Why do Christians use the Bible as evidence in Theological discussion?
For those who think that the bible is not real, check out this video, actually it is a very interesting video to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BEjxNL2neY
ATM - "Have you seen this God?"... (shows picture of stick figure)... "Because I don't see Him anywhere."Maybe that is God and He made you draw Him.
True, you could look at it that way. The problem here is nobody knows who wrote the original books, especially those first 5. And as I can show you in excruciating detail, in that first book in particular, it correctly describes things NO human could have known. So, there's that.
I think I am clear, and true my words might come out not perfect, but good enough for some to ask me a question or critize when I do commit on, if some one has a question I welcome it. But I will not argue ,or name call, or debate. I will speak with the same right as others.
My point exactly. Your concept of God is inconsistent. You see and acknowledge the 'free will' part of the story, then immediately abandon it and speak of a controlling God. If your view of God is a simplistic 2D cartoon character then, you're right, that god doesn't exist. But if God does exist as described then He's much more than that. It's no different than a non-believer rejecting evolution when their whole concept of what evolution actually is, like your concept of God, is horribly flawed and way off base. Of course you reject it, that's ridiculous. However, there's always a chance you were just wrong, right? It may turn out God is real and you actually would have liked Him for who/what He really is, if you'd only taken the time to really learn what that is.
You especially should see the relevance the whole concept of free will in general has here. That should be a clue to you I would think. Your grasp of the natural world I'm sure makes you aware of the importance of behavior. That's what science is. Observing consistent, repeatable, behavior. Things behave in predictable ways and we learn from that. Our behavior, however, though we're born of the same natural world and made of the same natural stuff, is still a bit of an anomaly to this day. This concept of human behavior is the central theme to this text written thousands of years ago that claims the same God that created everything else gave us something incredibly significant. And here we are, thousands of years later and a lot more informed, and all we've learned has only stressed even further the significance of behavior and what it would really mean for our behavior to actually be 'free'.
Free will is the one thing that gives us our humanity. It means we can own who we are. We can own all the good and bad things we've done to get where we are, we can own the triumphs and the victories as well as the defeats because we made our choices. Yet if it turns out the material world is nothing more than a godless series of cause and effect events then we have to let go of that false idea of being free. Because matter can't behave any differently than it does, right? To this day the debate roles on. And it's this exact topic that that one book covers, long before humans could really understand just how important the question is. You speak of the 'trivial' matter of humans behaving in a way God may find 'disturbing', presumably referring to the 'forbidden fruit' scenario. I don't think your thinking is giving the concept of God or a truly free will the full weight it deserves. Choosing to do something contrary to what God (the laws of the natural world) says is a big deal. Like in the same way it would be a big deal if each particle of matter could decide how to behave in relation to the law of gravity. It's a big deal. You often speak of the destructive tendencies of religion. That's free will. Wars. Free will. Murder, rape, terrorism, free will. These are the result of beings made up of matter making 'free' choices. And all of it possible because Adam eating the fruit God said not to eat was possible.
God is described as much bigger than the concept you often depict, which means the answers are going to be much bigger too. If you're going to reject God, at least know what it is you're actually rejecting.Beth - answers in genesis? Really? The only thing that I like about that site is the fact that they list arguments that Christians should NEVER use because it only makes them sound silly. I'll see your link, however and raise you another. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html and http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
- Beth37posted 12 years ago
01) What is a real actual scientist? A non-believer? Are you saying there are no scientists that have faith in God?
2) I didn't say I wasn't willing to peruse those sites, I simply didn't ask to so it would be more of a favor to you. You however did ask for answers, had I known you were opposed to that site in particular, I would have offered another one. I am simply trying to answer your questions, if that is what you are interested in.
http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answersSomeone who conducts science.
Sure, but that doesn't make God real.1) No, I'm sure that there are many scientists that are also believers. It depends on the field of study. I don't believe that those at the AIG are "real" scientists - not because they believe in god, but because on their own website they state openly that any evidence that seems to contradict the bible will be tossed out and ignored. In reality, that is not how "real" science works. If scientist just threw out anything that did not confirm their pre-existing bias, we would be nowhere NEAR the level of scientific advancement and technology that we have today. Science works by presenting a hypothesis and then trying to prove it WRONG, not by trying to prove it right. If you throw out everything that could disagree with you automatically, you're only getting the answers you want - not pure answers at all.
2) I appreciate the fact that you were trying to help. I'd be more than interested to study it further, although I have spent over a dozen years studying it independently. I'd be happy to read any link you provide. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if/when you ever DO peruse the site that I sent you.Beth, all of those questions have already been answered multiple times by people that study evolution (and yes, I actually did watch it)
Additionally, Creation Ministries was founded by Ken Ham - the same guy that founded AIG.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Question_Evolution
CMI could have read the literature and have come up with a series of interesting and challenging questions based on what evolutionary scientists are presently investigating - although that would have involved some honest research and understanding of the subject. But instead of concentrating on these real questions, CMI employs the typical creationist strategy of dissembly and deflection by perpetuating myths and misconceptions about the theory of evolution, all while making money selling religious tracts, t-shirts, buttons, hats, bumper stickers, coffee cups, and tote bagsThe video was just an intro, it didn't contain any info at all. I didn't realize it was by the same founder. I guess it doesn't provide the answers you're looking for.
I watched the video, and looked up their 15 questions for evolutionists. I've heard them all a million times, and their famous for quote-mining atheists and scientists to make it seem like they're saying one thing, then pouncing on it - when that's not at all what they actually said.
They're also famous for making ridiculous claims that evolution doesn't say, and then expecting evolutionists to defend those positions - which is not only dishonest, but ridiculous to boot.Where did the flood water come from? How could there have been enough water to possibly cover the entire earth?
Answer: After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9)[1]. They are the same waters!
So, there were no mountains and no valleys a few thousand years ago. Flatland.
Beth, you should check out http://www.creationtoday.org/. Be sure to see the creation minutes: http://www.creationminute.com/. Ken Ham has recently started doing some work with this ministry, but it has been around a long time and is not one of his sites. In fact they have different perspectives on several issues, although they may be transparent to the materialist.
I went to your site, and the first thing I saw was a gigantic banner across the top that said:
"How to answer the fool - a presuppositional defense of the faith - 'the fool has said in his heart that there is no god Psalms 14:1". Firstly, the majority of real christian apologists do everything possible to distance themselves from presuppositional apologists like the Hovinds, etc because it gives apologetics a bad name. Their tag-team gang-bang form of attack and cherry picking responses and taking things out of context to make non-believers look stupid is notorious. A presuppositional apologist's biggest weapon is "what if you're wrong" and there are a million books on the specific subject on how, as an unbeliever, to have a conversation with one of these guys - like Eric Hovind or Ray Comfort, etc. They're dishonest - even when shown evidence to the contrary of what they're claiming, they just repeat the same old schtick and backwards rhetoric. I have a lot of acquaintances that are actual apologists, and every time I mention Hovind or comfort, they facepalm themselves and tell me not to bother.
Secondly - a site that promotes itself first and foremost by calling all nonbelievers fools isn't going to carry a lot of weight for a nonbeliever that goes there to read and investigate their claims.Those who would be offended are not the target demographic. Those who have not yet said in their heart there is no god, are. Yes I am very aware that most of the former consider themselves to be the latter, and consider themselves open minded and even "searching". I was not aware of the banner at the time I proposed the link, but also don't deny the verse.
If you don't deny the verse, do you agree? Do you think I'm a fool?
Julie, I am agreeing with the biblical definition, now you will have to tell me if it applies to you. I like you and am not looking to offend you, but do agree with the verse. We can mince words, I suppose, in defining what it means to have "said in your heart there is no God." Would you say that applies to you?
No. I don't say "there is no god". I say that, if a god exists, he sure has gone out of his way to not prove his own existence, and there's no reason for me to believe in him.
Thank you bBerean. It's nice to see you again.
The way I see it, I have offered my personal experiences with God, I even wrote a hub about them. I answered as many questions as I possibly could on every subject presented. I shared Bible verse and evidence offered by scientists and archeologists. I provided a parable and finally an account of a man who didn't even believe in God, who is not only a scientist, but a doctor whose main focus is the brain, who said he saw heaven. He needed not recognition or money... and they scoffed.
I have nothing left to offer. It is with sadness, but unless God tells me to return, I have "unfollowed" these specific threads. I can only pray now.People always ask for prove of God Almighty, The best thing I know is what we all have experienced or will ,rather it be a relative or friend.,and that is we all carry the ability to die. death was a curse on mankind for disobedience of our genealogical parents the first to carry the whole human race. They where told that they could live forever ,and they where given all plant and animals to take care of. If they had obeyed his one and only rule not to eat of the tree of good and bad ,which belonged to God Almighty then they would still be here today. Instead they listen to the serpent ,,satan,fallen angle,,how do we know that God is very much active and is aware of all things is the decree in that time he gave it is still active ,people still die and if not now will in the future, until his word has undone the curse,That was the point of Jesus presence to undo the enemy of us all death. There is no other book that can explain it ,there is no other book with the cure ,Death has touched us all in a painful way,and it is as real as the one who said it ,and who will do away with it.
Death is proof of God ONLY if He exists and the biblical story of creation is correct. This is call circular logic and is worthless as a source of proof or knowledge.
Unfortunately, the rest of your post is more of the same; all of those stories and tales are proof ONLY if He exists and the bible is His word. As neither has any truth to it, the old tales are also nothing but more circular logic and thus worthless as proof.Well death exist, being born exist, that is how we all exist, there is no other book of explanation ,for life and death, it is like saying you do not exist because there is no prove of you. That is not a good logic to me of your answer,
First, there are lots of writings explaining life and death. Even that is no reason to choose one as real and truthful simply because you want an explanation.
You want a true explanation, choose one you like and test it, but don't test it by simply saying it is true because death exists. That death exists is not evidence that ANY of the stories are true, let alone that the Christian God exists.
Worthless is the value to your opinion ,and I respect your right to choice.
What is untruth about being born and birth pangs,and what about the decree that man would sweat to work many days of his life to take care of family, and death is vey real ,all have been said and all is done, I would certainly believe what I see and witness then some one saying none of this is true, when they have no prove that what they say is really no prove.
If that works for you ,you are welcome to the choice.
Being born is truth, yes. The "decree" never happened, though, except in the mind of someone wanting control over others.
The problem occurs when you go from the truth that all people are born to the idea that God caused it; there is no connection outside of the one you make up. The logic does not follow.If the logic does not follow in your mind then that is your case, but for others it can be different,
- And, you seriously do not see that as an obvious fairy tale?
No offense, but that has to remind you of Chicken Little. Thanks for being hilarious.
No, you offered no evidence by anyone, that is an obvious fabrication.
You have offered nothing and continue to offer nothing. Prayer is nothing, too.
This looks like a job for potholer54!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwywMP4Sxgo- Beth37posted 12 years ago0
Once upon a time there were two towns. The first town had all that they needed to survive provided for them. The second lacked food and water.
The second town came to the limits of the first town and screamed, "Give us food and water. We lack them and you have them in abundance!"
The first town scurried to provide meals for the other town and brought them to the city gates as quickly as they could.
The second town yelled, "This is not food! This is garbage! Why would you provide this when we told you of our need?"
The first town answered, "But this is what we feed our children, our elderly and ourselves. You asked and we gave freely."
But the second town hissed at them, "What you feed your children? This is waste! It's not meant for dogs!"
So the first town brought their cook out to speak for them. "I made this food myself. It is high in nutritional value. There is food from every food group. It will fill your stomachs and it is enjoyable to the palette as well."
The second town said, "The cook is not a nutritionist. What does he know! Provide us with a nutritionist who can prove to us that the food is good."
So the first town brought a nutritionist to the front and he spoke. "I can vouch for this food. I know where it was grown. It is healthy, there were no pesticides used and it will be highly beneficial for your health." The second town provided their nutritionist and he claimed the opposite.
"You see?" The second town spewed. "Our nutritionist said your food is worthless. That settles it. Now bring us food!"
The first town was silent. They couldn't understand the reasoning. "But it was you who came to us. You asked for food, we gave you the best we had to offer. Surely without it, you will perish. We only offer it because you asked and we don't want to see any of you lacking... or worse. Please... again, we offer this to you with nothing but concern in our hearts.
The second town was disgusted with the offering. "We tell you again. Give us what we request and stop offering this excrement."
The first town made offering after offering, providing written nutritional information, but the second town only scoffed."
A small child from the first town finally spoke up. "They do not want our food." At this the first town cried, and left for their homes where they gratefully partook of their provisions.One must wonder why the two nutritionists differed - was it something as simple as "Montezuma's Revenge" when visitors to Mexico drink the water? A simple change in preparation would make the food nutritious but although the cook had the ability and knowledge to fix the problem just wouldn't? Town #1 isn't the gracious and helpful people they seem and want town #2 to die out?
Or maybe town #1 really did't know that their food would actually poison town #2 residents? They didn't have the knowledge or ability to feed them after all in spite of their best efforts?Okay. Say a mother insisted that she found on the internet that mixing bleach with her kid's water was a way to prevent all childhood illnesses. When a neighbor came and asked for water, she filled it with bleach and handed it over. The neighbor told her that drinking bleach was unhealthy and sometimes fatal. The mother disagreed, because she found it on the internet and it must be true. Eventually the mother's children died, and the neighbor sobbed because she tried to impart knowledge to prevent the tragedy, but no matter how much support she had, the mother wouldn't listen because she had faith in what she had read and what she had experienced in her own life. She didn't want to look for alternatives or uncover the answer.
Hilarious. Are you seriously comparing your myths and superstitions to something as valuable to humans as food?
I'm assuming this is in response to my question, but can't tell for sure. If not, I apologize. I completely agree with you that there is an element of faith often at play in some of the answers that simply defer to evolution as having already explained this or that, when I have read and know full well what is and isn't 'explained'. I get a lot of that too. And anybody who points to evolution as proof positive that there was no God involved I would ask the same questions of them. What exactly would it look like if God were involved?
My question to you just more had to do with the whole micro versus macro evolution hang-up that I often see in these discussions. I'm not sure why that in particular is such a sticking point. Is that entirely based on the scripture wording where it says 'after their kind'? Or is there more to it than that?What makes you so certain that there isn't any truth to the stories of the bible, or that that decree never happened? Have you tested and ruled them out as a 'true explanation'?
Assuming you are replying to me:
First, yes. There cannot be light without stars; ergo the claim that He made light before stars is false. There isn't enough water to cover the planet; ergo Noah's flood is false.
But that's not the point. The logic seems to be:
1. God created death.
2. Death exists
therefore, God exists.
The logic is flawed as the conclusion is implicit in statement 1. You cannot prove something by simply assuming it is true. My statement about the decree is along those lines; declaring the decree is evidence of God is assuming the conclusion.I agree with your statements regarding the logic. I'm just extending that same logic to your dismissive statements about the bible. Both of you are making assumptions and then drawing conclusions from there. Your assumptions being that there is no truth to the biblical stories.
True critical thinking means questioning everything, every assumption and anything else taken as a 'given' in your thought process. For example, your statements about the creation account and the flood. How much of how you're perceiving what it says is based on what you've always been told it says or is based on how the english translation reads? In any other arena, would the level of critical analysis given towards these texts be adequate reason to dismiss them so flippantly?
Creation for example. Let's remove every pre-conceived notion and assumption, let's remove what anyone else has ever had to say about it, and let's just look at the text itself against the history of the earth, which the text claims to be an explanation of, by using earth's history as science has reconstructed it for context.
Though the creation account doesn't give much detail as far as describing the setting, verse 2 gives some very pertinent information...
Gen1:2 - "And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
That verse describes the condition of the earth at that point by saying the oceans existed. It also establishes God's point of view as being 'upon the face of the waters' when He said in the following verse "Let there be light". Now, it's right about one thing so far, the oceans actually did come first. When the earth first formed, for a long time the surface was way too hot for the water trapped in the atmosphere to condense. During that time, due to the density of the atmosphere, there really wasn't any light reaching the surface, which is the established point of view. When the surface cooled enough for the water to condense into the oceans, this is when light first broke through to the surface. The atmosphere at this point was translucent, allowing light to pass through, but was not yet transparent. So, not only does this point in the earth's history also happen to be when the sun's light was first able to reach the surface, but with a translucent atmosphere you'd have both light/dark, day/night, yet no visible sun/moon/stars. Again, from the surface.
The 'day 4' portion where it says God made the sun/moon/stars comes just between plant life on land and animals on land. There's two things that actually happened during that span of time that correlate directly to what's stated here. The first being that plant life at that point, being in direct contact with the atmosphere, transformed the atmosphere from translucent to transparent. Where before the sun/moon/stars weren't visible, it's at this point in history that they became visible. And, it's also during this stretch of time that the continents drifted from below the planet to between the poles. From the surface, this would mean that not only were the sun/moon/stars now visible, but that they were actually 'positioned' in the sky as described.
The same goes for the flood. The flood being a global thing is assuming a lot, especially considering the authors of that age had no idea what the full scope of 'global' really entailed. Not to mention a global flood would be overkill for such a regionally specific story. Especially a story that takes place in a valley. But beyond that the bible itself tells us there were survivors, which would not be possible in a global flood scenario (Gen6/Num13). Now, none of that necessarily 'proves' anything, but what it should do is illustrate how there's plenty of room for 'reasonable doubt'. At least enough to remove your reasons for dismissing the bible entirely.You have misunderstood: I do not make the claim that the bible is wrong everywhere. It was used only in pointing out that the bible can be true ONLY if God exists and is therefore worthless as proof of his existence. To use it as evidence as God's existence one must first prove that every story (or at least the physically impossible ones) are true - you cannot assume it is, but must prove it.
Creation: Day two, from what you say, God made light. Light without stars, mind you. Day four the stars were created, including the sun. Unless God was burning all the trees on earth the second and third day, these two statements are incompatible.
The flood; Presumably the word of God was that the earth would be flooded. He didn't tell Noah only the valley, or only the portion Noah knew of. He said all of it.
In addition, you cannot even flood the region Noah was in to a depth of anywhere near Mt. Ararat. The water will leave the area through many mountain passes to the Mediterranean, where it will spread world wide. No matter how you twist it, the flood of Noah could be nothing more than a river overrunning it's banks and certainly not anything to require saving all the animals. The biblical story is, at its roots, false then.The prove that God created man ,man exist, God made women ,women exist, he made animals , animals exist, the whole universe recognizes man, and women ,and animals ,we all die ,we all are souls , there is no other book that tells the reality of this , if I did not have a bible I would still have facts, that I could not do all of what it would take to sustain my life and others global. This is the real fact.
Meaning a greater and more powerful person can.
That you won't accept the statement that Odin did it is not proof that God did. Neither is your insistence that a 2,000 year old book tells the only true tale. Nor your claim that no other book does. Not even that there IS no book that tells it all. None of that is proof of God, let alone that He created the earth. You act as if everything is in a book somewhere, that if you read all the books on earth you would necessarily know where the world came from, but it just isn't true.
I can't sustain all life on the planet, either, but nature can. No god needed, no god implied, and certainly life's existence isn't proof of a god. It is only the believer, already convinced that God did it, that will accept any of this as proof. To anyone else they are all just unconnected facts.So far that is the only book that most of all creation has access to, And the only book that is in harmony with life, this book has been preserved so long ,that any attempt to destroy it ,and has failed, and people can not do it today. Yet they change the meaning and twist the meaning, and some just say it is not his words. or it is worthless ,well I will say this, the truth never talks against itself ,no where in that book is there any disrespect of any writer in it towards Almighty God, and if it was mans will there would be no bible. The bible has not only told us our history , it has given wisdom, it has given us prophesy of the past and future and it hold the answers to cure all human kind from sickness and death ,what book today can you go back as far BCE and tell about the world powers, even Alexander the Great,beginning and fall, and what about our time the Anglo American world powers, United States and Britain, how could one mans life span live to see it all happen , he could not, just as each writer did not see all fulfillment of what he was writing ,but it all came true in our time. Revelation is the last book and it is on time. no one could prove any different , they can say what they want but life and experiences proves different.
how far does the book of mormon go to ! does it go back before BCE?
does it tell what our future holds, why would it be named book of mormon, since all humans inhabit this planet? the bibles history goes beyound that.You claimed that the Bible is the only book that all of creation has access to, and I demonstrated that was incorrect. Additionally, I don't know many whales or gorillas that have access to a Bible, yet they are part of creation.
You see if you really where a bible reader or knew somthing about it ,it would tell you about world powers and thier rise and fall, you would know where we are now in the stream of time. and that each goverment that has ruled had a set number of time to rule.
I know that each Christian denomination interprets "prophecies" differently, doesn't agree on the book of revelation and has been proven wrong at predicting the end of the world for over two thousands years - and each generation has claimed that they were living in the end times. I'm asking you to prove your interpretation is correct.
I thought you already knew.. Her interpretation is correct because she spoke it.. Any different opinions are from those who don't really believe in God (regardless of if they follow the bible)
Of course. I forgot. The notorious "I'm right because I said so, and how dare you disagree with me because I'm so, so right defense". I must have had a brain fart and forgotten who I was talking to.
Do they? I know that there are some differences on governance but I thought most denominations interpreted the Messianic prophecies largely the same.
I'm not talking about Messianic prophecies - Christians interpret the Old Testament a lot differently than the people who wrote the Old Testament and the people for whom it was written - a fact that I've never been fully able to reconcile. How do Christians get away with Cherry Picking the Hebrew scriptures to fit it to their story after the fact - and do you know how easy that is to do?
Look at a horoscope. It's vague intentionally, yet if you find something that fits, or you work to MAKE it fit, it's a miracle and it's so true. Does that not seem a bit backwards in any other sphere apart from religion?
I was more referring to the book of Revelation - and how all christian denominations have a different idea of the end of the world. We have pre-trib, post-trib and mid-trib interpretations, for example. Some denominations believe that revelation referred to Nero's Rome, and it's already taken place. Others are convinced that the end times are upon us - and have been for over 2000 years. History is ripe with various christians predicting the end of the world - and failing repeatedly. You can find things in the book of Revelation that can be interpreted to mean anything at any time, and it's been that way since Revelation was finally included in the Canon - it and the book of John (if I recall correctly) were the most hotly debated books for inclusion in the new testament because a lot of christians didn't agree with them THEN - and nothing's changed.Cherry-picking? Those who actually study the OT are in pretty broad agreement about a lot of the Messianic prophecies. I think the cherry-picking charge is a little overstated.
And yes, I'm familiar somewhat with how Jews differ from Christians in their interpretations of OT prophecies. I find it fascinating.
For me, the fact that there can be such disagreement (and again, I think it's a bit overstated to say that you can find something that can mean anything at any time) is the best indication that these things haven't happened yet. It's easy to get carried away with them. There are people who make their living off of dissecting Revelations and you can get so caught up in it that you lose focus on daily Christian living. But I think that that by itself is not really a good argument against believing in the Bible. A colorful backstory doesn't make it untrue.
Well first it is not my interpretation ,and I will answer the question when I post again, later today, when I come back. Sorry I do wish to argue ,so the last response was not needed!
What do you mean, its not your interpretation? You found an interpretation that you agree with, ignoring the fact that there are over forty thousand different denominations of christianity, and none of them agree. That means you are picking one interpretation and running with it, not because its trite but because its one you were either taught to believe or discovered for yourself. Its still your interpretation. Saying that its the "right" one doesn't automatically make it true, you know. And you suggested that I had never read the Bible or I would know this stuff, hence the last comment. I have read it, and I've read hundreds of different interpretations of it none of which agree.
It's not her interpretation because it comes straight from the bible.. JM, Please remember who you are speaking with.
Which Bible? They're all a bit different. She must have gotten hers faxed down from heaven. After all, hers is the only "true" version, and hers is the only "true" interpretation.
Shorthand:
Don't agree with any of that.
Read the bible daily.
You're going to say I'm not a Christian now.
You, of course, speak for all Christianity
I'd bring up my famous red car analogy... but you wouldn't get it.
Going back to work now.- I just fell in love with you just this second
see? This is why I don't usually fall for guys. They lead you on and then fall for someone else.
LOL I couldn't even type that sentence with a straight (no pun intended...okay, maybe a little bit) face.
Julie, Melissa and I have been saying that for the longest! I think now that there are three certain votes FOR that we should get to work.
can I bring my wife? I am rather in love with her, and I don't want her to feel left out. She's a preschool teacher - she sleeps a lot of the time, and I don't think she would be a bother.
Hey that's it... I can bring my wife!!!!!!!!!!! I'm in right?
Of course! We're bringing our husbands...who oddly enough, look like they could be brothers. Interesting, huh? We'll make every spouse and SO feel welcome.
Crap, I just know I'm going to be left out of this one. Perhaps you'll need me around as a protector, well, I'm not very good at that. Perhaps you'll need a bread winner, no... I'm not very good at that either. Crap, I got nothin.
I can be your armed security.. There's nothing to fear from arms.. It's the hands...LOL
Men are such pigs. Deepes you should be ashamed of yourself. Now, go away and let US be.
Hey.. You called me a pig.. now you're sounding like some others here...LOL
No use trying to turn against me to get on the girls' good side... but good move!!Silly boys. No fighting. You're all already on our good side. No painful political machinations are necessary. Sheesh.
He started it .. Tried to throw me under the bus
It was nothing personal. Greed is a terrible thing when left unchecked. You should really get your act together.
Then you're both going in time out till you can work it out.
You started it an now we are both in the corner. See what you did?
Enough. Three Italian wives, two of whom are Italian mamas, are likely to have easy access to wooden spoons with which to beat you if you don't tone it down!
Likely? Crap, the way my wife describes her childhood I'd say it likely all right.
Spoons? That's novel.
I have antique cast-iron skillets. (Because I love the feel of steel wool apparently) If they are REALLY lucky, I'll empty the food from them first.It's not like I've never been hit in the head with a cast iron frying pan before. No Italians needed, just an older sister. Let me tell you that after that there was not a headed barbie to be found.
I think a solid beating with a cast iron frying pan certainly earns a few Barbie decapitations. Seems only fair.
Hey.. Sometimes barbie has to pay for the sister's transgressions...lol
So, Eve looked like Barbie. Is that what you're saying?!
Well, I'm not saying that per se, but sometimes barbie and ken ended up naked more often than not...LOL
Most of the girls I knew had WAY more naked barbies than clothed ones. There's a sick truth in there somewhere.My sister once tried to make me play barbies. She only tried once because Ken was naked within seconds and chasing headless barbie around.
Sorry, that was not a personal attack, but it certainly was a slanderous attack on a gender and I should and would be deeply ashamed if I didn't know it was in fact true.
Now we are getting somewhere. Take the guy out of the picture, sorry Deepes.
Of course.. Not trying to muscle in on your territory.. I'm spoken for too, Right Julie?? Julie knows she's the only one for me here..
She isn't going to say you're not a Christian.. just that you worship a different God. You could very well follow Christ though
Great advice from Ms, MB, it is better to read for yourself. And for others who are interested I will post a hub on the subject .if they are interested in the info ,they can read what the bible has to say .
We already what the Bible has to say, that's the point.
A warning, love. The force is strong in this one.
the force? I will hold my tongue and not expand on which force that is.
Nonsense, the Bible tells us of no such things, you're just making that all up.
No, the Griant Spaghetti Monster created man and I have proof. Man exists therefore the Griant Spaghetti Monster must have created it. I have a book as evidence.
The whole universe has no idea we are here, that's the sillies comment I've read in a while.Did you also know, as a fact, that there are many gods who have many followers, maybe not as much as Christianity, but they do take their religions very seriously, maybe even more serious than some Christians. They too have their holy books describing how their god made the universe, men, women, unicorns, etc. and firmly believe it just as much as you believe your gods version.
Yes, I know you'll say their god is false and yours is valid, but the funny thing is that they will say your god is false. Then, the conflicts begin. But, I digress.
You see, that's how all religions work, their followers believe the doctrine taught to them and they apply it accordingly. Check out the Muslims who come here and tell us all about the scientific facts contained in the Quran and how Allah made the universe.
There's a long line of gods before and after you. Good luck with those facts.
This is why I quoted your statements where you directly said it was false. That's what I was addressing.
Notice it doesn't say God created light. It says 'let there be light'. And it just so happens that there actually was a time in earth's history, before land, where the oceans existed and the atmosphere was too dense for light to get through. It's also in that same age as the oceans were forming that light was first able to reach the surface of the planet. This lines right up with what that second verse says rather well, not to mention being in the right place chronologically when compared to the rest of the chapter.
It's the level of assumptions I'm trying to point out. If you didn't already have pre-conceived opinions about these texts, if you were studying these texts like you would any other ancient document, then I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so quick to make such sweeping assumptions to base your dismissal of it on. Like your assumption that the line 'let there be light' must mean that's when God created light. Or in your statement that 'presumably the word of God was that the earth would be flooded'. You're right, presumably. Like in the text itself. Bible translators make assumptions too. That's why the same word translated as 'land' everywhere else in the bible is translated in the flood account as 'the earth'. We, with our modern eyes, read 'earth' to mean the whole globe. But why? Would Noah have any idea what that even means? To people in that age the 'whole earth' was from one horizon to the other. The same goes for 'Mt. Ararat'. If you look into it you'll see that 'Ararat' is a range of mountains and is even used to describe hilly regions of that area. The actual Mt. Ararat was actually named after the one in the bible, again based on assumptions that that tall mountain right there must have been the one.
Besides, we know there were some pretty significant floods in that region. The Sumerians wrote about it too. And there's evidence of one in particular that ended the Ubaid culture in the Sumerian city of Ur very abruptly around 4000 BC.
I agree with you that you can't prove something by assuming something is true. What I'm trying to point out is that you're dismissing things by making assumptions as well. A lot of people do. Anything and everything that's taken as a 'given' is most often an assumption of some kind that must be evaluated as well. I'm just trying to point that out.?? From the KJV, Genesis 1,3
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Now you can read that differently as you wish, but to me it very plainly says there was light.
Genesis 1,4 confirms this once more:
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Once more, you can change the word meaning to anything you like but I shall take it as it reads: God saw the light and did something with it. It existed, and it existed 2 days before verse 14 indicates the "lights in the sky" were formed.
Floods in the area, absolutely. Floods covering the entire known landscape to mountaintop depth? Never - as I mention it will drain to the sea long before it gets that deep. Does this mean that a part of the valley was 20' deep and no animals or people needed saving but for those few in that small part of Noahs existence?Right, there was light. First it says God created the heavens (sun/moon/stars) and the earth, then it says that from the surface of the earth, God said "Let there be light". Understand, according to the scientifically constructed account, the massive amounts of gas and water vapor squeezed out by accretion trapped in the atmosphere blocked any light from a not as bright sun from reaching the surface. When the planet surface cooled enough the water vapor in the atmosphere condensed into oceans. For a time the planet was exactly as it's described.. "darkness was upon the face of the deep". When light first broke through that atmosphere and lit the surface of this planet, that was a significant event. It's the first time sunlight reached the surface since there was a surface to shine on. After millions of years of darkness. And that sunlight played a significant role in everything that came after, including the oxygenated atmosphere and the earth's water cycle during 'day 2'. This book describes that significant event. On a human level, from a human perspective. Light, no longer blotted out by a dense opaque atmosphere, refracted in the translucent not yet oxygenated atmosphere and lit up the dome of the sky, but the heavens, though they were already there, were not yet visible. So there was only light/dark, day/night.
If there's one thing that humans have understood since the dawn of reason, it's that the light of day comes from the sun. I get how you're reading it. It's how I read it most of my life and how everyone else reads it. You imagine God 'miracling' everything into place. So you form your own ideas, or you adopt the ideas learned from others, and that's how it reads to you. Is it coincidence that there really was a time when the earth was covered in oceans and shrouded in darkness? And that next came a cycle of nights/days, dark/light? Read it and imagine it being described to someone standing on the ground looking up at the sky. It describes the whole story as if watching it happen in front of you.
As for the flood.....
Effects of the Curvature of the Earth
Because of the curvature of the earth, the horizon drops from where the viewer is standing. However, the drop is proportional to the square of the distance between the viewer and an object on the horizon (Young nd). From these relationships, it can be seen that a tribal chief (or Noah) standing on the deck of a large boat (Ark), perhaps 7.8 meters above the water,would not be able to see the tops of any hills as high as 15 m from as little as 24 km away across flood plains covered with water because the curvature of the earth prevents it (See the Appendix for examples of calculations). Most hills in this region that are as much as 15 m high are more than 95 km away from the river levees. Therefore, the survivors of the Flood could see only water in all directions while they were floating down the Tigris River and over the flood plains. Many of these hills would also be partly covered with water which would make their tops project less above the water level, and therefore, the curvature of the earth would make them disappear from the line of sight in even a shorter distance than 24 km.
Northeast and southwest of the nearly flat surface that contains the two rivers, the topography rises to more than 455 m in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. Calculations show that elevations of 455 m high cannot be seen beyond 86 km away, and these places are more than 160 km from the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers. Therefore, none of the high country in Saudi Arabia or Iran would be visible to a tribal chief (or Noah). On that basis, the "whole world" would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the "whole world" for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time.
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl … hole-earth
To be honest, however, it would be dumb to completely rule out the myth of Noah's Flood, because every major ancient culture has a flood myth. This is easily explained, though:
Since the dawn of man, we've lived beside bodies of water. It makes sense to do so. Now, roughly 8,000-12,000 years ago, the last ice age came to an end, with glaciers melting and raising the Earth's sea levels. In some places, the change was gradual. In others, the change was OH MY GOD EVERYBODY RUN. The flooding hits every major society of the time--after all, they live right by the water--and so legends get passed down by ancient peoples, about how their ancestors survived the great flood that wiped everything out, whether with help from the gods or by their own cunning.
If you lived more than 50 miles inland, however, you'd just think everyone was crazy.it is not the only book that most of all creation has access to. It is not even the only RELIGIOUS book that most of creation has access to. Anyone can get a free copy of the book of mormon, if they ask for it. The Koran is widely circulated. How do you claim that others try to change the meaning and twist the meaning, when your interpretation of the book is just that - an interpretation - and there's no reason for any of us (or anyone in general) to take your interpretation any more seriously than anyone elses. There are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity, and almost all of them claim to be correct - and they all disagree with each other on points. The bible has not told us history - it has told us legends of history. The majority of the "prophecies" in the bible are so vague that the could be tailor fit into anything - and often are. It holds no answers to cure people from sickness, and it is impossible to cure someone from death. Where does the bible talk about Alexander the Great or the Anglo American world powers? If the majority of the bible took place 2000+ years ago, how can you see that it all came true in our time? Even christians debate the book of revelation - and it almost wasn't included in the biblical canon at all. It was vehemently debated by the early church, and a lot of the church fathers never believed it was divinely inspired. Your comment falls short of the truth - and the mark.
Um... I gots a big place, but I don't know that it's THAT big.
Do they sell bunk queen beds?- Deepes Mindposted 12 years ago0
Rad is a Graphic designer and I'm pretty good with my hands I'm sure we can design and put some togetherHa ha ha. Reminds me of Fast Times at Ridgemount High. Penn wreaks his friends brothers car and say "Don't worry my Dad's a TV repair man"
Shit, we'll live in tents when the weather's good.
And, if need be, we'll just find a bigger place. Or build one.
Believing that God IS The Pink Unicorn and Not The Pink Unicorn is the exact same thing.
Is that the way it works?JMcFarland posted " .... Don't assume that atheists don't know what the bible says about prophecy, etc. I have had over 15 years of studying the bible, ..."
JMcFarland I have a Serious question. With all sincerity Are there any religious colleges that teach anything other than the futurist view? And if not, why not?As an aside, because I fail at all things academic...
Can anyone remember the names of the scientists that created organic protein strands from the primordial ooze... it was back in the '60's I believe.I browsed through this post, it may have some of them. I'm not up to date on the abiogenesis studies, although I read about them a long, long time ago when I was in college.
Yeah, me too although like I said evolutionary biology is way over my head... The gist, if I remember was that they did create organic from inorganic and it was repeatable.
My Google skills are failing me.
It has nothing to do with evolution at all, but I found it relevant to one of this guy's arguments.while i read up on the current journals on evolutionary biology, I don't focus a lot on abiogenesis. I find it ultimately irrelevant to a lot of arguments. Even if you can prove that a first-cause was necessary (which you can't) you cannot make the leap from a first cause to the personal god of the bible without gigantic leaps and bounds and basically just "saying" that it is that god. Ultimately, that argument gets you nowhere, and circular arguments annoy the crap out of me. I focus on the one that I can actually argue against that make a difference - although when dealing with cut, copy and paste gurus like this, it all becomes a gigantic waste of time. I want to argue/debate with someone who has something of their own to say - not just copying and pasting other people work - even when those other people are the laughingstock of the people they claim to represent.
what about this: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … hesis.html
Miller and Urey? Are they what you refer to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2% … experiment
3rd result of a search for "artificial organic protein from primordial soup"
They made a "primordial soup", heated it and simulated lightning; the results were more than 20 organic compounds being formed. Not necessarily proteins, though...That's it.
I was going from memory... I didn't try that specific set of keywords. The force is strong in you, young Skywalker.LoL More like Darth Vader, I fear, or Palpatine. Old, withered and now gone forever.
Seriously... if this is the best material you all can come up with for to blackmail someone you are a sad sorry lot.
My conclusion: The atheists on here are just too damn boring... and the Christians are as boring because their excitement at the atheist's boring behavior.
You all need to get naked with a twister board, baby oil and a package of skittles. Now THAT's blackmail material... not that I would know of course (hides skittles)C'mon now. I asked you to keep that to yourself.
Sheesh.Bisexual skittle hunting naked baby-oil twister playing pole-dancers for Christ.
Now THAT'S how you make converts.
Edit: I'm going to hell.I hear its warm, and you'll be in fantastic company.
Seeing Hendrix live (well you know what I mean) alone would be worth it.
Is that how it works? Cool! For some reason I find comfort in that the only people going to hell will be the ones telling others that they will.
That's a great wary to look at it.
I always said that I wasn't to end up in the opposite place than the westboro nuts. If they're going to hell, I'd really rather not.
HMMM... a born again virgin, a former nun, a lesbian atheist with a huge crush on me, naked twister, baby oil, AND Skittles?? NOW it's a party!!! and the possible opening to a huge joke...LOL
You know I like you and all Deepes, but we don't need you for this. I've got this covered.
Oh no you're not cutting me out of this one!!
Well, one of us is not participating. I'm not a fan of crossing swords.
Handicap tag match.. we tag in and out when we get tired...LOL. Hey, It can work
What makes you think either of you would survive long enough to tag out?
It's a win- win for me.. Either I survive to tag out so i can come back for more or i can go out with a HUGE smile on my face... I'll take those odds
That's what I'm talking about, Melissa. I don't think these guys understand the depths of what they're committing themselves to.
Swords? I think the girls were thinking it was a cups only thing.
I guess you could take pictures...thanks to all for reaffirming my gayness. I collect swords. I don't want to see guys crossing them - metaphorically or literally. I'm going to just be over here with my skittles, kthanks.
I'm pretty sure if I were a women I'd be gay as well.
I highly recommend it. Its fantastic. It must just be me pushing my "liberal gay agenda" whatever that is.
Well that's what you guys are all about right - trying to convert the world?
You know, I always hear guys say that if they were women, they'd be gay, but I've never heard a woman say that if she was a man, she'd be gay. Just goes to show that women are better and everyone really does want us!
See? I figured it out so there would be no sword crossing.. I'd totally be a lesbian.. Maybe JM would totally find me even hotter...LOL
There is not anything expressive enough to convey the sound of my current facepalm.
LolYou know, he's gone to great length to work all this out. It would be just rude to disappoint him.
Don't worry.. I heard it way over here.. But I also hear the laughter.. Just stay away from the Dr Pepper while in front of your computer.
What's not to understand? The Deepes Mind jumped in the deep...LOL, But in my defense, Melissa planted the seed.. I just watered it and fertilized it...LOL
Hey, JM.. Welcome to the party.. Rad has the oil... Skittles?
I'm just going to sit over here and watch. I'm having a rough week.
The week isn't over yet.. It will get better, my friend.. See? That's why I'm here.. You're having a bad week.. Now tell me that I'm not making you laugh at least a little which should (hopefully) brighten your day at least a little.
Then again you might feel better if you join in the festivities...LOL.. Think about it again.. Baby oil, skittles, you , Melissa, Mo, me and Rad doing camera and lighting work.. It would be fun!!
I have tightened my chastity belt by three notches since this conversation started.
Air can't even get in there anymore.
Oh dear.
I'm trying to figure out if that's funny or frightening. I'm going to need some time with this one.LOL!!! Now THIS is funny!! I thought that air already didn't get in there.. of course, this raises a couple of questions, but I'm leaving it alone..
On another note.. I'm ok with the tightening of the chastity belt, but remember that disney world does not shut down simply because the teacups is shut down for maintenancequeef
And I do believe that the first time I've ever typed that word... I shall never be typing it again.I have been avoiding certain threads... I just saw your name, Melissa, and wanted to say hi. What a very odd word to happen upon. Have a good day.
Beth, don't avoid us....we're too much fun!
Hey Beth.. We've missed you in some of the forims
Hi hon!
In my defense, the word was relevant.
That's pretty scary in and of itself, but it WAS relevant.
Added to my list of words you don't expect to see in a religious debate thread.
LOL!!I think this is the first time that word has been uttered in the forums.. Congrats melissa!!
This is the text equivalent of what I've heard in some churches.. LOL..
See? it would have worked..
Side note- I think up some of the wildest stuff huh? I guess my name fits in this context...LOL
OMG!!! What happened to this thread since I left?
You people are all going straight to hell!
Have a good day.We know, we know. I think it's well out of our control at this point. The conversation that is.
It's all Melissa's fault...LOL.. But this conversation has gotten out of hand, but fun!
First we have Rad thanking God for stuff.. now we have Getit condemning us to hell!! Now all that's left is Julie speaking in tongues on the forums...LOL
Djwkfodhahufrhakfkvhsozjx
That is the language of forehead meeting keyboard.
You don't have to take it as proof, or evidence that's the point...I don't believe in god in the traditional sense, but I know for a fact that there is something out there greater than the finite I. no matter what you call it God, The Source, the Unified Field, or whatever religion you may subscribe to. It's a fact and proven by science. Do I believe that the scriptures are %100 accurate? No! but is there some truth? Yes! What is is and no proof is required.
Ho ho ho! Here we go again, RM. Nice to be back, huh.
Evidence is what atheists and non-believers may always ask for and demand. When given scientific proofs and evidence, they crumble and are lost in their confusion and in their pride. Rejection is not their cup of tea. Who do you think has a greater influence in upholding one's pride than what is true, noble and righteous? Again, do not be deceived by the one who comes in woolen clothing but out to devour you.
The more we avoid the lighted path in Christ, the more we become blinded in our pride. It has happened to me before, in my pride, until I have seen the light. And my complete healing in the fullness of God's love in the Holy Spirit is no coincidence, as it is never a coincidence in those who have learned to believe. This I strongly believe as it has happened in my life and in my faith, and I continue to see this in others, being healed in God's radiant light. And I have learned to believe in what is true in God's words, this I live to proclaim.
Alas, only those who may renew in Christ, may see this too, be they Atheists, agnostics or non-believers, I still pray for you.
The seeds of evil may have come upon us in the hardened hearts of our ancestors, but by prayer, in true repentance and renewal, nothing and nobody can ever be greater or more powerful than the Holy Spirit, our Advocate in Christ, if only we believe, that as we may abide in Him, freed from our guilt and from any malice in our hearts, He may abide in us.You got nothing either? Can't find one stitch of evidence, not one. Pathetic.
I will thank you to not preach to me again or I'll being to do the same to you.May 14, 2013 thread response RM, memory recall assist:
"You can see Dr. Castanon, the scientist himself, and now a convert from being a former atheist, with clear descriptions and illustrations explaining in detail his findings, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn3JsdSwxfE. What else is there to see? If you deny the truth, what does that make of you, JMF, gert, DM, relevant or irrelevant, rational or irrational, humble to accept what is true or prideful as to be conceited?
I pray that you may be guided by what is true in the humility of your heart and not what evil may cast in your mind in your pride and ego."And right after you posted it the FIRST time, we all told you that a YouTube video is not the Equivalent of a scientific, peer reviewed, tested and demonstrable journal or experiment - something that you have yet to provide. I could make a video this second, claiming to be a devout Christian and fake speaking in tongues. Does that make it automatically true to you? How do you just ignore all of the.responses that you don't like and then assert that we never answered you? that's not honest.
No wonder, how one can become so engrossed in one's ego, defending what is absurd as not to see the meaning of being truthful.
Again, Dr. Castanon is risking his credibility as a scientist in this video posted in public that all may judge and see for themselves what is true in his own investigation, and you are risking your credibility as one who shares in what is supposed to be true, JMF.
Are you telling me that it's better to lie to yourself than accept what is true in the eyes of man? No offense meant, JMF, just being truthful in my views, always meant to help enlighten.I'm not defending anything, let alone my ego. You're the one making the claim, and since you seem to misrepresent these words, how about we start with some definitions.
Proof: overwhelming preponderance of evidence
Evidence: factual situation that is concurrent our concordant with only one available option over another.
Fact: point of data which is either not in dispute or is indisputable in that it is verifiable accurate and does not depend on "faith"
According to these definitions, you have nothing. You do not have facts, you have YouTube videos making claims which have not been subjected to falsifiability or the peer review process. You do not have independent analysis. You do not have impartial testing, and you have no publications of the findings.
You do not have evidence. There are a multitude of possible explanations, and you choose to attribute it to a god without any justification.
Without facts or evidence, you cannot possibly claim to have proof.Just out of curiosity.......?
Does that review process include a ruler?
Yes that's right. That's what God does instead of feeding the hungry. He makes paintings and statues bleed and turn into salt.
And oh my friend he has an agenda.How many people have lost their lives and their jobs because of pride and greed? Ho ho ho. And it is rather unfortunate atheists continue to live in their pride and refuse to accept Dr. Castanon's explanation of this scientific investigation or presentation of this truth.
If only we truly believe in helping others, let not our tongue do the feeding, rather our hearts in accepting what is true in our selves and about ourselves.
If you truly love others, then why do you have to deny the truth about yourselves and in the fact that anything alive cannot simply come from nothing? There has to be a greater being or a Creator that made all of us and our surroundings in beautiful co-existence and in great harmony with nature, with both science and technology enhancements further supporting God's awesome presence and love for us, for "with God all things are possible."
No evidence will satisfy the prideful, for they have a hardened mind. Here is a wikipedia link for an unbiased and independent reporting of Eucharistic miracles and the like, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle. Whether you more open to believe this or not is not my problem anymore as it is not my problem anymore if you continue to believe in falsehood and fallacy about your prideful understanding of life? For sure you will discard it as evidence or proof, you being skeptics and would no less believe in others more than what the prideful may share meaningless whisper in your ears.
Will share more with you later as I may see fit sharing to help enlighten, but definitely, it is not for the prideful, but for the humble in hearts and spirit - for I know, the prideful will remain so with hardened minds, thinking they have better control of themselves when they have not, as they may continue to deny their faults and their weaknesses - but those who have learned to humble themselves, may see their renewed life in Christ a happier and truthful experience.
Only when people, whether believers or not in God's existence, are humbled in affliction and near death, will many who remain lost cry out for the truth in their sadness, grief and emptiness in their hearts.
In the everlasting love and mercy of our Lord God, He sends us many signs in our life that we may know that He wants us back to Him in Jesus.
In humble prayer, may more be saved from the fangs of evil hiding from our very ego, onto the lighted path of Christ.Nobody said it did. At least I didn't. BTW, so everything alive needs a beginning, while God doesn't? This argument is getting old.
Ever hear of the Guinea Worm? Why would you think a God would create such a creature? To torture the poor?I assume you are including theists as well as atheists in this question. Failure to do so would be to show a measure of arrogance as well as pride that could very well lead in you losing your life and/or job.
What you accept in your heart to be true only applies to YOUR life and is dependent upon your experiences. As such, Your experiences do not apply to everyone else because each one of us has our own experiences in life that shapes our idea and our acceptance of what is best for our lives. You cannot apply a blanket principle of what applies to your life to everyone else's
With the statement that no evidence will satisfy the prideful, I would assume that this means that you are willing to admit that your beliefs could be wrong and that you would be willing to accept any evidence (if can be provided) that your version and idea of God is wrong. Failure to be willing to admit this would be to contradict yourself which would lower your credibility as well as to place you into the same prideful mindset that you mentioned above but are attempting to project onto others.
I hope that this prayer also is applied to yourself because this comment is full of prideful and egotistical ramblings. You are not exempt from the things that you are directing toward us so please make sure you are applying the teachings of Matthew 7:1-5 while responding.
For the rest of you... you know what I'm thinkingExcellent, does that mean you'll stop posting that ridiculous link? If so, thanks muchly.
yes, multiple times in several languages. Why?
fluently these days? Probably passable latin. 10 years ago, I could read fluent Hebrew and Greek as well. I could probably get by with a book or two to help.
Thank you. I worked very hard for a very long time to be able to say that.
I can appreciate that. I spent a year attempting to teach myself some basic Greek and was able to translate a little (a very, very little) but once the, well, you know, hit the fan with my wife's illness I stopped and now I can't remember any of it.
It's hard work.How are you doing anyway? I can't imagine how rough it must be. Is there anything any of us can do to help out?
Well, for those who are believers prayer is always appreciated. Other than that, just knowing that people care is a tremendous blessing. Thank you.
Ok if you have read the bible several times and you are not convinced that Jesus is the only way to God then it is hard to convince you. To believe is by faith and everything you read in the bible is also that you have to believe it by faith.
Try and read " Why Jesus" or "Jesus among other God's" and maybe this will give you a bit of insight.I have read both of those things. That's the problem. I'm not going to believe something solely on "faith". If I believe in something because i know it to be true, it's because I have knowledge, not faith. There is no better reason to "choose Jesus" than there is to choose Allah, or Krishna or any other deity proposed by anyone else - and there is simply no evidence for any of them. Until you can demonstrate that a particular god claim is true, and provide evidence to back up your claim, then there's no reason for me to consider it.
Every event in the bible you can proof. Today there is still evidence where Jesus walked and lived and preached.
Again, just because New York City exists does not mean that Spiderman exists. Knowing that the real places listed in the Bible were once real places, or continue to be real places today does not mean that the stories that supposedly took place there were true. Additionally, some stories in the bible you CAN'T prove. For example: You cannot prove that the Exodus out of Egypt ever happened. In fact, there is no record of mass quantities of Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt to begin with. You cannot prove that god caused the falling walls in Jericho. You cannot prove that a man was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, nor can you prove that he rose from the dead. You have to take it ALL on faith - and I'm not someone that just believes everything I read.
That's why it will be difficult to convince you because you do not believe all the stories you read.
I believe and I am convinced and having Jesus in my life has changed me and my life.Do you believe all of the stories that you read without any corroborating evidence? Does that apply to everything - or JUST the Bible?
I'm glad you've found something that makes you a better person. I've done the same, but for me it's understanding and excepting reality that makes me a better person. I've found focusing on the moment to be the best way get me through life. But you go ahead and live your fantasy if it make you feel better. But please understand that to each his own.
Exactly, which is why we don't let faith lead our lives, it only leads to delusion of myths.
As long you are happy with your believe system then it is fine. I am happy and the bible teaches me not to lie. If you read everything Jesus did in the New Testament and everything He said, then you will see that He was and is LOVE
I don't have a "belief system" not do I need one to be happy. I'm happy to love my life the best that I can, to help others and keep studying to improve my knowledge.
If you say that everything in the Bible can be proven, that is not true. I don't know if I'd call it a willful lie, but it certainly isn't the truth.
Sure love and worship me or burn in hell. Human sacrifice right along with cannibalism. Is that the stuff of love?
Cannibalism? The humans sacrifice stuff is pretty tenuous at best but cannibalism?
He may be referring to the Catholic belief and practice of the Eucharist.
No worries. To be fair, as a Calvinist, that may never have occurred to Chris, especially since he isn't an ex-Catholic, but has been raised in a Calvinist tradition. They don't have certain bells and whistles that are found in Catholic worship.
Transubstantiation, what would you call it?
Well, I don't believe the Bible actually teaches Transubstantiation. Being Prod, I was never taught Immaculate Conception or Transubstantiation and don't see how the Bible does either.
Or human sacrifice.Your bible doesn't say this?
"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. He also took a cup. He thanked God for it. Then he gave it to them. They all drank some of it. Then he said to them, `This is my blood. It is given for many people. It makes the agreement strong."
Was Jesus not sacrificed for all of mankind?But, Rad, don't you know that is the only chapter of the Bible that is meant as a metaphor. The rest is all literal, but John Chapter 6 is just a metaphor - despite the fact that when scrutinized about it, Jesus did not say it was a parable. He didn't explain the imagery. He just said that it was a hard teaching. And people walked away from him because of it. Creation story - literal. Exodus - literal. John Chapter 6 - a metaphor, according to everyone except the Catholics and the Orthodox denominations of Christianity.
LOL Mo, you made my day.
On a serious note, however , I do have a question about literal vs. figurative that I would like to get your/chris' opinion on.
I've seen a pattern from other believers on the forums and in real life that is kind of amusing and kind of disturbing all at once. We know that Jesus (according to the bible, at least) spoke in a lot of hyperbole and used parables a lot, so that's a given. But when some people point out problems that they have with a passage, etc, I've seen believers say "well that's a parable' or "that's not literal" or "that IS literal". How do you know? How do you figure out what's literal and what's figurative, since it doesn't seem to be standard or universal and (from what I've seen) it seems to fluctuate on a daily basis depending on the context of the argument and the christian you ask. I just wanted to get your take on it. Some believers think that the creation story is literal, some think it's figurative. If there are figurative parts of the bible, how do you decide which is which?Here's what I think - and it's not even a matter of which Christian you ask, or at least it shouldn't be. When Jesus spoke in parables, He was very careful to explain that He was doing just that. If people were confused, He would clarify. If people spoke up and said they didn't understand, Jesus very carefully explained the imagery so that the parable/metaphor could be understood by those to whom He was speaking. A good number of the parables He used were actually illustrations of everyday things in the lives of the people of His time for the express purpose of illustrating the love of God in terms of human action, only on a far greater scale. John Chapter 6 is one place where He, in no uncertain terms, was speaking literally. People asked Him what He meant. Surely that isn't what you mean. He didn't clarify anything. He left the teaching out there for exactly what it was, and He actually allowed people who refused to accept it to walk away. He never called any of those people back to Him and said, "Oh wait! What I really meant was..."
In regard to what I personally (and my Church also) take as figurative, well, even then, as evidenced by the parables, etc.. there was an element of common sense. Pictures were painted because while the science may not have been developed, the language had, and it was the only tool humanity had in terms of truly understanding the universe. I don't think people got dumb enough to think the earth was actually created in 7 24-hour periods until much later. I don't think at all that the ancient peoples of the Bible were nearly as dumb as we think they were. In fact, I think they were probably a helluva lot smarter about a LOT of things. I think they specifically used metaphors and imagery and parables to communicate with language (which they were good at) the things that weren't easily understood.
And then, it's a simple matter of those who don't understand the simple facts about Scripture. How many people do you know who throw out laws from Leviticus to show how cruel God was. But how many of those same people know that THOSE laws were not for all of God's people - they were specifically given to the priestly tribe - the Levites. Therefore, they were never intended for the other eleven tribes of Israel, and they were especially not meant for the Gentiles. Christians AND those in opposition to them make that mistake all the time.and THAT I perfectly understand about Leviticus. It's a amazing to me how many christians point to Leviticus when they're condemning homosexuality - and in THOSE cases, I feel perfectly justified in saying "if you eat shrimp or are wearing a cotton/poly blend, you really have no room to talk". I understand that leviticus was a set of laws given to the Levites, but no matter how hard you try to explain that to fundamentalists, they don't care. They're perfectly content cherry picking the laws that they want to still be true as opposed to the laws that they no longer have to follow because of Jesus.
The problem I have is that once you start going backwards and saying the creation story was "clearly" a metaphor (that even a lot of christians don't understand today), how do you know that the crucifixion/resurrection was literal? I know that biblically jesus was parable man, which is why a lot of christians don't believe in hell, while others seem eager to send everyone there except themselves. When you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, however, I think figurative vs literal interpretations becomes a slippery slope, depending on what side of the aisle you fall on.The "law" of the Old Testament is not valueless to Christians, but we were never meant to live according to it, unless we are of Jewish descent. I heard a great speech by a Christian author who made the excellent point once that God does not have a covenant with the United States of America - His covenant is with the nation of Israel. Part of what makes that whole argument about the US being a "Christian" nation a bunch of malarkey. And, if in fact, a person chooses to observe ANY of the OT law, they should rightfully observe ALL of it.
The real value and meaning of the OT for Christians lies in the prophecy and the illustrations of the benefits of trusting God.
I guess in terms of the crucifixion and resurrection, it has to do with the way the story is told. It is told as an actual event - something that DID happen - and again, not explained as a metaphor by Jesus. Not explained as imagery by any of the people who told the story. Regarding hell, I've always found it impossible that the God of the Bible, who sent Jesus to show His mercy, can't realistically be expected to send His own children to a fiery, eternal torment. A place where they are separated from Him, sure - because in His love and mercy, I feel perfectly justified in saying that He won't FORCE His children to be near Him if they do not want to.
I've gotten hung up on this with you before. Exactly what hyperbole did he use? Parable and hyperbole are far from interchangeable and I think I was moving a little too fast when I either implied or agreed that He spoke in hyperbole.
I found a christian article by debate enthusiast Kyle Butt on Jesus and the use of Hyperbole.
Hyperbole: A Common Biblical Figure of Speech
by Kyle Butt, M.A.
The Bible is by far the most popular book ever printed. As such, it is also the most read. Those who read the Bible are reading the inspired message of God (see Butt, 2007). Yet, even though the Bible is God’s inspired message, it contains figures of speech that commonly occur in secular writings. E.W. Bullinger wrote more than a thousand pages of material describing these figures of speech in his excellent volume Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (1968). In order to properly understand the Bible, a basic knowledge of commonly used figures of speech is important. Furthermore, such knowledge is often helpful in refuting erroneous claims, made by skeptics, that the Bible contains errors or discrepancies.
A common figure of speech used in the Bible is that of hyperbole. Bullinger defines hyperbole as: “when more is said than is literally meant” (1968, p. 423). He also calls hyperbole “exaggeration.” We who use the English language are quite familiar with the use of hyperbole, even though we may not be as familiar with the term itself. When a teenager explains to her parent that “everybody” is going to be at the party, does she mean that literally the world’s population of 6.6 billion people will be there? Of course she does not. She is intentionally exaggerating to make a point. When a teacher explains to his class that “everybody” knows who the first president of the United States was, does the teacher believe all toddlers can correctly answer the question? No. Once again, the teacher is simply using a well-understood figure of speech to convey a point.
In a similar way, the Bible uses hyperbole on numerous occasions. Take John 4:39 as an example. In this passage, a Samaritan woman spoke of Jesus and said: “He told me all that I ever did” (emp. added). Had Jesus really told that woman everything that she had ever done in her life? No, she was using hyperbole to make her point.
To illustrate further, consider Mark 1:4-5: “John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins” (emp. added). Taken literally, these verses would mean that John baptized every single person (man, woman, and child) in all of Judea and Jerusalem. But these verses are not to be taken literally. They are utilizing hyperbole, in which intentional “exaggeration” is employed to explain that John’s baptism was extremely popular.
The importance of understanding hyperbole can be seen when comparing another passage to Mark 1:4-5. In Luke 7:24-35, Jesus extolled the righteousness of John the Baptizer. Some of His listeners appreciated Jesus’ comments about John and some did not. Verses 29 and 30 explain: “And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” Are we to conclude that the Pharisees and lawyers did not dwell in Judea and Jerusalem and that is why they had not been baptized—as Mark 1:4-5 would imply if taken literally? That would certainly be a stretch. The best answer in this case is to show that Mark’s use of hyperbole would allow some, such as the Pharisees and lawyers, to have rejected John and not to have received his baptism.
Another example of hyperbole is found in John 3:26. In that context, John’s disciples were telling John about the increasing popularity of Jesus’ ministry. They said to him: “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified—behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!” (emp. added). Was it true that literally “all” the people in the world were coming to Jesus? No, it was simply the case that John’s disciples were intentionally exaggerating, using hyperbole, to describe Jesus’ spreading fame. [NOTE: For more examples see Bullinger, 1968, pp. 423-428.]
Honest-hearted Bible readers can benefit greatly from knowing when and how the Bible writers used hyperbole. Many of the challenges of skeptics can also be answered based on such information. After all, everybody knows that great literature always uses figures of speech such as hyperbole to convey its message.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte … ticle=2407Well Chris didn't necessarily agree that Jesus used hyperbole as well as parables, and I found a source he may he more likely to trust to explain the difference with biblical examples to back up the assertion.
So if Jesus actually taught Transubstantiation, why didn't his Jewish followers (who understood the Passover metaphor and parallels so well) also preach it?
The ones who chose to stick around after He taught it DID teach it to future followers. There is documentation back to the origins of the church which mention it. The rest of them, as I pointed out, found the teaching "too hard" and left Him.
Anyone who practices/believes Transubstantiation should be hauled away and sent to jail, because last time I checked, cannibalism was still illegal as hell.
It may take me a while. A lot of what I've always had access to from the Fathers of the Church went away from me when I went away from the convent.
Not as long as I thought. First, the story of the Last Supper is present in all of the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). The fact that it is indeed the body and blood of Christ is stated clearly by Jesus himself in John (Chapter 6). As I mentioned before, Jesus very clearly outlined when He was speaking in parables or using imagery to make a point. He does not, in John 6, do this. He simply states that "he who does not eat of my flesh and drink of my blood shall not have life within him." In I Corinthians, Paul puts forth the necessity of the celebration of the Lord's supper. Hardly something that should be celebrated incidentally. And Acts speaks of the frequency with which the breaking of the bread should take place. Also, it's never stated that it can be done with water, or grape juice, but exactly as it happened at the Last Supper - with unleavened bread and wine.
Sts. Justin the Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch were among first century Christians to talk about the real presence. With the exception of some (not all) Protestants (the list of which does NOT include Calvinists, btw) all Christians believe in some way, shape, or form that during the sacrament, the bread and wine do indeed become Christ's body and blood. Even Lutherans. The difference is as to how long it remains such. Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe that the Real Presence remains after the Consecration, even in the unconsumed portions that remain. Lutherans believe it remains until after it has been consumed by the Congregation, but that anything left unconsumed reverts to bread and wine.
If you can get a hold of anything written by any of the "Fathers of the Church," you often find reference to the Eucharist as the literal consumption of the body and blood of Jesus.
Yes, my Bible does say that.
Yes, Jesus was sacrificed for all mankind.
Jesus is the lamb of God. It's anything but insignificant that the Last Supper and the Crucifixion and Resurrection took place during Passover, commemorating the time when a lamb was sacrificed and it's blood smeared on the doorway of each Jewish household.
It was a symbolic statement, not a literal one. Jesus was Jewish and His initial Jewish followers all understood the symbolic nature of the statement. Otherwise, why didMatthew, Mark, Peter, Paul, John, Jude and James all leave this without pointing out the necessity of believing that the bread and wine become His substance once inside the human consumer?Amen. Chris, and, should I say, your name fits you right. ;>). Nice to be back, even for a while.
Sorry, but I am not a believer and don't operate from belief systems, we have another system called "thinking"
Then, why are you lying about evidence of Jesus? There is none whatsoever.
That is hogwash. Obviously, you haven't read the New Testament.I have read the New Testament for 20 years. Some people just want to argue for the sake of argue. I will not convince you, just God is able to convince you. He knows your heart and He knows you ....
Then, why are here arguing for the sake of arguing?
No gods have ever been shown to exist, no gods have ever convinced you.
So what? He will send me to Hell because He is pure evil. We can both sit by the fire and have this same chat.
I know we've discussed this before, but apparently it bares repeating. Let's be realistic here and not fool ourselves. You and everyone else operate on a belief system in one form or another. If you accept reality as is, and don't have a complete knowledge and understanding how it got here and came to be how it is (which nobody does), then you have beliefs where the unknowns are concerned. Your belief may be so sound that you don't even recognize or acknowledge it as a belief, but it's still a belief.
For example, you believe intelligence and reason can arise from a totally non-intelligent process. And even though the fundamental laws and the matter that existed right from the inception and that make this universe possible cannot be accounted for, even though something must have come before that is 'unseeable' and 'unknowable' that explains where they came from, you believe that it's actually possible that these came about without being the deliberate desired outcome of a conscious creator.
To not acknowledge these as beliefs, to prop yourself up atop the stool of 'knowledge' and 'thinking', and to speak as if you're somehow above having beliefs and are more enlightened and are being more realistic than those who believe in God, is intellectually dishonest and arrogant.
Only when all is known is it possible to not have beliefs. And nobody knows all. That's simply how the brain operates. It fills in the unknown blanks with something it deems acceptable. So please stop speaking as if you're somehow better than or intellectually above those who believe in God. Your beliefs simply differ because we are all equal in our lack of total knowledge.There is a difference between having a belief and having a belief system. The fact that I don't have all of the knowledge in the universedoesn't mean that I can't know anything. I don't have a belief in what happened prior to the big bang because I don't particularly care. It doesn't matter to me until you can demonstrate that a god exists and caused it. Beliefs become necessary absent facts, and if there are no facts, I'll happy with saying I don't know.
Beliefs can come from sneaky and unexpected places. For instance, from our personal, limited, experience when we unconsciously assume that because something happened "this way" it will always happen "this way" instead of surprising us with unknown variables and happening "that way" instead.
"even though something must have come before that is 'unseeable' and 'unknowable' that explains where they came from" is a pretty bold statement, and can only come from your belief, not from fact.
We have zero idea of what the singularity giving rise to the big bang was. We don't know what was in it, how long it existed "before" exploding, or why it exploded. Specifically, we don't even know IF there was a "why", or "cause", to the big bang. We don't even know if there was a place or even time itself to contain a "cause"!
So we have a choice to make. We can take the word of the ancient "great minds" of the past that also thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. We can extend our own personal limited knowledge about how things act in very, very different circumstances and decide they will act the same regardless of circumstance or variables. Or we can take the word of the modern "great minds" that, while stopping short of saying there was no cause, DO tell us there is no physical necessity for a cause.
You will make the choice for your beliefs; I will make the choice for mine. It becomes a little silly, though, when an argument hinges on two differing belief systems; a belief will seldom convince anyone of anything.Pointing out that both views are ultimately beliefs was my main point. It was in response to comments like ATM's who basically said he has no beliefs because he "thinks". It's often lost sight of that both believers and non-believers are in the same boat belief-wise.
But you're absolutely right about beliefs. If you think about it, faith and belief is a big part of all of our lives. The economy, the stock market, are basically belief/faith-based systems. So is society in general, and business. We operate on faith that everyone will continue to behave in the 'expected' way and the system will continue to function today as it did yesterday and the day before. Marriage is even faith-based as it hinges on the faith/belief that your partner will stick to their commitment to you and be there with you tomorrow, though there's no guarantee of that.
I don't think saying that 'something must have come before' is a bold statement. The alternative would be that 'nothing came before', and I don't think anyone is suggesting that the singularity of infinite mass came from nothing. THAT would be a bold statement. As for "no physical necessity for a cause", how can we reach that conclusion without knowing 'why' the singularity first expanded, or where it came from in the first place? Expansion in general kind of goes against the 'rules' as far as gravity and mass go. If anything it should have collapsed back in on itself, if it ever expanded out far enough to then collapse in the first place.
As for the "great minds" of biblical times, it's not that they figured out through deductive reasoning that there is a God. They claim God actually interacted with them. Big difference. Besides, it's not the 'either/or' scenario you make it out to be. There are plenty of "great minds" today who accept both the causal universe science has revealed to us and God simultaneously.The question then remains. Who to believe? The Jews? The Christians, The Muslims? The Mormons? All make claims that the writers had direct a connection with God.
Well, for one thing, the portions of the bible where God interacted directly with people, namely Moses and Abraham, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons are all in agreement. It's only where the story goes from there that they begin to splinter.
That part is really up to you. The key thing is acknowledging God. Once you do you then have a spiritual connection and can pray and ask. I don't pretend to have any objectively verifiable answers, but I can tell you what I believe and why. But as far as whether or not the writers of the bible were speaking of actual events where God interacted with humans, there's no disagreement between those factions. It's those interactions that most speak of God's creation and the establishment of modern humanity as we know it today. And it's those bits that I focus on where these kinds of discussions are concerned. Beyond that it's a spiritual matter, which is an internal reconciliation between you and God.
No, we don't say the ridiculous things that you say, hence we are not in the same boat.
Yes, we totally understand that is how your worldview and how you operate, which is why you are wrong so often.
Yes, that would be on of those beliefs you hold that are wrong."As for "no physical necessity for a cause", how can we reach that conclusion without knowing 'why' the singularity first expanded, or where it came from in the first place?"
Truthfully - I don't know. What I DO know, though, is that those "great minds" have studied the question far, far beyond my extremely limited abilities. They find more and more things that happen without causes, and presumably, using their superior knowledge of how things work, apply that knowledge to the big bang. Should you doubt their word you would have to devote a lifetime of study to find verification. Personally I will look at the skeptics that have not even tried to refute the statement and tentatively take it as the best effort we have at truth.
Your response, on the other hand, is to decide that because you don't understand their reasoning it must be false and so will make up a God to take the place of knowledge. Whether the knowledge is right or wrong is immaterial; you don't understand it and thus refuse to accept it. That's called belief, not the effort to find knowledge. What you find may be right, it may be wrong, but you have tried - faith and belief requires no such effort.One correction I would like to address. 'They' are not finding more and more things that happen without causes. The entirety of the scientific understanding of this universe is built on the understanding of this causing that. It's a 'causal' existence that's a series, or chain, of events of one thing/condition causing something else. It's establishing causes that allows the experts to then chain them all together and see the big picture.
And to be clear, I do not doubt the "great minds" and the conclusions they reach, and I understand their reasoning just fine. True, there are believers who criticize big bang and evolution and everything else born of science and try to argue against the findings of the experts with no real understanding, but that is not me. I'm simply stressing where the boundary lines exist between what is established fact and where belief begins.
You're assuming I don't understand and am then injecting my own stuff. The fact is the only place where the scientifically informed non-believer and I differ where science is concerned lies in that realm beyond what can be observed and objectively proven. Believers are not the only ones whose lack of understanding blurs this line. Non-believers often put too much faith in science and those "great minds" by mistakenly attributing more than what is actually known to the scientific community as already being established.You are mistaken; quantum theory continues to find more and more particles that pop into and out of existence without having a cause to do so. Your knowledge is far out date.
You understand the reasoning of the "great minds"? I would not have though you had the mathematical background to do so (extremely few people do) OR the background in physics, either (even fewer have both the math and physics/chemistry to even follow the discussion let alone understand and critique it). I know that although I am just shy of a college degree in both I still can't follow more than one word in ten.Please refer me to some documentation that supports this claim that "quantum theory continues to find more and more particles that pop into and out of existence".
No, I am not a scientist. But once the smart people do the work and test each others' conclusions, I can then understand when it's broken down for the layman. I understand big bang and I have no problem with that explanation. I may not understand it to the level of a quantum physicist, but I understand it. All I'm trying to say is that I am not one of those skeptics you speak of who turn a critical eye towards science as some sort of mass conspiracy against God.Sorry, but most layman's explanations don't really explain anything, they tend to misinform than anything else. The reason for that is because it's not easy to translate complex mathematics into plain English with less than 3 syllables.
Whatever ATM. Clearly you're following along with the discussion between myself and wilderness. So, why is it that you've got nothing to say about the inaccuracies of his recent statements? If I had made those same statements you undoubtedly would have pounced. So why is it that, instead of correcting his statements, you instead choose to try to have this ridiculous discussion with me about 'layman' explanations?
ATM is right, though. It is virtually impossible to explain something in a language that the listener doesn't understand, and few people understand the esoteric mathematics these people communicate in. It isn't translatable, math is the ONLY language it can really be explained in, so "it happens" is about all they can say. The rest of us dummies can either accept it or reject it but either way we have no knowledge to make the call with.
OR, we can hope that there enough honest people that DO understand the language to dissect it and tell us if it is true or not. As no one has ever refuted Hawkings statement, I think it is probably true, at least to the best of our knowledge. Hawkings could still be wrong - he doesn't know everything - but it's the best we have. We can always be wrong about things, just as Einstein and Newton were both wrong in their "faith" in the descriptions of the universe they gave. Turns out that their faith was justified only in very limited circumstances, not the general case as they had thought.
Plus, of course, we can listen to the statement and understand that it does NOT claim God didn't do it; just that it could have happened naturally. There is no need to hear it as a condemnation of faith, just that the big bang is not proof of God, either. He may have caused it, He may not have - there is no evidence either way.Agreed, which is all I was trying to say in the first place. The playing field is level where this topic is concerned between the believer and the non-believer. My issue here isn't so much the validity of ATM's statement as it is his tactic. Nobody here has an understanding beyond the layman where physics is concerned, which will understandably result in a simplistic grasp in comparison to someone who does 'speak the math'. But the difference between a layman's grasp and a true physicist's grasp has no baring in this particular discussion.
As far as Hawking, I'm assuming you're talking about his statement that no God is required for the universe to exist as it does, or something to that effect. I do know that in the book in which he makes that statement he treats the fundamental laws of this universe as constant and fixed. And any physicist will tell you that if those laws were not fixed, or were fixed at different values, then matter wouldn't bind together as it does and life as we know it would not exist. The only explanations that potentially side-step the incalculable odds of those fixed laws being just the right values in this one universe to result in life as we know it are those that hypothesize multiple universes with ours being just one of many. Maybe I'm a simpleton, but I can't see how you can make that kind of a statement and yet have no explanation (beyond pure speculation) for the fixed laws that make it all possible. Hawking backs M-theory, which is another multi-verse explanation where there are numerous universes, each with their own unique values where the fixed laws are concerned, with a small number possibly having life, and an even smaller number possibly being able to support human-like life.
In either case, we still don't have all the answers regarding where the laws and the singularity that made it all possible came from, which would be kind of important when making any concrete claims as to what is and is not required for it to work.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
You understand the big bang. Then you understand why premier physicists say it did not need a cause.
Why are you claiming it does, then? I see only two possibilities - you are lying when you make the claim because you don't like the conclusion (I don't believe that) OR you don't understand it any more than I do and will choose a different conclusion that fits with what you want to believe (the possibility I do believe).I'm not saying anything out of bounds here. For the big bang to work it requires the singularity and the fundamental laws, both of which had to be in place right from the start for any of the rest of it to happen. Now, maybe you're referring to the expansion that happened in those first moments as far as something that doesn't need a cause. But what I'm talking about is where the singularity and those fundamental laws came from in the first place. Big bang doesn't cover this. And all the potential explanations that attempt to explain it basically deal with other universes that existed prior. In either case, something came before that resulted in the existence of that singularity and those laws. Now, to be clear, I'm not hinting that 'something' means God. I'm just saying. It's that point where the facts end and the speculation begins because science is only capable of 'seeing' the result from the big bang forward. Science can only detect and measure matter and energy within this one universe, all of which is the product of that big bang, so science is unable to see beyond it. Any answer regarding what came before, other than "I don't know", falls within the realm of a belief.
What are the fundamental laws you're speaking about?
It's problematic to talk of something before the big bang because time would not have existed.The fundamental laws are the natural laws of the universe, often referred to as the 'fundamental forces' when speaking of the early-early moments of the big bang as they were not yet four individual forces, but one....
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb … unify.html
You're right about there being no 'before'. Our archaic, heavily time-based language often fails to adequately speak of a 'time' (see what I mean) when time did not yet exist.
Your belief is God. We don't hold any beliefs in that regard.
Or are you simply refusing to believe what is true ATM? As what other Atheists would better believe in their own knowledge and intellect than on the truth in God's words?
Round and round the world goes, history keeps repeating itself because of man's hardened minds and souls, preferring to listen to what deceives than what is true in Jesus.
Have you read the Holy Bible, irregardless of the version, I can see very little difference, but the bigger difference comes from those who may come to misinterpret it and believe without praying for guidance and discernment in the Holy Spirit.
I know the Holy Spirit is never seen, but it may come like a rushing wind, that those who may be chosen to be enlightened may get enlightened, but those with a hardened mind, simply put, the prideful and those who can hardly take rejection - nothing personal, just sharing what is truthful - may never understand it at all as they listen more to sweet whispers that may drive them away from the truth.
Big bang is a theory and will remain a theory unless God brings back everything that truly happened thousands, millions or trillions of years ago.
Let us not be deceived by what only prospers confusion in this life. Let us see the truth in the absolutes, the truth in what Jesus says in the Bible. All other gods your may think of as gods are the products of our minds and not of what can be revealed through our spirit.
But how can you over believe in God who is in spirit if you do not believe that you have a spirit? Ho ho ho. Who do you think is preventing you from believing in this?
Open up my friends, and humble ourselves to the one who has died for us for our sins, and the rest, the holy saints, who willingly gave their life that others may see the truth in Jesus Christ, because they know and believe they have nothing to fear as long as they are with Jesus and in Jesus. He love us all and wants us back to Him, freed from our pride and selfishness.
I pray, again, that more may be enlightened in their spirit, if not now, in due time, as you may see the light.I don't believe in things, especially childish beliefs in invisible super beings.
There is no truth in your God, his words or anything the Bible offers.
The world has been ruled by religions these past many centuries, hence if history repeats itself, that would be why.
Yes, have you read the Quran or any other holy books?
No, it is obvious you are not sharing anything truthful, it is all merely indoctrinated religious mumbo jumbo.
Gravity is a theory, but we probably won't see you defying it by jumping off any tall buildings and believing God will save you.
That would be religions.
Your God is no different, a product of the mind, the ignorant and deluded mind.
No one is preventing me, I can think for myself, you should try it sometime.
No one has died for you. Gods can't die.
They are fools of the highest order to do something so stupid.
Praying is useless, it accomplishes nothing.There you go ATM, you said "God's can't die?" "They are fools of the highest order to do something so stupid."
How come you believe in this? I thought you do not believe in any God?
Remember, Jesus said, again in Matthew 19:26, "with man this is impossible...but with God all things are possible."
So are heliocentrism, gravity, wave theory of light, evolution, cells, and any well-developed science that isn't mathematics.
In other words, you hate people who can think for themselves, because you can't. So sorry.
Wow! Isn't it amazing...and extremely fortunate that you just happen to believe in the REAL God?
Let me guess....Satan?! What a childish world view.
Funny....I was gonna say the same thing about Thor.
No wonder your beliefs causes so much negativity in the world. This rigid mindset is absolutely disturbing."In other words, you hate people who can think for themselves, because you can't."
"What a childish world view."
"No wonder your beliefs causes so much negativity in the world. This rigid mindset is absolutely disturbing."
Just playing devil's advocate here, but you do see the same rigidity in your statements, right? That the worldview of those who believe in God is childish or that believers can't think for themselves is a view that lacks elasticity and can be seen as insulting to half the world's population. Can you see how that same rigidness on both sides has the same end result .... negativity in the world. Acknowledgement of just how much we don't know, and tolerance towards those who believe differently than we do where those unknowns are concerned, is just as important no matter what side of the aisle you're on. To retaliate against one wrong with an equal and opposite wrong has been proven time and again in our history as not the wisest approach. If we hope to reduce negativity in the world, this would be a good place to start. Tolerance.When the mind has been deluded, through indoctrination, it will do, and say, anything to keep those beliefs intact. They can even convince themselves that those of us who don't share their psychotic delusion are just as delusional as they are. What a desperate ploy.....tantamount to trying to convince others that there is nothing wrong with an adult believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
We've had this conversation before, Getit.. I told you the tooth fairy is real.. that heifer stole my teeth and only gave me a dime for all of them. If I ever get my hands on her, there will be hell to pay
Boy I could not agree more. And some of those rigid, reactionary anti-religionists are the worst!
I don't think they are the worst and by the very definition of indoctrination they can't be indoctrinated.
But I do understand what you mean.Okay, this is not meant as argumentative. I don't think that all atheists are "indoctrinated", not even all anti-religionists. But (and I've said this before) there is a certain "party line" that some toe, and the more strictly they adhere to it (religious people are indoctrinated, don't like to think for themselves, yadda yadda yadda) the more robotically indoctrinated they sound.
And it's just too much fun to show up the irony of their rote answers, knowing they will never see it for themselves.
That doesn't mean that I think everyone on my side is free from these faults. I'm rather an equal-opportunity cynic that way.
Like I said....the deluded mind will say ANYTHING to keep it's illogical beliefs intact. Thanks for demonstrating that for me Chris.
No problem. I love to watch you make my points for me. Especially when you're claiming that you're not.
ATM, and other atheists, whether you believe it or not, in 2 John 1:7, "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist."
You may not notice it as you cannot see it but listen to it, but the spirit who keeps on influencing your thoughts is the antichrist. If you keep on doing the same thing, it's what becomes of you, right? You become what you want to believe, right?
Whether you are happy or not, you may always pretend when you are not, right?
How do I know? It's what you do not know in what is deceiving that makes us unhappy. Pride and evil makes you eventually unhappy right?No, I'm a rather humble man, but what makes me unhappy is someone talking nonsense and insisting his nonsense is right. Do you have any idea how silly and childish your posts are? But that's for the empty threats.
Silly and childish for those who would rather believe in their minds and intellect, RM.
If you were truly humble, then you will learn to pray and humble yourself to our Almighty God and Creator.
And to be thankful to God in Jesus who humbled Himself by becoming one of us and died for our sins on the cross that all who may believe in Him may have the chance to see God's kingdom in themselves and onto eternal life.
I was thinking like you when I doubted God's existence, but when I kept on believing and humbling myself to Him by learning from the truth in His words and eventually being healed in my afflictions, I have learned to believe and died in my pride, that there is nothing more beautiful in this life than to praise and thank Him in His goodness to all men like you and me.
If you were humble, you would not consider sharing God's words as silly and childish because it is true that you will never be truly happy in your pride, you will sometime feel the pain as you may be overwhelmed by your emotions in rejections and defeat, or in being left out with nobody to cling to, and with so much emptiness in you, right?
But with God, all things are possible. You will see and feel how more secured you are no matter what happens because He's always with you, your Big Brother you can always count on, guiding you with His words of love and assurance, of kindness and compassion. If you felt happier this way in your love of others, taking away your pride and truly humbling yourself to godly ways, then it's the Holy Spirit being with you in your joy, and in the truth about showing unconditional love of others.
Blessings to you RM and the rest of you who may want to know more about the truth in Jesus and the greater power of God's words in us, if you only believe and humble yourself to open up your spirit to His truth.
Then you will see what peace and greater joy you may have in your life with wonderful things that you may realize as you begin to count more your blessings with your love ones than what you may have materially, for all material things are but passing and can never satisfy. But the truth in God's words can as trust in Jesus' more, more than you may put trust on money and material things, or on your intellect. or just relying on others wisdom of falsehood and deception.
The Holy Spirit will fill your emptiness with His love and your will see His greatness in you as you shine against all who bind themselves on things or this world that may sooner or later come out meaningless when one leaves this life and realizes that nothing in this world really last.
In Luke 21:22, Jesus assured us, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."Yes, I'd rather trust my mind and intellect. If you did the same you wouldn't making such silly statements.
Humble is understanding the universe was not made for us. It's arrogant to think the entire universe was made for us.Not to mention continually passing the judgment on others and continually telling them they are stuck in darkness while portraying oneself as being in the light.
Is your claim not arrogant if your have no proof to back up your claim that the entire universe was not made through Jesus?
If with God, all things are possible, I have this claim in my faith that even scientists cannot explain: backing up another Eucharistic Miracle on wikipedia link with the findings of another scientist Prof. Linoli, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano, ... and another related public truthful blog in the presence of two Australian scientists, http://www.bubblews.com/news/428870-euc … nos-aires.
If you deny these truthful findings, you may want to show me a proof that disproves all these? If you cannot produce a counter proof, are you rather the one being arrogant not me?
How many times have you failed in trusting your mind and intellect? Unless you are perfect, you can never claim your statement to be true right RM? Nothing personal, just being truthful.
And have you tried reading the Holy Bible if you can be humble enough to try widening your knowledge to what is true and noble in what many have found so?
Is it not rather pride than humility to keep believing in what your mind tells you and care not what others may say about the truth in the Holy Bible?I don't know how to make this any clearer.
1) wikepedia articles (which can be added by anyone) are not the same as peer reviewed, scientific journals. youtube videos are not evidence. Papers written by religious people that have NOT been peer reviewed by scientists and have a clear bias are not evidence. We do NOT have to prove your claims wrong until you can prove them true. Until you can, there is no need to discuss them. Every time one of the atheists contradicts your claim, provides alternate explanations or refutes the quality or scope of your "evidence" you disappear for a few days and come back, completely ignore everything they said and claim "victory" because no atheist has addressed your claim. That's not the way honest debate works. I would have assumed that any rational, intelligent person would know that by now. It seems to have escaped you.
2) I find it far MORE arrogant to assert that you're connected with the "creator" of the universe who speaks personally with you and performs miracles that self-affirm your claims. Whereas the atheist is confident in answering "I don't know" and then looking for answers, you seem confident in asserting that your position is absolutely correct with no need for evidence - especially if your evidence consists of nothing more than youtube and wikepedia.
3) You insist on preaching at us, telling us that we need to be humble and submit to the god that you cannot prove exists. You seem incapable of grasping that some of us have READ the bible multiple times in multiple languages and find it less than convincing to say the least. Reading the bible is not the catch-all answer. If you're content with it, and you don't need to look for anything more, that's fine. No one is infringing on your right to believe whatever you want. When you come and assert that you hold all of the answers and everyone who disagrees with you is arrogant, prideful and lost, and influenced by "satan" you've crossed a line, and no one is likely to take you seriously - especially people who have devoted over 15 years of their lives studying it in depth.Don't you get it yet, J? Whatever source he uses as evidence is automatically validated as proof because he accessed it and it is referring to God as he believes God to be. That is the evidence right there, but we are so deceived by the "evil one" that we cannot see it because we are shrouded in darkness.
You see, Edwin, this particular point is what a few people see with you (both Christian and atheist). It is one thing to assert that an atheist is evil and influenced by satan (*NOTE*- I'm not saying it is right.. It isn't right at all), but it is another to make that same assertion when dealing with fellow believers. As JM stated, most atheists have read or studied the bible and are well versed in the subject including context, apologetics, etc.. To continually make the statements that you are making, you are also placing yourself in the same danger that you are visiting on all of us because remember Matthew 7:1-5. I have referred to this same scripture several times when replying to you for a reason. Remember that whatever you are trying to project to those of us who disagree with you, you risk having those same things visited upon you because your judgmental projections are not in agreement with God... Just a thought for you.
Great responses, Julie!! I'm so glad my lesbian atheist girlfriend is so smart!! LOL
DM, if you believe in what is true, why do you feel bad about it and deny the truth? Are we out to deceive ourselves or proclaim what is true that others may see and believe in what is true?
Denying the truth is not of Christ right? While love and compassion is of God, it's the truth that sets us free right, not falsehood and deceptions?
I can only boast of the Lord and the truth in His words. I am not angry, do not get me wrong, I show my love for Christ and for others in proclaiming what is true so as to enlighten, not ridicule. If you feel bad in reading what is true, is that not pride rather than humility to what is true?
If we keep on defending what is not true, is that not what evil wants us to do? How can we reject evil if we ourselves conform with it rather than defend what is true?I believe in what is true. I completely and totally do. However, in relaying the truth to others, I am careful not to seem condescending or overly prideful in how I relay the message because in doing so, I at least have the chance for others to be open to what I am trying to convey and be receptive to the information I am trying to provide (even if they disagree). While again I applaud you for the message you are trying to convey, I also note and feel it necessary to advise you that you do come off as being condescending and arrogant to others. You may defend against this by saying that it is only that way to those who are touched by evil and unable to see the truth and the light, however, that same evil force that you project onto others can also just as easily affect the tone of your message and cause your own inner light to blind your outer vision to the extent that you unknowingly elevate yourself above others. Remember this, If the "evil one" (as you like to call him) isn't bothering you, then you are doing what he wants you to do.
Have you ever considered taking a class to work on your people skills?
You are essentially saying "You are evil, arrogant and ignorant. Come join my faith so you can spread truth and love like I do."
Does that ever work?
Cause I've gotta say, if I wasn't strong in my faith, statements like that from other believers would make me leave Christianity just so I wouldn't be associated with well... arrogance and ignorance. Since driving people away from Christ in shame could also be considered evil... well I guess that makes it a hat trick eh?What did you expect Melissa? Don't you know there are millions and millions of followers to that religion just like him? That is what Christianity teaches, he is simply following what he's taught.
Do you not see the similarities here? Edwinoel Tanglao is the believer version of you, ATM. He's devout in his beliefs, completely convinced that he is right and that others that disagree are wrong, he sees no middle ground, and doesn't mince words to say so. He's been called arrogant and condescending and has been told he needs to work on his people skills. That's you. He doesn't tread lightly, mindful and tolerant of the beliefs of others, but rather beats you over the head with his viewpoint and preaches it openly and brashly. Those that disagree are fools, right? Blind to the truth, right? Sound familiar?
Wow, saying that has definitely erased any credibility you might have had.
Tanglao doesn't need to work on people skills, that is by far the least of his problems.
Yes, that is YOU.
- Sure, turn to your holy book to find evil and you'll easily find it. That's why your religion causes so much conflict, it teaches you others are evil. That's why we reject it, it divides people with hatred and fear of each other. Funny, how you believers want to defend such an incredibly bad ideology.
YOU are the one who is not happy, who is full of pride and evil taught to you by your holy book. YOU are the only one who is deceiving us. Amen. Nice to be back. Wow, great interaction.
I consider all of you important whatever religion or creed or belief you have. You are all my brothers and sisters in this life.
If I was understood in a different context, then I pray still that all people be more enlightened towards the truth.
Tolerance to anything evil as against the truth in God's words is many times becoming an accomplish to evil. The more you condemn me as ignorant, the more I feel happy, why? It is in my humility to God in being persecuted of my beliefs that make me stronger in my faith.
God allows us to make mistakes and gives us signs to realize all these in our pride and selfishness. But it will be our pride and selfishness that will also humble us sooner or later, either in this lifetime, or when we may have to be called from this life.
If still you do not believe in the miracles of true faith, despite scientific evidence, that is your prerogative and decision, maybe your problem, not mine, but still, I pray that sooner you may be enlightened.
If you still love this world more than you may love our Creator through His Son in Jesus, as in 1 John 2:15-17, by not helping enlighten others to what is true in Jesus, would you rather be more popular for fame and glory in this world and be rich than guiding others to what is true, righteous and noble?
If you believe more on The 7 Spiritual Laws of Success by Deepak Chopra, think again, especially if you are a Christian, the sweet talking Chopra, without realizing it, is veering you away from the truth in Jesus as I do not hear of him guiding to us to Jesus, who in Him is the fullness of the Deity, rather to his own perception of God and spirituality in what Buddha and Hinduism may be teaching.
In all good things and good ways of doing things come the Holy Spirit, that all may be guided to the love of others. The evil one has a different agenda and that is to veer us away from the truth in Jesus and believe more in the love of things of this world and the universe more than the love of God, our Heavenly God and Creator.
The world is beautiful, all creations are beautiful, but let us give back to God the glory of all these by thanking and praising Him in all these blessings that He has given us, and all that He has provided us in our efforts to earn a good honest living for our family.
If pride is in us, it should be pride in our faith and in Jesus, not pride in allowing ourselves to be unwilling and unwitting instruments of evil and anything material in this world for in truth, everything is all but passing.
While God in Jesus wants us to be forgiving, let us not give in to evil by adhering to evil and being tolerant to evil ways, rather, enlighten others to what is true and pleasing to the Lord in the love of others, and always, accountable to God in all our actions. Since it is God's words that is powerful as it is 'sharper' than the double-edged sword that pierces through and penetrates to the dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow, let us not become merely a double edged sword where we would rather choose convenience than carry our own cross in persecution in this life and deny the truth in a much sharper "Words" coming from the mouth of God, or less we want to become no less than an unbeliever and a hypocrite who claim to love God, yet deny God by our ignorance of the truth in God's words.
If we become tolerant of sin and darkness, where does that put us and our love ones, also in darkness?
God's love and mercy is everlasting, but we have to show that we truly love Him by sharing the light of Christ in His truth, not our own version of truth which may just lead others to the wrong path of loving the world, yet losing our grip to salvation, which is eternal, which is again, a zillion times better than this short and temporal life.
To my Atheist brothers and unbelievers, If you still want to deny the truth about God's existence and the truth about Christ, I pray that you be more enlightened in Jesus' name, for in everything, God's will be done for in everything, whatever we may decide to believe in this life, God in Jesus knows what is in our hearts and would want to pull us towards the right path, ever to live happier and in peace in his lighted path, for in all things God is in control, and may signs in your life as it has been in your past, guide you to His truth.
Pretty much I'm with right down the line, with the only real challenge being to the requirement for laws, time and "something" (singularity?) prior to the big bang.
My limited understanding of the big bang is that it not only brought forth energy (which became matter), but also all of the laws we know and time itself. Time did not exist, any more than space, energy or matter "prior" (if the word has any meaning without the existence of time) to the big bang.
The singularity could have lasted "forever" (again, a meaningless term without time), it could have been the collapse of a prior universe, lasting a trillionth of a second or no time at all. We don't know and probably never will unless we learn to leave this universe.
The big bang, to me, is much like an event without a cause - something so far outside my experience that I can't get a handle on it no matter how hard I try. Every time I think I've got it, I realize that my own understanding of macro matters, both time and energy, are a part of my understanding.
- So, you are carefully explaining to us that what we are observing in your posts is not in fact what we are observing? It's all just a charade?
Yes, we understand that is the system you use, but it is not system we use. No, you are not being realistic.
No, you have beliefs, we don't.
Your beliefs are not anything we accept because they are beliefs.
No, it's called having understanding, it is you who is intellectual dishonest by propping up your beliefs atop a stool and calling them 'knowledge and thinking'.
That is a fallacy.
It is YOU who is saying we are 'intellectually above those who believe in God" that is not something we are saying. But, since that is what you believe, you can yourself observe how wrong beliefs can be.If you don't acknowledge and recognize just how much of your worldview is strictly belief, then your critical thinking capabilities are seriously lacking.
You do understand the difference between believing your car will start and believing big foot exists?
Do you understand the difference between believing your car will start and believing social order will continue tomorrow?
But, I don't believe social order will continue tomorrow. I lost to much money the last time the stock market crashed. I hope social order will continue, I believe my car will start.
But you make plans, right? You plan on going back to work on Monday as if all is well, don't you? You invest in the education of your children based on the belief that a society that values that education will still be the reality when they enter into the world? That is faith.
Yes. Faith, based on past experience. Experience that is well tested and available to anyone - it can be re-tested and re-checked by anyone that cares to do so.
The experience of God? No history, no testing possible, and it cannot be passed to anyone else to test and check. Faith is thus necessary rather than testing for validity.No, I don't believe those things, I understand them. I understand my car will start. My understanding also extends to the fact that I may have accidentally left my lights on and the battery is dead. I also understand corrosion could build up in the terminals causing a bad connection. These are things I understand, not believe.
Is any of this getting through to you?I don't have faith I have hope. Faith would imply I think all will be well. I hope for good health, but I don't expect it. I hope for a strong economy, but I don't expect it. I wish/hope there was a truly loving God, but I don't believe or expect it. I have no faith in the economy or that there is a God.
Did you deny its existence when it didn't?
Sorry. I've scraped a car or two as well. One I had to scrap after spending thousands on it two weeks earlier.
Yeah I had to do that myself with a van a week after I bought it
Brought the minivan to my mechanic before my trip to Florida and asked him to make sure it's in good shape for the long drive, $1100. Got to Florida and my AC stopped working so I brought it to a dealer, $650. Just before I left I noticed it was leaking coolant so I said lets go. I was worried it would overheat in Atlanta, but we made it back somehow. Brought it to my mechanic and he said it could be one of two things. $800 or $3000 so I gave it to charity. Two years after putting a rebuilt engine in a minivan with 100 000 kms or 62 000 miles.
Related Discussions
- 319
Is there any scientific evidence for the existence of god?
by Sean Thomas Gartland 13 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
- 211
Why do Christians get so bent out of shape when you tell them the bible is just
by Ralph Schwartz 7 years ago
Why do Christians get so bent out of shape when you tell them the bible is just a book?Many versions of this text are different, book order different, passages missing, especially ones referring to the so-called resurrection (not found in the older bibles.) The books are clearly written by...
- 41
I'm beginning to wonder if Christianity itself is a cult!
by Yoleen Lucas 11 years ago
You guys - I posted this in the Questions section, but because it turned into a full-blown discussion, HubPagers advised me to move it to Forums. Here it is:"Cult" is defined as a system of beliefs that doesn't work, but people cling to it because they fear "eternal hell"...
- 285
How can the Bible be considered proof
by Elizabeth 10 years ago
How can the Bible be considered proofI would say that 8 out of ten times when discussing proof of god with a theist, they quote the Bible. In my perspective, the Bible is the collection of claims about the christian god, not the evidence for it - and all claims require...
- 222
The Bible is a "theological fact."
by mishpat 10 years ago
First, for my brothers and sisters in Christ, I believe grace through faith is the only way of salvation. I do not believe God or the Bible are short of the real meaning of fact or factual. We are addressing the unbelieving mind here, Proverb 26:4-5.Now, as to the subject, sometime back...
- 2102
Why Do Christians Have Such A Problem With Atheism?
by Brittany Williams 5 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...