>>7462311

>>7462305

"And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

Ideas of ascension or reincarnation or more lifetimes are just people hoping they can avoid judgement at the end of life. The only way to do that is through Jesus as he said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me."

Anything else is a lie.

>>7462345

>>7462353

Seems a bit related to me…

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."

>>7462379

You seem to think "the church" represents the bible. How can that be true when "the church" claims it's own authority to be greater than that of the bible? It's interesting to note that one of the things they tried to keep from the people, by penalty of death, was in fact the bible.

If you want to beat up on "the church" I'll join you and we can explore that all day long. Scripture has been used and abused by many groups over the years. Kind of like how POTUS' words are used and twisted. It doesn't make the source wrong, it makes those who are using it wrongly, evil and twisted.

And yes, the creator must be separate from creation. There are many ways to prove this, but since you are clearly a logical inquisitive type I'll use the laws of logic as an example.

The laws of logic state that like a house all things, including ideas, must have a foundation or else it is irrational and therefore crumbles. So what is the foundation of logic?

If you give me a logical answer you engage in circular reasoning and you are begging the question, two logical fallacies, and therefore contradict the laws of logic. Contradicting something while trying to prove it to be true is of course a lost cause.

You could of course try to use an illogical argument to prove logic but you are then once again proving the foundation of logic to be irrational and not true.

The only way to solve this problem with invalidates our entire existence is to recognize the foundation of logic exists outside of us, outside of creation, in an infinitely objective observer that is purely logical. Logic is a reflection of the creator's character, being, thinking. The creator does not obey the laws of logic, the creator defines logic.

You can apply similar thinking to love, justice, truth, morality, and other mysteries of life.

I will quickly address one popular attempt of a means of escape from the logic trap. It is to say that objective truth does not exist, therefor logic does not really exist. To that I respond, is it objectively true that there is no objective truth?

>>7462464

My point is this, you were asking questions. Great! I'm giving you answers.

There is objective truth. Therefore the claim:

>Every Religion claims it is 100% right and all other religions are 100% wrong.

This statement is more or less true. I have yet to come across any religion that does not change itself in some way over time. Most in pretty big ways. If it needed to change it could not have been 100% correct in the past, if not 100% correct in the past how can we be sure about the present and the future?

>No Religion is 100% right or 100% wrong.

This statement cannot be true due to the truth of the first statement. Think about it, if part of their teaching is the exclusivity of their version of "truth" then they are either right or wrong? No in-between, right? Now I know we would both (i assume?) agree that even though they claim exclusivity they don't actually have it.

All of that being said, here is my point of view. No judgement here. Just trying to provide answers.

1. There is objective truth, logic, morality, etc. for reasons already stated.

2. Those things must be defined outside of creation. (again for reasons already stated)

3. What we call the bible is the only source I have found that consistently, without fail, expresses a creator God that fulfills the requirement of "the definer".

>How can th(is) (be)? Either God is Everything or God is Nothing.

Great question. But I don't agree with your reasoning. Why must god be either everything or nothing? I believe everything exists by the power of God. I believe God is present at all places at all times, but that does not mean God must be all things. Is there something more to this reasoning that I'm not understanding?

So, I quote scripture to people to provide answers because that is where I have found answers. Not in any particular religion. My understanding of and relationship with God is very personal. I truly believe that God entered his creation 2000 years ago as a man, preformed miracles to prove he was who he claimed to be, including rising from the dead after 3 days. He did this all to bridge the gap between us and him. We corrupted ourselves and his creation through rebellion with separated us from him and he built a bridge, namely, Jesus Christ.