"The bible test" Answered.

[xpastor]

If "c" were true and Acts/luke was written decades later than why doesn't the book include the final imprisionment and death of Paul by the romans?

Lest someone think that Drich made a point, I will observe there are are an almost infinite number of answers to his question.

1. In the first place, Paul's death is nowhere recorded in that perfect never-wrong book that Drich sets such store by. It's just a story told by Ignatius ca 110 CE, at least 45 years after the supposed date of Paul's death.

2. Acts ends rather abruptly. Paul went on preaching for two years in Rome. For all you know 17 pages fell off the end of the book and were never found.

3. Maybe the author did not want to include the story of Paul's death.

4. Maybe the author did not even know any details of Paul's death. If he was writing far away from Rome, it's not like he could email the Roman Christians to get further information.

[WesOlsen]

The bible makes claims for any new potential believer, it takes a small amount of faith to take up and impliment said claims, the final result (the full fillment of those claims) makes what the bible says "True/Truth."

No, it takes either a heavy dose of childhood brainwashing or alternatively a heavy suspension of critical thinking to have any amount of faith, to accept such a collection of dubious nonsense requires a collosal leap of faith. It's religious propaganda and not objective history. There's probably 12 churches within your neighbourhood rammed full of people who will tell you that you've read the bible wrong and that they read it right and that god did some shit for them. That's if we ignore the Mosques and the Hindu temples which will be full of the dedicated peddling the same stories of salvation and god's personal intervention.

What have you done that makes you believe the bible to be not telling the truth?

Cross examined the historical record which says next to nothing about talking/flying crosses whizzing out of tombs or a hoard of zombies wandering around the holy land. The same stuff that presumably you have done to conclude that the qur'an isn't telling the truth. Why not extend those critical thinking skills that the god virus has partially deactivated in your brain and use them to evaluate your own religion as well as everyone elses?

My 'faith' (if you can call it faith anymore) is based on all that I have seen and experienced. God has taken an illerate god hating monster, and has given me wisdom, oppertunity, wealth and a life that is/was well beyond my ablities. I can't talk about everything now as there is still things in the works, but afterwards (maybe as soon as the spring Lord willing) I will be happy to share and even fly any established interactive fence sitter of this forum down to Orlando for a weekend to see what God has done for me. You can have Saturday to do whatever, but be ready to goto Chruch on sunday, afterward we will have lunch and a tour of what God has simply given me.

Oh the humanity. You decided that you were going to believe in something, then decided that everything that has transpired since then is a result of your personal desert book. How does this explain the great number of christians who have done their very best to lead good lives and please god, many of whom have probably done almost exactly as you have, but have not been blessed in this current life? Rape and murder victims, those suffering from drout and famine? What on earth makes you think god would personally alleviate your suffering in this world, even though your book of dogma suggests that the next life is the real one to look forard to? What on earth makes you think that your cushty life couldn't be the result of specific real-world actions you took, as is the case for the numerous good lives led by theists of other faiths and non-theists? I simply put it that your life is entirely unextraordinary and that you haven't established a mechanism of effect for god's magic finger at all. You're a perfect example of how the god virus deforms thought processes and turns otherwise normal individuals in to selfish cranks who think that god is personally modifying their life whilst systematically destroying the lives of others. Circumstantial testimony is basically all you can offer, and it doesn't impress anyone. Bloody quack.

[Lemonvariable72]

The bible makes claims for any new potential believer, it takes a small amount of faith to take up and impliment said claims, the final result (the full fillment of those claims) makes what the bible says "True/Truth."

No, it takes either a heavy dose of childhood brainwashing or alternatively a heavy suspension of critical thinking to have any amount of faith, to accept such a collection of dubious nonsense requires a collosal leap of faith. It's religious propaganda and not objective history. There's probably 12 churches within your neighbourhood rammed full of people who will tell you that you've read the bible wrong and that they read it right and that god did some shit for them. That's if we ignore the Mosques and the Hindu temples which will be full of the dedicated peddling the same stories of salvation and god's personal intervention.

What have you done that makes you believe the bible to be not telling the truth?

Cross examined the historical record which says next to nothing about talking/flying crosses whizzing out of tombs or a hoard of zombies wandering around the holy land. The same stuff that presumably you have done to conclude that the qur'an isn't telling the truth. Why not extend those critical thinking skills that the god virus has partially deactivated in your brain and use them to evaluate your own religion as well as everyone elses?

My 'faith' (if you can call it faith anymore) is based on all that I have seen and experienced. God has taken an illerate god hating monster, and has given me wisdom, oppertunity, wealth and a life that is/was well beyond my ablities. I can't talk about everything now as there is still things in the works, but afterwards (maybe as soon as the spring Lord willing) I will be happy to share and even fly any established interactive fence sitter of this forum down to Orlando for a weekend to see what God has done for me. You can have Saturday to do whatever, but be ready to goto Chruch on sunday, afterward we will have lunch and a tour of what God has simply given me.

Oh the humanity. You decided that you were going to believe in something, then decided that everything that has transpired since then is a result of your personal desert book. How does this explain the great number of christians who have done their very best to lead good lives and please god, many of whom have probably done almost exactly as you have, but have not been blessed in this current life? Rape and murder victims, those suffering from drout and famine? What on earth makes you think god would personally alleviate your suffering in this world, even though your book of dogma suggests that the next life is the real one to look forard to? What on earth makes you think that your cushty life couldn't be the result of specific real-world actions you took, as is the case for the numerous good lives led by theists of other faiths and non-theists? I simply put it that your life is entirely unextraordinary and that you haven't established a mechanism of effect for god's magic finger at all. You're a perfect example of how the god virus deforms thought processes and turns otherwise normal individuals in to selfish cranks who think that god is personally modifying their life whilst systematically destroying the lives of others. Circumstantial testimony is basically all you can offer, and it doesn't impress anyone. Bloody quack.

[Godlesspanther]

The bible makes claims for any new potential believer, it takes a small amount of faith to take up and impliment said claims, the final result (the full fillment of those claims) makes what the bible says "True/Truth."

No, it takes either a heavy dose of childhood brainwashing or alternatively a heavy suspension of critical thinking to have any amount of faith, to accept such a collection of dubious nonsense requires a collosal leap of faith. It's religious propaganda and not objective history. There's probably 12 churches within your neighbourhood rammed full of people who will tell you that you've read the bible wrong and that they read it right and that god did some shit for them. That's if we ignore the Mosques and the Hindu temples which will be full of the dedicated peddling the same stories of salvation and god's personal intervention.

What have you done that makes you believe the bible to be not telling the truth?

Cross examined the historical record which says next to nothing about talking/flying crosses whizzing out of tombs or a hoard of zombies wandering around the holy land. The same stuff that presumably you have done to conclude that the qur'an isn't telling the truth. Why not extend those critical thinking skills that the god virus has partially deactivated in your brain and use them to evaluate your own religion as well as everyone elses?

My 'faith' (if you can call it faith anymore) is based on all that I have seen and experienced. God has taken an illerate god hating monster, and has given me wisdom, oppertunity, wealth and a life that is/was well beyond my ablities. I can't talk about everything now as there is still things in the works, but afterwards (maybe as soon as the spring Lord willing) I will be happy to share and even fly any established interactive fence sitter of this forum down to Orlando for a weekend to see what God has done for me. You can have Saturday to do whatever, but be ready to goto Chruch on sunday, afterward we will have lunch and a tour of what God has simply given me.

Oh the humanity. You decided that you were going to believe in something, then decided that everything that has transpired since then is a result of your personal desert book. How does this explain the great number of christians who have done their very best to lead good lives and please god, many of whom have probably done almost exactly as you have, but have not been blessed in this current life? Rape and murder victims, those suffering from drout and famine? What on earth makes you think god would personally alleviate your suffering in this world, even though your book of dogma suggests that the next life is the real one to look forard to? What on earth makes you think that your cushty life couldn't be the result of specific real-world actions you took, as is the case for the numerous good lives led by theists of other faiths and non-theists? I simply put it that your life is entirely unextraordinary and that you haven't established a mechanism of effect for god's magic finger at all. You're a perfect example of how the god virus deforms thought processes and turns otherwise normal individuals in to selfish cranks who think that god is personally modifying their life whilst systematically destroying the lives of others. Circumstantial testimony is basically all you can offer, and it doesn't impress anyone. Bloody quack.

It appears the Drich is a convert. The speech is typical of the saved-sinner scenario. What such people do is exaggerate all of the negative aspects of their lives and minimize all the positive aspects of their lives prior to conversion. Then they do precisely the opposite with their lives after conversion. They will retell their stories again and again about what wretched sinners they were and then found Jay-zuz and -- wooby, wooby, woo. The stories tend to get more and more exaggerated after so many re-tellings. For example, people who have been indoctrinated into a cult will describe themselves as a "god-hating monster" before the joined the group. Their memories get restructured.

An example that I came across online was a woman who was honestly unsure as to whether or not she actually had an abortion. It was part of the story she told in church -- she did not know if it really happened or not.

[Drich]

If "c" were true and Acts/luke was written decades later than why doesn't the book include the final imprisionment and death of Paul by the romans?

Lest someone think that Drich made a point, I will observe there are are an almost infinite number of answers to his question.

1. In the first place, Paul's death is nowhere recorded in that perfect never-wrong book that Drich sets such store by. It's just a story told by Ignatius ca 110 CE, at least 45 years after the supposed date of Paul's death.

2. Acts ends rather abruptly. Paul went on preaching for two years in Rome. For all you know 17 pages fell off the end of the book and were never found.

3. Maybe the author did not want to include the story of Paul's death.

4. Maybe the author did not even know any details of Paul's death. If he was writing far away from Rome, it's not like he could email the Roman Christians to get further information.

-or maybe Paul was still alive when the book was written. I guess Occam's razor only applies when one is trying to disprove the bible.

---

It appears the Drich is a convert. The speech is typical of the saved-sinner scenario. What such people do is exaggerate all of the negative aspects of their lives and minimize all the positive aspects of their lives prior to conversion. Then they do precisely the opposite with their lives after conversion. They will retell their stories again and again about what wretched sinners they were and then found Jay-zuz and -- wooby, wooby, woo. The stories tend to get more and more exaggerated after so many re-tellings. For example, people who have been indoctrinated into a cult will describe themselves as a "god-hating monster" before the joined the group. Their memories get restructured.

An example that I came across online was a woman who was honestly unsure as to whether or not she actually had an abortion. It was part of the story she told in church -- she did not know if it really happened or not.

I kudoed you for your powerful observation skills, or your simple ability to remember me telling you I was a convert.

I have done some pretty bad things even by 'moral' standards. Even so I haven't exaggerated anything because I haven't shared anything. Most of it was petty looser lying cheating stealing stuff. The worst of it though was covered under my ability to 'moralize, and justify what I did. As if my reasons for doing the stuff I did meant anything, other than I need not repent.

---

Okay drich how do you explain people like me who followed the instructions in luke 11 and got nothing?

Do you know one of these people? Out of everyone that had made this claim not one actually performed all three steps as outlined by luke 11.

---

He asked, as though he didn't already know the answer is going to be, "you didn't try sincerely enough."

Sincerity is not the key. Following the instructions outlined in luke 11 is the key.

---

Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of the Mormon Church, actually performed A.S.K. just as our buddy Drich here describes. The result? At 14 years of age, he got what he perceived to be an answer from God the Father and Jesus Christ, which led him to label all denominations as abominations in the eyes of The Lord. People believed he was a prophet sent forth to restore the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We know enough now to say that the man was sorely mistaken about the entire affair. If a person who truly believed that god had answered him could be demonstrably wrong, then all other people following A.S.K. should take Smith's example into account when trying get their own answers from god.

Joseph Smith was sincere as I'm sure Drich believes himself to be. Why should we consider anything Drippy has to say when this proscribed method has been proven ineffectual? Let's assume for a moment that Mormonism hasn't been completely turned on its head since its initial inception; why is Joseph Smith Jr. wrong while Drich is supposedly correct?

---

Hmmm, maybe I should have made the above post into its own thread. However, if I had done that, then I wouldn't have been able call Drich out on his A.S.K.

Joey did not ask seek and knock as outlined in luke 11. By yours/his own admission he was seeking the authority of the Father and Jesus. When in fact luke 11 is about obtaining a measure of the Holy Spirit, and not a personal revelation from God the Father.

[Bad Writer]

I never said that's what he sought; he sought the truth. His question was: which of the denominations was true, and which should he join? His resulting "vision" led to everything else (priesthood authority, temples, new doctrine, etc.). My comparison between Joseph's petition to God and your A.S.K. still stands.

[Ksa]

Drich instead of going on for pages and pages, you could just prove us that God exists and that you're a true Christian by taking the confirmation test in the Gospel of Mark 16:17-18 which says:

"And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

You know, if we bring a deadly poison, cyanide, will you drink it to prove to us that you have faith? Easy way to settle all this. No arguing is involved. Your Bible says you're not a true Christian if you can't show those signs.

Also, if you speak in foreign tongues, what does "tee baag in biblia lu tactu" mean? Can you do this and the poison thing to prove to us you're a Christian?

[Esquilax]

Do you know one of these people? Out of everyone that had made this claim not one actually performed all three steps as outlined by luke 11.

Nailed it! "You didn't do it right," despite the fact he couldn't possibly know what was actually done.

Sincerity is not the key. Following the instructions outlined in luke 11 is the key.

One suspects that the "seek" part of this little ditty requires sincerity. Which is really beside the point anyway, since what I was saying is that you'd foist the blame for failure on the person and never once consider the alternative possibilities, which you did perfectly.

[Drich]

I never said that's what he sought; he sought the truth. His question was: which of the denominations was true, and which should he join? His resulting "vision" led to everything else (priesthood authority, temples, new doctrine, etc.). My comparison between Joseph's petition to God and your A.S.K. still stands.

that is like saying you were sent to a auto repair shop to get a company truck fixed by a mechanic, and instead of asking for a mechanic you ask the owner and the owers son to come out and tell you what they think, and ask how to fix the truck yourself.

The instructions of Luke 11 is not for the diy'ers. We are told to A/S/K for the Holy Spirit, not instruction by God or Jesus.

I have said over and over IF one follows the instructions outlined by Luke 11, they will receive what has been promised.

Smith, did not A/S/K as outlined in luke 11 and did not receive what was promised. You/he clearly state that He did not receive the holy Spirit.
I have no doubt that joey could have asked God for direction, but he did not A/S/K as outlined in Luke 11. If He did He would have continued to A/S/K till he got what was promised. Instead he settled for a 'new revelation' which we are warned to stay away from.

That is why your arguement, and your prophet fails.

---

Drich instead of going on for pages and pages, you could just prove us that God exists and that you're a true Christian by taking the confirmation test in the Gospel of Mark 16:17-18 which says:

"And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

You know, if we bring a deadly poison, cyanide, will you drink it to prove to us that you have faith? Easy way to settle all this. No arguing is involved. Your Bible says you're not a true Christian if you can't show those signs.

Also, if you speak in foreign tongues, what does "tee baag in biblia lu tactu" mean? Can you do this and the poison thing to prove to us you're a Christian?

You do know in Mark 16 where this passage is found, Jesus is speaking to just 11 people right?

14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

No where in this passage Does Christ say "to all that believe will be able to do these things." That is what you are implying this passage says.

Is english your first language?

Oh, and how was church last sunday?

[Tonus]

One suspects that the "seek" part of this little ditty requires sincerity.

I think sincerity is the only thing that matters, and should be applied to all three. To think otherwise is to assume that god is a stickler for "fine print." If a person fervently prays to god and begs for guidance, would we expect a just and loving god to turn away because the person didn't fill out the prayer in triplicate and sign with a blue pen? Because that's what I imagine when I see any variation of "you didn't ask the proper way." If I recall, the Bible makes pretty clear that god knows our thoughts and what is in our hearts. To condemn a person over a syntax error seems terribly cruel.