| 
Crimson_Saint - I wish I could make my case for Christianity in short, but my reasons for believing are more numerous than I would like to write about on this thread. That's why I keep recommending books by authors who know what there talking about in which they tackle the same subjects.
"If God exists, I doubt a book would be able to describe him well."
I'm just making an assumption, and pardon me if I'm wrong, but when you make this statement, I tend to think that you may not have read the Bible or given it a chance. I think that this is why many atheists (and not necessarily you) don't believe in God. Many atheists have already made up their minds in what they believe because they've already closed their minds to the belief in God.
The Bible, is the record of God interacting with humankind throughout history. It contains His words, His actions, and His promises to humanity. In the mix of all of that, you cannot say that it lacks in describing Him. Many scholars, professors, and scientists have written books stating evidence of why the Bible is reliable and trustworthy. Those who wish not to test it have already closed their minds to it.
"Evils exist, no denying it and IF God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, THEN THESE EVILS ARE IN FACT ONLY PERCEIVED EVILS, and they must lead to greater good."
I'm sorry, can you explain what you're meaning by PERCEIVED EVILS?
"Though I find it dubious that you trust an outdated book more then your own feel and personal relationship with God. There is no reason to believe the Quran is less true then the Bible."
Time after time after looking at the claims by people who think that the Bible is contradicting or untrue, I find an author who uses evidence to shoot those claims down. Too many people think the Bible is outdated with out any justification. Just because it has no photographs or videos of the miracles or the things it states has happened, doesn't mean it is untrue. It's like saying that if in the next two thousand years nobody lands on the moon, that the historical event that really did happen must not be trustworthy because it's listed in outdated material.
Sure I have a relationship with God, but in no way can I use my feelings from that relationship as a basis for truth. Feelings may reveal the presence of God in someone's life, but feelings are too subjective to use as a basis for the truth of God. Feelings are personal and can't be used to prove anything really. Our feelings sometimes lie to us as most of you know. There are many people in this world, who get this so called "Spiritual" feeling when they think God is with them. Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, New Agers, all get these feelings, but with all the differing beliefs, not all can be right just because they say they've felt the presense of God. I know someone who is a fan of the Insane Clown Posse and has told me that all their songs are really about God among all their profanity. Whenever she goes to one of their shows, she says she feels the presence of God. But I would bet based on their actions, that they really have no clue what they're talking about.
I wouldn't believe what I believe if it wasn't true. Sure, people from many different faiths say the same thing, but not all come up as reliable when tested.
The Bible is the basis for who we are as Christians. It's our guide for living as God would want us to live. But if you get rid of the Bible and all the information it contains, we have nothing. We wouldn't know who God is and what He has done if His dwellings on earth weren't recorded or handed down in one way or another. No Bible - No Christianity. Tanker summed up Christianity in his post, and all of that is true and based from the Bible.
I don't believe the Qur'an, because of it's claims. I'll give you an example which I'm borrowing from the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL.
The Qur'an is held in the highest position of authority for the Muslim and believe it to be true down to the word. (I guess in a sense it is to Muslims as the Bible is to Christians - it's God's word.) So by that, it must be true if it is from God. But in it's pages there is something wrong.
The Qur'an directly addresses the biblical docturne of the Trinity, and misrpresents it. Note these words:
"They are truly infidels who say:"God is the Christ, son of Mary." But the Christ had only said:"O children of Israel, worship God who is my Lord and your Lord." Whosoever associates a pompeer with God, will have Paradise denied to him by God, and his abode shall be Hell; and the sinners will have none to help them. DISBELIEVERS ARE THEY SURELY WHO SAY:"GOD IS THE THIRD OF THE TRINITY;" BUT THERE IS NO GOD OTHER THAN GOD THE ONE. And if they do not desist from saying what they say, then indeed those among them who persist in disbelief will suffer painful punishment...The Christ, son of Mary, was but an apostle, and many apostles had(come and) gone before him;and his mother was a woman of truth. They both ate the (same) food (as men). Behold, how We show men clear signs, and behold, how they wander astray!...Tell them:"O people of the Book, do not overstep the bounds of truth in your beliefs, and follow not the wishes of a people who had erred before, and led many others astray , and wandered away from the right path."(Sura 5:72-73, 75,77)
It is clear that the Qur'an is not an inspired document, for it is clear that it's author did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity, WHICH ALREADY HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED CLEARLY AND TAUGHT FOR CENTURIES. To say "God is a third of the Trinity" is to completely misrepresent the doctrine. The Father is not a third of God, nor is the Son, nor is the Spirit. Each is fully God. God's being cannot be divided. It is simple(i.e., not compund, not made up of parts)and indivisible.
When it is pointed out to them that the doctrine of the Trinity, in all of it's classical expressions, begins and ends with the affirmation of the unity (indivisibility) of God's being and the absolute truth of monotheism, the response is to question the accuracy of the definitions, for the Qur'an says otherwise! This brings us back to the authority issue and to the fact that the Qur'an misrepresents the doctrine, a fact that demonstrates the true nature of the Qur'an's status as a supposed revelation from God.
So my arguement from this example is to say that there is reason to believe the Qur'an is less true than the Bible. Everything must be based on truth, and not just that, also truth that is knowable. We know that God exists because He has shown us He does. If He didn't, and if we were alone without Him, we might still be sacrificing babies to the Asherahs and the Baals. (check the Old Testament)
I just want to make a suggestion; when you wish to assert the truth of something, give evidence that backs up your claim. I try to do the same in my posts, as I am trying to relay truth. I try not to make assumptions on anything, because when you're trying to make a point to someone, you don't want to assert an ungrounded opinion, or an outright lie.
Like this opinion:"if (IF) homosexuality is evil, then it is not a gay's fault he is evil. Its not his fault he is attracted to men, its not his choice, its his genes."
Has it been proven that genes cause people to be gay? And if it's in the genes, how come there are fathers of homosexuals that aren't gay? If genes are to blame for a persons actions and if they're passed on from your father's genes, shouldn't he be gay too? Or is it just a mutation in the transfer of genes from father to son? Is he just a by-product of so-called evolution? And can that mutation be proven?
These are the aspects of an arguement. Just wanted to state that.
I wish not to offend anyone, that's not my intentions. I'm just assertive in getting things right. I'm pretty anal when it comes to detail and trying to get people to think logically.
Peace.
"All statements are false. The last statement is false.--One of these statements is true."
|
