By What Logic Did Jesus Die For My Sins?

[Tiorted Snoil]

If the penalty for sin is the death of the soul, how can Jesus' physical death be considered payment for anybody's sins? He did not sacrifice his soul, just his body. For someone who is immortal, three days of death is hardly payment in full for the billions of sinful lives on earth. If I die with unrepented sins, my punishment is eternal separation from God and the death of my soul. If Jesus intended to pay for my sins, why should God settle for payment that is less than what he would demand of me for the same sins?

Now, if the Son of God sacrificed himself to an eternity in Hell, that would be something. Even I might have to repent.

Someone tried to explain this to me once, they said something about a sin payment from Leviticus. If that is the best explanation that can be put forth, then I find the whole "Jesus died for your sins" argument for Christianity to be unpersuasive. Can any of the Christian scholars out there offer anything that to support the claim that the death of Jesus in any way is a quid pro quo for my sins?

[twin$]

nobody has ever been able to really explain that to me either..... Not saying that he didn't, but I am sure U and I are not the only ones who can't seem to understand that. I think a lot of people repeat it, but they really don't understand what they are saying.

[chipshot]

People believe it becuase it happened in a long ago magical time.

[sds70]

Back in the Old Testament, blood sacrifices (animals) were made to cover the peoples sins over the last year. In the New Testament, Jesus dying on the cross and him spending 3 days in hell and then rising from the dead has taken care of this once and for all. I'm sure a man of the cloth could offer more details (i.e. bible verses) . . . There has to be a pastor on this board, right guys :) ?

[VOR]

yeah like Iassic and abraham and stuff.

[Tiorted Snoil]

Originally posted by twin$
nobody has ever been able to really explain that to me either..... Not saying that he didn't, but I am sure U and I are not the only ones who can't seem to understand that. I think a lot of people repeat it, but they really don't understand what they are saying.

Something else I don’t understand is when people look at this from god's perspective. "God gave his only son for our sins."

No he didn't, unless you're prepared to tell me that jesus was condemned to hell for eternity "for all our sins." If jesus is in heaven with god (as i'm sure all christians duly believe), god did not give his only son at all. In fact, he got him back in heaven to be right next to him.

Now, were christians to believe god sent his own son to hell for all eternity for our sins, it would still mean the christian god is a cruel sadist, but at least it could be said that god made a meaningful sacrifice.

[Tiorted Snoil]

Originally posted by sds70
Back in the Old Testament, blood sacrifices (animals) were made to cover the peoples sins over the last year. In the New Testament, Jesus dying on the cross and him spending 3 days in hell and then rising from the dead has taken care of this once and for all. I'm sure a man of the cloth could offer more details (i.e. bible verses) . . . There has to be a pastor on this board, right guys :) ?

that leads to a simple question then....if he died for our sins, why do some still go to hell?

[reb]

The best part is there is no way not to sin because somebody decided you were born a sinner. This way you play catch up the whole time. It's all part of the package. You have to have faith they know what they are taking about.

[imking4aday]

God's purpose for man was to live forever and be perfect.

Adam was a perfect human. Through his sin, death entered the world and he lost his perfection. "The wage of sin is death"

Jesus was the only other perfect human on the earth since Adam and Eve and was God's only begotten son. Giving his life as a perfect human sacrifice is the only way that he could redeem everyone elses. He died perfect for an imperfect man's sin.

[builder]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil


that leads to a simple question then....if he died for our sins, why do some still go to hell?

Because we don't fall for the fear factor that Christianity offers.

[builder]

Originally posted by imking4aday
Giving his life as a perfect human sacrifice is the only way that he could redeem everyone elses.

If you can buy that, then I have to side with Boo here, why not condemn him to suffer forever in hell?

[BearBryant]

Fear Factor is on NBC, not the Christianity channel. Get your facts straight buddy.

[builder]

Originally posted by BearBryant
Fear Factor is on NBC, not the Christianity channel. Get your facts straight buddy.

Yeah yeah....But without the fear of everlasting torment, Christianity does not exist.

[Tiorted Snoil]

Originally posted by imking4aday
God's purpose for man was to live forever and be perfect.

Adam was a perfect human. Through his sin, death entered the world and he lost his perfection. "The wage of sin is death"

Jesus was the only other perfect human on the earth since Adam and Eve and was God's only begotten son. Giving his life as a perfect human sacrifice is the only way that he could redeem everyone elses. He died perfect for an imperfect man's sin.

In order to buy into that "original sin" stuff, don't you have to believe in Adam and eve and the Garden and all that? Well, obviously that stuff never happened so if there was no original sin, then what do we have to be "redeemed" from?

Still don't get the logic part.

Adam and Eve commit a 'nono'.
God punishes them and all their offspring (!!!!)
Years and years later God has second thoughts about punishing all of mankind.
He creates a human clone of himself and has it totured and killed.
All of those who believe this will no longer have to burn in hell eternally.

Where is all the logic in this?
1. Why punish people into the umpteenth generation for something these individuals did not commit?
2. If you are omnipotent and all seeing how can you have second thoughts about anything?
3. If you did have second thoughts, why not get everybody out of hell? At the very least those who've never even heard of You or Jezus.
4. In what way exactly does believing in Christ nullify this 'original sin' concept anyway?

[builder]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil

Where is all the logic in this?
1. Why punish people into the umpteenth generation for something these individuals did not commit?
2. If you are omnipotent and all seeing how can you have second thoughts about anything?
3. If you did have second thoughts, why not get everybody out of hell? At the very least those who've never even heard of You or Jezus.
4. In what way exactly does believing in Christ nullify this 'original sin' concept anyway?

1. Reparations....I want mine.
2. You can't. That's the fallacy with Christianity. Not only, God already knows who is going to Heaven and who is going to hell so why bother?
3. Because Lucifer needs someone to make him feel important.
4. You can believe that a man named Jesus Christ lived so many years ago...but if some guy came around today claiming to be the son of God, they'd put him away.

[imking4aday]

Originally posted by builder


If you can buy that, then I have to side with Boo here, why not condemn him to suffer forever in hell?

what if hell doesn't really exist the way some sects teach?

look up the definitions of Hades and Sheol

[builder]

Originally posted by imking4aday
what if hell doesn't really exist the way some sects teach?


I don't believe that it does. I think that how we have lived our life directs the intentions of our next life. If we were a "good" person in accordance with the universe, then our Heaven consists of a peaceful life that we can manipulate at will. If we were "evil", then the next life will be full of torment and strife.

[Puttingood]

that leads to a simple question then....if he died for our sins, why do some still go to hell?

That's easy to answer---John 3:16---the whole story. Who so ever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting Life.

Thats why God gave His Son.

Non believers amaze me as to the lenghts they will go to prove something that they profess not to believe in as untrue.
I don't believe in the tooth fairy but I wouldn't spend a second trying to disprove it or make anyone else not believe.
If you don't believe, then just leave it alone for the rest of us that do.
Of course. some people won't leave it alone because they really aren't that non-believing. ;)

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Puttingood
that leads to a simple question then....if he died for our sins, why do some still go to hell?

That's easy to answer---John 3:16---the whole story. Who so ever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting Life.

Thats why God gave His Son.

Non believers amaze me as to the lenghts they will go to prove something that they profess not to believe in as untrue.
I don't believe in the tooth fairy but I wouldn't spend a second trying to disprove it or make anyone else not believe.
If you don't believe, then just leave it alone for the rest of us that do.
Of course. some people won't leave it alone because they really aren't that non-believing. ;)

Exactly Putt. There is an element of doubt in those that protest too much. And of course there is comfort in numbers. Subconciously they want as many people as possible to think like they do and agree with them because they don't want to be alone when the poop hits the fan.

I am glad Snoil is having these doubts. It shows he is not lost. Same with builder. I love God and I love both of them.

I do not believe any words I could ever utter whether in person or on a message board will lead anyone to God. I just hope one day God gives me the opportunity to bring someone to his grace through some small action of mine. I would treasure that knowledge more than anything else in the world.

[Superfluous_Nut]

But Putt, nobody believes in the tooth-fairy. But imagine if you had millions that did. Wouldn't you wonder why? And when they explained it and it didn't make sense, wouldn't you be curious as to how they add 2 and 2 and get 7?

The whole notion of heaven is a bit strange to me. The idea is that if you're a good person, you are rewarded when you die. Obviously it's meant for surviving family members to not be sad when somebody dies, but it seems like if people really believed it, they'd be looking forward to dying. I guess they either aren't sure about heaven, or maybe don't know if they measure up.

[builder]

Originally posted by slydevl
I am glad Snoil is having these doubts. It shows he is not lost. Same with builder. I love God and I love both of them.


I don't think I try to disprove anyone else's beliefs. I only try to reinforce mine. We all have faith and beliefs. For me, they are based on experiences that have happened to me rather than reading and blind faith.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
The idea is that if you're a good person, you are rewarded when you die.

A good Christian will live a moral life not to get into heaven but because living a good life is what brings them pleasure here on earth. The morality of your life has little to do with your getting into heaven. The most important thing is that you love God with all your heart and believe that Jesus died for your sins. You are not "rewarded" for living a good life. The are ranks upon ranks of sinners who are in heaven right now.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by builder


I don't think I try to disprove anyone else's beliefs. I only try to reinforce mine. We all have faith and beliefs. For me, they are based on experiences that have happened to me rather than reading and blind faith.

Whatever you say Builder. Want to go to church with me Sunday?

I'll just wear some rubber soled shoes so that I'm grounded..........just in case.:D

[reb]

Religion is a lot better than beliving in Hitler or the KKK. But then I forget about those pesky Crusades, the Irish thing and Jews and Muslims. :rolleyes:

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by slydevl


A good Christian will live a moral life not to get into heaven but because living a good life is what brings them pleasure here on earth.

Sounds good to me.

[Patti]

Originally posted by slydevl


Whatever you say Builder. Want to go to church with me Sunday?

I'll just wear some rubber soled shoes so that I'm grounded..........just in case.:D


Don't forget the hard hat!

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Patti



Don't forget the hard hat!

I was thinking more along the lines of a cup or chastity belt.

[builder]

Originally posted by slydevl
Whatever you say Builder. Want to go to church with me Sunday?

No. I only attend services now that are filled with arranged flowers. weddings and funerals.

[Miss tery]

WWJD (What would jesus drive?)

All you believers better get on this bandwagon and get rid of your trucks and suv's.

Or you're goin' to hell for sure.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/20/news/companies/cars/index.htm

[Patti]

I thought when I first saw this thread, OMG all we need is Miss_tery to come and throw her "insightful thoughts" into the mix.

[Miss tery]

It is very nice to be appreciated, thank you Patti!

http://jeeptalk.org/crack/smilies/contrib/fk/cheer4.gif

[Puttingood]

Obviously it's meant for surviving family members to not be sad when somebody dies, but it seems like if people really believed it, they'd be looking forward to dying.

No, it ain't obvious.
If a person believes in the Bible and reads that Bible then they know that their rewards in Heaven are based on their Deeds here on earth. There are plenty that may not be looking forward to passing on but they are content with the fact they will. There are plenty of agnostics and atheists out there that will change their mind when they get a few mortars lobbed their way. And at that time, if they accept Jesus Christ as their Savior then they will also go to Heaven. Their Mansions may not be as big but they will have a lot of company cause I will probably be staying in that same neighborhood. I am not here to argue the Bible and what I believe but I am here to say that sometimes you have accept what you don't understand. If God doesn't exist and His Son did not die for our sins then why are people so scared of Him and want to convince the ones that do believe that He doesn't exist ? Some people don't even want His name mentioned. Others argue the Bible and could not possibly understand it all. Even good Christians are not sure why they are crossing the river but their heart tells them it's right. I am a firm believer that it is in everyones heart to want to believe. If there was a possibility that my beliefs are wrong then I'll end up the same place the non believers do. But, if the non-believers are wrong then Eternity is gonna be hell.;)

[Patti]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
It is very nice to be appreciated, thank you Patti!

http://jeeptalk.org/crack/smilies/contrib/fk/cheer4.gif


Ugh...Miss_tery, I was being facetious. But just for you I'll make that fishtious.

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by Patti



Ugh...Miss_tery, I was being facetious. But just for you I'll make that fishtious.

Honey, I know your porch light flickers a little bit, but even I giggled that you bit on that one.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
If the penalty for sin is the death of the soul, how can Jesus' physical death be considered payment for anybody's sins?

God's curse for sin is physical death (death of the body). According to the Bible, only one or possibly two have somehow escaped that curse and both were in the Old Testament. But this curse stands and is the one we all have to deal with.

Regarding the eternal penalty, it helps to understand it if we define what 'sin' actually is. Sin is not necessarily breaking God's commandments. Sin is rebellion against God. Sin is doing what WE want, instead of what God wants. It doesn't have to be 'evil' by our standards. Sin causes the relationship between God and man to be broken.

At one time or another, we've all turned our back on God. The doctrine of 'original sin' is generally accepted among Christians, as not many can recall being 'acquainted' with God as young children. Those experiences would suggest the separation between God and man happens before that. Personally, I find it a debatable doctrine, but not crucial to salvation. The fact remains that everyone has, at one time or another, turned their back on God at least once, and that's all it takes to separate us from Him.

So at one point or another, we're all separate from God. Hence we have the 'Christ', which is an ancient Greek word that means 'Savior'. If Jesus was merely a man, even a perfect one, His sacrifice would not be sufficient for every human sin. He is something more. He is God in human form, a part of the Trinity. The Trinity is very confusing, but if you like, I'll give it my best shot. Let me know.

Jesus did not just die physically, he died spiritually, too. God the Father abandoned Jesus on the cross when He took upon Himself the sins of all mankind. And the Holy Spirit left Him. When Jesus died on the cross, every part of him was gone. On the third day, God the Father resurrected Him.

Many believe Jesus spent those three days in hell. I have not seen a passage of Scripture yet that supports that, but I'm open to suggestion if someone wants to present one.

You're right in one regard, though. It doesn't seem to make sense how an eternal price could be paid in one three day span of time for every human who ever existed, past, present and future. My answer to you would be that the price is paid because of Jesus' identity as well as His nature. In order for salvation to be logically feasible, His innate value must be unfathomably higher than our own to cancel our astronomical debt to God.

Then again, our crime of sin is against God Himself, therefore He has the power to determine the sentence, and the price that must be paid.

Now, if the Son of God sacrificed himself to an eternity in Hell, that would be something. Even I might have to repent.

Another thing I think we have to understand is that God exists outside our concept of time. When facing eternal crimes, would it not make more sense to deal with them in terms of one time events, rather than time sentences? (i.e. three days, years, etc.)

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by Puttingood
If God doesn't exist and His Son did not die for our sins then why are people so scared of Him and want to convince the ones that do believe that He doesn't exist ? Some people don't even want His name mentioned.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. Agnostics and Atheists tend to be critical thinkers. As such, it's probably not hard to get them/us to debate just about anything.


The thing about mentioning his name relates more to the divisiveness that goes along with religion. It's easy to overlook it if you're in the club, so to speak.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
Something else I don’t understand is when people look at this from god's perspective. "God gave his only son for our sins."

No he didn't, unless you're prepared to tell me that jesus was condemned to hell for eternity "for all our sins." If jesus is in heaven with god (as i'm sure all christians duly believe), god did not give his only son at all. In fact, he got him back in heaven to be right next to him.

Jesus' spirit died on that cross as well. If you read the account in the book of John, there were events that occured the moment Jesus died that do not correspond to a human dying. Jesus experienced spiritual death, too.

He did not resurrect Himself, God the Father resurrected Him. For three earth days, Jesus ceased to exist. Then, having paid the price and accomplishing His purpose, God brought Him back. He didn't take a vacation from heaven -- He was alive, He ceased to exist in every way, and then He was brought back and restored by the One who created Him.

[Miss tery]

So, are all the Jews going to hell?

[Puttingood]

So, are all the Jews going to hell?

More than likely they will.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
that leads to a simple question then....if he died for our sins, why do some still go to hell?

We cannot truly love another if we're forced to. Love is always a choice. God knows that, which is why He has given us a choice of whether or not to love Him.

Not unlike the 'red pill, blue pill' scene in The Matrix, once someone has been presented with the Gospel, they have a choice to make -- they can accept it, they can reject it, or they can think about it. As long as we're alive on this earth, we have option 3. We have time. But the decision has to be made before we die, because when we die, we face judgment.

Perhaps it would be easier to explain who, according to Christian doctrine, will spend eternity in hell.

People who reject Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Pretty straightforward. Jesus is the doorman who decides who gets into heaven. If you've rejected Him on earth, He rejects you in heaven.

People who do not know Jesus, and have defied their own consciences.
There is a separate standard for people who have never heard the Gospel. They are subject to fair judgment, based on how they lived their lives with their consciences being their standard.

Hell is eternal separation from God. God will not force someone to live with Him if they don't want to. The only other option is to live in the one place where He is not, which is hell.

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by Puttingood
So, are all the Jews going to hell?

More than likely they will.

Nice to see ethnocentric views reinforced by morons.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
So, are all the Jews going to hell?

It depends. Many Jews have accepted Christian salvation. They're called 'Messianic Jews'.

At one time, the Jews were God's chosen people. However, the New Testament states that because of Jesus' crucifixion, the playing field was leveled. The Jews are to be judged by the same standard as the rest of us.

But God is fair, and He will take into consideration what most Jews are taught. If they are never taught anything except the old laws and the assertion that Jesus was a heretic, nothing more, God will take that into considertation and judge them by another standard.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by builder
....But without the fear of everlasting torment, Christianity does not exist.

In it's true form, no. But there are many who do not accept the whole of Christian doctrine who have enormous respect for Jesus as a teacher and recognize and follow His teachings for practical life.

[Puttingood]

Nice to see ethnocentric views reinforced by morons. posted by Miss-tery

Also good to see I can still lead you around like a little puppy dog. I figured you were just being a smart ass so I answered your moronic question with a moronic answer and again, you took it, hook, line, sinker and all. Good to see some things don't change.:)

[Miss tery]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8611/page2.htm

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by Puttingood
Nice to see ethnocentric views reinforced by morons. posted by Miss-tery

Also good to see I can still lead you around like a little puppy dog. I figured you were just being a smart ass so I answered your moronic question with a moronic answer and again, you took it, hook, line, sinker and all. Good to see some things don't change.:)

Your only choice was to answer moronically, because you had no intelligent one.

[Puttingood]

You ever get tired of pulling that hook out of your mouth?:D

[Miss tery]

You ever get tired of being an asshole?

[lj4three]

He is without and within all beings, and constitutese both animate and inaminate creation. By reason of His subtlety, He is incomprehensible; He is both at hand and far away.

Undivided He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the Sustainer, Destroyer and Creator of beings.

The Light of all lights, He is said to be beyond darkness. He is knowledge, the object of knowledge and the goal of knowledge- He is seated in the hearts of all.

[lj4three]

Originally posted by hasbeens99


In it's true form, no. But there are many who do not accept the whole of Christian doctrine who have enormous respect for Jesus as a teacher and recognize and follow His teachings for practical life.

:applause:

[Miss tery]

"I figured you were just being a smart ass."

No I was not. I believe I was asking a theological challenging question.

[mathmajors]

This is very good discussion, but I want to add a couple of things, and I apologize if I missed these points:

Jesus was NOT immortal. That distinction is important. God could have very well allowed him to live.

Also, I believe that Jesus was sinless, but not perfect. This could turn into another discussion, but there it is.

I refer back to my last statement for my last point: I believe. I have faith that Jesus was and is the Messiah. You can read the bible and go to church and live a good life, but you have to believe in order to have everlasting life.

[plutosdaughter]

To read back over what has been written in this thread bothers, enlightens and inspires me. I wish I could better put into words what I feel or that I was more adept at conveying my beliefs.

I am enlightened by the cerebral thinkers and posters on this board who question and dig deeper for the truth, a scientific explanation and I do respect that....However, I am bothered by the fact that you can experience ( or I assume you can ) pure unconditional love for your child,spouse or whomever and you can't prove that love, but you need proof that God exists. You experience miracle after miracle daily from the sunstreaked skies to the little accident you 'almost' had today, yet you need more proof scientifically that he exists. Ok the argument I hear a lot is if he exists, why is there so much pain in the world? Why would a loving God make us suffer? Well, for that I have no answer, but I do know that for every thing we suffer in life we have 1000's of blessings that we take for granted every day.

Lastly, I am inspired by those who do believe and do seek to know him more and be closer to him, and inspired that so many here do believe.

For me it's simple, there is a master plan and we don't know what our role is yet but we will someday. I don't think any particular religion per say has it all RIGHT just yet and shouldn't be so persistant their way is the only way. The word 'faith' is just what it defines itself to be for me. To me, to think there is no reason, hope or plan depresses and discourages me. I will pray for those who can't believe that.
Again, I respect anyones belief and hunger for knowlege, but I say to hell with 'prove to me He exists', I say prove to me He doesn't.

[LLG]

Originally posted by plutosdaughter
Again, I respect anyones belief and hunger for knowlege, but I say to hell with 'prove to me He exists', I say prove to me He doesn't.

You're very eloquent. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed in your post.

[plutosdaughter]

Originally posted by Luvin_Life_Girl


You're very eloquent. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed in your post.



Thanks girl!!!I got most of it out of Septembers issue of Readers Digest.. J/K J/K :D

[Superfluous_Nut]

I guess the only problem with the whole "can you prove that love exists" thing is that I'm not gonna tell you how to live your life based on whether or not I love my fiancee. I have absolutely nothing against Christianity or religion in general. But I don't like when a large group of people dictates how I should live my life. For the most part, that doesn't happen, but when Christianity creeps into government, it raises a huge red flag for me. Ashcroft, for example, really scares me because of his zealotry.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
In order to buy into that "original sin" stuff, don't you have to believe in Adam and eve and the Garden and all that? Well, obviously that stuff never happened so if there was no original sin, then what do we have to be "redeemed" from?

Yes, to accept the doctrine of 'original sin', you must first have a foundation of belief in the setting and fall of mankind.

How can you be so sure it never happened? The truth is, I don't believe you can disprove it any more than I can prove it.

But as I stated in an earlier post, the concept of original or 'inherited' sin is not crucial to the doctrine of salvation, because even if we're all born perfect, we sin (turn away from God) sometime during our lifetime. The truth is, all it takes is one to be imperfect.


Adam and Eve commit a 'nono'.

Let's put this in the proper context. Their 'no no' was an act of direct defiance against the God of the universe, whom they knew and had an interactive relationship with.

God punishes them and all their offspring (!!!!)

Because of Adam and Eve, sin was introduced into the world. They became imperfect beings. Wouldn't logic suggest that perfection cannot be borne from imperfection?

What happened, is God gave them and all their offspring a measure of time to make a choice that would affect their eternal lives. Call it a second chance of sorts.

Years and years later God has second thoughts about punishing all of mankind.

God did not have second thoughts. It was His plan from the beginning that we would be reconciled to Him through Jesus.

He creates a human clone of himself and has it tortured and killed.

Close, but oversimplified. God took part of Himself and placed it in a human body for a very specific purpose. Jesus allowed Himself to be tortured to death because He was taking the punishment we had coming from God for our sins. And remember, this is an event that is not restricted to the boundaries of time. It is marked by time, but the one event was for the whole of human existence.

All of those who believe this will no longer have to burn in hell eternally.

It's more than just belief. To be saved, one must trust in it. Christians are depending on the promise Jesus made that His sacrifice would pay for our sins. If not, we're all toast...quite literally.

1. Why punish people into the umpteenth generation for something these individuals did not commit?

But we have. All of us. Even if we weren't born with sin, we've all sinned at some point in our lives.

2. If you are omnipotent and all seeing how can you have second thoughts about anything?

You can't. But as I stated previously, redemption through Christ was God's plan from the beginning.

3. If you did have second thoughts, why not get everybody out of hell? At the very least those who've never even heard of You or Jesus.

God would love nothing better to save every human that ever lived. Hell was never meant for people. People who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ or any part of the Bible are judged by a different standard. They are judged by their recognition of things like His creation and obedience to their own consciences.

4. In what way exactly does believing in Christ nullify this 'original sin' concept anyway?

That's something I struggle to understand sometimes as well. I believe it has to do with being 'born again' when we ask for God's grace and commit to follow Jesus. There is a transaction that takes place that actually changes our spiritual identity. I think our sin is taken away because we are given the heavenly credentials of Jesus Himself. I guess you could say we're not enough by ourselves to get into the party, but because we know the guest of honor, we get to go. "We're with Him."

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by plutosdaughter
...I respect anyones belief and hunger for knowlege, but I say to hell with 'prove to me He exists', I say prove to me He doesn't.

I understand your sentiment, PD, but it isn't productive, IMO. Believers are saved. There is no burden nor sense of urgency to 'convert' us, as we have the best of both worlds. If we're right, we spend eternity in heaven. If we're wrong, we still enjoy a lifetime of peace and joy.

No, the burden is on the believers to at least answer the questions of those who do not. It is for them that the clock is ticking, not for us.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
But Putt, nobody believes in the tooth-fairy. But imagine if you had millions that did. Wouldn't you wonder why? And when they explained it and it didn't make sense, wouldn't you be curious as to how they add 2 and 2 and get 7?

Nut, if the Tooth Fairy was claiming to save the world from eternal damnation instead of leaving quarters under children's pillows in exchange for their teeth, people would have a much greater motivation to believe in him/her.

Yes, when millions of people believe in any faith system, it interests me. I want to know why it's appealing and how it works. That goes for my own beliefs as well. And yes, where I see what I perceive to be 'holes', I want to know how they're bridged, filled, or otherwise dealt with.

The whole notion of heaven is a bit strange to me. The idea is that if you're a good person, you are rewarded when you die.

I cannot speak intelligently about others' versions of heaven, but from the Christian perspective, you can't just be 'good' to get in, you must be 'perfect', according to God's standard.

Obviously it's meant for surviving family members to not be sad when somebody dies, but it seems like if people really believed it, they'd be looking forward to dying.

There is little doubt in my mind that the whole concept of heaven was revealed to us to give us hope beyond the grave. And there are many who do look forward to being there. I am one of them. The reason we don't is the purpose we've been given here on earth. The apostle Paul once said, "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." He's saying that as long as he serves Jesus here on earth, he's blessed with a great life, and if he dies, he knows it will be even better in heaven.

I guess they either aren't sure about heaven, or maybe don't know if they measure up.

Nobody really knows about heaven because the only person still alive that's seen it is Jesus, and He ain't saying any more about it. As far as 'measuring up' goes, like I said before I can only speak from the Christian perspective, but none of us measure up. That's why we need Jesus.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by slydevl
A good Christian will live a moral life not to get into heaven but because living a good life is what brings them pleasure here on earth. The morality of your life has little to do with your getting into heaven. The most important thing is that you love God with all your heart and believe that Jesus died for your sins. You are not "rewarded" for living a good life. The are ranks upon ranks of sinners who are in heaven right now.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Well said, Sly.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Reb
Religion is a lot better than beliving in Hitler or the KKK. But then I forget about those pesky Crusades, the Irish thing and Jews and Muslims. :rolleyes:

Don't let the corruption of human beings dissuade you from seeking out God, Reb. Bottom line, if people are involved in anything, it's going to be screwed up somehow. Those historical events are tragic, but not true representations of the God they claim to follow.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8611/page2.htm

Tery, please tell me that's a joke. :rolleyes:

[sds70]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil


that leads to a simple question then....if he died for our sins, why do some still go to hell?


People still go to hell because they never accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord & Savior while they were alive . . . .

[plutosdaughter]

Originally posted by hasbeens99


I understand your sentiment, PD, but it isn't productive, IMO. Believers are saved. There is no burden nor sense of urgency to 'convert' us, as we have the best of both worlds. If we're right, we spend eternity in heaven. If we're wrong, we still enjoy a lifetime of peace and joy.

No, the burden is on the believers to at least answer the questions of those who do not. It is for them that the clock is ticking, not for us.



Good point:) When I said I wish I could express more how I felt, I guess what I really mean is I wish I had more knowledge of the bible and the ability to be able to directly argue the points which are brought up. I would not make a good attorney....whewww I'm glad you are here;)

[Superfluous_Nut]

Isn't it strange that God didn't bother with the rest of the world? Sure, the Israelis were his chosen people, but what about the others? If God is truly the only God, then clearly he must have been their God as well (whether or not they acknowledge him correctly). Didn't he care about them? Or did he only care about them enough to let them learn by word of mouth from other folks?

How come nobody else was suddenly enlightened with the gospel? Actually, I suppose Muhammed claims he was and John Smith(?) claimes he was as well. Why don't you believe either of them? They seem to have the same credentials -- a strong belief with no physical proof.

What do Jews think about Christianity? I'm sure they probably don't want any trouble considering that they're outnumbered by like 400 to 1 or something....

[QueenCityHillbilly]

Originally posted by builder
but if some guy came around today claiming to be the son of God, they'd put him away.
Yeah, cause a random guy today claims he is the son of God, we know that he's not. The key words from John 3:16 in this situation is "only begotten son." "Only" being the key word out of those three.

[QueenCityHillbilly]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
What do Jews think about Christianity? I'm sure they probably don't want any trouble considering that they're outnumbered by like 400 to 1 or something....
Jews aknowledge Jesus, they just don't think he's the Saviour.

[QueenCityHillbilly]

Originally posted by hasbeens99
you can't just be 'good' to get in (to heaven), you must be 'perfect', according to God's standard.
hasbeens, i been agreeing with you the whole time, except for this. You don't have to be perfect, just forgiven.

[mathmajors]

Originally posted by QueenCityHillbilly

hasbeens, i been agreeing with you the whole time, except for this. You don't have to be perfect, just forgiven.

[VOR]

Originally posted by slydevl


A good Christian will live a moral life not to get into heaven but because living a good life is what brings them pleasure here on earth. The morality of your life has little to do with your getting into heaven. The most important thing is that you love God with all your heart and believe that Jesus died for your sins. You are not "rewarded" for living a good life. The are ranks upon ranks of sinners who are in heaven right now.

Here is where there is the great divide in christanity lies. Some believe as sly has written, others believe, myself included, that heaven is attained by accepting christ and no longer being a sinner. I believe that no sinners are in heaven right now and none will ever. John the raptor points out many will be called but few will be chosen. When you buy into christ at that moment you become responsible for your own condition. The baptist tradition of being an asshole all week and giving testimony on sunday just dosen't wash. Christ didn't cease being christ when the sun rose the day after sabbath, and start up again when the sun set on the day before. Christanity is really easy, however there are no loopholes and it is not apelike to not seek the loop holes. If you truly accept Christ you accept the teachings of the hew testament in totality with the guidance that the old testament provides 24/7. If you've got 2 pies and the family across the street is starving you know what that means.

[QueenCityHillbilly]

Originally posted by VOR
I believe that no sinners are in heaven right now and none will ever.
Wrong VOR, heaven is full of sinners. In fact, with the exception of God himself, every single person in heaven is a sinner. And that's how it will be.

[VOR]

If you say so

[builder]

Originally posted by QueenCityHillbilly

Yeah, cause a random guy today claims he is the son of God, we know that he's not. The key words from John 3:16 in this situation is "only begotten son." "Only" being the key word out of those three.

Even if it's the second coming? That's what I don't understand.

[Tiorted Snoil]

Originally posted by plutosdaughter

Again, I respect anyones belief and hunger for knowlege, but I say to hell with 'prove to me He exists', I say prove to me He doesn't.

I want to tell you a story, a true story. It is about Galileo. There will be a couple other names in it that you should recognize.

Galileo got into some trouble with the Catholic Church. To understand how, you need some background. I will start with an idea that a guy named Copernicus dreamed up. He looked around the sky at night and observed the somewhat bizarre path the planets and such sketched through the sky over the course of the years. He came up with some simpler ideas to explain these movements by positing that it was easier to explain the movements if you consider that the sun and not the earth was the center of the solar system (universe actually in that early consideration). His evidence was rather weak though, as telescopes hadn't been invented yet and all he had that was really solid was the apparent movement of the other planets in the night sky. The Church rather got on to him for speaking of this idea in public and effectively put the subject out of bounds for consideration. This idea was plainly contrary to scripture and there was no evidence that really proved it.

Fast forward to quite a few years later. Galileo comes on the scene. As he was a man of learning and science, he was quite familiar with Copernicus’s ideas (and the refinements added by Kepler and others later on). He was quite impressed with these ideas and thought them very clever. As fate would have it, crude telescopes were becoming available then and Galileo was among the first people on Earth to really have a good look at other objects in our solar system. It quickly became clear to him that he could see in the heavens (thanks to this early telescope) everything that was needed to prove that Copernicus's ideas as correct.

He realized that the Church would still not be very pleased with anyone making these claims and mostly sat on this information for a period of years. Luck, he thought, had brought him some help. A fellow countrymen had been made Pope. A man, in fact, that Galileo knew personally. A man that he considered a friend became the Pope. Galileo knew this Pope respected him, and would make sure his ideas would be fairly evaluated if he revealed them. As it turns out, that is not the way that it happened. The Pope had his hands full already with other problems and was rather upset with Galileo for the way he published his findings. So, the Pope didn't take the effort to help or defend his friend. (All of this is a fascinating story with politics, intrigue and vendettas, but is too long to tell now.) Galileo was brought before the Church and found substantially guilty of heresy and forced to recant on bent knee. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His book and his ideas were banned for the next 200 years. They didn’t go away.

It is obvious today that the Church erred in the handling of Galileo's revelations. Even the Vatican finally got around to officially apologizing for this chapter in its history in 1992. Anyone with even modest means can purchase a telescope that far exceeded the capabilities of anything available to Galileo in his day. Today, anyone can see the truth of what Galileo had to say, for himself, if he cares to. Galileo brought clear evidence of what the truth was before the Church only to have it rejected and suppressed as being contrary to Scripture, therefore incorrect regardless of evidence. Further discoveries, better education, and advancing technology make denying a Sun-centered solar system a clear mark of insanity.

The same story is happening today. Evolution is that story. When Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, he didn’t have the really strong evidence, either. But, his young idea fit the facts that he did have, so well, that it was more than promising. It also pointed the way to, and predicted, new information to come.

Since Darwin's first ideas, a tremendous lot has been discovered. Very clear smoking guns have been uncovered all around the planet. The evidence is very strong but understanding all of it requires a bit more learning and thought than is common today (unfortunately). So, the story repeats itself. The only difference really is that the Church is not the monolithic (or powerful) entity that it was then, and that the ideas are being suppressed by a thousand tiny cuts instead of one large victory as it was in the past. But still, the evidence has been found and presented. And again, the truth is being rejected by people who don't truly open their eyes to look at it. Why should they look at it when it is clearly contrary to their understanding of the scripture? Their understanding couldn't possible be wrong (again).

Education and technology are improving every year. The evidence becomes easier to grasp for every man every day that passes. The day won't be long coming when it will be clear to everyone that truth is being rejected today.

The people of today will be looked upon with ridicule by those of the future in the same manner that we look upon the leaders of the Church in Galileo's time. Open those eyes, and really look at the evidence before rejecting it this time. Do you really want to go down on the wrong side of history again?

For the record, a Sun-centered solar system is still “only a theory.”

:D

[Tiorted Snoil]

Hasbeens, as someone who spent most of my childhood and teen years in a catholic school, it is nice to debate with someone who actually has an education on religion...not just heresay from church that they regurgitate.:cool:

[VOR]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil


IFor the record, a Sun-centered solar system is still “only a theory.”

:D

Only in the eyes of the 700 club and certain snake handling groups.

[Puttingood]

What always amazes me about this whole thing is the people who do not believe always makes it a point to pretend be an expert at it. The fact that they bring it up is proof enough that they have doubts about themselves. I have met many over the years and the argument is always the same. It never changes from decade to decade, only the people change. Miss_tery's argument and what she bases her beliefs on are old as the hills.
My question is "Why?"

Why do people try so hard to convince others that their belief is wrong ?
Why do the non-believers always instigate the subject ?
Why does the word God scare so many people when they admit that they don't believe in Him ?

The word "God" has been removed from everthing they can possibly take it out of and it still makes them mad that people still keep "God" in their heart. Religion has been argued, ridiculed and embraced for many a year and it survives and will always. In God's wisdom, He has given us the ability to see and feel. He gave us the ability to feel because all can not see.

[lj4three]

i dont believe in celestial places like "heaven and hell." i believe heaven and hell take place right here on earth, and are a direct result of our actions in our lifetimes- previous and current.

EDIT: i also believe that one's soul can only be reunited with the Supreme once that soul has reached an understanding of Him. and its A LOT EASIER SAID THAN DONE. there is no exception to the rule- everyone of OUR ACTIONS counts, and as nature works- for every ACTION there is an equal REACTION. thats how i view things. our progression through "life" is a bigger part of the puzzle- each lifetime, the goal is to better yourself as a person, and make the best of your situation- the purity of your mind and soul determines your next birth, or reaching attainment.

[SandMan]

Originally posted by sds70
People still go to hell because they never accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord & Savior while they were alive . . . .

Got any proof? Talked to anyone of whom it happened to?

[Tiorted Snoil]

Originally posted by Puttingood
What always amazes me about this whole thing is the people who do not believe always makes it a point to pretend be an expert at it. The fact that they bring it up is proof enough that they have doubts about themselves. I have met many over the years and the argument is always the same. It never changes from decade to decade, only the people change. Miss_tery's argument and what she bases her beliefs on are old as the hills.
My question is "Why?"

Why do people try so hard to convince others that their belief is wrong ?
Why do the non-believers always instigate the subject ?
Why does the word God scare so many people when they admit that they don't believe in Him ?

The word "God" has been removed from everthing they can possibly take it out of and it still makes them mad that people still keep "God" in their heart. Religion has been argued, ridiculed and embraced for many a year and it survives and will always. In God's wisdom, He has given us the ability to see and feel. He gave us the ability to feel because all can not see.

why do you have to beleive to be an expert?...I'm assuming you mean an expert Christian. There are thousands of religous scholars that are not christian, are they not experts?

IMO, the fact that you do beleive make you biased which won't allow you to open your eyes and see the science. Any scientific evidence presented is automatically rejected. The debate becomes futile.

Alright, let's say christiantiy is correct. What make christianity the correct religion over islam, budhism, hinduism, judaism, native american relgions, etc, etc?

[Puttingood]

Talked to anyone of whom it happened to?

You talked to any dead people that it didn't happen to ?

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Puttingood
Talked to anyone of whom it happened to?

You talked to any dead people that it didn't happen to ?

Nope... the point was to bring out what has been said in these threads 1000 times. Its all about Faith.

People of faith believe. People with no faith do not believe. Ever wonder how the millions of people that do not believe in God, pray to God, or let their actions glorify God, make it through life?

[Tiorted Snoil]

faith and a quarter will get ya cup of coffee:D

[VOR]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
faith and a quarter will get ya cup of coffee:D

Very true but faith has little to do with coffee, unless you belong to certain faiths that believe that coffee is evil.

[vpkozel]

I bet they have really good coffee in heaven. I like coffee.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
Isn't it strange that God didn't bother with the rest of the world? Sure, the Israelis were his chosen people, but what about the others? If God is truly the only God, then clearly he must have been their God as well (whether or not they acknowledge him correctly). Didn't he care about them? Or did he only care about them enough to let them learn by word of mouth from other folks?

I've sometimes wondered the same thing...sort of. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say He "didn't bother" with the rest of the world. Maybe He did and nobody else was listening. Maybe His efforts throughout the rest of the world are the foundations of other world religions. I don't know.

What I do know is that Jesus was sent to save everybody. He commissioned His disciples to spread the word to the four corners of the earth. Why he chose that plan, I'm not sure. Maybe He just wanted us to be involved in the process, which I admit is very, very cool. :D

How come nobody else was suddenly enlightened with the gospel? Actually, I suppose Muhammed claims he was and John Smith(?) claimes he was as well. Why don't you believe either of them? They seem to have the same credentials -- a strong belief with no physical proof.

The Gospel is something Jesus brought with Him. He didn't have a revelation. And what He did was predicted by prophets dozens and even hundreds of years before He was born. Those prophecies, along with His recorded miracles and His resurrection are mainly what give Jesus the credibility He has. Also, the New Testament is a collection of letters and accounts of eye-witnesses who actually knew Jesus, either before or after His crucifixion, but before his ascension back into heaven. (I'm speaking mainly of Paul here, who was encountered by Jesus on the road to Damascus after the crucifixion. Paul's letters comprise most of the New Testament.)

If I am not mistaken, Muhammad was a prophet who had a revelation alone, with nothing else to back him up. He was inspired to write the Qur'an roughly 600 years after Jesus was resurrected. The rub with Islam is that it discredits Jesus. The Muslims give Jesus more credit than any of the other major religions, but it still falls short of the New Testament.

John Smith was also given a revelation, dictated to him by an angel, if I'm not mistaken. I have not read the Book of Mormon, but I have been told there are many places it contradicts the Bible. And from what I'm told, the Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon overrides the Bible in those instances. That is a major no-no.

The comparison goes like this:

The New Testament is a collection of several eye-witness accounts that were verified at the time of their writing by thousands more.

Muhammad and John Smith had no human collaboration at all. Both revelations were isolated, and both contradict the Bible that ironically both claim association with.

The credibility of the Bible vs. the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon are mainly what lead me to accept the Bible and reject the other two. I have not read either of the other two works, but would very much like to someday. I would also love to have a deep discussion/debate with a Mormon. Mormons claim to be Christians, and despite a few minor doctrinal differences, appear to be on the surface. But there is a big stink among Christian (mainly Protestant) scholars regarding the Mormon faith. I have a hunch where the Mormons get into trouble is when their hierarchy of theologians start publishing their "insights".

What do Jews think about Christianity? I'm sure they probably don't want any trouble considering that they're outnumbered by like 400 to 1 or something....

I think if an orthodox Jew was on Christian territory, he'd say that Jesus was a good teacher, but that's all, and while it's good that Christians worship God (Jehovah), they're misled about Jesus.

On the streets of Jerusalem, I think it would be a different story. Jews probably view Christians as undisciplined and unclean, much like most Muslims do. Bottom line, Jesus was crucified for heresy, so they probably believe we're completely off our rockers to buy into the Gospel. The ironic thing, though, is that they still believe in all those prophecies, and are still patiently waiting for the Messiah to come and rule them.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by QueenCityHillbilly
hasbeens, i been agreeing with you the whole time, except for this. You don't have to be perfect, just forgiven.

I'm sorry, QCH and Math, my answer was incomplete.

God's standard remains. He will not and cannot have sin in His heaven. That is why we need Jesus to intercede for us.

That's where forgiveness comes in. When we accept the grace made available to us through Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, we're not just 'cleaned' of our sins, we are transformed spiritually into something we were not before. That is what being 'born again' is. Our spiritual identity changes. And because we are given association with Jesus, we are granted entrance into heaven based on His perfection, not ours. Does that make sense?

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by builder
Even if it's the second coming? That's what I don't understand.

The Bible describes Christ's return as something that could not possibly be counterfeited by a human being. That's mainly what the book of Revelation is describing. At the same time, Revelation and other books of the New Testament warn there will be others who will claim to be 'sons of God' and 'saviors', but they will be false.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
Hasbeens, as someone who spent most of my childhood and teen years in a catholic school, it is nice to debate with someone who actually has an education on religion...not just heresay from church that they regurgitate.:cool:

Thank you, Snoil. I appreciate you, too. :xyzthumbs I feel an intelligent, thought-provoking debate is good for both sides, don't you agree? :D

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
I want to tell you a story, a true story. It is about Galileo...

I will readily agree that the church has been on the wrong side of many scientific debates over the centuries, and that's a prime example of ignorance and fear being augmented by corrupt power.

But I've found nothing in the Scriptures that label the earth as being 'the center of the universe', as apparently the ancient church asserted. That may have been an interpretation by some Cardinal with too much time on his hands and an inferiority complex.

Regarding Darwin's theory of evolution, I am not opposed to considering God has used the process of evolution in microcosmic form to enable His creation to adapt to its ever changing environment, and the Bible says nothing to refute nor support that theory.

Where Darwin breaks down is on the issue of creation. Of course, the Bible asserts the doctrine of what is now referred to as Intellegent Design, which I'm told is becoming increasingly popular. But the logic of Evolution becomes faulty if you follow it back far enough. For matter to evolve, it must first exist in some form. That only leaves one option -- the matter that exists today has always existed, for substance cannot randomly come from nothingness. I never took physics, but I think that might be one of their basic laws.

I do not understand or agree with Christians who believe God and science are mutually exclusive. I believe science is the study of God's work, and it is truly fascinating. I do not fear science. Quite the opposite, I feel the farther science advances, the more God will be vindicated and proven.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Puttingood

Why do people try so hard to convince others that their belief is wrong?

Putt, people's beliefs are very, very personal, and everyone wants to believe they're right. I don't believe anyone willingly believes in what they know to be a fallacy. The motivation to convince others is usually proportionate to how dedicated the believer is, and what the person believes in. Or more specifically, what the supposed consequences are for disbelief.

Why do the non-believers always instigate the subject?

They don't always. Sometimes it's instigated by people knocking on doors in white shirts and ties. Sometimes it's instigated by people on street corners with signs that proclaim THE END IS NEAR! But sometimes, people who don't yet believe have questions. The Christian faith (and others) is very backward from mainstream society. The difference has been known to generate curiosity.

Why does the word God scare so many people when they admit that they don't believe in Him?

I agree with Augstine who said that everyone is born with a "God-shaped void" in their hearts. Many people become very good at filling that void with other things and never really acknowledge it. But sometimes when the other stuff is stripped away by tragedy or pain, or fear, the void is realized and acknowledged. Put simply, I believe everyone has an instinctive sense of God, whether they're aware of it or not.

The word "God" has been removed from everthing they can possibly take it out of and it still makes them mad that people still keep "God" in their heart.

I think the strongest reason people resist God is accountability and submission. Without God in the picture, we are the top of the food chain. The buck stops here. We don't want anyone else telling us how to live, and we darn sure don't want anyone else judging us. It is not in our nature to want to be submissive to a higher power. We want to believe we're right and we're good by standards we set for ourselves.

But I feel the best kept secret of Christianity is the blessings that come from that choice to submit to God's way of living. There is peace, inner strength, discipline, joy, and love that so many people search for their entire lives but never find. There are millions, if not billions of dollars spent trying to find some of those things, but the Bible tells us how to experience them for free. I feel that people who do not understand God's character cannot comprehend why so many of us would possibly cling to an ideology that seems so oppressive and restricted. Unfortunately, too many Christians are not doing anything to change that misconception.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by SandMan
Got any proof? Talked to anyone of whom it happened to?

No. There is no proof, because the Scriptures suggest it has not happened yet. All we have is a promise. Although, I do believe that when Judgment Day comes, we'll see it happen.

[plutosdaughter]

Thanks for taking the time to convey that story to me snoil. I hope you did see the emphasis I placed on the fact that I do respect your opinion and I do believe that knowledge is the key to everything we are and will be.
You couldn't have pulled my heartstrings anymore than to have told a story about copernicus and gallileo as I was literally raised with an 8 foot telescope cemented into my back yard in which I could see the crators of the moon at the sweet age of 3. After a night of viewing the stars and heavens, I was taken to a southern baptist church on Sunday morning where I was scared into believing in God. This isn't any fault of the southern baptist and I still respect and love the denomination and believe most of what they teach, except when they take the words of the bible and use them literally rather than trying to understand the true meaning. Talk about sheltered, I knew only three black people from the time I entered kindergarden til I graduated high school.....
When I moved to Charlotte, my first true friend was a girl from Africa. A muslim. A very dark, very beautiful muslim girl. I had a plethora of questions for her. She was the most beautiful person inside and out that I had ever met. I wanted to be her. I was hurt and in denial that my friend would burn in hell for being muslim as she prayed 4 times a day and portrayed the whole philosophy of what being a christian means to me, which is LOVE. It's then that I decided I wasn't sure what religion I belonged to. I know I believe Jesus is the son of God and I believe he is my savoir and I have accepted him and have been baptised. However, I'm still struggling with the acceptance issue of my religion. I don't like the feeling of being exclusive and not accepting people who are different, ie....jews or muslims or to the life style differences such as gay people. It bothers me feeling as if I could make the call on heaven or hell for them. You say you appreciate hasbeen for being smart enough to debate with you. So do I. I don't have the historical knowledge or the biblical knowlegde to do so, but I do consider myself to be accepting, loving and a believer in God. What I can't quote or prove, I can give and love to make up for it. I wish I were better to debate with rather than just throw my beliefs and my feelings around. Again, 'faith' is the word of the evening. I just wanted to thank you for the story. I'll pray for you whether you like it or not;)

[Superfluous_Nut]

Dang Hasbeens, we need to start you a forum! A little into the topic, are you? :)

What about Moses? Isn't he like Muhammed and John Smith? Why does he get a pass?

Didn't Jesus make reference to the prophecies he was supposed to fulfill? Like riding the donkey bit? I understand that there were many folks claiming to be the messiah and going out and following the "script" of how you prove it. Maybe Jesus' PR machine was better than the others'?

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
Alright, let's say christiantiy is correct. What make christianity the correct religion over islam, budhism, hinduism, judaism, native american relgions, etc, etc?

I have not studied other belief systems in depth, so I cannot speak (write) intelligently about them. What I can tell you is that Christianity has very, very strong evidence to support it, in my opinion, not only science and archeology, but through countless life experiences both in others's lives and in my own.

They cannot all be right because the doctrines are all so different. Islam claims one God; Buddhism claims love is god; Hinduism claims many things are god (correct me if I'm wrong on that one, LJ43); Judaism claims one God but does not recognize many of the things Islam does; Native American religions claim nature is god.

Only one has proven itself true in my life, and the lives of many I know, and that's Christianity. Granted, I have not tried the others, but if Christianity has proven itself, why should I embrace a belief system that contradicts it?

[slydevl]

Jesus never claimed to be the MEssaih.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
Dang Hasbeens, we need to start you a forum! A little into the topic, are you? :)

To be honest, I'd LOVE one. :D But Inamorata tried that a while back and it was shot down by the members most unceremoniously. Studying and explaining the Bible and the Christian faith is my passion, my gifting, and I believe my purpose in life, so yeah, you could say I'm a little into it. :wink2:

What about Moses? Isn't he like Muhammed and John Smith? Why does he get a pass?

An excellent point. And if all Moses did was climb up Mount Ararat and come down with the 10 Commandments, I'd agree with you. But at that time God was still interacting directly with His people, and revealed Himself in rather spectacular ways many times. The tribes of Israel did not follow Moses around the Sinai for 40 years, they were just behind him. Moses and the Israelites were following God, who manifested Himself as a cloud by day (apparently it was a unique, but distinctive cloud) and a pillar of fire by night. God made it very clear that He had chosen Moses to be His representative, and reinforced that anointing several times.

Didn't Jesus make reference to the prophecies he was supposed to fulfill? Like riding the donkey bit? I understand that there were many folks claiming to be the messiah and going out and following the "script" of how you prove it. Maybe Jesus' PR machine was better than the others'?

Yes, He did. But there were over 100 separate and distinctive prophecies about the Messiah, and He was the only person in history who fulfilled every one. Some, in fact many, were not by His active will, such as His earthly lineage, the virgin birth, his trip as an infant to Egypt, etc.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by slydevl
Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah.

Mark 14: 61-62

"...Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by SandMan
Ever wonder how the millions of people that do not believe in God, pray to God, or let their actions glorify God, make it through life?

Constantly. But then again, I've tried it, and it doesn't work too well.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
faith and a quarter will get ya cup of coffee :D

Where can you get coffee for a quarter??

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by hasbeens99

Yes, He did. But there were over 100 separate and distinctive prophecies about the Messiah, and He was the only person in history who fulfilled every one. Some, in fact many, were not by His active will, such as His earthly lineage, the virgin birth, his trip as an infant to Egypt, etc.

If you're trying to find validity in somebody's claims, how can you then use other of their claims as proof? Who says he was of Davidic blood? Who says he was born of a virgin? Or that he took a trip to Egypt?

Look at today's religious cult leaders. You think they don't make claims that are a stretch? Hell people believed Vanilla Ice came from the 'hood and was a Motocross star. Imagine back in the day when you didn't have any way of disproving it.

If the Bible was written by people who knew Jesus, does that include people who knew him from his infancy? Why wouldn't there be a clear and concise record of his life? It would seem anybody born of a virgin would be pretty much a shoe-in for this messiah thing.

[hasbeens99]

Plutosdaughter, I know this post was not directed to me, but if you'll allow me, I'd like to offer some thoughts on what you've written:

Originally posted by plutosdaughter
...she prayed 4 times a day and portrayed the whole philosophy of what being a christian means to me, which is LOVE.

Love is a HUGE part of what it means to be a Christian, but it's just not that simple. Whether or not your friend goes to heaven or hell is Jesus' call, not anyone else's. The trouble with Islam is that because of the teachings of Muhammad, Muslims believe they can 'earn' their way into heaven -- that they do not need a savior. They do not need Jesus. They respect Him, to a certain extent, but they do not acknowledge Him as the Messiah.

It's then that I decided I wasn't sure what religion I belonged to. I know I believe Jesus is the son of God and I believe he is my savoir and I have accepted him and have been baptised.

Sounds like you've taken the steps to be a Christian. After that, denominations are secondary and relatively unimportant as long as the basic beliefs are there.

However, I'm still struggling with the acceptance issue of my religion. I don't like the feeling of being exclusive and not accepting people who are different, ie....jews or muslims or to the life style differences such as gay people.

The exclusivity comes from Jesus Himself. He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Me." Jesus is the door to heaven, and all must pass through it. He alone decides who may enter. Through the Bible, He has shown us a way that we can be accepted an spared His judgment.

Anyone who tries to pass His judgment based on their own merits is taking a huge gamble. That is not to say they automatically will not pass judgment. For those who have been brainwashed against or do not know about Jesus, the Bible says they will be judged by a different standard. God is a fair judge.

I don't have the historical knowledge or the biblical knowlegde to (debate), but I do consider myself to be accepting, loving and a believer in God. What I can't quote or prove, I can give and love to make up for it.

Someone once said, "Witness your faith to everyone you meet. And if you have to, use words."

You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to be a good Christian. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to understand your faith better. The Bible tells Christians to "always be prepared to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do so with gentleness and respect."

Giving and loving are essential to the Christian faith, but if you don't understand what you believe well enough to share it, you might have more experiences like you had with your Muslim friend, or someone may cause you to doubt what you do believe.

[QueenCityHillbilly]

It's not just love that is a big part, but unconditional love.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by QueenCityHillbilly
It's not just love that is a big part, but unconditional love.

Very true. We are to show others the same love God has shown us.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by QueenCityHillbilly
It's not just love that is a big part, but unconditional love.

That would imply that no matter what somebody does, they are to be treated lovingly, doesn't it? So UBL, for example, should be loved?

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
That would imply that no matter what somebody does, they are to be treated lovingly, doesn't it? So UBL, for example, should be loved?

Yes. God loves UBL enough to offer him the grace made possible by Jesus Christ. Our job as individual Christians is not to judge him, but to show him God's love.

However...

There seems to be a different standard for God using nations to punish other nations. I'm not aware of it happening in the New Testament, but it's illustrated often in the Old Testament.

To answer your next question, I don't know if Dubya is being a good Christian by calling for UBL's head on a platter. I think it's possible God may be using the U.S. Government to rid the earth of Al Qaeda, if He knows they will not receive Christ under any circumstances. I just don't know. I feel my job is to pray for Dubya and ask for God's will to be done.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
Who says he was of Davidic blood?

The apostle Matthew traced his lineage from Abraham to Joseph. If there was one thing the Jews and Hebrews were anal retentive about, it was lineage -- especially King David's. If the Romans had not taken over Israel, Jesus would be royalty (even in an earthly sense), as would Joseph.

Who says he was born of a virgin? Or that he took a trip to Egypt?

The virgin birth is obviously a tough one to prove. Really all we have to go on is the word of Joseph and Mary. But consider this: Joseph knew he wasn't the father. He could've had Mary put to death on the spot or exiled for adultery. As it was, he did start to divorce her, but something stopped him. Because he remained with her, they were looked down upon by their friends and families. Something persuaded Joseph to live with that shame, and all he had to go on was Mary's word and a dream he had that an angel came to him and told him what had happened.

When Jesus was born, King Herod declared that all male infants under the age of two (I think) would be put to death. Joseph and Mary took Jesus and fled to Egypt to escape. After Herod died, they returned. But they did not return to their home in Judea because they were afraid of the new king, too. So they went to the district of Galilee, and the city of Nazareth.

They were very close with the family of Mary's relative Elizabeth. (cousin, I think?) Elizabeth and her husband Zachariah were the only ones who believed Mary's story about the immaculate conception. Elizabeth was John the Baptist's mother, and Jesus and John were very close. John's family probably collaborated Joseph and Mary's account of their escape to Egypt, as did Jesus' brother James.

Look at today's religious cult leaders. You think they don't make claims that are a stretch? ...Imagine back in the day when you didn't have any way of disproving it.

You're absolutely right, and that's why so many people of that day (and now) rejected Jesus. His followers were running around claiming He's the Son of God, and the people He grew up around were scratching their heads and saying, "Hey, isn't that the carpenter's kid from Nazareth? Man, what a hole. Does anything good come out of Nazareth?"

If the Bible was written by people who knew Jesus, does that include people who knew him from his infancy?

Yes. The book of James in the New Testament was written by his half brother, the son of Mary and Joseph.

Why wouldn't there be a clear and concise record of his life? It would seem anybody born of a virgin would be pretty much a shoe-in for this messiah thing.

Believe me, I truly wish there was a concise record of His life between ages 12 and 30. I don't know why there isn't.

Yes, the virgin birth is the trump card. But again, even now it would be difficult at best to prove, and then almost impossible. They did tell people Mary's pregnancy was of God, but not too many believed them until Jesus really got His ministry going. And even then, there were many, many doubters, as there would be today.

[Tiorted Snoil]

one last question and one last comment.

Can man(kind) understand God?

Why do non-beleivers instigate?.....I don't know. I've never had an athiest/non-beleiver come knocking on my door asking me to join them...seems to always be beleives.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
one last question and one last comment.

Can man(kind) understand God?

In our present state? Not fully. God is, well, God. He is more than human. His perception is radically different than ours. His power, knowledge, and love are so far off the charts we cannot begin to fathom it.

But I believe that is one of the reasons He sent Jesus down to earth. Jesus is the closest and most relatable form God has to us. Jesus came in human form to live a human life. What we can understand of God's character, identity, personality, and perception is, IMO, found in the way He interacted with Israel (especially the patriarchs), and in the life and ministry of Jesus while He was here. From those two things, we get an idea of God's love, patience, justice, His passion for the poor and broken, and His fury toward the proud and the evil.

For me, reading the Old Testament was like trudging through waist-deep snow. But it wasn't until I finished it that I began to understand who God is and how He feels about us.

Why do non-beleivers instigate?.....I don't know. I've never had an athiest/non-beleiver come knocking on my door asking me to join them...seems to always be believers.

That's the point I made to Putt a few posts ago. I think a lot of "instigation" started by atheists or agnostics is usually fueled by frustration, confusion or arrogance. And I think the instigation started by believers is usually fueled by a sense of either urgency or pity. Of course, there are exceptions to both.

[builder]

Originally posted by hasbeens99
I think a lot of "instigation" started by atheists or agnostics is usually fueled by frustration, confusion or arrogance. And I think the instigation started by believers is usually fueled by a sense of either urgency or pity.

No no...The athiests like to watch you people run round and round in circles trying to make us switch to your side.

And the believers, they're just trying to layaway a bigger house on a better golden street.

[plutosdaughter]

Just as soon as I learn how to do that copy and paste thing in bold, I'll have something else to say, anyone wanna help me? I can't do it without making it look stupid.

[slydevl]

Use the quote button instead of the reply button. it does it for you. Click the quote button on the post you want to quote.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by builder
No no...The athiests like to watch you people run round and round in circles trying to make us switch to your side.

Arrogance/superiority.

And the believers, they're just trying to layaway a bigger house on a better golden street.

Yep, that's a reason I forgot to mention. Some believers think adding 'notches to their Bibles' makes them better Christians. They're wrong, but they still believe that.

[plutosdaughter]

Originally posted by slydevl
Use the quote button instead of the reply button. it does it for you. Click the quote button on the post you want to quote.


Thanks sly, I know how to do that, but how do I do just a partial quote and break it up like hasbeens does...... :)

[slydevl]

You pretty much have to do that manually. Copy the [/quote] tag and paste it where you want to break up the post. Then type what you want to say. Then copy the [quote] tag and put it at the beginning of the next section .You can also copy the [/b] and [b] tags but the quote tags should be enough.

[builder]

Originally posted by plutosdaughter
Thanks sly, I know how to do that,

Then why'd you ask? :D :D JUST FUCKING KIDDING...Don't go off on me.

Originally posted by plutosdaughter
but how do I do just a partial quote and break it up like hasbeens does...... :)

Just like this. You have to rewrite and copy and past some stuff.

[plutosdaughter]

You pretty much have to do that manually.


Did this work?

[plutosdaughter]

Originally posted by builder


Then why'd you ask? :D :D JUST FUCKING KIDDING...Don't go off on me.



Just like this. You have to rewrite and copy and past some stuff.





Keep it up:smash:

[Tiorted Snoil]

so we cannot understand (or "begin to fathom") God. That means what we do understand cannot be God. I (and mankind) understand love, hate, respect, war, peace, physics, math, etc, etc, etc.

Therefore, God is only what we don't understand or don't fully understand...evolution, the creation of the universe etc....we use God to fill in the gaps until science figures it out.

If it were 1500 years ago and I saw a shooting star, it would freak the hell out of me. Religion helps people cope with things they don't understand.

Who created God?

[builder]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
Religion helps people cope with things they don't understand.

Soren Kierkegaard said something along these lines. He was accused of blasphemy.


To the Christians, it'd be better to ask "Who discovered God?"

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
so we cannot understand (or "begin to fathom") God. That means what we do understand cannot be God.

I'm sorry, Snoil, I didn't communicate very clearly what I was trying to say. Lemme take another crack at it.

Comprehending the fullness of God is like trying to comprehend the universe. There is a certain amount we can comprehend and study and embrace, but to try to grasp the size of it, let alone what else may be "out there", is beyond the current capacity of the human race.

God is an infinite being. We can know Him as much as our minds and hearts will allow, but we do not have the ability yet to know Him fully. When we begin to contemplate the concepts of 'eternal', 'infinite', and the big three: omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to even begin to try to see the 'big picture' we have to really think outside the box. Even then, we are limited in our thinking, and therefore fail. But that is not to say we can't know a portion of the infinite.

Therefore, God is only what we don't understand or don't fully understand...evolution, the creation of the universe etc....we use God to fill in the gaps until science figures it out.

Not exactly. There are many who attribute the unknown to God, and science has explained much of what was unknown. But that doesn't mean science has replaced God, it merely means we better understand the what and how of His creation.

Many ignorant theologians of the past have discredited science because of a fear that it would discredit God. My feeling is quite the contrary. I believe the more we learn about our world, the more fascinated many will be with God, and the more evident Intelligent Design will become.

Religion helps people cope with things they don't understand.

This I agree with completely, although probably not in the way you've intended. :wink2:

Who created God?

No one. He has always existed. That is where the concepts of eternity come into play.

On a side note, I'd like to thank you again, Snoil, for starting this thread. I'm having a really great time with this. It has truly been the highlight of my month. :xyzthumbs

[slydevl]

The world and especially the human body are too perfect to have been accidental.

I have said this before but some one has compared the evolution of the human species in the relatively short time it evolved to a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional 747.

Ask yourselves these questions: Why does the universe exist? Why is there matter at all? Why is there life at all?

None of it has to be. There could just be nothing. No matter. No time. Especially no conciousness.

It is. HE is!

[plutosdaughter]

Originally posted by slydevl
The world and especially the human body are too perfect to have been accidental.

I have said this before but some one has compared the evolution of the human species in the relatively short time it evolved to a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional 747.

Ask yourselves these questions: Why does the universe exist? Why is there matter at all? Why is there life at all?

None of it has to be. There could just be nothing. No matter. No time. Especially no conciousness.

It is. HE is!


I agree with you sly.... And, if anyone works in medicine, and knows how the human body works, I can't see how they have any doubt. Each little part works to fix and help and supply another little part-making up one of the most fascinating puzzles ever known to man. When I think about the brain, the nervous system and how those things interact, to me- there IS no question.

[slydevl]

Where did life come from? That is the best question. Most of us think life evolved from single cell organisms. But where did they come from. They had to be there from the beginning of time. What was the beginning of time? Something breathed life into something inanimate to make it animate. This isn't something that just spontaneously occured.

[Tiorted Snoil]

evolution....place your hand on your spine...follow it down below your belt line an inch or so...fell that bump, that's your tail bone...we don't have tails...it is almost identical to primates tailbones, except we don't have a tail attached to it....perfect design? describe perfect.

the DNA of a human being and an ape is 99% the same.

why do most fish, mammals, birds, and reptiles have one head, two eyes, one mouth, two ears, and four limbs (excluding fish)? If you want to go and look at organs you'll see most species share the same organs too.

[Tiorted Snoil]

Originally posted by slydevl
Where did life come from? That is the best question. Most of us think life evolved from single cell organisms. But where did they come from. They had to be there from the beginning of time. What was the beginning of time? Something breathed life into something inanimate to make it animate. This isn't something that just spontaneously occured.

we know how to create life..it has been duplicated from the "sludge" that was thought to exist on our plants thousands of years ago.

our government is currently funding two scientists to build a life form from scratch...it was in the paper a couple of days ago.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
evolution....place your hand on your spine...follow it down below your belt line an inch or so...fell that bump, that's your tail bone...we don't have tails...it is almost identical to primates tailbones, except we don't have a tail attached to it....perfect design? describe perfect.

the DNA of a human being and an ape is 99% the same.

why do most fish, mammals, birds, and reptiles have one head, two eyes, one mouth, two ears, and four limbs (excluding fish)? If you want to go and look at organs you'll see most species share the same organs too.

Whats your point?

I'm not arguing evolution dipshit.

[Tiorted Snoil]

Originally posted by slydevl


Whats your point?

I'm not arguing evolution dipshit.

let's keep the potshots out of this, please. no one else is throwing any.

God created man, right? we can show through evolution that he didn't.

[vpkozel]

I think that evolution and creation can be fairly easily reconciled with each other. Who is to say what a "day" is to God? If you take the days in Genesis to mean periods of time, then I think that it fits in pretty well with evolution. To me, each of the days when God created something was the time when he caused that evolutionary jump to occur that took life to the next level, eventually culminating in man.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil


let's keep the potshots out of this, please. no one else is throwing any.

God created man, right? we can show through evolution that he didn't.

Who is to say he didn't use evolution to create man.

In Genesis Cain leaves the garden and takes a wife. Where did the wife come from? I personally believe the story of Adam and Eve is a parable which describes evolution for the scientifically ignorant people of the time.

[plutosdaughter]

My answer for evolution has always been, God is the GREATEST scientist. How do we know he didn't plan that as well? Now you are gonna say I can't straddle both sides... Before you do, I'm not saying I believe any of us have right just yet. It says in the bible there will be things we don't understand and things we aren't meant to understand.

[Tiorted Snoil]

so the bottom line is this debate is over. If God exists or doesn't exist doesn't matter because any evidence showing he doesn't exist is evidence that he does. Circular logic, I like it.

[slydevl]

Dont know how you can call Evolution an argument that God doesn't exist. At the most, all it is an argument against is a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
evolution ...the DNA of a human being and an ape is 99% the same.

I don't dispute that. The similarites are obvious and undeniable. And if there were no more primates, only humans, I think that argument (evolution of humans from primates) would be much stronger. But since primates still exist in many, many different species, I think that argument loses a little steam. I think the common response from evolutionists to that assertion is 'Natural Selection', but primates and humans are nearly identical in their tolerances for climates and such. So the cause for natural selection is weak at best, and without a cause, there should not be selection. I suppose you could argue random selection, but if you consider the complexity of humans over primates, the evidence leans more toward refinement than pure random modification, doesn't it?

perfect design? describe perfect.

Perfect is a subjective and dynamic term. We are perfectly designed for higher levels of thinking and communication, when compared to the animal world. However, fish are perfectly designed to live in water, where we are not. Bears are perfectly designed to live in cold climates. Birds are perfectly designed to fly.

Many Christians might argue that God is the standard for perfection, and the Bible says we are created 'in His image', making us perfect.

But again, perfection is in the eye of the beholder, and is usually tied to a specific purpose or environment.

why do most fish, mammals, birds, and reptiles have one head, two eyes, one mouth, two ears, and four limbs (excluding fish)? If you want to go and look at organs you'll see most species share the same organs too.

I think I have an answer to this that satisfies both creationists and evolutionists. If it works, don't change it. Even evolution mostly suggests refinement and efficiency. Perhaps those combinations you posted are the most efficient for those species.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
we know how to create life..it has been duplicated from the "sludge" that was thought to exist on our plants thousands of years ago.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. To a certain extent, we know how to 'modify' natural reproduction to broaden its effectiveness, but that's about all. And I think you'll agree that duplication is not the same as creation.

our government is currently funding two scientists to build a life form from scratch...it was in the paper a couple of days ago.

That may be, and it wouldn't surprise me. But that is no guarantee they'll actually be able to do it. I'm not even betting they'll be able to successfully clone a human being. Of course I could be wrong, but until it happens, that's my stand.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
let's keep the potshots out of this, please. no one else is throwing any.

Agreed.

God created man, right? we can show through evolution that he didn't.

Not exactly. Evolutionists might be able to prove humans have changed/evolved to a degree, but evolution has not disproved creationism.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
so the bottom line is this debate is over.

I sincerely hope not! At least not for good, anyway.

If God exists or doesn't exist doesn't matter because any evidence showing he doesn't exist is evidence that he does.

Evidence can be a funny thing. Many times I think it's just neutral information, and it's compelling nature depends on how exactly it's applied.

Both creationists and evolutionists are coming from perceptions based on incomplete knowledge, and probably always will. That's what makes it difficult. But that's also what makes it a good thing -- both sides can learn from each other.

Snoil, let me ask you a question. Do you subscribe to the idea that all the basic 'building blocks' of life have always existed in the universe in atomic form?

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by slydevl
Where did life come from? That is the best question. Most of us think life evolved from single cell organisms. But where did they come from. They had to be there from the beginning of time. What was the beginning of time? Something breathed life into something inanimate to make it animate. This isn't something that just spontaneously occured.


The question of a starter force is intriguiging, and the current best estimate of the age of the universe is 15 billion years. The question we always then ask is, "what was there before then?"

Cosmology is cool!

Once the big bang occurred, and I admit there is that starter force question, everything that follows has been or will be explained by science, just a matter of time.

Cool cosmology link:http://faculty.erau.edu/ericksol/courses/sp110/universe_form.html

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by slydevl
The world and especially the human body are too perfect to have been accidental.

I have said this before but some one has compared the evolution of the human species in the relatively short time it evolved to a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional 747.

Ask yourselves these questions: Why does the universe exist? Why is there matter at all? Why is there life at all?

None of it has to be. There could just be nothing. No matter. No time. Especially no conciousness.

It is. HE is!

The problem with the 747 from a tornado analogy is that you ignore the fact that ANY debris dispersal pattern is going to unique and similarly improbable as a 747. It's like the odds of winning the lottery. You could say it's almost impossible to win or you could say it's guaranteed so long as you're not looking to predict who will win and when.

Certainly none of this has to exist. If it didn't, we wouldn't be debating the subject. Sorta fruitless to go down that line...

I think the main thing non-believers can't get over is the horrible track record religion has with science. Christianity says something, science provides evidence to the contrary, eventually christians begin to agree and the church accepts it.

That really means there's two aspects at work -- people and God. Given that God hasn't come down at "touched" me in some way, I have to rely on the people to relay the message. I look at their history and I just don't believe them.

Every Christian says they know because they know. It's faith. But what do they know? That God exists? Okay, let's assume he does. What about the Bible and Church and Christianity? Is that all faith as well? Does feeling God's presence give one the ability to discern fact from fiction in regards to these things? Haven't good God-knowing folk been duped by fakes? Does knowing God make you incapable of making an error in judgement? Or does it keep you from misinterpretting the scripture?

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
Once the big bang occurred, and I admit there is that starter force question, everything that follows has been or will be explained... just a matter of time.

I agree. Eventually, I believe all the unknowns will be made known. We could get into a semantic debate over the word "science", but I'd rather not. I think that's probably where we agree to disagree.

Very cool link. It amazes me how much knowledge we've been able to amass about our galaxy, being for the most part tethered to our planet. From stellar observation, to mathematical theorems, to who knows what else, that general field of study is truly fascinating. There is so much to explore and learn. It's a pity that its taking so long to be able to really explore the outer reaches of space. Don't you agree?

[Nytdreamer]

There will always be a "god" as long as he exists in the minds and hearts of people who believe. Whether there is a physical manifestation or an entity that can be described simply as "god" will always be debated. I don't personally believe in a 1 perfect entity to have spawned all life, but I do acknowledge the existence to "god" in the hearts and minds of others. Any other beliefs I may or may not have are inconsequential.

[Patti]

I have always believed evolution and God's creation were one in the same.

If you read Genesis and listen to the evolutionists the order of creation is the same.

The Bible says God created the earth in 6 days. What is a day in God's time.

I am a Christian that believes in the Bible, but I also don't take every word as the TRUE gospel. I believe the men that wrote the Bible were inspired by God. But I don't think their mere moral mind could comprehend EXACTLY what God was saying. That along with all the translations the Bible has undergone I believe the Bible can be confusing, sometimes contradictory, and misconstrued to say the least.

I know some people would say I was going to hell for believing that, but that's how I take it.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
The problem with the 747 from a tornado analogy is that you ignore the fact that ANY debris dispersal pattern is going to be unique and similarly improbable as a 747. It's like the odds of winning the lottery. You could say it's almost impossible to win or you could say it's guaranteed so long as you're not looking to predict who will win and when.

An excellent point, Nut. Indeed, using the random chance illustrations that are so popular in apologetics, there will be millions of permutations of every complex combination of anything. And as long as that one chance in whatever exists, the random stays credible. That's why I avoid using those types of examples. Perhaps a better question, as Miss_tery and others brought up, is where did the pieces come from in the first place?

Certainly none of this has to exist. If it didn't, we wouldn't be debating the subject. Sorta fruitless to go down that line...

Agreed. The only argument there is purpose, which only serves creationism. It's not really a debatable point. Moving on...

I think the main thing non-believers can't get over is the horrible track record religion has with science. Christianity says something, science provides evidence to the contrary, eventually christians begin to agree and the church accepts it.

Agree here, too. The process of proclamation followed by concession has damaged the credibility of the church, in many cases to the point that clergy are no longer respected as scholars, but rather fools following the 'company line'. It's sad, really. Too many church leaders in the past have tried to operate outside their own limitations and it has come back to bite them a hundredfold.

That really means there's two aspects at work -- people and God.

In a way, I agree with you. For the most part, people try to work against Him, including too often the church. Too many times the church has tried to baffle the people with BS when they have failed to dazzle them with brilliance.

Given that God hasn't come down at "touched" me in some way, I have to rely on the people to relay the message.

To a degree, yes, but not totally. Many people have been moved to seek God simply by the awe and beauty of His creation. Some theologians assert that God has somehow marked each of us with a rudimentary knowledge of Him, and I would agree with that. I believe most people are aware, at some point in their lives of a sense of something bigger than ourselves. But the Bible says it does take other people, be they in verbal or written form, to explain it.

I look at their history and I just don't believe them.

That is your choice, and I respect it. However, I would like to ask, how much have you really researched it? Have you really looked into Biblical history? Researched the integrity of the Bible? Seen people's lives radically changed? The decision is still yours to make, but I would urge you to make an educated one.

Every Christian says they know because they know. It's faith.

Not every Christian. I certainly don't. I did a lot of research and needed a lot of proof before I took my own 'step of faith'. In fact, I wish more Christians would say, "I don't know." Too often when they get flustered or cornered in a discussion, they go to the "it's faith" safety net. There's a lot more to it than that.

But what do they know? That God exists? Okay, let's assume he does. What about the Bible and Church and Christianity? Is that all faith as well?

Not really. There are a lot of theories, interpretations, and experiences out there. How do you know what's what? When you use the Bible as a litmus test, you can develop an interactive relationship with God, who will follow the principles laid out in the Bible. Then you can listen to others thoughts and weigh them against the other two. If they're consistent with the same principles and truths, you can accept them. If they don't, you reject them. I look for consistencies with 'the Big Picture' of the Christian faith and the basic doctrines. Anything that stands against in contrast to the big picture, I reject, no matter what the source.

Does feeling God's presence give one the ability to discern fact from fiction in regards to these things?

Yes, but it doesn't happen all at once. Your discernment ability grows as your relationship with God grows and your knowledge base of the faith grows.

Haven't good God-knowing folk been duped by fakes?

Have Christians been duped by fakes? Absolutely. But again, the better you know someone, the less chance you'll be fooled by an imposter. The same principle applies to Christians. The stronger and deeper your relationship with God, the better able you will be to spot fakes for what they are.

Does knowing God make you incapable of making an error in judgement?

No. But as you mature spiritually, your judgment improves. Just like in the rest of life. Children have poorer judgment than most adults. As you grow spiritually, you gain wisdom. The wisdom you gain will help your judgment.

Or does it keep you from misinterpreting the scripture?

No. Scripture is misinterpreted far too often, but usually it is the lesser doctrines that are debated. The basics of Christianity are universally accepted and supported among Christians. But as the concentric circle of the Christian faith expands, sometimes the waters get a little muddied. That is why there are so many denominations.

Christians must be extremely careful when they interpret Scripture. It's not an easy task. As an aspiring preacher, I've already learned that. There are many things to consider when searching for the true meanings, and those who take shortcuts often go astray.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Patti
I am a Christian that believes in the Bible, but I also don't take every word as the TRUE gospel. I believe the men that wrote the Bible were inspired by God. But I don't think their mere moral mind could comprehend EXACTLY what God was saying. That along with all the translations the Bible has undergone I believe the Bible can be confusing, sometimes contradictory, and misconstrued to say the least.

I know some people would say I was going to hell for believing that, but that's how I take it.

I have not found any contradictions at all yet. I cannot say for sure there aren't any, but the ones I thought I'd found were usually explained by differences in time, culture, and application. If anyone knows of any, I'd love to take a shot at explaining them.

[Superfluous_Nut]

I guess the problem I have with becomnig Christian is finding the right flavor. It doesn't seem like Christians even agree with one another on exactly how things are to be interpretted. The way the Church works is to formulate the game plan and let everybody know what's the official take on things. Less so, I suppose, with Protestants than Catholics, but still each demonination sorta has it's own interpretation of the rules. They can't all be right, can they? And if even if you say they can, they don't each say that, so it's impossible.

Christianity made a huge advance with the Protestant movement. It seems to me that the Church of the day was inconsistent with where society was headed and big changes needed to take place. How does that work into things? 1600 years of saying one thing, then 400 of saying something else. Well, not something else entirely, but there's some pretty big differences between Catholicism and other Christian religions. Was Martin Luther right or wrong about the Chruch?

[Chip]

Detroit, Nut, Builder and Tery...you ain't gonna win in an argument on Christianity with the "washed." Just resign yourselves to the fact that you are the "enlightened" ones. :D

[builder]

I don't consider myself "enlightened". But I do think what I believe works for me. And no amount of talking or quoting or reading is gonna change my mind because of what I've seen and done. It's the same with these "churchies" ;)

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
I guess the problem I have with becomnig Christian is finding the right flavor. It doesn't seem like Christians even agree with one another on exactly how things are to be interpretted. The way the Church works is to formulate the game plan and let everybody know what's the official take on things. Less so, I suppose, with Protestants than Catholics, but still each demonination sorta has it's own interpretation of the rules. They can't all be right, can they? And if even if you say they can, they don't each say that, so it's impossible.

Christianity made a huge advance with the Protestant movement. It seems to me that the Church of the day was inconsistent with where society was headed and big changes needed to take place. How does that work into things? 1600 years of saying one thing, then 400 of saying something else. Well, not something else entirely, but there's some pretty big differences between Catholicism and other Christian religions. Was Martin Luther right or wrong about the Chruch?

One can be Christian without the church at all Nut. Religion for most is a deeply personal thing. The greatest thing about Christianity is that people can take from it that which gives them comfort. Like hasbeens says, the larger tenets are pretty much agreed upon. The smaller tenets are everyones personal journey.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by slydevl


One can be Christian without the church at all Nut. Religion for most is a deeply personal thing. The greatest thing about Christianity is that people can take from it that which gives them comfort. Like hasbeens says, the larger tenets are pretty much agreed upon. The smaller tenets are everyones personal journey.

Is being Christian enough to not go to hell? It seems that some people don't think so. Some people say there are sinners in Heaven some say no. Some say you can just at the very end ask to be saved and you will be.

What are the larger tenets that you refer to?

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
Is being Christian enough to not go to hell?

By its purest definition, yes. The Gospel is God's offer to allow Jesus' crucifixion to pay for any and all sin we've committed. What he asks for in return is to place our lives in His hands and follow His lead.

It seems that some people don't think so.

I know, and I don't understand it. I would dearly love for someone who believes that to explain it to me. Many people keep wanting to tack 'extras' onto God's offer. To do so asserts that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough. Major doctrinal conflict.

Some people say there are sinners in Heaven some say no.

I think this debate is more about semantics than doctrine. Technically we are all sinners. Jesus said we must be 'born again', which means we need a new spiritual identity. The old flawed self cannot enter heaven. But we are given that new identity through our relationship with Jesus. We still remain us, but we're changed into something new that we were not before. The Bible calls that new identity 'saint'. Many believers (including myself) find that label a little tough to swallow sometimes and usually opt for 'sinner saved by grace', or some variance of that. Not sure if it's really Biblical, but it goes down easier.

Some say you can just at the very end ask to be saved and you will be.

You can, and there is an example of exactly that in the Bible. When Jesus was being crucified, there were two other men crucified with Him -- one on either side. One continued to doubt and insult Him. The other acknowledged who He was, asked for His forgiveness, and asked Him to 'put in a good word' for him to God. This exchange evolved into what is known as 'The Sinner's Prayer'. The man was never baptized, never performed any good works, yet as he was dying, Jesus promised he'd be with Him in paradise that day.

What are the larger tenets that you refer to?


We're talking about the core beliefs of Christianity:

Jesus is the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary.

Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity.

Jesus was crucified as a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind.

Jesus died on the cross, was placed in a tomb, and was resurrected three days later. He is alive today and lives in heaven.

Anyone who asks God to allow Jesus sacrifice to pay for their own personal sins, humbles himself before God, and commits to obeying Him will receive the gift of eternal life with God in heaven.

No one is without sin, therefore everyone needs the grace that Jesus provides.

One day, Jesus will return to earth to judge the planet.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
I guess the problem I have with becomnig Christian is finding the right flavor. It doesn't seem like Christians even agree with one another on exactly how things are to be interpreted.

I know. The diversity within the Christian church may be one of the biggest factors of deterrence for people seeking God than any other. We are a messed up lot.

The way the Church works is to formulate the game plan and let everybody know what's the official take on things. Less so, I suppose, with Protestants than Catholics, but still each demonination sorta has it's own interpretation of the rules. They can't all be right, can they? And if even if you say they can, they don't each say that, so it's impossible.

You're right on about the Catholic church 'micromanaging' their people more than the Protestants do. In my opinion, that is a major factor behind many of the problems the Catholics have suffered over the centuries. That much power is too difficult to wield for long without being corrupted. Most Protestant clergy are not nearly as powerful as their Catholic counterparts, but many attempt to wield their own influence as if they are. In my understanding, clergy are no different than everyday churchgoers, other than they have been given a set of gifts that enable them to do the job. They are not to be elevated above the people, they are not above error, and they are not needed to intercede between God and His people. The authority they have is not of themselves, but of God, and that only if they remain faithful to His principles.

There are many denominations that embrace traditions and ceremonies as tightly, or perhaps even more tightly, than the Bible itself, and that is another major doctrinal conflict.

Christianity made a huge advance with the Protestant movement. It seems to me that the Church of the day was inconsistent with where society was headed and big changes needed to take place.

I agree. This is an example of the corruption I spoke of earlier blinding those who were in power and tainting their perception of reality. Call it an 'Ivory Tower Syndrome' if you will.

How does that work into things? 1600 years of saying one thing, then 400 of saying something else. Well, not something else entirely, but there's some pretty big differences between Catholicism and other Christian religions. Was Martin Luther right or wrong about the Chruch?

I think a more precise way of looking at it would be that it started out one way 2000 years ago. Over the next 1500 years or so, the corruption of the church diverted the church from its true given course until it was barely recognizable compared to its origins. The church split (due to many factors including unspeakable oppression and persecution of its own people), and the splinter has tried to recapture and align itself with the founders and their original intentions. I have not yet studied Martin Luther in any kind of depth, but from what I have learned, I believe he was right in his actions.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by hasbeens99

I do not understand or agree with Christians who believe God and science are mutually exclusive. I believe science is the study of God's work, and it is truly fascinating. I do not fear science. Quite the opposite, I feel the farther science advances, the more God will be vindicated and proven.

My feeling exactly, hasbeens! It's exciting to hear someone who is as knowledgeable about Christianity as you seem to be express this belief that I have long held.

I believe that science explains the mechanics of how God's miracles were performed rather than refuting that God had a hand in their creation. I saw a documentary many years ago that gave scientific explanations for many of the seemingly impossible to believe stories of the Bible. It was fascinating!

[plutosdaughter]

Originally posted by hasbeens99
Sounds like you've taken the steps to be a Christian. After that, denominations are secondary and relatively unimportant as long as the basic beliefs are there.

I am a christian hasbeens... I didn't want you to think you had the corner on the market, you are admittedly more educated than I about it and for that I am grateful. I am glad someone is- from which I can learn. When I said I struggled with it, I should have been more specific. I struggled with knowing this wonderful person could go to hell. I wish you could meet her. She exudes love and happiness and everyone who is in her precense is blessed. On a brighter note, the preacher we have at my home baptist church is very educated. He doesn't scream hell and brimstone and I can learn from him without feeling I shouldn't be in church at a ripe old age of 10 because I wasn't worthy...that is how it was when I was a child. I don't disagree with the teachings, I disagree sometimes with the vessel.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by plutosdaughter
I am a christian hasbeens... I didn't want you to think you had the corner on the market...

I am sorry, PD. Sometimes it's difficult for me to get a good read on how people think on a message board. If I have offended you in any way, I apologize. :(

Also, by no means do I think I have any kind of "corner" on the Christian market. If I have projected that attitude, I apologize to you and anyone else who has read this thread. That is most definitely NOT the case. What I share with others is based on my own study, my own experiences and the experiences of people I know and trust. I have MUCH more to learn, which is why I enjoy discussions like this. People who disagree with me make me re-evaluate my own beliefs, and that's a good thing. I want my faith to make sense, as much as it possibly can. I don't want to blindly accept anything just because some church leader says so. I want my own beliefs to be constantly refined in my search for the Truth.

To quote the apostle Paul, "I have not arrived yet, but I press on toward the goal." :D

[plutosdaughter]

Originally posted by hasbeens99
I am sorry, PD. Sometimes it's difficult for me to get a good read on how people think on a message board. If I have offended you in any way, I apologize. :(

Now I feel bad :(, I guess that did seem like a left handed compliment when I read back over it. I have enjoyed your posts hasbeens:) forgive me?

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by plutosdaughter
Now I feel bad :(, I guess that did seem like a left handed compliment when I read back over it. I have enjoyed your posts hasbeens :) forgive me?

I was not offended by your post, PD. :) Not at all. I welcome the accountability. I cannot stand it when I see other Christians coming across like everything they say is beyond question, or when they keep trying to 'force feed' their beliefs down people's throats. The LAST thing I want to do is be just like them.

If I get too big for my britches, y'all tell me, okay? :wink2: :D

[Miss tery]

As I am in outside sales, I interact with dozens of customers on a regular basis. In dealing with them, as well as my co-workers, the amount of back-biting and prejudice is the most pronounced among the ones that aways talk church all the time.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
As I am in outside sales, I interact with dozens of customers on a regular basis. In dealing with them, as well as my co-workers, the amount of back-biting and prejudice is the most pronounced among the ones that aways talk church all the time.

I believe you. :( That would be the other main cause of people being turned away from God, and especially the church. I know I've definitely struggled with trying to remember we're supposed to be God's representatives. Sometimes you just want to do what you want, instead of what you've committed to. Unfortunately, that's usually when someone who doesn't believe is watching.

The comedian Gallagher once said, "Everywhere you leak, the world hangs a bucket." I have definitely felt that during the past three years I've been a Christian.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by hasbeens99
Christians must be extremely careful when they interpret Scripture. It's not an easy task. As an aspiring preacher, I've already learned that.

I would like to encourage you in your aspirations! Your arguments are thought provoking and are delivered free of hubris or emotion, but with a passion that shows your commitment.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Stargazer
I would like to encourage you in your aspirations! Your arguments are thought provoking and are delivered free of hubris or emotion, but with a passion that shows your commitment.

:mushy: Thanks, Star...

[magnus]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
As I am in outside sales, I interact with dozens of customers on a regular basis. In dealing with them, as well as my co-workers, the amount of back-biting and prejudice is the most pronounced among the ones that aways talk church all the time.

I've seen it plenty. Working construction back in the day where people would yell at you for not saying grace before your lunch but then talk bad about good people because they're black. I even roomed with a guy in college who was a good friend in HS. He was just another dude, but once he got to college he hung out his picture of Christ bleeding on the cross and started being racist about blacks and jews.
No, it doesn't make sense. But I know he's an idiot because he's an idiot, and a bigot because he was raised by mullets, not because he's a Christian or a believer in God. They're not condoned by any Christian church and I guess I have to find a little disrespect in the fact that someone would lack respect in all Christians to think that someone like that is representative.


That's the real interesting thing about the way the people who are vehemently against a higher being are. For the most part from what I've seen they get so turned off by God because of the actions of man or a group of people said to be believers, either that or turning on God for something that was meant to happen but they felt God was supposed to fix it their way instead of the intended way.

I just don't get that, in those cases. I dated a girl for two years that was this way. In the end it was one of the reasons I decided not to be with her - not her beliefs, but the way she'd go after those that believed in more traditional methods. She turned on God because her father was an alcoholic who had beaten her mother and left them behind to be poor, and because she was bi and some ignorant asshole told her in a church one time that God hates homosexuals. To me, taking an abusive mullet wearing redneck and a backwoods racist preacher as the representations of God? Just doesn't seem to be the way one would go about dealing with their spirituality.

Of course, I've never really understood the point in wanting to poke holes in somebody else's faith either. If this thread had been started to learn, it'd be different, but I just get the feeling it wasn't done in an effort to learn.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by magnus
...I know he's an idiot because he's an idiot, and a bigot because he was raised by mullets, not because he's a Christian or a believer in God.

To me, taking an abusive mullet wearing redneck and a backwoods racist preacher as the representations of God? Just doesn't seem to be the way one would go about dealing with their spirituality.

True, it makes no sense ...if you know better.

But the problem is, sometimes that's the only version of Christianity those poor people see. In my experience, it doesn't take much to turn someone away from seeking God. And sometimes the things that do happen are truly hideous. Too often when something like that happens, the victim thinks, "If that's what church is all about, I'll pass, thanks." And a lot of times, when something so painful strikes, seemingly without a reason, people will shake their fist at God and renounce any possibility of Him, choosing to believe in something else rather than embrace an 'evil' God who would allow things like that to happen.

[Miss tery]

Athiests are usually much nicer people.

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
Athiests are usually much nicer people. Bullshit.....Athiests are far and away more miserable and depressed.

[magnus]

I love how _tery will just hit a subject head on.

...or at least until someone replies :D

I'll say this - atheists seem to be people who in general are smart. Has nothing to do with the fact that they chose this, but chances are they're more the type to rationalize a lack of strong faith.
They also seem to have a certain level of self esteem/ self-doubt or depression. Not all atheists have mental problems, I'm not at all saying that. But the ones I know, that's a theme with a lot of them. Maybe it's related, maybe part of it's a feeling of lack of hope that eventually leads to lack of belief. Maybe it's just a way of being different.

Personally, my faith isn't strong. I believe, and I try, and I know I won't ever stop trying. But I have faults, and it'll probably take having a family to get me totally straight on this one. I'm sure it's not hard to lose faith, and that you have to want to have faith to have it. I don't think atheists are bad people, but I do think that my place in life is far away from these conversations, because I don't like being questioned...I'm not really that strong right now.

I don't have the answers hasbeens has, and it's refreshing and interesting to see an old friend answer what's going on with honesty and openness rather than getting mad or calling names. It's hard for a lot to do, and to a point I'm dishing a little at _tery, part because that's what she's after. I've seen these battles for years, more often than not from the viewpoints of atheists beating up on Christians (many of them misguided), and for the most part they've never been as good as this one.

[lex]

i read your response, magnus. i have to chime in because you are a friend and i care about what you think.

i avoid subjects like this one because my religion and my politics are private to me. i have opinions and mine are pretty precious and private. i would hate to take the time and trouble to type then get bashed.

for me, one should already know why jesus died for our sins. if you are christian, that is a basic. needless to say, if one is questioning one's faith, it is righteous to do so, but i daresay a message board is hardly the place to find the answers. you seek the truth, you should be able to find it if you are really wanting the truth. He is here. He is not elusive. it is no great secret. and yes, Love conquers all.

it wont take a family to get you strong on this, magnus. i think you have Him in your heart. i think you are strong. i think He guides you and is present in you. i dont think it is your lack of faith. seems more like your lack of confidence in Him and in you.

"it isn't your abilities (or lack of) that show what kind of a person you are, it is the choices you make."

good morning, c. good morning, all. happy holidays! :)

obtw, my best friend syndi is an atheist. she is lovely. she is not one of them who bashes christianity. just awfully smart, yet have not found Him. maybe never will, but i am saving her a seat when i get to meet Him. He knows. :D

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
Athiests are usually much nicer people.

I have seen that to be true and not true, just as with Christian folk. A good friend from high school (20 plus years ago :D) was Catholic and converted to Athiesim. When I asked why, he said, when I pray - I don't feel God. When others around me in church claim to feel his presence - I feel nothing. He said he was tired of pretending to believe in God because of fear of ridicule. He felt responsible for his own destiny, said he would and never could believe there was a God that had "a plan" for his life..

He has 5 kids today, a happy home, a happy life, he still does not beleive in God, but he seems to do the right things in life...

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
Athiests are usually much nicer people.

Unfortunately I would tend to agree with this statement as well, from this standpoint: Atheists are rarely judgmental, and if they are, it's usually only toward Christians (and usually after they've been provoked, but not necessarily).

Many atheists are also highly intelligent, and have acquired strong scientific evidence that seems to fly in the face of traditional Christian beliefs, but more precisely confronts many Christians' ignorance of God's creation. Unfortunately, arrogance on both sides (but probably starting with the church) has created a hostile "us vs. them" mentality that was founded long ago, and is alive and well today.

[hasbeens99]

Good afternoon, Lexy! :wave:

Originally posted by lex
for me, one should already know why jesus died for our sins. if you are christian, that is a basic. needless to say, if one is questioning one's faith, it is righteous to do so, but i daresay a message board is hardly the place to find the answers.

Actually, Snoil's original question wasn't IF Jesus died for our sins, but HOW. That's a challenging question, and I'm thankful he asked it. I hadn't put that much thought into the HOW before, and my own faith is stronger now because the question forced me to deepen my own understanding of what I believe.

As far as looking for answers on a message board, I respectfully disagree with your take that it's a bad idea. I think Snoil was just asking some friends he respected to seek their input. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO. But I would also encourage TS to take what we've said and compare it to his own experiences and research, especially of the Bible.

obtw, my best friend syndi is an atheist. she is lovely. she is not one of them who bashes christianity. just awfully smart, yet have not found Him. maybe never will, but i am saving her a seat when i get to meet Him. He knows. :D

Lexy, is your friend seeking God and hasn't found Him yet, or has she rejected Him? If the latter is true, I don't think 'saving her a seat' will do much good.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by magnus


I've seen it plenty. Working construction back in the day where people would yell at you for not saying grace before your lunch but then talk bad about good people because they're black. I even roomed with a guy in college who was a good friend in HS. He was just another dude, but once he got to college he hung out his picture of Christ bleeding on the cross and started being racist about blacks and jews.
No, it doesn't make sense. But I know he's an idiot because he's an idiot, and a bigot because he was raised by mullets, not because he's a Christian or a believer in God. They're not condoned by any Christian church and I guess I have to find a little disrespect in the fact that someone would lack respect in all Christians to think that someone like that is representative.


That's the real interesting thing about the way the people who are vehemently against a higher being are. For the most part from what I've seen they get so turned off by God because of the actions of man or a group of people said to be believers, either that or turning on God for something that was meant to happen but they felt God was supposed to fix it their way instead of the intended way.

I just don't get that, in those cases. I dated a girl for two years that was this way. In the end it was one of the reasons I decided not to be with her - not her beliefs, but the way she'd go after those that believed in more traditional methods. She turned on God because her father was an alcoholic who had beaten her mother and left them behind to be poor, and because she was bi and some ignorant asshole told her in a church one time that God hates homosexuals. To me, taking an abusive mullet wearing redneck and a backwoods racist preacher as the representations of God? Just doesn't seem to be the way one would go about dealing with their spirituality.


Shouldn't Christians be held to the same standard as Muslims in regards to "cleaning their own house"? I mean, a large problem in the Islamic world is tolerance of extremists and zealots who (it is claimed by the more urbane followers) distort the religion and set poor examples of how followers truly must behave.

Certainly strapping a bomb onto yourself and blowing up a school bus is a more outwardly hostile action than hating black folk, but should the Church be held accountable for its members as we hold other groups accountable for their members? Not on the lines of UBL, but more on the lines of your avarage Mosque. People want to hear Mullahs come out and denounce the violence perpetrated by Muslims. Why don't the require that of more Christian churches?

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by SandMan


I have seen that to be true and not true, just as with Christian folk. A good friend from high school (20 plus years ago :D) was Catholic and converted to Athiesim. When I asked why, he said, when I pray - I don't feel God. When others around me in church claim to feel his presence - I feel nothing. He said he was tired of pretending to believe in God because of fear of ridicule. He felt responsible for his own destiny, said he would and never could believe there was a God that had "a plan" for his life..

He has 5 kids today, a happy home, a happy life, he still does not beleive in God, but he seems to do the right things in life...

That's pretty much me -- aside from the going to church part, I suppose... and the 5 kids. Okay, well, basically it's me in regards to the faith part... I just don't have faith. If there was a He and He wanted me to have faith, I would, wouldn't I? So either He doesn't exist or he doesn't care if I have faith or not.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
Shouldn't Christians be held to the same standard as Muslims in regards to "cleaning their own house"?

Absolutely! I would love for the church to hold their members accountable for acts and sentiments that stand in contrast to true doctrine. Accountability without opression is a dificult balance to achieve, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to achieve it.

Certainly strapping a bomb onto yourself and blowing up a school bus is a more outwardly hostile action than hating black folk, but should the Church be held accountable for its members as we hold other groups accountable for their members? Not on the lines of UBL, but more on the lines of your avarage Mosque. People want to hear Mullahs come out and denounce the violence perpetrated by Muslims. Why don't the require that of more Christian churches?

Absolutely. A little denouncing goes a long way in my book. I think the Protestants are doing better at that than the Catholics with regard to sex crimes, but Catholics aren't as implicated as much in hate crimes, either, so both have a ways to go.

But I absolutely agree with you, Nut. The churches should hold their members more accountable than they do.

[builder]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
I just don't have faith. If there was a He and He wanted me to have faith, I would, wouldn't I? So either He doesn't exist or he doesn't care if I have faith or not.

I have faith. I just don't have faith in what Christians believe.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
I just don't have faith. If there was a He and He wanted me to have faith, I would, wouldn't I? So either He doesn't exist or he doesn't care if I have faith or not.

No. God doesn't make you have faith. He leaves that choice up to you. He promises that if you seek Him out, He'll reveal Himself to you, but He's not going to force you into believing in Him. That's not what He's looking for. He wants you to love Him, and He wants you to let Him love you. You can't achieve that by force -- it has to be a mutual choice.

God has already made His choice known by sending Jesus to die on the cross to make the relationship with Him possible. Now the choice to take Him up on His offer is ours.

[lex]

hasbeens and anyone i have offended with my post:

i realize now what snoil is asking. i apologize for my offensive response. i should have taken the time to read more. my bad.

however, from experience, i have been unfortunate to witness people fight about very sensitive subjects such as this one. from my experience as well, people with very strong opinions about their religion tend to be argumentative and push their beliefs on others. i guess i am wrong this time. well, i am glad. i am glad for you 99, for finding more strenght in your conviction! i bet this type of subject stimulates your interest. good. i dont think there is anything wrong with finding and seeking the truth on a message board. i am simply saying there is a lot of other ways. i realize now snoil is asking for the logic behind it. thank you for setting me straight. i hope i didnt offend too many people who subscribe to this thread. if i did, i apologize.

truly sorry.

my friend syndi is not seeking and i disagree with you about saving that seat. He knows the person syndi is. she will save me a seat also if she gets there sooner, perhaps intercede on my behalf as well! i happen to know syndi well. He will determine that later, 99.

thanks for clarifying that for me, 99. sorry i was short this morning.

[Miss tery]

In retrospect I always feel a little guilty about participating in religious threads. My knowledge of the universe and cosmology and the other sciences....minimal though it is....is enough for me to be comfortable with my concept of the world. One that is fact-driven based on scientifically-verifiable experimentation.

To cast doubt in others minds without having something better or equal to replace it makes me a little uneasy at times. Those that come from a different environment and educational focus will not find shifting their view of the world easy, or even desireable.

I sometimes just get angry with the complacentness of the believers of whatever genre, and their assuredness that they have the lock on the truth. All of the religions feel equally righteous, and all deserve equal respect, no one more than another.

But that is faith, based on religious writings, not scientific methodology which is defined as experimentation done under controlled conditions which are repeatable and able to be independently verified by other scientists.

[jbghostrat]

MeWo! MeWo!

[kshead]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
In retrospect I always feel a little guilty about participating in religious threads. My knowledge of the universe and cosmology and the other sciences....minimal though it is....is enough for me to be comfortable with my concept of the world. One that is fact-driven based on scientifically-verifiable experimentation.

To cast doubt in others minds without having something better or equal to replace it makes me a little uneasy at times. Those that come from a different environment and educational focus will not find shifting their view of the world easy, or even desireable.

I sometimes just get angry with the complacentness of the believers of whatever genre, and their assuredness that they have the lock on the truth. All of the religions feel equally righteous, and all deserve equal respect, no one more than another.

But that is faith, based on religious writings, not scientific fact which is defined as results done under controlled conditions that are repeatable and able to be independently verified by other scientists.

So....just wondering here...

How much scientific fact is involved in the supposition - frequently made by you and others - that a human mind can evolve to the level that you believe it will eventually evolve to? (Y'know - based on the things you state and the sites you refer to?)

[Miss tery]

Pure speculation and eager anticipation.

Micro-processors will soon be on a molecular level, and the next step (I hope) will be the means to implant them in our brain.

The next step after that will be genetic engineering that incorporates them from birth.

After that.........who knows?

[kshead]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
Pure speculation and eager anticipation.



In other words - faith. ;)

So again tell me - why is my faith "bad" and your faith "good"?

Neither version can be proven by scientific verification.

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
Pure speculation and eager anticipation.

Micro-processors will soon be on a molecular level, and the next step (I hope) will be the means to implant them in our brain.

The next step after that will be genetic engineering that incorporates them from birth.

After that.........who knows? you are scary....do you really wish this?

there is a scientist that worked at the nuclear plant at oakridge tenn. in the 70s he discovered a new molecule. i cannot remember it's name...anyhoo...the molecule is only created at a precise point in the atomic chain. he discovered that every organic compound on the planet contains this particular molecule. to me this is conclusive evidence to an instant creation as opposed to the evolving of the planet. remember, there is zero scientific proof that the earth has evolved outside of societal evolution. now there is a viable theory to prove creation, whereas evolution is still a hypothesis.

[Miss tery]

FYI


spec·u·late ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spky-lt)
v. spec·u·lat·ed, spec·u·lat·ing, spec·u·lates
v. intr.
To meditate on a subject; reflect.


be·lief ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf)
n.
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
you are scary....do you really wish this?

there is a scientist that worked at the nuclear plant at oakridge tenn. in the 70s he discovered a new molecule. i cannot remember it's name...anyhoo...the molecule is only created at a precise point in the atomic chain. he discovered that every organic compound on the planet contains this particular molecule. to me this is conclusive evidence to an instant creation as opposed to the evolving of the planet. remember, there is zero scientific proof that the earth has evolved outside of societal evolution. now there is a viable theory to prove creation, whereas evolution is still a hypothesis.

"Yawn"

[kshead]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
FYI


spec·u·late ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spky-lt)
v. spec·u·lat·ed, spec·u·lat·ing, spec·u·lates
v. intr.
To meditate on a subject; reflect.


be·lief ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf)
n.
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

:lol2:

Didn't want to answer my question about yours, eh? That's fine. You have your belief that man will evolve to a certain point but can't prove it. I have mine in a God I can't prove either.

This is just my own personal dictionary here, but I'd simply say that someone who is willing to take certain things on faith....er..."Pure speculation and eager anticipation" and cannot PROVE them should probably not use that "scientific proof" argument in the dismissal of others' beliefs either.

I believe that should cover it from where I was coming from.....

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Miss_tery


"Yawn" this is proof positive you are intellectually vacant....oh and your other post firms up this belief....so from now on are no longer legit, unless you can come up with some non speculative conversation....i feel sorry for you :) but i will pray for you :)

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by kshead


:lol2:

Didn't want to answer my question about yours, eh? That's fine. You have your belief that man will evolve to a certain point but can't prove it. I have mine in a God I can't prove either.

This is just my own personal dictionary here, but I'd simply say that someone who is willing to take certain things on faith....er..."Pure speculation and eager anticipation" and cannot PROVE them should probably not use that "scientific proof" argument in the dismissal of others' beliefs either.

I believe that should cover it from where I was coming from.....

Dufus....read the fucking dictionary. Speculate means just that, to wonder what MAY happen, not to believe in any outcome.

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
you are scary....do you really wish this?

there is a scientist that worked at the nuclear plant at oakridge tenn. in the 70s he discovered a new molecule. i cannot remember it's name...anyhoo...the molecule is only created at a precise point in the atomic chain. he discovered that every organic compound on the planet contains this particular molecule. to me this is conclusive evidence to an instant creation as opposed to the evolving of the planet. remember, there is zero scientific proof that the earth has evolved outside of societal evolution. now there is a viable theory to prove creation, whereas evolution is still a hypothesis.

Give me the name of the scientist, the exact molecule, and corroborations written up in "Science" or "Nature" magazines. Those are the trade publications which back up verified scientific research world-wide.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
you are scary....do you really wish this?

there is a scientist that worked at the nuclear plant at oakridge tenn. in the 70s he discovered a new molecule. i cannot remember it's name...anyhoo...the molecule is only created at a precise point in the atomic chain. he discovered that every organic compound on the planet contains this particular molecule. to me this is conclusive evidence to an instant creation as opposed to the evolving of the planet. remember, there is zero scientific proof that the earth has evolved outside of societal evolution. now there is a viable theory to prove creation, whereas evolution is still a hypothesis.

Seriously, if you wanna make a claim at "proof" you gotta actually come up with some actual facts. maybe it's good enough for you to have some guy that found some thing that can only be done a particular way that proves we're created.

There's is mighty fine proof of evolution -- namely the stratified remains of animals laid out with the oldest being most primitve and the most advanced being only recent. Doesn't explain how it happened, but unless all dating techniques are bogus or there's a hidden cache of primate skulls from 65 million years ago hidden in some cave yet to be found, you can pretty much assume that creatures evolved from one form to the next.

Unless that's all been fabricated in an instant by God. But then I'd ask, when exactly did he start the "real" clock going? Yesterday? With Jesus' birth? 10,000 years ago? 100,000?

But I guess that's a topic for another thread...

[kshead]

Why the hostility? I should have known to expect a smart ass answer. I wanted an answer, and instead I get crap. You either miss my point or want to ignore it. Either one is fine with me. But I love the way that you to use lack of scientific evidence to dismiss any possibility of God (or require it for proof)....

.....yet you seem to suffer from no such skepticism when it comes to man's FUTURE evolution. You even state that you have hope for it - even though there is no shred of scientific proof that many of the things you hope will happen will actually happen!

Don't you think that is even the least bit amusing? I think it's a downright riot! Scientific proof is needed for the religious belief, but not for man's evolution? :rofl: Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Unless, of course, you have some proof that my future family members will evolve to the level that you believe (or is that speculate?) man will.

I've already read the sites you refer people to, so I thought I'd ask you some questions to see if I could get at that contradiction. Sorry for even asking now.....

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Miss_tery


Give me the name of the scientist, the exact molecule, and corroborations written up in "Science" or "Nature" magazines. Those are the trade publications which back up verified scientific research world-wide. ok i will cite all these things, give me a day or too.

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by kshead
Why the hostility? I should have known to expect a smart ass answer. I wanted an answer, and instead I get crap. You either miss my point or want to ignore it. Either one is fine with me. But I love the way that you to use lack of scientific evidence to dismiss any possibility of God (or require it for proof)....

.....yet you seem to suffer from no such skepticism when it comes to man's FUTURE evolution. You even state that you have hope for it - even though there is no shred of scientific proof that many of the things you hope will happen will actually happen!

Don't you think that is even the least bit amusing? I think it's a downright riot! Scientific proof is needed for the religious belief, but not for man's evolution? :rofl: Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

I've already read the sites you refer people to, so I thought I'd ask you some questions to see if I could get at that contradiction. Sorry for even asking now.....


One more time....reeaal slow:
Speculate = guess

All my posts on future human evolution are s.p.e.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.n.

Yes, it is a course I find desireable, but it is only .......are you ready for this?.......speculation.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by kshead
Why the hostility? I should have known to expect a smart ass answer. I wanted an answer, and instead I get crap. You either miss my point or want to ignore it. Either one is fine with me. But I love the way that you to use lack of scientific evidence to dismiss any possibility of God (or require it for proof)....

.....yet you seem to suffer from no such skepticism when it comes to man's FUTURE evolution. You even state that you have hope for it - even though there is no shred of scientific proof that many of the things you hope will happen will actually happen!

Don't you think that is even the least bit amusing? I think it's a downright riot! Scientific proof is needed for the religious belief, but not for man's evolution? :rofl: Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Unless, of course, you have some proof that my future family members will evolve to the level that you believe (or is that speculate?) man will.

I've already read the sites you refer people to, so I thought I'd ask you some questions to see if I could get at that contradiction. Sorry for even asking now.....

Not that I agree with miss_tery's outlook, but you're comparing apples to oranges. You can't possibly prove what will happen tomorrow -- it's beyond to scope of science. However, you can prove what has happened (or rather, you can prove what hasn't) with science. Miss_tery has a belief that something WILL happen. But that's not the same thing as believing something that DID happen or currently IS happening.

[kshead]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut

You can't possibly prove what will happen tomorrow -- it's beyond to scope of science. However, you can prove what has happened (or rather, you can prove what hasn't) with science. Miss_tery has a belief that something WILL happen. But that's not the same thing as believing something that DID happen or currently IS happening.

Note: I added/modified the bold.

The bold part was my entire point Nut. She can't prove her view - and the religious person can't prove theirs. Yet every time there is a religion thread, Misstery shows up demanding proof. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Especially when the person demanding the proof WHILE ALSO OFFERING A DIFFERENT PLAUSIBLE VIEW has no proof of that different plausible view either. The phrase "Put up or shut up" comes to mind, but I really didn't want to go that way. I was genuinely curious at first.....

I am not arguing the past evolutionary path of man. The views she touts are based on what man WILL BE - not what man WAS. Sorry, but like you said, she'll never prove that. And who's to say how much we'll continue to evolve? We might croak. ;)

Now, I believe in the future I'll go to heaven. That's the future too, but I - because it's religion- have to prove that it will happen based on past events while she (or anyone that shares her view) does not? Nope. Doesn't work that way. At least not to me.

So I find it ironic that she demands proof from the religious while she can't prove her view either. That's all. As usual, all I am asking for is for people to be consistent. In this thread, it's about "proof". Maybe you'll get it. Misstery clearly did not.

[Miss tery]

What view are you asking me to prove? I have said repeatedly that all of my posts on future events are merely guesses.

I think that the majority are likely, and also good for the species, but it is still speculation.

[Chip]

It seems to me that the so called "believers" in this thread are somewhat hostile. Skeered???

You know, I'm a family man. I have a good job, a wife and two great kids, a dog, and not one iota of faith in a supreme being. When Nut spoke about baseless brainwashing and Christianity as a way of "explaining away" the unknown, he had a point. I grew up out of the church. Ended up in Catholic school in my mid-teens for a "better" education and couldn't figure out why I wasn't doing well in religion classes. It came to me when I was around 15. All this stuff and propaganda everyone was feeding me was pure speculation. There is not one, and I mean not one, shred of proof of existence of a "supreme" being. Once I was able to peel away the years of drilled-in Christian guilt and start to think for myself and not what others "thought" for me, I was able to see without blinders for the first time. Try it, you might like it.

[slydevl]

There is not one iota of proof that there is not a Supreme being. Actually there is more empirical evidence that there is a supreme being than there is that there isn't.

Methinks it is the unbelievers in this thread that are "skeered". The believers have nothing to be "skeered" about.

[slydevl]

One other thing. The power of prayer IS scientifically proven and recognized as a valid medical treatment.

[Miss tery]

There is no way to prove that "anything" does not exist.

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by slydevl
One other thing. The power of prayer IS scientifically proven and recognized as a valid medical treatment.

Why are you making me repeat myself? Give me the issues of "Science" and or "Nature" where these studies have been repeatedly verified by independent laboratories.

[slydevl]

The day you see an article proving the power of prayer in Science is the day you suck my dick....in other words not likely to happen. Their editorial staff is largely to blame for that. I was however able to find numerous studies published elsewhere.

The Proof That Prayer Works

There is ample proof that prayer works. Many scientific studies have been conducted that validate this observation.

A 1993 Israeli survey following 10,000 civil servants for 26 years found that Orthodox Jews were less likely to die of cardiovascular problems than "nonbelievers." And a 1995 study from Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., monitoring 250 people after open-heart surgery concluded that those who had religious connections and social support were 12 times less likely to die than those who had none.

In an attempt to understand the depression that often accompanies hospitalization, Duke University researchers assessed 1,000 hospital patients from 1987 to 1989; patients who drew on religious practices, including prayer, were found to cope far better than those who didn't.

NIH recently convened a panel to determine the merits of integrating conventional medicine with behavioral and relaxation therapies to treat hypertension. The team found that the conflation of therapies, of which prayer was a key component, "can lower one's breathing rate, heart rate, and blood pressure."

The University of New Mexico in Albuquerque is studying the power of prayer to heal alcoholics. And there is a prayer-and-healing study in progress at Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington, the nation's leading naturopathic-training institute. Certainly, following a spiritual or religious lifestyle might lead to better health; the devout may be less likely to succumb to the hazards of smoking, drinking, and sleeping around. However, for the non-believers, it is hard to understand how intercessory or non-local prayer works. This is thew situation when the sick persons are prayed for and don't even know it.

In the most widely publicized studies of the effect of intercessory prayer, cardiologist Randolph Byrd studied 393 patients admitted to the coronary-care unit at San Francisco General Hospital. Some were prayed for by home-prayer groups, others were not. All the men and women got medical care. In this randomized, double-blind study, neither the doctors and nurses nor the patients knew who would be the object of prayer.

The results were dramatic and surprised many scientists.The men and women whose medical care was supplemented with prayer needed fewer drugs and spent less time on ventilators. They also fared better overall than their counterparts who received medical care but nothing more. The prayed-for patients were: Significantly less likely to require antibiotics (3 patients versus 16)
Significantly less likely to develop pulmonary edema-a condition in which the lungs fill with fluid because the heart cannot pump properly (6 versus 18).
Significantly less likely to require insertion of a tube into the throat to assist breathing (0 versus 12).
Less likely to die (but this difference was not statistically significant).


Even more outrageous experiments in distance healing involve nonhuman subjects. In a survey of 131 controlled experiments on spiritual healing, it was found that prayed-for rye grass grew taller; prayed-for yeast resisted the toxic effects of cyanide; prayed-for test-tube bacteria grew faster. "I adore these experiments," says Larry Dossey, M.D., perhaps the world's most vocal expert on prayer and medicine. "Because they don't involve humans, you can run them with fanatical precision and you can run them hundreds of times. It's the best evidence of all that prayer can change the world. And it operates as strongly on the other side of the Earth as it does at the bedside."

In his 1994 book, Healing Words, Larry Dossey, M.D., co-chair of the Panel on Mind-Body Interventions of the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health in Washington, D.C., reviewed over 100 experiments, most published in parapsychological literature ' on the effects of prayer/visualization. More than half showed an effect on everything from seed germination to wound healing.

In several experiments, volunteers visualized stimulating or retarding the growth of bacteria and fungi and achieved significantly positive results from as far as 15 miles away.
At the Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio, Texas, researchers took blood samples from 32 volunteers, isolated their red blood cells (RBCS) and placed the samples in a room on the other side of the building. Then the researchers placed the RBCs in a solution designed to swell and burst them, a process that can be measured extremely accurately. Next the researchers asked the volunteers to pray for the preservation of some of the RBCS. To help them visualize, the researchers projected color slides of healthy RBCS. The praying significantly slowed the swelling and bursting of the RBCS.
In another study at the Mind Science Foundation, volunteers in a room on one side of the building were asked to visualize volunteers in a room on the other side of the building becoming calmer or more agitated. Meanwhile, the "receivers" were hooked up to biofeedback-type equipment to gauge their reactions. The results showed that the "influencers" exerted a statistically significant effect on the receivers' moods.

These experiments have shown that prayer can take many forms. Results occurred not only when people prayed for explicit outcomes, but also when they prayed for nothing specific.

The experiments showed that a simple "Thy will be done" approach was quantitatively more powerful than when specific results were held in mind.

A simple attitude of prayerfulness, an all pervading sense of holiness and a feeling of empathy, caring, and compassion for the entity in need, seemed to set the stage for healing.

Experiments also showed that prayer positively affected: High Blood Pressure
Wounds
Heart Attacks
Headaches, and
Anxiety.



The subjects in these studies included: Water
Enzymes
Bacteria
Fungi
Yeast
Red blood cells
Cancer cells
Pacemaker cells
Seeds
Plants
Algae
Moth larvae
Mice
Chicks


The processes that had been influenced by prayer were: Activity of enzymes
The growth rate of leukemic white blood cells
Mutation rates of bacteria
Germination and grwth rates of various seeds
Firing rate of pacemaker cells
Healing rates of wounds
The size of goiters and tumors
Time required to awaken from anesthesia
Autonomic effects such as electrodermal activity of the skin, rates of hemolysis of red blood cells and hemoglobin levels.


It did not matter whether the praying person was with the person who was prayed for the power of prayer to work. You can pray for someone who is far away and still will have an influence on the outcome.

Nothing seems to block or stop the effects of prayer - the object in one study was placed in a lead-lined room and in another in a cage that shielded it from all known forms of electromagnetic energy, the effect still go through.

Given the scientific evidence, Dossey and several other researchers now admit that withholding prayer from an ailing patient is downright irresponsible. "It became an ethical issue for me," says Dossey, who defines prayer as "communication with the absolute."

At a Boston conference sponsored by Harvard Medical School, one of the participants predicted that in just 10 years patients will be questioned about not only their personal medical history but also their spiritual belief system.

Certainly, the idea of distance healing is catching on even today. Cyberspace is full of fellow believers who post their requests on daily prayer chains. Those who believe in distance healing are not sure how it works, though theories abound. Some say it involves sending some kind of subtle, as-yet-unidentified energy to the person in need. Others, including Dossey, say quantum physics may play a role, or what Cambridge-trained biologist Rupert Sheldrake calls "morphogenetic fields," unabounded by space or time.

In the absence of hard data, it remains a mystery or a miracle.

The other kind of prayer, in which sick people pray for their own recovery, is far easier for science to explain. Given the proven health benefits of meditation — lowering blood pressure, reversing heart disease — it's not difficult to see how prayer, which can be equally meditative and relaxing, might induce the same effects.

According to Koenig of Duke University, "when prayer uplifts or calms, it inhibits cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine - hormones that flow out of the adrenal glands in response to stress. These fight-or-flight chemicals, released over time can compromise the immune system, upping the odds of developing any number of illnesses, including heart disease, stroke, peptic ulcers, and inflammatory bowel disorder (IBS)." Many experts feel that the immune system is strengthened and nourished by a sense of peace, which can be transferred from one individual to another or used inwardly. Of course, the ancient stories of the Bible and seminal works of Eastern religions link healing with faith.So, it is reasonable to assume that something such as prayer that provides comfort and peace would influence the propensity for you to get disease or how you recover from a disease.

[slydevl]

Recent scientific investigation shows that prayer can be used as an alternative therapy as successfully as meditation, exercise, or herbalism. A study of 91,000 people in rural Maryland showed that weekly church attendees had 50 percent fewer deaths from heart disease than non-churchgoers and 53 percent fewer suicides. Churchgoers have lower blood pressure levels than nonbelievers, even after smoking and other known risk factors are taken into consideration.

Many doctors believe that if they prayed with their patients before and after surgery or before administering a course of powerful drugs, this treatment might assist in the patient's recovery. Thirty medical schools in America are now offering courses in faith and medicine.

"Prayer works," says Dr. Matthews, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C., and senior research fellow at the National Institute for Healthcare Research in Rockville, Maryland. Dr. Matthews has reviewed more than 200 studies linking religious commitment and health, cited in his book, 'The Faith Factor'.

Dr. Matthews cites studies suggesting that people who pray are less likely to get sick, are more likely to recover from surgery and illness and are better able to cope with their illnesses than people who don't pray. Some evidence indicates that sick people who are prayed for also fare significantly better than those who aren't. In fact, some physicians report that people who are prayed for often do better even if they don't know they're being prayed for.

[slydevl]

More studies confirming the power of prayer:

http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/Psychology_and_Religion/Religious_Experience/Prayer/

[Miss tery]

Prayer/ I.E. meditation and the mind over matter syndrome is not to be disputed.

Fasciniating subject.

[slydevl]

You conviently neglect the studies that show that prayer works even on subjects who don't know they are being prayed for. Meditation cannot explain that.

[lex]

that you in your avatar? you look like john elway. :D

[slydevl]

Originally posted by lex
that you in your avatar? you look like john elway. :D

Yep that's me. 8 years ago.

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by slydevl
You conviently neglect the studies that show that prayer works even on subjects who don't know they are being prayed for. Meditation cannot explain that.

You know my response by now.......show me the articles in "Science" and "Nature".

Any other source is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Miss_tery


You know my response by now.......show me the articles in "Science" and "Nature".

Any other source is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

If I can prove to you that the editors of Science won't cover an article like that will you shut the hell up? I mean proof from their own mouths?

[lex]

Originally posted by slydevl


Yep that's me. 8 years ago.

dayyyumn, sly...you cute! :)

ok. sorry. that is all i am saying regarding that. this is a perfectly good thread and i am messing it up. :(

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Miss_tery


You know my response by now.......show me the articles in "Science" and "Nature".



Pretty difficult to see with blinders on.

In other words, narrow your standards of evidence enough and you will never be proved wrong.

[Superfluous_Nut]

That's interesting, sly. I'd love to see the raw data. I'm a huge skeptic when it comes to mind over matter (which Terry DID mention, BTW) so I take these studies with a grain of salt. I'd love to see the whole study and not a story about a few different studies.

It doesn't, however, seem to indicate anything about the prayers themselves. Did Christians score better than Muslims or Jews or Hindus? I'll bet Budhists blow em all off the charts.

The thing is, it doesn't really suggest anything about a Creator or Christianity. If there was a creator who answered prayers, would he do parlor tricks like this? C'mon, praying for grass to grow faster in a lab?

Wasn't there some experiment with brine shrimp being dumped in boiling water and plants being able to sense it (exhibited some sort of electrical change or something)? Never did learn if that was for real or not.


I'm a non-believer that accepts there stuff out there that we'll never understand. What's bigger than big? What's smaller than small? What's beyond the end? What would a sixth sense be? Or a fourth primary color? Or a fifth taste? There's all sorts of stuff that we just aren't equipped to comprehend. Stuff that's not necessary in our everyday lives. Stuff I'm not to concerned with, really.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
That's interesting, sly. I'd love to see the raw data. I'm a huge skeptic when it comes to mind over matter (which Terry DID mention, BTW) so I take these studies with a grain of salt. I'd love to see the whole study and not a story about a few different studies.

It doesn't, however, seem to indicate anything about the prayers themselves. Did Christians score better than Muslims or Jews or Hindus? I'll bet Budhists blow em all off the charts.

The thing is, it doesn't really suggest anything about a Creator or Christianity. If there was a creator who answered prayers, would he do parlor tricks like this? C'mon, praying for grass to grow faster in a lab?

Wasn't there some experiment with brine shrimp being dumped in boiling water and plants being able to sense it (exhibited some sort of electrical change or something)? Never did learn if that was for real or not.


I'm a non-believer that accepts there stuff out there that we'll never understand. What's bigger than big? What's smaller than small? What's beyond the end? What would a sixth sense be? Or a fourth primary color? Or a fifth taste? There's all sorts of stuff that we just aren't equipped to comprehend. Stuff that's not necessary in our everyday lives. Stuff I'm not to concerned with, really.

Check out the double blind AIDS study in the link I posted Nut. Plenty or raw data. Double blind means neither the doctors nor the patients knew people were praying for some of the patients.

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by slydevl


Pretty difficult to see with blinders on.

In other words, narrow your standards of evidence enough and you will never be proved wrong.

Exactly! You hit the nail on the head!

Science is science. The scientific method means strict methodology reproduceable in any laboratory in the world. Anything else is speculation.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Miss_tery


Science is science. The scientific method means strict methodology reproduceable in any laboratory in the world. Anything else is speculation.

Well then it stands to reason a study which followed the scientific method is just a valid whether it was posted in Science or Nature or Playboy.

[slydevl]

Proof that Science magazine biased against prayer studies.

Science 276: 881-884

Science Editor:

Stimulated by the work of Harvard researcher Herbert Benson (right), readers offer "statistical," experimental, and "evolutionary" perspectives on an unusual topic for Science--the power of prayer "in health and healing."

Why would they call that an "unusual" topic?

[Miss tery]

Originally posted by slydevl


Well then it stands to reason a study which followed the scientific method is just a valid whether it was posted in Science or Nature or Playboy.

Correct, as long as the same results are reproducible in experiments conducted by other laboritories world-wide.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Miss_tery


Correct, as long as the same results are reproducible in experiments conducted by other laboritories world-wide.

So the 20 or so different studies I posted that drew the same conclusions are flawed how?

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by slydevl


Check out the double blind AIDS study in the link I posted Nut. Plenty or raw data. Double blind means neither the doctors nor the patients knew people were praying for some of the patients.


I just read thru it (much of it, anyway). I dunno, hard to make a real case for Distance Healing when you've got a whopping 40 subjects (20 control, 20 treatment). Harder when the control group has all 4 minorities (20% of the control group) and all 5 smokers (25% of the control group). The treatment group also had something like twice the number of "alternative treatments" as the control group. Not sure if that was on-going during the trial or if it was prior to the trial. Anyway, it's enough to put their results into question in my mind....

[Tiorted Snoil]

I'm not sure if I should let this thread die or turn it in another direction...oh well.

Let's get back to the story of Adam and Eve. I'll even allow you the arguement that God created/planned evolution of man. Given he is omniscient (I butchered the sp of that word), that makes sense. Alright then, God also created the serpant...he must have known before hand what the serpant would do and what Adam and Eve would do. Therefore, God is responsible for sin, not man.

[slydevl]

The sepent (being Satan) was in existence before Adam and Eve. While God knew the outcome of the decision Eve made, he did not cause her to make it. Therefore his is not responsible for sin.

[Tiorted Snoil]

Originally posted by slydevl
The sepent (being Satan) was in existence before Adam and Eve. While God knew the outcome of the decision Eve made, he did not cause her to make it. Therefore his is not responsible for sin.


Is the serpant satan...where do you get that?

[quote]11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" 12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave {to be} with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." (Genesis 3:11-13, NASV)

In short, Adam says, "It's not my fault, it's hers -- the woman whom You created is to blame." And, of course, Eve passes the buck along to the snake, who is presumably looking around for an aardvark or duckbilled platypus to hang the blame on, himself.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil



Is the serpant satan...where do you get that?



Not from Genesis but from later scriptures.

Here is a good article explaining it and I think answering your initial question about the serpent at the end:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3784.asp

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by lex
hasbeens and anyone i have offended with my post:

i realize now what snoil is asking. i apologize for my offensive response. i should have taken the time to read more. my bad.

No worries, Lexy. :D I wasn't offended at all. By this point, the thread was 10 pages long already with some pretty heady stuff. Understandable that you wouldn't / couldn't take time to read the whole thing. Just a misunderstanding, that's all. :)

my friend syndi is not seeking and i disagree with you about saving that seat. He knows the person syndi is. she will save me a seat also if she gets there sooner, perhaps intercede on my behalf as well! i happen to know syndi well. He will determine that later, 99.

I think I understand what you mean now, Lex, and I apologize for my original response. I absolutely agree that God knows your friend, and isn't finished with her yet. I also know that the Catholic faith is big on intercession, so I understand where you're coming from there.

One thing, though. If/when your friend does start looking for God, it's very cool to be the one who gets to make the introduction. Don't miss out on an opportunity if it comes your way. :xyzthumbs

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
In retrospect I always feel a little guilty about participating in religious threads.

Speaking for myself, I welcome your insight. You and I obviously don't share the same beliefs, but your knowledge is valuable to me, and I enjoy it very much when you share it. :)

Those that come from a different environment and educational focus will not find shifting their view of the world easy, or even desireable.

I agree completely, and I'll even go one step further. I believe NO ONE finds it easy to change their worldview. I've read of people who will willingly believe in what they know to be a fallacy just to avoid admitting they might be wrong. (BTW, that goes for both sides of this discussion.)

I sometimes just get angry with the complacentness of the believers of whatever genre, and their assuredness that they have the lock on the truth.

Want to know something funny? I get frustrated with them too. Strange how so many of the believers who do 'just enough' are often the ones who are so certain they know the absolute truth about all things Christian, and all things worldly. That's one of the things I admire most about the apostle Paul. As you go through his writings, he became increasingly humble as his ministry grew. Sadly, that is not often the case today.

All of the religions feel equally righteous, and all deserve equal respect, no one more than another.

Of course every world belief system is convinced they're the 'right one'. How successful would one be if they conceded to another? Most all world religions have many good things they bring to the table. Many are similar in numerous respects. But there are differences.

Speaking as a Christian, there have been major events predicted that will verify and vindicate the Christian faith. They have not happened yet, so I cannot prove they are real. Quite frankly, unless I saw it with my own eyes, if I wasn't a believer I wouldn't buy into it. The predictions are quite fantastic. However, I don't just believe in the prophecies and promises of the Bible, I'm depending on them. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Bottom line is only the future will confirm what I already believe is true. Of course the catch to that is if you wait until it does happens, it's too late.

[Tiorted Snoil]

Originally posted by Chip

You know, I'm a family man. I have a good job, a wife and two great kids, a dog, and not one iota of faith in a supreme being. When Nut spoke about baseless brainwashing and Christianity as a way of "explaining away" the unknown, he had a point. I grew up out of the church. Ended up in Catholic school in my mid-teens for a "better" education and couldn't figure out why I wasn't doing well in religion classes. It came to me when I was around 15. All this stuff and propaganda everyone was feeding me was pure speculation. There is not one, and I mean not one, shred of proof of existence of a "supreme" being. Once I was able to peel away the years of drilled-in Christian guilt and start to think for myself and not what others "thought" for me, I was able to see without blinders for the first time. Try it, you might like it.

that's me except no kids.

In addition, I found that the christian church was more of a money making machine filled with hypocracy.

Let's take the Jehovah's Witnesses for example. They used to believe that 144,000 JWs would get into heaven. Then a funny thing happened, their membership went beyond 144,000. Got to be a drag on getting new converts, so the Watchtower (JW's version of the Vatican), got "new light", this is how JWs refer to a change in their story. The "new light" says that 144,000 "very righteous" JWs will rule from heaven along with God, but that the number of those going to heaven is "unknowable".

Some other examples of JWs "new light", they allow vaccinations now, they allow organ transplants now, they allow women to wear pants, they now say no one knows when the world will end (they have a bunch of "missed" predictions on this one.)

Currently, one can only look at the pedophile preists in the catholic church to see pure hypocracy.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
There's is mighty fine proof of evolution -- namely the stratified remains of animals laid out with the oldest being most primitve and the most advanced being only recent.

Funny thing about that. That's just the way the Bible lays out the procession of creation. Man was created last.


Doesn't explain how it happened, but unless all dating techniques are bogus or there's a hidden cache of primate skulls from 65 million years ago hidden in some cave yet to be found, you can pretty much assume that creatures evolved from one form to the next.

I've always taken carbon dating with a grain of salt, personally. Obviously there are no dates stamped on these artifacts and fossils, so their age is calculated based on a mathematical theorem or theorems.

The thing I've learned about math is that it doesn't deal with random events very well. Math likes patterns, even complex ones, but patterns nonetheless. Nature is notoriously random. Therefore, I've concluded there may be flaws in the math of carbon dating.

That is not to say I believe wholeheartedly in the literal translation of the Bible's 6 days, either. Genesis was written largely in poetic format, and ancient Hebrew poetry has a great deal of figurative and symbolic language.

Unless that's all been fabricated in an instant by God. But then I'd ask, when exactly did he start the "real" clock going? Yesterday? With Jesus' birth? 10,000 years ago? 100,000?

But I guess that's a topic for another thread...

Not necessarily. :D God started our clock as soon as the earth started rotating and orbiting around the sun. How long ago that was, I don't know. But is it really that important in the big scheme of things?

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Chip
It seems to me that the so called "believers" in this thread are somewhat hostile. Skeered???

I ain't skeered, Chip. :wink2:

There is not one, and I mean not one, shred of proof of existence of a "supreme" being.

This statement is simply untrue. There is an enormous amount of evidence that point toward God. If you choose to ignore it or dismiss it, I can't stop you, and I will not attempt to force feed it to you. That's the beauty of free will. I will respect your choice.

Once I was able to peel away the years of drilled-in Christian guilt and start to think for myself and not what others "thought" for me, I was able to see without blinders for the first time.

Not to be derrogatory, but this type of sentiment seems to be awfully common among ex-Catholics. (I know you weren't a Catholic, Chip, but you were exposed to Catholic doctrine and teaching practices.) I can't really speak very intelligently about the Catholic faith. It's very complex and regimented, from what little I do know. Not a lot of freedom, from what I've seen. Perhaps Lexy or one of the other Catholic members could shed some light here? :thinking:

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by slydevl
The power of prayer IS scientifically proven and recognized as a valid medical treatment.

Many doctors will acknowledge that prayer is a helpful tool in recovery, as it usually aids in the patients spirits and will to recover. Believers will take belief in prayer to a whole other level, but that application is NOT widely acknowledged as being legitimate.

I see a duality here. When scientists were making landmark discoveries in the early days of the church, they were written off as acts of the devil or heresy, mainly due to the ingorance and pride of the church leaders of that day.

Today, occurances of what believers call 'miracles' are often labeled 'anomalies' by scientists. Interesting, don't you think?

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by slydevl
Not from Genesis but from later scriptures.

Here is a good article explaining it and I think answering your initial question about the serpent at the end:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3784.asp

Good one, Sly. I didn't read the entire article, but the verses were correct.

Snoil, the chronology of Satan goes like this:

God creates the archangel Lucifer, whose name is derived from the word for "light". According to the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament, Lucifer was the best, most beautiful, and most powerful angel God ever created. But like all God's creatures, he was given free will.

At some point, Lucifer rebelled against God. My personal theory is when He created man and favored us, but I have no proof of that. When he did that, God cast him down to earth and out of heaven. Lucifer either indwelt a snake, or morphed into one, and tempted Adam and Eve to disobey God's restriction and eat from the tree. God changed Lucifer's name to Satan, which means 'accuser'. Satan's mission is to prove to God that He made the wrong choice in favoring us over him.

God knew this would happen, which is why His plan from the beginning was to send Jesus down to save us from our sins and His judgment. However, God did not cause Lucifer to turn away from Him. He did not cause Lucifer to tempt Adam and Eve (or anyone else since), and He did not cause Adam and Eve to choose sin over obedience to the God they knew and walked with.

To have free will, you must be able to choose. With only one option, a choice cannot be made, and one is not truly free.

Yes, God knew we would all choose our own way instead of His at some point. That is why Jesus' sacrifice had to cover ALL sin, so that none would have to face God's judgment. The work has already been done. The choice is ours.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
...I found that the christian church was more of a money making machine filled with hypocricy.

I have found that, too. I went to four churches in Arkansas and California before I found one I wanted to belong to. The church I go to now meets in a junior high gymnasium. They truly hate talking about money, and I'm on the board of trustees, so I see how the money is spent. There are exceptions to the rule, but not many I'm afraid.

Let's take the Jehovah's Witnesses for example.

This was a mystery to me, too, but here's how I understand it. They believe the most righteous 144,000 Witnesses will go to heaven and rule with God. The rest of those who are saved will be resurrected to live on the new earth God will create after His Revelation judgments.

Some other examples of JWs "new light", they allow vaccinations now, they allow organ transplants now, they allow women to wear pants, they now say no one knows when the world will end (they have a bunch of "missed" predictions on this one.)

This lack of doctrinal consistency is a bone of contention I have with the Mormons and Jews, but I was not aware the JW's are guilty of it too. IMO, you cannot equate commentary to core doctrine. The inconsistency of commentary damages its credibility.

Currently, one can only look at the pedophile preists in the catholic church to see pure hypocricy.

Agreed. Many churches have serious problems to deal with. As I have stated before, as long as people are involved in religion, it's going to be messed up somehow. Not necessarily because the doctrine is faulty, and certainly not because God is flawed, but people certainly are. The Protestants' biggest challenge right now is probably judgmentalism and pornography. The Muslims are obviously dealing with radicalism. I don't believe any belief system is totally safe and pristine, because people are not.

[builder]

Originally posted by hasbeens99
God started our clock as soon as the earth started rotating and orbiting around the sun. How long ago that was, I don't know. But is it really that important in the big scheme of things?

For those without blind faith. Yes.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by builder
For those without blind faith. Yes.

Why? :thinking: Does that particular issue really speak that much to you about the credibility of the Christian faith?

(genuinely curious -- no ill will intended :) )

[Superfluous_Nut]

So God created Lucifer and then Man and Lucifer got pissed and disobeyed God and was cast out of Heaven. Okay, so Lucifer ends up corrupting Man? Who corrupted Lucifer? Was man capable of corrupting himself? So then there's like, what, thousands of years before Jesus comes to finally save everybody? Why didn't he send him down a bit earlier? Like with Moses or something? Why wait so long?

[builder]

Originally posted by hasbeens99


Why? :thinking: Does that particular issue really speak that much to you about the credibility of the Christian faith?

(genuinely curious -- no ill will intended :) )


But is it really that important in the big scheme of things? - That statement. Everything should be important in the big scheme of things. You can't just dismiss a question because you don't have an answer. That's like a mother telling a 7 year old "because I (god) said so." Which....is the foundation of Christianity. I didn't buy it from mom when I was 7. Ain't gonna buy it now either.

[Tiorted Snoil]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
So God created Lucifer and then Man and Lucifer got pissed and disobeyed God and was cast out of Heaven. Okay, so Lucifer ends up corrupting Man? Who corrupted Lucifer? Was man capable of corrupting himself? So then there's like, what, thousands of years before Jesus comes to finally save everybody? Why didn't he send him down a bit earlier? Like with Moses or something? Why wait so long?

To further this...God created Lucifer to currupt man. Man wrote the Bible. How do you know Satan didn't write the bible or parts of the bible to corrupt us?

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil


To further this...God created Lucifer to currupt man. Man wrote the Bible. How do you know Satan didn't write the bible or parts of the bible to corrupt us? this is a blatant falsehood. God gave lucifer a free will and he chose to rebel against God and God cast him out heaven. Lucifer went to earth and tempted man.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by builder
But is it really that important in the big scheme of things? - That statement. Everything should be important in the big scheme of things. You can't just dismiss a question because you don't have an answer. That's like a mother telling a 7 year old "because I (god) said so." Which....is the foundation of Christianity. I didn't buy it from mom when I was 7. Ain't gonna buy it now either.

I'm sorry Builder. That statement was a feeble, but innocent attempt to direct the discussion on the present and future, but came across as being flippant. I apologize.

And I agree, when you're searching for "truth", you can't really dismiss anything, whether there are answers to be had or not.

Christianity does not have a definitive beginning of time that I'm aware of. The Christian calendar tends to split time by the birth of Christ. How far back B.C. goes I have not seen, and I doubt if a hard figure really exists within the faith. If you take everything in the Old Testament literally, the earth is roughly 6,000 years old. I doubt that's accurate. But it could be.

However, I would argue that secular science doesn't have much better to offer. I've heard ranges dating the earth in millions of years to billions. That's quite a spread. I personally believe that science will develop better and better theories, but at the end of the day, that's still all they'll have. I don't see a way to verify the age of anything that old. But again, that's just my personal opinion.

[Miss tery]

Two nuns are riding their bikes down the back streets of Rome.
One leans over to the other and says,
"You know, I've never come this way before."
The other nun whispers, "It's the cobblestones."

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
So God created Lucifer and then Man and Lucifer got pissed and disobeyed God and was cast out of Heaven.

Not exactly. Current theology suggests that Lucifer became jealous of mankind and rebelled against God. For this he was cast out of heaven. Man was not pissed at God at all. They just chose to believe the talking snake and follow his suggestion in direct disobedience to God.

Okay, so Lucifer ends up corrupting Man?

No. Man corrupted himself. Lucifer tempted man. Man must take responsibility before God for his own decision. Adam and Eve could have told the snake to get lost.

Who corrupted Lucifer?

He corrupted himself by his choice to stand against God.

So then there's like, what, thousands of years before Jesus comes to finally save everybody? Why didn't he send him down a bit earlier? Like with Moses or something? Why wait so long?

That's a great question, and one I've asked myself dozens of times. Why go through all of that other stuff? Why go through the Flood? Seems as if the world ever needed a Savior, it was then. But the Bible says by that point (just before the Flood), God was sorry He even created man. He wanted to wipe the earth clean and start over. And with the exception of Noah's family, He did.

I don't know for sure, but I think He needed time to build enough cultural evidence through prophecies to build a credibility base. Looking at what God led Israel through, I also think he had to show them that they did indeed need a Savior. There may be many more reasons, and we may not know them all until Jesus returns. But so far, those are the best two reasons I've come up with.

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
Two nuns are riding their bikes down the back streets of Rome.
One leans over to the other and says,
"You know, I've never come this way before."
The other nun whispers, "It's the cobblestones." This is pretty good.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Tiorted Snoil
To further this...God created Lucifer to currupt man.

Not exactly, although I can definitely see how it could seem that way.

God created Lucifer knowing he would corrupt man, but again, God didn't force him to. It was still Lucifer's choice, as it continues to be.

Man wrote the Bible. How do you know Satan didn't write the bible or parts of the bible to corrupt us?

Most Christians would tell you that through the centuries God has protected the integrity of the Bible, and I would agree with that. It would be in His interest and ours to do so. Practically speaking, though, I would say that Satan's influence in the Scriptures would stick out like a sore thumb. It wouldn't fit with the universal themes of the Bible. That's one of the reasons so many of the other apostles' and disciples' letters and gospels were not included in the New Testament when it was compiled. They did not coincide with the rest of the Bible.

On a side note, that's one of the big differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. Lexy should be able to verify this. Catholics tend to include many of those other texts as supplements to the Bible. (i.e. the gospels of Thomas Didymus and Mary)

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
Two nuns are riding their bikes down the back streets of Rome.
One leans over to the other and says,
"You know, I've never come this way before."
The other nun whispers, "It's the cobblestones."

Tery, up until this point, you've been contributing thoughtfully to this discussion. I would welcome your added insights. But if your thoughtful insights have run dry, I'd appreciate you not posting this sort of inflammatory material, okay?

[Miss tery]

So much pathetic bullshit has been posted here that I thought I should join the party.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
So much pathetic bullshit has been posted here that I thought I should join the party.

Sorry, this isn't that kind of party. The pathetic bullshit party is in Meatpile's morning defecation thread. :D

[Miss tery]

The focus always comes back to the xians....but that is what most of you folks are, so that is understandable.

But that has no more validity than any other faith-based religion in the world, and it bores me to see you squabble about your particular faith.

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
So much pathetic bullshit has been posted here that I thought I should join the party. here again you force us to dismiss you and your lack of intellect. tho the nun joke made me chuckle. i'm still trying to get my info in order so i can cite in the irrefutable way it is meant to be.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
The focus always comes back to the xians....but that is what most of you folks are, so that is understandable.

But that has no more validity than any other faith-based religion in the world, and it bores me to see you squabble about your particular faith.

Okay, I can understand that. If you'd like to start a thread about your beliefs in the progression of science, or if anyone else would like to start a thread about other belief systems, I'm all for it! I'd love to learn about other ways of thinking. Seriously. :)

[Miss tery]

Not talking about science, just religions.

They all have equal merit and deserve equal respect. Buddists, Hindus, Seventh Day Adventists, Christians, Jews, Shinto, .......you get the idea.

All are faith-based, not factual. That is why our government is secular, and why science is secular.

[hasbeens99]

Originally posted by Miss_tery
Not talking about science, just religions.

But you believe in the progress of science, right? Why not start a thread to discuss / explain in depth your beliefs?

They all have equal merit and deserve equal respect. Buddists, Hindus, Seventh Day Adventists, Christians, Jews, Shinto, .......you get the idea.

I'll agree that all peoples deserve respect. But as far as all religions being equally worthy of respect, I'd have to hold off an opinion on that until I was educated on them. I try not to make broad sweeping comments about that which I am ignorant of.

All are faith-based, not factual. That is why our government is secular, and why science is secular.

I respectfully disagree. There is ample evidence to support many religions.

I believe our government is secular for two reasons:

1) The Supreme Court ruling which birthed the doctrine of 'separation of church and state'.

2) To maintain the current interpretation of 'freedom of religion', our government has decided that no religion is easier to accommodate than every religion.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by hasbeens99


Not exactly, although I can definitely see how it could seem that way.

God created Lucifer knowing he would corrupt man, but again, God didn't force him to. It was still Lucifer's choice, as it continues to be.



Most Christians would tell you that through the centuries God has protected the integrity of the Bible, and I would agree with that. It would be in His interest and ours to do so. Practically speaking, though, I would say that Satan's influence in the Scriptures would stick out like a sore thumb. It wouldn't fit with the universal themes of the Bible. That's one of the reasons so many of the other apostles' and disciples' letters and gospels were not included in the New Testament when it was compiled. They did not coincide with the rest of the Bible.

On a side note, that's one of the big differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. Lexy should be able to verify this. Catholics tend to include many of those other texts as supplements to the Bible. (i.e. the gospels of Thomas Didymus and Mary)


I find the history of the New Testament interesting. I've seen where many of the books overlap in telling the same story. Which makes sense considering they were never intended to be considered as a single large scripture. What is your view of the books that were left out of the New Testament? Or for that matter, what is your opinion of Constantine's motivation for creating the New Testament in the first place? Don't you find many of his choices to be rather arbitrary? And don't those choices influence Christianity even today? Heck, the Jews are probably still scratching their heads over the whole Sabbath thing...