Why believe the bible?

[Amarok]

The existence of immoral behavior among animals does not help your case Huggy

[Huggy Bear]

Yeah, quote a bunch of scriptures out of context, that'll do it...

---

The existence of immoral behavior among animals does not help your case Huggy

First of all those actions aren't considered "immoral" in relation to animals, which kind of does prove my point.

[Minimalist]

Yeah, quote a bunch of scriptures out of context, that'll do it...

Put them into any context you wish and then tell me how wonderful your fucking god is.

[Amarok]

As usual Huggy you fail to make a case

[EgoDeath]

I  don't think the process is quite this conscious for most Christians. Most Christians seem to follow this...

1. The Bible is true because god says it is
2. I know god says it is because I read it in the Bible

Rinse and repeat.

[Minimalist]

I think this covers most of them.

[I_am_not_mafia]

As usual Huggy you fail to make a case

And as usual Huggy cherry picks what to reply to in order to avoid the main argument

So then according to your logic human beings also don't have any moral values because they also sometimes kill their infants.

Much like how Huggy cherry picked Frans De Waal ...

As he writes from the article you cite:

For example, female chimpanzees have been seen to drag reluctant males towards each other to make up after a fight, removing weapons from their hands, and high-ranking males regularly act as impartial arbiters to settle disputes in the community. I take these hints of community concern as yet another sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and that we do not need God to explain how we got where we are today.

Of course Huggy is trying to ignore all these points which is why I am reminding him here. But if I say anything else on in this post that he could respond to instead he'll use it to ignore Fake Messiah's points again.

[Succubus]

Yeah, quote a bunch of scriptures out of context, that'll  do it...

Edit to fix link.

[Drich]

Those reason are reason for one who lives by faith. God has a great reward for those who can live a life totally by faith in Him.
I am not one of them. Neither was thomas. Thomas gave a list of things He needed, what did Jesus do? he came to him and let thomas put his "fingers in Jesus holes." But seriously he touched the holes in his hands feet and side. Did Jesus then admonish Thoas for needing this proof? no He blessed Thomas and sent Him on His way, and added a blessing for those who have not see but still believe.

The point is that Jesus/God Gave what Thomas needed.

So then why should you believe in the bible? Because it is a map or set of instruction on how to meet/receive the Holy Spirit. then it is a cipher to discern whether or not it is God who is working with you or someone else. In other words it tells you how to identify God when He does indeed reach out to you, and not just some guy or figment of your own doing.

Belief of the bible comes through validation of it's scripture and passages. all the back logging and checking and cataloging all of the historical stuff helps sharpen our understand, but there comes a point where all of that can become a two edged sword mean rather than cut a path to God you cut a path to the worship of the bible. Your worship ceases to be about God and it becomes about religion and the preservation of the words of God rather than God Himself.

That is a fine line to walk, and for those without God all the have is God's word do the blur the line between the map and the actual destination. meaning don't let the word' holiness exceed the holiness of God. So when you find God use the book to discern who you are with is God then seek to learn from the Spirit as Him to write the word on your heart, then you'll be able to cite verses you may not even be aware of. Once God the Spirit enters your hear the bible become vital to keep you from mohammading off the path or joseph smithing yourself into your own personal level of Hell.

so my reasons 
1 it is a map to all the 'proof of God you will ever need for the rest of your life.
2 It is a standard to measure what you found against the knowable aspects of God. it is a proofing text for those who seek to worship the God of the bible.
3 it is check to help one keep his balance. Because when you have God it is far too easy to let that accessibility corrupt you. allow you to become lukewarm or even self righteous. when you fall into those sins God ceases giving you direction, but that does not mean direction stops comming... Eg mohammad and joseph Smith
4 the bible is direction when God is silent. If you learn to only trust God when He is known to you'd never make it through the night.
5The bible is vetted through finding the Holy Spirit and all of the thing it tells you that will be headed your way as a believer. which is like saying it is a map, but I felt like i needed 5 things.

---

That is not true.

The only thing you need to do to make sense of Genesis 1 or 2 is remove all numerical orentation as that was not apart of the orginal text. then you will discover a completely different message.

for instance Genesis two should begin in chapter 2 verse 3 ater all the first 3 verses are about the seventh day which concludes the 7 day creation. Onc the seveth day is complete then chapter two should begin how does it begine?
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 

What does this mean? 
4This account/ This story happen between the point no shrub had grown and no rain but there was water and streams.. so we then go back to chapter one and we see that this story gen 2 is happening between day 3 and day 4. So between day three and day 4 in God's spare time he created a man and a garden and everything else that happened in genesis 2.

Everything else after the garden happened outside the garden. meaning there are two creations going on man in the garden start and finishing between day 3 and 4 and everything else in genesis 1 ncluding a version of man out side the garden with no soul (evolved man, the man who built the cities cain ran off to and the husband and wifes of Adam)

What else you got?

---

don't you have some refrigeration homework you should be working on?

Oh I know the second account starts at chapter 2 verse 4. But it's not the shrub I was talking about, but that in the first account, Elohim creates all the animals -first-, then creates mankind.

In the second account, YHWH Elohim creates the man first, and puts him in the garden, then creates all of the animals and brings him to the man before finally making a woman out of the mans rib.

First account all animals are created first. Second account the man is created before any of the animals.

That's what I meant by the first literal contradiction.

Again....

First account is what happens outside the garden... meaning chapter one is the order things took place outside the garden. meaning the animals were created first.

now chapter 2 states between day 3 and 4 The garden and everything in it was created meaning Adam was created then the animals. 

Note outside the garden man mentioned in chapter 1 was not Adam. again adam was created between day 3 and 4 inside the garden and given a soul. nothing like that happened for the man outside the garden.

---

don't you have some refrigeration homework you should be working on?

Listen fuckhead this is hardly the place for discussing refrigeration systems.

This is though: http://www.refrigeration-engineer.com/forums/forum.php

Post that same bollocks you posted yesterday and we will rip you a new one.
Yes, I'm a member and have been for seven years.

So am I!!! I'm ZoO over there (Zanotti of Orlando) and I answered questions over there as the Zanotti factory representative. That said why do you need a group of haters? isn't you hate strong enough? or is your knowledge that is what is lacking?

[Angrboda]

Oh I know the second account starts at chapter 2 verse 4. But it's not the shrub I was talking about, but that in the first account, Elohim creates all the animals -first-, then creates mankind.

In the second account, YHWH Elohim creates the man first, and puts him in the garden, then creates all of the animals and brings him to the man before finally making a woman out of the mans rib.

First account all animals are created first. Second account the man is created before any of the animals.

That's what I meant by the first literal contradiction.

Again....

First account is what happens outside the garden... meaning chapter one is the order things took place outside the garden. meaning the animals were created first.

now chapter 2 states between day 3 and 4 The garden and everything in it was created meaning Adam was created then the animals. 

Note outside the garden man mentioned in chapter 1 was not Adam. again adam was created between day 3 and 4 inside the garden and given a soul. nothing like that happened for the man outside the garden.

Except that your explanation doesn't wash because the Hebrew in Genesis 1 explicitly says that God made "a-dam" in "Our image," thus ruling out the possibility that the man created in Genesis 1 was not possessed of a soul like unto the nature of God. If this is another of your "monkey man" theories, then it simply doesn't square with the text. The context as well as the Hebrew itself makes clear that both Genesis 1 and 2 are speaking of the same event. In addition, Genesis 2 states that, "19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." Note that he is explicitly referring to "every" beast of the field and "every" bird of the sky (heavens), not just those in Eden. (Some bibles translate Genesis 2:19 with "had formed" instead of "formed," but this is nothing more than an illicit attempt to harmonize the two accounts, and is not supported by the Hebrew text [see Translating Genesis 2:19].)