I’m not familiar with the precise timeline of the Bible, but I know the last gospel was added to it well over a thousand years ago. As Christians base their belief on God largely on what’s mentioned in the Bible, then their belief should only be that God existed up until a certain point in time and beyond that they cannot know. So any belief in God’s existence at a point in time that is after the last chronological reference to God in the Bible must be based on something other the Bible.
Are you serious? Hahahaha, I don’t think I’ve seen a worse logic violation all day.
So if someone believes a book is true, they can only believe it’s true until it stops being written? What the fuck?
Mutcer, what you are referring to is some Christians.
I could say Christians are Humans and therefore humans believe in the Bible.
Some Christians believe that the Bible is divinely inspired.
Written by man but inspired by God through revelations and realizations.
When you refer to a certain group of persons or beliefs then try to be specific.
Which specific Christians are you referring? Someone from that specific Christian group can then respond (if they wish) to your comments in a sensible discussion.
And yes, many Christians do base their understandings of God on things other than the Bible.
When we listen we find that there is no contradiction in this.
Many Christians faiths also do not take the Bible as literal but rather metaphorical (the finger and the moon).
Many a devout Christian will tell you that the proof is in the pudding. Look around you. If you don’t see the possibility of a creator, you’ve got to be blind.
Kindness, usefulness, patience, willingness to forgive, generosity, self-control, cheerfulness, trustworthiness, peacefulness. Those are what make the gospel worth attention.
Beautiful.
Really?
Those are human traits. We’re talking about the existence of God here.
Um…yeah. Really.
Kindness, usefulness, patience, willingness to forgive, generosity, self-control, cheerfulness, trustworthiness, peacefulness just don’t compare.
You can say that an image is beautiful and you can say kindness is beautiful. It’s not mutually exclusive. No comparison is required or possible. I have no idea how to compare such totally different things.
Yeah, ochaye, what phyllo said. Something can’t be beautiful in and of itself?
What gives?
Nobody did, though.
imply - to indicate indirectly or by allusion; hint; suggest; intimate
If you were suggesting something else with your posts, then please explain.
I’ll explain when I think I need to.
I think now would be that time. If you’re trying to convey something to someone else, and they’re not understanding what it is you’re trying to say, that’s probably the time to explain.
‘Many a devout Christian’
Why Christian? Why not Hindu, or Buddhist?
Why ‘devout’?
The word “Christian” is not the point of this sentence. Subsitute it with any faith that believes in a sentient “creator of the universe”. Whichever appeals most to you, I really don’t care.
Fair. Many people who aren’t devout still believe in a creator. So scratch it.
Now, would you care to participate in this conversation, or are you going to just go on being cryptic-with-an-attitude?
Then why write it, if ‘believer’ is more appropriate?
Very fair, if ‘beauty’ inspires only the possibility of a creator.
I’m sorry, did you not read the OP?
I wasn’t speaking of beauty, I was speaking of design. If you’re going to respond scathingly to something I’ve said, please make sure it IS something I said beforehand. I’m not really sure of why you came into this thread swinging, but it’s played out.