If the devil decieves why does God allow it? And they dont teach about God in history class because there is no history about god other than the bible, like literally thats the only ''history'' about god. The only thing i see in your link are philosofical thoughts that can be true or not, until you have evidence and proofs to prove that those thoughts are not only thoughts i will not believe it.
The evolution theory is not just a theory anymore, charles darwin wrote about it but scientists didnt just believe it because it made sense, no. They searched and found evidence (fosils, dna, radiometric dating) and after all that they accepted it, they just didnt believe in it blindly because science doesnt do that. You are doing that.
God allows the devil to deceive because, the whole workings of the universe are different than the exact, point-blank, right now operation which is the way we mostly perceive things. Your glory in the sight of God is greater when you resist the devil. When the times of the end are actually upon us, God will destroy the devil.
The evidence of the whole universe shows that God exists -
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395. The only history about God that is accurate, other than what we see in the universe, is what is in the Bible. Non-Biblical teachings that seem to be about God may be correct in some areas, but because they are false in other areas, they are not really about God.
You are given the freedom, by God, to accept the devil or to accept God. Whatever position of acceptance you die in, you are locked into that position, and will be judged by God regarding it.
No scientists have formulated a plausible method that evolution could have worked according to any of the theories or groups of theories, whereby life and the world could have come about through evolution. There are many parts of evolution that work. But there are vast "holes" or "gaps" in the ideas that suggest that the earth and life can come about by evolution. Even if some group came up with a working, plausible, complete evolution system, there is still no way to prove that this was the way that the earth and life actually came into existence. There are too many unseen variables of the past that scientists could never be sure about. The only way they could be sure would be to have a practical, working time-viewer.
There are many scientists who interpret things like "fosils, dna, radiometric dating," etc., to show that things are exactly opposite from the ideas presented in evolution.
The point is, when the evidence of science is used to suggest things that are not proven conclusively by science, science is starting to become religion. The scientists and propagandists that are proponents of such, are setting themselves up as God or gods, or at least prophets, by making claims that don't have a basis in reality.
The Bible is witness reports, backed up by strong traditions of the nation of Israel that the Bible reports are truth.
But the Bible is extremely inaccurate see:
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter13.htmlPretty much anything that has to do with science is inaccurate in the bible, like the age of the earth, that the earth is flat etc etc...
The Bible is accurate. The Bible is meant to be a general description, not a detailed scientific manual. Simply because we don't understand it shows that we are weak in understanding, not the Bible in accuracy.
The power of Moses in the miracles he did shows that he is one who stands in power with God. In the N.T., Moses met with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. Such is the power of Moses.
Pretty much the interpretations that we make out of our scientific examinations of things, is incorrect. When we find our scientific answers using the Bible as our guide, then we understand better both, science and the Bible.
And thats evidence that the moses story is just false
There are so many assumptions made and inaccurate conclusions drawn by the author(s) of the info at that site, that one could write a book just pointing them out.
Couldnt we say the same about your conclusions? Would you like to give us an example of those assumptions made wrong?
From
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter13.html, second paragraph:
In the case of the Holy Bible, there’s an overwhelming amount of inconsistencies between its covers. However, you must be careful with the plentiful lists found across the Internet and within certain publications because many of the so-called contradictions are justifiably harmonizable. Estimates of these occurrences are often in excess of one thousand, but conservative skeptics offer a number only in the dozens. Most Christians, of course, refuse to budge from zero under the guise of divine inspiration.
It all depends on the standards of the context. Various supposed inaccuracies are accurate when taken within the combined, various contexts wherein they exist. However, the accuracy isn't based even on this. It is based on the fact that God "moved" the Bible writers to write what they did, and, therefore it is all accurate, even though we don't understand how it is accurate, or the ways it is accurate even if it seems to be contradictory in some ways.
What about this:
The drastic alteration of God’s personality is the quintessential biblical contradiction. His attitude goes from that of a vocal, evil, and vengeful god in the Old Testament to a silent, benevolent, and forgiving god in the New Testament. It’s ridiculous to imagine a perfect, eternal being undergoing this 180-degree makeover at some arbitrary and unverifiable point long in the past. The real reason behind this change is the Bible’s allowance of representation by no less than two dozen authors living centuries apart. Since fallible authors void of divine inspiration should have variant perspectives on the nature of God, we should not be surprised when we encounter the anomalous behavior change between the two testaments. Still, this doesn’t explain why people were applying this new personality to the Hebrew god at the start of the Common Era.
The likely answer to this riddle may be related to the life cycle that all ancient religions have undergone. Belief systems must evolve with their followers or face extinction. Perhaps people grew tired of the threats made in the Pentateuch and felt there were no true rewards or consequences for their actions. Out of their desires for change, they may have created the Christian notion of Heaven. By this point, someone obviously grasped the notion that you could catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
As I’ve said many times before, we have conflicting opinions on the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence of God. Hosea would have us believe that God’s knowledge is limited: “They made princes: and I knew it not” (Hosea 8:4). Pentateuch author J would have us believe that God cannot be everywhere: “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord” (Genesis 4:16). The author of Hebrews would have us believe that there are some things even God cannot do: “It was impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). These passages fly in the face of everything that the Bible and contemporary Christians claim about God’s infinite qualities.
Similarly, an omnipotent creator would have unlimited power. However, consider this ages old question: “Can God make a burrito hot enough that he can’t eat it?” This might seem silly at first, but it demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the existence of an omnipotent being. If he can eat any burrito he makes, he can’t make one hot enough; thus, he’s not omnipotent. If he makes one too hot to eat, he can’t bear the product of his own creation; thus, he’s not omnipotent. As I hope you realize from this illustration, an omnipotent being cannot exist. There can be no power strong enough to make squared circles, duplicated unique items, or any other interesting paradoxes that you can imagine.
What about the human qualities of fury and fatigue? Can God experience these feelings? With the new biblical insight that you should have gained over the past few chapters, it should be immediately obvious that God has the capacity to become quite upset at times. Nahum provides us with a nice example: “God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious” (1:2). Even so, Isaiah unambiguously claims that God told him “fury is not in me” (27:4). If fury is not in him, how can he experience fury? Even though it may be superficially obvious that God wouldn’t experience fatigue, it wouldn’t be wise to jump to such a conclusion. According to Jeremiah, God says, “I am weary with repenting” (15:6). According to Isaiah, however, “The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary” (40:28). Either God can experience fatigue or not. Either God can experience fury or not. Nahum, Isaiah, and Jeremiah simply presented their contrasting, divinely uninspired, human interpretations of their god. In the process, they inevitably end up contradicting one another.
How about those who call out to this mysterious being? Will he always save them? Most Christians believe that God will acknowledge these cries for salvation because most Christians only read the New Testament. After all, Paul proclaims, “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13). Contrast that statement with the one given by Micah: “Then shall they cry unto the Lord, but he will not hear them” (3:4). In other words, Paul claims that God will save anyone who calls out for the Lord. However, Micah provides a specific situation in which Paul’s unconditional statement wouldn’t apply. Sure, one can try to assert that Paul was referring to the time before judgment while Micah was referring to the time after judgment, but this doesn’t validate Paul’s statement. He plainly tells us that whosoever calls to God will be saved. If we only had Paul’s statement to go on, and we were given the scenario of people crying out to the Lord as described in Micah, we could only assume that God would save them. Such an assumption would be contradictory to what Micah claims. If Paul was simply being careless with his diction, consider what other important information he might have neglected to mention.
