The Reason Christians Believe In God, Maybe just 1 opinion reason...

I don?t know if this is the right place to post this but it does go along, somewhat, to dragonboy?s original post. If anyone feels this isn?t the right place let me know and I will move it to wherever you all think best.

With that said let me preface my remarks/questions with a bit of my religious background. I grew up in a very Christian family. I attended church regularly, I have been baptized, I was involved in the youth programs of my church, participated in many bible and church related activities i.e. Bible Bowl, church camps etc. I guess what I?m trying to say is that I am quite familiar with the bible and Christianity in general so this post is not one of ignorance of the subject matter or a need for ?Bible teaching?. I would just like other points of view and answers to questions that have been mulling around in my head for quite some time. Here goes.

Many, if not most, of the posts that I have been reading here in Kirk and Chapel, have referenced the bible which appears to be the basis for the Christian faith/religion. My first question would be: The Bible was written by human men. Men who claimed to have been spoken to by God and told to write this. Or men who followed and believed in Jesus and his teachings and so wrote them down. It was not written by God himself, or by Jesus? own hand. Why is it that these men are unequivocally to be believed just because they claim that ?God? spoke to them? Or that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John can say that Jesus was not just a prophet but also the ?Son of God? because a prophet from the OT said it would happen and Jesus himself claimed to be? If someone, and it does happen, today claimed to have spoken to someone ?otherworldly? they would be labeled a crackpot and laughed at and ridiculed. But if it was said thousands of years ago and was claimed to have come from God then it can be nothing but the truth. I?m pretty sure that this is where many Christians would say that the bible says do not follow a false prophet, you are to have only one God so on and so forth. Quite convenient, isn?t it? It?s sort of like a disclaimer ?We say there are many false prophets, Gods, etc and that you aren?t to believe in them or worship them but that doesn?t include ours. Ours, of course, are the ?true? prophets, Gods, etc and should be believed without question.? Isn?t that what many other ?religions? say? What makes Christianity the one true religion? Because of a book, (written by a bunch of men who claim to have spoken to an entity that nobody can see, touch or speak to themselves, or even prove without a doubt exists) says it?s so? You believe that Jesus is the Son of God because the bible says so. You believe he was crucified, rose again and went to sit at the right hand of God and to prepare a place for us because the bible says so. Historical records may show that a man (or three in this case) was crucified on the day in question (I don?t know that to be fact) but I don?t think they can determine exactly who it was that was crucified. And we have no documentation that he actually rose again save for the tales of the people he showed himself to, those who already believed in him in the first place. There is a saying that goes ?Don?t believe everything you see/hear/read.? But according to Christians, that doesn?t pertain to the Bible, only to anything that doesn?t agree with it. Sorry to blether on so much, and there is more where that came from but I thought I would just start with this for now!! I would welcome any comments, questions, or explanations that any of you would care to post. (I?m really flailing spiritually here!) If I haven't expressed myself clearly here or you don't understand my thought process (which happens often!) let me know and I will try to clarify it for you.

Hey Dragon Boy! I love your speech. I also love that beautiful ethereal picture of the glowing cross on the crystal waters.

The reason I believe in God? Well I had an accident 4 years aga abd as a Firefighter/Paramedic, I can tell you I shouldn't have survived. I basically walked away. I could only be God!

I wouldn't be alive, I mean really alive, today if it wasn't for God. I was in a bad accident 4 years ago and God really saved me. i literly walked away and I can say that as a Firefighter/Paramedic, no one should have survived the wreck.

In response to Sonee, I hope this helps some-or at least gives you anothers opinion.

Bible from God- actually the Bible does claim to be written by God 2 timothy 3:16 the NIV uses the phrase "...God breathed..." correct me if Im wrong but The Bible is the only book that claims to be written by deity, God, not just the prophet of a deity. Also how do we find the truth in judicial proceedings? Get as many people who saw the incident to tell about it. That is what the human authors of the bible do.

Since it makes this claim, what supports it? Well, how about fulfilled prophecy-there is another thread about prophecy so I wont use the space here to go into great details. Authors and Prophets that performed miraculous signs, that could not be mearly some slight of hand tricks. Did you know that the Bible reveals scientific truths hundreds of years before they were proven. ie, round earth, ocean currents, water cycle, movement of stars, etc.

How do you know that George washington was the first president of the United States? How do you know that Magellan circumnavigated the earth? How do you know that Tutankhamen (sp?) was a pharoh in Egypt? How do you know that an earthquake happened in Afghanistan? There is actually more documented evidence that the Bible is historically acurate (when it talks about people, including Jesus, places and events) than any other ancient manuscript that is accepted to be true, such as roman and greek historians or egyptian writings. The authors of the New testament tell people to ask the witnesses of the resurection who were still alive at the time of the writings, originally over 500 people at the time of the resurection. Why do that and run the risk of one of these people telling it wrong or getting fed up with a lie if it wasn't true. If the disciples knew that Jesus had not risen, why did they accept death when given the choice to recant what they believe or die. 10 out of 11 disciples were killed for spreading the word of God. (someone tried to kill John and failed then he was exiled to patmos) At least 2 of the elleven claimed to have seen Jesus' tomb. All of them claimed to have seen Jesus alive after he was crucified. Why would they choose death if they knew they were just spreading a lie. All the opponents of christianity had to do was produce the body of Jesus and say here he is dead as a doornail. Or say, We didn't crucify any Jesus, Yet no where in history do we find that happening. As a matter of fact they set a guard around the tomb and sealed it with a huge rock. This guard (more than 2 armed soldiers) was militarily trained and knew how many followers of Jesus there were. There was no way that the disciples would have been able to surprise them and take the body. Just because you or you friends didn't actually witness an event doesn't meen that it didn't happen. if the Bible is historically acurate than why would it not be acurate in other places? ie. how to get to heaven, how to be a good person, how to treat your wife (if you are a guy), how to handle money, etc.

With all the different human authors, over 50 authors writing over a time frame of over a thousand years, the Bible never disagrees with itself. You would be hardpressed to find 50 people agree on pizza toppings , much less spiritual matters. Most of these authors never even met each other. It is obvious that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not get together and say, "ok lets get our stories straight." They wrote what they saw and all 4 of the gospels agree.

I teach a Bible class and we have actually been going over this very topic. This is what I could remember without my books with me. I hope this helps. I would be happy to share more if any one would like.

I appreciate the response! However, I'm still not entirely convinced. Jim Jones managed to convince a large number of people to not only kill themselves but to also feed their own children poisoned kool-aid in order to kill them. How hard would it have been to convince people in that time to lie in order to "recieve heaven", or even to have them believe that it was right to say that. I think some people are, for lack of a better word, gullible. Besides, aren't some of the books written, not by the people who actually saw the event, but by someone they only told the event to? 2nd hand information isn't always accurate.
Also, I saw a documentary this afternoon that said the book of Esther wasn't even one of the dead sea scrolls that the bible allegedly derived from. If that is the case, where did it come from then? It, evidentally, doesn't mention God once in any of its verses and that is a point of contention with many scholars. They feel it was added later, perhaps from some other document from the era that really isn't related at all to the bible.
How do we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote those? I could write something as of I was someone important from this era, say Princess Diana, bury it for a few thousand years and the people who found it would have no way of knowing if she actually wrote it or not. If everything buried around it was from the same era, possibly even things from her family/associates, and if I included data that was verifiable by written accounts of the time, or other witness accounts they would no doubt assert that it was legitimate and reliable. Who would be around to say that it wasn't? Isn't it feasable that the same thing happened with the bible? What about "alien abduction"? There are numerous amounts of "eye witnesses" who have been abducted and reported the same events and description of the aliens from many miles away. They have/had never been in contact with one another either, does that mean that it's real and we should all believe in aliens?
(not trying to be sarcastic here, I seriously want to know)

Hebrews 11:1 (King James Version) 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Sonee,

I wish there was some irrefutable evidence of God that I could provide you with, but if you don't see his hand in all the beautiful things in creation there isn't much I can provide you with other than what is written here.


John 20:24-29 (New International Version)

Jesus Appears to Thomas

24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

It would be easy to believe, if like Thomas, Jesus personally appeared to each one of us and we could "...see the nail marks in his hands and put my{our} fingers where the nails were, and put my{our} hand into his side....". But that is not likely to happen. All we can do is (as Peter wrote):1 Peter 3:15 (New International Version)
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.


Romans 8:24-25 (New International Version)
24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?
25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Also see all of Hebrews 11 concerning Faith

Quoting sources from a source that is being contested does not make it anymore believable.

I would like to remind you that the "bible" was assembled some 1000 years after the life it honors . I am not refering to the Yiddish books as such, just what the modern christian religion calls the "bible".

It was around 1080 or latter, I have to go back and look, that a bunch of clerics got together and decided what would be doctrine and what to leave out.

As for the Yiddish parts, they are particular to those that believe in that religion... "Yahweh's choosen people"... Baptists, Unitarians, Presbitirians, Catholics, etc. where not even there...

Those that have come to the Scriptures with an open heart and thirst for truth have found that the Bible is miraculous in it's construction. In the same way a watermark reveals the authenticity of a banknote, the Hand of God is revealed in every verse of the Bible.
This "watermark" is shown as one studies the mathematic, the prophecy, the history and the science that is woven into the very fabric of the collection of books we call the Bible.
Even in English, little of consequence is lost.

Shadows, you once rebuked me for coming into one of the witchcraft forums and speaking of faith in Jesus.

You are obviously no more interested in surrendering yourself to the loving God of the Bible than I am bowing to the dark forces of witchcraft.

So why are you here? Is it just to debate? Endless debate about the Bible without real interest and need for what the Lord Jesus is able of provide those who call on Him, in my expererience, rarely achieves anything.

Now, convincing someone of the above is, IMHO, beyond the scope of this forum, or any other.
If you really want to know God and discover the Bible truths, nothing can better simply sitting down and studying with a Christian minister who really knows his Bible (not all do).

Tassiecelt; Shadows can speak for himself very well and I'm sure he will do but...
it was not HIM who asked you why you were posting about your faith in "The Grove". It was another member whose name I can't remember right now. I needed to have a further look.
In contrary, Shadows was the one who replied to this member's answer to your post by saying that "The Grove" was open to ALL who feel like contributing there.

And "The Grove" isn't a forum about "the dark forces of witchcraft" only; if you have a look around you'd notice that it is a place for many other ways of believing.
I don't want to step into discussion here because our opinions will differ. It would lead us off topic soon enough.

I truely respect your strong and heartfelt belief in Jesus and I see the point why you can't respect other beliefs then...may walk in peace!

OK if it wasn't shadows, then I stand corrected and apologise to him. Mind you, I was out of order in the Grove probably, so I wasn't complaining about the rebuke - whoever gave it.

Correct me again if I am wrong, but I understand Kirk and Chapel to be a place for Christians to share with once another. From what I have seen, they do that very well and harmoniously.

I was comparing faith in Christ to that which is totally opposite, not referring to the Grove in particular. Although, Jesus did say that those who were not for Him, were against Him. Those who are not working for Christ, work against Him (His words, not mine). Matt 12:30

Also, to quote Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name (Jesus Christ) under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Or Good News version: "Salvation is to be found through him alone; in all the world there is no one else whom God has given who can save us."


Any way of believing that is not founded on Christ is vain, all roads do not lead to Rome, all paths do not lead to God. As anyone who has hiked in the mountains will tell you, there are some paths that simply go the wrong way no matter how sure we might be in them, and some may even lead the the edge of a cliff.

I know that sounds dogmatic, I once rejected that notion myself but in the end had to admit...it's true, and what a wonderful truth that focusses the whole being on that which is above all.

In conclusion, my personal view is:
If you don't want to hear the gospel, don't go into a Kirk or Chapel.
I'm not interested in the occult (or whatever one wishes to call it), so I won't go into the Grove.

One last post here for now...

appology accepted...

I am a heathen on the side of the rebel Jesus!

In my limited experience I have found Christian forums or chat rooms to attract three kinds of people: The believer, the seeker, and the trouble maker. While the trouble maker is not welcome, I believe that we christians have a responsibility to the other two: Answer the questions of the seaker and encourage the believer.

To sonee (Who I think of as a seeker),

Whatever method you have of figuring out truth, apply it to the Bible. The bible will stand up to any scrutiny (sp?). Consequently if you don't think you can find truth, then why argue that the Bible is in contention. If you can't find truth then my truth is just as valid as yours and my truth says there is truth. The funny thing about truth, we don't need to believe it for it to exist. As for the jim Jones comparison, try finding anyone now who follows his teachings. Only 30 years later and you will be hard pressed to find anyone admitting to it, much less in public forums. We see people who follow the Bible everywhere, politics, sports, education, buisiness, every aspect of our society. I sincerely doubt if Jesus convinced people the same way as Jim Jones, that there would be a consistant string of followers for over a thousand years.

Just because a passage is not found in the dead sea scrolls does not mean that it doesn't belong in the Bible. The bible is not neccessarily derived from the dead sea scrolls, but they are probably a copy of the manuscript to begin with. We use sections of manuscripts to validate an entire document all the time. It is rare that an archeologists finds entire documents that are not missing pieces yet they still use these incomplete documents to validate others. Why expect the manuscripts found for the Bible to be any different? I personally have no problem with Esther not mentioning God. If you read the story it is evident that God's hand is in it even though it doesn't say the word "God". If you are waiting until Jesus Comes and stands in front of you or for a supernatural sign you will be waiting too long.

Luke 16:29-31
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he (the rich man) said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one (Lazarus) went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

I am willing to bet that if Jesus did show up in front of an unbeliever today, that person would try to explain how it was a trick or a hallucination from the mushrooms he ate at dinner

two last thing,s second hand information is reliable when it agrees with the eye witness accounts. In his letters, Paul tells people to ask the living eye witnesses of which there was over 500 at the time. even though he was not an eye witness, he talked to those who were. Does that make his account less reliable, maybe if we didn't have the eye witness accounts too.

even if you doubt who the human author was, the events written about are still accurate - as verified by other sources (not buried with biblical manuscripts) and archeological digging. If the events written about are true, why assume the authors are fake - unless you are looking for reasons to disbelieve the Bible instead of looking for answers to your questions.

we can specualte about any "what if" question. "What if the bible is a hoax perpetrated to keep the catholic church in power for hundreds of years?"

"What if the Bible were written by aliens?"

"What if I am right and you are wrong?"

"What if's" are fun for discussions but they shouldn't be used to disprove an argument. No matter what I say you can always come up with a "what if" that would appear to disprove what I just said.