't choose Him, you end up in Hell (though what Hell is actually comprised of is entirely up for debate). The Creation has the choice of spending eternity with the Creator or being separated from him entirely. Is this free will? Yes, humans are His Creation. How was He obligated to even give us a choice in the first place?

I don't deny that for a second. Have you ever heard the addage, "trust must be earned"?

Indeed, but at what point trust is earned is entirely subjective, is it not?

 

[[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff]

Theists rely on subjective evidence to fill their beaker since faith is the absence of incontrovertible proof. Think of reason as a filter that fits over the beaker. I filter my evidence to sort the subjective from the incontrovertible.

And who sets the filter? The individual. It is still up to the individual to define for themselves what they feel is incontrovertible.