Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Hey.
I wanted to just talk with you, really not debate to much but more of a discussion. Debates are fine. Also, if you'd like to skip out of the conversation, please let me know.
My question for you is. Since you believe that the Bible is the source of all knowledge and truth, outside of your personal opinion, beliefs, and truths, what evidence (hate that word) do you have that suggest that the Bible is true?
There are many things that I know are true. I know for a fact and evidence supported that they used to believe the earth was flat. I know for a fact they used to believe that seizures were possessions from the devil. Now, some churches do believe seizures are possessions of some kind but to some it's the holy spirit. I know some things in the Bible are fact.
That doesn't mean what each of these facts "the earth is flat" is true. It just means that it's stated and they found the evidence of the claim. When they found claims for miracles, they didn't find the actual miracle but the stories and claims that "Jesus walked on water" and "Jesus raised the dead." Believers put together all the synchronicity and say "X is true because this happened out of the ordinary" but then you got to think what does a claim and statement mean and how does a statement 2,000 years ago be relevant to a statement today.
Then you have believers connect biblical miracles with what they experienced today. They feel "oh, I didn't think my grandmother would get better but by the grace of god and my prayer she is in perfect health. How could that happen when her condition was so bad. It was all god." Was it? Or was that a self-fulfilling prophecy?
At least for me, natural and spiritual coincide. I have no evidence that my grandmothers are taking care of me other than what I physically experienced. I have no book, no scroll, just me. That's alright because spiritual truth comes from ourselves. If I wrote it down in a book and thousands of years later someone picked it up and say "Walah! Carlita has experience the hand of god" is that true or what they want to believe? Do they know me? How can they judge my experience as the hands of god when they don't know my experience just what is written in my book.
Why do you trust written words more than you do the person-Paul, John, Mary. Catholics (quick note) go to the different saints for advice and help. So, in that respect, they are getting facts from the people themselves.
Protestants don't take the advantage of talking to anyone other than Christ and god.
(Whether it's right or wrong isn't my point)
I wanted to just talk with you, really not debate to much but more of a discussion. Debates are fine. Also, if you'd like to skip out of the conversation, please let me know.
My question for you is. Since you believe that the Bible is the source of all knowledge and truth, outside of your personal opinion, beliefs, and truths, what evidence (hate that word) do you have that suggest that the Bible is true?
There are many things that I know are true. I know for a fact and evidence supported that they used to believe the earth was flat. I know for a fact they used to believe that seizures were possessions from the devil. Now, some churches do believe seizures are possessions of some kind but to some it's the holy spirit. I know some things in the Bible are fact.
That doesn't mean what each of these facts "the earth is flat" is true. It just means that it's stated and they found the evidence of the claim. When they found claims for miracles, they didn't find the actual miracle but the stories and claims that "Jesus walked on water" and "Jesus raised the dead." Believers put together all the synchronicity and say "X is true because this happened out of the ordinary" but then you got to think what does a claim and statement mean and how does a statement 2,000 years ago be relevant to a statement today.
Did Jesus actually perform miracles or is that what you "believe" based on the facts (the evidence) that claim and was written he did?
Then you have believers connect biblical miracles with what they experienced today. They feel "oh, I didn't think my grandmother would get better but by the grace of god and my prayer she is in perfect health. How could that happen when her condition was so bad. It was all god." Was it? Or was that a self-fulfilling prophecy?
The evidence of the Bible is the claims and stories written back when. Those claims people still make today. Time period doesn't change that just because you say X is a fact, it is automatically true (just because you find out Joe Smith in 424 thought that the earth was flat and we found evidence of his discovery doesn't mean the earth is actually flat). Why would we think spirituality is any different than the natural world?
At least for me, natural and spiritual coincide. I have no evidence that my grandmothers are taking care of me other than what I physically experienced. I have no book, no scroll, just me. That's alright because spiritual truth comes from ourselves. If I wrote it down in a book and thousands of years later someone picked it up and say "Walah! Carlita has experience the hand of god" is that true or what they want to believe? Do they know me? How can they judge my experience as the hands of god when they don't know my experience just what is written in my book.
Why do you trust written words more than you do the person-Paul, John, Mary. Catholics (quick note) go to the different saints for advice and help. So, in that respect, they are getting facts from the people themselves.
Protestants don't take the advantage of talking to anyone other than Christ and god.
I know what scripture says; but, think about it, though. Why go off of claims and written evidence of the apostles when you really don't have facts unless you talk to the people themselves (not as a Catholic) but in general?
(Whether it's right or wrong isn't my point)
