An unanswerable question

[Lek]

I would try to stop him. Going church religiously doesn't mean someone is a christian and, as far as I know, God hasn't told anyone to kill somebody in the last 2,500 years. I believe God could tell him to kill me, but I wouldn't accept his word for it unless God also revealed it to me. This a far out hypothetical discussion, but the principle does apply. I believe if God wants a true believer to know something, then that person will know.

Did this 'God' reveal to you that all the God mandated killings in the bible were in fact God mandated, and if so, how? How is your evidence that what is in the bible is God mandated better than a person (or group of people) telling you that they have a mandate from God? How is the bible or whatever you base your belief in God's prior mandates on better evidence than either verbal or written claims made today?

Yes, I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. No book in the world has received as much investigation and criticism as the bible. Archeological discoveries continue to be found hat support the authenticity of the manuscripts and the timeframes of the historical claims. There's also fufillment of prophesies and many other things, which I won't get into because it would take pages and pages and you can read it from many sources on the internet.

In answer to another comment, no, I don't believe the claims of the countless individuals who have murdered and comitted other crimes in the name of God. It's a handy excuse.

[Angrboda]

Did this 'God' reveal to you that all the God mandated killings in the bible were in fact God mandated, and if so, how? How is your evidence that what is in the bible is God mandated better than a person (or group of people) telling you that they have a mandate from God? How is the bible or whatever you base your belief in God's prior mandates on better evidence than either verbal or written claims made today?

Yes, I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. No book in the world has received as much investigation and criticism as the bible. Archeological discoveries continue to be found hat support the authenticity of the manuscripts and the timeframes of the historical claims. There's also fufillment of prophesies and many other things, which I won't get into because it would take pages and pages and you can read it from many sources on the internet.

While I appreciate the answer, and accept that is why you believe the bible, I can't help but note that you've jumped ship from your earlier criterion of personal revelation confirming God's mandates. I'm sure you know there are others who would say the bible fails on all those accounts. Are you saying that in the case of the bible you've had personal revelation attesting to its verity, or are you engaged in special pleading by using a different standard to evaluate the mandates in the bible. It seems a bit unfair of you to demand archaeology and prophecy of David Koresh or L. Ron Hubbard meet the same standard, even if the bible meets it.

So why do you use different standards to evaluate contemporary proclamations from historical ones? And I'm sure that you can understand that the Hindus and the Muslims make similar claims. The Koran is inspired and miraculous. The Vedas are the timeless wisdom of rishis supported by archaeology showing ancient civilizations going back thousands of years. So why is the bible special such that a) it gets its own criterion for belief, and b) that the criterion applied to believing the bible are not equally applied to other religious texts with similar claims?

[Lek]

While I appreciate the answer, and accept that is why you believe the bible, I can't help but note that you've jumped ship from your earlier criterion of personal revelation confirming God's mandates. I'm sure you know there are others who would say the bible fails on all those accounts. Are you saying that in the case of the bible you've had personal revelation attesting to its verity, or are you engaged in special pleading by using a different standard to evaluate the mandates in the bible. It seems a bit unfair of you to demand archaeology and prophecy of David Koresh or L. Ron Hubbard meet the same standard, even if the bible meets it.

So why do you use different standards to evaluate contemporary proclamations from historical ones? And I'm sure that you can understand that the Hindus and the Muslims make similar claims. The Koran is inspired and miraculous. The Vedas are the timeless wisdom of rishis supported by archaeology showing ancient civilizations going back thousands of years. So why is the bible special such that a) it gets its own criterion for belief, and b) that the criterion applied to believing the bible are not equally applied to other religious texts with similar claims?

I didn't change my criteria for revelation from God. There is direct revelation, but normally he reveals himself in less outward ways. Probably the most common revelation comes from reading of his word. I've struggled for years concerning the validity of the bible and still have doubts from time to time but I always come back to God. I don't know how it works exactly. I always have believed that God is drawing me. He said in scripture that he would never leave us or desert us. We can leave him, but as long as we're seeking him he won't leave us. As for other holy books, I don't see the evidence supporting their validity. Other books such as the Koran or Book of Morman are said to be revealed by direct revelations from God, but the facts don't bear them out. The bible is a collection of many books, written by different authors over 1,500 years, which remain true to the unfolding historical events leading up to and following Jesus' birth. This is my opinion.

[Angrboda]

I didn't change my criteria for revelation from God. There is direct revelation, but normally he reveals himself in less outward ways. Probably the most common revelation comes from reading of his word.

You changed your criteria from first-hand revelation to third-hand revelation with support. Yes, you did change your criteria.

And since you're going to repeat it, I'll point out that archeology doesn't in fact support the bible. A fact still unknown to most Christians for some reason.

[Cyberman]

**cough**Camels**cough*

[Angrboda]

You know, I'm watching the movie the Ten Commandments, and I don't know if it's accurate to the bible or not, but apparently, according to the movie, the people turned to sin because Moses was a long time in returning from the mountain. What do you suppose he was doing up there all that time? Maybe carving stone tablets? I'll bet carving stone tablets takes a long time.

[Lek]

I didn't change my criteria for revelation from God. There is direct revelation, but normally he reveals himself in less outward ways. Probably the most common revelation comes from reading of his word.

You changed your criteria from first-hand revelation to third-hand revelation with support. Yes, you did change your criteria.

And since you're going to repeat it, I'll point out that archeology doesn't in fact support the bible. A fact still unknown to most Christians for some reason.

I said that I would kill a baby if I was certain that it was a direct revelation from God. I didn't say that I didn't accept any other type of revelation. I wouldn't normally kill a baby now because the bible tells me not to murder. Killing is acceptable in situations in which you may be saving a life or in a justified war in which you're protecting a nation. If God were telling me to kill a baby, I woud asssume it was for a justifiable reason. Again, I'm too tired to get into it here, but there many places on the web that will point out numerous archeological discoveries that support the bible. One of the most recent is the verification of the Hittite nation which was earlier dismissed by critics. Most of what I've heard from the other side refers to the fact that archeological discoveries haven't been made supporting parts of the bible, not that things have been found that disprove it. We don't have artifacts supporting most of human history. Stimbo, from what I've read, camels were around at the time of Abraham, although there's not solid evidence that they were used as beasts of burden at that time. That doesn't prove that they weren't.

[Rahul]

I wouldn't normally kill a baby now because the bible tells me not to murder.

Really? That's the reason you're not running around killing babies?

[Angrboda]

And now you're changing things again, as the original question was why you wouldn't accept third-hand revelation from contemporary baby killers by claiming that they were mentally ill.

I'm not looking for an argument, but this kind of ad hoc reasoning, responding to the incidentals of the argument without regard to the consistency of the whole is what many find wrong with the reasoning of the average Christian.

Christianity and apologetics has become a practice of fighting fires as they spring up, rather than a coherent, unified approach to preventing the fires in the first place.

[Lek]

And now you're changing things again, as the original question was why you wouldn't accept third-hand revelation from contemporary baby killers by claiming that they were mentally ill.

I'm not looking for an argument, but this kind of ad hoc reasoning, responding to the incidentals of the argument without regard to the consistency of the whole is what many find wrong with the reasoning of the average Christian.

Christianity and apologetics has become a practice of fighting fires as they spring up, rather than a coherent, unified approach to preventing the fires in the first place.

Ok. I wouldn't accept a statement from person who was trying to kill me. That doesn't mean that the only kind of revelation I would accept was a direct revelation from God. You need to look at the context of the statement. You've been very proper and I know you're not looking for a fight. The problem with internet forums is that you can't really discuss christianity or any other issue in depth. Also, I can tell you my beliefs and opinions, but I don't claim to be a bible scholar and I'm probably not the greatest communicator either. I think it's impossible to argue someone into believing in God or christianity or atheism anyway. If you want in-depth answers to the bible or christianity go to a very informative website http://www.thenarrowpath.com and read or download mp3s. When it comes down to it though, the bible leads some of us to God and others away from him, but the only way to know him is to approach him with an open mind. God is supernatural and if you can't be open to that then you won't find him in the bible.