Are holyscriptures reliable sources?

[§outh§tar]

Jenyar,

Well yes, it is people who do the trusting.

This is indeed inductive reasoning, although note that this type of evidence is not proof of course, it is only a probability of the future behavior.

But past behavior is physical evidence. Your statement seems confused.

This appears to be gibberish. It is not clear what point you are trying to make here.

I do not understand the question.

Kat

First of all, let me begin by stating that I did NOT write the article. Hence the links at the bottom...

Which "characters" are you referring to as imaginary?
And what "unbelievable gibberish" are you talking about? At least explain your self..
And show me where the Bible falters in accuracy as well.

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

Your quote of me is a response to Jenyar yet your questions don't seem to reference it. That is confusing.

As for imaginary characters - have you never read a fiction novel before?

I don't believe you cannot see the gibberish.

And I'm sure you can do a web search for lists of biblical errors the same as me. There are many out there. But here is an encyclopedia of biblical errors to start you going - http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

Kat

 

[Neildo]

The reason why one can so easily accept their parent's testimony in that their deceased grandfather whom they've never met was a good man is because when it all comes down to it, it's not that an important deal. Well, in comparison to God, that is.

When it comes to a God and the deeds and everything else is said about him, those accusations have such a profound impact on our lives, if they were true. Because those writings are about something so divine and powerful, people are going to be a wee bit more cautious when accepting it as fact when there is little to no proof of what's being written is true. When it comes to power and writing about such things, many people try to do it. Many have written about a divine being and who and what God is, but who do we believe? At least in the grandfather's history, there isn't much conflicting views of him so it's more easily to believe it as truth. Now if many people have varying views of your grandfather, it'd be a lot harder to know if he was a good man or not.

- N

 

[Jenyar]

You go back to the source. The Bible wasn't written in a day. Other holy texts might lead you to a concept of God, but none reveals him personally.

 

[Jenyar]

Greater importance does not make the evidence any greater. You'll get the same evidence for Christ as you'll get for any man. It does make the rejection of evidence greater, though. People aren't rejecting a generic hypothetical Jesus, they are rejecting the one talked and witnessed about. The Bible doesn't even try to be evidence. It was written by people who felt sure the evidence they had seen would be enough for anyone who could believe in God. You'll know if the Spirit in which it was written speaks to you.

 

[Katazia]

Jenyar,

Greater importance does not make the evidence any greater. You'll get the same evidence for Christ as you'll get for any man.

And that defies credibility, that the son of God that would be clearly the most important being ever to visit the earth, leaves no more evidence than an ordinary man. Surely if the message he had was so vitally important to the future of humankind and God’s magnificent plan, then one would think he might have left a few CLEAR clues, instead of this ambiguous quagmire of confusion, where only a minority of the world population believe it.

You'll know if the Spirit in which it was written speaks to you.

And it most certainly does, it was fantasy, deliberate deception, ignorance, and outright political expediency, and zero truth.

Kat

 

[pavlosmarcos]

SOUTHSTAR

your statement:Which "characters" are you referring to as imaginary?
And what "unbelievable gibberish" are you talking about? At least explain your self..
And show me where the Bible falters in accuracy as well.

the whole book from start to finish, you may as well read Grimm's fairy tales.
and that's putting it in simple term's, so you can understand.
Well said Kat

 

[Medicine*Woman]

You go back to the source. The Bible wasn't written in a day. Other holy texts might lead you to a concept of God, but none reveals him personally.

*************
M*W: Since some holy texts might lead one to a "concept" of God, how does one know if those texts are "holy" or not?

If no texts reveal God's personally, how does one know that there is, in fact, a God or not?

If some holy texts don't reveal God personally, and other holy texts can only lead to a [/I]concept of God, how can one believe any texts that mention God?

Then, how can this source, which wasn't written in a day, reveal the truths for all times?

How can one know for sure that the writers of this compiled source were anymore inspired than members of humanity who came after this source?

I just don't see God as being reducible to the contents of this one source.

And, God cannot be limited to dwell in only certain religions and sects.

God dwells in the Body of Humanity.

 

[§outh§tar]

@ Medicine Woman

And, God cannot be limited to dwell in only certain religions and sects.

Why do you say this, since God can not be limited, by definition?

EDIT: I don't know of any religion (I think you're talking about Christianity) that limits God to "dwell" with only them.
Christianity says God died for the world not for "Christians" alone, well, if you're a Calvinist or believe in predestination then...

 

[Medicine*Woman]

@ Medicine Woman

Why do you say this, since God can not be limited, by definition?

EDIT: I don't know of any religion (I think you're talking about Christianity) that limits God to "dwell" with only them.
Christianity says God died for the world not for "Christians" alone, well, if you're a Calvinist or believe in predestination then...

*************
M*W: I addressed this to Jenyar, not you. You're wrong. I was talking about ANY RELIGION. Why do you assume I refer only to Christianity? Where have I ever indicated that I was a Calvinist? Is English not your first language? Unless I address you, don't bother answering any of my posts.

 

[§outh§tar]

*************
M*W: I addressed this to Jenyar, not you. You're wrong. I was talking about ANY RELIGION. Why do you assume I refer only to Christianity? Where have I ever indicated that I was a Calvinist? Is English not your first language? Unless I address you, don't bother answering any of my posts.

I know you were talking to Jenyar that's why I only quoted that sentence. I was only asking you a question anyway, no need to get

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar,

Your quote of me is a response to Jenyar yet your questions don't seem to reference it. That is confusing.

As for imaginary characters - have you never read a fiction novel before?

I don't believe you cannot see the gibberish.

And I'm sure you can do a web search for lists of biblical errors the same as me. There are many out there. But here is an encyclopedia of biblical errors to start you going - http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

Kat

I thought you were referring to my article. Sorry

I have seen many, if not all, of those "apparent contradictions" addressed on the internet. Taking a verse out of context as the writer does is a good way to trick people. Now only if he had provided some background to prove his point..