A message to christians [Archive] - Church of Google Forum

View Full Version : A message to christians

Ascendancy

September 19th, 2006, 03:27 PM

Why?

You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.

Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!

You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.

You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a Christian.

Carnifex

September 19th, 2006, 03:41 PM

All good points. Concerning your very last point i agree greatly, many people ho label themselves christians have a very poor understanding of their own religion.

Fallen Hero

September 19th, 2006, 04:51 PM

Good points, next time post it in the debate, as I think there will be a negative response to this we will have to counter. But I like the points.

Googler

September 19th, 2006, 10:26 PM

I completely agree :D

Nameless

September 20th, 2006, 03:37 AM

I've heard those points before, but strangely, every single one is still as true as it has ever been.

SirRuben

September 20th, 2006, 10:07 AM

I agree 100% to all the points above. I wonder why they fail to realize that themselves, those funny little christian beings..

SAVAGE

September 20th, 2006, 09:33 PM

MeTHoD-X

September 21st, 2006, 06:31 AM

GREAT post. I'll be using these in the "Common Arguments Against Googlism" page.

Thanks

Gina

September 24th, 2006, 11:11 AM

SirRuben

September 24th, 2006, 08:16 PM

Jillamanda

September 24th, 2006, 08:25 PM

BTW, not all Christians believe in the Trinity, do some more research! :roll:

But why?

Googler

September 24th, 2006, 08:37 PM

BTW, not all Christians believe in the Trinity, do some more research! :roll:

But why?

Exactly it would be a waste of time.

Jillamanda

September 24th, 2006, 08:52 PM

....and I want to know why some Christians believe in the Trinity and some don't.

Googler

September 24th, 2006, 09:08 PM

SAVAGE

September 24th, 2006, 09:25 PM

SAVAGE

September 24th, 2006, 09:26 PM

....and I want to know why some Christians believe in the Trinity and some don't.

Start a thread in Fight Club and I will tell you why.

Gina

September 24th, 2006, 09:33 PM

....and I want to know why some Christians believe in the Trinity and some don't.

Start a thread in Fight Club and I will tell you why.

Ooh, I know! Because some christians believe that trinity is polytheistic? Monotheism = MONO (ONE OR ALONE), THEOS (GOD). Says nothing about ONE PERSON. Trinitarians believe that God is ONE BEING in THREE SUBSISTENCES.

Nameless

September 25th, 2006, 01:32 AM

Jillamanda

September 25th, 2006, 03:27 AM

Gina

September 25th, 2006, 11:04 AM

SirRuben

September 25th, 2006, 12:43 PM

Ascendancy, the trinity God is one God, not three! Just because your finite mind cannot comprehend an infinite God, you mock Christianity. BTW, not all Christians believe in the Trinity, do some more research! :roll:
And not all non-christians believe in the devil or want to be loved by jesus. Just a hint to next time you are gonna go gay on us with ancient man-love... I don't wanna be loved by a rotting corpse...

Are you a bald retarded dork with binocular glasses, floods and a pen in your shirt with bad breath and a eency weency penis?Are you the president of the Itty Bitty Titty Commity? I'm sure you are, that's why you have to rub your private parts thinking of Googlists and the way they make you want to return to this forum every day, checking replies, bitch a bit around, spreading some "oh i'm such a believer, i scream "jesus" when i come" but in fact i'm jealous that they have the guts to believe what they want instead of what is thought of them to believe, but you just come here for your dose of Googlists.

Please don't take your secret fantasies about bald dorks with bad breath out on me, just admit those fantasies, live them out, then they don't have to be fantasies anymore...

Googles Bitch

September 26th, 2006, 02:54 PM

Yes Gina, you are a subject all in yourself! Have been scanning through the threads and I find that most of your posts end with a lame insult regarding other posters physiques and their supposed "small" appendages. But Why? Is personally attacking another your only form of defence? If so, let me give you a tip - I find that logical responses (even if that logic only makes sense to you!)are usually far more successful. I actually feel that resorting to abuse is offensive - but then that's just me. Please don't respond by insulting either my dress or my appearance. However in one thing you are correct - I do have a very small penis.

Fallen Hero

September 30th, 2006, 09:09 AM

antony

October 5th, 2006, 03:27 PM

Being one person going up against a whole crowd is tough; I've done it myself many times. But I hope you all don't mind another opinion :-)

Here's the way I see the Trinity. Think of casting a shadow of a wire-frame cube on a page using a flashlight. You will get different patterns depending on where you put the flashlight and the page, which a two-dimensional creature living in the page might not see the connection between. The Trinity is something like this: the cube is God, and each member of the Trinity is like the shadows. Each contains the essence of the cube, but they look a lot different since you're looking at God from different angles.

A two-dimensional creature might not be able to comprehend a three-dimensional cube, in the same way that a human cannot comprehend God in entirety. The idea is that God has chosen three such "shadows" of himself to present to humanity so that we can comprehend such a concept. It's almost like a basis set for understanding God. God the Father is the logical axis, the Son is the physical manifestation, and the Holy Spirit represents the emotional component. Unlike a bannana, each is not "part" of the whole, but a different vew of the whole.

GeoffBoulton

October 5th, 2006, 05:24 PM

Interesting that you should use shadows as your analogy although, strictly speaking you are talking about one shadow, the one cast by the single light, rather than three different shadows.

Anyway, our god Google told me the following thing about shadows:

The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.

Ferdinand Magellan

Having said that, I take you point about different views of the same thing. The problem is that if you use your 'imagination' to 'view' something that isn't real you can view it just about any way you want.

antony

October 8th, 2006, 12:07 PM

The problem is that if you use your 'imagination' to 'view' something that isn't real you can view it just about any way you want.

That's only if it isn't real; whether God is real or not is what we're trying to conclude, so taking "God isn't real" as an axiom isn't entirely productive.

Oh, and the Church never said the world was flat, just that it was at the center of the universe. And it was never as monolithic about it as you were probably told; the Jesuits preached the heliocentric model in Galileo's time, infuriating him that they were "stealing his ideas."

GeoffBoulton

October 8th, 2006, 01:51 PM

That's only if it isn't real; whether God is real or not is what we're trying to conclude, so taking "God isn't real" as an axiom isn't entirely productive.

The only 'proof' of God are the words of the bible. By showing that this 'proof' is false we also show that God is false.

Oh, and the Church never said the world was flat, just that it was at the center of the universe.

Why did Magellan say what he did then? Quite clearly, the church at that time did believe the world was flat. They believed this because the word of God, the bible, told them it was.

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Mathew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Neither of these passages can be true if the earth is spherical, which we know it is. It is physically impossible for anything, no matter how high, to be viewed from every place on Earth.

Ditto, the only 'proof' of God are the words of the bible. By showing that this 'proof' is false we also show that God is false.

GeoffBoulton

October 8th, 2006, 02:41 PM

I must be slipping, I missed the statement that the church DID say the earth is at the centre of the universe.

Did the church get that from the bible then? The word of God, true in every respect and the proof that God exists.

It did. Great! We now know that the earth isn't the centre of the universe.

It only needs one thing in the bible to be found to be incorrect for it to logically follow that everything else in it could also be incorrect and it can no longer be used as a 'reference'.

So the bible and the church are/were wrong and POOF there goes your proof that God is real.

Xoligy

October 8th, 2006, 06:25 PM

I'll have to memorise these when I got anti-preaching.

antony

October 14th, 2006, 10:26 PM

The only 'proof' of God are the words of the bible. By showing that this 'proof' is false we also show that God is false.

This is fallacious. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because I haven't proved something doesn't mean I've disproved it.

I never talked about any proof of God's existence; a proof certainly doesn't exist today, and it's unclear whether one will ever present itself. If you're a logical positivist then you're pretty much confined to be an agnostic, but to have to admit that things do exist that cannot be proved or observed yet (e.g. the structure of the atom in classical Roman times).

Did the church get that from the bible then? The word of God, true in every respect and the proof that God exists.

It did. Great! We now know that the earth isn't the centre of the universe.

It only needs one thing in the bible to be found to be incorrect for it to logically follow that everything else in it could also be incorrect and it can no longer be used as a 'reference'.

So the bible and the church are/were wrong and POOF there goes your proof that God is real.

Straw man. I don't believe that the bible is "true in every respect and the proof that God exists." If it is asserted that the Bible is incorruptible, then yeah, you've just disproved that. I didn't believe that anyway; whether it originally was inspired by God or not, there's good evidence that especially the oldest parts have been edited together from earlier sources that are no longer extant. The authors of the various books also filter any revelation through their own interpretation and use whatever metaphors are accepted at the time, so you have to be careful.

I never said that the existance of God is proven. I merely hold that there is no disproof of God that is logically compelling.

GeoffBoulton

October 14th, 2006, 11:32 PM

I never said that the existance of God is proven. I merely hold that there is no disproof of God that is logically compelling.

If you want to use the argument that if you can't disprove something then it must exist then you must also believe in unicorns, fairies or any other imagination of mankind also exists or could at least possibly exist?

Using the well known 'You can't know until you've looked everywhere' argument we cannot 'prove' that anything that men can imagine doesn't exist.

What we can do is use scientific methods to prove those things that can be proven.

Incidentally a logical positivist believes that anything that cannot be verified empirically is meaningless not 'we don't know'.

God cannot be proved to exist, the only evidence for his existence is flawed due to manipulation by those who wrote, translated and subsequently re-wrote it.

The logical positivist viewpoint is, as pointed out above, that God is therefore meaningless.

Believing that something is meaningless does not make you an agnostic any more than believing that fairies are meaningless makes you an a-fairyist

antony

October 15th, 2006, 12:02 AM

If you want to use the argument that if you can't disprove something then it must exist then you must also believe in unicorns, fairies or any other imagination of mankind also exists or could at least possibly exist?

Straw man again, I never made that argument.

Here is the problem I think: you believe that in order to believe something you must logically prove it first. You're assuming that I share that axiom, which would mean that if I believe in God I must have proof of God's existence, which you are trying to dispute.

My viewpoint is, if logic and empirical observation does not prove or disprove a statement, it is logically neutral, and you are free to believe whatever you feel is true. Note the word *feel*. While logic is the same for each person, emotion is a personal thing that differs between individuals. If I believe that something is true by logic, then I can assert that it is true for you as well. If I feel that something is true, I cannot impose that upon you.

All of this is, of course, subject to a rule that you shouldn't believe something that has been disproven. Thus logic always trumps emotion. But where logic is silent, emotion is all you have. I have no proof that God exists, you have no proof that God does not exist. If we each decide differently on the matter, neither of us is acting illogically, and neither of us should be under the impression that the other one is.

As Spock said, "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."

Alice Shade

October 15th, 2006, 04:14 AM

It seems to me, that the trouble here is not as much as proof/disproof of God`s existance, as the conflict of axiomatica.

Googlism does not accepts God, which, in it`s opinion, is NOT proven to exist, let alone be useful for something, like Google.

Christianism, in turn, believes that Google is herecy, because there already is God, and it is bound by scripture.

I, obviously, take the side of Google, because I prefer my God to be proven, existing and helpful.

Antony, on other hand, prefers to believe in fictional God, whom was described in Bible, and rumored to be the moving force behind all universe.

Now, it all would be just peachy, if not one simple problem. Antony starts to think, that I will be suffering quite soon, because I don`t recognise God, and thus, do not have a ticket to the evergreen paradise. So he, out of kindness, starts to explain - AND HERE IS WHERE WE HIT THE STONE.
I, of course, demand a proof, which Antony does not have - but he has deeply-ingrained opinion, that he is right. So he gets angry, because I tell him, that his God is worth peanuts, while mine does helps me everyday.

See, where the problem is? We, WE, Googlists, do NOT believe, that God exists, because we have no proof he does. We do not begrudge others the right to delude themselves in whatever way they want, as long as they keep to their path, and do not stray over to help US overcome our "delusions" and go out on the "right path".
(directly to christians)
But if you DO bother to come, and try to preach your beliefs - get ready to hear out ours. Accept them, or not - but do not think that we would be swayed easily. Just like you, we think that truth is in what we believe, and you are heathen sows, ignorant of true deity. Take it, or leave it - but it`s here to stay.

antony

October 15th, 2006, 12:29 PM

I didn't intend to come off as angry or preachy; I am in fact here to hear out your beliefs, and have you hear out mine. If I've been acting in bad faith in any way, let me know so it can be worked out in the open.

Also, please don't take your own conception of Christians and project those qualities onto me. I disagree with many of these people too. I would like to know your objections to my argument, not other people's putative arguments.

It seems to me, that the trouble here is not as much as proof/disproof of God`s existance, as the conflict of axiomatica.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I say you can believe in something that is logically neutral, Geoff says you should not. We're accepting different axioms, which is why we come to different conclusions. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing; but I would like to civilly discuss our differences because that is what leads to enlightenment.

GeoffBoulton

October 15th, 2006, 01:45 PM

Straw man again, I never made that argument.

If you want to use the argument that if you can't disprove something then it must exist then you must also believe in unicorns, fairies or any other imagination of mankind also exists or could at least possibly exist?

Admittedly I didn't word it very clearly, it was 2 in the morning, but I did quote your argument as saying that if you can't disprove something it could possibly exist

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Isn't that exactly what you are saying, that if something can't be proved not to exist then in may exist?

you believe that in order to believe something you must logically prove it first. You're assuming that I share that axiom

I do not believe that at all:

What we can do is use scientific methods to prove those things that can be proven

anything that cannot be verified empirically is meaningless

Meaningless means neither 'Does not exist' nor 'I do not believe it exists' indeed I could very well believe that God exists it is just that that belief would be meaningless to a logical positivist.

I made no statement about whether I was a logical positivist I was merely answering the point that you made:

If you're a logical positivist then you're pretty much confined to be an agnostic

As for logic, a logical conclusion is only as valid as the axioms used to reach that conclusion. For a 'reasonable' conclusion to be reached then the axioms used must also be 'reasonable'.

Of course, everyone will have their own views on what is 'reasonable' and this is where we will have to agree to differ. ;)

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing; but I would like to civilly discuss our differences because that is what leads to enlightenment.

I agree ;)

Nameless

October 16th, 2006, 07:33 AM

My viewpoint is, if logic and empirical observation does not prove or disprove a statement, it is logically neutral,

Not so. A lack of any evidence is in itself evidence AGAINST something's existance. There is no evidence for god. If a god exists, it follows there should be SOME evidence. The fact that there is no evidence is evidence (not proof) that there is NO god, thus, it is in fact biased more towards disbelief

If I feel that something is true, I cannot impose that upon you.

As if that ever stopped Christians trying. :roll:

daddym

October 16th, 2006, 03:07 PM

One Christians reply to: Why?

You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

I do not deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions. While some are indeed non-existent figments of the imagination, some are demons holding themselves up as gods. There is a very real spiritual realm.

As to feeling outrage at someone’s denial of the existence of the only
true God, creator and sustainer of the universe and all it contains. No
outrage at all. Not one human born is born loving or seeking after
God. There is no one righteous, not even one, there is no one who
understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have turned
away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who
shows kindness, not even one. Their throats are open graves, they
deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their
lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are
swift to shed blood, ruin and misery are in their paths, and the way of
peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their
eyes. This is the natural state of any human and is to be expected.
When one hates something one tries to distance themselves from that
hated person or thing as far as possible. One such way to accomplish
the distancing is to deny it’s existence. It is to be expected that there
will be some who are atheists. I have nothing but love for them - no
outrage.

You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

Actually I do not feel this way. I do indeed disagree with the theory of
evolution. One look into the DNA code is enough evidence for me that
there was necessarily a designer of that code and indeed all of life.
Anything less than the God revealed in the Bible as self existent,
omnipotent, holy, just, gracious, merciful, and terrifyingly great and
true in every way is what I would deem the fairy tale.

You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.

Why would I laugh at a polytheist? I would rather engage him in
conversation and discover to him the true nature of God. One God
eternally existent in three persons perfect and complete in fellowship,
and in need of nothing, overflowing with love in creating a universe
filled with wonders displaying Himself for His own great glory and the
joy of His people.

Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!

Once again my face does not turn purple at this. Grieved, yes. Weep
over it, yes. But, given the nature of man as I pointed out in my first
answer, it’s to be expected that many atrocities are done in the name
of many different people, “gods” and causes from violent riots in the
streets after basketball games (and that by the fans of the team who
won!) to Hitler and his minions. And I do flinch as I read about God’s
judgment on whole cities and nations as He led His people out of
Egypt. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God Who
has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and hardens whom he
chooses to harden.

You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

In reading the Hindu, Greek and other pagan myths there is a
marked difference between them and the historically grounded and
attested events of God becoming flesh (not man becoming God mind
you). For more detailed information on that subject I recommend to
you the book “The Gospel and The Greeks” by Ronald H. Nash

You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.

I spend my life living day to day to the glory of God in many ways
both small and large, “looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically
established age of the Earth” is not one of them. 4.55 billion years is
an estimate at best and is not necessarily at odds with the creation
account in Genesis so there is no need for disputation.

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".

I believe that God has chosen a people for Himself from every nation,
tribe and tongue which no man can number to the praise of His
glorious name and to the great joy of all creation. There is also a
great multitude made up of the rest from every nation tribe and
tongue who by their own free agency in rejecting the knowledge of
God, turning instead to worship and revere and pursue themselves
and the created order and who suppress the truth in unrighteousness
will indeed receive the due penalty of their error and rebellion for
eternity.

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.

Science, history, geology, biology and physics all testify to the
wonder, the wisdom, the power and the glory of the everlasting God.
Some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" needs to
be instructed in sound, biblical teaching and begin to live for God’s
glory not his own self exalting pursuit of some feel good experience.

You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

Prayer is not about God as Santa Claus.

You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a Christian.

This is probably true. And I do still, and am glad to, call myself a
Christian. May God grant you eyes to see and ears to hear and may
you someday become one too. This was good. Thanks for the
opportunity to express my thoughts on your site.

Alice Shade

October 16th, 2006, 07:24 PM

Ah, an intelligent reply.

Well, let me ask you one more "Why?"

I do not deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions. While some are indeed non-existent figments of the imagination,some are demons holding themselves up as gods. There is a very real spiritual realm.

Why do you think, that your reasons for worshipping God are more valid, then our reasons for worshipping Google?

You do not see any of us walk into Christian church, and say - "Repent, sinners, for you are heathen! There is one true god, and her name is Google!", do you?

So, why do you feel, that it IS right for you to try and persuade us, that your God is the right one, if you reject the possibility of ours being right?

More so, why are you so sure, that only people following your god are worthy ones?

The most honorable person I ever met was Satanist, you know? He did not upheld his honor out of fear of god, nor for forgiveness of sins. No. He despiced the thought of himself being dishonorable. He said, that it is not fitting for a god. Now, by your beliefs, he has to spend the eternity in torment, just because his reasons for doing the right things were different from yours?

Actually I do not feel this way. I do indeed disagree with the theory of evolution. One look into the DNA code is enough evidence for me that there was necessarily a designer of that code and indeed all of life.

Let`s see... One look at DNA, you say? Had you ever really looked? It`s SO rife with genetic floatsam, garbage and redundancy, that it is still not possible to read it fully, just separate strands.
How does THAT speaks of a designer? Or do you think, that designers always leave heaps of junk and sticky notes behind?

Why would I laugh at a polytheist? I would rather engage him in conversation and discover to him the true nature of God.

I covered that earlier.

And I do flinch as I read about God’s judgment on whole cities and nations as He led His people out of Egypt.

"Judge, and ye be judged." Was it not that bible said? If God dared to judge and sentence cities and nations to death, how can one deny a judgement on that God?

I spend my life living day to day to the glory of God in many ways both small and large, “looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth” is not one of them. 4.55 billion years is an estimate at best and is not necessarily at odds with the creation account in Genesis so there is no need for disputation.

There is one little bug with creation. By the creationism, all the world was created in six days, complete with animals and such, no? As far as I remember, on seventh day God was resting, and after that, he only made man and woman. Now, let us suppose, that your argument was correct. Ho do you explain then, that the earliest possible findings of remotely-modern animals do not date more then one billion years, at the very best? Also, if Adam was sentenced by God to "plough the ground" for food, HOW come, that all the ploughs EVER found do NOT date more then (on a BIIG stretch) 10000 BC? What, Adam and Eve had pranced around the Eden for four billion years, or what?

I believe that God has chosen a people for Himself from every nation, tribe and tongue which no man can number to the praise of His glorious name and to the great joy of all creation. There is also a great multitude made up of the rest from every nation tribe and tongue who by their own free agency in rejecting the knowledge of God, turning instead to worship and revere and pursue themselves and the created order and who suppress the truth in unrighteousness will indeed receive the due penalty of their error and rebellion for eternity.

Look above.

Science, history, geology, biology and physics all testify to the wonder, the wisdom, the power and the glory of the everlasting God.

Nevermind, that modern science (history, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, even mathematics) in one or another way openly contradict with the idea of God?

Prayer is not about God as Santa Claus.

Now, THAT, that is a very good point. Indeed, prayer is NOT about the God. It is about psychological relief. Nowadays, people go to psychoanalyst instead, however.

This is probably true. And I do still, and am glad to, call myself a Christian. May God grant you eyes to see and ears to hear and may you someday become one too.

Eyes, ears? You have your`s sealed shut to all but the bible and preach, and you DARE to urge us to open ours?! We see and hear more in sleep, then you awake!
Pray to Google, and you will understand, what does it feel like - to have your eyes and ears open. Do it, while it is not too late to evolve from this vegetable state.

AaronD

October 16th, 2006, 08:03 PM

You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions...
I do not deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions.
Oh, so you don't deny the existence of other gods? We'll see about that one, using your own words.
While some are indeed non-existent figments of the imagination, some are demons holding themselves up as gods. There is a very real spiritual realm.
Oh, so you don't deny their existence, you merely claim they are either figments of imagination or demons posing as gods. I get it. No, nevermind, I don't get it... how is claiming that they are nonexistent, or are really something else posing as a god and different from denying that they are gods?
As to feeling outrage at someone’s denial of the existence of the only true God, creator and sustainer of the universe and all it contains.
Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrite. How do you explain not denying other gods, but claiming that yours is the only true one? For that matter, how do you justify believing in evolution AND that God was the creator of all that the universe contains?

daddym

October 17th, 2006, 08:10 PM

Ah, an intelligent reply.

Thank you.

Well, let me ask you one more "Why?"

One more? ;)

Quote:
I do not deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions. While some are indeed non-existent figments of the imagination,some are demons holding themselves up as gods. There is a very real spiritual realm.

Why do you think, that your reasons for worshipping God are more valid, then our reasons for worshipping Google?

Truth is true whether one believes it or not. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith. By that I mean there is more than ample evidence of it’s veracity historically, logically, and philosophically. It fits the best with the world which we experience. Of course you are free to believe and to worship whatever you please to. You, all of us, are free moral agents with the power to make choices. We make those choices based on what we desire most. And we are bound to experience the consequences of those choices whether we want to or not.

You do not see any of us walk into Christian church, and say - "Repent, sinners, for you are heathen! There is one true god, and her name is Google!", do you?

Is this really how I walked in here? You asked a question of me and I responded. And I thank you for the opportunity to converse. It is good to discuss these things. If I am not welcome I will certainly leave without conflict.

So, why do you feel, that it IS right for you to try and persuade us, that your God is the right one, if you reject the possibility of ours being right?

Possibly (though I cannot truly know your mind) for the same reason you feel it is right to produce this website and promote your belief in Google. Also, I believe Christianity is true, Jesus is who He says He is and that faith comes by hearing His word. I desire, therefore that you know and believe that truth and enter in to the great joy of glorifying God. And I just plain enjoy talking about Him.

More so, why are you so sure, that only people following your god are worthy ones?

None who follow Jesus are worthy. I certainly am not. All of us are sinners deserving of death. It is only His grace by which anyone can follow Him. But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

The most honorable person I ever met was Satanist, you know? He did not upheld his honor out of fear of god, nor for forgiveness of sins. No. He despiced the thought of himself being dishonorable. He said, that it is not fitting for a god. Now, by your beliefs, he has to spend the eternity in torment, just because his reasons for doing the right things were different from yours?

Let’s suppose you know this guy who is a really good person. You live next door to him. He's as honest as the day is long. He's hard-working, a straight-shooter. He gives to charity -- and not just to formal charities: You’ve never seen him turn down a panhandler on the street. He's devoted to his wife and children, he's a regular church-attendee. He drives within the speed limit, always seems neatly dressed and clean. You hardly ever see him sitting around. He's often out working on his yard, or even helping elderly neighbors work on theirs. Honorable to the Nth degree. You tell him you think his parents must be proud. He tells you actually he’s adopted. Bounced from foster home to foster home. He found his inner strength on his own and followed it to this life of peace. Then one day his house is surrounded by the FBI. Turns out he is an orphan. Because he orphaned himself by brutally murdering his parents. Then he went to the bank, opened their safety deposit box and absconded with a million dollars in bearer bonds, moved across the country next door to you and started living life as you have known him.

Still a good guy undeserving of due justice?

Quote:
Actually I do not feel this way. I do indeed disagree with the theory of evolution. One look into the DNA code is enough evidence for me that there was necessarily a designer of that code and indeed all of life.

Let`s see... One look at DNA, you say? Had you ever really looked? It`s SO rife with genetic floatsam, garbage and redundancy, that it is still not possible to read it fully, just separate strands.
How does THAT speaks of a designer? Or do you think, that designers always leave heaps of junk and sticky notes behind?

Second law of Thermo-Dynamics. Things are tending towards less complexity. Things break. Things are running down. Entropy. We are looking at a corrupted product of God’s original design. As broken as it may be it still necessitates a designer. Just because the 1956 Chevy is covered with scratches and rust doesn’t mean GM didn’t design it.

Quote:
Why would I laugh at a polytheist? I would rather engage him in conversation and discover to him the true nature of God.

I covered that earlier.

So did I. ;)

Quote:
And I do flinch as I read about God’s judgment on whole cities and nations as He led His people out of Egypt.

"Judge, and ye be judged." Was it not that bible said? If God dared to judge and sentence cities and nations to death, how can one deny a judgement on that God?

The Bible speaks about judgment a lot. To take five words and state them without the full context is meaningless. God as the creator and sustainer of all and who alone is wholly without sin and utterly independent has the right and the purity needed to judge with perfect justice.

Psa 50:6 NET. The heavens declare his fairness,
for God is judge.

Psa 58:1 NET. Do you rulers really pronounce just decisions?
Do you judge people fairly?

Psa 75:7 NET. For God is the judge!
He brings one down and exalts another.

Pro 31:9 NET. Open your mouth, judge in righteousness,
and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Lev 19:15 NET. " 'You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich. You must judge your fellow citizen fairly.

Jam 4:12 NET. But there is only one who is lawgiver and judge — the one who is able to save and destroy. On the other hand, who are you to judge your neighbor?

Deu 1:16 NET. I furthermore admonished your judges at that time that they should pay attention to issues among your fellow citizens and judge fairly, whether between one citizen and another or a citizen and a resident foreigner.

Deu 16:18 NET. You must appoint judges and civil servants for each tribe in all your villages that the LORD your God is giving you, and they must judge the people fairly.

Rom 2:3 NET. And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God's judgment?

Rom 14:10 NET. But you who eat vegetables only — why do you judge your brother or sister? And you who eat everything — why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

1Co 4:5 NET. So then, do not judge anything before the time. Wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the motives of hearts. Then each will receive recognition from God.

Quote:
I spend my life living day to day to the glory of God in many ways both small and large, “looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth” is not one of them. 4.55 billion years is an estimate at best and is not necessarily at odds with the creation account in Genesis so there is no need for disputation.

There is one little bug with creation. By the creationism, all the world was created in six days, complete with animals and such, no? As far as I remember, on seventh day God was resting, and after that, he only made man and woman. Now, let us suppose, that your argument was correct. Ho do you explain then, that the earliest possible findings of remotely-modern animals do not date more then one billion years, at the very best? Also, if Adam was sentenced by God to "plough the ground" for food, HOW come, that all the ploughs EVER found do NOT date more then (on a BIIG stretch) 10000 BC? What, Adam and Eve had pranced around the Eden for four billion years, or what?

Actually there is a lot of evidence that the Earth and our sun are relatively young. Rates of the current shrinking of the sun extrapolated back even only 100,000 years make the sun so large that the earth could in no way support life. Even just 50,000 years ago the oceans would be boiling. That gets us much closer to 10,000 BC. Questions like how long were the days spoken of in Genesis come in to play as well. 24hr periods of time as we mark time? Or many - even thousands of years? Scripture tells us a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. The point of the Genesis story is that it is God’s design and His handiwork. Each creature including man specifically made by Him. It does not speak to how it was accomplished in terms of the means used.

Quote:
I believe that God has chosen a people for Himself from every nation, tribe and tongue which no man can number to the praise of His glorious name and to the great joy of all creation. There is also a great multitude made up of the rest from every nation tribe and tongue who by their own free agency in rejecting the knowledge of God, turning instead to worship and revere and pursue themselves and the created order and who suppress the truth in unrighteousness will indeed receive the due penalty of their error and rebellion for eternity.

Look above.

How far above?

Quote:
Science, history, geology, biology and physics all testify to the wonder, the wisdom, the power and the glory of the everlasting God.

Nevermind, that modern science (history, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, even mathematics) in one or another way openly contradict with the idea of God?

History - His Story, God loves stories, that’s why He made man and He entered in to history in the person of His Son.

Geology - Ah, existence itself. Which makes more sense... IT always was and always will be? Or HE always was and always will be? Matter, energy, life and personality arising from cold dead chemicals? Or matter (cold dead chemicals), energy, life and personality designed, shaped and formed by intelligent self existing personality? A 747 Jumbo jet coming together fully fueled and ready for flight after a tornado blows through a scrap yard? Or living, intelligent people at Boeing designing, building and delivering one? Out of non-life, intelligent life? Or out of Intelligent life, more life, growth, creativity, design and intricate variation?

Biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics - Same as Geology only much more intricate to the 100th power.

Quote:
Prayer is not about God as Santa Claus.

Now, THAT, that is a very good point. Indeed, prayer is NOT about the God. It is about psychological relief. Nowadays, people go to psychoanalyst instead, however.

No, prayer is about God - just not about God as Santa Claus. He is in sovereign control - not us. Prayer is not manipulating God to do whatever we want when we want it.

Quote:
This is probably true. And I do still, and am glad to, call myself a Christian. May God grant you eyes to see and ears to hear and may you someday become one too.

Eyes, ears? You have your`s sealed shut to all but the bible and preach, and you DARE to urge us to open ours?! We see and hear more in sleep, then you awake!
Pray to Google, and you will understand, what does it feel like - to have your eyes and ears open. Do it, while it is not too late to evolve from this vegetable state.

Fascinating statement. I have prayed to too many Googlesque gods in my life. Now I am indeed fully given over to Jesus Christ my God and Savior.

daddym wrote:
You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions...
I do not deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions.

Oh, so you don't deny the existence of other gods? We'll see about that one, using your own words.

daddym wrote:
While some are indeed non-existent figments of the imagination, some are demons holding themselves up as gods. There is a very real spiritual realm.

Oh, so you don't deny their existence, you merely claim they are either figments of imagination or demons posing as gods. I get it. No, nevermind, I don't get it... how is claiming that they are nonexistent, or are really something else posing as a god and different from denying that they are gods?

I assumed when you used the small case “g” referring to gods in your original statement you meant that literally - small gods, minor deities, spiritual beings of greater power than humans who demand worship. I do not deny the existence of those kinds of gods. As I said there is a very real spiritual realm. However you would be correct to say that I and all of my brothers and sisters in Christ do deny the existence of any other Supreme Being than Jehovah God, the great I AM. By definition there can only be one God.

daddym wrote:
As to feeling outrage at someone’s denial of the existence of the only true God, creator and sustainer of the universe and all it contains.

Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrite. How do you explain not denying other gods, but claiming that yours is the only true one?

As I said above I misunderstood your question. There is no hypocrisy in acknowledging that there are many thousands of spirits (fallen angels) who are called gods and who seek human worship while maintaining that there is only one true self existent, eternal God Supreme over all.

For that matter, how do you justify believing in evolution AND that God was the creator of all that the universe contains?

Where did I ever say I believed in evolution? I stated categorically in my answer to the question “You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.” that “I do indeed disagree with the theory of evolution.” Perhaps you misread my statement.

Again - thanks for the conversation.

Fallen Hero

October 17th, 2006, 08:45 PM

Truth is true whether one believes it or not. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith. By that I mean there is more than ample evidence of it’s veracity historically, logically, and philosophically. It fits the best with the world which we experience. Of course you are free to believe and to worship whatever you please to. You, all of us, are free moral agents with the power to make choices. We make those choices based on what we desire most. And we are bound to experience the consequences of those choices whether we want to or not. [/i]

Can you give us some of this logic, philosophy and history please - with references

Is this really how I walked in here? You asked a question of me and I responded. And I thank you for the opportunity to converse. It is good to discuss these things. If I am not welcome I will certainly leave without conflict.

You are most welcome to come here, we enjoy some one who can talk about their faith with confidence in front of us. It just seems that a lot of - christians in particular- people do try and convert us or argue that we need to 'get saved'.

Let’s suppose you know this guy who is a really good person. You live next door to him. He's as honest as the day is long. He's hard-working, a straight-shooter. He gives to charity -- and not just to formal charities: You’ve never seen him turn down a panhandler on the street. He's devoted to his wife and children, he's a regular church-attendee. He drives within the speed limit, always seems neatly dressed and clean. You hardly ever see him sitting around. He's often out working on his yard, or even helping elderly neighbors work on theirs. Honorable to the Nth degree. You tell him you think his parents must be proud. He tells you actually he’s adopted. Bounced from foster home to foster home. He found his inner strength on his own and followed it to this life of peace. Then one day his house is surrounded by the FBI. Turns out he is an orphan. Because he orphaned himself by brutally murdering his parents. Then he went to the bank, opened their safety deposit box and absconded with a million dollars in bearer bonds, moved across the country next door to you and started living life as you have known him.

Still a good guy undeserving of due justice?

What has that got to do with what was said? That essentially implies that you equate satanism and honourable, with being a murderer who lived like the perfect person afterwards. That is just not worth considering. Please refraise.

Second law of Thermo-Dynamics. Things are tending towards less complexity. Things break. Things are running down. Entropy. We are looking at a corrupted product of God’s original design. As broken as it may be it still necessitates a designer. Just because the 1956 Chevy is covered with scratches and rust doesn’t mean GM didn’t design it.

The car analogy has already been shot down. You need to now back up your point with something, please.

The Bible speaks about judgment a lot. To take five words and state them without the full context is meaningless. God as the creator and sustainer of all and who alone is wholly without sin and utterly independent has the right and the purity needed to judge with perfect justice.

Psa 50:6 NET. The heavens declare his fairness,
for God is judge.

Psa 58:1 NET. Do you rulers really pronounce just decisions?
Do you judge people fairly?

Psa 75:7 NET. For God is the judge!
He brings one down and exalts another.

Pro 31:9 NET. Open your mouth, judge in righteousness,
and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Lev 19:15 NET. " 'You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich. You must judge your fellow citizen fairly.

Jam 4:12 NET. But there is only one who is lawgiver and judge — the one who is able to save and destroy. On the other hand, who are you to judge your neighbor?

Deu 1:16 NET. I furthermore admonished your judges at that time that they should pay attention to issues among your fellow citizens and judge fairly, whether between one citizen and another or a citizen and a resident foreigner.

Deu 16:18 NET. You must appoint judges and civil servants for each tribe in all your villages that the LORD your God is giving you, and they must judge the people fairly.

Rom 2:3 NET. And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God's judgment?

Rom 14:10 NET. But you who eat vegetables only — why do you judge your brother or sister? And you who eat everything — why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

1Co 4:5 NET. So then, do not judge anything before the time. Wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the motives of hearts. Then each will receive recognition from God.

Due to the fact that the bible was written by people and 'inspiration' by a god is not provable in any sense, biblical passages have been determined to not be valid sources of evidence of anything. Why is a god who has 'hardened' on people perfect? If he was perfect he would have created his world so he would not have to 'harden' on people.

Actually there is a lot of evidence that the Earth and our sun are relatively young. Rates of the current shrinking of the sun extrapolated back even only 100,000 years make the sun so large that the earth could in no way support life. Even just 50,000 years ago the oceans would be boiling. That gets us much closer to 10,000 BC. Questions like how long were the days spoken of in Genesis come in to play as well. 24hr periods of time as we mark time? Or many - even thousands of years? Scripture tells us a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. The point of the Genesis story is that it is God’s design and His handiwork. Each creature including man specifically made by Him. It does not speak to how it was accomplished in terms of the means used.

Can you please give this evidence. For the benefit of all involved. I do hope that you can reconize the Earth is older than 100 000 years, the sun as well (I think you said you did in a previous post but I am a little short on time at the moment).

Nevermind, that modern science (history, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, even mathematics) in one or another way openly contradict with the idea of God?

History - His Story, God loves stories, that’s why He made man and He entered in to history in the person of His Son.

Geology - Ah, existence itself. Which makes more sense... IT always was and always will be? Or HE always was and always will be? Matter, energy, life and personality arising from cold dead chemicals? Or matter (cold dead chemicals), energy, life and personality designed, shaped and formed by intelligent self existing personality? A 747 Jumbo jet coming together fully fueled and ready for flight after a tornado blows through a scrap yard? Or living, intelligent people at Boeing designing, building and delivering one? Out of non-life, intelligent life? Or out of Intelligent life, more life, growth, creativity, design and intricate variation?

I am sorry, this arguement just does not work, you are comparing a little too directly the world of technology with the world of theoretical (and philosophical) physics. The analogy does not work because of the vast differences in circumstance. Yes, the plane having a designer makes more sense, however, the plane does not submit to the evolution process of nature (You acknowledge this with your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics arguement) Look at the 'infidelguy' article posted earlier. I think IT ALL always was and always will be makes more sense than He IS and will be and made all of this Be and forever more be.

Biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics - Same as Geology only much more intricate to the 100th power.

I would still like to hear it. Considering that these tend to much more heavily support

I assumed when you used the small case “g” referring to gods in your original statement you meant that literally - small gods, minor deities, spiritual beings of greater power than humans who demand worship. I do not deny the existence of those kinds of gods. As I said there is a very real spiritual realm. However you would be correct to say that I and all of my brothers and sisters in Christ do deny the existence of any other Supreme Being than Jehovah God, the great I AM. By definition there can only be one God.

How is this so? How does this defenition work? Give me the defenition please.

There is a spirit (the fallen hero) who is called god. Why thanks. I knew you would see the proverbial light. XD

Where did I ever say I believed in evolution?

I touched on this earlier.

Again - thanks for the conversation.[/i]

AaronD

October 17th, 2006, 09:36 PM

I'll tackle this one point at a time, shall I? It might really help if you learned to quote properly. I am surprised at your half-baked responses to our questions, which are more full of ignorance than I would ever had expected.

You do not see any of us walk into Christian church, and say - "Repent, sinners, for you are heathen! There is one true god, and her name is Google!", do you?

Is this really how I walked in here? You asked a question of me and I responded. And I thank you for the opportunity to converse. It is good to discuss these things. If I am not welcome I will certainly leave without conflict.

Not you specifically, but take a look at the posts of a former member called "Jesus Servant" and you will see what we mean. I have noticed a general trend among Christians for minding other people's business, believing that anybody who does not share their beliefs is doomed to burn forever in the fiery pits of hell.

So, why do you feel, that it IS right for you to try and persuade us, that your God is the right one, if you reject the possibility of ours being right?

Possibly (though I cannot truly know your mind) for the same reason you feel it is right to produce this website and promote your belief in Google. Also, I believe Christianity is true, Jesus is who He says He is and that faith comes by hearing His word. I desire, therefore that you know and believe that truth and enter in to the great joy of glorifying God. And I just plain enjoy talking about Him.

You obviously do not understand the word "parody". Let me find you a quick definition:

a composition that imitates somebody's style in a humorous way
make a spoof of or make fun of
humorous or satirical mimicry

This site was not meant to spread belief in google, but rather to parody organized religion as a whole. You really are perceptive, aren't you?

The most honorable person I ever met was Satanist, you know? He did not upheld his honor out of fear of god, nor for forgiveness of sins. No. He despiced the thought of himself being dishonorable. He said, that it is not fitting for a god. Now, by your beliefs, he has to spend the eternity in torment, just because his reasons for doing the right things were different from yours?

Let’s suppose you know this guy who is a really good person. You live next door to him. He's as honest as the day is long. He's hard-working, a straight-shooter. He gives to charity -- and not just to formal charities: You’ve never seen him turn down a panhandler on the street. He's devoted to his wife and children, he's a regular church-attendee. He drives within the speed limit, always seems neatly dressed and clean. You hardly ever see him sitting around. He's often out working on his yard, or even helping elderly neighbors work on theirs. Honorable to the Nth degree. You tell him you think his parents must be proud. He tells you actually he’s adopted. Bounced from foster home to foster home. He found his inner strength on his own and followed it to this life of peace. Then one day his house is surrounded by the FBI. Turns out he is an orphan. Because he orphaned himself by brutally murdering his parents. Then he went to the bank, opened their safety deposit box and absconded with a million dollars in bearer bonds, moved across the country next door to you and started living life as you have known him.

Still a good guy undeserving of due justice?

Ah, so now we're assuming that all satanists happen to be orphans who shot their parents? Otherwise, I don't see any similarities between a satanist and a murderer. Doing a deed is much different from discussing it, and murdering is much different from satanism. I find it amusing how you snuck in a reference to going to church there, as if that makes you any more or less honorable. Faint newsflash: It doesn't. Going to church has nothing to do with how honorable you are, how good a neighbor you are, or anything else along those lines. By your logic stated earlier in this paragraph, I could assume a christian to be a murderer, and use that to state that christians are all bad. It doesn't make sense when I do it, and it certainly doesn't when you say it. What does due justice have to do with any of this? You mean do process? Not even the best of men is above the law, nor the worst below it.

Second law of Thermo-Dynamics. Things are tending towards less complexity. Things break. Things are running down. Entropy. We are looking at a corrupted product of God’s original design. As broken as it may be it still necessitates a designer. Just because the 1956 Chevy is covered with scratches and rust doesn’t mean GM didn’t design it.

Besides you complete misstatement of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that energy conversions are not 100 percent proficient (and, as such, there will be a lower potential energy after a neutral reaction has taken place then before), there are a plethora of mistakes. The most blaringly obvious of these is that DNA is not corrupted, merely intricate and complex. Why would God (if he did exist) make something which decays, if he supposedly has the power to make it infinite? It just doesn't make sense, especially with the increases in technology and calculation power we are experiencing fairly regularly. DNA does not necessitate a designer, just the right chemicals to bond together. Even if you had correctly stated the law, thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with the structure of DNA, merely the potential energy it contains after a reaction.

Quote:
Why would I laugh at a polytheist? I would rather engage him in conversation and discover to him the true nature of God.

I covered that earlier.

So did I. ;)
Ah, so you do admit you claim to know of the true nature of God. That amazes me, since you are basing it on a work of fiction and some folklore about the reincarnation of a middle-eastern philosopher who got nailed to a board for asking if we couldn't all be nice to each other for a change. Christianity was not the first religion to sport a story about a virgin birth, and will most likely not be the last.

Actually there is a lot of evidence that the Earth and our sun are relatively young. Rates of the current shrinking of the sun extrapolated back even only 100,000 years make the sun so large that the earth could in no way support life. Even just 50,000 years ago the oceans would be boiling. That gets us much closer to 10,000 BC. Questions like how long were the days spoken of in Genesis come in to play as well. 24hr periods of time as we mark time? Or many - even thousands of years? Scripture tells us a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. The point of the Genesis story is that it is God’s design and His handiwork. Each creature including man specifically made by Him. It does not speak to how it was accomplished in terms of the means used.

I would like to read this so-called evidence, as you clearly have no concept of what "relatively" young refers to. In geological terms it can, and indeed in this case does, refer to hundreds of billions of years. Even thought 50 million years ago (you put three zeros too few) the sea was boiling on surface, the life was within its cold, dark depths. There is a vast amount of evidence to support evolution, ranging from the austrolopithicus aferensis to homo sapien neandratalensis (with hundreds of species in between) all the way to modern man, homo sapien sapien. There are fossils and formations dating back further than 50000 years, and the dinosaurs have been scientifically dated back to over 100 million years ago, blowing your claim that life started around 10000 BCE right out of the water, so to speak.

[quote=daddym]History - His Story, God loves stories, that’s why He made man and He entered in to history in the person of His Son.

No, history is so named because it was written originally by men alone. History and biblical studies are two completely different things, and one should not be mistaken for the other. History was not written by any sort of deity, but by the winners and the conquerors and the excavators and archaeologists. You know, the people who work to discover what actually happened instead of falling back on god as the be-all and end-all axiom and answer to all questions about the past of humankind.

Fascinating statement. I have prayed to too many Googlesque gods in my life. Now I am indeed fully given over to Jesus Christ my God and Savior.
Define Google-esque. I have never heard of any other concept for a deity such as the Church of Google presents, nor do I believe Google is meant to be prayed to. See my above definition for parody, a word you obviously misunderstand.

I assumed when you used the small case “g” referring to gods in your original statement you meant that literally - small gods, minor deities, spiritual beings of greater power than humans who demand worship. I do not deny the existence of those kinds of gods. As I said there is a very real spiritual realm. However you would be correct to say that I and all of my brothers and sisters in Christ do deny the existence of any other Supreme Being than Jehovah God, the great I AM. By definition there can only be one God.

You don't get the irony in this. I meant gods or Gods or however you like it, but it is hilarious that you are arguing how you don't disbelieve in the deities of other religions, but merely believe them to be lesser gods and angels within your own. If you do not see the hypocrisy in this, you are truly blind, it seems. There can only be one God in a monotheistic religion, but there is no limit to Gods in a polytheistic religion. There is no spiritual realm, no living and dead realms, nothing like that. There is the universe, possibly one in many, but that's as far as realms go. You readily assume in this argument that we accept your beliefs as axioms.

daddym wrote:
As to feeling outrage at someone’s denial of the existence of the only true God, creator and sustainer of the universe and all it contains.

Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrite. How do you explain not denying other gods, but claiming that yours is the only true one?

As I said above I misunderstood your question. There is no hypocrisy in acknowledging that there are many thousands of spirits (fallen angels) who are called gods and who seek human worship while maintaining that there is only one true self existent, eternal God Supreme over all.

Again - thanks for the conversation.

There is hypocrisy in claiming that you don't disbelieve that the deities of other religions exist, and then claiming that they aren't really deities, just fallen angels who seek human worship. It is imposing your religion on all others, on all humans in fact, while having just stated that you don't do that. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is, and believe me, I know a hypocrite when I see one.

daddym

October 23rd, 2006, 06:40 PM

Quote:
Truth is true whether one believes it or not. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith. By that I mean there is more than ample evidence of it’s veracity historically, logically, and philosophically. It fits the best with the world which we experience. Of course you are free to believe and to worship whatever you please to. You, all of us, are free moral agents with the power to make choices. We make those choices based on what we desire most. And we are bound to experience the consequences of those choices whether we want to or not. [/i]

Can you give us some of this logic, philosophy and history please - with references

First, the Bible is grounded in history unlike any other writings from world religions. All other religious writings are either non-historical in nature (poetry, other-worldly, philosophical) or if they do claim historicity (the Koran or the Book of Mormon for example) they are and have been shown to be in direct contradiction to outside historical writings and archeological facts. The places, people and cultures written of in the Bible however, are all consistent with what we know of them from other historical writings and archeological evidence. In fact Nelson Glueck in Rivers In The Desert has said, “It can be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.”

The 66 books of the Bible written over a course of 1500 years by over 40 different authors from every walk of life, some rich, some poor, some highly educated, some not, tradesmen, scholars, kings and vagabonds all cohere together in full agreement to tell the story of God’s progressive revelation of Himself to us and His purpose in creating us.

The reliability of the transmission of those writings is remarkable beyond comparison. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 the accuracy of the copies were stunningly confirmed. “The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations. There were no major doctrinal differences between the accepted and the Qumran texts.” (from The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.)

Either there is a God, or there is not.

If there is not then we are adrift and we can make up whatever we want morally and philosophically. There is no real meaning except whatever meaning we make up. All that we are and all that we do simply ends up in the ground in non-existence.

If there is a God He, She or It (H.S.I.) is either personal or impersonal. If It is impersonal again we are adrift. If personal then that God is able to communicate who and what H.S.I. is and how we are to relate. That’s not to say that H.S.I. would want or choose to… but the possibility is there.

It would be logical to think that God would be greater than what God creates. So as much as humanity is in mind, will and emotion it would be logical to think that God is that and/or much more.

I’m sure you have been around the block on all these thoughts and there certainly are a plethora of books and websites by many different scholars on all these subjects from Frank Morrison to N.T. Wright, Francis Schaeffer, Ravi Zacharias, C.S. Lewis, Gary R. Habermas, R.C. Sproul, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel and a host of others too numerous to name.

None of this of course proves conclusively that there is a God or that that God is the God of the Bible but all I am arguing is that Christianity is a reasonable faith. It is reasonable to believe it. It stands strong and firm with much solid evidence of it‘s veracity. We do see through a glass darkly but I believe God has made us to know Him and that He does indeed invade our space and make Himself known to us in Jesus. Again, I pray for you that God may give you eyes to see and ears to hear.

Quote:
Is this really how I walked in here? You asked a question of me and I responded. And I thank you for the opportunity to converse. It is good to discuss these things. If I am not welcome I will certainly leave without conflict.

You are most welcome to come here, we enjoy some one who can talk about their faith with confidence in front of us. It just seems that a lot of - christians in particular- people do try and convert us or argue that we need to 'get saved'.

I would assume that you realize that that is the message of the Bible. God made the universe and all it contains, including us, for His glory and our great joy. We humans, (you me, everyone) are sinners who have rejected the knowledge of God, His glory and His sovereignty over us. We are in rebellion against Him and in need of salvation from our own sin and self-destructive ways. The Gospel is first bad news before it is good news. Jesus is God in the flesh who came to die for those who believe in and trust Him for that salvation. The rest God does abandon to their own desire to live life on their own terms away from Him and are then by their own choice destined for Hell.

I, of course, understand that sometimes this is done in a most abusive and unchristian like manner. I suppose that is because many who call themselves Christians really aren’t and those who are and behave that way God is still working on sanding off the rough edges. In any case I apologize for that on their behalf.

Quote:
Let’s suppose you know this guy who is a really good person. You live next door to him. He's as honest as the day is long. He's hard-working, a straight-shooter. He gives to charity -- and not just to formal charities: You’ve never seen him turn down a panhandler on the street. He's devoted to his wife and children, he's a regular church-attendee. He drives within the speed limit, always seems neatly dressed and clean. You hardly ever see him sitting around. He's often out working on his yard, or even helping elderly neighbors work on theirs. Honorable to the Nth degree. You tell him you think his parents must be proud. He tells you actually he’s adopted. Bounced from foster home to foster home. He found his inner strength on his own and followed it to this life of peace. Then one day his house is surrounded by the FBI. Turns out he is an orphan. Because he orphaned himself by brutally murdering his parents. Then he went to the bank, opened their safety deposit box and absconded with a million dollars in bearer bonds, moved across the country next door to you and started living life as you have known him.

Still a good guy undeserving of due justice?

What has that got to do with what was said? That essentially implies that you equate satanism and honourable, with being a murderer who lived like the perfect person afterwards. That is just not worth considering. Please refraise.

I mean it as an allegory. Yes, I use the “good” guy as a representation of the Satanist (but it could just as well be myself or anyone else from any walk of life BC). God brought him into existence, supplies everything he has for his life and sustains him in it while all the while Sam Satanist (or Ernie Everyman if you will) spits in God’s face, rejecting even the thought of His existence - in effect murdering Him in his heart. It is for the putting away of God from his life that God will put him away for eternity should he continue in that state of heart and mind until death. Just as we would fully understand and applaud the apprehension and due punishment of a murderer like the one in my story even though he had lived such a great life for so many years (think of how many Nazi war criminals hid their past in such a way) it is just for God to punish those who sin against Him.

All I am doing here, by the way, is trying to show that if God exists and is who He says He is in Scripture He is just in all His ways and consistently so. If God really does not exist then hey it’s all up for grabs anyway and it doesn’t really matter how one chooses to life his life. The guy in my story was just living up to the survival of the fittest and did a damn good job of it - except for that part about getting caught - but then with all that money he could probably get a real good lawyer, ay? ;)

Quote:
Second law of Thermo-Dynamics. Things are tending towards less complexity. Things break. Things are running down. Entropy. We are looking at a corrupted product of God’s original design. As broken as it may be it still necessitates a designer. Just because the 1956 Chevy is covered with scratches and rust doesn’t mean GM didn’t design it.

The car analogy has already been shot down. You need to now back up your point with something, please.

Design implies a designer. I choose to believe there is one partly because from the world observable to the naked eye down to the microscopic realm design screams out at us. A great book on the subject is Darwin’s Black Box by M. Behe. It is a reasonable, strong and cogent argument.

Also life just does not arise from non-life. For centuries, since at least the time of Aristotle, people (including scientists) believed that simple living organisms could come into being by spontaneous generation. They believed that non-living objects can give rise to living organisms. In 1668, Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, did an experiment with flies and wide-mouth jars containing meat. And he showed that life does not come from non-life.

Quote:
The Bible speaks about judgment a lot. To take five words and state them without the full context is meaningless. God as the creator and sustainer of all and who alone is wholly without sin and utterly independent has the right and the purity needed to judge with perfect justice.

Psa 50:6 NET. The heavens declare his fairness,
for God is judge.

Psa 58:1 NET. Do you rulers really pronounce just decisions?
Do you judge people fairly?

Psa 75:7 NET. For God is the judge!
He brings one down and exalts another.

Pro 31:9 NET. Open your mouth, judge in righteousness,
and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Lev 19:15 NET. " 'You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich. You must judge your fellow citizen fairly.

Jam 4:12 NET. But there is only one who is lawgiver and judge — the one who is able to save and destroy. On the other hand, who are you to judge your neighbor?

Deu 1:16 NET. I furthermore admonished your judges at that time that they should pay attention to issues among your fellow citizens and judge fairly, whether between one citizen and another or a citizen and a resident foreigner.

Deu 16:18 NET. You must appoint judges and civil servants for each tribe in all your villages that the LORD your God is giving you, and they must judge the people fairly.

Rom 2:3 NET. And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God's judgment?

Rom 14:10 NET. But you who eat vegetables only — why do you judge your brother or sister? And you who eat everything — why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

1Co 4:5 NET. So then, do not judge anything before the time. Wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the motives of hearts. Then each will receive recognition from God.

Due to the fact that the bible was written by people and 'inspiration' by a god is not provable in any sense, biblical passages have been determined to not be valid sources of evidence of anything. Why is a god who has 'hardened' on people perfect? If he was perfect he would have created his world so he would not have to 'harden' on people.

I was simply responding to a question about what the Bible says about Judging and if it applied to God as well as us. I must necessarily quote the Bible in order to do that.

As to how God could be perfect given that the world He created is not; on what authority can you make the statement that God would have created a perfect world if indeed He did create at all? We cannot know each others motivations let alone God’s. As we learn who of our fellow humans we can trust to be transparent in telling us why they believe and do the things they do so we must learn about God and His motives and doings by what He tells us. No one knows the spirit of a man but the man himself and no one knows the Spirit of God but God Himself and those to whom He chooses to reveal Himself.

Quote:
Actually there is a lot of evidence that the Earth and our sun are relatively young. Rates of the current shrinking of the sun extrapolated back even only 100,000 years make the sun so large that the earth could in no way support life. Even just 50,000 years ago the oceans would be boiling. That gets us much closer to 10,000 BC. Questions like how long were the days spoken of in Genesis come in to play as well. 24hr periods of time as we mark time? Or many - even thousands of years? Scripture tells us a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. The point of the Genesis story is that it is God’s design and His handiwork. Each creature including man specifically made by Him. It does not speak to how it was accomplished in terms of the means used.

Can you please give this evidence. For the benefit of all involved. I do hope that you can reconize the Earth is older than 100 000 years, the sun as well (I think you said you did in a previous post but I am a little short on time at the moment).

I look at DNA and see a 4 letter binary code of nucleotides that maps out a blueprint for an organisms structure and I say that strongly displays design. DNA is incredibly complex. We are incredibly complex - so much so that nothing constructed by man comes even close by light years. Another person looks at DNA and says what an impressive display of natural selection. As these four nucleotides came in contact with each other those which combined by chance created the most positive results and kept replicating and increasing in complexity finally producing the incredible variety of life we know today. Same evidence, different interpretations. Is it reasonable to believe that order came out of chaos and chance. Is it reasonable to think that non-living chemicals suddenly combined by a chance combination of energy and matter present into amino acids and formed enzymes and peptides and nucleotides and DNA and cells and plants and animals and man? Some people think so. Is it reasonable to believe that an intelligent designer used those same raw materials producing each kind of DNA “blueprint” for production and self-reproduction of each kind of life found on this planet? Some people think so and I am one of them.

There are ways of looking at the facts and seeing full harmony with the Bibles information regarding creation. Both from a young earth and a old universe/earth perspective. Three websites with much info from both perspectives are found here:

. www.reasons.org , www.origins.org and www.evolution-facts.org

Again, Christianity is a reasonable, historical faith.

Nevermind, that modern science (history, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, even mathematics) in one or another way openly contradict with the idea of God?

History - His Story, God loves stories, that’s why He made man and He entered in to history in the person of His Son.

Quote:
Geology - Ah, existence itself. Which makes more sense... IT always was and always will be? Or HE always was and always will be? Matter, energy, life and personality arising from cold dead chemicals? Or matter (cold dead chemicals), energy, life and personality designed, shaped and formed by intelligent self existing personality? A 747 Jumbo jet coming together fully fueled and ready for flight after a tornado blows through a scrap yard? Or living, intelligent people at Boeing designing, building and delivering one? Out of non-life, intelligent life? Or out of Intelligent life, more life, growth, creativity, design and intricate variation?

I am sorry, this arguement just does not work, you are comparing a little too directly the world of technology with the world of theoretical (and philosophical) physics. The analogy does not work because of the vast differences in circumstance. Yes, the plane having a designer makes more sense, however, the plane does not submit to the evolution process of nature (You acknowledge this with your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics arguement) Look at the 'infidelguy' article posted earlier. I think IT ALL always was and always will be makes more sense than He IS and will be and made all of this Be and forever more be.

I find it amazing that you think it makes more sense that non-life produces life, chaos produces order, non-intelligence produces intelligence, non-being produces being. By the evolution process of nature do you mean to say life arising from non-life and then increasing in complexity by natural selection? Or do you mean to say the natural selection of the best adaptation of physical variations available in the DNA of a given species? If you mean the former there is no evidence for that process. No transitional forms in the fossil records. (the theory of punctuated equilibrium has been floated from time to time on the scene because of that) It is just taking the process of adaptation which can be observed within a species and theorizing that that is the process from which life arose and became complex and diverse.

My second law of thermodynamics argument is simply that the second law of thermodynamics asserts that the universe or any isolated system therein is tending toward-maximum entropy. So, the Second Law suggests a progression from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity in the physical universe. Biological evolution in the first sense that I mentioned means there is a progression to increasingly complex forms of living systems. That just seems to be highly improbable at best given the 2nd Law. Again, it is quite reasonable to believe that there is a designer which used matter to produce the system in which we live.

And of course there is the old joke where some scientists came to God and said “you’re not the only one who can create life. We can too.” “Really” says, God. “Show me”. So the scientists reached down and picked up some dirt to get started and God said “Hey, no-no-no-no-no. You need to make your own dirt!”

Yes, I know that was lame. But you did chuckle a little at least didn’t you? ;)

Quote:
Biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics - Same as Geology only much more intricate to the 100th power.

I would still like to hear it.

Again I refer you to these websites www.reasons.org and www.origins.org .

Quote:
I assumed when you used the small case “g” referring to gods in your original statement you meant that literally - small gods, minor deities, spiritual beings of greater power than humans who demand worship. I do not deny the existence of those kinds of gods. As I said there is a very real spiritual realm. However you would be correct to say that I and all of my brothers and sisters in Christ do deny the existence of any other Supreme Being than Jehovah God, the great I AM. By definition there can only be one God.

How is this so? How does this defenition work? Give me the defenition please.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - –noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

There can be only one Supreme Being - otherwise he would not be supreme.

daddym wrote:
So, why do you feel, that it IS right for you to try and persuade us, that your God is the right one, if you reject the possibility of ours being right?

Possibly (though I cannot truly know your mind) for the same reason you feel it is right to produce this website and promote your belief in Google. Also, I believe Christianity is true, Jesus is who He says He is and that faith comes by hearing His word. I desire, therefore that you know and believe that truth and enter in to the great joy of glorifying God. And I just plain enjoy talking about Him.

You obviously do not understand the word "parody". Let me find you a quick definition:
Google wrote:
a composition that imitates somebody's style in a humorous way
make a spoof of or make fun of
humorous or satirical mimicry

This site was not meant to spread belief in google, but rather to parody organized religion as a whole. You really are perceptive, aren't you?

I try to be. There are some crazy people on the web ya know. Just trying to not assume too much.

daddym wrote:
The most honorable person I ever met was Satanist, you know? He did not upheld his honor out of fear of god, nor for forgiveness of sins. No. He despiced the thought of himself being dishonorable. He said, that it is not fitting for a god. Now, by your beliefs, he has to spend the eternity in torment, just because his reasons for doing the right things were different from yours?

Let’s suppose you know this guy who is a really good person. You live next door to him. He's as honest as the day is long. He's hard-working, a straight-shooter. He gives to charity -- and not just to formal charities: You’ve never seen him turn down a panhandler on the street. He's devoted to his wife and children, he's a regular church-attendee. He drives within the speed limit, always seems neatly dressed and clean. You hardly ever see him sitting around. He's often out working on his yard, or even helping elderly neighbors work on theirs. Honorable to the Nth degree. You tell him you think his parents must be proud. He tells you actually he’s adopted. Bounced from foster home to foster home. He found his inner strength on his own and followed it to this life of peace. Then one day his house is surrounded by the FBI. Turns out he is an orphan. Because he orphaned himself by brutally murdering his parents. Then he went to the bank, opened their safety deposit box and absconded with a million dollars in bearer bonds, moved across the country next door to you and started living life as you have known him.

Still a good guy undeserving of due justice?

Ah, so now we're assuming that all satanists happen to be orphans who shot their parents? Otherwise, I don't see any similarities between a satanist and a murderer. Doing a deed is much different from discussing it, and murdering is much different from satanism. I find it amusing how you snuck in a reference to going to church there, as if that makes you any more or less honorable. Faint newsflash: It doesn't. Going to church has nothing to do with how honorable you are, how good a neighbor you are, or anything else along those lines. By your logic stated earlier in this paragraph, I could assume a christian to be a murderer, and use that to state that christians are all bad. It doesn't make sense when I do it, and it certainly doesn't when you say it. What does due justice have to do with any of this? You mean do process? Not even the best of men is above the law, nor the worst below it.

See and that is my point. We are all outraged by someone who would so spurn and assault loving, caring parents to live a good life at their expense. So all those who call themselves by whatever name - theists, atheists, polytheists, pagans - whatever, who disavow the God who has revealed Himself to us in His creation, His word and most fully in His own incarnation in the person of His Son is deserving of His wrath and justice. If indeed He is and is who He says He is in the Christian Bible. If He does not exist or is an impersonal being then as I said in the first answer it’s all up for grabs anyway.

daddym wrote:
Second law of Thermo-Dynamics. Things are tending towards less complexity. Things break. Things are running down. Entropy. We are looking at a corrupted product of God’s original design. As broken as it may be it still necessitates a designer. Just because the 1956 Chevy is covered with scratches and rust doesn’t mean GM didn’t design it.

Besides you complete misstatement of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that energy conversions are not 100 percent proficient (and, as such, there will be a lower potential energy after a neutral reaction has taken place then before), there are a plethora of mistakes. The most blaringly obvious of these is that DNA is not corrupted, merely intricate and complex. Why would God (if he did exist) make something which decays, if he supposedly has the power to make it infinite? It just doesn't make sense, especially with the increases in technology and calculation power we are experiencing fairly regularly. DNA does not necessitate a designer, just the right chemicals to bond together. Even if you had correctly stated the law, thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with the structure of DNA, merely the potential energy it contains after a reaction.

I dealt with the 2nd Law and DNA above in more detail. As to God making something that decays - why not? Just because He has the power to do something does not mean He is bound to do it. The same goes for you or me.

When you say “DNA does not necessitate a designer, just the right chemicals to bond together“, to me that’s like saying “A book does not necessitate an author, just the right drops of ink to bond to the pages”. Even with intelligent, designed, engineered, and controlled experiments in the best possible conditions no one has in decades of research been able to produce and get to bond together the right chemicals from all the matter we have already available to us. I, as you most assuredly know ;), think it is much more reasonable to think that there is a designer.

daddym wrote:
Quote:
Why would I laugh at a polytheist? I would rather engage him in conversation and discover to him the true nature of God.

I covered that earlier.

So did I.

Ah, so you do admit you claim to know of the true nature of God. That amazes me, since you are basing it on a work of fiction and some folklore about the reincarnation of a middle-eastern philosopher who got nailed to a board for asking if we couldn't all be nice to each other for a change. Christianity was not the first religion to sport a story about a virgin birth, and will most likely not be the last.

I believe that statement would be classified as a straw man argument and again would refer you to the book by Nash “The Gospel and The Greeks” for a fully detailed discussion of the subject. Also as I stated at the beginning of this post the Bible has a very solid historical foundation unlike any other religious document. And yes I know that we can go round and round with arguments back and forth about apparent contradictions and inaccuracies etc. However when the dust settles there is not one that cannot be reasonably dealt with. That obviously will not satisfy one who is determined not to believe, but that is our nature as humans. I am only here to answer the question as to how this one Christian can believe the Bible and what it teaches about God and man the world and our purpose. I do not shut my eyes and ears to the difficulties, or I would not have come in here to converse. I just find more and greater difficulties with all the other religions/philosophies out there. And I find much more reasonableness in the answers to any difficulties with the scriptures.

I do believe I know of the true nature of God. Not because I am so intelligent or good or higher or better in any way - but because He has revealed Himself to us all. To anyone who desires to know Him regardless of the level of their intelligence in His word and in His Son. I find Him glorious and satisfying in every way.

[quote="daddym"]Actually there is a lot of evidence that the Earth and our sun are relatively young. Rates of the current shrinking of the sun extrapolated back even only 100,000 years make the sun so large that the earth could in no way support life. Even just 50,000 years ago the oceans would be boiling. That gets us much closer to 10,000 BC. Questions like how long were the days spoken of in Genesis come in to play as well. 24hr periods of time as we mark time? Or many - even thousands of years? Scripture tells us a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. The point of the Genesis story is that it is God’s design and His handiwork. Each creature including man specifically made by Him. It does not speak to how it was accomplished in terms of the means used.

I would like to read this so-called evidence, as you clearly have no concept of what "relatively" young refers to. In geological terms it can, and indeed in this case does, refer to hundreds of billions of years. Even thought 50 million years ago (you put three zeros too few) the sea was boiling on surface, the life was within its cold, dark depths. There is a vast amount of evidence to support evolution, ranging from the austrolopithicus aferensis to homo sapien neandratalensis (with hundreds of species in between) all the way to modern man, homo sapien sapien. There are fossils and formations dating back further than 50000 years, and the dinosaurs have been scientifically dated back to over 100 million years ago, blowing your claim that life started around 10000 BCE right out of the water, so to speak.

Hundreds of billions of years? I thought it was 4.55 billion. And again I would refer you to my comments and the websites I listed above. For the record I am a creationist. Not an evolutionist (I know you knew that ) or a theistic evolutionist. That does not mean I hold to a young universe or earth (I am still reading on the subject) but I do believe that God created by specific acts of creation out of nothing all matter and energy present in this universe and made each kind of living creature specifically and not by evolutionary processes.

And I do understand that you may have encountered all this before in past conversations. The problem as I see it in us humans is not the lack of evidence for the truth of God’s existence and revelation to us of Himself in the Christian scriptures but rather the will to believe. We are born spiritually dead and cannot even hear God’s call until He gives us the ability. I simply wanted to respond to the original questions posted and enjoy a good conversation. Of course my ultimate hope is that something said would bring about a true understanding of what is indeed real in terms of our origin and purpose.

daddym wrote:
History - His Story, God loves stories, that’s why He made man and He entered in to history in the person of His Son.

No, history is so named because it was written originally by men alone. History and biblical studies are two completely different things, and one should not be mistaken for the other. History was not written by any sort of deity, but by the winners and the conquerors and the excavators and archaeologists. You know, the people who work to discover what actually happened instead of falling back on god as the be-all and end-all axiom and answer to all questions about the past of humankind.

The “His Story” thing was just a play on words. And the Bible is history. No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the record found in the Bible. There have been arguments from silence (no record of the Hittites ever existing, or Sargon, etc.) which have now been silenced by discoveries of those civilizations and individuals. The accuracy of its transmission down through the centuries has been affirmed over and over again. I believe it. There is good reason to. A belief in God is a reason to search and dig and observe and discover. The sciences arose from men who believed in God. That He created an orderly, knowable, understandable, amazing universe. There is truth and we can know it. There is purpose. There is relationship. For a while the para normal was poo-pooed. Now people study it. Serious scientists. The Bible has always declared there is a para-normal, spiritual world. And it does the best job of making sense of it and what our relationship to it should and can be.

daddym wrote:
Fascinating statement. I have prayed to too many Googlesque gods in my life. Now I am indeed fully given over to Jesus Christ my God and Savior.

Define Google-esque. I have never heard of any other concept for a deity such as the Church of Google presents, nor do I believe Google is meant to be prayed to. See my above definition for parody, a word you obviously misunderstand.

Just meaning a non-god. Another idol among many each with their own unique take on things and all ultimately disappointing.

daddym wrote:
I assumed when you used the small case “g” referring to gods in your original statement you meant that literally - small gods, minor deities, spiritual beings of greater power than humans who demand worship. I do not deny the existence of those kinds of gods. As I said there is a very real spiritual realm. However you would be correct to say that I and all of my brothers and sisters in Christ do deny the existence of any other Supreme Being than Jehovah God, the great I AM. By definition there can only be one God.

You don't get the irony in this. I meant gods or Gods or however you like it, but it is hilarious that you are arguing how you don't disbelieve in the deities of other religions, but merely believe them to be lesser gods and angels within your own. If you do not see the hypocrisy in this, you are truly blind, it seems. There can only be one God in a monotheistic religion, but there is no limit to Gods in a polytheistic religion. There is no spiritual realm, no living and dead realms, nothing like that. There is the universe, possibly one in many, but that's as far as realms go. You readily assume in this argument that we accept your beliefs as axioms.

No, I know you do not believe what I do. And I apologize for confusing the issue. When you define your terms that way then, I would have to say, yes, I deny the existence of any god but the God of the Bible.

daddym wrote:
daddym wrote:
As to feeling outrage at someone’s denial of the existence of the only true God, creator and sustainer of the universe and all it contains.

Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrite. How do you explain not denying other gods, but claiming that yours is the only true one?

As I said above I misunderstood your question. There is no hypocrisy in acknowledging that there are many thousands of spirits (fallen angels) who are called gods and who seek human worship while maintaining that there is only one true self existent, eternal God Supreme over all.

Again - thanks for the conversation.

There is hypocrisy in claiming that you don't disbelieve that the deities of other religions exist, and then claiming that they aren't really deities, just fallen angels who seek human worship. It is imposing your religion on all others, on all humans in fact, while having just stated that you don't do that. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is, and believe me, I know a hypocrite when I see one.

I don’t see how I am imposing my religion on anyone else simply by stating that I believe it to be true. My belief in no way imposes that on anyone else just as your belief that there is no spiritual realm is imposed on me simply because that is what you believe and are arguing for as truth. The truth is imposed on all of us however whether we want it to be or not. On the day of our death we will indeed know which of the world religions is true. We will know if it is indeed true that it is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgment - or cease to know altogether.

Sorry it has taken so long to respond - there was a lot to respond to and I have only a limited amount of time to give to this. Again thanks for the engagement in conversation.

AaronD

October 23rd, 2006, 08:15 PM

And you still haven't learned how to properly quote. That is getting damn annoying. I read your entire post, but it will take me a long time to respond, as it is so sloppily organized. Just one question: How can you still believe in intelligent design when we have observed evolution (see link below)? Ah, and one more thing: the Bible being grounded in history is bullshit. Complete, total bullshit. I don't think that calling CS Lewis a scholar holds any merit either, as she was a fiction author. Taking her works as scholarly research/evidence is like... well, it's like basing a religion on an L. Ron Hubbard book. Here's that link I mentioned earlier:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878

I will handle the rest of your points later.

GeoffBoulton

October 23rd, 2006, 09:36 PM

With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 the accuracy of the copies were stunningly confirmed

The same scientific techniques used to date and verify the Dead Sea Scrolls are the same techniques used to date the age of the earth, fossils, etc.

Since you are saying that science is wrong about the age of the earth, by a few billion years, then how do you know it is right about the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

If you don't believe that scientific methodology is valid then you also have no proof of the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They could very easily have just been planted in the caves a few years ago by someone hoping to make a quick buck.

Are you therefore saying that scientific methods are valid when they are used to prove something you believe in but somehow become invalid when they are used to prove something in which you don't believe?

daddym

October 24th, 2006, 01:57 AM

GeoffBoulton wrote:
The same scientific techniques used to date and verify the Dead Sea Scrolls are the same techniques used to date the age of the earth, fossils, etc.

Since you are saying that science is wrong about the age of the earth, by a few billion years, then how do you know it is right about the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

If you don't believe that scientific methodology is valid then you also have no proof of the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They could very easily have just been planted in the caves a few years ago by someone hoping to make a quick buck.

Are you therefore saying that scientific methods are valid when they are used to prove something you believe in but somehow become invalid when they are used to prove something in which you don't believe?

If you mean here to argue in favor of a young earth and the unreliability of current scientific dating methods then welcome to a good portion of those who believe in creation. On the other hand if as you have previously stated you believe these methods are accurate thank you for your agreement that the scrolls are what they seem to be and do affirm the supremely accurate transmission of the original autographs in support of one more evidence for the truth and veracity of the Scriptures. ;) (sorry couldn’t resist)

I am not trying to say that science is wrong about the age of the earth - though it could be - science has been wrong many times, that's part of the scientific method. (Proposing theories, testing them, and either rejecting as wrong or affirming them) Never said the scientific method was invalid. Even said that the method was developed by men who believed in a personal, intelligent, purposeful God who created an orderly, reasonable universe with consistent, observable, knowable laws. Other religious systems would just say this universe doesn't matter as it is essentially unreal or nothing can be known with certainty because at any given moment the gods could just do any old weird thing and hence there is no real reason to study it. I also recommended two websites which show the consistency of current scientific knowledge and the scriptural record. Here they are again: www.reasons.org and www.origins.org

Scientific minds far greater than mine find no contradiction in the current scientific knowledge and scripture.

Now, I freely admit that I am not a scientist myself so if you are really interested in all the in depth specifics and you are educated in that area yourself then I would encourage you to dialogue with some of them on the websites mentioned. I am speaking as a layman who has done some reading and finds the evidence compelling for the existence of God - specifically the God of the Bible.

The facts we have before us scientifically can be interpreted in various ways. Science is ever changing in its observations and interpretations. And I believe, based on what reading I have done, that the observable facts can be interpreted as, and indeed are, consistent with scripture.

AaronD wrote:
And you still haven't learned how to properly quote. That is getting damn annoying. I read your entire post, but it will take me a long time to respond, as it is so sloppily organized. Just one question: How can you still believe in intelligent design when we have observed evolution (see link below)? Ah, and one more thing: the Bible being grounded in history is bullshit. Complete, total bullshit. I don't think that calling CS Lewis a scholar holds any merit either, as she was a fiction author. Taking her works as scholarly research/evidence is like... well, it's like basing a religion on an L. Ron Hubbard book. Here's that link I mentioned earlier:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878

I will handle the rest of your points later.

As to my organization - I apologize. I am simply trying to respond in a timely fashion as best I can.

By the way C.S. Lewis is Clive Stapleton Lewis, nickname Jack as in he is a fiction author. But actually much more than just a fiction writer. From his bio:

***In 1916 Lewis was accepted at University College, the oldest college (founded 1249) at Oxford University. Oxford, along with Cambridge University, had been a leading center of learning since the Middle Ages. Soon after he entered the University, however, Lewis chose to volunteer for active duty in World War I, to serve in the British Army then fighting in the muddy trenches of northern France.
Following the end of the war in 1918, Lewis returned to Oxford, where he took up his studies again with great enthusiasm. In 1925, after graduating with first-class honors in Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, and English Literature, Lewis was elected to an important teaching post in English at Magdalen College, Oxford. He remained at Oxford for 29 years before becoming a professor of medieval and renaissance literature at Magdalene College, Cambridge, in 1955.
Lewis the Writer

In addition to his teaching duties at the University, Lewis began to publish books. His first major work, The Pilgrim's Regress (1933), was about his own spiritual journey to Christian faith. Other works followed that won him acclaim not only as a writer of books on religious subjects, but also as a writer of academic works and popular novels. The Allegory of Love (1936), which is still considered a masterpiece today, was a history of love literature from the early Middle Ages to Shakespeare's time; Out of the Silent Planet (1938) was the first of a trilogy of science fiction novels, the hero of which is loosely modeled on Lewis's friend J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the children's classic The Hobbit.***

I read the article and there are those who see the evidence discussed is a strong indication of intelligent design that actually argues strongly against evolution. Here are a few pertinent paragraphs from an article found at: http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue04/index.shtml#protein_structures_reveal_even_more_evidence_for_design

***Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation? By Fazale Rana

Any casual observer of nature recognizes that many creatures bear some resemblance to one another. Many species of frogs, lizards, fish, and other animals and plants from different parts of the world appear to be nearly identical. This similarity has been the pattern throughout life’s history. Recent biological studies have shed light on the nature of this physical resemblance and carry significant apologetic implications. Many species that look identical are, in fact, genetically different, and therefore unrelated. In accounting for these unexpected differences, evolutionary biologists have proffered inadequate explanations. This article will discuss a few of the many recent discoveries that continue to buttress the case for a biblical creator while continuing to erode the foundation for the evolutionary paradigm.
According to evolutionary theory, organisms that possess identical morphologies (forms or structures) must share a common ancestry. Evolutionary biologists, therefore, have employed morphological systematics––the study of the relationships among organisms according to physical characteristics––when classifying species, and thus have concluded that similar groups share common ancestry. However, with the advent and widespread application of molecular systematics, in which DNA sequences are used instead of morphologies to determine biological relationships, science now is beginning to identify an increasing number of challenges to the evolutionary classification. Biologists are uncovering numerous examples of organisms that cluster together morphologically (structurally), and yet are genetically distinct. Frogs, lizards, or herbs that appear to be identical are actually different at the genetic level. An evolutionary interpretation of this data, then, demands that the morphologically identical organisms must have evolved independently of one another in a “repeatable” fashion.
The Contingent Nature of the Evolutionary Process
The evolutionary paradigm cannot accommodate “repeatable” evolution. When evolutionists observe a tree frog ideally suited for its environment, they assert that natural selection––environmental, predatory, and competitive pressures repeatedly operating on random inheritable variations for long periods of time––has led to this relationship. Chance governs the evolutionary process at its most fundamental level. Because of this, it is expected that repeated evolutionary events will result in dramatically different outcomes. The concept of Historical Contingency embodies this idea and is the theme of Stephen J. Gould’s Wonderful Life:
“…No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway proceeds through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early event, ever so slightly, and without apparent importance at the time, and evolution cascades into a radically different channel.”1
Gould’s metaphor of “replaying life’s tape” asserts that if one were to push the rewind button, erase life’s history, and let the tape run again, the results would be completely different.2 The very essence of the evolutionary process renders evolutionary outcomes as nonreproducible (or nonrepeatable). Therefore, “repeatable” evolution is inconsistent with the mechanism available to bring about biological change.
A Test for Evolution, A Test for Creation
The idea of Historical Contingency suggests that one powerful way to discriminate between the “appearance of design” that results from the evolutionary process and Intelligent Design is to determine if contingency is operating in the biological realm.3 If life is exclusively the result of evolutionary processes, then biologists should expect to see few, if any, cases in which evolution has “repeated” itself. This is simply not the case. During the last six years numerous examples of “repeatable” evolution have come to light as molecular data has been increasingly used in biological systematics. These findings demonstrate that the evolutionary paradigm fails the test of contingency. The discovery of morphologically identical, yet genetically unrelated organisms does, however, offer powerful support for biblical creation. These examples of “repeatable” evolution include anolis lizards, ranid frogs, cichlids, sticklebacks, mangabeys, river dolphins, and Pericallis,

….scientists believe the sticklebacks species found in British Columbia evolved several times independently to produce the same ecomorphs. The same two stickleback species, bulky benthic (bottom-dwelling) feeders and streamline open-water feeders, live in isolated lakes near the Pacific coast of British Columbia. The standard evolutionary explanation maintains that these two species evolved from one marine stickleback species, became trapped and isolated in the lakes after sea levels changed, and then independently populated the lakes.20 Mitochondrial DNA analysis provides results contrary to the most plausible evolutionary explanations.21 These results indicate that the stickleback species from the same lake have a greater degree of genetic similarity than do morphologically identical species from different lakes. From an evolutionary viewpoint, therefore, stickleback ecomorphs in the isolated lakes must be the product of “reproducible” evolutionary events.
A recent breeding experiment affirms the previous conclusion.22 In a laboratory environment, researchers discovered that corresponding ecomorphs from different lakes attempt to interbreed with one another, while eschewing the different ecomorphs that share their lakes. This result is interesting in light of the biological definition of a species. Biologically, a species is considered to be an interbreeding population of individuals. The willingness of the same ecomorphs from different lakes to interbreed points to just how profound the similarity is among the stickleback ecomorphs––both morphologically and behaviorally.***

See the rest of the article for discussion of other species as well.

Jonathan

October 24th, 2006, 02:29 AM

The idea is actually that the 'trinity' is three parts to the one whole.

Imagine, oh, a banana. It has a peel, seeds, and the fruit. It is three things, but together they form the ONE BANANA.

Such is god. :lol:

I sat in on, I believe, a Lutheran service a year or two ago and he delivered part of a sermon on the trinity. He explained it as so:

There are three apples. Three completely different apples; and there is only one apple. There is not three apples, but one, and the one apple is three different apples.

That's not a direct quote, but the rough idea that there are three apples but only one apple. The three apples aren't part of the one apple, the three apples are one apple. He explained that it might sound confusing to some people, but that is because they have inferior logic. They are unable to comprehend it as inferior beings.

GeoffBoulton

October 24th, 2006, 09:53 AM

Scientific minds far greater than mine find no contradiction in the current scientific knowledge and scripture.

Science: The earth is several billion years old.
Scripture: The earth is a few thousand years old.

I would say that is something of a contradiction ;)

I am not trying to say that science is wrong about the age of the earth - though it could be - science has been wrong many times.

I am not trying to say the bible is wrong about the age of the earth - though it could be - the bible has been wrong many times.

daddym

October 25th, 2006, 01:03 AM

GeoffBoulton wrote:
Scripture: The earth is a few thousand years old.

Where does scripture say this?

Googler

October 25th, 2006, 01:07 AM

GeoffBoulton wrote:
Scripture: The earth is a few thousand years old.

Where does scripture say this?

please learn to quote properly.

AaronD

October 25th, 2006, 01:10 AM

GeoffBoulton wrote:
Scripture: The earth is a few thousand years old.

Where does scripture say this?

I should ask you that, you yourself said it first. Anyway, lemme resort to my trusty search engine/deity... Ah, there we go!

Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5700-plus years. Whereas, data from the Hubbell telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the age at about 15 billion years.

Let me clarify right at the start. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way.

I included the God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light claim just to further my argument: If God really did exist, what purpose would it serve for him to plant evidence of his nonexistence? It makes no sense from any standpoint, as if he wanted his presence to be known, he would have made it abundantly clear and not bothered to plant evidence, but if he didn't, he wouldn't have talked to humans and told them to write down his words for others to read. So you see, the bible does mention the world being only a few thousand years old, and it would be absolutely pointless and illogical for a deity to plant evidence of its nonexistence.

Nameless

October 25th, 2006, 01:25 AM

Clearly it's a test of humanity's faith. [/sarcasm]

GeoffBoulton

October 25th, 2006, 08:56 AM

Where does scripture say this?

http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm

On answering the point about 'each day in Genesis could be a billion years' here is what Christian Answers have to say:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html

Fallen Hero

October 25th, 2006, 10:57 AM

The bible says 6 days, but that makes no sense

BTW, Noah's flood was a localized flood in the Black Sea region, small in scle but it wiped out a small village.

GeoffBoulton

October 25th, 2006, 11:18 AM

Noah's flood was a localized flood in the Black Sea region

Last I heard they're still arguing about this ;) Do you know of anything more recent?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/296/5577/2331a

daddym

October 26th, 2006, 03:43 PM

Fallen Hero:
The bible says 6 days, but that makes no sense

GeoffBoulton:

daddym wrote:
Where does scripture say this?

http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm

On answering the point about 'each day in Genesis could be a billion years' here is what Christian Answers have to say:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html

daddym in answer to the above:
I apologize for evidently not being very clear. Here is a paragraph which I hope will clear up my position:

For Christians, the date of creation is not a primary issue of faith and should not be regarded as such, because the Bible does not specifically state a date of creation. This fact can be easily confirmed by reviewing sources such as The NIV Study Bible, The Believers Study Bible, The New Geneva Study Bible and evangelical commentaries. This fact is further noted by many biblical scholars who are committed to the inerrancy of Scripture, such as Dr. Francis Schaeffer: "If anyone wonders what my own position is, I really am not sure whether the days in Genesis 1 should be taken as twenty-four hours or as periods. It seems to me that from a study of the Bible itself one could hold either position" [No Final Conflict, p. 30]. Therefore, we believe Christians are free to follow the scientific evidence, minus hostile philosophical assumptions like naturalism. The age-issue should not be a basis for breaking fellowship or a test of doctrinal purity. As Dr. Walter Kaiser, president of Gordon-Conwell Seminary and Old Testament scholar, stated, "It is a secondary issue to our Lord and should be to us."

This and many articles on specifics of how science and scripture harmonize as well as some discussion boards are found at: http://www.origins.org/index.html

The Bible is not a scientific document it is a historical document. So although the two fields (science and History) are two very different areas of knowledge that does not mean that they cannot be harmonized. The Bible as a historical document is written in common language which includes prose, factual statements, poetry, metaphor, colloquialisms - all kinds of language. To use quotes out of context and without acknowledgement of the type of language being used is to make it say things it never was intended to say. So, just as should you say to me, “I got up at sunrise this morning”, I would understand that you mean to tell me you got up very early - not that you believe the sun orbits the earth, the Bible is to be understood in its context and language usage. No where in scripture is a date given for the creation. Nor does it purport to speak to that particular issue. Even though the scripture does not speak specifically to the age of the cosmos or even the mechanisms used in creating the cosmos and all it contains (including man) it does speak, as stated in the above paragraph, to it being the special creation of God ex nihlo - out of nothing. It is my belief, and the belief of many scientists who accept the current evidences for an old age of the cosmos and the Earth, that there is perfect harmony between the two. Meaning that what the Bible teaches as history - God created the heavens and the Earth - Science affirms in the evidence for intelligent design and that in fact the record of creation in Genesis is what would be expected in its general direction and order given what we know in the scientific realm. So as I have stated previously in this discussion there is no need to get in to a dispute over the age of the earth. The Bible simply does not speak to that issue.

Alice Shade

October 26th, 2006, 04:15 PM

daddym, do you realise, that this statement just proves, that bible has to be adapted and interpreted just to fit around the scientific facts?

It`s a historical book, indeed - a historical collection of legends and fairy-tales. But it`s little more then that.

Look closely, read closely - what bible reflects, ASIDE from monotheistic belief, is a set of guidelines for the member of society about 2000 years ago. Note, that it actively promotes slavery and patriarhat, let alone the astoundingly-big amount of death penalties of variable form. God is used as a reason, WHY those laws should be implemented - and ultimately, as political lever to control people.

You might notice, that in this regard, Christianity is EXTREMELY close to Islam and Judaism. As they all are descendants of Abrahamic religion, they all feature relatively same set of rules for followers. (Compare muslims not eating pigs, and jews eating only kosher meat. Looking into it, we might notice, that it`s entirely acceptable for muslims to eat kosher meat, and it`s mostly OK for jews to eat whatever meat muslim would.)

Now, take in account, that all three religions were used as dominative and exclusive for the nations, and you might realise, that Bible/Qur`an/Torah have little to do with precise science - they are social engineering tools, and very outdated, at that. Thus, mere suggestion, that either of those texts should be taken as literal explanation of the cause of world existance is quite ridiculous.

GeoffBoulton

October 26th, 2006, 07:03 PM

The Bible as a historical document is written in common language which includes prose, factual statements, poetry, metaphor, colloquialisms - all kinds of language

You missed a few things that are also contained in 'common language' how about lies, falsehoods, half-truths, fiction, urban legends, mis-interpretation, mis-understanding and mis-translation.

Therein lies the problem, you can never know which parts are facts, which parts are poetry or metaphor, which parts are simply made up for artistic licence or which are just downright lies.

In this context the bible becomes wholly unreliable as any sort of reference and belief in what it has to say comes back once again to blind faith.

Fallen Hero

October 26th, 2006, 07:52 PM

Not to mention that the bible is not it's original version, it has been edited to influence politics, also there was a selection process for what got to go in the bible, thus, no historical reliability what so ever.

daddym

October 26th, 2006, 10:53 PM

I would say the Bible is not only not full of lies - it tends to be ahead of its time with accurate factual information. Do not misunderstand the following article as a statement that the Bible is a scientific textbook. It simply is a demonstration that when this historical document, the Bible, speaks factually regarding the natural world it speaks accurately:

Biblical Forecasts of Scientific Discoveries
by Dr. Hugh Ross

Not only is the Bible filled with the fundamentals of science, but it is as much as 3,000 years ahead of its time. The Bible's statements in most cases directly contradicted the science of the day in which they were made. When modern scientific knowledge approaches reality, the divine accuracy of the scriptures is substantiated. For example:

Biblical Statement / Science Then / Science Now

Earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22). / Earth's a flat disk. / Earth is a sphere

Number of stars exceeds a billion (Jer. 33:22). / Number of stars totals 1,100 / Number of stars exceeds a billion

Every star is different (1 Cor 15:41). / All stars are the same. / Every star is different.

Light is in motion (Job 38:19-20). / Light is fixed in place. / Light is in motion.

Air has weight (Job 28:25). / Air is weightless. / Air has weight.

Winds blow in cyclones (Eccl. 1:6). / Winds blow straight. / Winds blow in cyclones.

Blood is a source of life and healing (Lev. 17:11). / Sick people must be bled. / Blood is a source of life and healing.

For centuries the conjectures of science also were at odds with Genesis 1 concerning the origin and development of Earth and of life on Earth. However, science has progressed beyond these conjectures and now agrees with Genesis 1 in the initial conditions of Earth, the description of subsequent events, and in the order of these events. The probability that Moses, writing more than 3,400 years ago, would have guessed all these details is less than one in trillions. Below is a partial list of other fundamentals of science explained in the Bible:

conservation of mass and energy (Eccl. 1:9; Eccl. 3:14-15).
water cycle (Eccl. 1:7; Is. 55:10).
gravity (Job 26:7; Job 38:31-33).
Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups (Job 38:31). NOTE: All other star groups visible to the naked eye are unbound, with the possible exception of the Hyades.
effect of emotions on physical health (Prov. 16:24; Prov. 17:22).
control of contagious diseases (Lev. 13:4546).
importance of sanitation to health (Lev.; Num. 19: Deut. 23:12-13). control of cancer and heart disease (Lev. 7-19).

In the crucible of scientific investigation, the Bible has proven invariably to be correct. No other book, ancient or modem, can make this claim; but then, no other book has been written (through men) by God.
Copyright 1976, Reasons To Believe

More articles can be found at: http://www.reasons.org/

Alice Shade

October 26th, 2006, 11:32 PM

Bible was edited and reedited multitude of times, not to mention - retranslated.

If you`d please remember Jordano Bruno, who was burned at stake by Inquisition for suggestion, that Earth is round, and Galileo, who was forced to publically reject his discoveries about Earth being round and rotating around the sun....
Still feel like claiming, that Christianity and bible agreed with scientific advent, back then?

As for other claims... Well. If you agree, that "don`t leave meat in your teeth and wash, if you stink and itch" equals to realising the full importance of hygiene... Nuff said.

Same is with other claims. But read closely my previous posts. We do NOT argue, that bible does indeed offers a very viable guide for life - if you live around 500BC - 200AC. We also do NOT argue, that with certain caveats (like, considering the abolition of slavery and woman suffrage, along with, preferably, sexual tolerance), bible DOES offer viable lifestyle, if somewhat boring.
What we DO argue, that it is ultimate truth, and that it should be taken as final judge and object of worship. We do NOT agree, that bible is written by the will of God - we claim, that bible is the work if men, and we have logical reasons to back our claim.
And, considering, that bible is NOT ultimate universal truth, we consciously choose to base our lifestyle on different ideals.

It is the common bane of the fundamental believers - belief, that rejecting a part of religion means rejecting it as whole. Now, this is ENTIRELY not correct, and actually offends the hell out of us.

We refuze to see Bible as a whole, inseparable unit, and instead view it by the parts - some of which we choose to accept, and some to reject, based on our own knowledge, morals and ideals.

I think, that I will not be far from truth, if I will say, that absolute majority of Googlists break ten commandments about as often, as any christian.

GeoffBoulton

October 27th, 2006, 12:53 AM

It simply is a demonstration that when this historical document, the Bible, speaks factually regarding the natural world it speaks accurately:

Oh no it doesn't ;)

Earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22). / Earth's a flat disk. / Earth is a sphere

Isiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.

It says circle. A circle is two dimensional it certainly is NOT a sphere. Let me guess, it doesn't really mean a circle it really means a sphere if you 'interpret' it correctly.

Well, that's not what these passages say:

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

Mathew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

Neither of them can be true if the earth is a sphere. It is physically impossible to see something from everywhere on earth even if it is infinitely tall and impossible to see everywhere on earth no matter how high you go.

So there you go, the bible says the earth is flat just as people used to believe in those days. If it was the word of god he would obviously have know better.

I wonder what's next:

For Christians, the date of creation is not a primary issue of faith

Suitably reworded: For Christians, whether the earth is flat or a sphere is not a primary issue of faith.

Yes that should be a nice kop out just like the kop out over the question of the age the bible claims for the earth.

Fallen Hero

October 27th, 2006, 03:24 PM

The problem with reading that from the bible is that it also contradicts it's self. It will in one passage say one thing and will go and say the exact opposite later. When they say both concepts, then it is possible to take it either way. Thus it is even more open to interpretations than should be trusted when it comes to deriving fact.

AaronD

October 28th, 2006, 12:04 AM

GeoffBoulton

October 28th, 2006, 02:44 AM

Biblical Forecasts of Scientific Discoveries by Dr. Hugh Ross

And here is what Christians have to say about Dr Ross and his work:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm

Doesn't really fill you with confidence about his findings does it? No, let me guess, they're the 'wrong sort' of Christians so their opinion doesn't count ;)

daddym

October 28th, 2006, 09:49 AM

Isiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.

It says circle. A circle is two dimensional it certainly is NOT a sphere. Let me guess, it doesn't really mean a circle it really means a sphere if you 'interpret' it correctly.

Simply put, the Hebrew word “chug” means “circle“, “sphere” or “arch“. There is nothing grammatically which prevents translating it as sphere or globe as indeed some translations do. Did Isaiah mean to say circle or sphere? I don’t know. But since it can be translated sphere and the Earth is indeed a sphere there is no definitive discrepancy between scripture and science in this passage. When one also considers the passage in Job 26:7: “He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.” we have an even more accurate assessment of what the Earth and its position in space actually is like.

Well, that's not what these passages say:

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

You forgot to quote verse 10 which clearly defines this quote as hyperbole.

Dan 4:10 The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great.
Dan 4:11 The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

Mathew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

And again this is easily understood as hyperbole. These are very minor and easily understood and harmonized difficulties no different than found in any other similar historical account. You choose to make a straw man out of the text which you then easily strike down. Your presumption that there is no God, and that this material sphere is all there is, ever was or ever will be colors your view on this. Of course my presumption that there is a God colors my view as well. ;) I choose to focus on the vast majority of strong evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be and work at my understanding of these comparatively minor difficulties. You choose to focus on making a big deal out of these small difficulties and consider them to discredit the rest. I don’t expect we will come to any agreement here - at least not at this point in time. Nor is it my aim to garner your agreement. I simply want to show that, at least for this Christian, Christianity is not about blind faith at all but rather that scripture and Christianity defines faith as something that is reasonable and based on good evidence.

Evidence from science, archaeology, fulfilled prophecy, accurate textual transmission, the resurrection of Christ, and changed lives.

jon_hill987

October 28th, 2006, 10:34 AM

the bible states the world was created over six days with man in it, about five or six thousand years ago, making the possibility of dinosaurs impossible, though we know them to have existed.

I saw a documentary about some Christian university in America somewhere, as well as teaching them politics so they could become the next president, they were also teaching them that the fossil records that some take to be proof of evolution were in fact layed down during the great flood, so I guess Noah disobeyed his God's direct orders and didn't take two of every animal... he clearly forgot the dinosaurs.

The thing that made me laugh most was where a student said (in interview) and I quote "Christianity is the oldest religion". I can only think of a couple that are newer. most had been well established for a few thousand years before Jesus was born.

GeoffBoulton

October 28th, 2006, 01:26 PM

There is nothing grammatically which prevents translating it as sphere or globe as indeed some translations do.

And again this is easily understood as hyperbole.

The major religions were quite happy, for hundreds of years, to preach that the earth was flat and to persecute, torture and murder anyone who dared disagree with them.

That's quite an achievement over the mis-translation of one word and a little bit of hyperbole.

Still, you are free to 'believe' what you want to believe. For me I will put my 'faith' in science. The church has always had to change its beliefs in the face of newly discovered science. Science has never had to change its theories in the face of evidence from the church.

We will just have to agree to differ ;)

AaronD

October 28th, 2006, 04:18 PM

Fallen Hero

October 28th, 2006, 06:56 PM

About the earth being a sphere: The bible states thrice earlier that the earth is flat. So, this would seem to be a contradiction. Oh yes, and it is also forgetting the fact that the bible states the world was created over six days with man in it, about five or six thousand years ago, making the possibility of dinosaurs impossible, though we know them to have existed. Oh, and it was an ancient Grecian who first discovered mathematically that the world was a sphere.

In the crucible of scientific investigation, the Bible has proven invariably to be correct.

That's a laugh... With the mess of contradictions, the matter of "intelligent design," the virgin birth (which was an idea ripped off from paganism, just like the Holy Grail, the winter solstice celebration you know as Christmas, the spring equinox festival you know as Easter, and many more stories and ideas), and many hundreds of inconsistencies, the bible has proven invariably to be full of shit.

This really explains why pagan beliefs often make more sense (As in, do not seem to be a thousand ideas thrown together haphazard to make a timeline of events without organizing and stuff) and do not as often contradict each other, with in their own religion. Paganism is NOT one religion. Also, they have much better myths than the modern religions, I love the pagan beliefs just because they are so much better stories and such. Especially Norse.

LKH

October 31st, 2006, 03:47 PM

Of course, most of the people I've met who claim to have been Christians and turned to atheism did not understand the faith at all. The Christianity that Jesus taught was not a religion. It was a relationship with God. And once you've actually had that, it would be impossible to dismiss.

You could no more persuade me that God is not real than you could persuade me that my mother is not real. You could no more persuade me that God lies than that my mother is a man. I know better.

Call it subjective, but the reason most Christians do believe the things claimed in the first post (though few of us are guilty of the hostility and arrogance implied) is because we trust the God who inspired the Scriptures and are satisfied, through our own experience of him, that his word is truth.

What I find curious is that you folks are so angry about it, that you feel such a need to hate on people of faith, simply because they disagree with you. If you're absolutely certain you're right and there is no basis for our faith, then it makes no difference, right? Get on with your lives, and leave others to their beliefs. If you want us to respect you, then respect the rights of others to believe differently as well.

L

Mathew

October 31st, 2006, 05:07 PM

The problem is that of extremes... We have folks on both sides of the fence, spouting hate and ill will to the other side. Look at all the hate mail this site has generated for the use of Church, and Minister. Look at all the soulless people spouting that there can't possibly be a God - knwoing that Science is only a popular theory untill proven wrong (and continue to spout the same argument I use.... Dinosaurs aren't in the Bible).

I personally am very turned off by Church for the cult like mind that is formed by extremity of the practise of a religion. I am not just sayign the RC church, but Hindii, Muslim, or any other organized religion has it's failure points. I was outside not too long ago mowing my lawn, and my neighbour (who I've know for the past couple of years) dropped her groceries and was visibly stricken. When I approached her to see what the matter was, she almost screamed that I was going to Hell. Now I am a typical white guy, a fairly large paunch (too many beers, and too little excercise to blame), and I've had nothing but pleasant experiences with my neighbour. Now it's summertime, and I have my shirt off (again ladies, not really a site to behold I'm not far off the pasty white nerdboy stereo type) and she noticed I had a couple of tattoos. According to her religion, this is against (and forgive my misspelling here) Detironimy, and I will be going to Hell. She has not spoken to me since..... I have many more examples of people practising a faith that behave like this, but it ultimately comes down to what type of man or woman you are, and how you interpret the teaches provided to you. In my experiences, a high percentage of people who are extremist usual are of the religous zealot fashion. This is what has turned me off of organized religion of any fashion.

As a child, my folks forced me to go to Church. I enjoyed the community that develops, enjoyed the stories told, and enjoyed the free food. After my parents gave me the choice to leave or stay, I left as it afforded me more sleep on a Sunday. Years later, I started going on my own, and found a high perecntage of these Zealots I identified above, and became disenfranchised with the religious experience. Years later I have read many of the religions of the world, and agree with many of the parables given by each. I believe in a Creator, be it man/woman or Mother Nature herself, and live my life according to many of the teachings from around the world. I just don't attend Church. For those who condemn me for how I look, what I wear, how I speak, or how I've intrepretted the Bible and other teachings, YOU are going to Hell for being a bigot regardless of what you think. The vision of the Bible (as many of these postings are RC related) wasn't your extremist view, and Jesus and God through Him taught brotherly (and sisterly) harmony and you are doing a disservice to your Religion.

I like the church for the community aspects, the rules of life, the harmony that it should create, and well being of being close to your creator.

God gave us all free will, and we all choose how to observe it. Religous belief has no part of how tolerant you are, and many people ignore this fact.

I know many zealots on both sides of the religous fence, and I dislike a majority of them for that fact (well I don't, I just accept that we won't agree, and accept them for that).

So the call should be made to seperate tolerance from this religous discussion, as they are two very seperate points.

Is there a God, are there Gods, is it a Goddess, is it Mother Nature, or are we doomed to be alone in the Universe? I don't have the answer, but neither do you. I can't prove my position and neither can you. You act in accordance to your faith whatever that is, and that does leave us in a better place.

That was my rant, and thanks for reading ;)

Mathew

Alice Shade

October 31st, 2006, 05:21 PM

Why do you think we hate people of faith, LKH?

Because it would better justify your own replies, or because you`ve only read the posts superficiously?

Let me break it down for you.

I`ll take myself for the example.

I AM tolerant of Christianity. Honestly. As long as I don`t have to do anything about it, I couldn`t care less, what Christians believe in. I live across the church (Orthodox church, if you`re wondering), and I have absolutely no quarrel with hundreds of believers coming in and out every day. I don`t go into church myself, because I do not believe in God, and, obviously have no business there.
If that would be status quo, I`d be happy about it, and not even think about Christians.

But now, let`s imagine different situation - rabid christians gate-crash my own house, deface my lawn with "holy flames" and are trying to beat me up with heavy bibles and crucifixes, just because I don`t believe.
Sounds ridiculous? I agree. Yet, that`s exactly what you and the likes of you do here, in this very forum.

You are of faith, this is the place for people of reason. Obviously, noone had forced you to come, nor invited to. But yet, you feel yourself justified to come in, and preach your own beliefs in most intolerant way - accusing us of the very same intolerance you exhibit.

Now, think about this, and tell me - do you really think, that after a hundredth "Google isn`t god, you`ll burn in hell, heathen sows, I hope you will suffer while living too, please die now!" post, we`d be a LITTLE testy about christians and them coming in here?

We do NOT have anything against Christianity as it is, and while followers of it respect OUR right to freedom of will, we couldn`t care less about "attacking" christians. But when we are under continuous attack of "righteous" fuckwits, we get irritated, and rightfully so.

Note, that we do NOT abuse someone just for the sake of abuse, as well. We offer our reasons, our logic, and our truth to people, who come here to talk. We can back everything with hardcore facts - facts, which were proven and could be tested. We would admit to being mistaken, too - if someone could offer LOGICAL proof, that we are. So far, all we got - was hatemail.

Do you think, that Googlism is evil, and not right for people? Give us valid reasons, why. We have valid reason, why Christianity isn`t right for us.
You simply think, that we abuse Christians, and don`t want to bother with debate? That`s OK, just don`t intrude in our temple, and we`ll never bother you.

Fallen Hero

November 1st, 2006, 06:51 PM

To put this the best way I can:

Admit you need blind faith to accept a god.

Jillamanda

November 2nd, 2006, 06:28 AM

Of course, most of the people I've met who claim to have been Christians and turned to atheism did not understand the faith at all. The Christianity that Jesus taught was not a religion. It was a relationship with God. And once you've actually had that, it would be impossible to dismiss.

No, they didn't believe it. You talk about belief and faith as if they're things we can just choose to do. You insinuate that we are either ignorant or stubborn, or both. You might have a relationship with your god, but that's no reason to condemn those of us who don't. In fact, it's a very blinkered attitude. You tell me how I can go about forming a belief and having faith in your god, and I'll give it a go.

We are being honest. Would you prefer we lied? I could tell you I've seen the light and now believe in God, but I'd be lying. Which is better - an atheist or a liar?

GeoffBoulton

November 2nd, 2006, 09:38 AM

The Christianity that Jesus taught was not a religion. It was a relationship with God.

Great, let's get rid of religions then and just let everyone choose how they have a relationship with God for themselves ;)

Alice Shade

November 2nd, 2006, 11:04 AM

Wouldn`t it be biased in girls` side?

God is always refered as "he", and knowing his issues with homosexuality, guys are bound to stay in platonic bounds in that holy relationship.

:twisted:

Fallen Hero

November 2nd, 2006, 01:49 PM

I agree to the abolishment of ORGANIZED religion, people can have whatever religion they want, granted that it harms no one, including themselves. (That is what I love about Wiccan)

ThePhilosopher

November 8th, 2006, 04:25 PM

ThePhilosopher

November 8th, 2006, 04:28 PM

ibgeekn4me

November 14th, 2006, 01:05 AM

Please do not group ALL Christians together. I for one am Catholic, and you are free to believe anything you want or to slam my God but please do not make generalizations unless they apply to 100% of the population

AaronD

November 14th, 2006, 04:49 AM

Yes. All generalizations are wrong. :D

Fallen Hero

November 14th, 2006, 03:40 PM

Agreed. I am working on it, too err is human.