Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[rayskidude]

"what other myth has produced multiple, proven, long-term positive results for myriads of people?"

 

I'd like to see you prove this assertion.

 

Oh, and by the way, Mormonism.

 

Would you care to list several proven, long-term good for myriads of people achieved by Mormonism. I lived in Mesa, AZ for seven years, and Mesa was originally a Mormon settlemnt - with the second temple ever built. I'd be intersted in what you believe they have achieved to achievw a common good - regionally, nationally, and globally.

[rayskidude]

But I lived in northern Iraq for 6 months (Nov'07 thru Apr '08), and in the past 10 years I have spent about 30 weeks in Armenia, 4 weeks in Kenya, 6 weeks in Germany, 2 weeks in Kazakhstan, 2 weeks in India, 15 weeks in the Czech Republic, 4 weeks in Romania, 3 weeks in Israel, and 6 weeks in the Philippines. Suffice to say, I've done some travelling and living in foreign countries - and in my opinion, from what I have seen personally - and also from the intense desire that so many people all over this planet have to emigrate to the USA - I stand by my statement!

 

*shrug* find stand by it. Though you might note that with the exception of Germany, the countries you have traveled too are generally rather poor and kinda third worldish. Not every country outside the U.S. is either poor or war torn, so you're sample set may be a bit skewed.

 

Many places on Earth are picturesque, adventurous, with amazing people >> but to live year 'round, I don't think any place beats the USA.

 

Having done a bit of traveling myself, I find that the the Americans who really annoy foreigners are the ones who haven't a clue that they are doing it. They talk loud, cause problems, demand things to work the same way as they do "back home." Its a different freaking country, they don't have to do things our way, and if we don't like it tough cookies.

 

Of course YOU think the USA is the best place to live...that's because YOU live there. It ain't because the U.S.A. is objectively better, but because it is familiar to you. I bet lots of people in those countries think that theirs is better than ours too.

 

Think about these two sentences.

"The U.S. is the best place to live."

"The U.S. is the best place for me to live."

Do you understand the difference between the two...and why the 2nd one is reasonable and the first one makes the person who says it look like a jack-ass?

 

 

Also, could you please inform us all of the suicide rate among the 15-25 yr olds in Japan. I recently spoke with a guy who has lived in Korea for 15 years, and he and works all throughout the Far East - he indicated the youth suicide rate in Japan was very high. SO what is the youth suicide rate in Japan?

 

First off, thought the suicide rate in Japan is one of the higher in the world. The age group that is most at risk is actually over 40, not teenagers. This makes sense if you know a bit about the culture. Japan has been working on solving this problem for the last several years. That being said, I didn't find Japan any more depressing than the states. Having lived there I saw two main things that may be contributing to this, one is that it rains there a lot, and getting too little sun can actually cause depression. The second is that most Japanese are reluctant to take drugs, so many of them may be reluctant to take medicine for mental illness.

 

Second, if you want to compare statistics, then you should also compare the rate of violent crime, which is, I believe, less than 20% of the rate here. OR perhaps the fact that Japan has a nationalized health care system, and still manages to have lower taxes than we do. Perhaps we could compare our countries record with environmental policy and see where we stand in comparison to Japan. How about educational standards?

 

The point here is not to claim that Japan is superior to America...the point is that such comparisons are stupid.

 

Obviously, I am stating my personal opinion re: living in the USA compared to other parts of the planet (and BTW I'm in good company - James Brown sang about the greatness of "Livin' in the USA"). And both Israel and the Czech Republic are first-world countries. But the fact remains that people vote with their feet - and people from all over Planet Earth are working to leave the country of their birth/family/culture to immigrtae into the USA. Why is this so?

 

But we're off-topic with this conversation, which all started with my comment stating my opinion on the best place to live. So my apologies for getting this 'goat path' started; please forgive me for my inadvertant comments.

[rayskidude]

So what claims does it make good, and what does it achieve? What truth was it the authors aimed at?

Should I know?

No, I'm not going to hold you to knowing what they meant to say.

 

I think that's the problem with the statement they made (and I suspect you can see it too). It's kind of like ISO 9000 quality standards. It's a matter of each and every company to specify their own standards and quality, and they just have to keep up to their own standard. With so many different kinds of denominations, it's hard to say if Christianity or the Bible is achieving what it was supposed to. The meanings differ between the Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, etc, or maybe it doesn't? If the goal is to overtake the world and convert everyone to Christianity, and they all agree this is the objective, then I rather say the Bible and Christianity is failing.

 

Re: the goal of God, Christianity, the Bible >>

 

Before Jesus ascended into heaven, He gave this final instruction to His followers; "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19,20. And again we read, "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the Earth." Acts 1:8

 

SO the goal of Christianity is to preach the Gospel of salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ throughout the entire planet - making some disciples in each place/culture/tribe, etc. Part of God's promise to Abraham was, "... And in you all the families of the Earth shall be blessed." Genesis 12:3 This was repeated later to Abraham; "In your seed all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed..." Gen 22:18 And also this promised was repeated to Isaac (Gen 26:4) and Jacob (Gen 28:14).

 

This blessing to all the nations was through the Person and salvific ministry of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, as Paul teaches in Galatians; "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that is is those who are of faith who are the sons of Abraham... So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham the believer... Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' - in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles..." Galatians 3:6-14

 

Then we read of the fulfillment of this promise and plan of God in the book of Revelation; "Worthy are You (the Lamb) to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and pe0ple and nation... After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes... saying, 'Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." Rev 4:9 & 7:9,10

 

So again, the goal of God/Christianity/Bile is to glorify God by assembling worshippers from every people-group (Greek word = ethnos) on the planet. Which goal Christian missions is in the process of achieving - by the grace of God. And which God will ultimatley be achieved by God through His chosen means.

[Ouroboros]

Re: the goal of God, Christianity, the Bible >>

 

Before Jesus ascended into heaven, He gave this final instruction to His followers; "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19,20.

The famous passage that doesn't exist in the earlier fragments? Those are Jesus words, just because someone added them 150 years later?

 

And again we read, "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the Earth." Acts 1:8

The Holy Spirit is divided into 30,000 different denominations. No unity there. So which one (or ones) of the denominations have the real Holy Spirit? I don't know. Do you know?

 

But then, is this a goal? What you're stating here, is that the goal of Christianity? Does the Amish style Christians see this as the goal?

 

...

So again, the goal of God/Christianity/Bile is to glorify God by assembling worshippers from every people-group (Greek word = ethnos) on the planet. Which goal Christian missions is in the process of achieving - by the grace of God. And which God will ultimatley be achieved by God through His chosen means.

Okay, so this is the goal, to convert the world to Christianity, and by doing so getting as many worshipers as possible. And by doing so God is glorified. The goal seems to be similar to Islam. But even so, has Christianity achieved its goal? If this is the goal, is the goal reached? Has it been successful? If not, then is the Bible the perfect tool to achieve this success, or has it failed? It has been 2,000 years, and only 1/3rd of the world is converts, and the other third is the younger religion Islam.

 

You see, you responded to a chain of posts, and here is the one which started it:

Personally, I don't think the Bible must be absolutely infallible; I don't assume it is. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which is formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders, is, however, interesting. It states that "Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed," and then, "Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored."

So then the question is, based on your answer what the goal is, has the Bible made good on its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth on that goal you just declared?

[Neon Genesis]

The famous passage that doesn't exist in the earlier fragments? Those are Jesus words, just because someone added them 150 years later?

You'd think he would figure out after 16 pages of discussion that the bible is not historically accurate and that quoting the bible to prove the bible is not evidence.

[Kuroikaze]

And both Israel and the Czech Republic are first-world countries. But the fact remains that people vote with their feet - and people from all over Planet Earth are working to leave the country of their birth/family/culture to immigrtae into the USA. Why is this so?

 

I could let this get bogged down in a debate about what constitutes a first world country, but I won't. I don't know that much about Czech, but I know that Israel has a significant problem with terrorism.

 

I'd love to hear what evidence you have for this claim? Do you know of any statistics dealing with immigration statistics that prove your claim or is this just anecdotal evidence? Sure people immigrate to the U.S.. People also emigrate to other countries FROM the U.S. I've also known plenty of people who were happy in the country of their origin with no desire to move to the U.S.

 

Considering the countries you have traveled to and the length of time you spent in them, I'm guessing you traveled their either in the military or as mission work. In either case, I would find the claim that you actually know anything about the country in question, suspect. Perhaps an unfair assessment, but there it is.

[Antlerman]

"what other myth has produced multiple, proven, long-term positive results for myriads of people?"

 

I'd like to see you prove this assertion.

 

Oh, and by the way, Mormonism.

 

Would you care to list several proven, long-term good for myriads of people achieved by Mormonism. I lived in Mesa, AZ for seven years, and Mesa was originally a Mormon settlemnt - with the second temple ever built. I'd be intersted in what you believe they have achieved to achievw a common good - regionally, nationally, and globally.

Ignored my response to this I see. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=452089

 

Anyway, if you wish to go the path of comparing "fruits" to show which one bears the "markings" of God, then you naturally will open yourself up to dragging out the outright evil produced in its name as well, which should pretty much level it. Wouldn't you say? I'm not citing these long-term negative "results for myriads of people" to show how bad Christianity is, but rather to illustrate that it's as flawed as the next system, thus negating your suggested argument:

 

1. Long term suppression of knowledge

-the Dark Ages

-anti-intellectualism in Fundamentalism

-Creationism falsely posing itself as science to subvert scientific understanding

-punishment or executions to challengers of Christian authority throughout the ages

 

2. War in the name of Christ

3. Murder in the name of Christ

4. Repression in the name of Christ

5. Slavery in the name of Christ

6. Sexism in the name of Christ

7. Racism in the name of Christ

8. Genocide in the name of Christ

9. Etc

 

So the Light of the Hill, seems to have a backside full of death, decay, and rot as well it seems. So does any human system that on the one hand brings good for the multitudes. I can prove that Christianity operates as a myth by citing you as an example. You are choosing to see it, to cast it in a positive light. You are mythologizing it. Unfortunately, in the way you do this it seems to do so at the expense of seeing the whole picture.

 

Again, which other systems produce "long-lasting positive results for myriads of people"? All of them. If they didn't, you would have no awareness of their existence as they would have been discarded as something which didn't work. Point to any system out there that people believe in or identify themselves with. If it's been around for a while, it's for one reason only. It's providing benefit. That is just simple logic.

 

Your argument that Christianity is better than them all and therefore a unique and shining example above all else is negated by the fact that it's not adopted universally. Additionally, it's fruits are as mixed as all the other systems Christians criticize as inferior, as illustrated is in the brief but dark list above. BTW, if you should wish to attempt to swipe away the list as the result of sin, then you have no choice but to then accept the positive in other religions as divine as well, and their dark sides for the same reasons as yours.

 

Christianity was born during the Roman age to fill a social need which wasn't being met. It was a creation of many ideas to fill that need, placing its origin myths into the the Jewish traditions. But if the Jewish religion had been a creation of God, then there would be no need to "update it", unless that God by definition needed to do his work through a process of trial-and-error, like a human does. The fact that a great deal of effort is made in the Christian stories woven together by its creators to explain this, is evidence of its mythological nature. It both works and fails like all other systems because it is a human creation, using myth to support itself. Just as you do in imagining Christianity is head and shoulders above the rest.

[rayskidude]

Re: the goal of God, Christianity, the Bible >>

 

Before Jesus ascended into heaven, He gave this final instruction to His followers; "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19,20.

The famous passage that doesn't exist in the earlier fragments? Those are Jesus words, just because someone added them 150 years later?

 

And again we read, "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the Earth." Acts 1:8

The Holy Spirit is divided into 30,000 different denominations. No unity there. So which one (or ones) of the denominations have the real Holy Spirit? I don't know. Do you know?

 

But then, is this a goal? What you're stating here, is that the goal of Christianity? Does the Amish style Christians see this as the goal?

 

...

So again, the goal of God/Christianity/Bile is to glorify God by assembling worshippers from every people-group (Greek word = ethnos) on the planet. Which goal Christian missions is in the process of achieving - by the grace of God. And which God will ultimatley be achieved by God through His chosen means.

Okay, so this is the goal, to convert the world to Christianity, and by doing so getting as many worshipers as possible. And by doing so God is glorified. The goal seems to be similar to Islam. But even so, has Christianity achieved its goal? If this is the goal, is the goal reached? Has it been successful? If not, then is the Bible the perfect tool to achieve this success, or has it failed? It has been 2,000 years, and only 1/3rd of the world is converts, and the other third is the younger religion Islam.

 

You see, you responded to a chain of posts, and here is the one which started it:

Personally, I don't think the Bible must be absolutely infallible; I don't assume it is. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which is formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders, is, however, interesting. It states that "Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed," and then, "Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored."

So then the question is, based on your answer what the goal is, has the Bible made good on its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth on that goal you just declared?

 

I'm pretty sure you're referring to Mark 16:9-20 (which is a well-known 'spurious text'), not the Gospel of Matthew.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to the Holy Spirit being divided. That there are a multitude of denominations is not a stellar aspect of Christianity - but any evangelical or liturgical church that believes the inspiration of Scripture and historic orthodox Christianity and practices the Christian disciplines is a church that has God's Spirit. So there are many denominations that are indwelt by God's Spirit. And we recognize that differences of opinion can occur, such that we think it best to serve God separately - look at the example of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:37-39. But within born-again Christendom - "Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all." We celebrate our diversity, we don't commiserate over it.

 

God does all things for His glory and His glory will fill the Earth; "He predestined us to adoption as sons... to the praise of the glory of His grace... according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will... to the praise of His glory." Eph 1:3-12

 

Numbers 14:21; "and indeed, as I live, all the Earth will be filled with the glory of God."

Isaiah 6:3; "the whole Earth is full of His glory."

Isaiah 42:8; I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another."

Habakkuk 2:14; "For the Earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the seas."

 

The goal of Christianity is exhibited in Rev 4:9,10 and 7:9,10 - where God assembles believers from every human tribe to worship Him. And they will all live together for eternity; "the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them." (Revelation 21:3)

 

Now whether or not some denominations within professing Christendom take hold of this truth is immaterial. What does Scripture teach? That's the only question in these matters.

 

And as I said earlier, God works thru His Gospel and His church to gather in believers thru missions; and He will fulfill all His purposes. Since 1850, Christian missions has made amzing strides in establishing churches in many remote places on this planet. And we continue to reach out into new areas. But regarding what percentage of the population constitute true believers? God throughout Scripture has many times accomplished His purposes through "a remnant" - a small number of faithful people. A classic example is the account of Gideon in the Book of Judges. It's not the number of believers in heaven, so much as the diversity of believers. So, yes - Christianity is accomplishing it's God-given goal.

[Antlerman]

That whole post was nothing more than a mythological framework of interpreting the world. It's real in your mind.

 

Care to attempt to respond to my points Ray, or should we conclude you're stuck?

 

If you should wish a more formal debate, it's been a while since I've engaged in one. Would you be interested in a one on one discussion with me in the Arena? I might be interested in this with you since you have offered some challenge for me up till recently.

[rayskidude]

"what other myth has produced multiple, proven, long-term positive results for myriads of people?"

 

I'd like to see you prove this assertion.

 

Oh, and by the way, Mormonism.

 

Would you care to list several proven, long-term good for myriads of people achieved by Mormonism. I lived in Mesa, AZ for seven years, and Mesa was originally a Mormon settlemnt - with the second temple ever built. I'd be intersted in what you believe they have achieved to achievw a common good - regionally, nationally, and globally.

Ignored my response to this I see. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=452089

 

Anyway, if you wish to go the path of comparing "fruits" to show which one bears the "markings" of God, then you naturally will open yourself up to dragging out the outright evil produced in its name as well, which should pretty much level it. Wouldn't you say? I'm not citing these long-term negative "results for myriads of people" to show how bad Christianity is, but rather to illustrate that it's as flawed as the next system, thus negating your suggested argument:

 

1. Long term suppression of knowledge

-the Dark Ages

-anti-intellectualism in Fundamentalism

-Creationism falsely posing itself as science to subvert scientific understanding

-punishment or executions to challengers of Christian authority throughout the ages

 

2. War in the name of Christ

3. Murder in the name of Christ

4. Repression in the name of Christ

5. Slavery in the name of Christ

6. Sexism in the name of Christ

7. Racism in the name of Christ

8. Genocide in the name of Christ

9. Etc

 

So the Light of the Hill, seems to have a backside full of death, decay, and rot as well it seems. So does any human system that on the one hand brings good for the multitudes. I can prove that Christianity operates as a myth by citing you as an example. You are choosing to see it, to cast it in a positive light. You are mythologizing it. Unfortunately, in the way you do this it seems to do so at the expense of seeing the whole picture.

 

Again, which other systems produce "long-lasting positive results for myriads of people"? All of them. If they didn't, you would have no awareness of their existence as they would have been discarded as something which didn't work. Point to any system out there that people believe in or identify themselves with. If it's been around for a while, it's for one reason only. It's providing benefit. That is just simple logic.

 

Your argument that Christianity is better than them all and therefore a unique and shining example above all else is negated by the fact that it's not adopted universally. Additionally, it's fruits are as mixed as all the other systems Christians criticize as inferior, as illustrated is in the brief but dark list above. BTW, if you should wish to attempt to swipe away the list as the result of sin, then you have no choice but to then accept the positive in other religions as divine as well, and their dark sides for the same reasons as yours.

 

Christianity was born during the Roman age to fill a social need which wasn't being met. It was a creation of many ideas to fill that need, placing its origin myths into the the Jewish traditions. But if the Jewish religion had been a creation of God, then there would be no need to "update it", unless that God by definition needed to do his work through a process of trial-and-error, like a human does. The fact that a great deal of effort is made in the Christian stories woven together by its creators to explain this, is evidence of its mythological nature. It both works and fails like all other systems because it is a human creation, using myth to support itself. Just as you do in imagining Christianity is head and shoulders above the rest.

 

I didn't ignore your other post - I didn't see that it added anything to the discussion. Christianity has always recognized the truth of Romans 2:14,15 and we know that all men are created in the image & likeness of God - therefore we all have human sensibilities and in innate God-given morality (which we can suppress). So we expect some level of cooperation, help, hospitality, etc within all cultures. But a sociological studies from all over the globe has revealed that often these acts of charities are specifically within tribes or clans.

 

The question is: Which group has purposely put itself at risk in order to reach out in love to bring God's truth of salvation, and with that truth come the collateral benefits and blessings t livinh in accordance with God's righteousness. The answer is Christianity. Hands down. Only Christianity has taken God's message thru its teachings and establishing local churches, thru establishing schools (for boys & girls), thru establishing orphanages, thru establishing medical clinics, hospitals, and going into the bush with medical & dental care to seek out suffering peoples.

 

We evangelical Christians are in the deserts of northern Africa, the jungles of the Amazon, the mountains of Papua, New Guinea, the artic lands of Russia - all over. Where are all the other religions in this endeavor to meet the needs of so many different peoples? Christians avery day are living thru hardships, for no other reason than to see God glorified thru the advancement of Christ's spiritual kingdom. We established the Red Cross - and from the embarrasment that we care more for suffering Muslims than their own brethren, only recently have they established the Red Crescent. Where are the Hindu relief agencies, or Muslim, or Shinto, or Buddhist located outside their own comfortable borders? Please if you know, tell me. Even Christian cults like the Catholics, Mormons & JWs do more than these other 'world-wide' religions that have existed for millenia.

 

That certain injustices have been done in the name of Christ is well known - though I would contend that the vast majority were done by Christian cults - esp Roman Catholicism. But to think that the good fruits from non-Christian religions for the benefit of mankind in general is close to equivalent to that of evangelical Christianity - well, that just shows a disconnect from reality.

 

 

 

(Edited by Antlerman to fix quote function for legibility)

[rayskidude]

That whole post was nothing more than a mythological framework of interpreting the world. It's real in your mind.

 

Care to attempt to respond to my points Ray, or should we conclude you're stuck?

 

If you should wish a more formal debate, it's been a while since I've engaged in one. Would you be interested in a one on one discussion with me in the Arena? I might be interested in this with you since you have offered some challenge for me up till recently.

 

Check out my last post - and yes, I'd be interested.

[Dagan]

We could pick that apart, verse by verse, because cherry-picking verses from the bible to make your argument about biblical inerrancy is really dumb. But it's tiresome and you're not likely to change your mind anyway.

 

But I do want to add to this:

 

"what other myth has produced multiple, proven, long-term positive results for myriads of people?"

 

There are so many negatives about Christianity that others have covered there's little point. However, I can think of one positive.

 

A millenia of "Christian" control over Europe resulted in pissing off enough people that they started questioning church teachings and started looking into things on their own. Thus we had the Italian Renaissance and Reformation, followed by the Northern Renaissance and a flourishing climate for scientists, artists and writers. Since then -- since people actually could read the bible for themselves and think about it critically -- Christianity has been dying a slow death.

 

I know what you're going to say, that's not true Christianity, I'm a Protestant, God's spirit works despite that political stuff, etc. That depends on your point of view. To me, reading the New Testament since the scales have dropped from my eyes, so to speak, some of the shit Paul says sounds exactly like the justifications popes used to keep people under their control. "I saw it, really, trust me! I have secret, special revealed knowledge that makes me God's special messenger, so you should trust me." Sounds like the setup for a scam to me.

 

Face it. Paul was already a seriously mentally ill individual when he fell off his horse and hit his head on the road to Damascus. After his "divine revelation" he spent a few years in private inventing Christianity as a vehicle to catapult himself to status as crazy cult leader, and a few decades after he died, the gospels started circulating as religious propaganda.

 

Work it out from the beginning instead from the end, like most Christians do, starting with a verse, assuming it's true, then working backwards constructing an elaborately ridiculous "apology" for the faith.

 

It's far more enlightening to work from the beginning -- who's the author? who's the audience? what's the motivation? what's the context? -- and then reading the verses. You might learn something.

[Antlerman]

That whole post was nothing more than a mythological framework of interpreting the world. It's real in your mind.

 

Care to attempt to respond to my points Ray, or should we conclude you're stuck?

 

If you should wish a more formal debate, it's been a while since I've engaged in one. Would you be interested in a one on one discussion with me in the Arena? I might be interested in this with you since you have offered some challenge for me up till recently.

 

Check out my last post - and yes, I'd be interested.

Very well. Let me spend some time in thought as to what topic we may discuss together since we have touched on several in this so far. Any suggestions of your own while I consider?

[NonXNonExX]

This is a topic i would like to see you two discuss: Which parts of the NT can be considered true and reliable and on what do you base this assertion?

[Neon Genesis]

I didn't ignore your other post - I didn't see that it added anything to the discussion. Christianity has always recognized the truth of Romans 2:14,15 and we know that all men are created in the image & likeness of God - therefore we all have human sensibilities and in innate God-given morality (which we can suppress). So we expect some level of cooperation, help, hospitality, etc within all cultures. But a sociological studies from all over the globe has revealed that often these acts of charities are specifically within tribes or clans.

 

The question is: Which group has purposely put itself at risk in order to reach out in love to bring God's truth of salvation, and with that truth come the collateral benefits and blessings t livinh in accordance with God's righteousness. The answer is Christianity. Hands down. Only Christianity has taken God's message thru its teachings and establishing local churches, thru establishing schools (for boys & girls), thru establishing orphanages, thru establishing medical clinics, hospitals, and going into the bush with medical & dental care to seek out suffering peoples.

 

We evangelical Christians are in the deserts of northern Africa, the jungles of the Amazon, the mountains of Papua, New Guinea, the artic lands of Russia - all over. Where are all the other religions in this endeavor to meet the needs of so many different peoples? Christians avery day are living thru hardships, for no other reason than to see God glorified thru the advancement of Christ's spiritual kingdom. We established the Red Cross - and from the embarrasment that we care more for suffering Muslims than their own brethren, only recently have they established the Red Crescent. Where are the Hindu relief agencies, or Muslim, or Shinto, or Buddhist located outside their own comfortable borders? Please if you know, tell me. Even Christian cults like the Catholics, Mormons & JWs do more than these other 'world-wide' religions that have existed for millenia.

 

That certain injustices have been done in the name of Christ is well known - though I would contend that the vast majority were done by Christian cults - esp Roman Catholicism. But to think that the good fruits from non-Christian religions for the benefit of mankind in general is close to equivalent to that of evangelical Christianity - well, that just shows a disconnect from reality.

You mean like those same xtians who are persecuting gay people in Uganda, labeling children in Africa as witches and murdering them because the bible says not to suffer a witch to live, or how fundamentalists are spreading AIDs in Africa for demonizing condoms and comprehensive sex ed? So, you're basically saying Christians invented kindness and the rest of the world is immoral? I guess Jesus must have been evil too given that he was a Jew and not a Christian. Ignoring the blatant bigotry of your post, I fail to see why we should be giving Christians a pat on the back for doing something decent moral people should be doing to begin with regardless of your faith and I fail to see how the charity of Christians proves the supernatural truth claims of religion. As Christopher Hitchens says, name one good moral action a Christian can do that a non-Christian can't.

[Ouroboros]

... though I would contend that the vast majority were done by Christian cults - esp Roman Catholicism.

I don't think the RCC agree with you, but they call whatever type of Christianity you're in for a heretical cult!

 

So who's right? The Church which held the flag for Christianity for close to 2,000 years, or the kind of Christian's that just showed up on the scene in the last couple of hundred years?

 

But to think that the good fruits from non-Christian religions for the benefit of mankind in general is close to equivalent to that of evangelical Christianity - well, that just shows a disconnect from reality.

So you're a Red Cross Christian?

 

What about Doctors without Borders? They're all Christians? UN Volunteer health program contributing doctors to 3rd world countries is Christian too? There's a large amount of organizations and efforts done by doctors, non-religious.

 

So what good does Christian organizations do? Pay for campaigns against the use of condoms in Africa? Or they spend millions to print and distribute Bibles? Does that help starving and dying people?

[rayskidude]

And both Israel and the Czech Republic are first-world countries. But the fact remains that people vote with their feet - and people from all over Planet Earth are working to leave the country of their birth/family/culture to immigrtae into the USA. Why is this so?

 

I could let this get bogged down in a debate about what constitutes a first world country, but I won't. I don't know that much about Czech, but I know that Israel has a significant problem with terrorism.

 

I'd love to hear what evidence you have for this claim? Do you know of any statistics dealing with immigration statistics that prove your claim or is this just anecdotal evidence? Sure people immigrate to the U.S.. People also emigrate to other countries FROM the U.S. I've also known plenty of people who were happy in the country of their origin with no desire to move to the U.S.

 

Considering the countries you have traveled to and the length of time you spent in them, I'm guessing you traveled their either in the military or as mission work. In either case, I would find the claim that you actually know anything about the country in question, suspect. Perhaps an unfair assessment, but there it is.

 

I don't want to get boggedd down here - so one last post on this topic.

 

Foreign-born residents as a percent of total population in the year 2003 - found on Migration Information Source.

USA - 11.7

Germany, UK - 8.9

Australia - 23.4

Netherlands - 10.6

Russian Fed - 8.3

Sweden - 11.8

Immigrants come into the Western countries primarily from the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Indonesia. Main source of immigrants into the US is Latin America.

 

Legal immigration into US in '03 = 706,000

Overall immigration in '02 = 1,064,000

temporary residents in US in '03 = 27,800,000; 53% from Latin Am; 25% from Asia; 14% from Europe; and 8% from Africa & Oceana.

 

So are you aware of any other country which contains nearly 28,000,000 immigrants?

 

And you would be wise not to denigrate my overseas experience and what I've seen first-hand and personally experienced in which I have spent about 20 months in 15 different countries; and missions work does not relegate itself to "holy huddles" but rather engages the local populations - or it's not missions.

 

So let's close this out, we're off topic.

[rayskidude]

That whole post was nothing more than a mythological framework of interpreting the world. It's real in your mind.

 

Care to attempt to respond to my points Ray, or should we conclude you're stuck?

 

If you should wish a more formal debate, it's been a while since I've engaged in one. Would you be interested in a one on one discussion with me in the Arena? I might be interested in this with you since you have offered some challenge for me up till recently.

 

Check out my last post - and yes, I'd be interested.

Very well. Let me spend some time in thought as to what topic we may discuss together since we have touched on several in this so far. Any suggestions of your own while I consider?

 

Scientific evidence; does the data point to Evolution or Creation?

[Kuroikaze]

But within born-again Christendom - "Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all." We celebrate our diversity, we don't commiserate over it.

 

... though I would contend that the vast majority were done by Christian cults - esp Roman Catholicism.

 

*sigh* you really don`t realize how hypocritical you sound do you?

 

I guess Catholics just change too many essentials huh? So who gets to decide what an essential is? Oh... that`s right, YOUR church does cause it`s the MOST correct one right?

[rayskidude]

... though I would contend that the vast majority were done by Christian cults - esp Roman Catholicism.

I don't think the RCC agree with you, but they call whatever type of Christianity you're in for a heretical cult!

 

So who's right? The Church which held the flag for Christianity for close to 2,000 years, or the kind of Christian's that just showed up on the scene in the last couple of hundred years?

 

But to think that the good fruits from non-Christian religions for the benefit of mankind in general is close to equivalent to that of evangelical Christianity - well, that just shows a disconnect from reality.

So you're a Red Cross Christian?

 

What about Doctors without Borders? They're all Christians? UN Volunteer health program contributing doctors to 3rd world countries is Christian too? There's a large amount of organizations and efforts done by doctors, non-religious.

 

So what good does Christian organizations do? Pay for campaigns against the use of condoms in Africa? Or they spend millions to print and distribute Bibles? Does that help starving and dying people?

 

RCC teaches the worship of Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix; papal infallability when speaking ex cathedra; cleansing after death in purgatory; payment of indulgences to free people from purgatory; salvation by faith + works; has added the 6 Laws of the Church to the Ten Commandments; celibacy of clergy; prayer to Mary and saints; baptismal regeneration; the whole point of the Mass runs counter to Hebrews chaps 9 + 10; inclusion of Apocryphal books in the canon; transubstantiation in communion; and forbids all forms of birth control >> None of these things is taught in Scripture!!!! SO the RCC is simply the oldest and richest cult in existence.

 

Biblical Evangelical Christianity has always been around - from the inception of Christianity. Though the RCC dominated for so long (primarliy as a political machine) there have always been groups like the Irish monks, Moravian Brethren, the Hugenots, etc which held to Biblical truths and the calling of the church to advance the Gospel - not govern politically. But a definite resurgence of Biblcal Christianity occurred with the Reformation. Biblical Christianity had spread throughout Europe and the New World,, but esp since the modern era of missions begun around 1750AD, and even moreso since about 1850AD Christainity has grown globally. But in recent decades, Christianity has declined in the wESTERN SOCIETIES, WHILE GROWING SIGNIIFCANTLY IN tHIRD wORLD COUNTRIEs.

 

I agree mostly with Hitchens question - but the real question is: What good works that Christians do, that others are well capable of doing - are actually being carried out in any way by others commensurate with what the Christians are doing? Do you actually want to compare what the UN does to Christian missions, and think the UN looks favorable?

 

Christians are conducting community development all over the Thrid World - farming projects, clean water systems, AIDS prevention & treatment (with AIDS rates in Uganda now in the single digits), relief camps, providing ffod and medecine; conducting youth camps; bringing thousands of refugees into the USA each year; World Vision, World Relief, Feed the Children; establishing and teachung in schools, etc, etc, etc This list goes on and on. ANd the Doctors Beyons Borders are to be commended & encouraged - but they're impact is below that of Christian medical missions, just based on sheer numbers and the fact that Christians have been sending doctors and nurses since Hudson Taylor established the China Inland Mission.

 

And all of this accomplished by the grace of God with a voluntary missionary force leaving family & friends for a career in missions, and funded with voluntary offerings by believers.

 

Seriously - what else even comes close?

[Kuroikaze]

I don't want to get boggedd down here - so one last post on this topic.

 

well, you can post back or not, but you did ask a question, so I will answer.

 

 

So are you aware of any other country which contains nearly 28,000,000 immigrants?

 

The U.K. has nearly 5 millions, and Germany has over 7 million. Considering the smaller size of those countries they actually have MORE immigrants per square mile than we do.

 

I`ll give you a break down

 

the U.S. has 28 million immigrants and is 3,794,066 sq miles

The U.K. 5 million, but is only 94,526 sq miles

 

 

 

Now some quick math we find that the U.K. has nearly 53 immigrants per square mile while the U.S. has about 7. Germany also has almost 53 immigrants per square mile as well.

 

By population the U.S. is about 10.5 percent immigrants and the U.K. is about 9.5 percent, so no big difference there.

 

And holy crap you should hear Americans complain about how we have too many immigrants. We are better at complaining than any other country it seems. Does this really sound as amazing as you are making it out to be? The raw numbers tell us nothing.

 

And you would be wise not to denigrate my overseas experience and what I've seen first-hand and personally experienced in which I have spent about 20 months in 15 different countries; and missions work does not relegate itself to "holy huddles" but rather engages the local populations - or it's not missions.

 

Ha, the guy who couldn't do a bit of math is telling me what is wise? I've been on mission trips so I know exactly what its like. Engaging the local populations means telling them that their religion and their culture is wrong on nearly every level, and you never get to KNOW any of the local population because they are mostly seen as "marks for Jesus."

 

 

So let's close this out, we're off topic.

 

Well the lions den is used to things going a bit off topic from time to time, though I'd be willing to start a new topic for this, I think everything that could be said has been said, and like normal, you choose to live in a fantasy land rather than reality.

[florduh]

What good works that Christians do, that others are well capable of doing - are actually being carried out in any way by others commensurate with what the Christians are doing?

 

It's a bullshit question.

 

The non-religious, atheists, agnostics, pagans, etc. don't start out with a tax exempt, organized financial base as the churches do. I know of non-Christian individuals and groups that make real differences for people, but they don't seek the spotlight. They are motivated simply to help people in real ways without the underlying agenda of altering their belief systems and culture.

 

My father was a missionary to Haiti for several years. Many Haitians live in abject poverty and suffer diseases and malnutrition because of extreme overpopulation of the island and the limited resources available. The missionaries brought in doctors occasionally, distributed clothing, started schools and churches. BUT THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS BIBLICAL TO TEACH THEM BIRTH CONTROL! Of course they were taught the proper brand of religion and fed and clothed for the moment. Is that helping or just perpetuating a broken system? If only they would hand out condoms instead of bibles.

 

Anyway, I think on balance the church historically has promoted more misery and destruction than it has helped. The missionary division of many churches is just a fund raising arm of the business. Films and brochures showing the happy natives wearing clothes and carrying Bibles opens pocketbooks to help civilize the savages for Christ.

[Kuroikaze]

And all of this accomplished by the grace of God with a voluntary missionary force leaving family & friends for a career in missions, and funded with voluntary offerings by believers.

 

Seriously - what else even comes close?

 

Maybe you should check these guys out. http://www.kiva.org/community/viewTeam?team_id=94

 

This atheist group is currently the top giver through this particular relief program. Of course this is just one example, the point is that the non-religious do care about these things as well.

 

Besides, half the time missionaries do as much harm as good. They feel the uncontrollable need to hand out a bible and a sermon with every blanket and antibiotic shot.....but then you think that's a good thing.

[Ouroboros]

RCC teaches the worship of Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix; papal infallability when speaking ex cathedra; cleansing after death in purgatory; payment of indulgences to free people from purgatory; salvation by faith + works; has added the 6 Laws of the Church to the Ten Commandments; celibacy of clergy; prayer to Mary and saints; baptismal regeneration; the whole point of the Mass runs counter to Hebrews chaps 9 + 10; inclusion of Apocryphal books in the canon; transubstantiation in communion; and forbids all forms of birth control >> None of these things is taught in Scripture!!!! SO the RCC is simply the oldest and richest cult in existence.

By your belief, and they would disagree with you. So who is right? Who has the "right" belief? As a third party, looking in from the outside, your cult is not less a cult than their cult, and their cult is no more cult than yours. You are both cultish.

 

Biblical Evangelical Christianity has always been around - from the inception of Christianity. Though the RCC dominated for so long (primarliy as a political machine) there have always been groups like the Irish monks, Moravian Brethren, the Hugenots, etc which held to Biblical truths and the calling of the church to advance the Gospel - not govern politically. But a definite resurgence of Biblcal Christianity occurred with the Reformation. Biblical Christianity had spread throughout Europe and the New World,, but esp since the modern era of missions begun around 1750AD, and even moreso since about 1850AD Christainity has grown globally. But in recent decades, Christianity has declined in the wESTERN SOCIETIES, WHILE GROWING SIGNIIFCANTLY IN tHIRD wORLD COUNTRIEs.

Your spin on "True Christianity" is no more true than the Mormon's spin or Jehova's Witnesses.

 

The "evangelical" Christians you are referring to were heretic cults, and they were not the same as your cult.

 

I agree mostly with Hitchens question - but the real question is: What good works that Christians do, that others are well capable of doing - are actually being carried out in any way by others commensurate with what the Christians are doing? Do you actually want to compare what the UN does to Christian missions, and think the UN looks favorable?

 

Christians are conducting community development all over the Thrid World - farming projects, clean water systems, AIDS prevention & treatment (with AIDS rates in Uganda now in the single digits), relief camps, providing ffod and medecine; conducting youth camps; bringing thousands of refugees into the USA each year; World Vision, World Relief, Feed the Children; establishing and teachung in schools, etc, etc, etc This list goes on and on. ANd the Doctors Beyons Borders are to be commended & encouraged - but they're impact is below that of Christian medical missions, just based on sheer numbers and the fact that Christians have been sending doctors and nurses since Hudson Taylor established the China Inland Mission.

 

And all of this accomplished by the grace of God with a voluntary missionary force leaving family & friends for a career in missions, and funded with voluntary offerings by believers.

 

Seriously - what else even comes close?

Do you have any statistics on the size of help coming from the Christian community?

 

Have you heard about Idol's Give Back, or all the aid that comes from Exxon mobile, or many other large size companies?

 

Can you Christian help organizations match hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps in the billions, from these non-Christians corporations and non-Christian organizations? The UN food program alone (they have several programs) delivered 3.9 BILLION TONS of food last year, to 78 countries, to 102 million receivers.

 

I want numbers on what Christians do, and let us start comparing.

 

And also, for many years Sweden, were I used to live, were doing a lot to help other countries, and if I remember right some statistics in the 80's showed that Sweden gave more per person than USA, and it's a country were the majority is considered (also by statistics) to be agnostic/atheist.

 

I can take my father in-law as an example, he's an unbeliever. He spends a week a year, driving truck, for free, bringing food and clothes to places in East Europe.

[Antlerman]

That whole post was nothing more than a mythological framework of interpreting the world. It's real in your mind.

 

Care to attempt to respond to my points Ray, or should we conclude you're stuck?

 

If you should wish a more formal debate, it's been a while since I've engaged in one. Would you be interested in a one on one discussion with me in the Arena? I might be interested in this with you since you have offered some challenge for me up till recently.

 

Check out my last post - and yes, I'd be interested.

Very well. Let me spend some time in thought as to what topic we may discuss together since we have touched on several in this so far. Any suggestions of your own while I consider?

 

Scientific evidence; does the data point to Evolution or Creation?

Hmm.. A good suggestion. Let me consider it. BTW, if we do this I generally prefer a more informal, yet focused discussion, as opposed to structured rules of opening/closing, number of words per post, etc. It'll also be dependent on my ability to devote time to it.