What are some good reasons to believe the Bible is the God's word?

>Did the enlightenment happen because of a movement away from Christ or the Gospels were printed?
So the enlightenment was people getting more religious lol? Got to love those religious atheists.

>How does a fringe lie that was taught for three years dominate Rome?
Same way any religion dominates a population. It gets lucky and catches on with enough people to reach critical mass. Do you th

>So the enlightenment was people getting more religious lol? Got to love those religious atheists.
If you view the Gospels as pure Logos then, in a way, yes. Newton would agree with me.
>It gets lucky and catches on with enough people to reach critical mass.
What's more likely:
1) Random dude in Palestine teaches he's the Son of God for 3 years and makes no writings and people randomly believe Him, on pain of death, for centuries.
2) The message was divine and people died for a Truth beyond us. Look up the silent Christians of Japan. Christianity was illegal in Japan for 450 years with the death penalty and after the banned was lifted 50K Christians came out of hiding. Using statistics alone, a random chance that an ethic of pure randomness with no cultural reinforcement could survive that is just laughable.

archaeological findings are one very strong point, if you are to go by skepticism.
if you are to go by other things, here we go.
first off, all criticism of it has an answer. every time, it's people poking at their own warped strawman of Christianity, usually by taking verses out of context/warping the meaning.

furthermore, you agree that if someone is shown how in error they are, they'll get angry, yeah? rather hate the truth than change themselves. (or make lies to fool themselves into thinking it isn't truth, like the point above)
here's the kicker: only Christianity gets there.
you might even be praised if you follow some pagan bullshit. a wholly different story when you show proper truth.
then accept Him as Lord and Savior.
Jeremiah 29:13
>You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
and, as it is nicely put
Matthew 7:7
>Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
search, and you shall find. there's no point remaining in skeptical nothingness.
Christ is King.

>So the enlightenment was people getting more religious lol? Got to love those religious atheists.
Some of the most important debates in the history of scientific method center on: rationalism, especially as advocated by René Descartes; inductivism, which rose to particular prominence with Isaac Newton and his followers; and hypothetico-deductivism,
Newton "recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him."[143] He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, "the great apostasy was trinitarianism."[144]
René Descartes (/deJˈkɑːrt/ or UK: /ˈdeJkɑːrt/; French: [ʁəne dekaʁt] (audio speaker iconlisten); Latinized: Renatus Cartesius;[note 3][16] 31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650[17][18][19]:58) was a French philosopher, mathematician, scientist and lay Catholic who

This
Read some fucking nietzche

Post your beliefs.

>What's more likely:
>1) Random dude in Palestine teaches he's the Son of God for 3 years and makes no writings and people randomly believe Him, on pain of death, for centuries.
>2) The message was divine and people died for a Truth beyond us. Look up the silent Christians of Japan. Christianity was illegal in Japan for 450 years with the death penalty and after the banned was lifted 50K Christians came out of hiding. Using statistics alone, a random chance that an ethic of pure randomness with no cultural reinforcement could survive that is just laughable.

Random merchant in the middle of the desert tacks stuff onto Christianity like Jesus did with Judaism and starts a globe spanning religion that lasts thousands of years beyond his death. His name is Muhammad. Same thing happened with Budha and Hinduism. There is nothing special about Christianity in terms of it's start or spread when compared to other major religions.

The enlightenment saw massive growth and intellectual respectability for atheism. Modernity is a product of the enlightenment and soon atheism will be dominate in the West

Jesus was active for three years and Mohammed for 20. Mohammed recognizes Christ as the Word of God regardless of your post. Buddha lived to be 80 and is not really a religion in the divine sense, but a philosophy. Hinduism is just Indian Greek mythology.

> The enlightenment saw massive growth and intellectual respectability for atheism. Modernity is a product of the enlightenment and soon atheism will be dominate in the West
I went to public school and believed their lies too.

ever read their "holy" texts? they're full of holes, especially the stuff by eastern charlatans. the Bible is a wholly different story.
also
>globe spanning
they've not gotten out of the respective middle east and asia, differently than Christianity.
you can easily spot prophecy of Christ in the OT. do you really think the prideful jews would've accepted they're not exclusive and perfect that nicely?
And one last bit, those were founders of religions. they've died, and their lies remained.
Christ is the foundation of Christianity. without Him, the Bible is meaningless paper.
Now, i wonder, what should you believe?

Distorted but I won't argue. Point is there is nothing special about Christianity's start or spread. If anything Islam was more spectacular since it didn't take centuries to take off

>go cope by reading the cope of someone who thought harder about their cope

>Point is there is nothing special about Christianity's start or spread.
I honestly can't even fathom being this bad at statistics. Even if you assumed random chance, you wouldn't have a religion that has thousands of years staying power, i.e. the Catholic church is literally as old as Jesus's apostles. That simple fact dismisses basic chance outright. Even in Egypt, with 5K years of pharoahs, they still had no true individual which started it - each pharoah was a god.

>ever read their "holy" texts? they're full of holes, especially the stuff by eastern charlatans. the Bible is a wholly different story.

The Bible is definitely full of holes. There is two different accounts of creation in Genesis and the whoever made it up clearly didn't know the earth orbited the sun.

>you can easily spot prophecy of Christ in the OT. do you really think the prideful jews would've accepted they're not exclusive and perfect that nicely?
And one last bit, those were founders of religions. they've died, and their lies remained.
Christ is the foundation of Christianity. without Him, the Bible is meaningless paper.

Bro I don't know how to break this to you but Jesus died also and his lies remain. The jews definitely do not accept Jesus

>Christ is the foundation of Christianity. without Him, the Bible is meaningless paper.
A more based thing has never been written.

>I honestly can't even fathom being this bad at statistics. Even if you assumed random chance, you wouldn't have a religion that has thousands of years staying power, i.e. the Catholic church is literally as old as Jesus's apostles

I just gave you a religion Islam is only 600 years younger than Christianity. Buddhism is older than Christianity and Hinduism is much older.

The.Bible, while inspired, isn't God's word. Christ is. The Muslims believe their book is but Christians don't

1) Hinduism and Buddhism don't have the same core church at their center.
2) Islam does in a sense but also it recognizes the divinity of Christ so you still need to contend with His divinity
3) Chalking things up to the ebbs and flow of chance of their believers is a meaningful argument. The validity of math is in math, not in how good people are at it.
4) You clearly haven't read the Gospels.

>Bible stuff
refer to my first post about having strawmen >the jews don't believe it
referring to the other post again; gee, i wonder what people got so angry over the truth and being shown their inadequacy that they crucified Him, and have been trying to cover His word with lies for centuries. (for example, trying to change Psalm 22:16).

their believers is a meaningless* argument
apologies

>1) Hinduism and Buddhism don't have the same core church at their center.
This thing called the Protestant Reformation happened. You may want to look into it. It makes sense that Buddhism and Hinduism have split up more due to their greater age.

>2) Islam does in a sense but also it recognizes the divinity of Christ so you still need to contend with His divinity
No it doesn't Jesus is a prophet in Islam not divine. At least the muslims get the obvious contradiction of a monotheistic god having a son out of the way.

See point 3 because you are still point 4.

And everytime I point out the obvious contradictions Bible thumpers just plug there ears and scream I'm not listening.

why do you discuss this, if you will just keep lying to yourself? What is there to gain? do you want to feel superior because your lies make more sense than truth in your own head?

Not an answer to my question. Your probability argument applies equally to Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism and mean they are all divinely inspired.

I am waiting for you to understand why discussing if algebra is valid should be discussed about not with the schools of algebraic thought, or students of math, or of mathematicians, but with the proofs themselves.

I like making fun of the relgitards. In a more benevolent sense calling out this stupidity reduces it in real life however minutely. Why do you discuss it?

do give me some. oh, and try not to use hyperbole.
be very thorough, if you could.

I have no idea what this even means. You have an algebraic proof of God? All I saw was a handwavy argument about the supposed improbability of the spread of Christianity that could be applied equally to the other major religions

Logic itself is based in contradiction where the paticular and the universal are continually used in an unmerged paralax. Only in the Gospels are they merged in its contradictions.

Sorry. You haven't read the Gospels so what you think about Christianity doesn't matter. Similar to, you haven't engaged with an algebra proof textbook, so your opinion of algebra is meaningless.

You can't even understand your own posts. I said and you responded by calling them strawmen and refusing to listen

op might be in actual doubt, and i'd rather he found truth than listen to all of you.
as for why i keep arguing? not sure really, preaching for deaf ears, it seems. maybe someone listens.

your strawman here is simply out of the blue spouting "Genesis has this and this"
do show me the alleged two accounts.
come on, be thorough.

This is raw schizo right here. Sorry I engaged but it just confirms that Christianity is crazy shit

and, to word that better, your whole idea of "two accounts" is the strawman. saying it how you did just makes it impossible to clear up for you.

Aaaaaand ignorance confirms its own state of being ignorant. You should at least read, understand, and then deny the Gospels.

Man created last
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:25-27

Man created first
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 2:18-19

That's just an example the contradiction is well known between the Genesis 1 and 2. You get all kinds of metaphorical bullshit but as a record of literal events the Bible is full of holes.

Oh yeah in Genesis 1 woman isn't created from a man's rib.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:25-27

/thread

kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/
Read three chapters from Matthew.This is the heart of the Christian ethic

He set the earth on its foundations,so that it should never be moved. Psalm 104:5

Whatever hut dweller made that up didn't realize the earth orbited the sun

Have you read the Upanishads? How do you know Hinduism isn't correct?

I have. It's dog shit. "Go prince Arjuna, kill the enemy." Great religion.

>out of the ground the Lord formed
that is improperly understood(and quite easy to misunderstand in english, if i may say so). if i am to mangle what it should be, it's more of "having God made those, He brought them for Adam to name"
it's merely saying that having God made them (before), He brought them before Adam at that point.
same issue.

If you want to try and poke at how it's written, i'd recommend reading it in Hebrew to avoid translation issues.

Will it have shit like
>Logic itself is based in contradiction where the paticular and the universal are continually used in an unmerged paralax. Only in the Gospels are they merged in its contradictions.
because that is fucking stupid. In fact since you wrote that and you're a Christian it makes it even less likely that Christianity is even remotely true

>insults and persists in ignorance

Totally barbaric any religion that says stuff like that is obvious dogshit

You will hunt down your enemies. You will kill them with your swords. Leviticus 26:7-26

earth as in ground, not planet.
come on.

Tell me what Leviticus is in context of the whole Bible without googling it.

>all of the "contradictions" and "inconsistencies" are verses having their meaning warped to clash with other verses.
i literally wrote that down back there.

You realize the ground is part of the planet right? We, as you and me are moving around the sun right now at a fantastic speed. Whoever wrote that clearly didn't know that. And that is far from the only verse that implies geocentrism

Wrong. Western countries were provincial shitholes until the church came to power. And now as the influence of the church declines, do does Western civilization.

This. Great post.

Wow so you're saying taking something out of context can make it sound bad? So what was the context of "Go prince Arjuna, kill the enemy."?

If God is omniscient, that means He knew people were going to sin before He created them. Why would He create someone if they’re just going to go to hell and be tortured forever?

Because the Israelites are the chosen people as evidenced by their domination of our power systems. It is no doubt they are chosen, so the only question becomes: chosen by whom? And the most efficient answer is, the Abraham's God.

Attached: FM98FQyXwAA6s5e.jpg (1024x744, 46.19K)

Something called the Dark Ages would like a word. Ended by the Renaissance supplemented with the Enlightenment which led further away from Christianity. The West is now the strongest civilization that has ever existed on the planet

Do you see what you're doing? You are just a revenge-machine. I pointed out that if you're citing Leviticus as an argument, you obviously are totally ignorant of the broader context. Leviticus is not something I hold to be sacred. I hold the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas) to be sacred. I have read the Upanishads but not the whole epic. It struck me as nothing more than useless pagan hand waving about duty, honor, and the like. You have nothing to say so you not only steal my argument's slant but the very subject. You are the void you worship. Repent.

Rofl. You gave a verse from the Upanishads that was barbaric. I gave an equally barbaric verse from the Bible but then you start crying about context. So what was the context of the Upanishads?

>I have read the Upanishads but not the whole epic. It struck me as nothing more than useless pagan hand waving about duty, honor, and the like.

Same with the Bible. The context of the verse above is God's rewards for following him is victory in battle.

3 " 'Follow my rules. Be careful to obey my commands.
4 Then I will send you rain at the right time. The ground will produce its crops. The trees of the field will bear their fruit.
5 You will continue to thresh your grain until you gather your grapes. You will continue to gather your grapes until you plant your crops. You will have all you want to eat. And you will live in safety in your land.
6 " 'I will give you peace in the land. You will sleep, and no one will make you afraid. I will remove wild animals from the land. There will not be any war in your country.
7 You will hunt down your enemies. You will kill them with your swords.
8 Five of you will chase 100. And 100 of you will chase 10,000. You will kill your enemies with your swords.
9 " 'I will look with favor on you. I will give you many children and increase your numbers. And I will keep my covenant with you.

Barbaric bullshit

>You gave a verse from the Upanishads that was barbaric.
I made that quote up.

See my original post for what I hold to be sacred.