thenumberone : "Considering a few things" was towards the fact that they didn't have cameras back then...
And if there is by some magical chance that there is a real humanoid god, I would assume that he DID, in fact, try to hide himself from humanity, considering that in the beginning we were tempted by a snake, as a messenger from the devil, to turn against God and have our own free will. In which case, if this was real (Which, being I am an Atheist, I don't believe being real), then who is to say that such a thing wouldn't happen again, only this time we DO find god, and try to take his power because the Devil told us to, or something?

MegaRevolution1 : "Plus, the bible itself too has flaws. One in Genesis being that it says how the moon creates its own light, when in reality it just reflects light from the sun."



This isn't a flaw. Remember what time period Genesis was written. The first recorded mentioning the possibility of the moon as a reflector of light from the sun is during the time Greek philosophers, which is hundreds or thousands of years before the writing of this book. This idea was not even the dominate view of the moon when it was first mentioned. So from the observation of the people on earth at that time, it makes sense that it was written like the moon as a separate light. But this is not contradictory because this is what was observed at that time with their understanding of the world, and the readers of that time would understand what the passage is conveying. Saying it is a reflector without anyone having that understanding of what the moon actually does would cause confusion to the people and would even not take the writing seriously.



""God is however, angry that we choose to believe other beings over Him." - this is Envy, one of the seven deadly sins. "



If you think of the context, this is not true. Let's try this with an analogy. Let's say that you are an artist and you painted a masterpiece and was presented to a group of people to show your work. However, those people believed that the artwork was done by someone else who is clearly not the designer of it. How would you react? You would be angry with the person. Is this envy? No. It's not that you are angry that the person unjustly received glory when you are the one who actually did it. Now bring that to this context. Christians believe that God is the sole Creator of the universe, yet when people deny His existence or disbelief in Him, that isn't envy, this is righteous anger towards the very people who God made but turned back against Him. To add injury to insult, people not only deny God's glory of being the Creator, but they don't believe in Him. Now think about it in terms of Ancient Israel, they would rather believe in idols that were manmade and made from materials. How angry should God be? Think about the context of why God would be angry of such a thing. It is a righteous anger and not sinful.



thenumberone : "prove jesus was real."


I can understand if one were not to believe of the miraculous things that Jesus did or the fact that He is God, but to go and say that Jesus was not real is a foolish statement that has been refuted by both secular and Christian historians and scholars.



"unless theres a photo of him in the original bible"


This would be a laughable statement to those who are historians on anything else. Who would say, "unless there is a photo of the Assyrians, or of Julius Caesar, or of Shi Huangdi, they do not exist"?



"when you state god is all powerfull and all knowing you screw yourself over. by that logic god knows the outcome before the even, hence he would know in say, 28AD, that in 2024 we would perfect cloning and hence have the means of leaving evidence of his existance in a similar maner."



Except you forgot that not only is God all powerful and all knowing, but WE are not. There might be evidence that is out there that you may not have bothered to look into. You might have a question or an objection that seems to be able to dispute with Christianity, but did you take the extra step to see what the Biblical response would be for that question or objection? Many objections and questions have been brought up against Christians time and time again for centuries, but along with it there have been answers provided for them as well.



This brings up another issue: God has left evidence down to show His existence. The Bible doesn't deny this: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY PERCEIVED, ever SINCE the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are WITHOUT EXCUSE." (Romans 1:20) [emphasis added]. The additional question is this, are you going to have the willingness to accept the evidence? Sometimes, the evidence isn't the problem, but the willingness to accept the evidence and the willingness to believe in God. I even recall from MegaRevolution1's own words a few posts ago that she suggests that even if there is evidence that convinces her that God exists, she probably would not believe. It is no different to the Egyptian Pharaoh's response to Moses and the Ten plagues or to King Ahab versus the prophet Elijah. There is a sense of openness included in all this to accept the evidence AND to trust in Him. All this requires us to let go of our pride and our presuppositions and assumptions that may cloud our perceptions.



It is the same way with scientific inquiry. Someone observes something, suggests a hypothesis to explain it, then tested the hypothesis. When the test supports his hypothesis, it became a theory. Theory then undergoes repeated trials, different experimental conditions, more data gathering. But sooner or later, one must have the openness and the faith to finally trust that this theory is scientifically supported and valid in the world that we live in.



Sephitard9001 : Works of Roman Historians, like Josephus, Tacitus, etc.



mr.pace : This is of no offense intended, but I think you may want to try a different field of argumentation instead of the science route, because I don't think you understand certain aspects of science and it doesn't help the Christian case.

play4fun : While I do get where you're coming from with that second point, it doesn't really seem like righteous anger in my view, because (like mr.pace so generously provided as info here) that anger turns into the end of humanity. Plus, there never truly is righteous anger, when you have reasoning. Their reasoning however, I myself do not know unfortunately, since I've never really studied it, but my best assumption would be that it was in earlier times when Christianity hasn't totally spread out through the world yet (Excuse me for my ignorance if it does in fact turn out that that area was one of the first areas to have started spreading Christianity).

I guess you're right about it not being Envy then, but that does bring up Wrath .

And as for the first point, I guess I have literally no argument there. Too bad most people now don't really think of that nowadays when referencing it (Like me! ). I actually didn't know that part until a about a week + ago, after finding a story on how Bill Nye was boo'ed away in Texas for saying how it reflects light .

play4fun :

There are historians that say he was real yes, but theres no historic evidence of miracles.

julius caesar has statues, records of conquest, referencing by many people of the time.

the events of the bible have only the bible, hence not credible.

the only 'proof' is NATURAL disasters being recorded. people then go, its god! it must be!

Im an atheist BECAUSE of evidence. When i was little i fell for the deliberate christianisation that was present in my primary school. Actualy reading the bible then intelectual reasoning easily swung me.

God did it was the answer from the 1200-1500, once that answer started being challenged we started advancing far faster, it only held us back.

Obviously i have seen christian responses, and have been underwhelmed.

It is generaly the christians that wont accept reason if its proven, like dinosaurs.

We found the bones and many went: ... Wait, i know. Satan put them there to trick us.

Against that proof wont make a dent.

Unless you have a hieroglyph from the time talking of plagues one day after another that isnt evidence. Only 1 source claims it hapened.

I dont see what theory would support raining frogs.
As for the moon thing, if the people who wrote it in the bible dont know the real facts, they arent credable to talk about what god created.
It also opens the door to further errors being in there, to the extent you cant know if its even worth following.
You'd think god would take more interest in a book people wave while yelling 'gods word!'

I feel like closing this thread, but I'll give it a little more time.

I've given up on ever being able to believe without any of this evidence. And that's cool with me. I gave it a shot, but I rely too much on hard facts and things that actually are proven to exist.

Plus, I'm tired of getting a notification for this about once per day. It gets annoying.

This looks pretty familiar Leggy ha ha. You already know my take on the subject, but I agree with you. After a while it just gets hard to believe in God because all those miracles that happened way back when in the bible..., aren't really happening today. People take good things that happen and call them miracles. But there are people in the Bible who SAW angels. Saul saw a bright light and it blinded him and after he was talked to he changed his ways. I just don't see much of that going around anymore. There are tons of holes in Christianity and I'm totally with you on this Leggy I want to see some proof that he exists.

No one should even just have "blind faith" in something without hard, concrete evidence supporting that idea. Why would you ever believe in something that you have never seen...that your family and friends have never seen? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Jordanv78 : While that is true, it is sometimes good to take the risk of believing. However, I believe that this works better when you don't need to devote your life to going by certain restrictions and such, like Religion. When you think about it, it's almost like a Nuzlocke run on Pokemon .

And even with actual evidence (Such as photos and whatever), it could still be false and 100% fake. For example, would you believe in the existance of Alien UFOs or Bigfoot with just a few pictures and a video, maybe even some "eye witness" encounters? Well, ate to be hypocritical here, but I do believe in the existance of Bigfoot (Alien UFOs however, not too sure about. Alien life, yes).

Sometimes, you just can't really avoid having blind faith over something, even when hating the idea of blind faith.

I believe the restrictions in the bible and every other religion is just a set of rules in which people lie down in order to keep a certain amount of control over the people so they're not being dictators and breaking the law of the constitution instead they are using the blind faith people have in order to keep people in line.

Leggy,

I realize I may be late to the party here and you feel like closing this post and/or give up your search for God. I would plead with you not to give up. I actually have much I would like to say to you, so much in fact I believe it will take me several posts, and the truth is, I'm not sure exactly where to begin. Perhaps I should tell you a little about myself. My name is Micah. I am 31 years old, and I am a Christian. I have been a follower of Jesus Christ since I was 8 years old. I have not always followed him faithfully. I have made many mistakes along the way. But he is a merciful savior and he has always been faithful to his promises found in his word in the Bible. I know this is true because I can see evidence of God's work in my life, transforming my heart and my mind and truly making me into a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) like the Bible says. If you like, I can talk to you about more specifically about how I can see God at work in my life but suffice it to say for now that I see evidence and know that he has began this new work in me and he will bring it to completion one day (Philippians 1:6). Especially in the past seven years since I went to Afghanistan with the Army, came back to the states, and completed my active duty service, God has really been strengthening my faith and growing my desire to do full time ministry. So now I am a student at Boyce College, the undergraduate school at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY where I am studying the Bible, Theology, Philosophy, and the Biblical languages (Greek and Hebrew), in preparation for graduate level studies. My hope is to be a Chaplain or a Missionary one day.   

Now that I have introduced myself, where do I really begin? Can I just start by being honest and saying that I believe there is no such thing as absolute proof for God's existence. It's true. There is no "silver bullet" so to speak, that I can show you that will make it so plain for you that there would be no possibility to deny God's existence. So where does that leave us? Well we can certainly look at the evidence can't we? Evidences for God's existence are all around us. To quote Francis Schaeffer, God is there, and he is not silent. In fact, I would commend to you two of his books. First I would commend to you his book titled "He is There, and He is Not Silent.." It is a short book, only 88 pages, but it still a good and challenging read that deals with these issues that you are dealing with, such as how can we know that God is really there. So I want to encourage you now to go to Amazon.com a buy this book and read it. But I can do better that just asking you to read it, so to let you know more about it, I am posting the book summary I wrote on the book for my Philosophy class. So here goes:





HE IS THERE AND HE

IS NOT SILENT



—————————



 A Book Review



 Presented to



 Dr. Travis Kerns



 Boyce College



 —————————



 In Partial Fulfillment



 of the Requirements for PH 103



 —————————



November 8, 2010



 On my honor, I have

neither given nor received improper assistance in completing this assignment.



  



Schaeffer, Francis A. He

Is There and He Is Not Silent Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers,

1972. 88 pp.  $10.99



Summary



Does God exist? Can we ever know God? How can we know?

These are the questions addressed by Francis Schaeffer in He Is There and He Is Not Silent. In the book, Schaeffer presents

the Christian worldview by systematically arguing for the necessity of the

existence of God. Schaffer’s thesis in the book is that the existence of God and

the fact that he has spoken to man is a philosophical necessity and is

demonstrated in the areas of metaphysics, morals, and epistemology.



The first chapter deals with the metaphysical necessity.

This is the basic philosophical question of being that stems from the fact that

something is there rather than nothing. Schaeffer presents the metaphysical

dilemma of man: Man is personal, as opposed to impersonal and he is finite.

This is what Schaeffer calls the “mannishness” of man. Schaeffer asserts that

there are only three possible logical answers in the area of being: Everything

that exists came out of absolutely nothing, all that now is had an impersonal

beginning, or all that now is had a personal beginning. Looking at the first

possible answer, for everything to come from nothing, you literally have to

begin with absolutely nothing, or what Schaeffer calls “nothing-nothing” to

hold to this view. Schaeffer writes that this argument is unsustainable because

it is “unthinkable that all that now is has come out of utter nothing” (7).



Examining the second possible answer in the area of

existence, the impersonal beginning, Schaeffer writes that what you are really

faced with is reductionism. To start with an impersonal beginning means that

everything that is in the universe is finally reduced to the original factor or

factors, whether it is energy, mass, or motion. Schaeffer concludes an

impersonal beginning cannot explain the complexity of existence or the

personality of man.



Finally, Schaeffer presents and argues for the third

possible answer, the personal beginning. With a personal beginning, the

mannishness of man does have meaning and a solution to explain it. In order to

have a personal beginning, there must be a personal-infinite God, and a

personal unity and diversity in God. Only a personal-infinite God is big enough

for there to be absolutes to give any particulars meaning. Furthermore, the

personal-infinite God is personal

unity and diversity in the Trinity. In the Trinity, we have “three Persons in

existence, loving each other, and in communication with each other, before all

else was” (14). This is the answer not only to the philosophic need of unity

and diversity, but also personal unity and diversity, which cannot exist before

or behind God, because God exists before all things. This answer points to

Schaeffer’s first major premise: God is there.



Leading into chapter two, Schaeffer writes that the reason

we have the answer is because God has spoken, which is the other major premise

of the book: God is not silent. Building on his thesis that God is there and

not silent, Schaeffer writes about the moral necessity for God. The moral

dilemma of man is the nobility of man, contrasted with man’s cruelty. Man has

moral motions, yet he is still prone to cruel actions. If we have a personal

beginning and look at man as he now is, what is the explanation for man’s

cruelty? Schaeffer presents two possibilities: Man in his cruelty is was he has

always intrinsically been, or man as he is now is not what he was; he has

changed and is now abnormal. Schaeffer argues for the latter. If man is

intrinsically cruel, then the conclusion is that God who made man is himself

bad and cruel. The Christian position, Schaeffer says, is that man, created by

God as personal, has changed himself by choice. God is not a bad God; he has

not changed man and made him cruel. Man by choice turned away from how God

created him. And so we have a moral situation on our hands: morals suddenly

exist (27). As the personal creator, God himself and his character is the moral

absolute of the universe.  This is the

answer to man’s moral dilemma: God is there and he is not silent. He has spoken

in verbal, propositional form and has told us what his character is, which has

become our moral law and standard. And so man has a standard of morality of

which he has fallen short and needs a solution for it, which shows the need for

and the meaning of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.



Chapters three and four deal with the epistemological

necessity for God. In chapter three, Schaeffer takes the reader through a

history lesson of epistemological thought to show man’s current dilemma of

knowing. Schaffer reminds the reader that there must be more than particulars

if there is to be meaning. There must be universals that give meaning to the

particulars. Schaeffer demonstrates through the history of epistemology that at

the heart of modern man’s problem of knowing is the absence of those

universals. As a result, man is unable to discern reality from non-reality. He

is left in a world without categories in regard to human values, moral values,

or the difference between reality and fantasy (52).



In chapter four, Schaeffer explains the Christian answer

to the epistemological problem. First, the infinite personal God who created

the universe and man, created man to live in that universe, and has spoken in

the Bible to tell us about the universe. Once again, the answer is that God is

there and he is not silent. Because of this, the Christian has a basis for true

knowledge. “The Christian has certainty right from the start that there is an

external world that is there, created by God as an objective reality” (66).

Next, the Christian can truly know other people. Even if the non-Christian does

not know who he is, the Christian can relate to the non-Christian because they

are both made in the image of God. “We know that beyond the façade there is the

person who is a verbalizer and who loves and wants to be loved. And no matter

how often he says he is amoral, in reality he has moral motions” (73).

Furthermore, among Christians, there is a more profound way to truly know each

other. As we allow the norms of God in values and knowing bind the inward man

as well as the outward man, there will be less discrepancy between the inward

man and the outward man (73-74). Finally, the Christian has the freedom to discern

reality from fantasy. “Being a Christian and knowing that God has made the

external world, there is no confusion for me between that which is imaginary

and that which is real” (75). Man’s dilemma of knowing is because of his

attempted autonomy, he is robbed of any certain reality. The Christian

epistemology brings an end to this confusion because his certainty of reality

comes from the fact that God is there is he is not silent.



Critical Evaluation



Overall, this book, while it is short in length, is a

challenging read. There are portions in the book, especially in chapter three,

where the reader must take the time to read slowly and thoughtfully. In chapter

three, a reader who is not already well read in the areas of philosophy and

epistemology will likely encounter unfamiliar vocabulary and schools of thought

and he will need to spend additional time looking up definitions and background

information on various theological systems in order to fully understand what

the author is communicating. However, this is not a weakness in the book, as it

is not the author’s purpose to teach an introduction to philosophy but to make

a philosophical argument for the necessity of the existence of God. Having said

that, the rest of the book follows a logical flow of thought in which the

author makes a strong, convincing argument for his thesis.



Clearly, the book is well researched. This is

particularly evident as the author presents the history of epistemological

thought. Schaeffer’s expert knowledge of these various schools of thought

allows him to understand the dilemma of man and demonstrate how the personal

God who is there and who speaks to man is the only answer to that dilemma. The

author is also fair in presenting other viewpoints that are opposed to the

Christian worldview. Schaeffer does not berate, belittle, or in any put down

those who hold to these viewpoints such as positivism or existentialism, for

example. Rather, he simply and logically shows how these viewpoints are

inadequate in answering the dilemma of man. In fact, he shows genuine

compassion for those who are looking for the answers in themselves and cannot

find them. He truly longs for them to look to the infinite, personal God,

discover who he is and in turn, learn who they themselves are.



It can be said with confidence that Schaeffer accomplished

his intended purpose of the book. In the early pages of the book Schaeffer

laments that he has grown tired of being asked why he does not just preach the

“simple gospel”. Schaeffer reminds us that for the most part, we are dealing

with a generation whose basic presupposition is that the universe had an

impersonal beginning. Before you can even share the “simple gospel”, you have

to make the case for the necessity for the existence of the infinite, personal

God who is there and who speaks. You first have to answer the questions of the

existence, personality, and morality of man, and show how these things only

find their answer and meaning in the God who is there and is not silent, before

you can even demonstrate the need for the substitutionary atonement of Christ;

which is precisely what Schaeffer has accomplished with this book.



He Is There and He

Is Not Silent is a book that can be beneficial to a variety of people. For

the non-Christian who is trying to answer the questions of his existence and

wonders if it has any meaning, this book can help guide him to the answer. For

the Christian, it can give him a more solid foundation in his faith. For the

evangelist, the missionary, or the pastor, it can be a valuable tool for

ministering to non-Christians and leading them to Christ. To that end, this

book is a valuable resource.

______________

Well, I think that is enough for now. Like I said I have much to say to you, Leggy. I hope by posting this summary that I have encouraged you to buy the book and read for yourself. Please don't give up your search for God. He is there. He is not silent. And you were created in his image and for a personal relationship with him. I promise you that if you continue on this journey you can find that this relationship with God can be had and it is more precious and more valuable than anything this world has to offer. As long as you keep this thread open I will post various resources and provide you with as many arguments for God's existence here for you to consider. I sincerely hope and pray that as you keep searching, you will come to know Him.

Grace and Peace to you from the Lord Jesus Christ,

Micah






                                                                   

legacyme3 : There IS proof; for one thing, all you have to do is look outside your window. All those flowers, grass, etc. can't just come from random chance. Some point to the Big Bang Theory, but they don't have any proof of that, do they? I don't mean to be blunt or rude, but the Big Bang Theory is, after all, just a theory.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Another thing I believe counts as "proof" is that cultures separated for thousands of years still believe in a Higher Being. Native Americans and Europeans both believed in a supreme being over all other beings. This is because man was created to search for this Higher Being, because we were made to love Him. Even atheists worship a "god", though they often don't admit it. They worship "man" by saying that we have no need for a Creator or caring God.

Dragonlord Stephi : Actually, the "God Particle" said to have been the reason behind the Big Bang has been found real, and Scientists have been working on making a small scale Big Bang deep underground in a base, IIRC. Either that or a black hole. And using the idea that plants, etc "can't just come from random chance" is pretty wrong, being it took probably thousands of years for bacteria to evolve into the plants you see now. And as an atheist, I can say that we truly do not worship other beings, thinking they are higher than others. If anything, we make joke religions, such as Haruhiism. But those are pure jokes, nothing to be truly taken seriously.

Dragonlord Stephi :

Not enough to be considered evidence.

Life is a marvel, but it's completely explainable by science.

As Meg said, the Higgs Boson, otherwise being called the "God" particle, has been proven as real, and if I am looking at it right, that would pretty much prove that the Big Bang is at least feasible. It may not have happened, but it's a step closer in that direction.

As for your second point...

How is that proof? It's natural to want to ask why we are here, and the most convenient answer is that a higher being created them. They lacked the knowledge and understanding in the ancient times to even fathom something as advanced as the Big Bang. In fact, the Big Bang didn't have a name till the dawn of the 20th century, and the theory itself was developed later in the same century.

As for the last statement... that's just a loaded statement. No matter how I respond, all you have to say is "Oh, you just don't admit it" and it renders it invalid, which is kind of lame.

But I'll still respond to it, regardless. As an atheist, I worship nothing. I don't think "man" is all powerful or great. I think we have adapted to our surroundings and taken full advantage of it, but I don't think that means we "have the lack of a need for a creator/god." Just because I don't believe in one, doesn't neccesarily mean I don't believe simply because we don't need one.

My lack of faith comes from the lack of evidence that such a being exists.

To quote a good book, the reason that god doesn't show us proof is shown in the short anecdote following:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

Therefore, god cannot prove his existence.  However, due to the lack of proof, many people refuse to believe, but with proof, they could use this counterargument and not believe still.  I personally do not believe, and it is a choice I make.  If there is truly an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being, and there is some rule that states that they can't interfere directly then who would make that rule?  If so, who made that rule?  God would not restrict himself to the heavens and watch us kill ourselves and each other, or let machines overtake us.  That is not the mark of a completely benevolent and omnipotent being.  Not to mention the whole "rapture" thing which is just another doomsday theory.  In total, I have my reasons to back up my opinion.  I'm sure you have yours.  I may not like yours, and you may not like mine.  Nothing more must be said.

Hmm...I don't know if some are confusing evidence with proof. If you are looking for proof, there is none. This may sound hard, and it may be, but I don't mean it in any mean way. The only real proof would be to die, and see God, but then if you died unbelieving you would altogether die in your sin, and be apart from God, and that wouldn't be good! So proof is out of the question.

But there is plenty of good evidence. And I say, evidence is substance that is reliable and can leaned upon, with good reasoning, to find an answer. Jesus was a real historical figure. I don't think we could contest that. Josephus, a non-believing Jew, wrote of him in his writings, and He was well attested to in many other historical accounts that were secular. I think even most would agree that Jesus died. But what is important is establishing the fact that He rose from the dead. Jesus's disciples, which forsook him, and Peter who denied him three times, Thomas, who doubted, as well as many other eye witnesses, lives were changed so drastically, that they ended up being martyred. I say, if the Jews' - which did not believe - claim was true, that they stole the body, so they could start a new religion, was true, why, that would just be completely absurd! Perhaps one fool would die for something he knew not to be true, but all of the apostles?! (Except for John, he died a natural death, but was boiled inside the "brazen bull" and still lived for Jesus afterward to tell the tale.) Not to mention Paul, a notable historical figure, whose conversion was from being a devout Pharisee who was sure of what he believed to the point that he persecuted the church, then so much so was his conversion that he became one of the ones he persecuted, and afterward was persecuted himself and went on to preach Christ to the Gentile world and was rejected by his former peers who were Pharisees.

What would these men have gained if the foundation of what they were preaching was a lie? Once they were dead, they could gain nothing by it, if He did not rise from the dead. And if indeed it was a lie, they certainly didn't profit much from it while they were living, being persecuted, rejected by society, the shadow of punishment hanging over their head from the authorities, and being labeled as liars and deceivers all their life - who would want a life like that on the foundation of a lie? 

Gamaliel, a renowned teacher of the law and devout Pharisee in those days said,

"Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."

Wise man. And indeed, the message of Christ has spread and continues to spread throughout the earth. 

I'm sorry, my friend, I do not know for what reason you are having trouble to believe, or what argument is hanging you up from believing. I could go on and on over stories of what He has done, but without faith, no proof, you would not be able to believe them. And I would also like to apologize on behalf of my brothers and sisters who have not shown good faith, and pastors and churches that have grossly misrepresented the meaning of Christianity to have intellectual knowledge of the scriptures and no life commitment to the teachings of Christ.

May God bless you and make His face to shine upon you, may He lift up your head and give you light.  



 




 





 





 





 






 




 






 





 










 





 





 





 

We tested this page and blocked content that comes from potentially dangerous or suspicious sites. Allow this content only if you’re sure it comes from safe sites.

 





 





 

I've read through some of the posts in this topic. I'm sort of seeking the same answer as some of the other non-believers that have posted. What proof is there of this higher being?

I chose not to be a Christian because of the Bible itself. If you read the original version (not the re-vamped versions), it asks for pretty much everybody you know to be killed. It's a cruel religion and I have yet to hear anything provable to convince me otherwise.

This may not make sense or some people may think my "perception" is off but the way I see it, in school we have a history class. And we learn about past events through history books. You weren't there when it happened. But you believe what those history books tell you. What makes the Bible any different? It's a history book as well. Some things may seem unbelievable but it doesn't mean it's not true.

There are many, many times I've prayed about certain things, and every time I've prayed hard about them, they've come true. How can that just be coincidence if it's happened multiple times? That alone if proof enough for me. However, it's different for everyone. I honestly don't think anyone can tell you how to believe, it's just something one finds in themselves.

Ktanaqui : Not trying to sidetrack the conversation, but there is one thing that you said that needs clarification:

"I chose not to be a Christian because of the Bible itself. If you read the original version (not the re-vamped versions), it asks for pretty much everybody you know to be killed. It's a cruel religion and I have yet to hear anything provable to convince me otherwise."

Umm...what are the re-vamped versions? and how are they different to the original versions? And when you say original versions, do you mean the manuscripts? which are in Greek and Hebrew? If this is true, you should know that scholars translated the manuscripts to the Bibles that we have today, which doesn't really change any facts or events in the Bible...so I don't know what you mean by re-vamped, because they basically are quite similar.

play4fun : The Old Testament kept what was originally there. The new testament edited out a lot of the more gruesome stuff. The Old Testament states "love everybody" but in various parts throughout, also states to kill certain people - like gays, lesbians, non-believers, and basically everybody who doesn't worship God one hundred and ten percent and who doesn't fit into a certain bill. Similar to how Hitler wanted only blonde hair/blue eyed folk living.