A Formal Debate, Faith vs. Atheism

I had the pleasure of attending the debate held at Messiah College on October 2nd with Dinesh D’Souza and Dan Barker, Keynote Speaker Dr. Ravi Zacharias, and moderated by Dr. Christopher Perrin.

Dinesh D’Souza, President of The King’s College in New York City, is an author, debater and speaker, and recently released the film “2016: Obama’s America”.

Dan Barker is Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and is a musician, atheist activist, and a former evangelical preacher.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias is a prominent Christian speaker, apologist, and author. The vision of his ministry is to evangelize and support the Biblical mandate to set apart Christ in our hearts as Lord and always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within us, with gentleness and respect, all for the glory of God

The debate began with a question posed to both D’Souza and Barker. They were asked, “What is the most compelling evidence for the existence or non-existence of God?” Barker went first, stating that it is the lack of evidence, and the existence of evil in the world. He stated that believers have failed to make their case, and that the burden of proof is on them. He claims Adam and Eve are metaphors, and that Dinesh D’Souza agreed on this point at a previous debate, as well as the fact that evolution is true. Barker questioned, then, why can’t God be just as fictional as Adam and Eve? He went on to claim that 59% of humans are religious, while 41% are non-religious, therefore the existence of God isn’t obvious- it’s just faith and demands evidence. He pointed out the fact that there’s not even any agreement among believers about the nature of God. He stated that the God of the Bible doesn’t exist- or at least not a good God. As evidence he suggested we walk into a children’s hospital, or examine all the contradictions in the Koran or Bible.

D’Souza followed and stated that he believed Adam and Eve were real people, and that he’s not a Creationist in the sense of the earth being young. He Agreed that God’s existence isn’t obvious because he can’t be seen, but that our experience of God in our lives is proof of his existence. He went on to provide scientific evidence, pointing out that scientists have concluded the universe, as well as space and time, has a beginning, and this was first described in the Bible, but not discovered by scientists until the 1950’s. The universe is fine-tuned rather than random, which is an inference for intelligent design, and a signature from God.

I was a bit disappointed with D’Souza’s response because he didn’t provide satisfactory answers and didn’t rebut all of Barkers points (perhaps due to time restraints). I was curious about Barker’s claim that D’Souza didn’t believe Adam and Eve were real people, but were metaphors, and that evolution was a fact. I had hoped to inquire further after the debate because Barker was pretty emphatic. If these two men are correct, then what does that say about the reliability of the Bible’s claims that Adam and Eve were historical figures, and that God created different kinds of animals (Genesis 1:24-25), and created man in his image (Genesis 1:26-27)?  The genealogies in Genesis 5:1-32 provide evidence that real people were related to Adam and Eve, and there are other Biblical references supporting Adam as a real, historical figure (Hosea 6:7, Luke 3:21-38, Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:22).

I gave the first round to Barker, who came out firing. D’Souza came across as defensive and was fairly agreeable with Barker’s claims that God’s existence isn’t obvious. I disagree with both of them; according to Romans 1:20, God’s eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen by man so that we’re without excuse. D’Souza made a valid argument that the universe has a beginning, and this was first recorded in the Bible. The fine-tuning argument is also valid, although atheists would never accept this evidence. I would have answered the question a bit differently by stating that Biblical prophecy is the most compelling argument for the existence of God. Of course atheists will accept no evidence for the existence of God because they’ve already concluded that he doesn’t exist and that there’s no evidence to the contrary. I would have addressed Barker’s problem of evil by explaining that evil is the result of man’s sin as explained in Genesis three, and then rebut his claim that God is evil (for all the atrocities he committed in the Bible and for commanding others to do so). D’Souza could have pointed out God’s righteousness, justice, and hatred of sin. God’s actions, commands and wrath are the result of man’s sin and wickedness, and can only be paid for by the ultimate penalty- death. Secular man doesn’t recognize the depravity of sin, but God tells us that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and with Jesus’ death and resurrection he demonstrated his love and compassion for mankind by offering us the gift of eternal life. Lastly, I would like to have seen D’Souza counter the claims that the Bible is full of contradictions by asking for a specific example, and then rebutting it with facts.

I’ll summarize some of the other points Barker made:

  • Barker stated D’Souza didn’t provide any real evidence.
  • The fine-tuning argument doesn’t work since the universe could be tuned in any number of ways as long as it was counter-balanced.
  • Atheism is an absence of belief in God, not an absolute denial of God.
  • He asked the audience to consider the complexity of a snowflake in an effort to counter D’Souza’s claims of intelligent design. Snowflakes are complex, but not designed.
  • Claims that God himself would need a designer.
  • Concluded that D’Souza was using strawman arguments and circular reasoning.
  • Rejects the design argument.
  • Laws of nature are not prescriptive. Laws describe how things work and don’t have intelligence imbedded in them.

D’Souza made the following points:

  • He compared the claims of atheism with the existence of aliens- he’s open to life on other planets since he can’t prove otherwise, and suggested he’d have to be omniscient in order to emphatically declare that life on other planets doesn’t exist. He likens this to atheism and insisted there are no real atheists, which is an emphatic denial of the existence of God. To be a true atheist one would need to be all-knowing to substantiate their claims.
  • D’Souza denied that God would need a creator.
  • Universal laws require an explanation that can only be answered by the existence of God.
  • The language of mathematics is evidence for the existence of God.
  • The hand and signature of God can be viewed and discovered.

I disagree with Barker’s claim that D’Souza didn’t provide any real evidence. I think it would be more accurate to say that Barker didn’t accept D’Souza’s argument from personal experience, and rejected the relevance of the Bible’s claims that the universe has a beginning, as well as the fine-tuning argument being evidence for the existence of God  (although he admits the universe is fine-tuned). Secular scientists do offer alternative explanations for those arguments without relying on the existence of God, but the existence of such explanations doesn’t negate the arguments as evidence for the existence of God. It just means that atheists reject any evidence supporting the existence of God.

Personally I don’t believe in life on other planets. Quite honestly, I’m not open to that possibility, and I don’t need to be omniscient to take that stand. God, on the other hand, is omniscient, and if he created life on other planets I believe he would have revealed that in Genesis, or at some other point in the Bible. I simply happen to believe there’s no Biblical support for alien life. But it’s true that atheists would need to be all-knowing in order to be true atheists. Barker and D’Souza offer different definitions of atheism, and both are correct, however Barker contradicted his own definition by emphatically declaring that the God of the Bible doesn’t exist, and by declaring that there’s a lack of evidence for the existence of God. If there was such a lack of evidence, there would be no theists. In order for Barker to conclude that there’s such a lack of evidence, he would need to turn his back to all the evidence available.

When D’Souza replied to the idea that God must have a creator or designer, I think he would have done better by explaining that only things which were created need a creator. God was neither created nor designed; therefore he doesn’t need a creator or designer.

The next question asked was, “Is everything permissible without God’s existence?” I’ll summarize the rest of their responses:

  • D’Souza stated that an atheist’s moral compass comes from God- just as it does for a Christian.
  • He claims we all believe in absolute morality, and if there is absolute morality, then there is a God.
  • Barker reasoned that everything is permissible if there is a God because the atrocities committed by God and his followers in the Bible are the opposite of morality.
  • He stated that our instincts and morality are built into our genes and were passed down from our ancestors.
  • He explained that morality is a concept, not a thing, and that there’s an objective basis for it.
  • He suggested that humans can live without harming others by using reason, and, according to his philosophy, humans should seek to minimize harm.
  • D’Souza agreed with Barker that morality doesn’t come from the Bible. Instead, he claims, morality is built into us by God and has nothing to do with evolution.
  • Barker maintained there is evolutionary evidence for morality being passed along in our genes and referenced Richard Dawkin’s book, The Selfish Gene.
  • To further refute the existence of God he pointed out that theists don’t agree with each other.
  • Barker questioned God as a role model for moral decisions and asked, “Would you kill me if God told you to?”
  • D’Souza responded, “Yes,” and then asked Barker why he’s so angry at a God that doesn’t exist, and suggested there was some wounded theism under his atheism. He claimed there was something else is going on inside him, and asked, “Do you believe in Jesus teachings?”
  • Barker answered, “No”, and said it’s a good thing Christians aren’t living according to Jesus’ words because most of his teachings are evil.
  • He quoted Matthew 10:34-36 where Jesus said that he came to divide families and bring a sword.
  • Barker pointed out that Jesus never denounced slavery and spoke of a lake of fire, hell, and gnashing of teeth.
  • He states that Jesus offered a morally bankrupt system in a divisive book.
  • D’Souza countered by explaining that the Bible had arguments on both sides of slavery and offered a factual and historical response.
  • Barker wants us to believe that atheism is reasonable, meaningful and fulfilling, and that the God of the Bible is cruel.
  • He points out that belief is not the same thing as knowledge, so just because we believe in God doesn’t make his existence real.
  • He tried to show that the Bible is wrong, and that atheism is the cure for evil.

D’Souza made a good point that an atheist does have a God-given moral compass, even if they deny it. However, if we assume there is no God, then I’d argue that everything is permissible. Animals, for example, have no morals- they kill without remorse and have no concern for those they hurt or kill. A shark kills a fish or human without contemplating if it’s right or wrong. I’ve seen cats toy with mice and eventually kill them (though not eat them), but we’d never accuse the cat of wrong-doing. So if there is no God, then humans are no different than animals- there would be no right or wrong, and they may kill, hurt and steal for whatever reasons they choose. But the fact that humans do know right from wrong and can contemplate morality is evidence that there is a God. Genesis two and three, in fact, tell us how man learned good and evil. It makes more sense that morality is from God rather than evolved. If morality comes from God, then morality is real. But if morality is evolved, then it’s only a concept that needs to be adhered to as much as a chimpanzee would adhere to it.

I think D’Souza could have done better with the argument that morality doesn’t come from the Bible. Sure, we don’t possess morality because the Bible imparts it to us or tells us what is moral. But the Bible is the Word of God- it provides a basis for morality, explains where it comes from, and contains God’s laws. According to Genesis two and three our knowledge of good and evil came when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Barker claims evolution is responsible for man’s knowledge of good and evil, but doesn’t realize that a belief in evolution and a denial of God doesn’t negate the Biblical explanation of good and evil. His belief in evolution is not evidence that man evolved the ability to learn right and wrong from our ancestors over millions of years. The evidence Barker speaks of is circular reasoning- starting and ending with his worldview and denial of God. D’Souza should have pointed out Barker’s circular reasoning.

In my opinion D’Souza’s best response of the night was when he replied to Barker’s question, “Would you kill me if God told you to?” He answered ‘yes’, and then, recognizing the trap, went on the offense and questioned Barker’s apparent animosity toward God. If God commanded us- as Christians- to kill someone, it would be wise to be obedient to God as Abraham and Joshua and Caleb were, as well as others in the Bible who were blessed for such obedience. It may not be a politically correct answer, but it’s no different than a general who takes his troops into battle and orders them to attack the enemy; of course they will obey the general’s order- that’s their job. So why would we disobey God, who is the ultimate authority? Would we rather appease the enemy than please God? Should we disobey because we place our morality and wisdom above God? Such disobedience would be a mistake and bring about undesirable consequences. It’s also worth noting that we live in a New Testament age in which God has called us to love our enemies. This means atheists should welcome Christian morality.

I don’t think D’Souza’s response toward slavery was very compelling because it didn’t provide a defense of God’s Word. A stronger response would have explained that God isn’t as concerned about a person’s class or status as he is about their salvation, obedience and character. Whether or not a person is a slave or free has nothing to do with their place in heaven; in fact the Bible tells us that the first will be last and the last will be first (Matthew 19:30). So in God’s kingdom those who were slaves on earth, yet lived with Christ-like humility will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. In other words God’s justice will be greater than Dan Barker’s justice, who is more concerned with a person’s earthly status than their heavenly status. D’Souza should have jumped on this opportunity.

Overall I think D’Souza could have had a stronger debate by using scriptural evidence. I think his responses were watered down and weak because he believes in evolution rather than the Biblical account of creation and the existence of a historical Adam and Eve. There were a lot of arguments Barker made that were not responded to (why there’s evil and suffering in the world or why there’s no agreement to the nature of God), or were responded to weakly, inadequately or incomplete (why God doesn’t need a creator). He should have taken opportunities to explain God’s character and love. He made some mistakes by agreeing with Barker on topics he should have disagreed with and didn’t clarify certain issues, like Adam and Eve and evolution, and he was on defense for most of the debate. D’Souza ended up leaving once the debate was over due to illness, so perhaps his performance would have been stronger if he was healthy, and I can accept that. He also didn’t have nearly enough time to give an adequate response to all of Barker’s charges.

As for Barker, he came across as the winner in my opinion. He was on the offensive right from the beginning, and brought up points D’Souza wasn’t able to adequately answer.

I do have a number of issues with Barker though. Being that he was a former pastor, I find it amazing at his own lack of understanding of scripture. I can’t help but wonder if he ever believed anything he ever preached. As a pastor I think he should have understood many of the issues he raised and should have known Biblical answers to his own questions. I can’t help but wonder if his belief in evolution helped drive him away from Christianity.

Ravi Zacharias concluded the evening, and his speech was by far the highlight of the evening. He gave his testimony and explained how he came to know Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. He had lived his life as an atheist, and then tried committing suicide at age 17. When he was in the hospital he had no interest in his atheistic teachings, so when a Christian worker gave him a Bible, he read it, and after reading John 14 he committed his life to Christ.

Ravi defined atheism as the deliberate denial of the existence of God and called this is a logical impossibility. Such an absolute denial would require infinite knowledge. He addressed Richard Dawkins’ teaching that there is no evil and discussed the influence of Nazi philosophy. He concluded that there is no meaning with atheism, and denied moralistic relativism in which morality is determined by our feelings. Lastly he pointed out the intrinsic worth to human life and called the audience to faith in Christ.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “A Formal Debate, Faith vs. Atheism

  1. Interesting. No one can prove or disprove God’s existence. not science or psychology. Atheism is not deliberate. it is a question. Barker like some Christians may wander off the faith due to their experiences. And Ravi like some Christians solidify by their experince.

    There loop holes in all arguments for and against the existence of a Supreme being.

    historically the ancient Egyptians had moral such as not sleeping with another mans wive before Pentateuch within their society. So to say atheist don’t have moral boundaries is incorrect. I know believers who have committed adultrey, peadedophilia until they were caught in the act or reported. Yes they believe. And may even use scripture to justify their immoral stance as moral.

    There is a part in the bible where Isreal goes to war. They are told to destroy everything but keep young girls. Why young girls?

    And The Egyptians again seems to focus on the life after death with Kings erecting pyramids because of these believes.

    Believe in God takes place in a persons mind and heart. Science can not detect spiritual entities. If God lives in your heart science cannot know.

    It is the existence of evil and suffering that makes one wonder if that …. Then why….that really makes.

    You may quote Paul, Job and my next door neighbor but it is not a justification for suffering on any one. Especially an innocent.

    Mind you Paul, and Job was not set an example to justify suffering and how anyone go though. It was an account of their individual walk. And Not any one can go through. If all with goal of pumping up can bear pain like Schwazzniga all will be pumped. but that is not in reality.

    • Thanks for acknowledging that I may believe what I want. Of course you’re also welcome to believe what you want. But you’re mischaracterizing what I’ve said. I never said that I’m right and that anyone who disagrees with me is going to hell. What I’m saying is that God makes the rules, and he has revealed himself and his will in the Bible, and I believe what the Bible says. I accept God’s plan and the path to eternal life in heaven that he’s offered.

      As for declaring what kind of people are dangerous, such talk is meant to silence opposition, and that kind of talk has become more fierce in America. And that’s a shame. We should be able to have a sincere dialogue without that kind of rhetoric. It implies that something drastic needs to be done to stop those that think differently from you, and that leads to the kind of violence that eventually surfaces. I’m hardly dangerous for wanting everyone to have eternal life in heaven. If anyone is dangerous it’s those who lead people away from Jesus and away from heaven. I also find it interesting that you’re so quick to judge and condemn others.

      My definition of Christianity isn’t bluff because, once again, the Bible defines who and what a Christian is- even though it’s not expressly stated. And I certainly do understand the core message of Christianity. The core message is Jesus Christ is Lord (Acts 10:36, 2 Corinthians 4:5, Philippians 2:5-11, Philippians 3:20). The entire Bible from beginning to end is about Jesus Christ and the salvation he delivered through his perfect life, death and resurrection (2 Samuel 22:3, Psalm 18:2, Psalm 95:1, Isaiah 56:1, Luke 1:67-79, John 11:25-26, Acts 2:22-33, Acts 4:12, Romans 1:1-4, Ephesians 5:1-2, Hebrews 5:7-10, Hebrews 9:24-28, Hebrews 10:5-18 1 John 1:1-2, 1 John 4:10) . A Christian is one who is born again (John 3:3-8), and has their sin atoned for (Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17). A Christian has their sins forgiven through the blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:15-16, Ephesians 2:13, Hebrews 9:11-16 1 Peter 1:18-19, Revelation 1:4-6). And those who lived before Christ still put their faith in the coming Messiah. The Redeemer was spoken of throughout Isaiah. So those who have confessed their sins and put their faith in Christ will inherit eternal life as promised by God. These passages present the core message of Christianity if you care to examine them closer.

      What is your understanding of the core message of Christianity, and what makes you an authority? And how does your message compare to what’s presented in Scripture?

      Yes, you did mention that there are “sort of Christian”. But I’m not sure of your point. Gays and pedophiles can have their sins forgiven, just like anyone else. But true atheists and agnostics by definition can’t be Christian- except by some kind of superficial definition. And the Bible also warns against worshiping other gods (1st commandment).

      I agree that salvation isn’t necessarily acquired by birth. But salvation has some mystery to it because God hasn’t made clear how he judges. He judges some more strictly than others (James 3:1). 1 Corinthians 7:14-16 is interesting because it talks about an unbelieving spouse and children being sanctified through the believing spouse. So I wouldn’t dogmatically say that salvation can’t be acquired by birth, but generally so.

      Your description of salvation is pretty close. We do need to admit that we’re lost sinners in need of a savior, and accept Jesus into our heart as Lord and Savior. But the Bible also teaches that God does all the work (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5). He seeks and saves the lost. Abraham was chosen by God. So Abraham was indeed lost and couldn’t have declared himself to be the Father of Israel. To say that Abraham wasn’t lost is astonishing, especially when you acknowledge that he was called. If he was called, then it’s obvious that he was lost. Otherwise he wouldn’t need to have been called. And again, Noah too was lost and was called by God. So I’m not following how Romans 10:10 doesn’t qualify Abraham or Noah from being “Christians”. They were believers in the Redeemer, Messiah, Christ who was to come and were justified by faith. Certainly there was a difference, but their faith and my faith are placed in the same God and Savior. It’s just that my understanding of that savior is different based on my place in history as compared to them. As I’ve already pointed out, Jesus explained to the Pharisees that Abraham saw him and was glad (John 8:56). Based on this, your insistence that neither Abraham nor Noah didn’t have the same salvation as myself and other believers is absurd and meaningless. I’m not even sure why you’re remaining on this point when you don’t even have ground to stand on.

      Of course there are different dispensations as we’d call them, and I’m willing to discuss them further if you’d wish.

      I don’t see the mistake you think I made with respect to the Jewish God or gods. Of course Terah and the Israelites worshiped other gods. That was one of their great sins that God condemned. Nonetheless God raised up for Abraham a great nation, and he was their God. The fact that other gods were worshiped doesn’t take anything away from the God who created the heavens and the earth.

      What prophecies do you have in mind that Jesus didn’t match? I don’t accept that Joh the Baptist was Elijah.

      I do believe Jesus was the coming Messiah that was prophesied. No other person claiming to be the Christ had the qualifications to be the Christ. Certainly no one has heard of most of those claiming to be the Christ before Jesus. If they really were the Christ, then they should have a larger following today than Jesus, but they’re largely forgotten because they weren’t the Messiah. Jesus was the Messiah, and that’s why Christianity has had such a tremendous impact around the world. And if you claim that the Messiah still hasn’t come, that is at odds with the impact Jesus has made, and it would be impossible for someone today to trace their ancestry back through Abraham, David and Adam. So they could never be authenticated like Jesus has been.

      I’m a Jew in the Christian sense that I’m a child of Abraham and part of God’s promise and covenant. There are many passages in Scripture that speak of salvation to the gentiles being passed from Israel (Luke 2:28-32, Psalm 67:1-2, Acts 13:47, Acts 28:28, Romans 1:16, Romans 1:11). So there is logic in a gentile becoming a Jew. Even Jesus could trace his ancestry through non-Jews (Rahab the prostitute (Matthew 1:5, as well as Tamar and Ruth).

      I’m an evangelical Christian who is part of the Presbyterian Church in America. I subscribe to Calvanist and reformed teaching.

      It’s funny that you accuse me of allegorizing Scripture when I want, or spiritualizing it or poeticizing it. But isn’t that what you’re doing? My position is that we should read Scripture in context. That means reading a historical narrative as historical narrative, poetry as poetry, allegory as allegory, etc. That’s how we read modern day English, and that’s how we should read ancient writings. Context is key. So I do take all factors into account.

      I know exactly why Judaism hasn’t become Christianity. The Bible make it clear that the Jews worked hard at rejecting Jesus’ resurrection. Soldiers were bribed to lie, claiming that Jesus’ disciples stole his body while they were sleeping (Matthew 28:11-15). But that wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny because the soldiers would have been executed; instead they were protected.

      I’d like to think that Adam and Eve were “Christians.” I think it’s likely that they worshiped God and are in heaven. I don’t wish to be dogmatic on that, so if you think I fail class, then fine.

      So you’re judging me to not be a true Christian because the Bible says that not all those who say ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter into the Kingdom of God? The Bible gives believers assurance of their salvation (1 John 5:13, John 5:24), and it tells us that we can know Christians by their fruit (Galatians 5:22-26) and love (John 13:34). Why be so judgmental? I’ve confessed my sin, and I know my sins have been atoned for, so I’ll be very comfortable with my faith when I die. Can you say the same?

      And you accuse me of being like the Mayans if I believe the world is coming to an end? Now that’s interesting. I can’t say I’ve heard anyone take your position before. I find it odd that you think the world isn’t coming to an end. Even atheists believe the universe will end at some point. But we’ll all find out one way or another. I hope you’re prepared for that day. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus will come again, and when he does, that will usher in God’s kingdom and the rest of eternity. God will then destroy the earth by fire (2 Peter 3:7-12). Are you a deity that you know the world isn’t coming to an end? How can yo be so certain if you’re just a man?

      No, my understanding of blind faith shows the maturity I have in my faith. I have a reasoned faith, and that’s the kind of faith God calls for (1 Peter 3:15). Calling me a faithless Christian seems childish to me. I do accept evidence, but that evidence is based on my faith and worldview. You see the same evidence and, by faith, reject God based on a different worldview that you place your hope in. But it’s because I wasn’t there to witness God’s creation or supernatural intervention in history that compels me to have faith.

      Sure, there are paradoxes, but there are also explanations. Satan masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14) is evidence that there’s no light in him. If there was light in him, then he wouldn’t need to masquerade. He’s a liar, and we shouldn’t have anything to do with his ways (2 Corinthians 6:14).

      I’m at peace with God and the existence of evil, death, disease and suffering. This is because I understand his purpose is to bring about good for his people. Whatever he does is by definition holy and just and not evil. Evil is rebellion against God, so therefore God cannot be evil or do evil. Evil exists as a result of godlessness. God has all authority, so he has a right to do whatever pleases him (Psalm 115:3, Psalm 135:6).

      Sure, God can create string theory, big bang and evolution. But he has revealed what he did, and it’s better defined as creation. So it’s not about what he ‘could do’, but what he said he did. And he’s told us that he created the heavens and the earth in six days, and I believe him. You must twist Scripture in order to find some other meaning or interpretation, but then the rest of Scripture fails to make any sense.

      • You make bad apologetics.

        Abraham is not a Christian. Neither is Adam, Noah and Eve. Nor Moses.
        Abraham was not lost. He was chosen. David was not lost.

        The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Until then no body was a Christian.

        If they were Christians then all Abrahamic religions will be considered as Christian.
        You don’t make sound logic as you purport.

        You are saying Abraham had faith in Jehovah so he is a Christian. Then Jehovah witness and Mormons are Christians. If that is also the case then anybody that is in these Abrahamic religions who claim to follow the God of Abraham is a Christian.
        But of course that would not follow your so called logic of faith.

        You think that everything in the Bible is about Christ. The bible is manual for man according to some. Some even thinks they are the Christ in the bible.

        I will not go about trying to discuss Pauline gospels. As I have already made clear the servant is not greater than the master.

        But I must say you make a blunder when you refuse to accept the John the Baptist is not Elijah. You are disagreeing with Jesus Christ, then.
        Hence you may not be a true Christian as you claim. Cause even Paul say follow me as I follow Christ.

        To win the lost you have to show how they are lost and damned for hell fire. And then show them the way to salvation. That is psychology.

        Christ means Christos. The messiah. anointed one or savoir.

        Now you seem to lost way down the debate and partially comes to agree on some points. That only shows how weak your so sound logic are.

        God creates evil whether you like it or not. King James was before your so called distorted translations painting God in a different way. He creates disasters.
        And by your own logic: how can evil come out something which is good. And how can good produce evil. He raises murderer to kill for him. He even hardened Pharaoh’s heart so he can kill him.

        You accept paradoxes and yet it still makes logic to you. If this not insincerity then what is it?

        I really like to know which denomination teaches you these things – that if some body was expecting Christ then he is a Christian. That is joke.

        I pointed out. Muslims according Quran are expecting the return of Christ. Mardi and Mohammed. So are they Christians?

        I must tell you the reason why the Pharisee reject your Messiah – it didn’t match with the prophecy of Malachi 4. How the Messiah must come and free them.

        Do you keep the Sabbath Holy? And do you observe the law of Moses? Jesus says I came to fulfil law. And your righteousness must be like that of the Pharisees.
        Jesus went to synagogue as it was his custom. Do you go to the synagogue? Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi who followed and observe the Torah. And so practice Judaism. Not your westernized Christianity which Paul himself may find it difficult to identify.

        Did Jesus claim to be the Christ?

        I am not leading you away but I pointing out to you that it doesn’t stand reason. For example I convince you to play table tennis on you church pulpit that is a wood. you will admit is a wood but because of your faith you may be reluctant to play table tennis on your pulpit.

        You state that Rahab and Ruth were not Jews. That is not true. Prostitute can be Jewish. So I don’t know what you are implying.

        Jew is culture and race. And their national religion is Judaism.

        No body is leading Jesus away from any one. I made it clear that blind faith is ok and better than your so called partial logic faith which can stand the test of questions and paradoxes.

        Paradox is the same as contradiction. Your faith is therefore not logical on human reasoning and it should be elevated to faith.

        Oh about you mentioning that I should Google. first google is fallible. Anything in google was entered by human being or bot. Each of them capable of entering inaccurate data.

        So if google be your demi god of knowledge then be for warned as your source.

    • You’re welcome to criticize my apologetic skills, but I will stand by them. Thank you.

      It doesn’t matter how you define the faith of Abraham, Adam, Noah, David and Moses. I have no doubt I’ll be united with them in heaven someday because we worship and have faith in the same God. And of course David was lost and needed a savior; he even made sacrifices for his sins. Nonetheless, it doesn’t matter when the term “Christian” was first used to describe the faith. It’s a term and description that refers to those who put their faith in Jesus Christ. Sure, that may not be perfectly descriptive of the faith of the Christian forefathers, it still serves to describe anyone who is saved, and certainly the Christian forefathers were saved. The real issue comes down to how they were saved vs. today’s Christians. The same God whom they worshiped and saved them is the same God who I worship today. Our understanding of salvation today is more complete since we have seen the fulfillment of the savior, Jesus Christ, and his work on the cross. But our faith was still placed in the same savior; it’s just that they hadn’t seen the fulfillment of their savior’s work.

      I’ve already pointed this out, but Jesus explains that Moses wrote about him (John 5:45-46), and even the disciples recognized that Jesus was the one Moses had written about (John 1:44-45).

      The reason why all Abrahamic religions aren’t considered Christian is because they have rejected the Son who was sent by the Father. But just because today’s Jews have rejected Jesus doesn’t mean that Moses and Abraham’s faith is nullified. That kind of thinking is illogical.

      Neither Jehova Witnesses nor Mormons believe that Jesus is God the Messiah, so they have rejected God in the same way many modern Jews have. I would not consider them Christians. Central to the Christian faith is our understanding of who Jesus is. Jesus is God the Son, through whom all things exist. Jesus became a man and died on the cross for our sins; he was a perfect and worthy sacrifice. Those who have not had their sins forgiven are still in sin, and only those whose sins have been forgiven will enter heaven. Therefore, regardless of what “religion” one identifies with today, it’s their relationship with Christ that counts regarding the forgiveness of sins. Of course that is between them and God and doesn’t have anything to do with what I think. As for me, I have repented of my sin and have been redeemed by Christ.

      Yes, everything in the Bible points to Christ. I’d hardly describe the Bible as a “manual” though, although it does provide instructions for leading a Godly life. The Bible also warns about false Christs and prophets.

      So you think I blundered with regard to John the Baptist not being Elijah? I’m not sure why you make this claim when that can easily be refuted. Neither the Bible nor Jesus says that John the Baptist was Elijah. According to Jesus, John was the Elijah who was to come (Matthew 11:14). In other words, John was the one prophesied about. But that doesn’t imply that they’re one in the same person. It was simply an expression used to explain the prophesies about John. Also note that in Matthew 17:1-13, Jesus is transfigured, and Moses and Elijah are talking to him. There’s no confusion as to Elijah being John the Baptist. The disciples knew who John the Baptist was, but they didn’t confuse him with Elijah. It was Elijah they saw, not John the Baptist. So they can’t be the same person. Further, John the Baptist denies that he’s Elijah (John 1:19-21).

      God does not create evil as you insist. If you don’t believe me, then you can take this issue up with him. I’ve already made my case and stand by it. Certainly God does cause disasters, but that’s not evil. That’s judgment. God is holy and righteous. There’s no evil in him. Hurricanes, for example, are part of the curse for Adam sinning. But God still uses these tragic events to bring about good. Many people end up coming to know Jesus as a result of the disaster because it’s then that they realize they’re eventually going to die, so they repent of their sin and come to know Jesus, and they’re ready for eternity in heaven, which is what counts. If disasters bring people to salvation, then that’s the good that results from evil. And that’s much better than no disaster and everyone going to hell because they haven’t repented of their sin.

      God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to demonstrate his power, and that was for the benefit of the Israelites, God’s chosen people.

      My accepting paradoxes and making sense of them is part of my sincere faith.

      I think you’re being caught up semantics. You’re unwilling to see what the root of the Christian faith is all about, and that’s why you’re getting caught up in how “Christian” is defined and applied. I’m just saying that we could loosely apply the term Christianity to those who lived before Jesus because they put their faith in the coming Messiah. They were saved by the same Messiah I am. Just because Jesus hadn’t died on the cross when Adam, Noah or Abraham lived doesn’t mean they worshiped a different god or had a different faith than me and other modern Christians. We worship the same God, so I have no problem using the term Christian to describe them, even though they didn’t fully see the fulfillment of the Christ as we do today. It’s pointless to think we’re somehow worshiping a different God.

      Muslims are not Christians because they have rejected Jesus, who is the Christ. Just because they’re expecting the return of a different Christ doesn’t make them Christians. In order to be a Christian you can’t simply be waiting for any old Christ. The Christ has already come and risen from the dead. There’s only one Christ, and if he is rejected, then that person cannot be a Christian- even if they’re waiting for a different Christ. It’s all about Jesus. Abraham’s faith was in the coming Christ, and even though he never saw Jesus’ fulfillment on the cross, he was still saved by faith in the promise of God. I know you’re trying hard to expand salvation into something it’s not, but it’s really up to God, not you.

      I’ll agree with you that the Pharisees rejected Jesus because they didn’t think he matched the prophecy. They were expecting someone different. But they were unwilling to accept the Messiah when he came. Their hearts were stubborn, and they couldn’t admit that their understanding was wrong, because that would cost them their power and authority- things they were unwilling to lose. Jesus indeed did come and free them from sin, but they rejected him. So their blood is on their own heads.

      I do keep the Sabbath, and I abide by God’s commandments, although imperfectly. Jesus did fulfill the law, so that means, even though I’m unable to keep the law, I’m covered by the righteousness of Christ. I’m not saved because of anything righteous I have done, but because of the mercy of Christ. I don’t need to go to a synagogue because my body is God’s temple and Christ dwells in my heart (1 Corinthians 3:16).

      I also agree that Jesus practiced Judaism, not western Christianity. But such an admission doesn’t nullify our faith. We worship Christ differently, and that’s okay. Worship that is pleasing to God isn’t about performance or human tradition, but by obedience to God, which calls for the repentance of sin.

      Yes, Jesus did claim to be the Christ, although he didn’t expressly say it in such terms. I’ve already pointed this out many times if you’ve read any of the Scripture references I’ve made. In Matthew 16:13-20 Jesus’s disciples call him the Messiah, and Jesus accepts their identification and blesses them. In John 8:48-59 the Jews tried to Stone Jesus for claiming to be God, and in John 10:22-33 Jesus claims to be God and the Messiah.

      I don’t get your table tennis analogy. I don’t play table tennis on a pulpit because it’s not conducive to playing table tennis.

      Neither Rahab nor Ruth were Jewish, except by faith.

      Jesus will be the judge of a person’s faith, but the Bible doesn’t call for blind faith. It calls for a reasoned faith.

      A paradox is an apparent contradiction, not a contradiction. You may not understand a paradox, but God understands it because he’s the one in charge. And when it’s fulfilled, we’ll have a better understanding and will see that there’s a perfectly logical explanation for which we simply weren’t able to grasp at a particular time due to our limitations and lack of understanding. So my faith is completely logical, and trying to convince me otherwise is pointless. What’s not logical is your saying that my faith should be elevated to faith???

      My referring you to google was intended to make you do some research before making incorrect assumptions and judgments.

      • Definition matters and loosely call a sect Christianity is disturbing. if doesn’t matter the bible will not mention when the disciples were firsts called Christians.

        You started with Egypt. I refuted it.

        In the case of Abraham and others you definition meant I could call all who fit loosely in to the criteria. As you yourself said “loosely”

        Another blunder: you say that the disciples knew John the Baptist and didn’t confuse him for Elijah.
        The fact is they didn’t know Elijah. And didn’t know Moses. Because they live at different times.
        Again is like Jesus saying some people will come claiming to be Jesus Christ to the disciples. How are they not going to know the difference when they have lived with him for three years.

        And don’t loose the point of this debate as I have not wondered off a bit from my stance or concede any of your attempt of trickery to make scripture literal, spiritual, allegory, christology when you feel like it.

        .””I’ve already pointed this out, but Jesus explains that Moses wrote about him (John 5:45-46), and even the disciples recognized that Jesus was the one Moses had written about (John 1:44-45).”””

        For your information Moses didn’t wrote anything. Go read you bible properly.

        Well Moses and Abraham’s faith so not based on the expectation of a Messiah. They deal with God face to face (no mediator). according to biblical literature. Where as your so called complete understanding of salvation demands a mediator. They are different systems, hence different God.

        Your explanation that Judaism and Muslim, leads to the script that say they will soon kill and think that they are doing God a favour.

        Islam has no reject Christ per se. It is just that they take a different point that he is not God.

        Yes, everything in the Bible points to Christ. This is wrong and erroneous doctrine. There are some prophesies that can be made, bend twisted, spiritualised, allegorised to say something about Christ. But not all scriptures. Such statements does not stand when people think. It is only works on illusion Pentecostals and charismatics.

        According to Jesus, John was the Elijah who was to come (Matthew 11:14). In other words, John was the one prophesied about.

        >>>> You omit the question that the Pharisee asked. Also how can John be the Elijah to come. Of course the are not one person. Any thinking person will know.

        But that doesn’t imply that they’re one in the same person.

        “It was simply an expression used to explain the prophesies about John”

        It was not an expression. They asked a question from the scriptures and the answer that was given was BS to them, so the end of that context was ‘he who has ear let him hear’

        . Also note that in Matthew 17:1-13, Jesus is transfigured, and Moses and Elijah are talking to him. There’s no confusion as to Elijah being John the Baptist. The disciples knew who John the Baptist was, but they didn’t confuse him with Elijah.

        >>>> It was the Pharisees who asked him. They were not naïve about scriptures. And the disciples didn’t know and couldn’t know who these people were any way. It also appears that Disciples are dumb. Because even Jesus tells them after his death, some will come claiming to be the Christ. The very guy they lived with for 3 years. and some imposter will come to claim he is the Christ.

        It was Elijah they saw, not John the Baptist. So they can’t be the same person. Further, John the Baptist denies that he’s Elijah (John 1:19-21).

        >>> Of course he denies it. Because they went asked after they have been told he is the Elijah to come. And then case worsened when his head is cut.

        God creates evil according to the bible. Something that borders people like you unwilling to face the truth. so you have craftily find synonyms with less evil connotation.

        Disaster is not a good thing and is a subset of evil. It is written in the bible. I need not believe your watered down versions.

        “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to demonstrate his power, and that was for the benefit of the Israelites, God’s chosen people.”

        >>>That explains how evil your concept of God is. He causes disaster to people to demonstrate his power. In one of your previous response ; you he caused some body to blind by birth so he can show how powerful he is. That person has to cry for help. Evident that he is suffering for no reason but to cry for help. To be frank, this concept sucks.

        “My accepting paradoxes and making sense of them is part of my sincere faith”

        >>> it is sign of loop holes in your so called logic believe. willing to take anything on, mould it, half baked it to please yourself – kind of woo woo

        I think you’re being caught up semantics. You’re unwilling to see what the root of the Christian faith is all about, and that’s why you’re getting caught up in how “Christian” is defined and applied.

        >>> Your definition of Christianity is a heresy as far the bible goes. As I have saying Lord, does not mean a thing. Is not written that he has exalted his word above his name.

        I’m just saying that we could loosely apply the term Christianity to those who lived before Jesus because they put their faith in the coming Messiah.

        >>> You can’t loosely apply because Abraham didn’t expect a messiah

        They were saved by the same Messiah I am.

        >>>> That is what you think. And you are certainly can be different from the Muslim who says your bible has been edited to suit kingdoms and empires

        Just because Jesus hadn’t died on the cross when Adam, Noah or Abraham lived doesn’t mean they worshiped a different god or had a different faith than me and other modern Christians. We worship the same God, so I have no problem using the term Christian to describe them, even though they didn’t fully see the fulfillment of the Christ as we do today.

        >>> Well in that case, what happened to the Judaists who say that they worship the same God as Abraham but the Messiah has not returned?

        And your statement that many people follow this second Christ as prove as real is a erroneous. Is like telling me that there are more immorality in the world so immorality is suppose to be the real thing.

        You seem to lack the mechanics of how religion grow. They usually grow when a king, a prominent person in society accepts it. And imperialise it.

        Christianity became popular when emperor Constantine became a Christian. And if you are to play by the number game then it really behind as it loosen its grip on heresy and other things.

        “It’s pointless to think we’re somehow worshiping a different God.”

        >>> well you are. since you say you are worshiping different God from the Judaism.

        “I’ll agree with you that the Pharisees rejected Jesus because they didn’t think he matched the prophecy. They were expecting someone different. But they were unwilling to accept the Messiah when he came. Their hearts were stubborn, and they couldn’t admit that their understanding was wrong, because that would cost them their power and authority- things they were unwilling to lose. Jesus indeed did come and free them from sin, but they rejected him. So their blood is on their own heads.”

        >>> You are the guy that is claiming to be logic about faith. Let see. Ok so you agree with the Pharisees.

        Of course, anyone will be a moron if they don’t. Why? Because they analysed the Messiah by scripture and it didn’t fit the bill. Can you blame them? They knew that scripture come before anything.

        ” I do keep the Sabbath, and I abide by God’s commandments, although imperfectly. Jesus did fulfil the law, so that means, even though I’m unable to keep the law, I’m covered by the righteousness of Christ. I’m not saved because of anything righteous I have done, but because of the mercy of Christ. I don’t need to go to a synagogue because my body is God’s temple and Christ dwells in my heart (1 Corinthians 3:16).”

        Colossians 2:16-17

        (16) So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, (17) which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

        >>> Then deal with this: Mt. 5:20 “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

        Again Paul seems to say something different from his master. Guess what this the direct speech from his master.

        ” I also agree that Jesus practiced Judaism, not western Christianity. But such an admission doesn’t nullify our faith.

        >>> Why then have you deviated? Hence Christianity is another sect from Judaism.

        We worship Christ differently, and that’s okay.

        >>> That is okay to you concept of God.

        Worship that is pleasing to God isn’t about performance or human tradition, but by obedience to God, which calls for the repentance of sin”

        >>>> well, it is about what you think. another mans meat is another mans poison.

        Yes, Jesus did claim to be the Christ, although he didn’t expressly say it in such terms.

        >>> Well, so you agree. No “buts” and no “ifs”.

        I’ve already pointed this out many times if you’ve read any of the Scripture references I’ve made. In Matthew 16:13-20 Jesus’s disciples call him the Messiah, and Jesus accepts their identification and blesses them. In John 8:48-59 the Jews tried to Stone Jesus for claiming to be God, and in John 10:22-33 Jesus claims to be God and the Messiah.

        >>> The stone him for claiming to be the son of God. this implied that he is God. And He also told them that they are Gods. Don’t twist scripture

        I don’t get your table tennis analogy. I don’t play table tennis on a pulpit because it’s not conducive to playing table tennis.

        A paradox is an apparent contradiction, not a contradiction.

        >>> An obvious contradiction is no different from an obscured one. They all contradict. And the minister who is now atheist was a man enough to point out. You said you will quote scriptures. So I faced with other scripture to point out the contradictions.

        You may not understand a paradox,

        >>> I have sense enough to understand a paradox.

        but God understands it because he’s the one in charge.

        >>> stop ecplaining causes and effects with God. It doesn’t help your case of logic

        And when it’s fulfilled, we’ll have a better understanding and will see that there’s a perfectly.

        >>> Every time you are awaiting the fulfilment of something!

        logical explanation for which we simply weren’t able to grasp at a particular time due to our limitations and lack of understanding.

        >>>> When there is limitation of understanding then faith comes in.

        So my faith is completely logical, and trying to convince me otherwise is pointless. What’s not logical is your saying that my faith should be elevated to faith???

        >>> No, not as seen above. when you keep shifting the post. and you can only sway people who do not know the bible.

        . >>> You have no faith. and do not need one. As you say you claim you have the evidence.

        My referring you to google was intended to make you do some research before making incorrect assumptions and judgments.

        >> Of course that is why I pointed out to you that there are a lot incorrect assumptions and judgments on Google. And you seem to have consume them and use them for your arguments.

      • It’s amusing that you say definitions matter because you don’t seem to apply straight-forward definitions. What are you referring to a sect? Christianity? Not surprising.

        When I say it doesn’t matter how you define the faith of Abraham, Adam, Noah, David or Moses, what I mean is that, even though you misdefine their faith, you can’t keep them out of heaven. You may find that disturbing, and you might call it a sect, but that doesn’t change reality. That’s why I used the term “loosely”, because you’re playing a game of semantics and missing the broader point of salvation.

        You never refuted my claims about Egypt; you simply stated your opinion, and I reject it. You also keep claiming that I’ve blundered, but you’ve failed to substantiate your claims. You’re unwilling to see things from a perspective contrary to your own.

        The disciples would have known John the Baptist because they had met him. They didn’t confuse him with Elijah at the Transfiguration. If you read that passage, you’ll see that they knew the men were Moses and Elijah. Notice that it doesn’t explain ‘how’ they knew. But we it’s apparent that they did. Maybe Jesus told them, or maybe they introduced themselves. We don’t know, but that’s beside the point. The point is that they knew who the two men were. Simple. For some reason you can’t get beyond the fact that they lived at different times in history. It’s not complicated. And another point to be made is that Moses and Elijah were talking to Jesus, and they knew who he was, thus substantiating the fact that they were “Christians” and are in heaven.

        The Bible tells us how we’re to recognize false prophets: we will recognize them by their fruit. If they bear bad fruit, then we know they’re false (Matthew 7:15-20). Jesus also warned us not to believe those who claim to be the Messiah, even if they perform great signs and wonders (Matthew 24:11-24).

        Funny that you continue to accuse me of trickery. It’s not trickery when I speak plainly from Scripture. If you reject Scripture, that’s not trickery. If you choose not to concede, that’s your choice. But I’ve been very honest with you and have spoken from my heart. I don’t change the meaning of Scripture when I ‘feel’ like it, but I think you do. I apply Scripture in context, and I suggest you do the same. Genesis is historical narrative from beginning to end. It sounds like you want to regard certain parts of it as allegory, while other parts you accept as literal. But it doesn’t work that way. You can’t make Genesis 1-11 allegory, and then the rest historical narrative. That’s arbitrary. The entire book of Genesis is literal history. That’s called consistency.

        Claiming that Moses didn’t write anything is your opinion and isn’t backed up by anything other than assertion. And telling me to read the Bible ‘properly’ is insulting; do you think insulting me will help you win the argument?

        Clearly Moses, Abraham and Elijah did not worship a different God from what modern Christians worship. The Transfiguration is perfect evidence. God’s promise to Abraham included salvation through Christ, hence the prophecies God promised Abraham that all nations would be blessed through him; Christ has fulfilled that. The New Testament is filled with specifics about how Jesus fulfilled God’s covenant to Abraham. I suggest you read all the New Testament passages about Abraham to get a better picture of this. Further, neither Abraham nor Moses dealt with God face to face, for no one can see God and live. Scripture tells us that Jesus is the mediator (Galatians 3, 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 8, 9 and 12), and it does so in great detail. But the point of Christianity is that we believe the New Testament provides a fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham and establishes the New Covenant. Your insistence to the contrary isn’t backed up by anything other than assertion.

        Islam does reject Jesus as the Christ. They think he’s just a great prophet. That means they reject his divinity. Therefore, Christians worship a different God than they do.
        Everything in the Bible does point towards Christ, and I stand by that because Scripture is abundantly clear. I’m not sure how you could even make such a false claim, especially when I’ve pointed out many Scripture verses as evidence. It’s silly that you accuse me of wrong and erroneous doctrine. I’m not even sure what faith you profess, but it’s not anything that I recognize. What authority do you have?

        Even if you want to claim that some prophecies concerning Jesus have been ‘twisted’ or ‘spiritualized’, there’s no other human who could fulfill those prophecies aside from him. Modern Jews cannot trace their ancestry back to Abraham or Adam, so a modern day ‘messiah’ couldn’t possibly fulfill Scripture as Jesus did. You may not like it, but Jesus did fulfill the prophecies concerning the Messiah.

        Maybe the Pharisees did find Jesus’ answer to be BS, but thinking that was part of their condemnation.

        Jesus warned his disciples about those claiming to be Christ. He wasn’t implying that they couldn’t distinguish between him and a stranger. The point was for them to pass this truth along to others who wouldn’t have any idea what Jesus looked like. I don’t think this is that hard to understand.

        Another example where you twist Scripture is regarding John the Baptist. For some reason you wish to maintain the notion that he and Elijah are the same person. But when confronted with evidence from Scripture that this is not the case, you come up with personal rationale that suits you. I see no reason to reject John’s claim that he’s not Elijah, but you’re so convinced that he is, that you’re not going to let the Bible or logic get in your way.

        The Bible never says that God ‘created’ evil. That’s your assertion, nothing more. You simply can’t accept that God is holy, just, sovereign, good, mighty, and has the best interest of his people in mind.

        You reject the idea that disaster is a good thing, but if you ask many people who have been through disasters- would they change history if they could- you’ll find that many wouldn’t because of the lessons they’ve learned. I’ve even met atheists who’ve admitted they’ve experienced good that came from disasters. I think you need to rethink your opinion on this.

        My concept of God is not evil. You need to learn who he is and what his purpose is. I know God and have no problem accepting his revelation. You can’t see that our life here on earth is temporary and fleeting. The earth isn’t my true home, and my body is nothing but a mist that appears for a short time. But when I die, I will live for eternity in God’s Kingdome as an heir. My life on earth is nothing more than a test and a way of preparing me for eternity, sharpening me, teaching me perseverance, character and hope. And in the end I will receive the Crown of Life that God has promised. And this is what many Christians understand, and that’s why we can say that God is good in the midst of tragedy. Because we see the bigger picture. God works all things out for the good of those who love him.

        Go ahead and poke fun of my understanding of paradoxes. Doing so may make you feel better about yourself, but it won’t solve anything. You can call my faith heresy, but doing so won’t get you to heaven.

        Funny that you accept what Muslims say about the Bible, but not what Christians say.
        The Jews who claim that Jesus is not the Christ are not saved. Jesus says no one can come to the Father except through him (John 14:6). No one means no one. I’ve also pointed out that Jesus made it clear that people aren’t saved if they reject the one God sent. You’ve done nothing to refute that.

        How ‘religion’ grows is irrelevant. What matters is the reality of God’s Kingdom. Christianity flourished immediately after Christ due to persecution, not because of some king or prominent person who accepted it. Read through the book of Acts. Insulting me about ‘mechanics’ doesn’t help you.

        You still don’t understand the difference between Abraham’s faith and the faith of modern Jews. Modern Jews have rejected the faith of Abraham because they rejected Jesus. The Bible explains this very clearly.

        I agreed that the Pharisees misunderstood Jesus and his identity as the Messiah. I wasn’t agreeing that the Pharisees were right. You misunderstood me. The Pharisees got it wrong. That’s not unusual among such ‘learned’ scholars. Elites often get things wrong because they place so much weight on their own intellect that they fail to see their own fallibility. They couldn’t see Jesus as the Messiah because of their sin, not because they were so wise.

        Matthew 5 is a great passage. But it doesn’t mean what you think. Since we’re all born into sin, we are all worthy of death. The wages of sin is death (Romans 3:23). No one is good (Mark 10:18). Our most righteous deeds are like dirty rags (Isaiah 64:6). So then, how can our righteousness surpass that of the Pharisees? Well, they can’t. At least not on our own. But by faith in Jesus, God no longer sees our sin, but sees us wrapped in the righteousness of Christ. That’s how our righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees (Romans 5:17, Romans 8:10, Romans 10:4). That’s what Jesus was talking about. Paul claims to be the worst of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15-16), and in Romans 7 he boasts about how sinful he is, but then asks who can rescue such a wretched man like him, and he praises God for Jesus Christ, who delivered him. That’s how our righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees.

        I haven’t deviated from the faith. Call Christianity a sect if you wish, but I my faith remains with Jesus Christ. I hope you come to faith in Christ too so that you may have the same assurance of salvation that I have.

        You’re playing games when you say “no buts and no ifs” regarding Jesus claiming to be the Christ. I never claimed there were any buts or ifs. You did. I was merely explaining how Jesus claimed to be the Christ without saying it in whatever terms you’re demanding.

        I wasn’t twisting Scripture regarding Jesus claiming to be God. Jesus did say they were ‘gods’, but he was appealing to the logic of Scripture as referenced in the Old Testament. They tried to stone Jesus because he claimed to be God. They knew exactly what he meant, and that’s why they tried to kill him. What he said was punishable by death.

        You have failed to point out any contradictions. You’ve only made assertions that cannot be substantiated.

        I don’t need to explain cause and effects with God. He’s explained himself in Scripture.
        It’s not up to me to sway people. My job as a Christian is to be a light and to proclaim the truth and good news of Christ. The rest is up to that person and God.

  2. Also I see that Ravi like pointing out the fallacy of the atheism.
    Especially, Dawkings and others. Atheism and theism is not reliable on what any one says.
    In terms of Authority if a scientist tell me there is no God, there is authority in that. If priest say there is no God there is much authority in that. Because that is his field.
    In the same way if athiest tells me there is no God. that statement is weak. But when a priest tells me there is no God, then that statement is strong. Hence when a priest say there is God we believe him.

    • Thanks for your comment. Yes, I agree no one can prove or disprove God’s existence. But we can provide evidence one way or the other, and it’s up to each person to decide for themselves what they believe.

      I don’t think anyone was making the argument that atheists don’t have morals. D’Souza was making the point that an atheist’s moral compass comes from God just as it does for a Christian. And if God exists, then that’s a true statement, for he has instilled this morality in our hearts and minds so that we know right from wrong. Christians certainly do violate morality and sin, but doing so doesn’t justify bad behavior. It just demonstrates that we all need a savior because we all sin and violate what we know is wrong.

      As for why God told the Israelites to kill everyone but the young girls, the Bible doesn’t provide an explicit answer, but we know the Midianites practiced Baal worship, which was deep with sensual indulgence and other depraved practices such as child sacrifice, prostitution, bestiality, pedophilia and such. The young virgin girls weren’t involved in this, so perhaps that’s why God spared them.

      The existence of evil and suffering is spelled out in the Bible. Adam and Eve sinned, and that brought the judgment of death upon them. So it’s sin that causes evil and suffering. But God provided a way out by sending his son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for our sin so that we would have eternal life and overcome suffering. Now this isn’t to “justify” suffering, but to explain why there is suffering, and what has been done about it. Most people don’t think any good can come from suffering, but Jesus himself subjected himself to suffering at the hand of evil. He didn’t shy away from suffering as he could have, but decided to participate in human suffering. He’s not making us face the suffering that he wasn’t willing to face himself. But he also has made it clear that suffering produces good things, like perseverance, maturity and completeness.

      Job was an example of someone who persevered under trial and suffering. He didn’t curse God and die as his wife encouraged him, but gave glory to God, and he was rewarded for his faith. Likewise we too will be rewarded for our faith.

      Yes, Ravi was strong with apologetics, and that’s why he’s good at pointing out the fallacy of atheism. Of course we can’t simply believe what any person of authority says. There are authorities on many competing subjects. What we can do is simply weigh the evidence and make the best decision we can. I can’t convince you of the truth anymore than Dinesh or Ravi can, but there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God.

      • Right and wrong is relative. When you say it is absolute. On whose absoluteness. What a Jew deem as wrong you take it as wrong. Our culture and society has an impact what we deemed as wrong. Noah got drunk! Was that wrong or not. If you read the Apostles letter to the Corinthians it is mention that drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
        By following your line of thought, then evil is from the devil. And if evil is from the devil, then God created evil as he created the devil. I think Isiah confirm this.

        But deceptive Christians disagree. They just cant accept this fact.

        Of course Christians sinning do not justify bad behaviour. Christians are supposed to be saved right? yet they still sin? were they not born of incorruptible seed?

        Your knowledge of the Midiannites as paedophiles is false. And I see that you are reading into the text. Where do you get this knowledge of the Midianites from? It seems you are reading into the text and contradicting yourself. If they are Paedophiles, they would molest babies so I see contradiction and not a virgin will be left. Why were young boys not spared? What about boys that was virgin? There is certainly a use for them. Hence they took the girls with them.

        So Adam and Eve sinned that causes suffering on Mankind. I don’t see sickness stated in curse of the original sin. The curse is as follows: Man will sweat. Woman will experience birth pains. The son of the woman will bruise the head of the snake.

        This story whether literal or allegorical we don’t know. Snake speaking to human beings. Yet when Darwin say Man coming from a monkey it is something else.

        God sent his son, but was the curse of the original sin removed?
        Do Christian women experience pain during birth? Go to the maternity ward? Do Christian men sweat to get bread to feed their families?

        >>> “”Now this isn’t to “justify” suffering, but to explain why there is suffering, and what has been done about it. Most people don’t think any good can come from suffering, but Jesus himself subjected himself to suffering at the hand of evil. He didn’t shy away from suffering as he could have, but decided to participate in human suffering. He’s not making us face the suffering that he wasn’t willing to face himself. “”

        It seems that you forgot how he prayed his seat to turn into blood for this suffering be taken rom him.
        If Christ has already come why then still suffering persist. And what was the suffering before Christ?

        Suffering also produces bad things such as stubbornness, indecision, handicap, emotional instability. Anger, frustrations. Even questioning God? This is not allowed hence God appears and ask Job: when I was creating the world where were you?. Suffering leads to all sort of definitions for God. Look at Jobs friends. Their opinion of God.

        What was the good thing that was produced out of Job that was not already in him? The bible tells who he was. And it looks like the devil is a fool to bet with someone who knows all. And knew Job has passed the test.

        The whole story of job whether allegorical or literal (factual) or historical is something that is beyond the scope of this matter.

        Quoting scientists and theologians renowned or not means nothing to a heart looking for God and can’t find. And asking questions of why this and that?

        There are honest apologetics. And dishonest apologetics. One needs to be careful. Not build castle in the sand. One that makes wonder when atheist and theist try to claim Eistein for their camp.

        Cha! He is scientist great period. Nothing more and nothing less. God or no God is down to persons inner and outside world.

        It is the demonstration of power that turn atheist to theist. And vice versa. The demonstration of science break-throughs that turn theist to think about his concept of God. (Now cloning technology at its advanced level. And the notion to colonise other planets in future).

        And whether intellectual or not, atheist is a heart issue.

        Remember right in history there has been gods and all sort.

        Talking about people scarifying their children, Didn’t Abraham attempt to the same to Isaac.

        There are Christian Atheist. Christian Agonist. Some of them are pastors. And some of them are members of mainstream Christianity church.

        Don’t confuse this with a false prophet who is working for the devil or some body preaching in error. They are real person sitting next beside in the pew on Sunday. They just joined crowd.

        They may have reasons for not disclosing their disbelief.
        “A fool have said in his heart there is no God”
        Well you cant hear anybody’s heart except your own. So you may have contemplated it once during you’re a life.
        In that they do not believe that a God or gods exit, but they read the bible and glean wisdom and other things from it.
        You talk about the evidence of the existence of God. But can’t proof or disprove his existence. I think you are playing semantics. Evidence to a greater extent is the synonym for proof.

        Next time you go to church ask your neighbour their concept of God.

        There are so many unanswered questions and when I see people pontificating as if they hold answers to everything it makes me wonder where they live on this planet?

        Even Paul the least of the apostle who laboured them all made it clear that he only see half of the equation.

        About the four phases of life, a study of ancient Egypt will reveal that these ancient guys were at the time thinking about those issues before ancient Greece (before Socrates, Plato, Archimedes etc).

        The Egyptian have painting and writing on walls before Moses ever set to write the Pentateuch or receive the ten commandments. As they had contemplated the after life.

        Evidence is on the pyramids. And some of them were times before Abraham was born. And if you read other text in support of the bible then you will come to know the great flood was local to the Nile.

        .

    • Thanks again for your discussion.

      I don’t believe right and wrong are relative because I believe in God. If God didn’t exist, then I’d argue that there is no right or wrong, in which case it would be relative and irrelevant, except for the purposes of participating in any given society. But if God does exist, then he has the authority to declare right and wrong according to his standards, and that means we sin whenever we violate any of his commands or fail to obey him.

      Most likely Noah did sin by getting drunk, but Noah wasn’t perfect. He was a sinner just like anyone else. But you’re getting deep into Christian theology when you bring up 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Yes, it does say that drunkards won’t inherit the kingdom of God, but in verse 11 it explains that those who have been sanctified by the blood of Christ have had their sin washed away, and now we’ll be admitted into God’s kingdom.

      Now the devil certainly is evil, and I do think that is where evil comes from, but God did not “create evil” in the sense that he is the cause. He allowed evil to come about by the free will of Satan, who had the ability to be loyal to God and obey him, or to rebel, and he chose to rebel. It was part of God’s eternal plan, but this does not in any way implicate God as a sinner himself or make him guilty of wrong-doing. He actually allowed evil to exist because he knows the ultimate good that will result. What others mean for evil, God means for good (Genesis 50:20), and God works all things out for the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28). That means, even though we may suffer at the hands of evil, those who love him will experience eternal life and will be rewarded far more than we would have had God prevented sin and evil in the first place. So, if we know God, there is much to gain by facing suffering, trials and evil. And just because Christians are saved doesn’t mean that we no longer sin. Of course we’ll keep on sinning right on up to the day we die. But when that day comes, Christ will intercede for us because he has already faced the judgment we deserved.

      Maybe I am wrong on the Midianites, and maybe I am reading into the text, but I think my conclusion was reasonable from what we know about them and Baal worship. If they did molest babies, then, obviously, they wouldn’t be virgins and wouldn’t have been spared. Only those who were virgins were spared, so that implies that they had not been molested. You’re assuming that no child would have escaped being molested, but that’s not a reasonable conclusion, especially when we find out that there were indeed virgins among them. Therefore there is no contradiction. It’s also reasonable that young boys weren’t spared because they could end up growing up to get revenge. So perhaps it was a way to spare Israel from future misery.

      Sickness would be a be a consequence of sin because sickness can lead to death. It may not be implicitly stated in the curse, but it would still follow.

      I believe we can know that the story of Adam and Eve is a literal history of mankind because it ties the rest of the Bible together. And without it being literal, the rest of the Bible would fall apart. People accept that Abraham and Moses were real people that existed, and Abraham was first mentioned in Genesis 11. So if Abraham was a real person who existed, then it’s logical that the people named in the first ten chapters of Genesis were also real people from history. Further, Adam and Eve are spoken of as if they were real people by others in both the old and new testaments, and Jesus actually has Adam listed in his genealogy (Luke 3:38). So if Jesus was related to Adam, then that means Adam was a real person. That also means that Jesus is not related to an allegorical character. As for a speaking snake, that shouldn’t be so surprising if you keep several things in mind. Firstly, Satan was at work, so it could have been demonic activity. Second, Balaam’s donkey also talked, so it’s not like it’s impossible for animals to talk, especially when I’m sure you’ve heard parrots talking. And of course I don’t believe we evolved from monkeys.

      When Jesus was born, he was born of a virgin, so he was not born into sin as the rest of us are.

      I’m not sure if I follow your next question, but Jesus did ask that God would remove the cup of suffering from him, but he also prayed that God’s will would be done. Jesus understood the suffering he was about to face and didn’t want to face it anymore than you or I would. But he loved us enough to go through with it. And just because he’s redeemed us doesn’t mean that we should be excused from suffering (although that does seem preferable). Since we’re sinners, we will experience suffering and eventually death. The wages of sin is death.

      Yes, bad things happen as a result of suffering, but God ultimately plans to make it worth our while, so to speak. For those who love God, it will be worth it because we’ll have a much greater love, devotion and appreciation of God. If we never experienced pain or suffering, would we really understand the depth of God’s love for us? I think not. Just like if a parent gives a child everything it wants, that child will become spoiled rotten and wouldn’t appreciate anything and wouldn’t understand the value of waiting or doing without.

      As for Job, he’s an example for us to follow. Had he not gone through his trial, we wouldn’t have the kind of understanding we now have. He was also greatly rewarded for his suffering.

      I agree that we need to use wisdom and discernment when listening to others. It’s easy to be swept away by false prophets of some kind, but I believe the Bible is very well grounded if you study it and what Jesus actually taught about salvation.

      Abraham didn’t attempt to scare Isaac, but was obeying God, and he was rewarded because he passed the test.

      Whether a true Christian can be an atheist or agnostic is open to discussion. If someone is born again, then, at some point, they knew Jesus as their Lord and savior. I suppose they could wander from the faith, but God will always be waiting for their return as any loving father would.

      I don’t think I’m playing semantics. I think I’m using logic and reason and am open to further discussion. I agree we can’t prove or disprove the existence of God, but, nonetheless, there is evidence for his existence. It’s just a matter of whether or not you accept that evidence, just like any other evidence you’ve encountered for anything. There’s evidence for gravity, even though we can’t see it, and you may choose to accept or reject the evidence for gravity. And it’s the same with God. The fine-tuning argument is excellent evidence for God.

      Yes, there are many unanswered questions, and I don’t pretend to know everything. But, even though I don’t know everything, and I can certainly be wrong about a great deal of things, I think my beliefs are based on sound reasoning.

      Ancient Egyptians have many connections to Christianity. The word “Egypt” is translated as the Hebrew word Mizraim, and Mizraim was Noah’s grandson. So Egypt was founded or dedicated to Noah’s grandson.

      The flood was worldwide, and that’s why every major culture around the world has a flood story. If it was local to the Nile, then this wouldn’t be.

      • If the flood was world wide who were the witnesses, apart from Noah and his families? So your argument as true and worldwide because other communities bear witness is false. The flood measurements in every scale means Mount Everest was not covered. Go read the measurement and compare it the length of Solomon’s Temple and then see how flood was.

        A very community with river, lakes and sea will have experienced flood at one time in every decade. So don’t be surprised if they talk about flood.

        Ancient Egypt has no connection Christianity in the sense of Noah. If this this is the cases you must as well say Islam have connection with Christianity because of Ishmael. Also Noah was not a Christian to start with. Neither was Abraham. Even John the Baptist was not. Neither are Judiasms.

        The only connection between Christian and ancient Egypt is story (or myth) of virgin of birth of Isis/Horus.

        Christian beliefs are not based on sound reasoning’s. I don’t believe or accept a man evolving from apes. But you believe snakes and horse speaking, Balaam horse spoke as it saw the angel. This again you believe but can concede that man can proceed from apes. I am only pointing out there is no sound reasoning in this, except to believe.

        There is evidence for gravity as demonstrated by Newton. Now there is evidence for oxygen. Though I do not see them, it is demonstrated by withdrawing it from me. But you show me the evidence of God. And somebody else will use the same evidence to point us to some where. The designer argument bleeds a lot so it no longer used by apologetics.

        Abraham was called to sacrifice his Isaac. So was the Baal worshippers called to do their own. This what these ancient guys do. Attempted murder is murder. Jesus said something in the effect that even if you conceived a thing in your heart you are at the same level as one has actually actioned it.

        I have read the account of 5 Pastors who have become atheist or agnostic. But are still pastoring due to family and community ties and financial reasons.

        The story of Job is allegorical. Satan never appears again after the destruction. Jesus used parables to teach. So don’t be surprised that Adam and Eve is allegorical with hidden truths left by these ancient guys.

        Haha. You analogy of child waiting for something is superficial. Looking at people in the eye with terminal diseases wishing to live but their body and senses failing them you call it to prove God’s love. I don’t think so. This where Christianity misses the point.

        God allowing humans to be afflicted by the devil, even Christians, as you pontificate are saved. Go read Solomon: there is nothing new under the sun. Bad things happen to good and bad people. Reverse it you’ll notice that good things happened to good and bad people too.

        Peter emphasise this as well.

        As for Evil, if you read Isaiah, it says it plainly.
        If God allowed Evil then who created it? Because Satan seems to be the first vessel to be filled with evil. Does Satan/ Lucifer has power to create? Not as described by the bible. Evil (Pride) entered Lucifer. Where did this pride to raise his throne above God’s come from.

        Have you read the book of Ezekiel, how Satan and his angels fall. Well how did evil thinking enter Satan in Heaven? Before he infected the other angels. And manage to get one third.

        By Inferring From Your Logic Above that God allow suffering to love or we wouldn’t know what love is :
        If God is light he needs darkness to show his light. Hence darkness was before light.
        Evidenced in the account of creation that darkness precede light

        I don’t think you make reason at all:

        Jesus came to redeem us from suffering yet again we still experience them. How? Then what was the purpose of his redemption. That we should suffer on earth. While he has suffered on the cross?

        We don’t even know who wrote the book of Genesis and the other Pentatuch. It is only attributed to Moses as the writer.

        You are absolutely wrong about your account of the Midianites. The Israelites took the virgin for their natural use. This in ancient community. Again you read into text the by saying the boys will take a revenge. What makes you think the girls cant take revenge.

        I am elaborating this to point out how far you, and other insincere apologetics are willingly, cunningly and craftily to adapt the text to suit your argument. Such stance leads people to believe things that are not in the bible and deviates from the reality borne by many Christians today.

        You can only get away with people who have not study the text.

        What makes you think Noah getting drunk was wrong. In fact he used to get drunk The guy is not a Christian. Go read the account of the Pentateuch where the nation of Israel is allowed to consume strong alcoholic drink. Didn’t Jesus turn water in to wine? An apparent contradiction right?

        You probably believe that all Races come from Japheth, Ham and Shem. This not true.
        West Africa, Eastern Africa, South Africa are not descendants of Ham. West Indies, Chinese, Japanese, are not descendant of Ham. South America are not descendants of the Ham.

        North Africans are the descendants of Ham.

    • The Bible explains that only Noah, his wife, his sons, and his son’s wives would have witnessed the flood (1 Peter 3:20). Everyone else would have perished (Genesis 7:21). But I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that other communities bearing witness to the flood is false. Consider the American Indian flood legends, the Figians, Hawaiians, Eskimos, Aboriginis, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Russians, Lithuanians, Chinese, Aztecs, and India. They all have flood legends similar to the Bible. This is because, when Noah and his family came off the ark, they passed the story down to their offspring, and their offspring passed it along to their offspring, and this continued to happen from one generation to the next until the story spread across the earth and populated all these different territories. This is tremendous evidence that Noah’s flood was a real, global event. The Bible also tells us that all the highest mountains were covered (Genesis 7:19-20), and that land animal and all the people on earth were destroyed. Even Mount Everest was covered (although we don’t know its topography at the time of the flood). We can even find marine fossils on top of Mount Everest, which is further evidence of the flood.

      Of course every community with rivers and lakes would talk about their floods. But that doesn’t explain why there are so many similarities between the Bible and every other flood legend. Don’t be so quick to dismiss this evidence. There’s plenty of evidence to support the existence of God and Biblical events, but if you reject all the evidence without seriously considering it, then, if God is real, you’re rejecting the truth. I’d suggest giving the evidence serious consideration.

      There’s plenty of connection between Christianity and Egypt (as well as Islam). I’m not sure why you would suggest otherwise when the evidence is substantial. The Bible goes into great detail about how Israel (Jacob) and his family moved to Egypt until they were enslaved.

      Whether Noah, Abraham or John the Baptist were “Christians” is largely irrelevant. They were Christians in the sense that they were saved by faith in a Messiah (James 2:23, Galatians 3:9-29, Romans 4:1-18, Acts 3:13) , but it wasn’t until after Jesus rose from the dead and returned to heaven that those who were saved began to be called Christians. Before that, they were still born again believers through Christ Jesus, who is the great I Am.

      I’m encouraged to hear that you don’t believe man evolved from apes. But I don’t understand your criticism about talking animals. If God exists, as well as the devil, angels, demons, and other heavenly beings, then it’s really not impossible for animals to talk. It’s only thought to be impossible if we reject supernatural intervention. The Bible is quite clear that people can be possessed by demons, and even a herd of pigs was possessed by a legion of demons (Matthew 8:16-33). So why would it be impossible for a snake or donkey to speak if its mouth was opened by God, or if it was possessed by a demon? I suggest that it’s entirely possible if God is real. But I think you misunderstood my response about apes. I don’t believe in the general theory of evolution or that man evolved from apes. My Christian beliefs are based upon sound reasoning, and I think I’ve demonstrated that with logic.

      I think we both understand evidence for gravity and oxygen. When confronted with such evidence we don’t come up with an alternative explanation and point out how there are some groups of people who don’t believe in gravity. But this is exactly what you’re doing with Christianity. I present evidence, and you come up with an alternative explanation, and then point out that other religions use the same evidence. Of course that’s true, but the evidence is there for anyone to examine, accept, or reject. I see you don’t reject evidence for gravity as easily as you do Christianity. I’d encourage you to examine the evidence for Christianity a little closer and without so much bias. The evidence I’ve presented is quite consistent, logical and reasonable. For example, there is tremendous evidence for a designer, but you’re rejecting it anyway. Consider the complexity of the simplest cell, DNA, RNA, and any biological system. These systems carry information, which is something only intelligence can produce. No one has ever observed a single example of information being produced as a result of naturalistic processes. Yet this is what one must believe if they reject God. So it’s much more reasonable to believe in God than not. Of course, those who don’t believe in God will reinterpret that evidence to suit them so that they can maintain their own beliefs.

      Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac, but that’s because God was testing him (Hebrews 11:17). When Abraham obeyed, God protected Isaac. There is no comparison between Baal worship and what Abraham was doing with Isaac. Isaac was never sacrificed. But I do understand your point. You’re suggesting that because Jesus said hating your brother is like murder (Matthew 5:21-22), then because Abraham intended to sacrifice Isaac, then that makes him a murderer. But I disagree. Abraham had no intention to murder Isaac. His intention was to obey God. Abraham loved Isaac and didn’t want to do it, but because he loved God more than his son, he was willing to do what God commanded him. Therefore Abraham is not guilty of murder, but considered righteous (James 2:21-23). Murder is the is the intentional and unjust taking of a human life. But there was nothing unjust about Abraham’s intent.

      Yes, I’m sure there are pastors who have become atheist or agnostic. I find that very sad and wonder what happened to them. It’s tragic, and I’d rather see them have their faith restored than continue to preach a gospel they no longer profess.

      I believe Job was a real person, and the events described in the book were real, historical events. I don’t think there’s any good reason to believe Job or Adam and Eve were allegorical. Remember that Jesus is a descendant of Adam and Eve, and that only makes sense if they were historical figures. When Jesus spoke in parables, he made it clear that it was a parable. He wasn’t tricking anyone into thinking they were real stories. But that’s what we must conclude if we believe Job and Adam and Eve were fictional. These stories were written as if they were historical accounts, but if we reject that, then the rest of the Bible doesn’t make sense. The Bible’s foundation of sin and death and a savior rests on a historical Adam and Eve. It doesn’t make sense for God to make up these stories in order to reveal some kind of hidden truth when he could have told the truth and still conveyed the truth at the same time.

      I don’t think there’s anything superficial about spoiling a child. It happens all the time. Some parents give there children whatever they want to appease them. When that happens, that person grows up to be someone you probably don’t want to know. They haven’t learned discipline, respect, patience, self-control, wisdom, and many other characteristics that are valuable to any human being.

      I have looked people in the eye with a terminal disease (including my sister). And you know what? Many of them have looked at me and told me that “God is good. All the time”. And that’s because they know that earth isn’t their eternal home; it’s just temporary, like their body. Of course they don’t want to die, but they know where their true home is and how there is true joy awaiting them in their heavenly home (John 14:2), where they’ll be reunited with family friends, loved ones, and Jesus, and there will be no more death, crying or pain (Revelation 21:4). So Christianity doesn’t miss the point, but gets the point fully. Nobody wants to suffer and die, but Christians understand that something better awaits them, and that gives us eternal hope and joy (James 1:2-4, 1 Corinthians 9:24-25).

      I don’t know what point you were trying to make about God allowing humans to be afflicted by the devil. I’m not trying to “pontificate”, but only trying to respectfully answer your questions based on what I believe. God does allow good and bad things to happen to everyone. True.

      The emergence of evil is certainly a complex concept to understand, but one of the important concepts of Christianity is that God is good, holy, righteous, without sin, perfect and just. So whatever we choose to think about evil, we can be certain that God is not guilty of any wrong-doing. But it seems when people want to bring up God and the existence of evil, they’re trying to entrap God and demonstrate that the existence of evil proves that he’s guilty of evil and should be punished. But this is not the case. We can have assurance that God is indeed good, all the time (Mark 10:17-18).

      I have no problem with a good, holy, righteous God existing along with evil. And that’s because I know God personally and am looking forward to spending eternity with him in heaven. But I also understand that evil came about as a result of Satan’s rebellion against God. God created Satan originally good, but he also gave Satan knowledge and the ability to choose between obedience and disobedience. When Satan rebelled, that is when evil began. It’s not that he or God “created” evil, it’s just that its existence had a beginning, even though the concept of evil is eternal. It’s eternal as long as God had the ability to define it. But God defining evil doesn’t implicate him in any wrong-doing any more than you and I being able to define murder doesn’t implicate us in murder. God allowed evil because he knew the redeeming effects that would result. And that’s why Jesus was willing to suffer and die when he was innocent. But also keep this in mind- if anyone wants to accuse God of wrong-doing, we already passed judgment upon him and crucified him two thousand years ago, and he was willing to do it because of his deep love for us. Even though God was innocent of any wrong-doing, he became a man and subjected himself to our authority and judgment. That’s the loving God I know.

      I don’t agree with your accusation that God needs darkness. God doesn’t need anything. He extends his love to us because he’s filled with love and compassion for us and wants to share his glory and righteousness. Darkness is the absence of light, but God is light. So there is light wherever God is- so long as he allows it. So when God spoke the universe into existence, darkness was at his mercy. We can logically infer that he created a physical realm that contained darkness and existed only as he allowed it. When God commanded, “Let there be light,” darkness fled, so to speak.

      Again, we do experience pain, suffering and death, even though Jesus redeemed us. That’s very clear with Christian theology. God warned Adam that the consequences of sin is death, and the Bible makes this clear to us (Romans 6:23) as well. Everyone who is not alive when Jesus returns will die (few exceptions, like Elijah and Enoch). Even though Jesus died for our sins, we still suffer the consequences of sin while we’re alive on this earth. And while Jesus’ work on the cross is finished, our salvation isn’t complete until we die and are resurrected with Christ in heaven. Therefore the purpose of his redemption was to secure a home for us in his kingdom so that we would share in his inheritance (Ephesians 1:14-18).

      You’re right that Genesis is attributed to Moses. But I’d argue that Adam may have contributed to it as it has descriptions of the pre-flood earth that Moses wouldn’t have known (Genesis 2:11-12)

      I don’t think I’m wrong about the Midianites. Neither you nor I lived among them, but it’s reasonable to conclude that their intentions were influenced by God’s commands. To suggest otherwise is a biased opinion. My opinion is valid and based upon Scripture, which I believe to be true. Therefore the Israelites took the virgins because God permitted them, and they killed everyone else because God commanded them to do so. It’s not any more complicated than that. I just offered a rationale that you’re welcome to accept or reject, but to declare that I’m wrong implies that you have some kind of divine knowledge. Do you?

      You also don’t need to be rude by insinuating that I’m an “insincere” apologist. Do you know me well enough to declare that I’m purposely making this all up while not believing any of it. Isn’t that kind of arrogant? I don’t “adapt the text” to suit my argument. I simply believe that God is real, and I interpret Scripture against Scripture. My theology is based on what is revealed in God’s word, and if you think I’m misinterpreting it, then show me where I’m wrong. So far you’ve misrepresented the Biblical description of the flood, salvation, the existence of sin, suffering and evil, talking animals, the relationship between Egypt and the Israelites and Abraham’s obedience to God, to name a few. But I can back up my theology with Scripture. So what have I written that is not Biblical? I’ve provided Scripture references while you throw out ideas based on vague references. This hardly leads me to believe that you’ve studied the Biblical text with any kind of justice.

      I didn’t say that Noah getting drunk was wrong. I said it’s likely that he sinned. I don’t think every single instance of getting drunk is a sin because it is permissible in some instances, such as when someone is trying to escape grief, and even celebration (Proverbs 31:6, Psalm 104:14-15, John 2:1-10). But it can become a sin when we abuse it. The Bible doesn’t give us enough information to determine if Noah sinned or not, but clearly he wasn’t in control of himself. Now I do see that you’re attempting to make the case that the Bible is contradicting itself due to the Bible’s condemnation of drunkenness. But I’d suggest this contradiction is superficial and unfounded. And that’s because you’re not acknowledging the redemptive power of Christ in which he rescued us from that condemnation by taking the penalty we deserve. The problem with drunkenness is with our sinful heart and behavior, not simply consuming too much wine or alcohol.

      Yes, I do believe all races come from Shem Ham and Japheth. Japheth’s descendants went towards Europe, while Ham’s went towards Africa, and Shem stayed in the Middle East. The dispersion of man after Babel is complex, so of course there are exceptions to all these.

      So tell me a little more about your beliefs. I’m curious about your faith and background.

      • See my Reponses in >>>>.

        The Bible explains that only Noah, his wife, his sons, and his son’s wives would have witnessed the flood (1 Peter 3:20). Everyone else would have perished (Genesis 7:21). But I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that other communities bearing witness to the flood is false. Consider the American Indian flood legends, the Figians, Hawaiians, Eskimos, Aboriginis, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Russians, Lithuanians, Chinese, Aztecs, and India. They all have flood legends similar to the Bible. This is because, when Noah and his family came off the ark, they passed the story down to their offspring, and their offspring passed it along to their offspring, and this continued to happen from one generation to the next until the story spread across the earth and populated all these different territories.

        >>> Well, what you suggest above is not quite true. The story behind the flood in the communities you mentioned above differ and was local to their geographical area and time.

        This is tremendous evidence that Noah’s flood was a real, global event. The Bible also tells us that all the highest mountains were covered (Genesis 7:19-20), and that land animal and all the people on earth were destroyed. Even Mount Everest was covered (although we don’t know its topography at the time of the flood). We can even find marine fossils on top of Mount Everest, which is further evidence of the flood.

        >>>> The mountains were not covered, the bible gives the measurements. Go read it. And compare it to Everest.
        >>> Your assertion that marine fossil is found on top of Everest is not an evidence of a flood. In any case a flood wash away what is on a mountain top, directing it into a valley.
        Of course every community with rivers and lakes would talk about their floods. But that doesn’t explain why there are so many similarities between the Bible and every other flood legend. Don’t be so quick to dismiss this evidence.
        >>>>> Well, at least you agree on this one.
        There’s plenty of evidence to support the existence of God and Biblical events, but if you reject all the evidence without seriously considering it, then, if God is real, you’re rejecting the truth. I’d suggest giving the evidence serious consideration.
        >>> There is no evidence. You just have to believe. Like Jesus expected Thomas to believe. If there is any concrete evidence, then you need not believe. The bible even mention other statements to confirm this. I can reproduce them but it is beyond the scope of this debate.

        There’s plenty of connection between Christianity and Egypt (as well as Islam). I’m not sure why you would suggest otherwise when the evidence is substantial. The Bible goes into great detail about how Israel (Jacob) and his family moved to Egypt until they were enslaved.

        >>> Egypt was before Abraham. Nubia was before Egypt. Abraham was born in the 22nd dynasty in ur, Chaldea (Asia). Before he was born, more than 93 pyramids have been built already. Now if Jacob is the grands on of Abraham, what make you think that Egypt has Christian influences. Besides have the bible not demonised Egypt all the time for no reason.

        Whether Noah, Abraham or John the Baptist were “Christians” is largely irrelevant.
        >>>> It is relevant. If not you wouldn’t give your explanation below.
        They were Christians in the sense that they were saved by faith in a Messiah (James 2:23, Galatians 3:9-29, Romans 4:1-18, Acts 3:13) , but it wasn’t until after Jesus rose from the dead and returned to heaven that those who were saved began to be called Christians. Before that, they were still born again believers through Christ Jesus, who is the great I Am.

        >>>> They were never Christians. This is what I called insincere apologetics. You might as well as say Mohammed and Buddha are Christians. No you are absolutely wrong on this point and very treading apostasy in Christian theology.
        >>>> For a start, Christian is follower of Christ. We can go in to much detail. Christianity is not a birth right. For a person to become Christian they must have been lost and were on their way to eternal fire.. And the only way out is to accept Christ.
        >>> Now tell me where in the bible, did Noah or Abraham feel lost that he accept Jesus Christ as his personal saviour.
        >>> Also it seems that you want call any body who believe the concept of God as a Christian. This insincere apologetics. And bible does not even permit so.
        >>> James 2:23
        Abraham having faith in God does not make him a Christian. The Pharisees and Sadducees have faith in God but they were not classed as Christians. Neither the John the Baptist.

        I’m encouraged to hear that you don’t believe man evolved from apes.
        >>> I have not considered the evidence or the biological proof of evolution so this assertion is by myintuition. However, with cloning of species and organ technology advancing , I look at the evidence they have presented.
        But I don’t understand your criticism about talking animals. If God exists, as well as the devil, angels, demons, and other heavenly beings, then it’s really not impossible for animals to talk. It’s only thought to be impossible if we reject supernatural intervention.
        >>> Well, you mention supernatural, but I see no logical reason except you are to tell a person to take it by faith. On this account do you believe fairies exit?

        The Bible is quite clear that people can be possessed by demons, and even a herd of pigs was possessed by a legion of demons (Matthew 8:16-33). So why would it be impossible for a snake or donkey to speak if its mouth was opened by God, or if it was possessed by a demon? I suggest that it’s entirely possible if God is real. But I think you misunderstood my response about apes. I don’t believe in the general theory of evolution or that man evolved from apes. My Christian beliefs are based upon sound reasoning, and I think I’ve demonstrated that with logic.

        >>>> As I have demonstrated your believe are not based on sound logic. And you are willing to take anything to possibly justify that it is logical by quoting philosophers, scientist and using Abraham, Noah is not helpful to cause either.
        I accept that if you believe, just because you want then that is fine. Or intuitively, you feel that there exixt something which created you, then that is fine.
        Do not use logic in matters of faith. Why?
        Look at this question?
        What is greater than God? If you say nothing, then Nothing is greater than God. So following that logic, there exist something called nothing which is greater than God.
        I think we both understand evidence for gravity and oxygen. When confronted with such evidence we don’t come up with an alternative explanation and point out how there are some groups of people who don’t believe in gravity. But this is exactly what you’re doing with Christianity. I present evidence, and you come up with an alternative explanation, and then point out that other religions use the same evidence.
        >>>>> No that is not exactly what I am doing here. Your claim of Christianity is not logical. Hence a lot of doctrinal issues. Take the issue of Salvation. How many doctrines and sect does Christianity have? Take the issue of Escataology andhow it has changed? Take issue of the interpretation of scripture?
        Of course that’s true, but the evidence is there for anyone to examine, accept, or reject. I see you don’t reject evidence for gravity as easily as you do Christianity.
        Christianity can be easily rejected as seen – I have shown above. With it various doctrines. Protestants and Catholics cherry picking what to add, Mormon and Jehovah witness saying something else, Jesuit teaching another. One text, edited, translated, purported for their various political gains and control.
        I’d encourage you to examine the evidence for Christianity a little closer and without so much bias.
        >>> I have not been biased. I know the scripture insider out than the ordinary guy. In terms of the spirit (agenda) of the person writing each book,
        The evidence I’ve presented is quite consistent, logical and reasonable. For example, there is tremendous evidence for a designer, but you’re rejecting it anyway. Consider the complexity of the simplest cell, DNA, RNA, and any biological system. These systems carry information, which is something only intelligence can produce.
        >>>> Not really. Before jumping the gun, intelligent being do not form deformed DNA, RNA, and any biological system DNA, RNA, and any biological system.
        No one has ever observed a single example of information being produced as a result of naturalistic processes. Yet this is what one must believe if they reject God.

        >>>> That is lie. You can reject both.

        No one So it’s much more reasonable to believe in God than not. Of course, those who don’t believe in God will reinterpret that evidence to suit them so that they can maintain their own beliefs.
        >>> if talk about blind faith or intuition then that is fine.
        Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac, but that’s because God was testing him (Hebrews 11:17). When Abraham obeyed, God protected Isaac. There is no comparison between Baal worship and what Abraham was doing with Isaac. Isaac was never sacrificed. But I do understand your point. You’re suggesting that because Jesus said hating your brother is like murder (Matthew 5:21-22), then because Abraham intended to sacrifice Isaac, then that makes him a murderer. But I disagree. Abraham had no intention to murder Isaac. His intention was to obey God. Abraham loved Isaac and didn’t want to do it, but because he loved God more than his son, he was willing to do what God commanded him. Therefore Abraham is not guilty of murder, but considered righteous (James 2:21-23). Murder is the is the intentional and unjust taking of a human life. But there was nothing unjust about Abraham’s intent.

        >>>> Well analyse it in our modern day, take your child that you are going to sacrifice him and see what the police will do to you if come back and say you did do so because God has changed his mind.
        Yes, I’m sure there are pastors who have become atheist or agnostic. I find that very sad and wonder what happened to them. It’s tragic, and I’d rather see them have their faith restored than continue to preach a gospel they no longer profess.

        >>> I already mention some of the reason why they continue to do so. Even some reportedly say that coming out will break their loved ones heart and destroy the faith others.
        I believe Job was a real person, and the events described in the book were real, historical events. I don’t think there’s any good reason to believe Job or Adam and Eve were allegorical.
        Remember that Jesus is a descendant of Adam and Eve, and that only makes sense if they were historical figures. When Jesus spoke in parables, he made it clear that it was a parable.
        He wasn’t tricking anyone into thinking they were real stories. But that’s what we must conclude if we believe Job and Adam and Eve were fictional. These stories were written as if they were historical accounts, but if we reject that, then the rest of the Bible doesn’t make sense. The Bible’s foundation of sin and death and a savior rests on a historical Adam and Eve.
        >>> Historical Adam and Eve. Again. If you believe this I have no problem. There are other ancient texts which say other wise. Which Nicea council deemed as non canonical.
        It doesn’t make sense for God to make up these stories in order to reveal some kind of hidden truth when he could have told the truth and still conveyed the truth at the same time.

        >>> A careful observation will tell you it is being made up by man. God by definition shouldn’t make a book that its believer fight over doctrines and come up with opposing doctrines. Pharisees opposing Sadducees, Armenians opposing Calvinists.
        I don’t think there’s anything superficial about spoiling a child. It happens all the time. Some parents give there children whatever they want to appease them. When that happens, that person grows up to be someone you probably don’t want to know. They haven’t learned discipline, respect, patience, self-control, wisdom, and many other characteristics that are valuable to any human being.

        >>> This shouldn’t be compared with what when people are suffering and need a God to heal them, when people are handicapped you claim by definition know best is saying that that suffering is good for them.
        I have looked people in the eye with a terminal disease (including my sister). And you know what? Many of them have looked at me and told me that “God is good. All the time”.
        >>> Did your sister wanted to live? And, did you care for your sister 24/7?
        And that’s because they know that earth isn’t their eternal home; it’s just temporary, like their body.

        >>>> You don’t know this. They believe.

        Of course they don’t want to die, but they know where their true home is and how there is true joy awaiting them in their heavenly home (John 14:2), where they’ll be reunited with family friends,

        >>>> Did they tell you they don’t want to die? And what did you or God did about it?

        loved ones, and Jesus, and there will be no more death, crying or pain (Revelation 21:4). So Christianity doesn’t miss the point, but gets the point fully. Nobody wants to suffer and die, but Christians understand that something better awaits them, and that gives us eternal hope and joy (James 1:2-4, 1 Corinthians 9:24-25).
        >>> This again is a belief. You don’t know. And there are known reasons that these are there. I don’t have time to dive in to eschatology. But I can prove how Judeo eschatology has evolved and how Christian has also with four contradictory expectations.
        I don’t know what point you were trying to make about God allowing humans to be afflicted by the devil. I’m not trying to “pontificate”, but only trying to respectfully answer your questions based on what I believe. God does allow good and bad things to happen to everyone. True.

        Well, I mentioned by the definition of the bible God created evil.
        The emergence of evil is certainly a complex concept to understand, but one of the important concepts of Christianity is that God is good, holy, righteous, without sin, perfect and just. So whatever we choose to think about evil, we can be certain that God is not guilty of any wrong-doing. But it seems when people want to bring up God and the existence of evil, they’re trying to entrap God and demonstrate that the existence of evil proves that he’s guilty of evil and should be punished. But this is not the case. We can have assurance that God is indeed good, all the time (Mark 10:17-18).

        >>>> Well, it is for this complex that drifts people to atheism and agonistics.
        I have no problem with a good, holy, righteous God existing along with evil. And that’s because I know God personally and am looking forward to spending eternity with him in heaven. But I also understand that evil came about as a result of Satan’s rebellion against God.

        >>> I thought you use reason as you mention that it is too complex to consider.. You don’t know this assertion that evil came as a result of Satan rebelling. By reasoning well with objectivity, you come two conclusions: Either God created Evil or it Co exist with God.

        God created Satan originally good, but he also gave Satan knowledge and the ability to choose between obedience and disobedience. When Satan rebelled, that is when evil began. It’s not that he or God “created” evil, it’s just that its existence had a beginning, even though the concept of evil is eternal. It’s eternal as long as God had the ability to define it. But God defining evil doesn’t implicate him in any wrong-doing any more than you and I being able to define murder doesn’t implicate us in murder. God allowed evil because he knew the redeeming effects that would result. And that’s why Jesus was willing to suffer and die when he was innocent. But also keep this in mind- if anyone wants to accuse God of wrong-doing, we already passed judgment upon him and crucified him two thousand years ago, and he was willing to do it because of his deep love for us. Even though God was innocent of any wrong-doing, he became a man and subjected himself to our authority and judgment. That’s the loving God I know.

        >>>> Listen to yourself, you make you’re perfect. Yopu make your perfecr world. And then all of suden one of them, become imperfect and start taking everything with him.
        I don’t agree with your accusation that God needs darkness. God doesn’t need anything. He extends his love to us because he’s filled with love and compassion for us and wants to share his glory and righteousness. Darkness is the absence of light, but God is light. So there is light wherever God is- so long as he allows it. So when God spoke the universe into existence, darkness was at his mercy. We can logically infer that he created a physical realm that contained darkness and existed only as he allowed it. When God commanded, “Let there be light,” darkness fled, so to speak.

        >>>>> You need not agree with my assertion. Just think through. Light need darkness to be light. They are not opposite per say but on the same line. Darkness meaning no light.
        Again, we do experience pain, suffering and death, even though Jesus redeemed us. That’s very clear with Christian theology. God warned Adam that the consequences of sin is death, and the
        >>> This is inconsistent with you previous claim of redemption.
        Bible makes this clear to us (Romans 6:23) as well. Everyone who is not alive when Jesus returns will die (few exceptions, like Elijah and Enoch). Even though Jesus died for our sins, we still suffer the consequences of sin while we’re alive on this earth. And while Jesus’ work on the cross is finished, our salvation isn’t complete until we die and are resurrected with Christ in heaven. Therefore the purpose of his redemption was to secure a home for us in his kingdom so that we would share in his inheritance (Ephesians 1:14-18).
        >>>> again there are 4 contradictory doctrines of eschatology which goes beyond the scope of this matter. When you read the bible and it says “you”, you think it is “you” right. It was talking to a group of people at the time. You seem to not be aware of the context, and the pretext.
        You’re right that Genesis is attributed to Moses. But I’d argue that Adam may have contributed to it as it has descriptions of the pre-flood earth that Moses wouldn’t have known (Genesis 2:11-12)

        >>>> lots laugh. There books not in your bible. Taken out by nicea council. So check that out. Adam has no part in it. Writing started in the river banks of Mesopotamia on papyrus and walls. Adam if he had a language was different from Moses.
        >>>> Did you consider that Abraham’s father has his own God different from Jehovah? Have you thought why the bible say God of Abraham, not Adam. And not God Tehran. All of them had their God. The concept of God pre existed before Abraham was born.
        >>>> You think you and a Jew are worshipping the same God (Jehovah). But you are wrong in this believe. Jesus the Christ (Jesus Christ) is not God to a Jew. Find out.
        I don’t think I’m wrong about the Midianites. Neither you nor I lived among them, but it’s reasonable to conclude that their intentions were influenced by God’s commands. To suggest otherwise is a biased opinion. My opinion is valid and based upon Scripture, which I believe to be true. Therefore the Israelites took the virgins because God permitted them, and they killed everyone else because God commanded them to do so. It’s not any more complicated than that. I just offered a rationale that you’re welcome to accept or reject, but to declare that I’m wrong implies that you have some kind of divine knowledge. Do you?

        >>>> What they did can be equated with what Boko Haram in Nigeria did.
        You also don’t need to be rude by insinuating that I’m an “insincere” apologist. Do you know me well enough to declare that I’m purposely making this all up while not believing any of it. Isn’t that kind of arrogant? I don’t “adapt the text” to suit my argument.

        >>> No , I don’t think I am insinuating all. I am just pointing out the truth of not accepting that true nature of the events. They were not crusaders sent to .bring God to the Mediante’s. But they went to war. And took what they want.

        I simply believe that God is real, and I interpret Scripture against Scripture.
        >>> That is good. But don’t say you have logical argument especially outside the bible. I AM OK IF YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE.
        My theology is based on what is revealed in God’s word, and if you think I’m misinterpreting it, then show me where I’m wrong. So far you’ve misrepresented the Biblical description of the flood, salvation, the existence of sin, suffering and evil, talking animals, the relationship between Egypt and the Israelites and Abraham’s obedience to God, to name a few.
        >>> I HAVE NOT. Explaining Abraham is Christian is clear example of your theology. I have show you from insider the bible that you just have to believe. Cause it does not stand to reason.

        But I can back up my theology with Scripture. So what have I written that is not Biblical? I’ve provided Scripture references while you throw out ideas based on vague references. This hardly leads me to believe that you’ve studied the Biblical text with any kind of justice.
        I didn’t say that Noah getting drunk was wrong. I said it’s likely that he sinned.
        >>> What is sin? Sin is the transgression of God’s law. Did Noah have any law not drink? No.
        I don’t think every single instance of getting drunk is a sin because it is permissible in some instances, such as when someone is trying to escape grief, and even celebration (Proverbs 31:6, Psalm 104:14-15, John 2:1-10). But it can become a sin when we abuse it. The Bible doesn’t give us enough information to determine if Noah sinned or not, but clearly he wasn’t in control of himself. Now I do see that you’re attempting to make the case that the Bible is contradicting itself due to the Bible’s condemnation of drunkenness.
        >>> The bible gives enough information. I have shown above. How Paul say it is a sin. And you don’t think statement bring in relativism.
        But I’d suggest this contradiction is superficial and unfounded.
        >>>> Contradiction is a contradiction. No superficiality. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump Gal 5:9
        And that’s because you’re not acknowledging the redemptive power of Christ in which he rescued us from that condemnation by taking the penalty we deserve. The problem with drunkenness is with our sinful heart and behaviour, not simply consuming too much wine or alcohol.

        >>> At the start of this debate you mentioned that what is wrong and right is absolute. This is wrong. And it seems you are confusing morality with sin. Noah didn’t sin. Because there was no law against being drunkard? As being wrong will determine how his society perceive it at the time.
        >>.> Sin by definition is the transgression of God’s law. Morality on the hand is what a group of people deem as wrong. For example we are told in Deuteronomy men are not suppose to wear women’s dess and vice versa. But what is women’s dress and what is men’s? Who defines them? See how clothing has changed in to fashion and vice versa.
        Yes, I do believe all races come from Shem Ham and Japheth. Japheth’s descendants went towards Europe, while Ham’s went towards Africa, and Shem stayed in the Middle East. The dispersion of man after Babel is complex, so of course there are exceptions to all these.

        >>> Well, it is good to hear that there are exceptions of all this account, even if we were to assume that account is true. Again, there are more modern skyscrapers which are presumably taller than tower of babel. We send astronauts passed the horizon. In the account of babel, (God got scared that the people are catching up) so he slighted them with confusion of different languages. You believe this – which fine. I have no problem with that. But seriously, why don’t the western world get slighted for the skyscrapers.,
        >>>Why didn’t the pyramid builders get slighted?

    • You make the case that the flood stories of the people I mentioned differ and was local to their geographic area. But you’re coming from this at the wrong angle. You don’t seem interested in verifying whether or not Noah’s flood was a real, historical and global event. I get the impression that you’re more interested in taking whatever evidence there is and finding a way to reject it without regard to the truth. Of course we’d expect there to be differences in each and every story after four thousand years. But you need to look at their similarities in order to see that how they all corroborate the original event.

      For example, the Hawaiian story happens after the death of the first man when the world became wicked and only one good man remained (named Nu-u). He built a great canoe with a house and brought the animals on board. The waters covered the earth and killed everyone, except for Nu-u and his family. The Chinese story tells of Fuhi, his wife, three sons and three daughters who escaped a great flood and were the only people left on earth. Other similarities between the various stories include the wickedness of man, divine destruction, landing on a mountain, animals being saved, a rainbow, birds sent out and a favored family. Nearly all of them have an ark, universal destruction by water and humans being saved. The similarities are evidence that they’re all pointing back to the original event that was witnessed by Noah and his family. This is exactly what we’d expect if Noah’s flood really happened as described in the Bible.

      You keep denying that the mountains were not covered, but the Bible makes it clear that they were. Genesis 7:19-20 says about the waters: “They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.” So the Bible does give measurements, but the measurements indicate how high the mountains were covered. What, exactly, have you read in the Bible that contradicts this? You’re very vague, and when I read Scripture and cite a passage, it doesn’t say what you claim it does.

      You also claim that marine fossils found on top of Everest is not evidence of the flood, but it is. You see, if there really was a global flood, we’d expect there to be marine fossils everywhere on earth, including the tops of the highest mountains. Now if this were not the case, then atheists would argue that this is evidence that the Bible is wrong, but that’s not the case. There are indeed marine fossils on the tops of the highest mountains, so this is evidence of a global flood. Attempting to come up with an alternative explanation doesn’t nullify the fact that this is evidence for a global flood. Only the fossils exposed on the top would be washed down into the valley. Those fossils buried beneath sediment would not be washed down into the valleys until they would become exposed hundreds and thousands of years later.

      You say there is no evidence and we can only believe by faith. But I’d argue that we cannot have blind faith, or our faith is worthless. Our faith must be built upon a foundation, and there is plenty of evidence to support Biblical faith. It’s just that you’re having trouble examining the evidence and agreeing that it supports what the Bible says. So, for example, if all land animals were wiped out during the flood, then we’d expect them to be buried beneath the sediment, and this is exactly what we find in the geologic column. Therefore the animals buried beneath the sediment are considered evidence to corroborate the flood. Evidence is evidence.

      Jesus understood that Thomas needed evidence, and when he appeared to Thomas, he told him to put his hands into the holes in his wrist and side. Jesus didn’t expect blind faith. As far as concrete evidence vs. faith, Thomas received concrete evidence, and he believed. Thomas saw Jesus alive, just as he had promised. He rose from the dead, and Thomas saw him with his own eyes, and was allowed to touch his wounds. But that only fueled Thomas’s faith and wasn’t detrimental. Jesus provided many other concrete “proofs” as to his divinity; some people believed, but others refused. If you think the Bible denies the faith of those who’ve experienced concrete evidence, then I’d like to know what passages you have in mind. The one you mentioned with Thomas demonstrates the opposite of what you’ve claimed. The disciples stand as witnesses to the divinity of Jesus, and they provide their testimony to us so that we may believe, even though we may not be privy to the concrete evidence they had witnessed.

      You’re taking the old view of Egypt. That has been debunked by newer archaeological discoveries. You can read more in the book, “Unwrapping the Pharaohs”, or watching the documentary “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus” (of which I’ve written a review on if you care to take a look). The evidence lines up perfectly with the Biblical account of Egypt and Israel.

      I don’t think you understood the point I was trying to make when I said that whether Noah, Abraham or John the Baptist were Christians is largely irrelevant. They were indeed Christians, but they wouldn’t have been called “Christians” because that term hadn’t been invented to describe their faith yet. So your argument and accusation is meaningless. I’d argue that a “true” Christian is one who has been “born again” and has been saved by faith in the promised Messiah. Whatever term you wish to use to describe such a person is nothing more than a description of one who is saved. Each of them believed in and worship the same God I worship. That makes us Christians, whether they would have used that term or not. Mohammed and Buddha could never be Christians unless they placed their faith in the Messiah, and as far as I know, neither of them did so. You have no basis to accuse me of apostasy, and I don’t think the term means what you think it does. You accuse me of insincere apologetics, but I couldn’t be more sincere. I’m certain that I’ll be in heaven with Abraham, Noah and John the Baptist because we all are saved by the same God, whatever term you wish to describe us. Even Peter said, “The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead”. I do agree that a Christian is a follower of Christ, the Messiah, who was promised way back in Genesis 3:15. So anyone who believed in the coming Christ or Messiah can reasonably be called a Christian. Noah, Abraham and John the Baptist were all saved by faith in the coming Messiah. That makes them Christians, even though they wouldn’t have necessarily used that term. Only those who do the will of the Father will be saved (Matthew 7:21, Matthew 12:50). Jesus also said that Moses wrote about him (John 5:46), so even Moses was a Christian. And Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing his day, and when he did, he was glad (John 8:56), and when he said this in public, Jesus declared, “Before Abraham was born, I am!” The Jews tried to stone him for blaspheme, for claiming to be God. Therefore, as you can see, even Abraham was a Christian. Please read these passages yourself in full context. The Pharisees and Sadducees may have had faith in a god, but not God. Jesus said that if they did, then they would have done the will of his Father, which is believe in Jesus (John 8:19, John 8:39-41-42).

      The Bible doesn’t indicate that fairies exist, so no, I don’t believe in them. But it does account for several talking animals, each of which can be attributed to supernatural causes. Of course I accept it by faith. That’s why I’m a Christian- because I believe that the Bible is God’s inspired word, and that he has spoken and revealed the truth about himself.

      You have not demonstrated that my beliefs are not based on sound logic. I only hear your accusation, but no step by step logical deduction. You’ve made plenty of assertions that I’m wrong, but I keep presenting evidence to back up my reasoning, while you have not presented anything to support your vague assertions. I don’t take just anything to justify my reasoning, but only that which is credible. You criticize me for quoting philosophers, scientists or Abraham, but who or what do you get your information from that you believe? How are you any different? Don’t your beliefs rest on other people? Or are you a god that you don’t need to read what others have said and done? I don’t believe what I believe because I want to; I have looked into my faith deeply and am satisfied that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and my Lord and Savior.

      You’re using semantics to suggest that “nothing” is greater than God. Of course nothing is greater than God, including “nothing”. Neither is “what” greater than God. Illogical once you understand and define your terms. Nothing doesn’t exist. Therefore it can’t be greater than God.

      Christianity is logical, and you’ve failed to provide any kind of step by step rebuttal. Now you’re trying to make the case that if Christianity were true, then there would not be any other sects, eschatology or interpretations. But that’s a false claim. Firstly, you’re not taking sin into account. People (and fallen angels) have been rebelling against God from the very beginning, so it shouldn’t be surprising that there would be false doctrines stemming from Christianity. Many people would naturally put themselves in authority over the Bible and would decide for themselves what parts of it they wished to believe, and they would interpret Scripture to favor themselves. Of course God condemns such behavior, but that doesn’t stop anyone from rebelling. Look at the Catholic church and its worship of idols, something expressly prohibited by God, breaking the first two commandments. So the fact that there are other sects and interpretations logically supports the doctrine of man’s fallen nature. The book of Acts talks about sects stemming off of Christianity and rejects them. As a Christian I have to be careful to interpret Scripture according to Scripture. That’s what we’re supposed to do.

      How can you claim that you’re not biased when you’re taking the position that Christianity is a false religion? That’s called a bias. Therefore you are biased against Christianity.

      How can you deny that only intelligence can produce information? Can you give me an example of information being produced that has originated from a completely natural source? If you can’t, then you have to admit that I’m right. I’m also not sure what you mean that an intelligent being can’t form deformed DNA, except that you think God created deformities. But you’re forgetting that in Genesis 1 and 2, there were no deformities. Those didn’t exist until after sin in Genesis 3. So how can you logically reject the claim that no one has ever observed a single example of information being produced as a result of naturalistic processes and also not admit that failing to do so is evidence for God’s existence?

      As for a modern day Abraham and Isaac story, if God were faithful to the one he was testing, then that person wouldn’t need to worry about what the police would do because God would be protecting them and bless them for their faith. Simple.

      Sorry, but we can’t observe the Bible being written, so a careful observation won’t tell us that the Bible is made up by man. On the other hand the Bible has been supported by plenty of archaeological evidence, as well as my personal relationship with Jesus.

      No one wants to suffer, but God reveals in the Bible why there is suffering, and what will come of it once we get to heaven. That’s good enough for me and many Christians. My sister wanted to live and see her daughter graduate high school, but God took her home before that. We mourned for her, but we know she’s home, and that one day we’ll all be reunited with her, and there will be no more tears or suffering. That’s the hope Christians have. Of course it’s a belief, but God has given us confidence and certainty (Hebrews 11:1-3).

      I think I refuted your claim that God created evil and is guilty of any wrong-doing. Sure, the existence of evil certainly compels some people to reject Christianity, but God is testing us to see how much we really love him. If God isn’t most important to us, then it’s as if we’re worshiping other gods, which is a violation of God’s commands. Why should anyone who thinks God is evil or hates him for making them suffer be given admission into heaven? If they really think that about him, then God has tested them and found them to be unworthy of being with him forever. So the existence of evil can’t be used as an excuse against God or Christianity.

      Understanding the existence of evil is complicated, which is why you’re having trouble accepting the existence of evil along with the existence of a Holy God. I understand it perfectly fine, despite its complexity. I accept it, and I know that God has my best interest in mind and will reward us for our faith. That’s the crown of life that Christians will receive.

      Evil is an idea, concept, and an action. God doesn’t need to create it in order for it to exist. Satan only need rebel, and that is evil. God allows Satan to rebel. Not that complicated really.

      I don’t understand what you mean by all of a sudden one of them becomes imperfect and starts taking everything with him. If you mean God became imperfect, then you’ve misread the Bible. Neither God nor Jesus was imperfect; they’re both perfect and without sin.

      How is the consequences of death inconsistent with redemption? It’s completely consistent. If you read romans 6:23 you’ll see that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. Christ paid the penalty and died for us. That means we’ll receive the gift of eternal life if we have put our faith in him. Simple.

      I’m quite aware of the Biblical context and pretext. Sometimes when the Bible says “you”, it’s not just that person God is speaking to, but all believers. If you have a specific passage in mind, we can look at that together.

      I understand the Nicea counsel and the Counsel of Trent and such. But I also understand how and why the Bible was put together, and I’m satisfied that God has directed his word so that we would have it today.

      I agree it’s likely that Adam would have spoken a different language than Moses. But keep in mind that the information also likely would have been passed along by oral tradition, so Moses would have been familiar with it. And it would have also been inspired by God.

      I don’t know if Abraham’s father knew God or not. If he does, then I’ll see him in heaven.

      Some Jews do know Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and they are Christians just like me. I know some of them because they go to my church. But I also do know that the Jewish nation doesn’t accept Jesus as the Messiah, and that’s partly why God’s word was sent to the Gentiles.

      Again I didn’t say that Noah sinned. I do understand that God’s law to the Israelites hadn’t been written yet, but I do believe God has written morality into our hearts so that we know right from wrong. I don’t wish to be dogmatic that Noah did or did not sin, and that’s why I was careful how I phrased my answer. I simply don’t know for certain, and that’s okay.

      God wasn’t “scared” that people were catching up. And that’s why we have sky scrapers today. Of course he can have them knocked down, and occasionally he does, but he’s not afraid of us. The main reason why he scattered the people at Babel is because they had disobeyed his command to spread out across the earth. They wanted to make a name for themselves and rebelled against God. So he forced them to spread out.

      I’d still like to know more about what you believe if you’re inclined to share.

      • I have considered Noah’s flood and reach conclusion at this point that it is local along the Nile. All the Hawaiian and the Chinese stories are derivative from the Sumerian or Mesopotamian myth. There are more than nine versions of these myths each derived from a preceding one. These myths originated from the third dynasty of Ur. As you well point it out there are difference and similarities of these story. This makes it subjective. Hence it is not logical for objective reasoning. When something is subjective, it prone all sort of analogies, interpretation and superstitions, especially when a diet is involved.
        You seem to side on flood geology as proof that there was a flood. Well that is your explanation to justify cause. May I inform this practice of pseudo science? However, a good analysis will indicate the following:
        (i) The sea once did cover the areas of the mountains.
        (ii) Some people went there and left it there
        (iii) Leonardo Da Vinci ( the guy who painted Jesus for us ) points this out : “the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood”
        (iv) Flood wash the mountains and redeposit whatever is on them into valleys
        (v) A flood should have melt ice in the Antarctica
        (vi) Mountains can sink or get taller.

        May I suggest blind faith is not worthless. And in terms of the bible it is normal for people to have that faith. Faith does not need to be logical. And in any case your faith in not objective.
        If you examine your account of the story you will find out flood just soon after the judgement of the flood, another group arose of evil acts. Nimrod and so forth, to Sodom until our modern time, nothing has changed.
        There are a lot rivers and lakes and Sea around the world.
        You acknowledge that there were local folds in previous response. Should you therefore find it very hard to understand why there are land animals buried beneath the sediment of geologic column?
        Evidence need to be analysed. Possible causes needs to be studied and revised until we can be objective about it.
        Jesus expected Thomas to believe with blind faith. But Thomas did not. Thomas asked for a more concrete proof saying ‘’ But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” John 20:25
        So it is not as say in your response. He asked for his evidence it was presented to him in the narrative.’
        The bible scorns concrete evidence. See below
        Now look at Jesus’s reponse: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed
        In biblical literature, the greater and blessed is them that have not seen, and yet have believed
        So are you saying there in no historicity of ancient Egypt? Well you believe in documentary and siting books with no credibility on Egyptologist.
        I can name the Da Vinci Code as debunking the divinity of the Christ. If that is what you want us to go down to.

        Bad apologetics, if you think Abraham and Noah are Christians. I have already define Christianity to you. Judaism is not Christianity neither is Islam. The latter two proceeding from the former (Judiasm) does not make them Christian.

        By your definition of Christianity, I ask:
        Was Noah and Abraham lost?
        Did they look for Messiah?
        And even though they never felt lost or a need for Messiah as indicate in biblical liertature., suppose we were to assume that they were lost and need a Messiah; was the messiah the Jesus in your Christian bible. But not in the Talmud or Torah.
        Have you considered why the Jews, Pharisee and Sadducees did not agree with Christ? There was a Jesus before the Jesus Christ in your council of Nicea bible you think it’s all in all. But only give you half of the story.
        Go read the Malachi Chapter 4. And the accounts of the Mathew, Mark and Luke.

        In Judaism, Jesus Christ is not a God. Neither is Allah. You seem to make the error of thinking you and Jews are worshipping the same God. Go to your local synagogue and ask. You call you’re a church and that should start pointing out some differences to you.
        I’m certain that I’ll be in heaven with Abraham, Noah and John the Baptist because we all are saved by the same God, whatever term you wish to describe us.
        Your certainty of being Heaven is an illusion of ‘holier than thou’. Don’t you have to go through judgement?
        Doesn’t the bible say: not all who say Lord, Lord shall go to heaven.’ In your case you seem to be your own judge – as you are so certain.
        You seem to get lost on the Messiah equation. The question as I have posed: does Abraham see your Roman times Jesus as a Messiah? Or you think, Abraham should see him as the Christ he has been waiting for.
        Well, Islam, at least acknowledge your Nicea Christ but differ in doctrines and facts of his death. So induction form your arguments will allow them to go to your heaven, if that is what you are saying.
        . Genesis 3:15New International Version (NIV)
        15 And I will put enmity
        between you and the woman,
        and between your offspring[a] and hers;
        he will crush[b] your head,
        and you will strike his heel.”

        At one point you above, you mention that the bible is literal. It seems you allegorise or symbolise this verse for the sake of your messianic argument.
        The verse above is an attempt to explain why snakes in bushes and deserts bite men’s heel when they walk on the deserts or in the bush. It is not a promise of a messiah.
        Look at the phraseology “your offspring and hers”
        And in the context, it is continuum. Because, you say the Messiah has come. And crush the Devils head as you want to interpret it for.
        But by y
        Anyone believing the coming of Christ can be called Christians. Muslims believe the coming of Christ but are not Christians.
        Ok Moses wrote about Jesus. But which Jesus? If a historian like Josephus write about Christ, does it make him a Christian? No
        I JUST WROTE ABOUT MUSLIMS, DOES THAT MAKE ME MUSLIM? NO
        The Pharisees and Sadducees may have had faith in a god, but not God. Jesus said that if they did, then they would have done the will of his Father, which is believe in Jesus (John 8:19, John 8:39-41-42).
        The PHRASISEE AND SADUCEES HAVE FAITH IN GOD AS NOTED IN THEIR TORAH AND TALMUD, THE NICEA COUNCIL HAVE GIVEN YOU A PORTION OF 66 BOOKS. AND LOOKING AT GOSPEL LITERARTURE, JESUS TOLD HIS DISCIPLES TO LIVE TO THE STANDARDS.
        You SAY THAT THE ‘Bible doesn’t indicate that fairies exist, so no, I don’t believe in them.’ OK I ASK YOU THIS:
        DOES THE BIBLE INDICATE THAT BIBLE EXISTS? IS THE WORD BIBLE FOUND IN ANY PART OF THE BIBLE?
        Should I also make those statements; that the word bible is not indicated in the bible so it doesn’t exit?

        You’re using semantics to suggest that “nothing” is greater than God. Of course nothing is greater than God, including “nothing”. Neither is “what” greater than God. Illogical once you understand and define your terms. Nothing doesn’t exist. Therefore it can’t be greater than God.
        By your conclusion above you indirectly conclude that GOD is GREATER Than Nothing. Is that right?
        THE catholic gave you the BIBLE and have more knowledge about Christian literature than you,
        According to the bible this what God inspired Isaiah to say about him.
        Isaiah chp 47: 1
        I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things
        So there is your proof.

        >>>> When Jesus said in Mathew 24:34
        Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened,
        Was he talking to you?
        No it is not speaking to you. It is somebody speaking to somebody. But of course. You can cherry pick it with “sometimes”
        Of course you can be satisfied with anything and seems to explain by it with God.
        Adam was a Christian, right?
        Abraham’s father had a God. You of course has a God. Everybody has a God. This I mean your concept of God.
        >>> I think you miss the point. Abraham’s father had a God different from Abraham’s God. What do
        >>>> I am not talking of Jew as culture or birth right, I am saying as laid by Talmud and Torah.. Of course there Jewish as in race that are Christians, Atheist, Evolutionist, and so forth.
        Gentiles are the Romans, and the Greeks and Asian minor at the time. Broadly speaking they are according to biblical. You are not a Gentile.
        Again I didn’t say that Noah sinned. I do understand that God’s law to the Israelites hadn’t been written yet, but I do believe God has written morality into our hearts so that we know right from wrong. I don’t wish to be dogmatic that Noah did or did not sin, and that’s why I was careful how I phrased my answer. I simply don’t know for certain, and that’s okay.
        There were sky scrappers back then such as the pyramids, God does not occasionally knock down sky scrappers. They happen for a reason. Stop poking causes and effects on God and Satan. And do some thinking why buildings fall.
        Look at the context:
        And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

        This an allegory from these ancient guys, telling us to be of one accord. Unity builds. Divided we fall.
        God did not command them to spread out across the earth.

        You seem to explain that your faith is logical. How is it logical when

        kids who die at birth? How are they saved?
        People that are born disabled? What sin has they committed to face this handicap and suffering?

    • I agree that the evidence for Noah’s flood based on flood stories is subjective, but then again, most evidence is subjective. Rarely is any evidence completely objective because we bring a certain worldview and bias with us, even if we don’t think we do. I’d argue that all the flood legends stem from the original Noah’s flood, not a local Mesopotamian myth. I’ve written about this idea as well. But to simply reject the Biblical story because one can make the case for a local Mesopotamian myth isn’t sound. That’s because a global flood could still be the best explanation. And when combined with geologic evidence, we have even stronger evidence.

      Of course you can call is pseudo science. That’s what many atheists (or anyone who rejects God and the Bible) would claim in order to maintain their own modern day origin myths… not even realizing that their own beliefs are built upon pseudo science. So to claim my beliefs are pseudo science is merely a self-preservation gimmick that I don’t subscribe to.

      Now let me address each of your 6 points. I think there are better explanations than merely millions and billions of years of uniformitarianism. You see, scientists have been forced to admit there are many examples of catastrophic events in the geologic column that cannot be explained by long periods of time.

      1) I’m glad we both now agree that the sea once covered the areas of the mountains.
      2) “Some people went there and left it there”. I don’t know what you mean.
      3) Da Vinci’s claim that the fossils are in the same position as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This is incorrect. There are many, many examples of fossil graveyards, evidence that such creatures were swept away by floodwaters. There are also examples of animals in the midst of giving birth and eating other animals, buried alive in these very positions. That would only happen with a catastrophic event with layers of sediment quickly covering them. Many animals are in the throws of death, dying as if they drowned. We also see dinosaur tracks running away from what appears to be flood waters, some of those tracks becoming less and less pronounced as they began wading through water.
      4) As I’ve indicated, not all the fossils deposited on the mountain tops would be redeposited into the valleys. Only that which was exposed on the top layers.
      5) The flood wouldn’t have melted all the ice in Antarctica because Antarctica wouldn’t have been there yet. The continents were breaking up during the flood and were spreading apart, but the ice in Antarctica wouldn’t have began accumulating until after the flood was over.
      6) Mountains can sink or get taller. True. I’m not sure what your point is.

      Blind faith is worthless is it’s not built upon anything of substance or no foundation. The Bible tells believers to have a reason for the hope we have, and to be able to explain the reason for our faith to others (1 Peter 3:15).

      Yes, evil people have existed after the flood. But the flood still serves as an example of God’s judgment. God promised he wouldn’t flood the earth again, even though he knew mankind was always evil. The Bible explains this.

      Even though there are local floods, that’s not enough to fossilize an animal. The necessary ingredients are important- such as the right minerals being carried in the floodwater. This is why we don’t see animals being fossilized today, despite local flooding. It’s a very rare process. Nonetheless, the vast majority of fossils found in the geologic column can be attributed to the flood because it was such a catastrophic event. If people were objective about it, then they would entertain all possible explanations, not just naturalistic explanations. Scientists giving credibility to a global flood would be ridiculed, despite the evidence, because acknowledging such an event concedes that the Bible is real. There are plenty of examples of scientists being attacked for positions that support Biblical events.

      The Bible does not scorn concrete evidence. Not at all. That’s a misrepresentation, and I’ve presented evidence to the contrary. If Jesus expected “blind faith”, then he wouldn’t have appeared to any of his disciples after he rose from the dead. He could have just disappeared and expect everyone to believe by faith that he rose from the dead. But that’s not what happened. Jesus’ appearance fueled the faith of the disciples, and turned them from cowards into bold witnesses, willing to die for their faith. Thomas received concrete evidence from Jesus, who was quite willing to provide it. I find it ridiculous t think that the Bible “scorns” concrete evidence based on what I’ve read in the Bible. However I agree with the passage that Jesus will bless those who have not seen him, yet still believe. But such a faith is based on the witness and testimony of others. So the faith of others is still not “blind faith”, but is rational, being derived from eye witnesses who were willing to die for Jesus (John 20:29). Nonetheless, concrete faith is not “scorned”. The disciples would never have proclaimed Jesus Christ as Lord if they had never seen any evidence from Jesus that he was the Messiah. They went into hiding when Jesus was crucified, fearful for their own lives. But when Jesus appeared to them and provided conclusive evidence that he really was the Messiah, then the disciples were willing to face death and persecution for their faith.

      No, I’m not saying there is no historicity of ancient Egypt. I’m saying that Egyptian history is different than what we’ve been led to believe by early Egyptologists. We have a much better picture today, and it corroborates the Biblical narrative. I’ll stand with these Egyptologists rather than the ones who deliberately laid out a false history with an effort to undermine Biblical history. Those who have done the work have credibility, and many Egyptologists are in agreement on these revisions because they make more sense than previous versions. If you’d rather live with outdated evidence, then you obviously won’t be able to find the Biblical evidence that exists, and that will keep you on the path of unbelief.

      It’s funny that you, a non-Christian and unbeliever, are defining Christianity to me, a born-again Christian. While I appreciate your sincere questions, I don’t need an non-Christian to define their version of Christianity for me.

      Noah and Abraham were believers and had faith in the Messiah and God’s promises. That’s it. I’ll see them in heaven because I believe in the same faith. Call that faith whatever you wish. Today we call it Christianity. Today many Jews have rejected the God that Noah and Abraham worshiped, and that’s why God sent Paul to preach the Good News to the Gentiles (Romans 1:16). Both Noah and Abraham saw their need for a savior because they both knew they were sinners. Jesus was that Messiah, and Christians believe that Jesus did appear to Abraham and to others in the Old Testament. We call these “Christophenes”. We believe it was Jesus who spoke to Abraham in Genesis 22:11-18. Notice that it was the angel of the Lord speaking to Abraham. We also believe Jesus was the angel of the Lord who appeared to Hagar in Genesis 16:7-16 and again in Genesis 21:17-20. Notice in verse 20 where the angel of God says, “I will make him into a great nation.” We also believe it was Jesus who spoke to and wrestlled Jacob in Genesis 32:22-32.

      You claim that neither the Talmud or Torah speak of the Messiah or Jesus, but there are both minimalists and maximalists who agree Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud. There are also references to Jesus in the Torah. Do a Google search and you’ll find plenty of references.

      The Jews, Sadducees and Pharisees didn’t agree with Christ because they didn’t know or believe God the Father. The Bible explains why they didn’t agree. Jesus was a threat to them and their power and authority (John 11:47-48). Jesus claimed to be God, and they didn’t believe him, so they attempted to stone him to death (John 8:31-59).

      I never said that I worship the same God as the Jews. If we did, then they would have faith in Jesus and be saved. But they don’t worship Jesus and are disobeying God who sent Jesus. If they knew God, then they’d know Jesus (John 7:28-29, John 8:12-20). Therefore we don’t worship the same God. Allah is also not the same thing as the God I worship because Muslims don’t accept Jesus Christ as Lord.

      My certainty of going to heaven is neither an illusion or “holier than thou”. My certainty is based on my faith in Christ, who paid the penalty for my sin (Romans 6:23, I Peter 3:18). It’s because I’m completely sinful and unholy that I need a savior.

      Yes, the Bible does say that some who say “Lord, Lord” will not go to heaven. Why can I be so certain I will? Because of the promises of God that I have put my faith in. That’s why. It’s not because of anything I’ve done, but because of the work Christ did on the Cross (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5). God and Jesus will be my judge, not me.

      I still don’t understand your question about Abraham and Jesus, but Abraham would have seen Jesus as the Messiah. I believe Abraham met and spoke with Jesus, and he certainly was aware of the Messiah and God’s promises that were to come through his offspring. God promised that he would become the father of many nations (Genesis 17:4), and that has been fulfilled in Christ.

      The Bible is literal where it’s meant to be taken literal, and allegorical where it’s meant to be allegorical, and poetic where it’s meant to be poetic. Just like any other writing. The point is the writing needs to be taken into context. Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy spoken by God. It represents how Satan will attack us, but his head will be crushed by Jesus on the Cross. This is standard Christian theology. The offspring being referred to are followers of Satan and believers of Christ. There will be enmity between believers and unbelievers. And that is certainly true. The Bible tells me that I was once a follower of Satan (Ephesians 2:1-3), but it was because of God’s great love for us that he has made me alive with Christ, even though I’m dead in my transgressions, because it is by grace that I have been saved (Ephesians 2:4-5).

      If Muslims don’t put their faith in Jesus, then they cannot be saved. Jesus said that he is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6).

      Writing about Jesus doesn’t make one a Christian. That doesn’t make any sense. What kind of argument is that? What makes someone a Christian is having faith in the coming Messiah, or having faith in the completed work of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

      The Bible refers to itself as “The Word of God” or “Scripture” or “God’s Word”. Just because the Bible isn’t mentioned in the Bible doesn’t negate anything. I don’t follow your logic. Is that your argument to suggest that fairies do exist or that I should believe in fairies even though the Bible doesn’t mention fairies? There’s nothing in the Bible to lead one to suggest that fairies exist. With your line of reasoning, how do you know anything exists? And how can you possibly know what to believe about anything?

      Sure, God is greater than everything, including “nothing”. It seems like you’re trying to trap me, but your logic is silly. Playing word games doesn’t make God less great.

      I’m not sure what you mean that THE catholic gave me the BIBLE. God gave me the Bible by preserving it through the ages. You see, I believe that God is sovereign, and that means he’s orchestrating everything, including the Bible we have access to today. I’m sure some Catholics have a greater knowledge of Christian literature than me, but that doesn’t mean they know Jesus as their Lord and Savior, nor does it mean that they have a better understanding of salvation than I do.

      I think you’re referring to Isaiah 45:7 (not Isaiah 47:1). The King James version may use the word “evil”, but that’s a matter of translation. The Hebrew word actually means adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery. Most translations use “disaster” because that does a better job of the meaning. So your “proof” isn’t really proof.

      When trying to understand the Bible, we need to ask, “Who is the author speaking to?” Was he speaking “only” to one person, or did it apply to anyone else? Sometimes the author was speaking to one person, but the letter actually applies to a broader group of people. As for Matthew 24:34, I agree it was only referring to the disciples. But in other places the words apply to all believers, not just the particular person it was written to. Context matters, and that means we don’t “cherry pick”.

      I was a Gentile, and then I became a Jew in the sense that Abraham has become my father by faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus died first for the Jews, and then for the Gentiles. You see the Jews rejected him as the Messiah, and that’s when he went to the Gentiles. That means all nations have been blessed through Christ, and that fulfills God’s promise through Abraham being the father of many nations.

      I don’t know where you get your “Christian” theology from, but the Tower of Babel wasn’t an allegory to tell people to be of one accord and build unity. It was a historical event that explains why people speak different languages, and explains how people spread out across the earth.

      You say that God didn’t command them to spread out across the earth, but he did. Read Genesis 9:1 where it says that God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.” In other words, God commanded Noah to fill the earth, and that means people were supposed to spread out across the earth.

      Good question about children dying at birth. The Bible doesn’t fully explain how they’re saved or if they’re saved. In order to answer this we need to take into consideration what the Bible does tell us about salvation. James 3:1 tells us that those who teach will be held to a higher standard and will be judged more strictly than those who don’t teach. This leads me to believe that God judges people differently. Therefore it’s reasonable to believe that children will not be held to the same standard as you and I. They never had a chance to respond to the gospel message and accept or reject it. So perhaps they’re better off than adults who have rejected Jesus, and many of them (if not all) will be in heaven. Again, those who are disabled will also be judged differently, and I’m satisfied with how God will judge them, because he will judge us all with equity.

      What sin have the disabled committed to face their handicap? The Bible in John 9:2 the disciples asked Jesus, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered them, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this has happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” With that, Jesus healed the man and restored his eye sight. The same will happen for others who are disabled. Those who are saved will be restored, and God will be glorified.

      • You are entitled to believe what you want. And thinks that you are right and anybody that does not agree with your sect of Christianity as per your interpretation of the bible is on the way to hell. As usual, the people that make such statements are the dangerous ones.

        And your statement that you are a Christian so you define Christianity is bluff. You fail to understand the core message of Christianity. .

        When I started this debate with you, I mentioned that there sort of Christians: gay priest, paedophiles, atheist, agnostics, some even mix Christianity with the worship of other deity.

        Christianity is not acquired by birth at least from a Protestant view. Though my catholic friends think otherwise. I make this assertion from the way the apostles and the early Christian church fathers made converts.

        First you have to be lost and looking for a saviour. Or at least admit you are damned. And needs a saviour. And then accept Christ as the saviour. That is how you became a Christian.
        When the alter call was made or whoever preached you should show you that you are lost and then needs a saviour.

        Abraham wasn’t lost. He was called among his kindred. Noah was not lost.

        And using Paul’s way of salvation as in Romans 10:10, these 2 don’t qualify.You also fail basic understanding that there are different dispensations in the bible.

        Well, you make a great mistake that there is only the God of Abraham that Jews know. And you fail to understand why the coming of Jesus and Elijah (if you’ll accept is John the Baptist) didn’t match with certain prophecies in the bible as expected. So the Messiah is not come yet, if you read the Torah and the prophets.

        Prior Jesus the Christ, there was another Jesus that arose and claim to be the Messiah just after the Maccabees era

        You think you are Jew. That is funny. Anyway. You claim to be gentile who have become a Jew. Of course, as I mentioned you can believe all sort of things you want. But there is no logic in you gentile becoming a Jew. Even converts to Judaism are not called Jews but converts or proselytes.

        First all which sect do you subscribe to? Are you a Pentecostal, Mormon, AoG, Jehovah Witness? or one of those one man churches like Kenneth Copeland, Ravi Ministries, Jimmy Swaggart, Beny hINN etc. ?

        Allegorise when you want. Spiritualise when you. Turn it to poetry when you feel so. But what you called allegory is another mans literal.

        Make it logic to yourself. Like all biases, you fail to take into account other factors.

        But you have failed to understand why Judaism has not become Christianity. Also you fail class whether Adam and Eve are under your Christendom.

        You can quote Paul to say you will go to heaven, but Jesus himself said not all those who say ‘Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of God. And the servant is not greater than the master.

        And if you really think this world is coming to an end then you are not really far from that ancient civilisation like the Mayans, even the millennium bug, and others.

        This world is not coming to end. Everyone’s material existence in this world end at one point. But to say that this world is coming to an end is laugh. You are living in the old days. The scripture of Eschatology is deep. As I mentioned in previous debate, there at least 4 main doctrines taught in the school of theology and apologetics. And even the real one is hidden for those are looking and can be find in schools nor churches.

        There is nothing new under the Sun.

        Your idea that blind faith gives an indication that you are rather a faithless Christian. And if you have evidence then you need no faith or believe. You should then say you know. But since you were not there to verify these statements you have belief certain things. You have to assume demons can become an angel of light. And yet what has light to do with darkness. You will have to deal with the paradoxes and explain that which is sound to you.

        You see one thing I can like about the translators that they keep changing words to deals with the ambiguity of linguistics. God as described in the bible is the God of everything. In hell he is God. In heaven he is God.

        No if God creates disaster. You think disaster is not evil. It is just another word to describe the results of an evil event. Well surprising that you God concept cant get this. God raise a murderer to kill if you don’t know. And in other text he hardens a mans heart to destroy him.

        God by definition can even create string theory, big bang, evolution,,,, so be my guest

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s