Is Q Christian or not? Is the board Christian or not? These are wrong questions, and assumptions may tend to divide Patriots. A Christian is a Christian first, but can be a patriotic American second. A patriotic American may or may not be a Christian.

There is much in Christianity that also need a reawakening. We are finding that our secular history needs a second look. The history of the church may need it as well. There are plenty here doing that.

This has left the spiritual side of the awakening in a grand free-for-all. What happens when many sheep find that the ones they trusted the most cannot be trusted? Many will be tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We have people of many faiths here, including atheists and Pleadian-ites, even worshipers at the ginger mound ;). The faith of others does not harm nor threaten me. However, there are some observations that are not represented here which I have found helpful. Perhaps you will too.

=God proof=

Believe' first or 'know' first?

At least since Augustine (circa 400 AD) the church has said that belief precedes knowing. [1]

The claim of the 'God' of the Bible is that knowing comes before belief. [2] He sounds like a scientific God; a reasonable

God. Maybe some one you might even consider wanting to know.

Why would an organization made of men want other men to believe, without knowledge? Can this be reconciled with

claims of truth? Or is it on it's face, evidence of hiding truth?

The atheist loves to point out the logical fallacy of requiring belief before knowledge. Belief before knowledge creates a

bias predisposed to a claim of truth; judgement is impaired. In this sense the atheist is like Luther publicly displaying

his objections to papal contradictions.

However, the atheist's extrapolation to say: Therefore there is no God, is a fallacy. Real truth does not become false

because people have a bias towards it.

references

1. https://carpediemcoramdeo.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/i-believe-in-1. order-to-understand/

1. Isa 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and

believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

-God proof - 2 Scientific thinking

>>6632210

God proof - 2 Scientific thinking

Scientific thinking does not presume something to be true; it makes hypotheses. A hypothesis is not a claim of truth, but a working model to be dis-proven. A hypothesis is believed to be true when there are no competing models which explain the same observations. This is about as close to absolute truth as we can get on our own. We see, from changing scientific models, that sometimes it is not close at all.

The hypothesis presented to us by the God represented in the Bible is that He can be known in truth, somehow without relying on belief first.

Now the true scoffer jumps in and says that is equivalent to Santa claiming he can be known. It is only equivalent, if in fact, the God represented in the Bible is not God, because Santa is not Santa. But the scoffer has not determined the truth; blindly declaring he knows the truth. The scoffer is a liar to himself and of no consequence to scientific thinking.

Hereafter, the phrase "God says" should be understood within this context:

It is not a truth claim, but an observation concerning the God represented in the Bible.

The observation may be challenged by linguistic and hermeneutic methods.

The truthfulness of the contents of the observation is to be determined by scientific thinking, not belief.

For example, "In the book…. George Washington said …" That is the observation. The book says it or it does not. We can observe the book together, look at the passage and determine by language and hermeneutics if the book makes the claim that George said it.

Many religious discussion are like this. Looking at the same passage, they cannot agree on what it says.

The truth of the content of the observation needs to be validated other ways. We must do additional research to determine if George really said it, or if the book misrepresented him.

It should not be surprising that few can wind their way through the Bible and actually agree on anything. Even if they agree the Bible said something, then they have to argue what it means and if it is true, and how to validate the claim other ways. They simply debate.

->God proof - 3

>>6632247

God proof - 3

Knowing God

'God says' you do not need to believe in order to know that he alone is God. (Remember, that is not a truth claim, but an observation from the Bible.) Throw away all 'religious claims' saying otherwise, and consider how God would make himself known.

There are 2 layers of conversation:

Does the Bible say God said it? Yes. See footnote 2.

Can he be known before belief? That is the hypothesis of this work.

How can he be known?

God could show up as a man, claiming to be God, but then we would think God was a man. Many have made the claim, but the claim alone is not sufficient to prove itself without belief.

The atheist is right! The claim that Jesus is God is insufficient in itself. So the Christian points to records in a book which you must believe to be true in order to have additional evidence. The atheist is right! This is circular reasoning. It is due to lazy scholarship and does not match the hypothesis that God says he can be known before belief.

But the Bible does not leave us with a man who claimed to be God and demanding belief. It says that Jesus said that the scriptures spoke of him. [1] [2]

Now we are not given a list of which scriptures speak of him. For our hypothesis, we will remove the human element of getting to choose which one speak of him and which ones don't. We will only consider those scriptures which follow a rule. I know, many of you think I will cheat somehow here by making up a rule. But the rule will make the proof even more difficult.

We will only consider those scriptures which are contained in the Old Testament prior to God telling the people he would not speak to them. That seems fair on its face. Why consider writings as the word of God, when he said he wasn't speaking? Removing the human element; every verse of the Old Testament must participate in speaking of Christ. We don't get to choose.

In scientific thinking, this does not mean we must test every one. It means that whatever our sample, it must prove true, no matter how large the sample. This means the more you look, the more it will prove to be true.

The scoffer says: This should be easy: "And God gave the grass to the cattle to eat" .. that doesn't speak of Christ, so the whole thing falls apart.

Before you take a position on an issue, don't you think you should hear it out? Silly scoffers.

Seeing the invisible

If no man has seen, nor can see God, as the Bible claims, then God has a problem revealing himself. But if he's God, he can handle it. The nature of the proof is like this:

Since God is invisible and working behind the scenes of real history, to reveal himself, he will work behind the scenes to cause a book to be written in such a way that you cannot see him working behind the scenes, though the record of it is there. This is only the first part of the plan. If left to that alone, it would not work very well.

At an appointed time, according to the hidden record, he would throw the light switch, and anyone who wanted to could see the hidden record. "Wanted to" does not refer to belief, but effort.

This series will reveal the hidden in a way which is reproducible, and verifiable, without requiring belief. It is not a simple allegory or simple philosophical argument. It will show what is behind the scenes in the literal Bible, which was hidden until the time of the cross.

The methods to see it will not be free-for-all allegory, but is more akin to solving a crossword puzzle. You may not be able to solve the puzzle yourself, but you can validate it has been solved.

I think the propositional communication from the invisible God, speaking of things in detail which were not known until after the cross, in a double entendre in all of the scripture, will show that in fact an invisible God helped write it.

→God proof - 4

references

1 Lu 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

2 Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.