On Christianity

[Jpec07]

Hey all.

This is an open invitation for anyone who has any objections to Christianity or the Bible to bring them to me. As I am a senior at Bible college currently (and, as most of you can probably guess from my signature, very muchso a Bible-believing Christian), I will do my best to answer any questions or concerns that are brought forward in a manner as mature as they were brought forward.

Premises in this thread:
The Bible is to be considered a reliable source as far as this thread is concerned. If you wish to question the Bible's validity, start a new thread for that, because that's not what this thread is for.
Everyone who posts in this thread agrees to not proselytize anyone else in here: I won't try to convert you to Christianity and you don't try to convert me to something else.
Here (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) is a list of logical fallacies. If I catch you using one, I'll call you out on it (similarly, if you catch me using one, you can call me out on it).
No flaming of any kind. This includes name-calling, accusations, and any other underhanded remarks that might cause emotional harm to another. In other words, play nice.
This thread is not primarily about the church (meaning Christians at large), but simply what the Bible has to say about what the beliefs and behaviors of those who follow Christ ought to be. I have no desire to talk about how other Christians behave.
If a question is brought up that has already been answered or dealt with before, it will not be answered or dealt with again (I'll do my best to keep an index in this post).

It is my intent with this thread to demonstrate what the beliefs in Christianity are through responding to your inquiries. That said, hit me with your best shot. ;)

Statement of Faith
My own. Most Christians who see things the way I do will agree to this.I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I believe that God is the Creator of the whole universe and everything in it, and that God is supremely powerful. I believe that mankind is the pinnacle of God's creation, and I believe that mankind, along with all else in creation, is called "good" by its creator. I believe that mankind sinned, and was removed from the state of grace wherein they were able to coincide with God, but I also believe that God is love. I believe that God is the epitome of perfect love, and that God expresses that love towards humanity whenever he can. I believe that God gave mankind free will and dominion over the earth, and honors the sovereignty therein contained. I believe that all of humanity is, at the start, sinful, in need of redemption, and separate from God. And I believe that the end result of this sinfulness is death. But I also believe that God sent his Son to die in place of sinful man, so that they wouldn't have to suffer the consequences of that sin. I believe that this was done on account of God's love, and was done to make a way for humanity to once again access and have relationship with God. I believe that grace and forgiveness are free gifts given to man directly from God himself, and that man neither can do nor is required to do anything to earn them. And I believe above all that the call of God on the lives of those who have surrendered to his love is to extend that unconditional love to others on his behalf.

[Skittlemeister]

The Bible, to me, is just a really well-thought out, complicated story. It has no religious meaning to me, nor does it have any morals. Same with every book.

It's just a story.

[DeathsFriend22]

The Bible, to me, is just a really well-thought out, complicated story. It has no religious meaning to me, nor does it have any morals. Same with every book.

It's just a story.

That book that's "just a story" has affected billions of lives. Not only that, but there are several things in it that have been proven true in some capacity.

[Jpec07]

The Bible, to me, is just a really well-thought out, complicated story. It has no religious meaning to me, nor does it have any morals. Same with every book.

It's just a story.

First of all, this isn't the place to discuss the validity of the Bible. This is about what it says, and what Christians believe. If you don't want to discuss that, please refrain from commenting.

Second, DeathsFriend22, that's an appeal to tradition, wherein you presented the historical and cultural effect that the book has had as evidence for why it should be taken more seriously than other books. This is a logical fallacy. You also are discussing the validity of the Bible, which, again, is not the topic of this discussion.

Hate to be an ass about this, but I don't want this getting out of hand.

[Octopocalypse]

My main dislike of Christians, or at least most of them, is that they get offended when someone criticizes them. Also, I live in America, as most of us do I assume, and I don't like that we proclaim ourselves as a completely Christian nation, when the main reason America was founded was for freedom of religion. Another also, is that most Christians barely practice what they claim to hold so near and dear; they only really pray when they need it, or even worship god on a daily basis, unless they're going through something bad. Religion shouldn't be a sometimes kinda thing, and it pisses me off, even though I'm a complete Athiest

[Skittlemeister]

I was just saying.

[Jpec07]

My main dislike of Christians, or at least most of them, is that they get offended when someone criticizes them. Also, I live in America, as most of us do I assume, and I don't like that we proclaim ourselves as a completely Christian nation, when the main reason America was founded was for freedom of religion. Another also, is that most Christians barely practice what they claim to hold so near and dear; they only really pray when they need it, or even worship god on a daily basis, unless they're going through something bad. Religion shouldn't be a sometimes kinda thing, and it pisses me off, even though I'm a complete Athiest

I apologize that I didn't make this clear in the first post, but I do not have any desire to talk about the behaviors of other Christians. This is about the theories and beliefs that are behind Christianity, not about Christians themselves. If you want to talk about all the shit that the church (and by "church," I'm referring to Christianity at large) does, please take it to another thread. Such discussion will only lead to flaming and lots of hurt feelings.

Also, using the behaviors of people who believe a certain way as an excuse for not accepting "their viewpoint" is called a straw man fallacy. For all you know, they could be doing it wrong. You don't believe in God because you see people who do believe in God are half-assing it and misrepresenting what it is, and you haven't pursued for yourself what belief in God ought to look like. If you wish to correct that, then keep checking this thread. Once it picks up, then you should start getting a clear picture of what Christianity ought to be, instead of what it is that you have seen and rejected.

[PsychoBucket]

This is an open invitation for anyone who has any objections to Christianity or the Bible to bring them to me.

Since most objections are going to involve the validity of the bible, and discussing the validity of the bible is not allowed, why dont you choose a topic to start with?

[Jpec07]

Fair enough. After I've put a load into the washing machine, I'll edit this and the first post with a basic statement of what the Christian faith is, and also provide links to a few old Christian creeds and statements of belief.

EDIT:
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I believe that God is the Creator of the whole universe and everything in it, and that God is supremely powerful. I believe that mankind is the pinnacle of God's creation, and I believe that mankind, along with all else in creation, is called "good" by its creator. I believe that mankind sinned, and was removed from the state of grace wherein they were able to coincide with God, but I also believe that God is love. I believe that God is the epitome of perfect love, and that God expresses that love towards humanity whenever he can. I believe that God gave mankind free will and dominion over the earth, and honors the sovereignty therein contained. I believe that all of humanity is, at the start, sinful, in need of redemption, and separate from God. And I believe that the end result of this sinfulness is death. But I also believe that God sent his Son to die in place of sinful man, so that they wouldn't have to suffer the consequences of that sin. I believe that this was done on account of God's love, and was done to make a way for humanity to once again access and have relationship with God. I believe that grace and forgiveness are free gifts given to man directly from God himself, and that man neither can do nor is required to do anything to earn them. And I believe above all that the call of God on the lives of those who have surrendered to his love is to extend that unconditional love to others on his behalf.

[DeathsFriend22]

While I'm on your side, Jpec, I'm afraid that this is undebatable.

Your main argument from atheists/non-Christians will be that God does not exist/Jesus wasn't the son of God, but because the Bible says it's true and your thread rules state that the Bible is considered a reliable source, you have made it impossible to argue against you.

Most other Christians would agree with your quote, so none of us will be contesting you. There is no debate here.

[MultiLockOn]

As I go to a Christian college, I have my share to say, but I think Jpec has got this handled. I'll just patrol the sidelines and serve as your cheerleader Jpec.

[DeathsFriend22]

As I go to a Christian college, I have my share to say, but I think Jpec has got this handled. I'll just patrol the sidelines and serve as your cheerleader Jpec.

Unless someone with a viewpoint that is different yet similar enough to not break the rules and still disagree on a topic, there is nothing to cheer.

[Shell]

Anyone care to explain dinosaurs?

[DeathsFriend22]

Anyone care to explain dinosaurs?

Just because they are not in the Bible does not mean that they contradict the Bible. The Garden of Eden could have been isolated from the rest of the world, where Dinos roamed. Perhaps they were not deemed important and were grouped in with all the other living beings described in Genesis.

[MultiLockOn]

Unless someone with a viewpoint that is different yet similar enough to not break the rules and still disagree on a topic, there is nothing to cheer.
I am cheering for Jpec's solo adventure against the atheists, not specifically for Christianity.

[Coyote1023]

In no way am I an atheist, but I disagree with quite a few Christian things.

First off, lets talk about salvation and how you achieve it. Jpec has already heard this, but for the rest of you: There are two men. Man one goes to hell and man 2 goes to heaven.


Man 1 lives his life in India. He grew up in a Hindu family and followed this religion wholeheartedly. Throughout his life he was kind to others and always gave what he could. If he had wanted it, he could have been wealthy and lived a fruitful life, but instead he remained middle-class and spent his extra time and money helping others. Some way through his life he met a Christian and they had long talks about religion. Despite this new knowledge of Christianity, he remained Hindu and wanted to stay with his original beliefs. This man dies and goes to Hell.
Man 2 lives his life in America. Throughout his life he stole from others and resorted to petty crime in order to feed his greed. He never gave anything to those in need and wouldn't offer any food to those that were starving. As his life neared the end, he feared for the afterlife and quickly resorted to Christianity. His final year was spent worshiping God, though he still maintained his usual crime rate, though now he repented every week. Where does this man go? Heaven.

So tell me, is this right? Is this the "epitome of perfect love." To me, this is the epitome of a selfish and jealous God. He cannot accept a good man who didn't believe in him, just because he was raised that way. But he can accept the selfish man who lived his life for himself. Tell me how that is love.

[Jpec07]

@Shellshock: Dinosaurs are only a problem for people who hold to a strictly literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis: the Young-Earth Creationists. According to modern science, the dinosaurs died off millions of years before humanity came to exist on this earth, so there is no problem with them being absent from the human experience until then. Other Christians might try to point to the Great Flood as the source of the dinosaur extinction, but we really have no way of knowing exactly what that would look like. That, and geological stratification really can only tell us so much about how the history of the world unfolded.



@Coyote: Eschatology and the whole heaven/hell debate is usually a stab in the dark for most theologians, but nonetheless I'll try to reply here. God is a God who honors free will, because I believe that is at the core of his plan for humanity. Who would choose a pack of mindless atomatons that lauded praise without a second thought over a group of people who, knowing all other options, and even with their doubts and insecurities, decided to love them anyway? God gave us free will so that we could choose him, instead of being forced into it.

Regarding your scenarios, though, I think you're misunderstanding the concept of what it means to be a Christian. Jesus beckons the sinners he has forgiven to go and sin no more, and if the man in scenario number two had not truly repented (which means to turn away from one's sinful ways, meaning stopping with the petty crime), then he did not truly know God, and would not wind up in his eternal kingdom. The problem with that scenario is that the man turned to the religion, and not to God, to save him, and received the bad theology that his "repentance" (which I'm taking it you mean something akin to Catholic confession and penance) would be enough to save him. As I have outlined before, it is my belief that there is nothing any man is capable of doing to save himself. Indeed, I think that if a man should try to save himself, he will just be wasting energy in a pointless effort. In the end, the man who tries to save himself instead of letting himself be saved by God will drown in the lake of fire.

Now I can already hear the objection in my mind: "How can a God who is the epitome of love let any man spend eternity in suffering outside his kingdom, where there is 'weeping and gnashing of teeth?'" The problem here is one that many theologians have tried to wrestle with, and is one that not a lot of people can accept. It most certainly is not an easy one to answer, but here is the conclusion that I've arrived at.

God's love for humanity causes him to hate anything that separates us from him. Since it was sin that drove mankind away from its divine Lover--that is, willful disobedience--God
hates sin in the very core of his being. And "sin" is not an action, or even a blanket term to describe a group of actions. Sin is the inherent rebelliousness within humanity, the drive for independence, and the pride to want to be in control of our own lives. As it were, sin is anything that grasps equality with God out of envy/greed and/or pride. God's love also causes him to hate anything that threatens the life or wellbeing of the ones he loves. And with the way our world works, more often than not pride, deceit, rebellion, and envy/greed are the things that will be at the heart of pretty much any man-caused destruction. You name it, and I'll bet one of those is at the core. In short, though, sin is imperfection, and that very thing is what separates us from God. The infinitely perfect cannot reside with the imperfect, even for a moment.

God's standard for getting into heaven, as Jesus laid out in the Sermon on the Mount, is absolute perfection. This is something of which no man is capable, and when you look at the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205-7&version=NIV)), the list of obligations and rules, and even just the raw standard that is set is impossibly high. No single human being, besides Jesus himself, is capable of fulfilling that code completely, because no single human being, besides Jesus, has complete control over each and every single thought and every single word they speak. No one is capable of it, so that's why God provided grace to mankind through the death and resurrection of his Son.

The point I'm struggling to get to through these countless paragraphs is that God's love is freely available to all who choose it, and it's only his love and grace that can save a person from hellfire. But they have to choose it, because God won't force them to. There wouldn't be a point in forcing them to, because then their love and praise would be essentially worthless things. And while it is sad that some would refuse the perfect love of God (as indeed many do), it is God's hatred of sin, God's sense of justice that allows him to punish sin as it will be at the end of the age. God's wrath is stored up against mankind on account of its sin and imperfection, but it is his love that stays his hand and gives us a way to get back to his arms of love.

Does that answer the question? I'm not sure if it did. It's late, and I'm ramble-prone...



@Everyone: And also, I feel I need to clarify something. While I don't want anyone trying to say that the Bible is an invalid source, that doesn't mean I don't want people asking questions about apparent inconsistencies within it. In fact, that's probably the only way to really get this discussion going, so by all means, if you know of something within the Bible that you disagree with or that just seems funky, please post it.

[Time Glitch]

I have a few:

-Is science wrong according to the Bible? Because if translated literally, the Bible pretty much contradicts modern science.

-If science isn't wrong, how does it co-exist with the Bible? Wouldn't one or the other be correct?

-When something is clearly defined by science, such as the Sun being the center of the solar system, or Heaven not being above the Earth (That's space!), how does the Bible treat that information? Do you just ignore that section and update teachings as you go, or do you try to say that the Bible is still right?

Edit: Sorry, forgot one.

-If a man does not believe in God, and does not go to church, or is pretty much entirely non-religious, but is good-hearted, kind person, will he still be accepted into Heaven or will he burn in Hell simply for not putting his hope and love for the world towards God?

[InnerSandman13]

Even though I am an atheist, I find this an interesting subject to look at.

Hypothetical situation that may stray off topic incoming:
This takes place before the tower of Babel is built. Now let us say that all of the Gods from the monotheist religions are the same God. That would mean that people would follow the same beliefs/morals. Then, the tower of babel is built by everyone working together in order to reach God. God then changes the languages of the people so the tower's creation is halted.

This would then lead to the creation of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and all other monotheist religions. Then with the language barriers, it lead to religious conflicts today we know. Could this possibly explain the similarities between so many religions?

[Noezy]

I'm a Christian, and I think we all know it's an argument neither side can win completely. People have trouble believing what they can't see, as in this life we can see anything we want, from a single cell to a giant Everest. It's easy to believe what you can look at, but not easy if you can't.

@Coyote, in regards to Man 2, he does not go to heaven. You cannot simply repent everyday and still get into heaven, that's what I've been taught anyway. As Jpec said, God's standard is perfection, which without the Crucifixion would be utterly impossible. Back in the days before Jesus people would sacrifice animals whenever they sinned terribly, and Jesus dying on the Cross eradicated this practice.

I think the main reason people do not choose to even consider Christianity or even Religion as a whole is because of the whole 'REPENT!' jargen with the hymns, and the fear that it will take over their life. I live a life the same to everybody else around me, and though I'm not perfect (nobody is) I try.

I believe Science can infact co-exist with the Bible. Among God creating the world in 7 days, another theory I think of from time to time is that God created Evolution. If he can create man, the only creature able to study itself, he can surely create that. One thing I do disagree with is the apparent knowledge that the world is billions of years old. An Archeologist can't possibly tell me that that fossil is a billion years old, tell me how you know that!

I would be nice though if this could stay as a healthy debate, without any convincing or slagging off someones thoughts or beliefs. If there is something that comes to mind, as Jpec said go ahead and post it. MB's God thread was very aggressive at times, and was much more of an Argument than a Debate. Funky things are always fun.

[Skittlemeister]

How do you explain the fact that Christians believe in a 6,000 year old Earth when the Earth is over 65 billion years old?

[Nulls Wife]

How do you explain the fact that Christians believe in a 6,000 year old Earth when the Earth is over 65 billion years old?

God created the world in seven 'days'. Under no circumstances does that mean 7- 24 hour days. I believe that each 'day' was millions of years long.

[Coyote1023]

God created the world in seven 'days'. Under no circumstances does that mean 7- 24 hour days. I believe that each 'day' was millions of years long.

Actually "days" is a common misconception. The Hebrew word for days also means any set period of time. It is just a unit of time, usually days. In this case it is not for days.

This is the same argument from zeitgeist about "son" meaning "sun." Which is ironic because in no other language is son and sun the same sounding word.

[DeathsFriend22]

In no way am I an atheist, but I disagree with quite a few Christian things.

First off, lets talk about salvation and how you achieve it. Jpec has already heard this, but for the rest of you: There are two men. Man one goes to hell and man 2 goes to heaven.


Man 1 lives his life in India. He grew up in a Hindu family and followed this religion wholeheartedly. Throughout his life he was kind to others and always gave what he could. If he had wanted it, he could have been wealthy and lived a fruitful life, but instead he remained middle-class and spent his extra time and money helping others. Some way through his life he met a Christian and they had long talks about religion. Despite this new knowledge of Christianity, he remained Hindu and wanted to stay with his original beliefs. This man dies and goes to Hell.
Man 2 lives his life in America. Throughout his life he stole from others and resorted to petty crime in order to feed his greed. He never gave anything to those in need and wouldn't offer any food to those that were starving. As his life neared the end, he feared for the afterlife and quickly resorted to Christianity. His final year was spent worshiping God, though he still maintained his usual crime rate, though now he repented every week. Where does this man go? Heaven.

So tell me, is this right? Is this the "epitome of perfect love." To me, this is the epitome of a selfish and jealous God. He cannot accept a good man who didn't believe in him, just because he was raised that way. But he can accept the selfish man who lived his life for himself. Tell me how that is love.
Man 1 did not go to Hell. He did not know better to change his beliefs; He was raised to believe his religion is the true and right religion. He was of pure heart and therefore went to heaven.

Man 2 was not a true Christian. In Christianity, part of repenting for your sins
is to amend your life and turn from evil. If he continued to sin, his penance was not complete and his sins not forgiven; Therefore, he went to Hell.



I have a few:

-Is science wrong according to the Bible? Because if translated literally, the Bible pretty much contradicts modern science.

-If science isn't wrong, how does it co-exist with the Bible? Wouldn't one or the other be correct?

-When something is clearly defined by science, such as the Sun being the center of the solar system, or Heaven not being above the Earth (That's space!), how does the Bible treat that information? Do you just ignore that section and update teachings as you go, or do you try to say that the Bible is still right?
I don't recall science and the Bible ever actually contradicting each other.

Heaven is part of the spiritual realm. In heaven, your spiritual state is ABOVE that of your spiritual state on Earth. Similarly, in Hell, the state of your soul is below what it is on Earth. Your actions determine your soul's health and you are sent to each place accordingly.


Edit: Sorry, forgot one.

-If a man does not believe in God, and does not go to church, or is pretty much entirely non-religious, but is good-hearted, kind person, will he still be accepted into Heaven or will he burn in Hell simply for not putting his hope and love for the world towards God?
Did he turn from God at any point, or was he brought up non-religious? That would be the defining question here.


How do you explain the fact that Christians believe in a 6,000 year old Earth when the Earth is over 65 billion years old?
We don't. In the Hebrew language, the word used for day is "yom", which can mean a 12 hour day, 24 hour day, or an indefinite period of time. Genesis occured over hundreds of millions of years.

[Letol]

I'm a Christian, and I think we all know it's an argument neither side can win completely. People have trouble believing what they can't see, as in this life we can see anything we want, from a single cell to a giant Everest. It's easy to believe what you can look at, but not easy if you can't.

So very true, and the main reason why I always avoid debates on topics like this.

Back in the days before Jesus people would sacrifice animals whenever they sinned terribly, and Jesus dying on the Cross eradicated this practice.

I wouldn't say that it eradicated the practice, seeing as how there are still cultures that do it in today's world (http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/candombl%C3%A9_modern_day_animal_sacrifice_without_zeitgeist). I realize that you may have been talking about animal sacrifice in the Christian religion, but if you were, it wasn't made clear. :p

I think the main reason people do not choose to even consider Christianity or even Religion as a whole is because of the whole 'REPENT!' jargen with the hymns, and the fear that it will take over their life. I live a life the same to everybody else around me, and though I'm not perfect (nobody is) I try.

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally choose not to consider organized religion as a whole because I believe a lot of it to be exaggerated, incomplete, misunderstood, false, restrictive, contradicting, and, to be brutally honest, ignorant. I would rather hold my own beliefs that I've thought over countless times and believe to be somewhat logical than beliefs that have been taught to me without room for question.

One thing I do disagree with is the apparent knowledge that the world is billions of years old. An Archeologist can't possibly tell me that that fossil is a billion years old, tell me how you know that!

There are a handful of ways, here's a link (http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/a/timing.htm) that explains much about dating pretty well. (For dating that is rather accurate for a couple of billion years ago, go straight to page 4 and look under "Fission Track". For more on fission track dating, I'm sure we all know where to go (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fission+track+dating). ;P)

I would be nice though if this could stay as a healthy debate, without any convincing or slagging off someones thoughts or beliefs. If there is something that comes to mind, as Jpec said go ahead and post it. MB's God thread was very aggressive at times, and was much more of an Argument than a Debate. Funky things are always fun.

As I've already said, this is the main reason I normally avoid debates revolving around subjects like this.

[Skittlemeister]

God created the world in seven 'days'. Under no circumstances does that mean 7- 24 hour days. I believe that each 'day' was millions of years long.
Aw, that's lame.

(I wasn't being sarcastic in my previous question, either)

[Coyote1023]

Some of you guys need to clarify your beliefs a little bit. I used to be like some of you, thinking doing good things and living a pure life would get you saved. But from recent knowledge, being a good person is not being Christian and vise-versa. A Christian worships God and the only way to be saved is through worship and praise, not good deeds. I have gotten this confirmed from multiple sources.

[Skittlemeister]

I honestly hold no real beliefs, myself. If you want to condense how I feel, I just don't care. But I don't really deny the existence or previous existence of anything that any other religion believes in. I just... don't care.

But if somebody pushes their beliefs onto me I retaliate.

[Zackj191]

Using the Bible to prove God is real is the same as using Harry Potter to prove Hogwarts is real.

[Time Glitch]

Some of you guys need to clarify your beliefs a little bit. I used to be like some of you, thinking doing good things and living a pure life would get you saved. But from recent knowledge, being a good person is not being Christian and vise-versa. A Christian worships God and the only way to be saved is through worship and praise, not good deeds. I have gotten this confirmed from multiple sources.

And this is why I can't go along with Christianity.

If you live a good life, but choose not to worship a higher being, and give the good things in your life credit TO said higher being, you should burn in an eternal pit of fire?!

No, that doesn't make sense at all. That's just messed up in my humble, personal, and passive opinion that isn't meant to offend or provoke anyone.

[Jpec07]

@Time Glitch: The Bible is not a scientific text. Indeed, the entire genre of "scientific text" didn't exist until the later 1600s, and even then it was imperfect. It's actually interesting: science began with monks trying to figure out the mysteries of God's universe through careful observation. Pedigrees and genetics were discovered around that time, and the Renaissance took off with it, bringing it to its more modern term.

The thing is, science and the Bible have entirely different aims. Science is always asking "how:" how was the universe formed? How do we perceive the sun to rise in the east and set in the west? How does adding sodium to water make pure fiery awesome? How do the trees know when to shed their leaves in preparation for winter? How does life work? All of them "how" questions. They may be disguised as "why," but it's a different brand of causality. Religion (the Bible specifically) deals with why. Science says the contemporary universe was probably formed around 14,000,000,000 years ago in a massive, cataclysmic explosion. The Bible says that God made the universe. Who's to say that God didn't use a massive, cataclysmic explosion to form the universe? The Bible posits that it did, and it takes faith to confirm that position.

The other thing about the Bible as it relates to science, and the obvious contradictions that therein lie, is the fact that the Bible may have been inspired by God, but God used men to write it in a context that was according to their worldview, and in a manner where the original intended audience would have received it exactly as God intended them to receive it. They may be wrong in factual consistency, but the message that God was trying to convey was very, very right. Additionally, if you object to the miraculous signs and wonders performed by God as scientifically impossible, I'll say that there's a reason why they're termed "miracles."

And regarding your edited in objection, I have to point out that in Romans 1:18-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-32&version=NIV), it is very clearly outlined why no man is excused from the coming wrath, and why no one can be justified by his actions. God's eternal power and glory are clearly seen from creation, and the man who saw these things and did not acknowledge God as creator on account of the amazing world he's created is in danger of hellfire. In the letter, Paul goes on to explain how not even the pious and good, religious people will be saved from that wrath, because the religious code, the Law that God had set up is impossible to attain. But that's why God set up a way for man to become righteous without the Law, and without any kind of religious obligation.

It really isn't a difficult thing, as Noezy was saying, to accept God's love. People who refuse to do so are, in my opinion, stubborn and obstinate for the sake of being stubborn and obstinate, and fear giving up what little control they may have had over their own lives. Christianity does involve surrender, yes, and while God is one to be feared, he is one who loves more deeply than the oceans, and who will not put a person through something they can't handle. Indeed, "with God, all things are possible." So your hypothetical man would wind up apart from God, because in today's day and age, there is no way for him to not know of God's grace, so he is without excuse.



@InnerSandman13: The Tower of Babel was a pagan zigurat, where human sacrifice, orgies, drug use, rape, incest, and all other kinds of wickedness ensued. It was NOT a place for YHWH worship, and was a demonstration of man's pride and arrogance, wherein they assumed they could be equal with God. It was not to be "with" God--indeed, they did not follow YHWH-supremacism. It was so that they, through their religious practice could somehow attain "godhood," to gain greater power and influence than what God had given them. God razed the "tower" to the ground in order to prevent mankind from destroying itself (and he'd already promised to never wipe out the entire population again, so this was a compromise on his part).

Now as to why there are similarities between religions, I don't think the Bible ever explicitly deals with that. Certainly Judaism evolved from its inception. It wasn't necessarily monotheistic at its outset, simply YHWH-supremacistic. There was the idea of a divine council; a group of other divine beings who contributed to YHWH's decision-making process (not much information available about this; see the beginning narrative of Job for more details). Later, YHWH told them that He was the only true God, and was the only one to fear. And later still, the notion of divine metaphysical warfare is introduced after the Jews encountered Zoroastrianism in the Persian empire. This isn't to say that any of their beliefs (or the beliefs that translated to Christianity) were incorrect, simply to point out the idea of progressive revelation. God shows bits and pieces of himself throughout history to gradually paint a clearer picture of who he is for humanity. But how does this answer your question?

As I said to Time Glitch before, there are a number of truths about God which can be ascertained simply through the observation and entertainment of nature. Mankind was also created in God's image, so a great number of things can also be discerned through introspection and consideration of the brighter side of mankind. Why the religions are so similar, I believe, is that God left a number of threads for mankind to follow to find a way back to Him. There is only one way for them to actually get there, which is Jesus, but that doesn't mean there are hints and clues and guideposts all along the many ways there are to get to Him. For the other religions, it is my belief that they've started down the right path, but their followers haven't followed it to its conclusion.



@Skittlemeister: First, modern science holds that the earth is over 4 billion years old, and the universe is only 14 billion years old. Don't know where you got that 65 billion number. Second, this is the debate between young-earth creationism and old-earth creationism. Young earth creationists look at the Genesis accounts (there are two of them) and say that the entire universe was created in exactly six days, and that then God created Adam, they named the animals, God made Eve, they had an apple fruit, and got kicked out of the Garden the very next day. It also assumes that Adam started counting his age from the day he was created, five days after the start of the universe. There are several holes with this interpretation of the scriptures.

First, as I said, if you take the Bible strictly literally as they do, then God created the universe and the world twice, and finalized mankind twice. There is the option of a general-to-specific progression (with the first Genesis account being a "here's how God made everything" and the second being "here's how he focused on man"), but the problem with that is that mankind is created in the second account before things that, in the first account, were created first. There is an internal inconsistency between them, which in conjunction with the stylistic and genre differences, supports the notion that they are, in fact, separate accounts, and not meant to be taken in the same stride.

Second, there is no record or indication given as to when Adam started counting his 800+ year lifespan. It is clear from the second Genesis account that Adam had grown accustomed to spending time with God, and that they were used to regular fellowship in the Garden. Between mankind's creation and the time when mankind was kicked out of the Garden, we have an indeterminate, impossible to establish period of time. During that period, mankind was free from sin and free from death, because sin had not yet come into the world. Age bore no relevance, because when you don't have to worry about getting older or dying, why count how long you've been around?

As I said before, the two accounts in Genesis 1-3 are meant not to be dogmatic and expressive of exactly how the universe was formed. All that they do is attribute the formation of the universe to YHWH, say that mankind is at the capstone of that creation, and say that we were the ones to mess it up. This is how we can reconcile the scriptures to the ideas of modern science.

Whether or not it's true, I can't say for sure. In my framework of belief, the most key pieces of those two literary works (Gen 1:1-2:3 & 2:4-3:24) are what I expressed before: God is the one who is responsible for and who made everything, and mankind is special and unique among his creation. How exactly he did all of that is interesting, but not really important.



@Letol: Animal sacrifice was eradicated from the Christian tradition, because Christ paid the price once and for all. Other cultures may still do it, but other cultures don't know the truth.

I also agree that it's healthy for us to question our beliefs. I've spent the last four years of my life questioning my beliefs, and I'm still holding to them. I think part of that may be why I started this thread: so that I can see if anyone has any questions about my beliefs that I have not yet considered for myself.

Also, the problem with most types of radioactive dating is that they assume even distribution of isotopes among all the atoms of an element (something we can guess at but never truly know), and fail to take into consideration the fact that we don't know the initial distribution rate of the elemental isotopes, or even when they began their decay. The fission-track dating you've presented also assumes a constant rate of "tracks."

Granted, I may be wrong in saying that those things are assumed, but I have yet to hear any compelling arguments otherwise.



@Coyote: I have said it before and I will say it again. There is nothing a man can do to save himself. Worship and praise are appropriate responses, but in themselves they have no saving power. The only thing that can save a person is the free gift of God's grace as the covering of sin. But like all gifts, it needs to be accepted. And accepting that gift only brings you half of the way there. In order to avoid the coming wrath, you need to know and acknowledge God and God needs to know and acknowledge you. It's as simple as that.



@Zackj: As I said in the first post, please refrain from attacking the validity of the Bible. If you wish to do that, start another thread for it. Additionally, the two are entirely different premises, simply because the two books present a stark contrast in genre. One is admittedly fantasy fiction, the other is historical narrative with poetic interludes, as well as a handful of letters (along with four books that fall into their own genre, "Gospel"). J.K. Rowling does not believe her work to be true, merely a fabrication of her own imagination. The Bible's many authors, though, believed the truth of what they wrote. Still, your words bear wisdom, because if the Bible were all there was to Christianity, it would have died out a long time ago. In truth, and at its very core, Christianity ought to be deep, intimate relationship with the perfect, loving God.



@Time Glitch: And again, as I've said multiple times by now, salvation is not based on works. You can never be "good enough" to satisfy God, so it's best to stop trying and accept the free gifts of love and grace he's given to us all. That is the only way that one can attain salvation and eternal life, according to Christian belief. While this ought to produce "fruit" that is in keeping with righteous living, the righteous living is not the means to an end.

[Time Glitch]

And regarding your edited in objection, I have to point out that in Romans 1:18-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-32&version=NIV), it is very clearly outlined why no man is excused from the coming wrath, and why no one can be justified by his actions. God's eternal power and glory are clearly seen from creation, and the man who saw these things and did not acknowledge God as creator on account of the amazing world he's created is in danger of hellfire. In the letter, Paul goes on to explain how not even the pious and good, religious people will be saved from that wrath, because the religious code, the Law that God had set up is impossible to attain. But that's why God set up a way for man to become righteous without the Law, and without any kind of religious obligation.

It really isn't a difficult thing, as Noezy was saying, to accept God's love. People who refuse to do so are, in my opinion, stubborn and obstinate for the sake of being stubborn and obstinate, and fear giving up what little control they may have had over their own lives. Christianity does involve surrender, yes, and while God is one to be feared, he is one who loves more deeply than the oceans, and who will not put a person through something they can't handle. Indeed, "with God, all things are possible." So your hypothetical man would wind up apart from God, because in today's day and age, there is no way for him to not know of God's grace, so he is without excuse.


Right, unless you simply don't agree with Christianity's concept of how the supernatural works.

I mean you could be a perfect model of a Christian, but simply not be part of the Christian faith, and still be damned to hell for an eternity. That just makes zero sense whatsoever.

And I find it a tad offensive when you say "It's not that hard to accept Gods love". Well, what if I don't think he/she/it exists? What if I find the whole concept to be insane? What if I think religion in and of itself is probably one of the top reasons we have war and suffering in this world?

And what if I don't think there is a "God" to accept love from? I believe we make our own way in this world, and our accomplishments and the good things in our life come from us, not from some divine power bestowing it upon us. That just seems like the easy way out, in my opinion: Pray to God and good things will happen.

To credit my accomplishments, knowledge, good deeds, and love for those around me to some obligatory supernatural creature to which I have NO factual knowledge that it exists seems...Wrong somehow. I simply don't understand the concept of trusting this "being" with anything, ESPECIALLY my love (Something I hold pretty darn dear to me), if I don't know if he/she/it exists.

I mean is that opinion really so wrong that I'd burn in hell forever simply because I don't think a big man in the sky is playing with me like a toy, and I should worship and fear him for that?

I won't go on. I have a fundamental dislike and disregard for religion in general and every time I start thinking about your version of the world I get a bad taste in my mouth.

You are entitled to your beliefs, as am I. That doesn't mean either of us is right.

[Jpec07]

But that's the thing, there is no "model Christian," because Christian behavior is dictated by God, and is independent of human expectation. As far as you not believing it, that's your choice. I can't affect that any more than I can by explaining what I (and most other Christians) believe is the truth. As I said I won't proselytize you, so I respect your beliefs. If you want a "what do you think will happen to me?" question answered, then you're drawing the inevitable conclusion that you don't want to hear me (or anyone else) say. I won't answer that question here.

The other thing worth noting is that most Christians speak from personal experience. Call me crazy, but I have encountered God and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He is real. That's why I can say that accepting God's love is easy, because I'm in the process of accepting it myself. But that's something I can't prove to you, because you're a man of science, and science doesn't typically touch the metaphysical (at least not yet that we know of).

And there is one more thing: prayer doesn't always make something good happen. Prayer is petitioning God to act, and if the petition is against his will and his character, then it won't happen. At least not by his watch. Prayer is submitting a request to God, and then not worrying about it, because God's got you covered. They don't call him the "Good Shepherd" because he abandons his sheep, after all...

EDIT: And I'm sorry if I have offended. It gets tough to distinguish my passions and worldview from those of others--I've always been bad about expressing my take on something as absolute reality without seeking further evidence to back it up...

[Bartoge]

God's love for humanity causes him to hate anything that separates us from him. Since it was sin that drove mankind away from its divine Lover--that is, willful disobedience--God
hates sin in the very core of his being. And "sin" is not an action, or even a blanket term to describe a group of actions. Sin is the inherent rebelliousness within humanity, the drive for independence, and the pride to want to be in control of our own lives. As it were, sin is anything that grasps equality with God out of envy/greed and/or pride. God's love also causes him to hate anything that threatens the life or wellbeing of the ones he loves. And with the way our world works, more often than not pride, deceit, rebellion, and envy/greed are the things that will be at the heart of pretty much any man-caused destruction. You name it, and I'll bet one of those is at the core. In short, though, sin is imperfection, and that very thing is what separates us from God. The infinitely perfect cannot reside with the imperfect, even for a moment.



This is for the most part what I object to: what sin is in Christianity. While deceit (lying) is morally wrong and envy doesn't do anything for you, pride, rebellion, and greed should not be morally wrong (I use morally wrong instead of sin, because both mean relatively the same thing(dont do it) and I can't dictate what Christians want sin to be, I can only object to what they view it to be. )

Pride- a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.
- basically, it means that to feel pride is to feel that what you have done is good. If you invent a cure to cancer, you should feel good about it. You have just saved too probably millions of lives or more, singehandedly. If a belief says that you should NOT feel good about saving millions of lives, or whatever else you are proud of acomplishing, then I object to that belief.

Rebellion- resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
- to rebel means to openly express your right to freedom. You can only rebel (in the true sense of the word) when you are being forced, meaning when you are basically a slave. When you rebel, you are saying that your master has no right to command you, that you have just as much right to be the master as he does. Does God encourage a world of masters and slaves?

- in addition, rebellion is also expressing your free will. You have a free will, which means you can think and do by the means of your own brain, and to be a slave you have no free will; your will is controlled by your master. So to rebel against your master is to say that your will IS free, and that he no longer accepts his master as the control over his will. So, why does God give men free will, but then say he sins if he uses it? Thats like saying "hey, Im going to give you a gas, that when released into the Earth's atmosphere, will end all starvation in the world. Oh and by the way, if you release it, you and all the not starving people will die"

Greed-

If you mean by "greed" the unrational desire for things, then it can be a sin with no objection from me, but if by "greed" you mean selfishness, then I most wholeheartedly disagree with Christianity. So for this part, I will object to selfishness.

Selfish- concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc
- So, its sin to be concerned with your own interest, and by interest I mean your life, because I think that would be the biggest interest to you (preserving your life, because if it isn't, then I think you would be dead, since you didn't care to live). Its sin to be concerned with your life? Is it sin to be afraid when someone holds a gun to your head (your afraid because you might die, which would mean losing your biggest interest)? If that is sin, and God wants unselfishness; He wants you to not care about your life, to just give your life away to not the highest bidder, but the lowest, because to be it would be selfish to expect the most for your life, then I do not want anything to do with that God. If that God says its sin to want to live, to worry if you don't have enough money to buy food, or to want to protect what you hold dear, like your wife, or kids, or parents, then I object.

Let me set up a scenario for you. You have 10000 dollars, and you can spend it on two things:

1) Your wife, who is both, the love of your life whom makes your life worth living and without her, you would no longer seek any values from this life, and she is in the hospital with an infection that will kill her within the week if she doesn't get treatment. The treatment costs 10000 dollars.

2) 10 dying women in Africa who you do not know in the slightest bit. They are complete stranger to you and to save all of them would cost 10000 dollars.

If you chose 1, then you are selfish. If you chose 2, you are unselfish. Have you sinned, if you chose 1, because if you have then I object to Christianities sins.

[MultiLockOn]

Man 1 did not go to Hell. He did not know better to change his beliefs; He was raised to believe his religion is the true and right religion. He was of pure heart and therefore went to heaven.

Man 2 was not a true Christian. In Christianity, part of repenting for your sins
is to amend your life and turn from evil. If he continued to sin, his penance was not complete and his sins not forgiven; Therefore, he went to Hell.


I think you've actually got them flipped. Restating something, you're not saved through good deeds but rather through faith and having a relationship with Christ; which Man 1 did not have. You can honestly believe with all your heart in the 'wrong' religion, and believe that it's right such as what man 1 did, and still go to hell. Man 2 changed his ways at least, you forget that there is no sin that Christ does not forgive. The closest thing contradictory to that is where Jesus was speaking to man and says 'the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming God's name' or something along those lines.

[Zak]

I think you've actually got them flipped. Restating something, you're not saved through good deeds but rather through faith and having a relationship with Christ; which Man 1 did not have. You can honestly believe with all your heart in the 'wrong' religion, and believe that it's right such as what man 1 did, and still go to hell. Man 2 changed his ways at least, you forget that there is no sin that Christ does not forgive. The closest thing contradictory to that is where Jesus was speaking to man and says 'the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming God's name' or something along those lines.
Never mind, I deleted it. I get way to pissed off at some of religions ideals. I need to just shut my mouth

[wiggums]

My whole family is made out of christians. They all talk about caring and love to each other and friends but I see their true side. They are selfish pigs who do nothing but work so they can buy the next newest item. I'm not saying that christianity is false, I'm just saying I could never be one as I've seen no evidence and my family has ruined it all for me. I'd hate to see myself growing up like them.

[MultiLockOn]

Never mind, I deleted it. I get way to pissed off at some of religions ideals. I need to just shut my mouth
I wouldn't have been offended, it's alright, feel free to say whatever you said earlier [respectfully pl30x].

[Zak]

I wouldn't have been offended, it's alright, feel free to say whatever you said earlier [respectfully pl30x].
Ok, this is all Im gonna say though. I think its way fucked up that many religions chastise people who may never get to hear about Christianity or whatever. Just because Jewbo living in the Amazon jungle has never heard of anything outside of his little village, he gets to burn in hell. In my opinion it seems that the particular phrase that says that non-Christians burn in hell is just a scare tactic by the church.

[MultiLockOn]

This is for the most part what I object to: what sin is in Christianity. While deceit (lying) is morally wrong and envy doesn't do anything for you, pride, rebellion, and greed should not be morally wrong (I use morally wrong instead of sin, because both mean relatively the same thing(dont do it) and I can't dictate what Christians want sin to be, I can only object to what they view it to be. )

Pride- a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.
- basically, it means that to feel pride is to feel that what you have done is good. If you invent a cure to cancer, you should feel good about it. You have just saved too probably millions of lives or more, singehandedly. If a belief says that you should NOT feel good about saving millions of lives, or whatever else you are proud of acomplishing, then I object to that belief.
pride

  http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/P07/P0776400) /praɪd/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled [prahyd] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA noun, verb, prid·ed, prid·ing.
–noun 1. a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.

There's a few ways to think about pride. The way you've pointed out there's nothing wrong with. However, blindly thinking that you're in someway better than another being for whatever reason comes off as pride. Humility being the antonym of course is what the bible teaches you to do. You're thinking of the wrong pride :)




Rebellion- resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
- to rebel means to openly express your right to freedom. You can only rebel (in the true sense of the word) when you are being forced, meaning when you are basically a slave. When you rebel, you are saying that your master has no right to command you, that you have just as much right to be the master as he does. Does God encourage a world of masters and slaves? Do you have free will at this current moment? Of course you do, you have free will to go on the internet ant type that up. Rebellion in a sense of doing something stupid against authority for no real reason. Rebellion the way you described it was shown in the bible a few times, like when the Israelites were escaping Egypt, that's rebellion in the sense that they're no longer obeying the Egyptians. As before you're just thinking of these in the wrong sense; if you're pulled over for speeding then don't just pissed off and keep running from the cops. That rebellion, is what we're taught not to do.

- in addition, rebellion is also expressing your free will. You have a free will, which means you can think and do by the means of your own brain, and to be a slave you have no free will; your will is controlled by your master. So to rebel against your master is to say that your will IS free, and that he no longer accepts his master as the control over his will. So, why does God give men free will, but then say he sins if he uses it? Thats like saying "hey, Im going to give you a gas, that when released into the Earth's atmosphere, will end all starvation in the world. Oh and by the way, if you release it, you and all the not starving people will die"
As I said before, you're only thinking of rebellion in the wrong sense.


Greed-

If you mean by "greed" the unrational desire for things, then it can be a sin with no objection from me,That is most certainly what it's talking about.



but if by "greed" you mean selfishness, then I most wholeheartedly disagree with Christianity. So for this part, I will object to selfishness.

Selfish- concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc
- So, its sin to be concerned with your own interest, and by interest I mean your life, because I think that would be the biggest interest to you (preserving your life, because if it isn't, then I think you would be dead, since you didn't care to live). Its sin to be concerned with your life? Is it sin to be afraid when someone holds a gun to your head (your afraid because you might die, which would mean losing your biggest interest)? If that is sin, and God wants unselfishness; He wants you to not care about your life, to just give your life away to not the highest bidder, but the lowest, because to be it would be selfish to expect the most for your life, then I do not want anything to do with that God. If that God says its sin to want to live, to worry if you don't have enough money to buy food, or to want to protect what you hold dear, like your wife, or kids, or parents, then I object. You have the wrong idea. Who wouldn't be afraid if someone held a gun to your head? That's natural, and of course there's nothing wrong with it. As well as that myself along with every single one of you (no exceptions) has that need, that want, inside of us all for stuff. Just, stuff to make us happy. And to a certain extent there's no harm there either. If I'm feeling fat and I see a cake and buy it, where's the harm in that? There is none, it's satisfying. But like I said, only to an extent. Really crappy example; if there was this town. And you were taking thousands and thousands of dollars from the town just to make you happy, and everyone in the town dies because of you, that's greed. I'm more then aware of what a bad example that was...


Let me set up a scenario for you. You have 10000 dollars, and you can spend it on two things:

1) Your wife, who is both, the love of your life whom makes your life worth living and without her, you would no longer seek any values from this life, and she is in the hospital with an infection that will kill her within the week if she doesn't get treatment. The treatment costs 10000 dollars.

2) 10 dying women in Africa who you do not know in the slightest bit. They are complete stranger to you and to save all of them would cost 10000 dollars.

If you chose 1, then you are selfish. If you chose 2, you are unselfish. Have you sinned, if you chose 1, because if you have then I object to Christianities sins.Choosing either of those would be alright; seeing as either way you're saving someones life. Even if you spent that money on a brand new car or whatever over donating it, there's nothing wrong with that. Because technically that's what every single person here does, correct? No one here constantly donates 70% of their paycheck (assuming you work) to charity. Could we? I'm sure everyone could get by and live a healthy life donating that much, but it's obviously not happening. Once again it's to a certain extent Bartoge, you don't need to give to every charity case that comes knocking at your door ;)

[MultiLockOn]

Ok, this is all Im gonna say though. I think its way fucked up that many religions chastise people who may never get to hear about Christianity or whatever. Just because Jewbo living in the Amazon jungle has never heard of anything outside of his little village, he gets to burn in hell. In my opinion it seems that the particular phrase that says that non-Christians burn in hell is just a scare tactic by the church.
God wouldn't send a 'Jewbo living in the jungle' to hell anymore than he would a baby that was aborted. If it's out of their control then it's exactly that, there's nothing that they could've done about it. However, Man 1 heard about Christ and still refused to blah blah blah so on.

[DeathsFriend22]

I think you've actually got them flipped. Restating something, you're not saved through good deeds but rather through faith and having a relationship with Christ; which Man 1 did not have. You can honestly believe with all your heart in the 'wrong' religion, and believe that it's right such as what man 1 did, and still go to hell. Man 2 changed his ways at least, you forget that there is no sin that Christ does not forgive. The closest thing contradictory to that is where Jesus was speaking to man and says 'the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming God's name' or something along those lines.

No, I don't have them flipped. First off, I would like you to provide a source as to where it says that people who don't change their beliefs are sent to Hell. Personally, I have only ever heard this by word of mouth. Never have I actually read in a legitimate document that those who do not convert go to Hell.

As far as I know, only those who turn from God go to Hell. That is, if someone is fortunate enough to be brought up Christian, and decides he doesn't believe in God and refuses to acknowledge God's existence, he has blasphemed against God and goes to Hell.

Second, my faith (Catholicism), teaches that you must be truly sorry for your sins and resolve to not commit them again or your sins are not forgiven. Even as a Catholic, if you have mortal sins on your soul at your time of death, you go to Hell. Man #2 continued to commit his sins, so clearly he was not sorry about them and did not complete his penance; He went to Hell.

[Nulls Wife]

I am Christian but I think it is very silly that we as humans debate who is going to Heaven and who is going to Hell. I am sorry but that decision is only left up to God. I think it is 100% annoying and egocentric for us to think we know exactly how God makes his decisions. All any of us Christians can do is be a good person, repent for our sins, and praise and worship Him. There is no check list that says you need this, this, and this to get into Heaven.

I really don't think any branch of religion has it 100% correct. If God wanted us to know how all the answers then he would tell us. We can only figure out what we think is right and do our best to live up to those expectations. I am sorry if this offends anyone but honestly we are taught to spread the word of God and the people we need to spread it to are those that do not believe. Well telling someone who doesn't believe that they are going straight to Hell if they don't do x,y,&z is not going to make them believe either. Especially since none of us know what God's x,y,&z list is for sure.

[Zak]

I am Christian but I think it is very silly that we as humans debate who is going to Heaven and who is going to Hell. I am sorry but that decision is only left up to God. I think it is 100% annoying and egocentric for us to think we know exactly how God makes his decisions. All any of us Christians can do is be a good person, repent for our sins, and praise and worship Him. There is no check list that says you need this, this, and this to get into Heaven.

I really don't think any branch of religion has it 100% correct. If God wanted us to know how all the answers then he would tell us. We can only figure out what we think is right and do our best to live up to those expectations. I am sorry if this offends anyone but honestly we are taught to spread the word of God and the people we need to spread it to are those that do not believe. Well telling someone who doesn't believe that they are going straight to Hell if they don't do x,y,&z is not going to make them believe either. Especially since none of us know what God's x,y,&z list is for sure.

Holly, that is the most respectable opinion that I have heard. Maybe I only say that because that's what I kinda think, but still. Have an open-mind people

[DeathsFriend22]

I am Christian but I think it is very silly that we as humans debate who is going to Heaven and who is going to Hell. I am sorry but that decision is only left up to God. I think it is 100% annoying and egocentric for us to think we know exactly how God makes his decisions. All any of us Christians can do is be a good person, repent for our sins, and praise and worship Him. There is no check list that says you need this, this, and this to get into Heaven.

I really don't think any branch of religion has it 100% correct. If God wanted us to know how all the answers then he would tell us. We can only figure out what we think is right and do our best to live up to those expectations. I am sorry if this offends anyone but honestly we are taught to spread the word of God and the people we need to spread it to are those that do not believe. Well telling someone who doesn't believe that they are going straight to Hell if they don't do x,y,&z is not going to make them believe either. Especially since none of us know what God's x,y,&z list is for sure.

You're right, except that the qualifications, or whatever, for getting into Heaven are clearly defined in the Bible: Leave this world with a clean soul and don't turn from God.

[Jpec07]

Regarding the heaven/hell debate, I feel I need to clarify something: the end should never be our focus. We honestly can't know the heart of God, and we can't know who is and isn't saved. Drawing from the scripture, we can guess at who would and who wouldn't go to heaven or the lake of fire when the earth and time are finished, but there really is no point in speculating about it. As Christians, such guessing is not our job, and is above and beyond our jurisdiction. If we start saying "this person goes to heaven," and "this person goes to hell," or apply even some Biblical conditional on it as "if a person has surrendered to Jesus' Lordship, then..." then we have heaped ourselves up on a pedestal of judgment, passing out what is not ours to pass out. For even naming what is sinful, I have erred, because that's not my job.

The job of the Christian is to become like Christ, adopting his heart of love, and living every moment in an attempt to express that love. Unfortunately, most of us fail miserably at the task, but the reason why we aren't horribly grieved over it (though perhaps I suggest we've become ridiculously complacent about this piece) is because we recognize that God loves us the same, regardless of what we do or don't do. There is nothing that any man can do to make God love him any less, and there is nothing any man can do to make God love him any more than others. So who are we to pick and choose who gets to receive salvation? That task is for God and God alone.

The closest thing contradictory to that is where Jesus was speaking to man and says 'the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming God's name' or something along those lines.

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, actually, which in context means taking the signs and miracles that are clearly done by God for the benefit of man and labeling them as demonic.

My whole family is made out of christians. They all talk about caring and love to each other and friends but I see their true side. They are selfish pigs who do nothing but work so they can buy the next newest item. I'm not saying that christianity is false, I'm just saying I could never be one as I've seen no evidence and my family has ruined it all for me. I'd hate to see myself growing up like them.

This isn't about how the Christians you know behave, so stop bringing it up. Not targeting you specifically, but it's a straw-man fallacy, and I won't have any part in it.

[Cowboypickle23]

OK, im in the same boat as you. Im a devout Catholic who loves spreading the word of God. I also love explaining things about our religion and the Bible that most people get confused with. I usually do a pretty good job answering the questions, but i have one that people have asked me that i cant quite answer. If you are familiar with an art known as Bible code, than you would probably know that if a certain code of letters is entered into the Bible, the results show many disturbing realities of our earth. These include a passage that says "the twins will fall" of course meaning the twin towers, and i know of another reference to the Tsunami. Now, i dont know if this is accurate, but i have heard that the code also backs up that theory of humanity ending in 2012, as the Mayans also predict. I, usually answer the question by simply saying how vast the Bible is, and you could take and word here and word there that makes a a new sentence. This is my belief on the matter, but in the back of my mind it does make me think. I would just like your beliefs on this matter.

[G043R]

Any one seen the recent book of Eli? Personally this movie can show a small portion of the christian portion of belief I hold close and dear to me.

I hope not to ruin the movie at all but the Book Eli carries is a bible. Much of the context of the movie is about how many people sin and make choices. A true christian as long as it is understood universally will shift towards a no aggressive peace giving person. What is written in the bible often shifts towards a Communism ideal. It is better to share and many to survive than to horde supplies and die with them.

IN a post apocalyptic world many of the people live in a world of limited resources. Items are never tossed just because they lack use at the moment. IN the world before as it was written in the movie would be tossed what we eat in a day. This just goes to show not so much the sin we openly commit but the sin we unknowingly commit.

Often I hear of discussion of what if a man knows nothing of god and sins all his life why is it his fault that he did wrong? Some of this logic is saying you don't know it was wrong.... makes it fine. I simply disagree.... Wiggum family is a good example. Not a perfect example because I don't know exact details but that there is a level of sin we all carry. Before and after becoming christian. The harder part is committing to a task you know that is near impossible.

I personally think that the constant recommitting and refocus is the ideal of Christianity. We often hear cut down comments of How other Christians act. I am one to openly comment one when a fellow brother has acted out of line but I do it according to a soft tone and loving heart. To much to the point I avoid going to church.... I simply keep a bible on my bed stand and often spend the moments of my night reading over it.

[Zackj191]

I feel that religion (not just Christianity) is merely an excuse, or something to fall back on. It has been shown through numerous studies that the more wealthy and successful a person becomes the less they need a religion. The poor and usually unsuccessful tend to find faith in God so they can, and this is my opinion, blame all their failures on his doing and try to ask him to help them out as they continue to do wrong and fail.

EDIT: Would you mind if I just started posting quotes from famous people about religion? If you don't want me to I won't.

[DeathsFriend22]

OK, im in the same boat as you. Im a devout Catholic who loves spreading the word of God. I also love explaining things about our religion and the Bible that most people get confused with. I usually do a pretty good job answering the questions, but i have one that people have asked me that i cant quite answer. If you are familiar with an art known as Bible code, than you would probably know that if a certain code of letters is entered into the Bible, the results show many disturbing realities of our earth. These include a passage that says "the twins will fall" of course meaning the twin towers, and i know of another reference to the Tsunami. Now, i dont know if this is accurate, but i have heard that the code also backs up that theory of humanity ending in 2012, as the Mayans also predict. I, usually answer the question by simply saying how vast the Bible is, and you could take and word here and word there that makes a a new sentence. This is my belief on the matter, but in the back of my mind it does make me think. I would just like your beliefs on this matter.

You hit the nail on the head. (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/hidden_messages_and_the_bible_code/) It's pure coincidence.

[Octopocalypse]

Does god loves all of his creatures? I'm assuming so, though I've only read parts of the Bible.

If that above statement is true, why would he give one species all the power? We are undoubtedly the smartest and the most destructive creatures on the planet. We destroy homes of animals, and even homes of people. My question is, how would an oh so loving god that creates order, let one species rule the world?

[Nulls Wife]

I feel that religion (not just Christianity) is merely an excuse, or something to fall back on. It has been shown through numerous studies that the more wealthy and successful a person becomes the less they need a religion. The poor and usually unsuccessful tend to find faith in God so they can, and this is my opinion, blame all their failures on his doing and try to ask him to help them out as they continue to do wrong and fail.


I realize anecdotal stories don't prove anything but there is not one christian I know that is poor and unsuccessful. Null and I are neither poor or unsuccessful and our faith is only growing. When we were in college and were dirt poor was when our faith was the weakest. All I am saying is please provide a source to all these numerous studies that prove your point, because I highly doubt they are credible and unbiased.




EDIT: Would you mind if I just started posting quotes from famous people about religion? If you don't want me to I won't.

What would that prove? Since when does famous people have more knowledge about religion then any of us??

[DeathsFriend22]

Does god loves all of his creatures? I'm assuming so, though I've only read parts of the Bible.

If that above statement is true, why would he give one species all the power? We are undoubtedly the smartest and the most destructive creatures on the planet. We destroy homes of animals, and even homes of people. My question is, how would an oh so loving god that creates order, let one species rule the world?

We are not only the most destructive, we are the most creative as well. Most things that have been destroyed have been rebuilt bigger and better than before. And this whole "destroying animal's homes" thing is a little ridiculous. To this date, only 3 percent of the land in America has been developed, even in the "big" states like New York.

When God made the universe, He made us in His image, and everything else was put here specifically to serve our needs. This is why we are the most superior species; While God does love all of his creation, He loves us most, because we are made in His image.

[Denominator]

I suppose it's time I chimed in on this thread. I've read it all, and some of the posts that I respond to below are from a few pages back, but that is only because I didn't have an opportunity to respond when they weren't a bunch of pages back.

Firstly, in order to have a fair debate, I feel I must provide my views. I am definitely an atheist, to the point that I believe there is no God(s). I believe that most of the principles taught by religion are correct, although the methods and basis for the teaching of them are based on wrong assumptions.

However, I must say this, because this is what I believe truly divides Christians (let's face it, in North America and on a site like this, we are unlikely to run into religious people of other faiths, and Christianity is the faith that I know the most about) and Atheists is the belief in the evidence. I can honestly say that if there were some evidence discovered later today that proved, with little or no doubt, that God existed, I would convert to Christianity and believe in God. However, I can see simply by reading the posts, that NONE of the Christians that have posted here can say the same thing. In fact, evidence the other way (disproving God), has been provided here and instead of looking at the evidence you have all argued against it.

Now, onto my points.

Firstly, jpec, the title of this thread is terrible. Christians are rapidly rising as one of the most attacked groups in North America, and often it is because they put themselves in a position to be martyred. Before the debate even began, you put yourself in a defencive position and asked to be thrown on the rocks.

Secondly, if we are going to debate religion, it should all be fair game. One of the biggest issues that I have with religion is the Bible, and you've stated from the beginning that it can't be discussed. I will leave it out for the time being.

I believe Science can infact co-exist with the Bible. Among God creating the world in 7 days, another theory I think of from time to time is that God created Evolution. If he can create man, the only creature able to study itself, he can surely create that. One thing I do disagree with is the apparent knowledge that the world is billions of years old. An Archeologist can't possibly tell me that that fossil is a billion years old, tell me how you know that!

Being myself an archaeologist, I have 2 main issues with this comment.

1) You misunderstand archaeology. Archaeology is a form of anthropology, in which we study human culture in ancient forms. Archaeologists have absolutely nothing to do with billions of years or fossils (except in rare cases), you're looking for paleontologists and geologists.

2) There are many ways that we can understand the world to be old. Letol gave a nice link, although that deals for shorter time spans than billions of years. Sea floor spreading (http://library.thinkquest.org/17457/platetectonics/4.php), along with Radiocarbon Dating (http://www.c14dating.com/int.html) allow us to accurately measure the age of the earth.

@Time Glitch: The Bible is not a scientific text. Indeed, the entire genre of "scientific text" didn't exist until the later 1600s, and even then it was imperfect. It's actually interesting: science began with monks trying to figure out the mysteries of God's universe through careful observation. Pedigrees and genetics were discovered around that time, and the Renaissance took off with it, bringing it to its more modern term.

While I agree this is true, the reasons that it is true need to be brought up. "Science", such as the research that was done on genetics (most notably by Gregor Mendel (http://www.zephyrus.co.uk/gregormendel.html)) was done by monks because it was the only place that was allowed to do research at the time. The church had so much power in Europe during that time period that scientific research was done by the church in the hopes of proving God.

The thing is, science and the Bible have entirely different aims. Science is always asking "how:" how was the universe formed? How do we perceive the sun to rise in the east and set in the west? How does adding sodium to water make pure fiery awesome? How do the trees know when to shed their leaves in preparation for winter? How does life work? All of them "how" questions. They may be disguised as "why," but it's a different brand of causality. Religion (the Bible specifically) deals with why. Science says the contemporary universe was probably formed around 14,000,000,000 years ago in a massive, cataclysmic explosion. The Bible says that God made the universe. Who's to say that God didn't use a massive, cataclysmic explosion to form the universe? The Bible posits that it did, and it takes faith to confirm that position.

This is probably my biggest issue with the Bible. While science strives to learn how things work and why things work and determine causality, the Bible gives the answer and I find it very lacking. "God did it" doesn't answer the question, it merely deflects it and threatens you with eternal damnation if you don't believe it.

It really isn't a difficult thing, as Noezy was saying, to accept God's love. People who refuse to do so are, in my opinion, stubborn and obstinate for the sake of being stubborn and obstinate, and fear giving up what little control they may have had over their own lives. Christianity does involve surrender, yes, and while God is one to be feared, he is one who loves more deeply than the oceans, and who will not put a person through something they can't handle. Indeed, "with God, all things are possible." So your hypothetical man would wind up apart from God, because in today's day and age, there is no way for him to not know of God's grace, so he is without excuse.

Explain to me how exactly God loves. We are talking about a man (I use man here simply for lack of a better word) who sent his only son back to Earth to die to prove a point. He is a jealous God, in that he cannot accept people of other religions doing the morally correct thing just because he disagrees with their views. He has petty rules that have ridiculous consequences, and he has had many wars fought in his name, killed many men, and once eradicated the entire world.

I fail to see how this God can be listed as "loving".

Second, there is no record or indication given as to when Adam started counting his 800+ year lifespan. It is clear from the second Genesis account that Adam had grown accustomed to spending time with God, and that they were used to regular fellowship in the Garden. Between mankind's creation and the time when mankind was kicked out of the Garden, we have an indeterminate, impossible to establish period of time. During that period, mankind was free from sin and free from death, because sin had not yet come into the world. Age bore no relevance, because when you don't have to worry about getting older or dying, why count how long you've been around?

You have a terrible error here.

You are now using lack of evidence in the book that you hold as absolute truth to be evidence for what you believe happened at that time. While I must concede that it is possible for 4.5 billion years to have passed between when God made Adam and God made Eve, I must merely point out that it is implausible based on the fact that all the other ages listed in the Bible are <1000 years. This is my same point for the 7 days argument, in which many Christian people have told me that the 7 days is not a literal translation but an approximate one.

Also, the problem with most types of radioactive dating is that they assume even distribution of isotopes among all the atoms of an element (something we can guess at but never truly know), and fail to take into consideration the fact that we don't know the initial distribution rate of the elemental isotopes, or even when they began their decay. The fission-track dating you've presented also assumes a constant rate of "tracks."

We know down to an error that is minute. The same way that we cannot ever disprove God, but we can disprove his existence down to a point that is minute. That is the definition of a scientific fact - when the possibility of disproving the theory is significantly small, we can disprove it.

@Time Glitch: And again, as I've said multiple times by now, salvation is not based on works. You can never be "good enough" to satisfy God, so it's best to stop trying and accept the free gifts of love and grace he's given to us all. That is the only way that one can attain salvation and eternal life, according to Christian belief. While this ought to produce "fruit" that is in keeping with righteous living, the righteous living is not the means to an end.

Needless to say, this pisses me off.

It again frustrates me that a "loving" God would value your belief in him over morally right deeds. This is not the only religion to have this, but it seems such an absurd concept that I cannot accept religion in this form.




I apologize if any of my above comments offend. I mean them only to incite, as I am of the opinion that religious debates should be fiery, but not offensive. My intent is not to offend, but rather to make you think about your words and my points and respond appropriately.

I'm also a bit upset that there is so much in this thread that I could not respond to in the interests of time, but that is the nature of a public debate. I had to cut much out to do this in less than half an hour.

[Letol]

I realize anecdotal stories don't prove anything but there is not one christian I know that is poor and unsuccessful.

If you were a faithful christian your whole life, then suddenly your life was ruined to the point of poverty, would you still believe in christianity? Would you willingly believe in christianity if you've always lived in poverty? It wouldn't really make sense to me.

And this whole "destroying animal's homes" thing is a little ridiculous. To this date, only 3 percent of the land in America has been developed, even in the "big" states like New York.



The United States has 1.93 billion acres of land.
108.1 million acres of that land is "developed" land, which is up about 3 million acres from 2001 numbers.
That doesn't count farm land, pasture land, and a few other things, which use WAY more than 6%.
Alaska has 600 million acres of land and is VERY sparsely populated and rather not farmed, so you're right to worry that it throws off the statistics. Unfortunately I couldn't find good numbers for alaska, but it has roughly one citizen per mile. In contrast, 22% or so of Massachusetts is developed land.
That data was taken back in 2003, I'm sure that we've undeveloped our land in that time. Either way, I think the statistics speak for themselves whereas percentages hardly give any perspective at all.

When God made the universe, He made us in His image, and everything else was put here specifically to serve our needs. This is why we are the most superior species; While God does love all of his creation, He loves us most, because we are made in His image.

That is one of the most condescending things that I always hear and I find it to be utterly annoying and absolute rubbish. It's just another way that humans patronize themselves and I cannot wait for the day to come where we finally humble ourselves to the world and universe that we live in.

[DeathsFriend22]

That data was taken back in 2003, I'm sure that we've undeveloped our land in that time. Either way, I think the statistics speak for themselves whereas percentages hardly give any perspective at all.

I apologize, I was speaking from memory, but I Found the article (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2002/05/Will-Sprawl-Gobble-Up-Americas-Land) from which I have my informaion. 90% of the land in New York is still undeveloped.

Farmland hardly counts as development. We are still growing plants and crops, and raising livestock - more, I would think, than the amount of livestock that would survive in the forests anyways.


That is one of the most condescending things that I always hear and I find it to be utterly annoying and absolute rubbish. It's just another way that humans patronize themselves and I cannot wait for the day to come where we finally humble ourselves to the world and universe that we live in.
Your opinion vs The Bible, which by the rules of this thread is to be considered a reliable source. That's just how it is. God created us in His image and made us masters of our universe.

[Nulls Wife]

If you were a faithful christian your whole life, then suddenly your life was ruined to the point of poverty, would you still believe in christianity? Would you willingly believe in christianity if you've always lived in poverty? It wouldn't really make sense to me.

First off I don't even understand how poverty and believing in God are even related. Secondly I have never had the "blame God" mindset when things go wrong in my life. So I would be very surprised if I would no longer believe just because my whole life was turned upside down. God never promised our lives would be perfect, he just promised he would be with us to hold us up when things did go bad. I have never lived in true poverty, we weren't wealthy growing up but I knew I was going to eat at night, so I can't say what I would believe if I had always lived in poverty. However, I can't see how I would believe any different.

At the same time, your post totally disagrees with Zachj191's which was really my point in the first place. Again though, I really don't understand how God and Money have anything to do with one another.

[Zackj191]

I realize anecdotal stories don't prove anything but there is not one christian I know that is poor and unsuccessful. Null and I are neither poor or unsuccessful and our faith is only growing. When we were in college and were dirt poor was when our faith was the weakest. All I am saying is please provide a source to all these numerous studies that prove your point, because I highly doubt they are credible and unbiased.


I never said that ALL people do. It just shows that that is the usual trend, of course there are always going to be exceptions.


What would that prove? Since when does famous people have more knowledge about religion then any of us??

Never said it would prove anything, just some of the quotes I have found are very interesting.

Like this one: "I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul. . . . I am an aggregate of cells, as, for instance, New York City is an aggregate of individuals. Will New York City go to heaven? . . . . No; nature made us--nature did it all--not the gods of the religions." -Thomas Edison.

I try to look at all things from a scientific point of view (this might have something to do with me wanting to become a Physicist or a Chemist), and I have been able to find an explanation for all questions (that I can remember) through science and none from religion.

[Jpec07]

Denominator, I'll get to you in a minute here.

I feel that religion (not just Christianity) is merely an excuse, or something to fall back on. It has been shown through numerous studies that the more wealthy and successful a person becomes the less they need a religion. The poor and usually unsuccessful tend to find faith in God so they can, and this is my opinion, blame all their failures on his doing and try to ask him to help them out as they continue to do wrong and fail.

EDIT: Would you mind if I just started posting quotes from famous people about religion? If you don't want me to I won't.

Would you mind providing a link for these studies? Because I've seen a number of studies that say that wealth and success in non-religious people actually contribute to higher rates of depression and suicide.

[Zackj191]

Would you mind providing a link for these studies? Because I've seen a number of studies that say that wealth and success in non-religious people actually contribute to higher rates of depression and suicide.

Somewhere in the Yahoo! newsfeed that shows up when I check my email... And I have never heard of that before. That sounds more like stress.

[Letol]

Farmland hardly counts as development. We are still growing plants and crops, and raising livestock - more, I would think, than the amount of livestock that would survive in the forests anyways.

Those statistics I provided don't count farmland as part of the total percentage of development, though it definitely affects nature in large ways. (http://www.noticenature.ie/What_effect_does_agriculture_have_on_biodiversity_and_why_take_action_to_protect _it_.html)

First off I don't even understand how poverty and believing in God are even related. Secondly I have never had the "blame God" mindset when things go wrong in my life. So I would be very surprised if I would no longer believe just because my whole life was turned upside down. God never promised our lives would be perfect, he just promised he would be with us to hold us up when things did go bad. I have never lived in true poverty, we weren't wealthy growing up but I knew I was going to eat at night, so I can't say what I would believe if I had always lived in poverty. However, I can't see how I would believe any different.

At the same time, your post totally disagrees with Zachj191's which was really my point in the first place. Again though, I really don't understand how God and Money have anything to do with one another.

I really could've explained my point a little better. I was getting at the whole "God loves everyone", and if God loved everyone, especially Christians, then why would he put them into poverty or some other horrible situation such as that? Why should they believe in a God that loves everyone if he did something so horrible to them? I was just in the mindset of money after you mentioned how you didn't know a single Christian that was poor or unsuccessful. This will probably be extremely biased since I'm not Christian to begin with, but if I was Christian and fell into horrible poverty or my family lost their house, I would probably stop believing in the Christian faith because it would seem nearly impossible to believe in a God that loves everyone at that point.



You could really put the statement that "God loves everyone" into question, but Christians have already created a cushion for this type of question by saying that God is testing you or that he would never put you into a situation you couldn't overcome. I'll go ahead and ask about starvation in Africa, homelessness in America, and oppression in China. I bet I already know the answer.



Your opinion vs The Bible, which by the rules of this thread is to be considered a reliable source. That's just how it is.

And that's why I avoid debates such as this one, which I'm going to do right now. If anyone has anything to say about this to me for some reason, shoot me a PM or something. I'm just going to stop posting on my own will into this thread, it's a waste of time in my personal opinion. :neutral:

God created us in His image and made us masters of our universe.

I'm going to laugh so hard once the general public gets solid proof of aliens (whenever/if ever... lol), even harder than I will on 12/22/12.

[Jpec07]

This post is directed pretty much entirely at Denominator:

I'll admit to painting a target on my back. Or rather, I'll admit to recognizing the target that's already on my back, and to providing a shooting range. I believe I've already admitted to some the slightly selfish motivation behind this thread. I believe that it's a very good idea to question one's beliefs on a regular basis, and quite frankly I've run out of questions. With this thread, I was hoping not only to hopefully answer any inconsistencies that you all saw, but also to find for myself some questions that I had not yet discovered the answer to.

Science never had the mindset of proving God (except maybe through demonstrating how wonderfully complex the universe is and how hard it would be for all of it to happen by chance), and unless you can find a link to prove that, I'll stand by my position about how science asks the "how" questions. The Bible answers the "why." And you don't have to believe it if you don't want to. That's why we have free will.

The other thing that doesn't make sense: you take issue with the Bible because it doesn't do what you want it to do? Did it ever occur to you that you're trying to find something with it that isn't there? We've established, and I'm pretty sure that you'll admit that the Bible is not in the same genre as scientific literature, and to try to treat it as such is a foolish effort. As with any literature, you can't say "this book has to say this, or else I hate it." If you read Great Expectations and expected Pip to hook up with Estella at the end, you would inevitably be sorely mistaken and extremely disappointed. The error you make in bringing your preconceptions to the Bible is very much the same. You ask it for a scientific, play-by-play analysis of exactly how the universe was formed, and how the universe works. It, in turn, simply says that it happened at the will of God.

You say that it is an inadequate answer, and that the Bible ought to do as you said. But why should it? That's not the point of the Bible, nor should it be.

I'll hold off on the thing of God's love for now, because you're basically asking me to read for you and recount the entire Bible, dogmatically explaining how each and every piece therein contained reveals something about God, what it contains about man, what it contains about God's relation to man, and what it contains about man's relation to man. That's a heavy theological extrapolation, and to be honest I don't have the time to do that to the entirety of the Bible in one sitting.

I fail to see how I have an error. I never said that I hold the book to be absolute in truth, I just said that it is a valid and credible source. It still needs to be interpreted and scrutinized, just the same as any other piece of literature. This is called biblical exegesis, and is exactly what I have spent the last four years of my life learning how to do well. Besides that, I feel that I must point out that death did not come into the world until Adam and Eve ate from the tree, and were kicked out of the Garden that very day. To field the objections that I can see coming of "what about carnivores?" I can honestly say that I don't have an answer for you. But the Bible clearly says that death came from the sin of man. The other ages listed at ~800 years at the beginning of Genesis, while they are impossibly long by our standards, point to one thing and one thing only: after mankind left the garden, they started dying.

Considering as I am uneducated as to how you are able to put so much faith into the precision of radiometric dating, would you be willing to provide me a link that answers the question of how we are able to know exact isotopic distribution within an element's sampling from across the globe, and how we are able to tell the exact amount of radioactive isotopes that existed at the beginning of the earth?

Finally, it is not belief that God values, but returned love. You must have an awfully small concept of an infinite God's love if you think that it ought to be based upon how we finite humans behave. I can simply say that it's bigger than that. And to my knowledge, Christianity is the only religion where "salvation" cannot be earned. As I keep repeating (and as you keep seeming to not see or misread), the salvation that we claim to have is a gift from God. That is the primary evidence of his love. If you want a more long-winded explanation, I'd be happy to start some kind of Skype Bible study with you.

[PsychoBucket]

No offense, but you seemed to misinterpret or partially address and go into a different direction then what a few of his points were about. For example in the gods love part, it seems like you only read the first sentence. He is asking you how God can be a loving God when does those things.

"As I keep repeating (and as you keep seeming to not see or misread)" I'm not even an Atheist and that really annoyed me. He clearly understood your point. He just disagreed with it, and could not "accept religion in this form.". You are acting like you are the only one that could possibly be correct, and that you need to force your opinion on others. You are so dedicated to your religion that I'm sure you believe you are the only one correct, but you should at least respect others beliefs.

[Null Parameter]

I'd be happy to start some kind of Skype Bible study with you.
If you do this, I'm going to be there, just to spectate.

Oh man, I can't wait! :onfire:

[Denominator]

Thank you, jpec, I could not have asked for a better morning read with my coffee.

Like both psycho said, your tone was rather condescending and you didn't really counter any of my points, rather trying to convert me. I'll forgive this as you're Christian. ;P

I'll admit to painting a target on my back. Or rather, I'll admit to recognizing the target that's already on my back, and to providing a shooting range. I believe I've already admitted to some the slightly selfish motivation behind this thread. I believe that it's a very good idea to question one's beliefs on a regular basis, and quite frankly I've run out of questions. With this thread, I was hoping not only to hopefully answer any inconsistencies that you all saw, but also to find for myself some questions that I had not yet discovered the answer to.

Perhaps this is because in most debates I've participated in, but I have found that generally speaking the Christians outnumber the Atheists and the current accepted theology in North America is Christianity, and generally speaking it is the Christians that do the target painting, not the other way around.


Science never had the mindset of proving God (except maybe through demonstrating how wonderfully complex the universe is and how hard it would be for all of it to happen by chance), and unless you can find a link to prove that, I'll stand by my position about how science asks the "how" questions. The Bible answers the "why." And you don't have to believe it if you don't want to. That's why we have free will.

Science never has needed to. To quote Bertrand Russell:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them.

The onus should be on Christians to prove God's existence, not Science to disprove it.

The other thing that doesn't make sense: you take issue with the Bible because it doesn't do what you want it to do? Did it ever occur to you that you're trying to find something with it that isn't there? We've established, and I'm pretty sure that you'll admit that the Bible is not in the same genre as scientific literature, and to try to treat it as such is a foolish effort. As with any literature, you can't say "this book has to say this, or else I hate it." If you read Great Expectations and expected Pip to hook up with Estella at the end, you would inevitably be sorely mistaken and extremely disappointed. The error you make in bringing your preconceptions to the Bible is very much the same. You ask it for a scientific, play-by-play analysis of exactly how the universe was formed, and how the universe works. It, in turn, simply says that it happened at the will of God.

I don't know if I have ever read a more backwards quote. Honestly, jpec, to me this entire paragraph has the meaning of why NOT to believe in the Bible and why I don't.

I will admit that the Bible most certainly is not in the same genre as scientific literature. I personally would place it in fiction.

Read this quote again:

Did it ever occur to you that you're trying to find something with it that isn't there?

I think you may want to ask yourself that question before you ask me.

I fail to see how I have an error. I never said that I hold the book to be absolute in truth, I just said that it is a valid and credible source. It still needs to be interpreted and scrutinized, just the same as any other piece of literature. This is called biblical exegesis, and is exactly what I have spent the last four years of my life learning how to do well. Besides that, I feel that I must point out that death did not come into the world until Adam and Eve ate from the tree, and were kicked out of the Garden that very day. To field the objections that I can see coming of "what about carnivores?" I can honestly say that I don't have an answer for you. But the Bible clearly says that death came from the sin of man. The other ages listed at ~800 years at the beginning of Genesis, while they are impossibly long by our standards, point to one thing and one thing only: after mankind left the garden, they started dying.

Once again, you have made the same error.

My point is this. There is a gap in the Bible (the one originally discussed - that there is no record for the time that has passed between when God created Adam and when Eve ate the fruit). This, I feel we can agree on. However, our interpretation is what differs, and this is what I feel the biggest difference is between you and I.

I look at the gap and say "We cannot know what happened in this period of time, or how long it was. Thus, we look at the other available evidence provided near this time to extrapolate the most likely outcome."

You look at the gap and say "We do not know what happened in this period of time, but can guess how long it was based on how long it needs to be to match the evidence."

I suppose it boils down to me looking to disprove while you look to prove, but I am looking at the evidence to find the results while you are looking at the result you want and making the evidence fit.

Considering as I am uneducated as to how you are able to put so much faith into the precision of radiometric dating, would you be willing to provide me a link that answers the question of how we are able to know exact isotopic distribution within an element's sampling from across the globe, and how we are able to tell the exact amount of radioactive isotopes that existed at the beginning of the earth?

Isochron Dating. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html)

Finally, it is not belief that God values, but returned love.

Uhm... bullshit.

Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Exodus 34:14. Want the rest of the passage so that you can claim I haven't taken it out of context?

Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

"Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

"Do not make cast idols."

I think that's pretty clear what God wants. Kill any unbelievers and worship only me.

You must have an awfully small concept of an infinite God's love if you think that it ought to be based upon how we finite humans behave. I can simply say that it's bigger than that. And to my knowledge, Christianity is the only religion where "salvation" cannot be earned. As I keep repeating (and as you keep seeming to not see or misread), the salvation that we claim to have is a gift from God. That is the primary evidence of his love.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You're basically justifying God's vicious and malicious actions with eternal salvation.

If you want a more long-winded explanation, I'd be happy to start some kind of Skype Bible study with you.

Deal. I may have to go buy a Bible so I don't have to keep looking everything up online. I have 3 stipulations:

1) It's a discussion of the Bible and any other relevant sources that either of us can bring up. That means that I don't want to be preached at, and I won't preach at you.

2) Anyone else is welcome to view the discussion, but has to be approved by both of us and can be removed from the discussion if they are disrupting us.

3) Anything said in the discussion can be posted on XForgery by us, but only by us (none of the viewers).

I also have a couple of books that I want you to read, but I'm not going to push that at this point.

[DeathsFriend22]

Those statistics I provided don't count farmland as part of the total percentage of development, though it definitely affects nature in large ways. (http://www.noticenature.ie/What_effect_does_agriculture_have_on_biodiversity_and_why_take_action_to_protect _it_.html)

Your link doesn't even tell me why I should care, or what it really does. So a few wetlands disappear, and we lose, what, some mosquitos and a few inedible, useless plants? The only reasons it really gives are "It's against the law," "There are designated zones for it," and "There are some people who get mad about this stuff."

The second one isn't even a reason to care, it's more of a "there's already something being done about it" kind of thing.

The plants and animals we raise on farmland are infinitely more useful and valuable than the wildlife in the wetlands. What is the use in protecting biodiversty?

[Artifex]

Deal. I may have to go buy a Bible so I don't have to keep looking everything up online. I have 3 stipulations:

1) It's a discussion of the Bible and any other relevant sources that either of us can bring up. That means that I don't want to be preached at, and I won't preach at you.

2) Anyone else is welcome to view the discussion, but has to be approved by both of us and can be removed from the discussion if they are disrupting us.

3) Anything said in the discussion can be posted on XForgery by us, but only by us (none of the viewers).

I also have a couple of books that I want you to read, but I'm not going to push that at this point.

I'd happily watch the chat if you would let me.

[DeathsFriend22]

watch too, I can?

[Denominator]

Your link doesn't even tell me why I should care, or what it really does. So a few wetlands disappear, and we lose, what, some mosquitos and a few inedible, useless plants? The only reasons it really gives are "It's against the law," "There are designated zones for it," and "There are some people who get mad about this stuff."

The second one isn't even a reason to care, it's more of a "there's already something being done about it" kind of thing.

The plants and animals we raise on farmland are infinitely more useful and valuable than the wildlife in the wetlands. What is the use in protecting biodiversty?

Wetlands are infinitely more valuable to the environment than farmland. Just because you don't eat anything from the wetland doesn't make it unimportant.

Here. (http://www.nrpa.com/wetlands.htm)

[DeathsFriend22]

Wetlands are infinitely more valuable to the environment than farmland. Just because you don't eat anything from the wetland doesn't make it unimportant.

Here. (http://www.nrpa.com/wetlands.htm)

Even so, the real problem is the pollution of the rivers, not the farmland itself. If there is no pollution, what use are the wetlands, which exist to filter pollution and maintain good water quality? Pike can grow in any freshwater or brackish environment. If you cut pollution levels, then certainly wetlands are no longer required?

[Jpec07]

Denom, I won't spend much time rebutting what you've said. It's established that we both have different motives in our interpretative styles. But what I will very clearly point out to you is the fact that you pulled both of your quotes from Exodus, which is part of the Pentateuch--the Judaic book of law, the Torah. While this does very clearly show a piece of God's character, the stipulations therein contained are no longer required to be maintained. This is why Christians aren't killing cows, and why we don't worship at the temple. This is why we can approach God freely and on our own, and why we don't have to live in fear and trembling. This is why we don't need a high priest to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur to sit with fear of death on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant. Jesus himself said that he was the fulfillment of the law (as Jesus was Jewish and living in Israel, he was clearly speaking about the Torah, which is the Pentateuch), and in a number of places in the New Testament, it specifically says that the righteousness into which God redeems mankind comes separately from the Law. The wrath of God against mankind was poured out on Jesus Christ in the time leading up to his death. Countless hours of mistrials, travesties of justice, and the flogging and flaying of an innocent man on a cross were only surface wounds, as the weight of the all of the sins of mankind thorughout history were heaped upon the shoulders of the only truly innocent man to have ever lived.

Just the same, where does it say that God would kill the non-believers? In the passage you quoted, it mentions all of the people living in modern day Palestine, which was the land of Canaan back then. That distinction, land of Canaan, is important, because several chapters earlier, in Genesis 9:20-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:20-28&version=NIV), Noah pronounced a curse upon Canaan. This, in conjunction with the multiple promises to Abra(ha)m in Genesis 12-22, lends to a cause for God's driving out the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. And even then it was the Gibeonites (who were Canaanites, meaning descended from Canaan) who wound up being Israel's slaves, to fulfill Noah's curse. While I won't try to pull the wool over your eyes and say that God didn't tell Israel to kill the Canaanites down to the last man, woman, and child, this passage doesn't prove that. As to how a loving God can do that...well, to be honest I don't have an answer for you that doesn't involve God's stark opposition to sin (in the Genesis passage I listed, I think somewhere around chapter 15, God specifically says that he can't give Abram the land yet because "the sin of the Amorites is not yet complete," which points to this as the cause for their demise). Granted, this doesn't paint a good picture of God the lover, but at the same time it demonstrates his willingness to stand for the ones he's chosen (a title which, according to the New Testament, extends to Christ, so vicariously to anyone who chooses Christ).

I'll have a more complete version of the Theology of the Old Testament this fall (it's one of the classes I'm taking, and supposedly it's one of the harder ones offered at my school). I'll contact you once we've gone over how theologians respond to the conquest of Canaan in light of God's love-character...

[Denominator]

Even so, the real problem is the pollution of the rivers, not the farmland itself. If there is no pollution, what use are the wetlands, which exist to filter pollution and maintain good water quality? Pike can grow in any freshwater or brackish environment. If you cut pollution levels, then certainly wetlands are no longer required?

I simply don't think I can respond to this properly. I cannot believe you are that ignorant.

Denom, I won't spend much time rebutting what you've said. It's established that we both have different motives in our interpretative styles. But what I will very clearly point out to you is the fact that you pulled both of your quotes from Exodus, which is part of the Pentateuch--the Judaic book of law, the Torah. While this does very clearly show a piece of God's character, the stipulations therein contained are no longer required to be maintained. This is why Christians aren't killing cows, and why we don't worship at the temple. This is why we can approach God freely and on our own, and why we don't have to live in fear and trembling. This is why we don't need a high priest to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur to sit with fear of death on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant. Jesus himself said that he was the fulfillment of the law (as Jesus was Jewish and living in Israel, he was clearly speaking about the Torah, which is the Pentateuch), and in a number of places in the New Testament, it specifically says that the righteousness into which God redeems mankind comes separately from the Law. The wrath of God against mankind was poured out on Jesus Christ in the time leading up to his death. Countless hours of mistrials, travesties of justice, and the flogging and flaying of an innocent man on a cross were only surface wounds, as the weight of the all of the sins of mankind thorughout history were heaped upon the shoulders of the only truly innocent man to have ever lived.

If I read this correctly (and I suspect you are going to say I'm not), my quote doesn't apply because I pulled it from the wrong part of the Bible?

Once again I will point out what I said before,

[19/06/2010 6:35:08 PM] Denominator says: That's the issue with the Bible. Regardless of what's in it, people so often pick and choose which is "right" and which parts they take literally, and which parts they don't.

Which basically started the entire debate.

Again, you're admitting that God said that, but denying it because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe. You are manipulating the evidence to fit the results.

As to how a loving God can do that...well, to be honest I don't have an answer for you that doesn't involve God's stark opposition to sin (in the Genesis passage I listed, I think somewhere around chapter 15, God specifically says that he can't give Abram the land yet because "the sin of the Amorites is not yet complete," which points to this as the cause for their demise). Granted, this doesn't paint a good picture of God the lover, but at the same time it demonstrates his willingness to stand for the ones he's chosen (a title which, according to the New Testament, extends to Christ, so vicariously to anyone who chooses Christ).

If this doesn't make you question your faith, I don't know what will. However, throughout this thread I do not believe you have been questioning your own faith, rather defending it. (Note: I have no issue with this other than it is what you stated you were going to do)

I'll have a more complete version of the Theology of the Old Testament this fall (it's one of the classes I'm taking, and supposedly it's one of the harder ones offered at my school). I'll contact you once we've gone over how theologians respond to the conquest of Canaan in light of God's love-character...

Needless to say, I am disappointed. I find it difficult to believe that to understand the issue with regards to this event you are required to discuss it at school. I've always wanted to take some sort of religiously based course as a part of my degree, but I fear my head would explode during discussions such as the one above.

I'll be here when you're ready.

[DeathsFriend22]

I simply don't think I can respond to this properly. I cannot believe you are that ignorant.


No, you're right. I was just grasping at straws.

[Jpec07]

I simply don't think I can respond to this properly. I cannot believe you are that ignorant.

Ignorant how? Because I don't have all of the answers and readily admit that I don't have all of the answers? Ignorant because I'd rather hear what other theologians, who have dedicated their lives to figuring this stuff out, have to say about the matter before I just flippantly give you an answer? Ignorant because I'm seeking the opinions of more learned men than myself to provide you with the most adequate solution I can? If you don't want to wait, I'll give you what I know, but it's not complete, and I don't think it will satisfy you.

If I read this correctly (and I suspect you are going to say I'm not), my quote doesn't apply because I pulled it from the wrong part of the Bible?

Once again I will point out what I said before,

[19/06/2010 6:35:08 PM] Denominator says: That's the issue with the Bible. Regardless of what's in it, people so often pick and choose which is "right" and which parts they take literally, and which parts they don't.

Which basically started the entire debate.

Again, you're admitting that God said that, but denying it because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe. You are manipulating the evidence to fit the results.

No, I'm saying that the Torah was rendered unnecessary for strict obedience, because it is a code that is impossible for man to follow, so God made another way. Instead of just picking one piece of the Bible and making it more important than all of the others on my own, I'm taking the whole of the Bible into consideration, and letting it tell me what parts are more important than others. For instance, the book of Romans has a much deeper theological impact than the long, sweeping census sections of Numbers, simply because it is more relevant to those who believe in Jesus.

Christians don't "pick and choose" which pieces to take as essential for strict obedience. We take it all in context, first the context of the whole Bible, then in context of its testament, then in context of its section, then in context of its book, and then in its immediate context. We'll also take into consideration the cultural and historical data that we have about Israel (and all the other players in whatever piece we're reading) at the time. We take into account that the Bible was written by over forty authors and over the course of about 1500 years (even more if you consider how old Job and some of the Genesis accounts must be).

If this doesn't make you question your faith, I don't know what will. However, throughout this thread I do not believe you have been questioning your own faith, rather defending it. (Note: I have no issue with this other than it is what you stated you were going to do)

Needless to say, I am disappointed. I find it difficult to believe that to understand the issue with regards to this event you are required to discuss it at school. I've always wanted to take some sort of religiously based course as a part of my degree, but I fear my head would explode during discussions such as the one above.

I'll be here when you're ready.

I can say, based upon what I've heard from people who have taken those classes, that the struggle is one that exists between God's justice (which requires his opposition to sin and protection of the disenfranchised) and God's lovingkindness. Both are central to his character, but when you consider how strongly opposed they are, there is a distinct tension there. Needless to say, the ancient Israelites didn't have this problem, because they saw God's holiness (read: different-ness) and his justice as primary, and his lovingkindness (read: hesed) as secondary. When passages in the Torah exhort them to fear YHWH, it literally meant to fear him, because his holiness could obliterate you if you weren't careful (a guy who touched the Ark of the Covenant to protect it from hitting the ground died instantaneously--and if you read through the rest of the Torah, you can see how seemingly volatile YHWH is with the Israelites). Back then, this impossible code was required for mankind to even come close to being with God, because we are sinful in the core of our beings. But his love for them, and indeed for humanity, is demonstrated through the fact that he provided a way for them to dwell together with him (though Israel was bad at enacting it, the Torah was actually very much geared towards expanding the religion and demonstrating God's holiness to the other nations).

How I can reconcile this with my faith? God is God, and he'll do whatever he wants regardless of what I believe about him. His name, YHWH, literally means "I will be what I will be," pointing to his complete independence and self-sufficiency. His actions and character do not depend on my theology. I know that he is loving towards us in the here and now, because it is love that I have experienced, but I also know that the only reason he hasn't wiped us off the face of the planet again is because of that love.

[Denominator]

I don't have time right now to prepare a proper response, but trust that I will. However, I need to point out a couple of quick things right now.

Ignorant how? Because I don't have all of the answers and readily admit that I don't have all of the answers? Ignorant because I'd rather hear what other theologians, who have dedicated their lives to figuring this stuff out, have to say about the matter before I just flippantly give you an answer? Ignorant because I'm seeking the opinions of more learned men than myself to provide you with the most adequate solution I can? If you don't want to wait, I'll give you what I know, but it's not complete, and I don't think it will satisfy you.

That line was in reference to the quote ABOVE it - in other words, I was responding to DeathsFriend's ridiculous proposition that wetlands don't matter.

I know that he is loving towards us in the here and now, because it is love that I have experienced, but I also know that the only reason he hasn't wiped us off the face of the planet again is because of that love.

I cannot dispute what you have experienced, but I can say that I highly doubt it. Furthermore, I know that the only reason he hasn't wiped us off the face of the planet is because he doesn't exist.

[Jpec07]

Ah. Yeah, I thought it was a little you-me thing going here, Denom. I'm sorry you feel that God doesn't exist, and the only thing I can do is pray that he proves himself real to you somehow. Now to the discussion from a couple pages ago that I'd stayed out of until now:

If you were a faithful christian your whole life, then suddenly your life was ruined to the point of poverty, would you still believe in christianity? Would you willingly believe in christianity if you've always lived in poverty? It wouldn't really make sense to me.

"The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." (link (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201:21&version=NIV)) How shallow would faith be if it depended upon material possession and prosperity to be believed? In theory, the world ought to work that the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer, but in reality this isn't always the case. Prosperity and suffering (in the Old Testament, viewed as God's favor and not God's favor) are not linked with righteousness and unrighteousness.

Matthew 5:43-46 clearly demonstrates this fact, in the words of Jesus:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?

How, then, can we reconcile it when the Bible outlines this notion for us in multiple places? Truth is that the Bible is presenting an ideal. But God will be who he will be. That's basically the point of the book of Ecclesiastes. Job, too.

That data was taken back in 2003, I'm sure that we've undeveloped our land in that time. Either way, I think the statistics speak for themselves whereas percentages hardly give any perspective at all.

That is one of the most condescending things that I always hear and I find it to be utterly annoying and absolute rubbish. It's just another way that humans patronize themselves and I cannot wait for the day to come where we finally humble ourselves to the world and universe that we live in.

Letol, you're very right about that. While God did make the world for mankind, he also made us its stewards. While we have dominion over the earth, that comes with an inherent responsibility to nurture and care for it. There is no reason any Christian should be opposed to any kind of environmental behavior, because it is an act of responsibility towards the gift that God has given us. And just as God has given, he can surely take.

[Letol]

"The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." (link (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201:21&version=NIV))

How shallow would faith be if it depended upon material possession and prosperity to be believed? In theory, the world ought to work that the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer, but in reality this isn't always the case. Prosperity and suffering (in the Old Testament, viewed as God's favor and not God's favor) are not linked with righteousness and unrighteousness.

Matthew 5:43-46 clearly demonstrates this fact, in the words of Jesus:


How, then, can we reconcile it when the Bible outlines this notion for us in multiple places? Truth is that the Bible is presenting an ideal. But God will be who he will be. That's basically the point of the book of Ecclesiastes. Job, too.

Here I am looking through my other posts for the portion where I clarified that I was just using poverty as an example, not the only means of suffering. As I looked through them, I realized that I never actually added that part in lol. Well, either way, I already said that I don't much feel like participating in this anymore, so I'm not going to post anything that might pull me back in... :confused:

And that's why I avoid debates such as this one, which I'm going to do right now. If anyone has anything to say about this to me for some reason, shoot me a PM or something. I'm just going to stop posting on my own will into this thread, it's a waste of time in my personal opinion. :neutral:

[Denominator]

Ah. Yeah, I thought it was a little you-me thing going here, Denom. I'm sorry you feel that God doesn't exist, and the only thing I can do is pray that he proves himself real to you somehow. Now to the discussion from a couple pages ago that I'd stayed out of until now

You're more than welcome to do that. I honestly don't believe that it will make any difference. However, like I've said before, if there was a significant change in the evidence, such as God presenting himself, my viewpoints would change.

[response to Letol](deleted for space)

Jpec, you've stopped debating and started preaching. Nothing you said there has any supporting points for your side of the debate, you just quoted the Bible and told us what we're expected to do.

Now, like promised, on to your previous post:

If you don't want to wait, I'll give you what I know, but it's not complete, and I don't think it will satisfy you.

What you know is obviously enough for you, so I don't need anything more than that.

No, I'm saying that the Torah was rendered unnecessary for strict obedience, because it is a code that is impossible for man to follow, so God made another way. Instead of just picking one piece of the Bible and making it more important than all of the others on my own, I'm taking the whole of the Bible into consideration, and letting it tell me what parts are more important than others. For instance, the book of Romans has a much deeper theological impact than the long, sweeping census sections of Numbers, simply because it is more relevant to those who believe in Jesus.

If you are going to argue the validity of the book of Genesis (earlier posts) to the point that we were discussing dates, then you can't simply ignore this part based on what it is in.

Christians don't "pick and choose" which pieces to take as essential for strict obedience. We take it all in context, first the context of the whole Bible, then in context of its testament, then in context of its section, then in context of its book, and then in its immediate context. We'll also take into consideration the cultural and historical data that we have about Israel (and all the other players in whatever piece we're reading) at the time. We take into account that the Bible was written by over forty authors and over the course of about 1500 years (even more if you consider how old Job and some of the Genesis accounts must be).

While I agree that the older books of the Bible are going to be some of the oldest remaining texts on Earth, they are relatively not that old.

Even though you're deflecting the point by saying you must take it in context, you are picking and choosing which parts to take literally and which to ignore entirely. Mary Magdalene had a book (http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm) as well, which was omitted by from the Bible (likely because it was written by a woman), so do you need to take this into context as well? It was omitted because woman's rights were not at the same level as they are today.

I can say, based upon what I've heard from people who have taken those classes, that the struggle is one that exists between God's justice (which requires his opposition to sin and protection of the disenfranchised) and God's lovingkindness. Both are central to his character, but when you consider how strongly opposed they are, there is a distinct tension there. Needless to say, the ancient Israelites didn't have this problem, because they saw God's holiness (read: different-ness) and his justice as primary, and his lovingkindness (read: hesed) as secondary. When passages in the Torah exhort them to fear YHWH, it literally meant to fear him, because his holiness could obliterate you if you weren't careful (a guy who touched the Ark of the Covenant to protect it from hitting the ground died instantaneously--and if you read through the rest of the Torah, you can see how seemingly volatile YHWH is with the Israelites). Back then, this impossible code was required for mankind to even come close to being with God, because we are sinful in the core of our beings. But his love for them, and indeed for humanity, is demonstrated through the fact that he provided a way for them to dwell together with him (though Israel was bad at enacting it, the Torah was actually very much geared towards expanding the religion and demonstrating God's holiness to the other nations).

This means absolutely nothing to me.* See my above comments about preaching.

How I can reconcile this with my faith? God is God, and he'll do whatever he wants regardless of what I believe about him.

I agree with you here. However, I believe that "God" is a concept that exists within each man's mind, a sort of invisible friend that is culturally accepted in adults.

His name, YHWH, literally means "I will be what I will be," pointing to his complete independence and self-sufficiency. His actions and character do not depend on my theology. I know that he is loving towards us in the here and now, because it is love that I have experienced, but I also know that the only reason he hasn't wiped us off the face of the planet again is because of that love.

While God is not overtly defined as omnipotent and omniscient in the Bible, he is defined by most religious websites (http://www.cogwriter.com/god-omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent.htm) I visited trying to discover if the Bible says that or not. However, as you've said above, we don't need to take the Bible literally and here I am more concerned with the accepted religious theory than the literal translation of the Bible.

If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.

It is astounding to me that Christian religion (and fear of smiting) is based on such an obvious logical fallacy.

I have a question for you, jpec. I hope that you will read it and think about it as an honest question, and not just bait from me trying to trip you up. I was trying to think of the fundamental difference between us and how to discuss that instead of pandering over minor discrepancies in the Bible.

Why do you not believe in Judaism? Why are you not a Muslim? Why do you not follow the book of Mormon?

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Think about it carefully, and give me a good response. I'd much rather discuss that theologically than have to keep disputing the credibility of the Bible.

*I could pull up some Bible quotes here and totally trash your faith, but don't feel like doing so. I know you like your faith being trashed as much as I like being preached at.

[HLG Viper]

How exactly do you define scientific texts? To claim that science started during the 1600's is purely false, and so is claiming that the first scientific texts were written then. Ancient Greece contributed humongously to modern science, even if they were wrong at some points, and the scientific methodology that we use today was also invented then. Furthermore, there exists I don't even know how many texts from ancient greece comfirming that the people living in greece during that time practiced science. Even if some of those discoveries were trying to validate god, many of them didn't even have god in mind when coming up with their ideas, as they believed in greek mythology, and many greeks were also atheists mind you.

Egyptians also practiced a lot of science, even though it's not as well recorded or using the same methodology. You could say that by the end of rome and the end of the renaissance, there hadn't even been that much progress.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif

While that's mostly for the purpose of laughs, this chart actually is pretty accurate. As you can see, while the renaissance had a faster scientific leap than rome for example, they got equally high and that only after basing their science on the egyptian, greek and roman science methodology and ideas.

And Noezy, why would you refute the modern dating techniques we have today? THey're excellent and accurate, I'd like to hear you do some research in the subject, then tell me why it isn't valid.

[philthyphillup]

When I saw this thread, I thought you were targeting Christianity and any of it flaws. Tha kind of pissed me off. But now that I see what your doing I like it. ;)

[G043R]

HLG you have to considered a few things when you post your picture. Roman's empire had fallen apart. It wasn't that the dark ages were caused by Christianity but more directly that the world economy didn't provide for that style of interest.

1600's was much more of a pick back up from where Egyptians left off with a mix of left over greek roman articles. Additionally to the collapes of rome. The factions of Rome began to war with each other (France Britain Spain and Italy) They were at war this was slowly causing wars to slow the production of effective technology. Lets not even mention the world plagues and crusades. They were perfecting metal works as appose to understanding chemistry. This isn't directly related to Christianity but that they spawned from the same time frame. BTW Egpytians personally kept up mathematically till rome invaded them. So personally GREEK wasn't as scientific as you think. Rome used the Greeks tech to steal the Egyptians.

[HLG Viper]

HLG you have to considered a few things when you post your picture. Roman's empire had fallen apart. It wasn't that the dark ages were caused by Christianity but more directly that the world economy didn't provide for that style of interest.

1600's was much more of a pick back up from where Egyptians left off with a mix of left over greek roman articles. Additionally to the collapes of rome. The factions of Rome began to war with each other (France Britain Spain and Italy) They were at war this was slowly causing wars to slow the production of effective technology. Lets not even mention the world plagues and crusades. They were perfecting metal works as appose to understanding chemistry. This isn't directly related to Christianity but that they spawned from the same time frame. BTW Egpytians personally kept up mathematically till rome invaded them. So personally GREEK wasn't as scientific as you think. Rome used the Greeks tech to steal the Egyptians.

An empire's fall doesn't mean it isn't scientific or technological. Actually you're wrong, rome didn't fall apart because of fights with roman factions, it's just that they were attacked by Germanian people in the northeast and I can't remember who from the southwest + the anglosaxons of the northwest, they got overwhelmed, and this was AFTER Rome was divided into west and east rome, making them shattered to begin with.

"Egyptians left off" this is where you confuse me. I mean, sure these nations had a time where they interacted with eachother, but from a timescale scientific perspective, they had different periods of scientific progress. Egyptians only created the principles of science while Greece established the methodology AFTER that. THEN Rome came along And you can clearly see on the chart that Greece isn't overrepresentated, they're only half of Rome's scientific progress. Ironworks is also a part of scientific progress mind you.

Also, it's impossible for the romans to use "greek tech" to steal egyptian tech, as the egyptians scientific era had already past. Besides, I doubt there was much "Greek tech" you can use to steal other nation's technology during that time, and even if the Romans managed to do so, wouldn't the greeks tech be pretty advanced if it managed to steal egyptian tech? There wasn't really much to be called technology then, most of the scientific progress was made in astronomy and math anyways.

[philthyphillup]

Actually you're wrong, rome didn't fall apart because of fights with roman factions, it's just that they were attacked by Germanian people in the northeast and I can't remember who from the southwest + the anglosaxons of the northwest, they got overwhelmed, and this was AFTER Rome was divided into west and east rome, making them shattered to begin with.

That was one of the reasons contributing to the Roaman collapse. But the reason they were able to be overcome by the attackers was because of a faultering economy and division between the fractions.

[Coyote1023]

I think the main gap was the crusades. When these occurred the entire city of Constantinople was ruined. For what reason? A free ticket to heaven.

[Artifex]

I think the main gap was the crusades. When these occurred the entire city of Constantinople was ruined. For what reason? A free ticket to heaven.

I'm going to say that a good portion of that gap was also caused by the burning of the Library of Alexandria in 42 B.C. by Caesar (it was Caesar right?). Most probably because a lot of ancient scientific texts HAD to have been destroyed, setting back what knowledge society had then and ushering in the beginning of the Dark Ages among many other things.

[Wolves]

I consider myself catholic above anything else. But the passing years and my increased education has told me otherwise. So I am going to raise some points here.

Myths: An unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
Basically a story made to help explain an event we don't know. So, why were myths made? Because humans get pissed when they don't know something. Thats how the story of creation and the birth of humans began. So I ask myself. Most religions have the same teaching of a supernatural being, or "God" Who created us. Well that raises my next point.

Evolution: Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. That is scientific FACT.
FACT: Proven!
We were not created, we evolved. Hate to say it but yup, Thats what happened. There is no debate with evolution. It is fact. Humans were not released from eden, we evolved.
Example: Like damn Pokemon
Now do you see why my thoughts have been skewed? Nothing makes sense. I don't know how the universe came to be, all I know is that there are other planets like earth, and I guarantee there are other things like humans. And god didn't create them either. Again I don't know how the universe started, but I don't believe it was god. Not Anymore.

I'm not trying to pry people off the path of religion in fact I am again Catholic above anything else but thats because I refuse to call myself an atheist. I believe in something just not a god. I have my own religion.

[Fenian Bhoy]

Humans were not released from eden, we evolved.
Example: Like damn Pokemon


You just compared us to Pokemon...

[HLG Viper]

I consider myself catholic above anything else. But the passing years and my increased education has told me otherwise. So I am going to raise some points here.

Myths: An unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
Basically a story made to help explain an event we don't know. So, why were myths made? Because humans get pissed when they don't know something. Thats how the story of creation and the birth of humans began. So I ask myself. Most religions have the same teaching of a supernatural being, or "God" Who created us. Well that raises my next point.

Evolution: Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. That is scientific FACT.
FACT: Proven!
We were not created, we evolved. Hate to say it but yup, Thats what happened. There is no debate with evolution. It is fact. Humans were not released from eden, we evolved.
Example: Like damn Pokemon
Now do you see why my thoughts have been skewed? Nothing makes sense. I don't know how the universe came to be, all I know is that there are other planets like earth, and I guarantee there are other things like humans. And god didn't create them either. Again I don't know how the universe started, but I don't believe it was god. Not Anymore.

I'm not trying to pry people off the path of religion in fact I am again Catholic above anything else but thats because I refuse to call myself an atheist. I believe in something just not a god. I have my own religion.
Agnostic?

[Nick the Ratman]

I consider myself catholic above anything else. But the passing years and my increased education has told me otherwise. So I am going to raise some points here.

Myths: An unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
Basically a story made to help explain an event we don't know. So, why were myths made? Because humans get pissed when they don't know something. Thats how the story of creation and the birth of humans began. So I ask myself. Most religions have the same teaching of a supernatural being, or "God" Who created us. Well that raises my next point.

Evolution: Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. That is scientific FACT.
FACT: Proven!
We were not created, we evolved. Hate to say it but yup, Thats what happened. There is no debate with evolution. It is fact. Humans were not released from eden, we evolved.
Example: Like damn Pokemon
Now do you see why my thoughts have been skewed? Nothing makes sense. I don't know how the universe came to be, all I know is that there are other planets like earth, and I guarantee there are other things like humans. And god didn't create them either. Again I don't know how the universe started, but I don't believe it was god. Not Anymore.

I'm not trying to pry people off the path of religion in fact I am again Catholic above anything else but thats because I refuse to call myself an atheist. I believe in something just not a god. I have my own religion.

There has to be a religion similar to this.

[Wolves]

There has to be a religion similar to this.

I don't think there is.
Yes I compared us to Pokemon. Whats wrong with Pokemon?
http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af214/Rathbucket/Photoshops/mudkipjesus.jpg
I Wikipedia'ed agnostic. It sounds about the same thing as that. I guess I agree.

[Artifex]

Viper already named it. It's agnostic.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Course it could also be naturalistic pantheism

Naturalistic pantheism (also known as Scientific Pantheism) is a naturalistic form of pantheism that encompasses feelings of reverence and belonging towards Nature and the wider Universe, concern for the rights of humans and all living beings, care for Nature, and celebration of life. It is realist and respects reason and the scientific method. It is based on philosophical naturalism and as such it is without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.[1]

[Denominator]

Evolution in Pokemon is not at all similar to real evolution.

Pokemon evolution is more like puberty.

[Artifex]

http://unreasonablefaith.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/EE2Qx-590x442.png

[Jpec07]

Which is more arrogant? Declaring as truth that which was told to you by the God who loves you, or laughing in the face of the man who died for you and telling him that he doesn't exist? I don't ask you to agree with me, but given the biblical witness (as an accepted presupposition of this thread), it is not man who invents this notion, it is God who invents the universe, with humanity as the capstone, and tells it to us.

If you wish to go on living as though you're nothing more than an ugly bag of mostly water (5xfp if you get the reference: PM me), then by all means please do so. That's your choice. But I don't want to live that way, because if that's all I am, then there is no point to life. Instead, I choose to accept that: (1) God exists; (2) God made the universe for us; (3) we went and screwed it up; (4) God cleaned up after our mess and sent his Son to die in our place so we wouldn't have to, because (5) God loves us, and wants nothing more than our love and friendship. Call me a romantic, but life seems to have a lot more meaning when you're living for someone who loves you enough to build a universe for you to marvel at.

[Artifex]

Which is more arrogant? Declaring as truth that which was told to you by the God who loves you, or laughing in the face of the man who died for you and telling him that he doesn't exist?

Besides your presupposition, there is absolutely no proof of this other than your book. Upon this you have based this entire thread, and I respect that you believe in your faith so firmly. However, I find it quite arrogant that religion claims that while we humans are such an insignificant part of this universe it was created entirely for us.

Also, I never said that Jesus was not a real person, there is substantial circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that there was most likely a man named Jesus in the middle east during this time period, but it doesn't mean he was the Son of God or God himself.

(1)If you wish to go on living as though you're nothing more than an ugly bag of mostly water (2)(5xfp if you get the reference: PM me), then by all means please do so. That's your choice. But I don't want to live that way, because if that's all I am, (3)then there is no point to life.

(1) I have no problem accepting what I truly am, and it is quite simple, just because we are "insignificant" in a universal perspective, does not mean that I am nothing. I think my art stands as a direct representation of this, I glorify that which is unknown to me, that which makes me insignificant, because it is the true force driving the universe and all within it, not an omnipotent being that created the entire vast and (as far as we know) infinite reaches of the universe.

(2) I do not know the reference

(3) Ah, but you claim there is no point in life for yourself, because you're so attached to your religion that you cannot find meaning in anything other than "serving" your LORD's will.

Call me a romantic, but life seems to have a lot more meaning when you're living for someone who loves you enough to build a universe for you to marvel at.

I will call you a romantic, because you're being too idealistic about the situation, why should this entire universe, that you can only experience a portion of be for you?

I live my life in service of myself first and others around me second, because civility comes after instincts. The people that live in first world countries can enjoy the luxuries of "safety" and "civility" because they have been removed from the vast majority of "evil" in the world. The reason why third world countries are in so much turmoil is because those people live by their instincts to survive and because they are being abused by those that wish only to have power for themselves.

Humankind is a virus that plagues the universe and until we can realize a common humanity without the delusion of a deity we will be condemned to kill each other in the name of religion and greed until we have been enlightened and transcend our "sinful" states. The only thing that I will agree with that is found in the bible is that humankind is a sinful and destructive beast when it is not taught ethics and morality. There is no need for a deity once both standards have been universally reached.

[Jpec07]

Besides your presupposition, there is absolutely no proof of this other than your book. Upon this you have based this entire thread, and I respect that you believe in your faith so firmly. However, I find it quite arrogant that religion claims that while we humans are such an insignificant part of this universe it was created entirely for us.

Also, I never said that Jesus was not a real person, there is substantial circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that there was most likely a man named Jesus in the middle east during this time period, but it doesn't mean he was the Son of God or God himself.

I'm going to quote a few paragraphs that I once wrote to someone on Omegle who was willing to listen to me go off about the origins of the universe, and this will be my response.

Let's use mathematics themselves to prove God, as it is the most pure field of study. Mathematics is the order of the universe: all of the mathematics that we have were derived from the phenomena that we encountered in science. In our critical analysis of how the universe works, we derived mathematics. I will posit that math is the divine glue that God invented to hold the universe together.

To reiterate, the entire physical universe revolves around a highly complex series of physical phenomena that hold themselves together through this higher series of order and reasoning that we call math. The question is whether this series of order and reasoning exists approaching infinity in both directions.

Be it evolution or creationism or the big bang theory, everyone seems to be so very focused on the origin of the universe. This points to something: humanity believes that the universe is not without a beginning.

So, if the universe has a beginning, then it is for me to prove that this beginning was not by happenstance, but was initiated, and the universe was, as it were, "created." So then I'll point to the order in the things that we have observed in science: how the systems tend to work in such perfect mathematical harmony with one another; how if a ball drops off a table, it will always fall to the ground. How the universe is knit together by something so orderly and something so orderly and something so logical that it laughs in the face of chaos and the void that is space points to the divine. But is it right to assume that, since the only answer one can think of to this puzzle of order in the midst of chaos is God, that it means God is?

I must refute that line of reasoning. To think that something so logical can come to exist without a mastermind to orchestrate it and sew the pieces together defies logic altogether, because how can order come from chaos without an original source of order? We don't see that sort of thing happening anywhere in nature: there is no support for it. It defies the laws of entropy.

But say this isn't enough to point to a Logical Origin. Let me then point to the series of complexities involved in the machine that we call life. The planet earth is a lone planet covered in water in our solar system: we've found some water on Mars, but only as a sidenote to the iron that makes up the majority of the planet. In fact, in our searching of the stars through telescopes, we think we've only found a handful of planets that we speculate to have water on them out of the billions we've spotted. And even from those, maybe one or two have water in its liquid form.

Now, that we have liquid water is rare enough, but the next step to the successful sustenance of life is a spinning molten iron core. This core at the center of the earth is the thing that gives the planet its magnetic shell, keeping out the most harmful of the sun's rays and shielding the planet's surface from the brutal depths of space. It also gives the planet its techtonic plate activity that helped to develop an atmosphere over a mostly hard surface. Plate techtonics also contributed to the melting of water on the planet as it was birthed. For the planets we've spotted, liquid water may point to a molten iron core, or it may point to their proximity to their sun: this is my next point in this line of thought.

There was a paper produced recently (though I did not retain the link to it) that caught my attention. This paper stated that if the earth had been two rotational degrees closer to the sun, we would all burn and die, and that if it were two rotational degrees further away, we would all freeze and die. Had either of these circumstances not been perfect, life could not have occurred on this planet.

And there are hundreds of other examples of things like this, where circumstances had to line up so perfectly for life to exist on this planet (other examples include the specific rotational momentum of the planet, the size, position, and orbit of our moon, and many, many others). All of this points to one fact: life on earth is a very, very rare circumstance, because if even one of these circumstances was altered, life would not be able to exist.

So whether we are the ancient descendants of some primordial bacteria, or whether we were carved from the clay by a loving Maker to be the masterpiece of his creation, it's almost silly not to admit the likelihood of there being some kind of God-figure. Too many things click into place for there not to be.

The question then becomes what one should believe about this God-figure, and I think my position on that is quite well established.

(1) I have no problem accepting what I truly am, and it is quite simple, just because we are "insignificant" in a universal perspective, does not mean that I am nothing. I think my art stands as a direct representation of this, I glorify that which is unknown to me, that which makes me insignificant, because it is the true force driving the universe and all within it, not an omnipotent being that created the entire vast and (as far as we know) infinite reaches of the universe.

(2) I do not know the reference

(3) Ah, but you claim there is no point in life for yourself, because you're so attached to your religion that you cannot find meaning in anything other than "serving" your LORD's will.

(1) I could use the presumed infinity of the universe to break your logic and prove God, but I'll refrain. Your art is very impressive, I'll be the first to admit, and you do the universe credit with it. You perceive beauty in the things that exist, and you try to capture as much of that in your art as you can. You claim the unknown is what drives the universe; could it be that God falls into this realm?

(2) Sad day. Star Trek, The Next Generation, Season 1, Episode 18, when they encounter the non-organic life-form.

(3) If I may ask, what is the point of anything in this life, when we're just going to die in the end? And when we die, nothing goes with us, and everything that we may have accomplished in life will fade with time. Sure, some pieces will last more than others, but ultimately death and chaos will destroy anything we do, and death will remove us from this world and leave us utterly forgotten. Without God, there is no point to anything, because nothing will last: he is the only thing that endures. It's like building a sandcastle in the tidal zone on the beach. When the tide of death comes in, it will just wash the castle away. I recommend reading the book of Ecclesiastes for more information on this.

I will call you a romantic, because you're being too idealistic about the situation, why should this entire universe, that you can only experience a portion of, be for you?

Why should it not? And I never made the position that we were alone in the universe, I just hold that God is supreme in his creation, and that humanity (or I'll say sentient life) is at the peak of it.

I live my life in service of myself first and others around me second, because civility comes after instincts. The people that live in first world countries can enjoy the luxuries of "safety" and "civility" because they have been removed from the vast majority of "evil" in the world. The reason why third world countries are in so much turmoil is because those people live by their instincts to survive and because they are being abused by those that wish only to have power for themselves.

Humankind is a virus that plagues the universe and until we can realize a common humanity without the delusion of a deity we will be condemned to kill each other in the name of religion and greed until we have been enlightened and transcend our "sinful" states. The only thing that I will agree with that is found in the bible is that humankind is a sinful and destructive beast when it is not taught ethics and morality. There is no need for a deity once both standards have been universally reached.

Humanity is sinful and destructive, but there is also a remnant of the image of God, that affords humanity a capacity for good. But the Bible's message is not "don't sin." The Bible's message is "love God, because he loves you enough to have died for you."

But if I may point out, you speak in terms of a dichotomy of civility versus evil. In essence, that you recognize there is an "evil" affords that you also recognize there is a "good." Indeed, what is "good" in your book appears to be any who would choose to live his life in complete service of someone else. What a remarkably biblical notion.

[Zackj191]

Are you using the bible as your only source of information? Because having only 1 source of information isn't reliable you know that.

[Jpec07]

Are you using the bible as your only source of information? Because having only 1 source of information isn't reliable you know that.

No, but its reliability is not in question in this thread (see first post for details).

[Artifex]

But if I may point out, you speak in terms of a dichotomy of civility versus evil. In essence, that you recognize there is an "evil" affords that you also recognize there is a "good." Indeed, what is "good" in your book appears to be any who would choose to live his life in complete service of someone else. What a remarkably biblical notion.

Yes, the "evil" lets us account for a "good", but once the "good" has been reached there is no need for evils. Second, I did not say that human kind should live life in service for the other person, I said we must recognize a common humanity within ourselves and to eradicate the "greater evils" in our society such as corrupt governmental bodies/states, wars, killing each other, racism. There is no purpose or sense at all to any of the above as we are a uniform species and instinctively it makes absolutely no sense to be killing each other.

[DeathsFriend22]

Yes, the "evil" lets us account for a "good", but once the "good" has been reached there is no need for evils. Second, I did not say that human kind should live life in service for the other person, I said we must recognize a common humanity within ourselves and to eradicate the "greater evils" in our society such as corrupt governmental bodies/states, wars, killing each other, racism. There is no purpose or sense at all to any of the above as we are a uniform species and instinctively it makes absolutely no sense to be killing each other.

There is no good without evil, and vice versa. Good and evil are only a matter of comparison.

[Artifex]

There is no good without evil, and vice versa. Good and evil are only a matter of comparison.

On the contrary, once greater evils have been removed from the actions taken by our species, then there is only the greater good so to speak, and then it would simple be the status quo. There is a reason I put "good" and "evil" in quotations.

[DeathsFriend22]

On the contrary, once greater evils have been removed from the actions taken by our species, then there is only the greater good so to speak, and then it would simple be the status quo. There is a reason I put "good" and "evil" in quotations.

If good was the only force in existence then it would be considered "The norm" and not "Good." Same goes for evil.

There is a saying that "Only a man who has felt complete and utter sorrow can feel true joy." The same applies for good and evil, too.

[Zackj191]

The Bible is to be considered a reliable source as far as this thread is concerned. If you wish to question the Bible's validity, start a new thread for that, because that's not what this thread is for.


If the Bible is to be considered reliable in this thread then anyone posting it against Christianity is automatically saying it's real because the bible is the most unreliable source and the main reason people find flaws in religion besides the lack of being able to see god, any of his "miracles" or any other solid evidence that he exists.

[DeathsFriend22]

[/I]
[/LIST]

If the Bible is to be considered reliable in this thread then anyone posting it against Christianity is automatically saying it's real because the bible is the most unreliable source and the main reason people find flaws in religion besides the lack of being able to see god, any of his "miracles" or any other solid evidence that he exists.




This is exactly why debating religion is so pointless. Lack of evidence on both sides ultimately ends in "I guess we'll have to wait and see." I've learned my lesson on that one.

[wiggums]

My only question is this:

How will Christianity explain itself when more intelligent life is found in space?

[E Inglourious 3]

I am Jewish, so I understand the concept of holy books, spirituality, etc. The one thing I don't understand about Christianity is unwavering faith.

How can you have faith in G-d and trust in Jesus, salvation, etc. when you don't know for sure?

I guess I would like to know your take on faith (where it comes from) and how you can be confident in an afterlife. Thanks!

Edit: Please do not take offense to this, but could you also explain evangelism? I tend to find evangelism condescending (especially in third world countries) and if anything insensitive to try to force religion onto others. Thanks again.

[Jpec07]

Yes, the "evil" lets us account for a "good", but once the "good" has been reached there is no need for evils. Second, I did not say that human kind should live life in service for the other person, I said we must recognize a common humanity within ourselves and to eradicate the "greater evils" in our society such as corrupt governmental bodies/states, wars, killing each other, racism. There is no purpose or sense at all to any of the above as we are a uniform species and instinctively it makes absolutely no sense to be killing each other.

But as far as instinct is concerned, none of these "evils" matter, especially when one is so self-centered as you make them out to be. Instinct, as it were, makes it very difficult for eradicating the greater evils to occur, because in your proposed worldview, working towards the eradication of such "evils" is only possible when it is convenient and not in conflict with self-seeking instinct. Or in what way, may I ask, does seeking the good of the many (eradicating governmental corruption, wars, murder, and racism) fulfill seeking the good of the one? You propose that it lies in the realization that we are a uniform species, but regardless of this revelation, you cannot deny that the heart of such things lie in selflessness. But if humanity's primary instinct is to be selfish and seek power and survival, then your revelation would require a blatant change of character: turning a human from a "virus that plagues the universe" to something capable of eradicating the evils. This "revelation" or "enlightenment" seems something that would be very incongruous with your view of humanity, if you posit that a human is capable of achieving it within his own means.

Most religions claim that the aforementioned change of character can be established in some way through strict discipline, rigorous self-control, and working yourself to death to try and accomplish a true change of heart. Some religions don't even have that change of character in mind as they have their members jump through hoops; namely the catholic church, because it's all done in the name of living forever (which seems almost more vain and prideful to me than claiming that God made the universe for me).

My position, and the position of Bible-believing Christians, is that such a change of character can only be truly and effectively accomplished when a human is accompanied by something divine. Sure, people can do "good" and selfless things, but in most cases it will go against their instinct to do so. You've proposed that humanity can change their instincts with a realization: I do not think it so easy, as instinct is what has been ingrained in our minds since we either evolved from monkeys or departed from grace. No, any human whose true will is to seek the good of others without any regard for their self is a living miracle in and of themselves: God has tweaked their instinct to match his heart.

If the Bible is to be considered reliable in this thread then anyone posting it against Christianity is automatically saying it's real because the bible is the most unreliable source and the main reason people find flaws in religion besides the lack of being able to see god, any of his "miracles" or any other solid evidence that he exists.

Stop whining about the thread's rules or get out of the thread. This isn't about the validity of the Bible (or Christianity), it's about explaining the beliefs therein contained, and raising those beliefs against the beliefs that others possess.

How will Christianity explain itself when more intelligent life is found in space?

I've given much thought to this. You speak as though finding a higher intelligence is an inevitability. If you read my post on the last page (specifically the article in quote tags), you'll find that life as we know it is a very, very rare thing. I will also posit that there is currently no evidence to suggest that such life exists, outside of the Godhead.

I am Jewish, so I understand the concept of holy books, spirituality, etc. The one thing I don't understand about Christianity is unwavering faith.

How can you have faith in G-d and trust in Jesus, salvation, etc. when you don't know for sure?

I guess I would like to know your take on faith (where it comes from) and how you can be confident in an afterlife. Thanks!

I imagine you're following more in the Sadduceic tradition and interpretation of the Law and the Prophets: that you don't necessarily hold to the afterlife. Using the Biblical witness (specifically the story of Jesus and the disciples as portrayed by Luke in his gospel and the book of Acts), I'll show why most Christians believe and hold so strongly to faith in Christ.

When Jesus was crucified, it was because he had spoken herecy in the presence of the Sanhedrin: he said that he was God, and given the Shema statement central to Judaic belief (Hear, O Israel! The L--D your G-d, the L--D is one!), it was impossible for a man to also be God. As one of my theology professors put it, it's as though saying, "oh, by the way, 1400 years of your beliefs and traditions are wrong." Because what he spoke was false by their reasoning, and because he was more popular than they were (so as to persuade the people against them), Jesus was put to death. Jesus' death, from this perspective, was to prove that he was not G-d, and that the words that he spoke were false.

But Jesus rose from the dead. I won't get into it now (namely because this isn't the thread for it--name your disbelief and I'll substantiate my own, but make a new thread for it), but there really isn't any reasonable way to believe that Jesus did not actually die and actually rise back to life. As the apostle Peter proved in his speech later, Jesus' resurrection was the signal that the Sanhedrin's verdict was wrong: Jesus spoke the truth about being G-d, and that his statements about life, death, and the afterlife were all, likewise, true (indeed, being G-d, everything he said was true).

So the reason why Christians hold so strongly to their faith in Christ, and why we hold to the fact that faith in Christ's death, resurrection, and promise are the way to live with G-d, is because his claims at being G-d were tested and found true. Most everything we believe about what comes next comes from Christ, and the validation of his words by the resurrection.

Edit: Please do not take offense to this, but could you also explain evangelism? I tend to find evangelism condescending (especially in third world countries) and if anything insensitive to try to force religion onto others. Thanks again.

No problem at all. Simply put, Matthew 28:18-20 reads: "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.' " This was after his resurrection, and after he had been proven to be G-d. If G-d told you to tell people about him in a very clear, very specific way, wouldn't you do it?

It's not forcing religion on anyone, at least not from most evangelical circles. Evangelism is telling people the good news about Christ's death and resurrection, and how they can be at one with G-d. It leaves the decision in their hands.

[Artifex]

If good was the only force in existence then it would be considered "The norm" and not "Good." Same goes for evil.

There is a saying that "Only a man who has felt complete and utter sorrow can feel true joy." The same applies for good and evil, too.

You still aren't reading my posts, I said that it would become the status quo, which is the norm.

[pyro swan]

ALLAH AKBAR!!!!!!!!!!
I think that jesus was an actual person. But i doubt he was some kind of prophet.

[Artifex]

ALLAH AKBAR!!!!!!!!!!

Do you even know what the Islamic belief is?

[Skittlemeister]

ALLAH AKBAR!!!!!!!!!!

It's a trap!

And uh, no, that has nothing to do with this thread.

[Letol]

(3) If I may ask, what is the point of anything in this life, when we're just going to die in the end? And when we die, nothing goes with us, and everything that we may have accomplished in life will fade with time. Sure, some pieces will last more than others, but ultimately death and chaos will destroy anything we do, and death will remove us from this world and leave us utterly forgotten. Without God, there is no point to anything, because nothing will last: he is the only thing that endures. It's like building a sandcastle in the tidal zone on the beach. When the tide of death comes in, it will just wash the castle away. I recommend reading the book of Ecclesiastes for more information on this.

What a grim outlook on life. You live life for the experiences, the people you meet, and to further yourself in this world and the world itself. Yes, we're probably all going to die someday, but that never stopped our ancestors, did it? Why should it stop us now?



I once believed in God when I was in elementary school. I had no other religious background other than taking Sunday school for a few weeks. Whenever I got scared of something, like if my parents were late from work, I'd pray that they would make it home (c'mon, I was like in 3rd grade lol). Anyways, a year or two later, I just stopped believing in God. I realized that my larger prayers would go unanswered, but that the small ones that happened were always the smallest things that were bound to happen anyways, like my parents coming home from work.

I saw absolutely no reason to believe in a God and eventually accepted that nothing changed in my life after I stopped believing in one. This only lasted up until recently. I don't know if you've ever seen it, but watch "Ancient Aliens" on the History channel if you see it on sometime. Yes, I know, lol, but really. Check it out, they introduce a large variety of believable ideas that would explain many things mentioned in religions and cultures around the world. Personally, I'm not completely convinced that all of their ideas are 100% set in stone, but in my opinion, their ideas are the most believable compared to any religion out there.

Oh, and I'm not asking you to point out what you believe to be wrong in that show, I'm just asking you to check it out :P

Anyways... I got completely sidetracked there. So, what I'm trying to say is that I haven't believed in the religious form of God since 3rd grade and I've still lived a great life so far that has very much meaning to myself. If you really believe that without God, there is no point to anything, you need to change something. Need to. That's unhealthy. :neutral:



Also, I always find futuristic moves/tv shows like Star Trek and Star Wars to be oblivious in the idea of age. Medicine is advancing every year, maybe not as quickly as technology, but technology can only help advance medicine as well. The average life expectancy is constantly rising, even if it is only by small increments.

I've given much thought to this. You speak as though finding a higher intelligence is an inevitability. If you read my post on the last page (specifically the article in quote tags), you'll find that life as we know it is a very, very rare thing. I will also posit that there is currently no evidence to suggest that such life exists, outside of the Godhead.

And you speak as though it isn't an inevitability. You do realize just how many galaxies there are, don't you? And you also realize that a dwarf galaxy can contain as low as 10 million stars. That's 10 million possibilities of a star that has at least a single planet that could have the right conditions for life. 10,000,000 chances in a dwarf galaxy. Our own galaxy contains around 200 billion stars. 200,000,000,000 chances right there, and it's already happened once ;P The largest galaxy discovered, Abell 2029, has around 100 trillion stars.

In just the Milky Way, Abell 2029, and a small dwarf galaxy, there are 100,200,010,000,000 chances of a star that has a planet in orbit that contains intelligent life.

Now, remember, there are 100 billion observable galaxies. In those 100 billion galaxies, it is estimated that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. You can guess what's coming up next... that's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances of a star that has a planet in orbit that contains intelligent life. And that's just in observable galaxies.

Look, I need to end this post, but I'm going to leave it off with this. If there is one thing that science has taught me, it's that things don't just happen once. Nature repeats itself, and according the the big bang theory, the universe has existed in it's current state for ~13.7 billions years. You know it's coming, again... 13,700,000,000 years to create intelligent life. XD

I'm just saying, look at the numbers. If you honestly believe that there is merely a very small chance of other intelligent life out there, you are very close-minded.

[FledgelingFenix]

I guess should convene into this thread from what i know everyone has given a opinion on this subject so i may as well. So i will start off by simply saying i hate the very aspect of religion mostly christianity. I dont believe that there is any god. To what i know and theorize the only logical reason for his existence is to give morals and answer questions that we cant answer like what started us as humans or how did it all start and how it will end.


On the debate at hand above:
Letol i definately agree...
We as a human race have never been outside our solar system so there is a huge chance of being some sort of life its not the fact that life is rare its the fact that we havent advanced beyond our boundaries of our solar system.

[E Inglourious 3]

Thanks for the reply. I see where Christians are coming from now.

[Jpec07]

Finally now, after a month and a half (and a new video game), I have a response:

I guess should convene into this thread from what i know everyone has given a opinion on this subject so i may as well. So i will start off by simply saying i hate the very aspect of religion mostly christianity. I dont believe that there is any god. To what i know and theorize the only logical reason for his existence is to give morals and answer questions that we cant answer like what started us as humans or how did it all start and how it will end. Would you mind if I ascertained your reasoning as to why you hate Christianity so? What has happened to leave such a bad taste in your mouth?

Additionally, you are not alone in your statement of how there is no evidence to support God outside of one who made everything and gave morals. As such, I have written an essay (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/showpost.php?p=132125&postcount=96) about this. The disparity appears to be in that most of you only see creation as the organization of matter into its present state, and refuse to believe in the miracle of creation ex nihilo (that is, creation from nothing). It is my belief, along with a great many others, that God created the universe from absolutely nothing: there was no matter pre-existing in a primordial soup that contained the entire universe in the space of a pinhead, and the laws of physics had not yet been established. When God made the universe, according to my belief and that of a great many others, he made every single piece in it. How else do you account for the mathematical perfections and the beautiful symphony of numbers that spin their web behind each and every single event; from the collision of two atoms to the death of a star? The point I'm making is that the universe works too well in general to have occurred by happenstance.

On the debate at hand above:
Letol i definately agree...
We as a human race have never been outside our solar system so there is a huge chance of being some sort of life its not the fact that life is rare its the fact that we havent advanced beyond our boundaries of our solar system.

Your presupposition does not support your conclusion in any way, shape, or form. Not leaving the solar system, let alone the gravity well of our planet, has no bearing on the statistical likelihood of the development of life in the universe.

I concede that it is possible for the supposed planetary conditions necessary for life's generation to occur to exist on another planet, given the countless thousands of trillions of solar systems we speculate are out there. However, that's only a small part of the equation. Just because the conditions are there does not mean that life will happen. With the technology we have today, we can replicate with some accuracy what we imagine the ideal conditions would have been. But how do you explain the amazingly complex chemical structures, and the delicate dance they perform?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but those who hold to the spontaneous generation of life typically speak in terms of some kind of primordial soup, wherein the ingredients required for life to occur somehow happened to start working together (bolt of lightning, E.M. interference from the sun, etc.). Somehow, this contributes to the large, complex molecules that we don't typically see forming apart from life functions. But even assuming that the chemicals required are capable of spontaneously occuring somehow, somewhere in nature without the interference of a life-form, the next step is getting them to play nicely together.

I tend to be something of a scientist at heart. All throughout school, I was very heavily focused on mathematics and sciences; physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and most other ologies were particularly easy for me. But the one thing I could never get, the one subject I could never fully wrap my brain around, was biochemistry. The complex series of chemical reactions required even for photosynthesis, a process that is simple when compared to some of the more fundamental pieces of cell function, baffled me. Sure, I could explain how each step happened, but I couldn't quite figure out how the chemistry actually happened. It was abstract, and when compared to a lot of other things we see happening in non-biological nature, incredibly far-fetched, and almost inconceivable. And sure there are people smarter than I am - one of my good friends is in biochem research, and she is a great deal smarter than I am. But even then, there are still things about life that we just don't know how they work, or how they happen. I'm not going to play the "we don't know it, so it must be God!" card. That's an exercise in foolishness (and also a logical fallacy). What I will say, though, is that the chemical functions required for life to exist are absurdly complex.

Now, bringing this back to the primordial soup. Let's say we have all of the chemicals in this puddle and they're all interacting in a manner consistent with life. Do we have a life form yet? No. It need to be centralized, localized, isolated, and then capable of reproducing. To get from a puddle of interacting complex chemicals to a life form is something so far-fetched that I've read new theories nowadays that reject the very concept (one article I read in Discover magazine suggested that a large number of scientists believe life on earth began in outer space--which is even more far-fetched).

So what am I saying with all of this? Is it impossible that in the septillian or so star systems that we presume to be out there, there can't be another planet that has life? It is possible, but given how difficult it was for life to begin on this planet, I cannot and will not believe that it began spontaneously. It makes more sense to suggest that an all-knowing, creative, all-powerful being set everything in motion, as the complexities involved in even the most simple single-celled organism are mind-boggling.


But, then, let me ask you a question, Letol (as I have been addressing this post as much to you as I have been to Phoenix). Did you ever know God, or did you merely think to know about him? As I keep reiterating in this thread, the main thrust of what I believe (and why I believe it) is the fact that I am in personal relationship with God. You say you stopped believing because your big prayers went unanswered; did they really go unanswered, or was the answer "no?" God isn't a genie in a bottle, and think to how your life would have been impacted if he had answered those things "yes" instead.

If I may ask, what prayers went unanswered?


ALLAH AKBAR!!!!!!!!!!
I think that jesus was an actual person. But i doubt he was some kind of prophet.

Leave my thread. Now. You (1) don't know a thing about the Moslem religion (it's halal akbar), and (2) don't have any supporting evidence for the beliefs you stated. That kind of intolerance is the very thing I'm trying to avoid--indeed, this thread is an attempt to try and point out that the Christian faith is a good, valid perspective to have. The same mysticism and ignorance I perceive around Christianity in the eyes of the general public is something that I perceive to exist about Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and the Hindu belief (I would make a thread on those, but I don't know them). By blatantly stating your ignorant, misinformed opinion, you are doing a great injustice to both yourself, and to the Moslem faith.

[wiggums]

I'm interested in what you have to say about this. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/green-sea-slug/)

This is a species found about a year ago that is considered to be half plant, half animal. Now as I remember...

Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity.
Day 7: God rested.

Now if this plant really is both plant and animal, how was it created? Sea animals and plants are a whole day apart.

[Letol]

Your presupposition does not support your conclusion in any way, shape, or form. Not leaving the solar system, let alone the gravity well of our planet, has no bearing on the statistical likelihood of the development of life in the universe.

I concede that it is possible for the supposed planetary conditions necessary for life's generation to occur to exist on another planet, given the countless thousands of trillions of solar systems we speculate are out there. However, that's only a small part of the equation. Just because the conditions are there does not mean that life will happen. With the technology we have today, we can replicate with some accuracy what we imagine the ideal conditions would have been. But how do you explain the amazingly complex chemical structures, and the delicate dance they perform?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but those who hold to the spontaneous generation of life typically speak in terms of some kind of primordial soup, wherein the ingredients required for life to occur somehow happened to start working together (bolt of lightning, E.M. interference from the sun, etc.). Somehow, this contributes to the large, complex molecules that we don't typically see forming apart from life functions. But even assuming that the chemicals required are capable of spontaneously occuring somehow, somewhere in nature without the interference of a life-form, the next step is getting them to play nicely together.

I tend to be something of a scientist at heart. All throughout school, I was very heavily focused on mathematics and sciences; physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and most other ologies were particularly easy for me. But the one thing I could never get, the one subject I could never fully wrap my brain around, was biochemistry. The complex series of chemical reactions required even for photosynthesis, a process that is simple when compared to some of the more fundamental pieces of cell function, baffled me. Sure, I could explain how each step happened, but I couldn't quite figure out how the chemistry actually happened. It was abstract, and when compared to a lot of other things we see happening in non-biological nature, incredibly far-fetched, and almost inconceivable. And sure there are people smarter than I am - one of my good friends is in biochem research, and she is a great deal smarter than I am. But even then, there are still things about life that we just don't know how they work, or how they happen. I'm not going to play the "we don't know it, so it must be God!" card. That's an exercise in foolishness (and also a logical fallacy). What I will say, though, is that the chemical functions required for life to exist are absurdly complex.

Now, bringing this back to the primordial soup. Let's say we have all of the chemicals in this puddle and they're all interacting in a manner consistent with life. Do we have a life form yet? No. It need to be centralized, localized, isolated, and then capable of reproducing. To get from a puddle of interacting complex chemicals to a life form is something so far-fetched that I've read new theories nowadays that reject the very concept (one article I read in Discover magazine suggested that a large number of scientists believe life on earth began in outer space--which is even more far-fetched).

So what am I saying with all of this? Is it impossible that in the septillian or so star systems that we presume to be out there, there can't be another planet that has life? It is possible, but given how difficult it was for life to begin on this planet, I cannot and will not believe that it began spontaneously. It makes more sense to suggest that an all-knowing, creative, all-powerful being set everything in motion, as the complexities involved in even the most simple single-celled organism are mind-boggling.

I'm just going to attribute this to difference in opinion... Although the complexity involved in the creation of life is truly absurd, I believe that there are more than enough chances for it to occur elsewhere in the ever expansive universe.

But, then, let me ask you a question, Letol (as I have been addressing this post as much to you as I have been to Phoenix). Did you ever know God, or did you merely think to know about him? As I keep reiterating in this thread, the main thrust of what I believe (and why I believe it) is the fact that I am in personal relationship with God.

Honestly, I don't understand the question or idea that you're in a personal relationship with God. It may be harder for me to grasp, seeing as how I don't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing existence or in any other form of God, but I cannot.

You say you stopped believing because your big prayers went unanswered; did they really go unanswered, or was the answer "no?" God isn't a genie in a bottle, and think to how your life would have been impacted if he had answered those things "yes" instead.

If the God you believed in existed and the answer was no, then he wouldn't be the epitome of perfect love as you originally described him when you started this thread. Hell, with all the things happening in this world today, I couldn't even see a glimpse of the epitome of perfect love if there was some higher power at work in this universe. Poverty, starvation, homelessness, corruption, disease, violence... need I go on?

If I may ask, what prayers went unanswered?

Those unanswered prayers are either long forgotten or far too personal for me to blab on about.

[aMoeba]

Hi Jpec, is there a reason none of my many prayers throughout my life have been answered?


Thanks,

aMoeba.

where's my pony?!

[ShortkidPena]

I'm interested in what you have to say about this. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/green-sea-slug/)

This is a species found about a year ago that is considered to be half plant, half animal. Now as I remember...

Now if this plant really is both plant and animal, how was it created? Sea animals and plants are a whole day apart.

1: Each day did not have to be a literal "week" of seven 24 hour periods, could have been thousands of years, who knows

2: Who knows if God created everything or just set evolution in motion(I don't believe in macro evolution, but I do believe micro evolution is within the realm of possibility)

3: That is basically a slug that eats algae and from what I understand and basically has the algae living inside of its cells. So it can live off of the light via the chlorophyll in the algae. I may be wrong but thats what i got out of it:D

4: I'm a Christian, but don't expect me to get into a big theological debate on this stuff. I'm not a theologian

[aMoeba]

who knows


God



if he existed

lol

[MultiLockOn]

Hi Jpec, is there a reason none of my many prayers throughout my life have been answered?


Thanks,

aMoeba.

where's my pony?!


I sent you the pony in the mail a while back, it must've not reached you :/

I'm not sure if you're serious, but I'll answer anyways. I'm up late tonight.
To keep it short...
1: Unbelief that your prayers will be answered. 'He who doubts is like the surf of the sea, tossed and driven with the wind' as Jesus put it.
2: Praying for reasonable things. You can't honestly believe Jesus is going to drop a Jet in front of your house if you ask for it.
3: God knows better. Sometimes people ask for unreasonable things, such as a certain someone to be their girlfriend. If God has someone better planned for you, he's going to want you to have them in your life, he's planned it all.
4: Patience. God isn't a slow god, people often talk about how long they've been waiting for something. God knows when to answer prayers and when not to. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes no, and sometimes, He just says to wait.

I could keep going but those are the 4 basic ones that I whip out; that question comes out often.

[ShortkidPena]

If the God you believed in existed and the answer was no, then he wouldn't be the epitome of perfect love as you originally described him when you started this thread. Hell, with all the things happening in this world today, I couldn't even see a glimpse of the epitome of perfect love if there was some higher power at work in this universe. Poverty, starvation, homelessness, corruption, disease, violence... need I go on?

Actually he the epitome of perfect love. This being that gave his one and only son Jesus, you may have heard of him, to die on a cross for our sins! The reason for poverty etc. is because we are sinful by nature and will never be perfect, and God even says this. We live in an imperfect world full of sin, and the more I think of what's going on in the world I feel more and more like we are becoming Sodom and Gomorrah. We can never be perfect and can't ever be in the presence of God because we aren't perfect-answering your question about seeing a glimpse of his love. I know I'm kinda rambling, but to answer your question- its mainly because we live in an imperfect world of sin, plain and simple. It's because we have been given a choice do we not see the perfect love of God. You can choose to shut him out, or embrace it.


Anything I say you will try and rebut so I don't understand why the discussion since it doesn't seem like you are affected at all by our reasoning because you don't "see it from our point of view." Please discuss with Jpec cuz he seems to know what hes doing XD

Fix'd

God-Who exists

[aMoeba]

I sent you the pony in the mail a while back, it must've not reached you :/

I'm not sure if you're serious, but I'll answer anyways. I'm up late tonight.
To keep it short...
1: Unbelief that your prayers will be answered. 'He who doubts is like the surf of the sea, tossed and driven with the wind' as Jesus put it.
2: Praying for reasonable things. You can't honestly believe Jesus is going to drop a Jet in front of your house if you ask for it.
3: God knows better. Sometimes people ask for unreasonable things, such as a certain someone to be their girlfriend. If God has someone better planned for you, he's going to want you to have them in your life, he's planned it all.
4: Patience. God isn't a slow god, people often talk about how long they've been waiting for something. God knows when to answer prayers and when not to. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes no, and sometimes, He just says to wait.

I could keep going but those are the 4 basic ones that I whip out; that question comes out often.

1) I was a hardcore Christian at one point, and i'll be damned if I didn't believe in some of the things I prayed for (like healing, quite a popular one).

2) New International Version (©1984)
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.

I guess it works for mountains but not jets. Sheeeeeeeeeeeet.

3) God wants me to be sick now? He wants me to not find a Scantron sheet I lost, so I fail a test? He wants my internet to go out when I need to turn in an assignment? etc.

4) I think if God knows all he would realize that after a couple years of waiting I probably wouldn't want a bunk bed anymore.


@ShortkidPena - without any evidence, proof, or show of existence, right? I have a 16x10x10 Truck in my 5x5x5 room. Oh, you don't believe in me? That's too bad, I have faith. You're not ignorant? That's too bad, I have faith that you are. :)

[ShortkidPena]

1) I was a hardcore Christian at one point, and i'll be damned if I didn't believe in some of the things I prayed for (like healing, quite a popular one).

2) New International Version (©1984)
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.

I guess it works for mountains but not jets. Sheeeeeeeeeeeet.

3) God wants me to be sick now? He wants me to not find a Scantron sheet I lost, so I fail a test? He wants my internet to go out when I need to turn in an assignment? etc.

4) I think if God knows all he would realize that after a couple years of waiting I probably wouldn't want a bunk bed anymore.


@ShortkidPena - without any evidence, proof, or show of existence, right? I have a 16x10x10 Truck in my 5x5x5 room. Oh, you don't believe in me? That's too bad, I have faith. You're not ignorant? That's too bad, I have faith that you are. :)

You are not looking at the big picture. Plus you have a choice, basically for everything. God has a plan for you and its your choice to follow it or not. Most of the time you have no idea of what God has in store for us. I'm going to bed, be back after school tomorrow- gonna talk with my bible leader about this(this is good debate!) :thumbup:

Oh and i do believe that you have a 16x10x10 truck in your 5x5x5 room. You have your units all wrong silly, your 16x10x10 ft truck clearly fits in your 5x5x5 m room. Boom goes the dynamite :p

[Letol]

Actually he the epitome of perfect love. This being that gave his one and only son Jesus, you may have heard of him, to die on a cross for our sins!

I would begin questioning how you know that God himself sent Jesus to die on the cross, but unfortunately, the Bible is considered a reliable source in this thread... regardless of the lack of solid proof backing up the happenings in the book.

The reason for poverty etc. is because we are sinful by nature and will never be perfect, and God even says this. We live in an imperfect world full of sin,

God is almighty, God created humanity, correct? Why then, would God create humanity to be flawed, to suffer, and to be destined to commit sinful acts just to punish them later?

Anything I say you will try and rebut so I don't understand why the discussion since it doesn't seem like you are affected at all by our reasoning because you don't "see it from our point of view." Please discuss with Jpec cuz he seems to know what hes doing XD

The reason I disagree with practically all religion is because the "reasoning" that is used isn't at all reasonable. Solid proof is far and scarce, most "reasoning" in religion is based on faith and the Bible (which for all we know, could have been a story book or a misinterpretation of historical happenings). Sorry, but I like to test the water before I dive in. No proof = no truth in every aspect of this world, the only exception being religion. Personally, I find this highly illogical.

I'm not sure if you're serious, but I'll answer anyways. I'm up late tonight.
To keep it short...
1: Unbelief that your prayers will be answered. 'He who doubts is like the surf of the sea, tossed and driven with the wind' as Jesus put it.
2: Praying for reasonable things. You can't honestly believe Jesus is going to drop a Jet in front of your house if you ask for it.
3: God knows better. Sometimes people ask for unreasonable things, such as a certain someone to be their girlfriend. If God has someone better planned for you, he's going to want you to have them in your life, he's planned it all.
4: Patience. God isn't a slow god, people often talk about how long they've been waiting for something. God knows when to answer prayers and when not to. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes no, and sometimes, He just says to wait.

I could keep going but those are the 4 basic ones that I whip out; that question comes out often.

Very long ago, I was young and naive enough to believe that if I prayed for something, God would be listening. My dad's father was dying of diabetes and I prayed that I'd be able to see him one last time before he died to tell him how much I loved him and how much I'd miss him. That one last time ended up being at his funeral.

[ShortkidPena]

I feel like I am arguing in the cave in the movie How the Grinch Stole Christmas-the new one. When hes like"I'm an idiot"..."you're an idiot" haha lol...we dont seem to be getting anywhere

[Denominator]

I feel like I am arguing in the cave in the movie How the Grinch Stole Christmas-the new one. When hes like"I'm an idiot"..."you're an idiot" haha lol...we dont seem to be getting anywhere

Religious debates never seem to go anywhere.

Anyone arguing on behalf of science will never change their mind because there is no evidence supporting God outside of Biblical sources.

Anyone arguing on behalf of God will never change their mind because that would require questioning their beliefs.

Basically, any argument regarding religion will consist of scientifically-minded people asking for evidence, religions people providing religious evidence, and the scientific people denying said evidence due to confounding factors. The other half is the scientific people providing evidence disproving Biblical notions that the religious people ignore due to mis-translations, etc.

[Zackj191]

YouTube - Putting faith in its place

[Jpec07]

I'm just going to attribute this to difference in opinion... Although the complexity involved in the creation of life is truly absurd, I believe that there are more than enough chances for it to occur elsewhere in the ever expansive universe.

But this statement admits two things: intelligent design, and an infinite universe (hence, "ever-expansive"). Intelligent design describes itself, as you pointed to the "creation of life." But if something is a creation, it requires a creator. The distinction is whether or not you hold that the creator is an infinite, loving God who designed life with the intent of a relationship, or some other force. Of course I'm sure that's not what you meant by "created," I just thought I'd be a semantic jerk and point that out.

The infinite universe, though, through some backwards reasoning of mine (hit me up later if you want to know it), actually points to a mathematic possibility of creation ex nihilo, which points to an external force or entity that initiated it.

Honestly, I don't understand the question or idea that you're in a personal relationship with God. It may be harder for me to grasp, seeing as how I don't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing existence or in any other form of God, but I cannot.

Not believing in God does put a damper on knowing him. I guess all I can do is pray that he proves himself to you as he has done to countless others.

If the God you believed in existed and the answer was no, then he wouldn't be the epitome of perfect love as you originally described him when you started this thread. Hell, with all the things happening in this world today, I couldn't even see a glimpse of the epitome of perfect love if there was some higher power at work in this universe. Poverty, starvation, homelessness, corruption, disease, violence... need I go on?

[...]

Those unanswered prayers are either long forgotten or far too personal for me to blab on about.

So God can't be love because there is evil in the world? That's what I'm hearing, and if so, the argument proceeds thusly: (1) God is all powerful, (2) God is all-loving, (3) God desires that no man should perish. But because (4) there is evil in the world, and (5) people die, either [1] God is not all-powerful, or [2] God is not all-loving. However, I posit the argument that [3] God limits his power and allows for the freedom of human will.

One thing that recurs throughout the scriptures is that God is a God who will do what he wants, and no manner of box, definition, or description you can put on him will be apt to adequately represent him. Just as in life, there will be an exception to almost every "rule" that you make about him. We can make general statements about him, but there will always be exceptions to those: take for instance that God honors the freedom of human will. In multiple instances throughout scripture, we see where God violates that, working very clearly to manipulate the wills of various individuals. But in general, he doesn't work to violate the free will of mankind. His power is unlimited in its raw form, but he is able to limit that power in accordance with his will.

One of my professors made a very interesting comment about this sort of thing, the problem of why death exists (as well as the suffering that seems to lead up to it). "The Bible is the only book of its kind that answers the question of why we die. Simply put, according to the Bible, death exists because sin exists. And just as sin was abolished through the cross, so too is death abolished." Mind you, this doesn't mean that sin was completely done away with when Christ died and was raised, nor that death was completely done away with, but it was defeated, and it lost the supremacy of its power. The idea is that mankind no longer has to live subject to the desires of the sarx, to which they are generally enslaved.

The answer to evil is Christ, and obedience to him. There's a reason why a huge portion of the commands in scripture revolve around caring for the poor and disenfranchised among you. If the world was completely in tune with and subject to the Kingdom of God (an abstract, metaphysical concept which I'll expound upon should anyone so desire), then poverty, disease, pain, and suffering would be largely done away with, if not entirely. The problem is that the Kingdom of God won't be fully realized until the end of the age, so until then, we have to deal with it. Let me use something as a case study here from the scripture:

Deuteronomy 15:1-11 reads as follows:
At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.

If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.
I added the emphases on the places I want to focus our attention on. First some context: this scripture is found in a portion of the Torah where God is describing the year of Sabbath, where debts will be canceled, and everyone will be returned to the land of his origin. Now, here God makes the stipulation (I don't like the way the NIV translates the Hebrew here): "there will be no poor among you if you obey." But God knows they aren't going to obey, because several verses later, he outright says, "there will always be poor people in the land." The kicker though, is the bold portion right in the middle (verses 7 and 8 for those playing along at home): "If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need." This is an explicit command within the Torah, wherein God establishes a will to help the poor through the obedience of his people. If they would obey in truth, not only would they become united with one another, but the poverty among them would be eliminated, and everyone would be able to live a life without need--or want, as God goes so far as to say he will bless them for obeying the law, if they should choose to obey it.

What we can pull from this are two points of theology: {1} God has no problem relating to sinful man, and even entering into relationship with him, and {2} God has a heart not only to care for the disenfranchised, but to have his people do it on his behalf. Point 2 is of interest here, because it's echoed many places in the New Testament (both in the words of Christ, and in the words of the writers of the epistles). So why is there poverty and suffering? Because people don't obey God, and don't follow his will.

So in short, God doesn't affect the evil in this world because it is usually caused by humanity, and it is his will that, as we come to know and love him, we can also come to love and know those whom he loves. We just really suck at obeying him (that's why there's grace).


And Letol, the main reason why I closed this thread to discussion of the validity of the Bible was because there are so many different objections to the canon, the authority or truth of scripture itself, as well as any number of factual bubbles that pop up that I have neither the time nor the resources available to me to deal with in any adequate means. I can ask you to trust that I have explored thoroughly a number of the objections that are brought up on a regular basis, and have established the veracity of the scriptures (both in origin and in historicity) within my own highly critical mind, but such a request would hardly be satisfactory to convince you (or anyone else) of that which I am convinced. I also am personally avoiding responding to statements against the Bible's veracity, because in my mind such statements are so blatantly absurd and baseless that they border on ignorance.

As to why God didn't let you see your grandfather before he died...I don't know. I can't speak to that, and I don't think anyone can. I can say that I can kind of relate to your pain, though, and that I do envy you: at least you knew your grandfather. Sure, I knew my dad's dad, but we were never close, and it wasn't until after he died that I learned just how much we could have gotten along.


@Denominator: There's an anecdote I told Zackj191 that I heard from a good drummer friend of mine, which does provide some kind of proof. There was one time he was playing at a youth worship service, and it was at a quiet point in the music where the presence of the Holy Spirit was palpable (his words). But as he was sitting on the drums, occasionally tapping on the cymbals as seemed appropriate, he thought he heard God telling him to do a somersault. Now my friend isn't the type of guy to do that kind of thing at all, and so he shunned the thought and kept playing quietly. He heard God tell him again, and once more he put it off, thinking it was just an echo of a thought he'd come up with on his own. But God kept working on him, and so finally he gave in. Opened his eyes, glanced around to make sure too many people weren't looking or that anyone would notice, got off his throne and did a somersault. Got back up, finished playing the service, and it was all good. Weird, sure, but good.

Now here's where it gets trippy. There was a girl there that night who had been brought by one of the youth kids. Atheist-leaning agnostic who was having a tough time dealing with issues at home...long story short, she was giving God a shot just to see if he was there. After the service, she walks up to my friend and asks him about the somersault. He panics, thinking that no one saw him, but she explains what happened. Basically, she came to the service asking God to prove himself to her. The service went on as normal, and she sat in the back, finding herself moved to tears at just the hopelessness of her situation. Finally, at a high point during the worship, she laid a condition for God: if one of the people on stage did something completely crazy and out of character, then she would accept him as real. The minute she opened her eyes and looked, the drummer got off his throne, did a somersault, and got back up and kept playing.

It's easy to call that coincidence, but really, given how much I've said that God loves to work in and through his people, I find that hard to believe. It makes more sense to me to believe in a God who is the Master of Circumstances than random circumstances that seem to coincide so perfectly with one another that happen without cause. And coordinating a nervous drummer's hesitant somersault with a desperate girl's cry for a sign is a much easier circumstance to accomplish than starting life (or even a universe).


@aMoeba: I see that you seek to ridicule, mock, and belittle anyone who holds to the Christian faith. I see that you see it as foolishness. And to that I admit--the Bible even says it. But I would rather be a fool who loves Christ than a "wise" man who denies him, because, as I've witnessed firsthand, God opposes the proud and exalts the humble.

Regarding your questions of why prayers go unanswered, did you ever stop to think, "what prayers would God want me to pray?" Because that might have something to do with it. Besides that, Multi's answers did a good job of clearing most of that up.


@Shortkid, please stop. I don't mean to belittle you, but you're not really helping at all. I can teach you some, if you want, but I've been scrutinizing this stuff for the past four and a half years.


@Zackj: I'll get to your video tomorrow. If my guess is right, though, it's composed of 3 parts prooftexting, 1 part bs, 4 parts bad logic, and 5 parts mudslinging, and any logical examination of what it contains will dismantle it quickly.

[Denominator]

@Denominator: There's an anecdote I told Zackj191 that I heard from a good drummer friend of mine, which does provide some kind of proof. There was one time he was playing at a youth worship service, and it was at a quiet point in the music where the presence of the Holy Spirit was palpable (his words). But as he was sitting on the drums, occasionally tapping on the cymbals as seemed appropriate, he thought he heard God telling him to do a somersault. Now my friend isn't the type of guy to do that kind of thing at all, and so he shunned the thought and kept playing quietly. He heard God tell him again, and once more he put it off, thinking it was just an echo of a thought he'd come up with on his own. But God kept working on him, and so finally he gave in. Opened his eyes, glanced around to make sure too many people weren't looking or that anyone would notice, got off his throne and did a somersault. Got back up, finished playing the service, and it was all good. Weird, sure, but good.

Now here's where it gets trippy. There was a girl there that night who had been brought by one of the youth kids. Atheist-leaning agnostic who was having a tough time dealing with issues at home...long story short, she was giving God a shot just to see if he was there. After the service, she walks up to my friend and asks him about the somersault. He panics, thinking that no one saw him, but she explains what happened. Basically, she came to the service asking God to prove himself to her. The service went on as normal, and she sat in the back, finding herself moved to tears at just the hopelessness of her situation. Finally, at a high point during the worship, she laid a condition for God: if one of the people on stage did something completely crazy and out of character, then she would accept him as real. The minute she opened her eyes and looked, the drummer got off his throne, did a somersault, and got back up and kept playing.

It's easy to call that coincidence, but really, given how much I've said that God loves to work in and through his people, I find that hard to believe. It makes more sense to me to believe in a God who is the Master of Circumstances than random circumstances that seem to coincide so perfectly with one another that happen without cause. And coordinating a nervous drummer's hesitant somersault with a desperate girl's cry for a sign is a much easier circumstance to accomplish than starting life (or even a universe).

You are providing anecdotes and personal experience as evidence for God. This is precisely why this debate goes nowhere - I have said before and I will say again that if someone manages to provide evidence for God's existence then I will become a believer, because at that point it is not belief, it is fact. But since there is no evidence beyond the Bible and personal experience, religion must stay in the realm of belief and not in the realm of fact.

I don't doubt that the drummer thought he heard the voice of God. I've thought I've heard or seen things before that turned out to be wrong too. However, one person randomly doing something that causes another person to believe in God is coincidence, nothing more. The second person in your story was seeking to believe in God, and asked for "God to prove himself", which is a very vague request. At that point, anything out of the ordinary would have convinced her that God existed, regardless of what it was. Yet God did nothing extraordinary - had she specifically requested a man somersaulting, then yes, I would have to give that more weight, but at this point she was looking to believe and saw something that made her believe. I don't credit any divine intervention in this case (although the drummer's case has more potential).

@Zackj: I'll get to your video tomorrow. If my guess is right, though, it's composed of 3 parts prooftexting, 1 part bs, 4 parts bad logic, and 5 parts mudslinging, and any logical examination of what it contains will dismantle it quickly.

The video is actually decent and has a less attacking stance on religion than many others I've seen. It's mostly logically sound.

2: Who knows if God created everything or just set evolution in motion(I don't believe in macro evolution, but I do believe micro evolution is within the realm of possibility)

This astounds me. Claiming that you don't believe in evolution is akin to claiming that you don't believe in Australia - it's been scientifically proven to exist many times by many different people, and you can physically see the evidence of it via pictures and records, but due to your beliefs you don't think it exists.

What about evolution do you not believe?!

[wiggums]

What about evolution do you not believe?!

I'm guessing he is one of the many Christians who thinks that scientists are lieing about it all. They think scientists are people who find a tiny dinosaur tooth and make up a dinosaur in their minds just from looking at the tooth. They believe that carbon-dating or the half-life method of telling how old something is was made up as well.

Shortkid, I'm interested in knowing why you don't believe in evolution. I have friends who go to a Christian private school where they are taught lies, no joke. I used to to to the same school, and a science teacher told us many things that I discovered were actually proven to be false.

Why do whales have hip-bones?
Why is the universe expanding?

Scientists become scientists to learn more about the world. That's their passion. They aren't trying to lie or prove Christianity wrong, try just want to learn the truth. Why should we doubt their hard work?

Another thing that has caused me to keep away from the Christian faith is it's constan adapting. Shouldn't God be the same now as when he first created the world? Then why did Christians during the civil war fight to keep their black slaves? Why do Christians consider it wrong now, even though they are still reading the same book? Now I'm hearing about Christians who believe God created evolution. This made me chuckle, an I believe that is where it is headed. Now that evolution is becoming a widely accepted theory, Christians are now starting to adjust their beliefs so it can still survive.

That's why religion can't be proven wrong. It continually changes to become impossible combat. Oh, evolution is basically proven? A christian friend of mine this morning was saying how the bible never said evolution didn't happen. He was talking as if these 6 days that the world was created
in could have actually been exaggerates for no reason, an that the actual creation took place over millions of years.

Christians, I'm not trying to destroy your faith, I support it actually. All I'm tryin to do is clarify for myself that religion is a good way to make good people. I still like to hold Christian values in my eart from when I was a child even though I am now an Atheist. After all, the earliest recorded religion (hinduism) was actually created by the leaders as a way to keep their people under control inside their oppressive caste system.

[PsychoBucket]

"So what am I saying with all of this? Is it impossible that in the septillian or so star systems that we presume to be out there, there can't be another planet that has life? It is possible, but given how difficult it was for life to begin on this planet, I cannot and will not believe that it began spontaneously. It makes more sense to suggest that an all-knowing, creative, all-powerful being set everything in motion, as the complexities involved in even the most simple single-celled organism are mind-boggling."

Is there anything in the bible that specifically says that God did not create life on other planets?

[aMoeba]

@aMoeba: I see that you seek to ridicule, mock, and belittle anyone who holds to the Christian faith. I see that you see it as foolishness. And to that I admit--the Bible even says it. But I would rather be a fool who loves Christ than a "wise" man who denies him, because, as I've witnessed firsthand, God opposes the proud and exalts the humble.

Regarding your questions of why prayers go unanswered, did you ever stop to think, "what prayers would God want me to pray?" Because that might have something to do with it. Besides that, Multi's answers did a good job of clearing most of that up.

I do think following any religion has its fair share of foolishness, but my objective here isn't to make fun of Christians. I'm actually looking for an answer; I don't see how what I said really ridicules christians.


But I have to ask, what is the point of praying for what God wants me to pray for? And how would I even know if he hasn't, in my whole life, told me anything?

[ShortkidPena]

Why is it so outlandish to believe what I have said. In our lifetime none of these huge questions will be answered. I don't believe that what scientists have found are lies, it's mainly how they choose to connect the pieces to what they say. And I do believe in evolution, just not macro evolution. I do research on topics that interest me and what the other side has to say.

The theories on macro evolution are merely extrapolations from what can be seen on the smaller scale(micro evolution). This extrapolation is scientifically unjustified due to many gaps in transitional forms that should be found. The fossil record has failed to justify the theory of macro evolution.

@Jpec: I'm allowed to speak my mind. So there are greater theologians than I, such as you, but that shouldn't keep me from saying what I believe. It would be like saying for people not to play soccer because they aren't as good as another player on their team. This isn't a one man show and I will say it like it is

@Psycho: Where is that quoted from?

@Wiggums: I'm not doubting Scientist's hard work, i just don't believe in some of their interpretations of data, if you know what I mean. Like if there was a sequence like a+b+x+y+z+f, x y z must be c d e, but we cant find them anywhere. I don't know if I make sense, but i have a mathematical mind so this does for me :p

I don't think that it would be that Christians are changing their beliefs to survive. Its more along the lines of the discoveries that we have made in the scientific fields that are changing everyone's beliefs, not just Christians. At one point in time, people believed the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, etc. The world we know it changes and as it does, so must beliefs.

And for the whales with hipbones, whales may have been able to sometimes walk on land, but eventually evolved to just be able to swim. They may also have not been as big as they are now, so staying in the water made them evolve to be bigger via natural selection etc. Walking whales would just be ridiculous anyway, lol

I may believe in God, but I do realize that certain aspects of evolution do exist. Whether this evolution is done from years of adaptation, or God steps in to give it a push, I dunno, and we will never for certain know.

Just to everyone, please I don't want to make enemies, I'm just debating :)

[Skittlemeister]

I have no argument on the matter.

[Denominator]

The theories on macro evolution are merely extrapolations from what can be seen on the smaller scale(micro evolution). This extrapolation is scientifically unjustified due to many gaps in transitional forms that should be found. The fossil record has failed to justify the theory of macro evolution.

I'm curious as to what the fossil record has failed to show in the fossil record?

I think your understanding of evolution is flawed. There is no such thing as a "transitional" species, and there is no such thing as a "missing link". Each generation is slightly different from the parent generation, based on minor variations among the individuals.

Imagine a line of rabbits, going back through time, each rabbit with it's mother to one side and it's daughter to the other, in order. If you were to start with a modern rabbit, and walk backwards through the generations, each rabbit would look similar enough to it's predecessor that you would call them the same species. Yet perhaps once you passed a million rabbits, you would realize that the animals you were walking past are no longer rabbits, and in fact, if you tried to breed the millionth rabbit with the first rabbit they would be incompatible.

My point is that it takes a long time for evolution to occur, and no species magically gives birth to another species. It's a gradual change over time until what you have at present isn't what you had in the past.

I'm further confused when you go on to describe whales in terms of evolution:

And for the whales with hipbones, whales may have been able to sometimes walk on land, but eventually evolved to just be able to swim. They may also have not been as big as they are now, so staying in the water made them evolve to be bigger via natural selection etc. Walking whales would just be ridiculous anyway, lol

Just to everyone, please I don't want to make enemies, I'm just debating :)

Likewise. If I offend you, I apologize. It's not my intention.

[Zackj191]

I am under the belief that people who argue against things such as evolution don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and the general understanding of the word theory. A scientific theory is something that has been proved multiple times, by multiple groups with no bias of each other and is easily and continually reproducible with similar results. Denominator posed a perfect example with the rabbits. Another way of putting it, the actually meaning, would be survival of the fittest. Mutations, usually benign, can sometimes cause an animal to gain a special trait or attribute, such as rabbits with white fur making a rabbit with black fur. In an environment where a darker shade rabbit would survive better due to camouflage and therefor the black rabbit would continue to breed and produce more black rabbits. Say the mutation is something more noticeable, such as the rabbit gains a 3rd eye on the back of it's head. Weird I know, but now this rabbit has a better view of it's surroundings and therefor has a better chance to get away from a predator. And as soon as you think all the rabbit population have 3 eyes because it is better suited for survival. That, is what the Theory of Evolution is.

[Letol]

I just spent quite a while writing multiple responses to multiple ideas/theories/beliefs that were posted. I started thinking about it, and I really don't think it's even worth the time and effort. Truth:

Religious debates never seem to go anywhere.

Anyone arguing on behalf of science will never change their mind because there is no evidence supporting God outside of Biblical sources.

Anyone arguing on behalf of God will never change their mind because that would require questioning their beliefs.

Basically, any argument regarding religion will consist of scientifically-minded people asking for evidence, religions people providing religious evidence, and the scientific people denying said evidence due to confounding factors. The other half is the scientific people providing evidence disproving Biblical notions that the religious people ignore due to mis-translations, etc.

We will never change each other's minds just by debating the situation, but there is currently nothing else we can do other than debate. We're just stuck in the awkward time where religion is no longer accepted as absolute truth by the majority, but religion can't yet be completely disproved by science.

So anyways, I'm done with this debate. (Which is exactly what I said last time... lol.)

[Cerity Insighed]

I just spent quite a while writing multiple responses to multiple ideas/theories/beliefs that were posted. I started thinking about it, and I really don't think it's even worth the time and effort. Truth:



We will never change each other's minds just by debating the situation, but there is currently nothing else we can do other than debate. We're just stuck in the awkward time where religion is no longer accepted as absolute truth by the majority, but religion can't yet be completely disproved by science.

So anyways, I'm done with this debate. (Which is exactly what I said last time... lol.)

This is very, very true. Nothing will come of debating when the other side does not have an open mind; I myself started as a Christian, slowly became agnostic/atheist, and I've even given religion several chances to change me or sway my opinions. But to no avail, because there are no facts regarding the belief in deities.

I just try to make sure that when someone makes a decision with their beliefs, it's their own decision on not one that had been forced upon them since they were a child. In those types of situations, people tend to have bad arguments for their side, and also tend to be close-minded. If they can justify their reasoning, much like Multi has with me, and they don't try to forcefully convert people, I'm perfectly fine with it. Religion should be a personal belief, it does not identify you.

Another perspective that I find funny is the historical perspective. After the Christian Dark Ages, the Renaissance began, and populations slowly became more and more secular. This atheistic view has slowly spread, never diminishing, but constantly growing and expanding across the surface of the world, unwavering and exponential. As it will continue to do so in the future.

[wiggums]

The fundamental problem going on is that Christianity is founded on Faith. Faith is the blind belief of something that has no/little evidence, and that just isn't good enough for scientists.

You can't prove something wrong that is based off facts, and you can't prove something wrong that has no way of testing it.

Neither of us can be proven wrong here, that's apparent, but debating is still worth it. It's never to late to start believing something, or to change your opinion.

[Fractured Aura]

That's why religion can't be proven wrong. It continually changes to become impossible combat. Oh, evolution is basically proven? A christian friend of mine this morning was saying how the bible never said evolution didn't happen. He was talking as if these 6 days that the world was created
in could have actually been exaggerates for no reason, an that the actual creation took place over millions of years.


This really surprised me that you posted this. You act as if I presented my case when you never even let me finish because of constant interruption. I never said that creation could have taken place over 6 million years. I never said that the bible never explains evolution. The next time you're going to talk about someones statement, take the time to actually listen.

[wiggums]

This really surprised me that you posted this. You act as if I presented my case when you never even let me finish because of constant interruption. I never said that creation could have taken place over 6 million years. I never said that the bible never explains evolution. The next time you're going to talk about someones statement, take the time to actually listen.
All I gave time for you to say was:

"The Bible never says how old the world is" which pissed me off because I knew exactly where the discussion was headed, and I've been down that road way to many times before. Oh and by the way, I wasn't just talking about you. I had the same discussion with at least 3 other people over the same subject that day. Maybe you shouldn't take things personally before you blindly blame someone of something.

[Fractured Aura]

A[/b] christian friend of mine this morning was saying how the bible never said evolution didn't happen. He was talking as if these 6 days that the world was created in could have actually been exaggerates for no reason, an that the actual creation took place over millions of years.

Blind accusations? Next time make sure it's plural if it happened with more than one person.

Aside from that, neither of us can no longer benefit from this. No matter what another says, the other will not be swayed. Yes this is debate, but it is no where near effective if all you do is not listen to the other side and get pissed off.

[ShortkidPena]

I hate these debates, it tears friends apart :'(

[Mm That One Guy]

I personally feel that catholicism, whether it be true or not, is no longer a religion, but a profit. Do you know how much money the catholic churches make, and how much goes to building new churches rather then given to the ones in need of help? In my opinion the world would be much better if people kept their religion to themselves instead of trying to persuade others to believe how they do.

[SnoopALoop]

Besides hardcore fundamental Christians who say you will burn in hell if you don't accept the Bible, this is a message to the more intelligent/reasonable believers of Christianity. I have difficulty understanding why God is personified/anthropomorphized with characteristics, gender, or any human qualities in general. It appears that this is any Christian's attempt to comprehend something that is impossible to comprehend, and since humans are so dependent on knowing their creator, God was given qualities to establish a foundation for this necessary belief. I also believe the Bible is a collection of adapted stories to fit the Christian viewpoint. Aside from the fact that much of the Bible (the Old Testament) is comprised of Jewish text that was created long before Christianity came into existence, there are far too many similarities between Jesus and other pre-dated religious "miracle workers" (Krishna, Horus, Buddha, Mithra, Dionysus, etc). The similarities between Jesus and Horus are especially disturbing: both were born by a virgin, on the 25th of December, the only son of God, births were symbolized by a "star in the East" (Sirius), both births announced by angels, witnessed by shepherds, same age of baptism (30), both had 12 disciples, both walked on water, restored sight to the blind, both crucified and resurrected after three days. And Horus was born 3,000 years before Christ. I was raised as a Christian and believed everything I was told in church, but eventually I started thinking for myself and realized that religion was created by man as a source of comfort. However, I still accept the general message of the Bible (do more for others than yourself)...but to support the idea that this book holds "the truth" and has a direct relationship to God is selfish. The End.

[Mm That One Guy]

Besides hardcore fundamental Christians who say you will burn in hell if you don't accept the Bible, this is a message to the more intelligent/reasonable believers of Christianity. I have difficulty understanding why God is personified/anthropomorphized with characteristics, gender, or any human qualities in general. It appears that this is any Christian's attempt to comprehend something that is impossible to comprehend, and since humans are so dependent on knowing their creator, God was given qualities to establish a foundation for this necessary belief. I also believe the Bible is a collection of adapted stories to fit the Christian viewpoint. Aside from the fact that much of the Bible (the Old Testament) is comprised of Jewish text that was created long before Christianity came into existence, there are far too many similarities between Jesus and other pre-dated religious "miracle workers" (Krishna, Horus, Buddha, Mithra, Dionysus, etc). The similarities between Jesus and Horus are especially disturbing: both were born by a virgin, on the 25th of December, the only son of God, births were symbolized by a "star in the East" (Sirius), both births announced by angels, witnessed by shepherds, same age of baptism (30), both had 12 disciples, both walked on water, restored sight to the blind, both crucified and resurrected after three days. And Horus was born 3,000 years before Christ. I was raised as a Christian and believed everything I was told in church, but eventually I started thinking for myself and realized that religion was created by man as a source of comfort. However, I still accept the general message of the Bible (do more for others than yourself)...but to support the idea that this book holds "the truth" and has a direct relationship to God is selfish. The End.
A lot of Catholics believe that the bible is say an analogy and example of life. It shows what we may encounter and how we should face it. The Bible was like a Law for its time period so you must understand that it is out-dated (sexism, etc). Think that the Bible is a depiction of real life events is the same as thinking Greek mythology is based on real life events.

[Docter Weegee]

Do you beleive all of it or just some of it?