Quote:
Quote by: Zinkovich  What you are saying may be useful as a symbolic parable, a poetic way of pointing out a strange staple of the Judaic religions, if you will, but does not seem to constitute conclusive proof for the biblical God.
Good flow and writing too. |
Not sure if you were addressing me with the above comments or not as you did not use quote option.
I thought the O.P. wanted conclusive proof that the Bible was real, not proof for a biblical God. Apparently you did not comprehend the teachings of the Bible nor of that biblical God that inspired (some of) the words those people wrote down.
According to the text you can no longer have conclusive proof of God because he has forsaken the human race because they did not obey his law. You can only have faith of his existance nowadays during this span of time when He will remain apart from human visability, belief based on faith that the words in the Bible are correct. If you could otherwise prove the existance of God then the Bible would not be true and would then be of non-effect - not needed. Because absolute proof of God would not demand faith nor belief, because facts do not demand proof, they are the proof.
And so you got a choice of belief that is founded on circular reasoning or non-belief. But which ever way you look at it you cannot have conclusive proof of a Biblical God as that would not be in conformity with what the Bible is teaching us to believe in via faith.
A paradox, a riddle, a mystery. That is all you will find and no real nuts and bolts evidence. So why debate this at all? Debate will only proove that I am right.