-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
How Can Anyone Believe in God?
- Thread starter RDK
- Start date
- Status
HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
Hmm...I don't think so. When you say 'a set of premises' I take it to mean you say faith is a set of axioms. Faith is simply the belief in something regardless of the evidence pertaining to it. It is not a system. "Theism" is a set of premises, perhaps.
OK, I will explain my reasoning. Please tell me where I made a mistake.
-Science is a system of getting knowledge, via scientific method. If some theory or argument is scientific, it uses the scientific method, and nothing else.
-Any method of getting knowledge that does not adhere to the scientific method is by necessity unscientific. If it does not use scientific method, or if it uses anything that is manifestly NOT the scientific method, it is unscientific (just the contrapositive).
-Faith in something is independent of scientific evidence.
-Such evidence is necessary to make a claim or hold a belief, scientifically.
-Therefore faith does not use the scientific method (indeed, it is practically DISJOINT from it), it is unscientific, and science rejects it as a legitimate reason for a claim or a path to a belief.
snex
Smash Master
if faith is not an argument form, then to say that faith can "lead" to a conclusion is absolute nonsense. you cant have it both ways, either faith can lead to conclusions, in which case it is useless since it leads to so many obviously false ones, or it cannot lead to conclusions, in which case it makes no sense to say that you believe in god because of it.
Ryancbigfoot
Smash Rookie
Religion is a made up thing dwelling in our minds. We want there to be a purpose for life. Religion was started by poor people and slaves because there life sucked so much they wanted there to be a better place somewhere. They wanted someone to be on their side and this idea grew and grew and became every religion today. Now tell me how does this part of science, philosophy yes... science no. Science is true and can be proven, if it can not be proven or proven false it is not science. Religious believes can not be proven true and some aspects of the bible are fake so. Science can not end religion. They need to stay separate or we might as well go back to the 13th century.
D
Deleted member
Guest
I'm writing a 3000 word essay on the Fallacy of Atheism or something to that length, so when I finish it I might post it. Who knows.
Yeah, I'm going anal, sorry. :/
But! This discussion has been very helpful in preparation for this essay, I can just use old posts and fix them up. Easy.
Yeah, I'm going anal, sorry. :/
But! This discussion has been very helpful in preparation for this essay, I can just use old posts and fix them up. Easy.
I joined the debaters group just to post in this thread...
But now that I see there are already 50+ pages and I don't have the time to read through them all, I honestly don't know what to say. It would be safe to assume most of it has been said.
I suppose I will just start at the beginning.
Religion started as a way of explaining the unexplainable. Early man had no idea what the sun was. they just knew it came up every morning and went down at night. Later they realized it was the source of warmth, they noticed that many plants direct their leaves to the sun no matter where it is in the sky. They found this amazing and puzzling. Surely the sun must be commanding the plants to behave this way!
You can see how sun worship arose from this. If the sun could command the plants then it must be a living entity right? It must be powerful indeed to warm the earth as it does.
But now these early men are noticing more odd things. Eclipses, tides, lightning and thunder, the moon even. How to explain all of these things? Well the moon is easy. It is the suns brother, comes out at night to watch over the earth while the sun rests. Eclipses are the result of the sun and moon getting together to discuss politics. The tides are caused by mother earth herself.
I hope you can see how these eventually lead to the early polytheistic religions, the Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks being the most well known. The earliest hebrews were polytheistic, believing in several gods (whose names escape me) but one in particular, Yahweh stood out as the favorite. He was the son of two other gods and was generally a good guy, not powerful at all (unlike his father who was the king of the gods) but had a love for the people and wanted to protect them.
Eventually most of the early Hebrew tribes began to worship only Yahweh and began giving him powers he did not originally have. Over time he became a mixture of the old Yahweh and the father 'king' of the old hebrew gods. So this amalgam leads up to the Yahweh or jewish god of the old testament, which is also the Christian and islamic god as well. Of course the christians gave him a son they called Jesus.
Isn't it really obvious what religion actually is? Isn't it just that obvious that religion is ancient mans best attempts at explaining the unexplainable? Why do you think every religion has a creation story? Why does every religion have stories about where everything came from and why it is here? Why is nearly every religion so alike in this manner yet differ so much in the detail of the story?
It is because it is all the same thing. It all came from an earlier eras imagination.
Why are we still believing in this stuff? I don't know. I don't believe it. I can only guess that most believers were simply indoctrinated as little children by their parents. It is hard to reject something you have been told was true since you were old enough to talk. But I notice you didn't have as hard a time when you found out Santa wasn't real. And admit it, you KNEW Santa was real didn't you! How you would have argued and maybe even fought against anybody who said otherwise. But you eventually found out didn't you. Think about that.
So there you have it. The most honest account of the creation of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god I could tell from my memory of the research I've done. Granted, there may be some errors but the general idea behind it is all there and that is what is important.
I just don't see the need for religion to explain things anymore. We've outgrown it. We don't need it. And it is causing us much more pain and suffering than it is worth.
But now that I see there are already 50+ pages and I don't have the time to read through them all, I honestly don't know what to say. It would be safe to assume most of it has been said.
I suppose I will just start at the beginning.
Religion started as a way of explaining the unexplainable. Early man had no idea what the sun was. they just knew it came up every morning and went down at night. Later they realized it was the source of warmth, they noticed that many plants direct their leaves to the sun no matter where it is in the sky. They found this amazing and puzzling. Surely the sun must be commanding the plants to behave this way!
You can see how sun worship arose from this. If the sun could command the plants then it must be a living entity right? It must be powerful indeed to warm the earth as it does.
But now these early men are noticing more odd things. Eclipses, tides, lightning and thunder, the moon even. How to explain all of these things? Well the moon is easy. It is the suns brother, comes out at night to watch over the earth while the sun rests. Eclipses are the result of the sun and moon getting together to discuss politics. The tides are caused by mother earth herself.
I hope you can see how these eventually lead to the early polytheistic religions, the Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks being the most well known. The earliest hebrews were polytheistic, believing in several gods (whose names escape me) but one in particular, Yahweh stood out as the favorite. He was the son of two other gods and was generally a good guy, not powerful at all (unlike his father who was the king of the gods) but had a love for the people and wanted to protect them.
Eventually most of the early Hebrew tribes began to worship only Yahweh and began giving him powers he did not originally have. Over time he became a mixture of the old Yahweh and the father 'king' of the old hebrew gods. So this amalgam leads up to the Yahweh or jewish god of the old testament, which is also the Christian and islamic god as well. Of course the christians gave him a son they called Jesus.
Isn't it really obvious what religion actually is? Isn't it just that obvious that religion is ancient mans best attempts at explaining the unexplainable? Why do you think every religion has a creation story? Why does every religion have stories about where everything came from and why it is here? Why is nearly every religion so alike in this manner yet differ so much in the detail of the story?
It is because it is all the same thing. It all came from an earlier eras imagination.
Why are we still believing in this stuff? I don't know. I don't believe it. I can only guess that most believers were simply indoctrinated as little children by their parents. It is hard to reject something you have been told was true since you were old enough to talk. But I notice you didn't have as hard a time when you found out Santa wasn't real. And admit it, you KNEW Santa was real didn't you! How you would have argued and maybe even fought against anybody who said otherwise. But you eventually found out didn't you. Think about that.
So there you have it. The most honest account of the creation of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god I could tell from my memory of the research I've done. Granted, there may be some errors but the general idea behind it is all there and that is what is important.
I just don't see the need for religion to explain things anymore. We've outgrown it. We don't need it. And it is causing us much more pain and suffering than it is worth.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Saying that "Hillary Clinton is down by about 100 delegates leads me to believe that she will lose the democratic candidacy" has the same issue.
You see, it's not stated in terms of formal logic.
There's a hidden p -> q within both "faith leads me to believe x" and ""Hillary Clinton is down by about 100 delegates leads me to believe that she will lose the democratic candidacy"
That p -> q is the actual argument, and that's what can be invalid.
But faith itself is a premise.
A premise is a claim that is a reason for or objection against. Faith is also an axiom, but whenever faith is used for one of those purposes it becomes a premise within the context of a debate.
The bolded section.
Science does not necessarily reject what is unscientific as invalid. That is because there are two types of "unscientific".
Something can be unfalsifiable and thus science declines to study it (again, check the philosophy of science for this, Karl Popper specifically) because it simply does not fit into into it's method of discerning. For a programming metaphor, it's equivalent to giving a method that accepts an int and a long just an int as an argument. Such things are absolutely unscientific, but science makes no conclusions about anything in that category, including uniform rejection.
On the other hand, something can be falsifiable but people can decline to use the scientific method on it. In that case science does comment on the validity of the unscientific thing and rejects it as soon as there is a conflict between the observed value and the value obtained in the unscientific method.
However, these concepts are absolutely discrete, and saying that all "unscientific" is the same in the view of the philosophy of science is incorrect.
Fundamental issue here, assuming that this is in fact correct (merely a disclaimer in case I missed something) where does this prove the actual incorrectness of the conclusion?
Something can easily be obtained through bad methodology which is true, for instance, if I try to obtain 2*2 by addition. Sure my methodology is wrong, but does that make the answer wrong, 2*2 and 2+2 both equal 4.
That's why we the appeal to Logic fallacy which states that poor logic used to obtain a conclusion does not make the conclusion wrong. It just makes the argument used to support it wrong and requires that a correct argument be produced to support the answer.
Whatever the anthropological origins of religion, none of it proves that religion as it exists now is wrong.
DuskMarthWater
Dude.
Hmmm...HR, you have an interesting way of putting that. I see now the intricacies of this debate. I can't prove it to you that faith is truth, no. Why? Because there is no science to prove that the Bible is true. Hmmm...interesting. I can't persuade you otherwise, I know, but just a point: didn't religion come before science did? I think they're connected. Science cannot, nor will it ever be able to, answer all the riddles of the world. The only explanation, to me, for the things which will never be explained, is that there is a God.
Also, remember my original definition of faith: believing in things which are hoped for, and not seen.
Also, remember my original definition of faith: believing in things which are hoped for, and not seen.
Now what makes you say a thing like that? (I have an entire thread devoted to just that subject.)
DuskMarthWater
Dude.
Do you? You should let me read it. I love to see different opinions and such.
Well...what makes me think that is that it has always been that way. No matter how many riddles we solve, they will only open more mysteries to solve. History has shown this through the ages, and it has repeated, as history is prone to do. Therefore, I believe that it will continue to do that. Hmmm...I don't if this will help, but I'll try: if someone were to be talking about matter, and how it was used to create organisms and planets, I would ask: where did that matter come from? Now, you may be able to explain that to me, but then I'd ask for an explanation for that explanation. Where did that come from, or why did that happen? Eventually, there is a point past no one can ever go, because there will always be questions. You can solve all the mysteries you want, you can tell me where anything comes from, but you can't tell me where the origin of the basic has come from. Does that make any sense, that last line? You can simplify things to a point, but then there's no logical explanation for where it came from anymore. Hopefully that makes sense how I want it to make sense, hehe.
Well...what makes me think that is that it has always been that way. No matter how many riddles we solve, they will only open more mysteries to solve. History has shown this through the ages, and it has repeated, as history is prone to do. Therefore, I believe that it will continue to do that. Hmmm...I don't if this will help, but I'll try: if someone were to be talking about matter, and how it was used to create organisms and planets, I would ask: where did that matter come from? Now, you may be able to explain that to me, but then I'd ask for an explanation for that explanation. Where did that come from, or why did that happen? Eventually, there is a point past no one can ever go, because there will always be questions. You can solve all the mysteries you want, you can tell me where anything comes from, but you can't tell me where the origin of the basic has come from. Does that make any sense, that last line? You can simplify things to a point, but then there's no logical explanation for where it came from anymore. Hopefully that makes sense how I want it to make sense, hehe.
Shiny Noctowl
Smash Rookie
Your argument is invalid because of two assumptions you make. No matter how obvious they seem, you can't assume them without any form of proof. The two assumptions you made are:
1. The senses (and therefore empirical evidence) are reliable.
2. The scientific method is valid. (This assumes that #1 is true.)
The Executive
Smash Lord
Here's science's answer to "God".
Now, the existence and/or discovery of this theory is about as likely in my mind as finding empirical evidence for the existence of God (which won't happen because it would nullify the need for faith, which is the cornerstone of Christianity).AltF4Warrior said:
DuskMarthWater
Dude.
Hmmm...that...is one deep statement. And it would indeed end all forms of science as we know it.
I agree with you, Executive. If people had the complete, 100% knowledge of God or anything concerning religion, there would be no need for faith and it would simply be called 'knowledge.' I don't think that that theory will be proven any time soon, hehe.
I agree with you, Executive. If people had the complete, 100% knowledge of God or anything concerning religion, there would be no need for faith and it would simply be called 'knowledge.' I don't think that that theory will be proven any time soon, hehe.
Erich:
The thread's name is "The Ultimate Goal of Science" right here in the debate hall. The Executive quoted me from it. Any more discussion about that stuff would probably be better suited there.
The thread's name is "The Ultimate Goal of Science" right here in the debate hall. The Executive quoted me from it. Any more discussion about that stuff would probably be better suited there.
HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
adumbrodeus:
I said that science rejects faith as a legitimate reason for a claim or a path to a belief. Not that any conclusions reached by faith are necessarily incorrect. I think I'm saying the same thing as you when you say "science declines to study it because it simply does not fit into into it's method of discerning."
I said that science rejects faith as a legitimate reason for a claim or a path to a belief. Not that any conclusions reached by faith are necessarily incorrect. I think I'm saying the same thing as you when you say "science declines to study it because it simply does not fit into into it's method of discerning."
Actually, I need not assume either in my proof. I simply used the definition of what science and faith are. My conclusion follows from their definitions only; at no point did I invoke anything regarding empirical evidence or the infallibility of the scientific method.
Shiny Noctowl
Smash Rookie
You assume that the scientific method is valid when you say that the fact that faith doesn't follow the scientific method makes it bad. The scientific method assumes that empirical evidence is reliable, which is not the case because it relies on the senses (whether by humans actually measuring it themselves or by machines measuring it, neither is reliable).
Even if you don't assume those in your proof, your argument is still invalid because you only show that faith is bad if one believes that science is the ultimate measure of truth. However, science isn't necessarily the ultimate measure of truth, because it assumes that the scientific method is valid, which further assumes that the senses (and therefore empirical evidence) are reliable. Neither the validity of the scientific method nor the reliability of the senses can be proven, so your whole argument falls apart.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
His proof never said anywhere that faith is "bad". It simply said that faith is unscientific by definition.
Why didn't you respond to my refutation of this garbage on the other thread? Stop preaching the same nonsense on different threads. It shows you're simply copying similar arguments hoping it answers a bunch of different questions. It's rather insulting. It's like if you send the same letter to 20 different people. Each letter would have to be impersonal. Except in this case, you're not just sending an introductory letter, you're answering people's questions.
You're trying to treat every topic like it requires the same response, which it doesn't. You're not making any new/good arguments, just rehashing the same bad ones written by someone else (obviously!).
-blazed
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
It's subtle, but there is a difference.
By declining to study what is not falsifiable, the scientific method just doesn't study said topics. It doesn't draw any conclusions in regards to those methodologies and the involved premises and axioms, including legitimacy or lack thereof.
Legitimacy really never enters into the question, the philosophy of science is very pragmatic. Anything that isn't useful for finding things out is ignored almost always ignored.
Except that it does just that.
My account on the origins of religion is in direct conflict with what the religions themselves say are their origins. If the religion is right as it exists today, then its own origin tale must also be correct, which it is not. The whole idea behind a burning bush, parting seas, noahs ark, 72 virgins, virgin births, all that nonsense never happened because the religion was the product of mans imagination and want to explain the unexplainable.
Of course the only real way out of this is to claim the origin tale I have given is incorrect, and it may well be. I was reciting it from memory only and left out a great deal though the general idea is there. BUT there is a lot of evidence to support the general idea of the story and show the gradual evolution of todays organized religions from simple sun and ancestor worship.
The one critical flaw in this argument is this:
Science works.
If the scientific method was unreliable as you claim, then all of the calculations, all of the results of experiments, all of the technology derived from those unreliable measurements simply wouldn't work.
If you add up all of the (supposedly) flawed measurements, observations, calculations, theories, procedures, data, analysis, production, prediction, experimentation, and application needed to launch a probe to mars, then the resulting compounded error would make it impossible to even put the rocket together, much less launch it successfully and land the probe safely on the surface of another planet. To even calculate the speed, distance, and position of the planet mars relative to earth, then from that calculate the exact moments and durations needed for firing rockets and directional boosters, would be impossible.
Yet, they pulled it off without a hitch.
Amazing what precision science can achieve with (supposedly) unreliable methods.
Shiny Noctowl
Smash Rookie
The only way to determine whether a scientific theory or law is correct is to observe it. However, the senses can't be proven reliable (just look at an optical illusion), so a theory can never truly be proven.
Since you seem to think the senses are so great, give a proof, using only logic (observations can't be used because they assume that the senses are reliable), that the senses are completely reliable.
HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
That's why we have machines to make our observations FOR us. Nobody went up to an electron and went, "hmm....it FEELS like the charge to mass ratio is [whatever it is]" We used instruments to determine it. Unless you're trying to say that our ability to read a number off a computer screen is unreliable.
And you don't understand scientific method if you think any scientist believes that a theory can be proved in the sense of absolute metaphysical certainty. Science always comes with error bars and upper/lower limits. Even things that we take for granted like conservation of energy, the masslessness of the photon, Newton's 3rd law, etc., have ALL been tested and we have bounds on our experimental ability to verify them. No scientists will say (when not speaking colloquially) that these laws are completely and totally immutable everywhere in the universe at every time.
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
These issues debated are based off of assumptions that I find debatable if not wrong.
Some argue that a God who loves us would not let us experience pain and suffering (especially to the extent that some feel). I would like to counter this idea with a sense of God that acts as a parent. The ideal parent would combine mercy with the freedomo for his child to make mistakes and learn from them. With this freedom comes the risk of danger; with free will comes the risk of personally succumbing to wordly ideals (sins), which are strongly repudiated in the Bible and the risk of being harmed by others with the same free will. This could almost be seen as a Deist prespective; however, God has not relinquished all power to humans. His love is evident throughout the world always. But you probably won't see the beauty in the world if all you focus on is the ugly.
There's an argument you might hear quite often from a "Christian" : that a God HAS to exist because there is so much natural beauty in the world. That, for Christians, is more like a reaffirmation that amongst the sorrow and pain, there is light and hope. I personally do not believe that such a statement is too effective for someone who is questioning the existance of God.
Another assumption I would like to address is the assumption that "science" contradicts Christianity. I would argue that scientific findings can compliment Christianity. Really, science has only (supposedly) countered the first few pages of Genesis, which discuss Adam and Eve. Skeptics claim that the Bible, taken literally verbatim, and science, principally never proven fact and forever incomplete, must oppose one another just because the literal interpretation of the creation of man does not agree with a theory. This theory, of course, concerns evolution. As a logical thinker, I believe in evolution; as a Christian, I believe in divine creation of man. I do not see why these concepts cannot be mutual in that a divine being devised evolution. Do I know how? No, I missed class on that day of notes.
Some argue that a God who loves us would not let us experience pain and suffering (especially to the extent that some feel). I would like to counter this idea with a sense of God that acts as a parent. The ideal parent would combine mercy with the freedomo for his child to make mistakes and learn from them. With this freedom comes the risk of danger; with free will comes the risk of personally succumbing to wordly ideals (sins), which are strongly repudiated in the Bible and the risk of being harmed by others with the same free will. This could almost be seen as a Deist prespective; however, God has not relinquished all power to humans. His love is evident throughout the world always. But you probably won't see the beauty in the world if all you focus on is the ugly.
There's an argument you might hear quite often from a "Christian" : that a God HAS to exist because there is so much natural beauty in the world. That, for Christians, is more like a reaffirmation that amongst the sorrow and pain, there is light and hope. I personally do not believe that such a statement is too effective for someone who is questioning the existance of God.
Another assumption I would like to address is the assumption that "science" contradicts Christianity. I would argue that scientific findings can compliment Christianity. Really, science has only (supposedly) countered the first few pages of Genesis, which discuss Adam and Eve. Skeptics claim that the Bible, taken literally verbatim, and science, principally never proven fact and forever incomplete, must oppose one another just because the literal interpretation of the creation of man does not agree with a theory. This theory, of course, concerns evolution. As a logical thinker, I believe in evolution; as a Christian, I believe in divine creation of man. I do not see why these concepts cannot be mutual in that a divine being devised evolution. Do I know how? No, I missed class on that day of notes.
I just did. Logically, if our ability to measure and observe is unreliable, then anything we create would be flawed. If we create a flawed rocket designed to carry a probe to mars, then it would either explode on ignition, or just not fit together during assembly.
And science NEVER EVER says anything is proven 100%. That would be completely unscientific. What science does do however is say that a thing is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
And seriously, our susceptibility to optical illusions is an extremely poor argument in trying to deny our ability to observe evidence. It is akin to 'grabbing at straws'.
Besides, double blind testing, mechanical data gathering, and experimentation rule out any 'illusion of the senses' a researcher might experience.
Crystalnite said:
Science for the most part does contradict christianity and much much more than just the first few pages of genesis.
Science has proved the earth to be much more than 6500 years old. Science has proved the earth was not 'spoke' into existence. Science has proved there was never an Adam or Eve. Science has proved that animals (and all other life) evolved from previous forms through time and were NOT created 'as is' 6500 years ago. Science has proven that there was never a world wide flood. Science has proven that even if there was a flood, no way in hell could 2 of every land animal fit on an ark, or even get to the ark in the first place. Science has proven that there were never any hebrew slaves in Egypt, there was never a mass exodus through the desert and there was never a parting of the red sea. No burning bushes, no virgin births, no water to wine, no raising the dead, and it is doubtful that Jesus ever existed either.
So yes, science is at a bit of an odds with christianity.
And I think you underestimate the power of the word theory. As if you think a theory is just some wild guess or speculation. In science, a theory is the highest form of proof you can get. A theory is a collection of evidence, facts, observations, that all point to one end. A theory takes all of the facts, observations, and evidence, and explains why they all fit together so well. Even if the current theory of evolution were wrong, that would not mean evolution does not happen, it just means that our explanation of how it happens is wrong. For example, I am sure you know man used to think the sun orbited the earth. This fairly easily explained how the sun came up every morning. The FACT that the sun does come up every morning was not changed when man discovered the earth orbited the sun.
And concerning evolution, it needs no 'creator'. Evolution has no need of a designer to make it work or keep it going. It is a completely natural process. Tacking on a 'designer of evolution' as an afterthought only serves to confuse some people and appease others. It is like driving down the road in a car but claiming that an invisible horse is required to pull the car. It just isn't needed to explain why the car can travel down the road.
I suppose somebody like you could say "Ok, evolution explains how all the animals got here, but why couldn't God have started it off and let it run by itself?"
And somebody like me would say "Because he doesn't exist and just saying so to appease you leaves science at a dead end of understanding. There is a perfectly natural explanation for the origins of life and the origins of our universe and one day science will find it. Claiming "God did it!" leaves no understanding and no reason to look further.
If we just said "God did it!" when ever we were curious about something, we would be having this conversation through carrier pigeons and reading tiny slips of paper by candle light.
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
There is no way for me to flat out say "You are wrong" about the points you are making. I set out to argue that the theories of the past, such as creation, could work in conjunction with Biblical writings. However, the Bible/Christian Word does address these scientifically "improvable" thoughts that you have well outlined with the concept of faith. Of course, someone who does't give a care about Christianity or any other religion has no reason to all of a sudden believe that some guy morphed a cane into a snake or water into wine. But that's not the primary intent of the spread of Christianity. A belief in the stories of the Bible comes after a belief in Jesus, someone who's essence represents much more than a fairy tale or myth. The people who feel Jesus are doing much more than rituals and obligative fulfillment. The people who feel Jesus know Jesus as a savior and friend. Ultimately, Christianity at its core is a relationship, a deep and personal relationship that is mutual and infectious. Faith in Biblical "stories" really is one of the many offspring of real Christianity.
There are of course those who claim to be Christians who go to church every Sunday for some sort of personal fulfillment, just as others put up facades. In addition, people are all different and thus have relationships with Jesus manifested in different ways. Therefore, God tells us not to judge others for their beliefs, but to only bring them to know Jesus and help in whatever way possible to improve their relationship with Jesus and a fellow Christiana community. Hopefully, new Christians will then turn to bring others to know Jesus once their faith in him and relationship with him has grown enough.
I must sound like a preacher or something, but I really think that the new modern perspective on "Christianity" is so skewed and misinterpreted (due to common trends or people who falsely claim to be the leaders of Christianity) that it has been turned into a title that carries some political implications that are either extremely favored or highly disdained (like Republican or Democrat). Please know that it really is not and that a relationship with Jesus can manifest itself in as many different ways into people as there are relationships among humans in the world.
lol.
I very well understand your point about christianity being more about a relationship with jesus than just a collection of fairy tales and such.
But that is really my main problem with it. You said yourself that belief in the literal stories of the bible is a product of a personal relationship with jesus.
If a personal relationship with an imaginary person leads people to believe the earth is younger than some man made structures and certain trees, then I am thinking a personal relationship with Jesus is something that is hazardous to a persons mental health.
There is almost no evidence outside of the bible to support the idea that Jesus ever existed. As a matter of fact, there is more evidence for the existence of Dionysus than Jesus. Dionysus was a character from nearly the same time period who shares nearly all of the same stories as Jesus. Miracles, healing the sick, virgin birth, executed, raised from the dead, son of god, etc. etc. And there are many many others with nearly identical stories.
And even if Jesus did exist (I have no reason to doubt he did, but no proof that he did either) then he certainly was not the son of god or capable of performing anything more than parlor tricks.
So having a personal relationship with a man who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago, basically qualifies you as delusional. It is an imaginary friend. And this belief leads to other beliefs such as young earth creation, noahs ark, and taking bible stories as literal history, when every form of science and academic history completely disagrees.
This also leads to some people of such strong faith in their imaginary friend that they believe it is the only thing worth knowing and fight tooth and nail to have their belief injected into the class rooms of our children in place of actual knowledge and understanding.
And I find one particular line in your post sort of belittling and like many other things in the christian religion, very contradicting...
Don't judge others for their beliefs, but try as hard as you can to change their beliefs to ours. If you don't judge others beliefs, then why would you try so hard to change them? The very fact that you want to change them means you are judging them as lesser than your own. Trying to claim you are not judging them is very condescending.
I freely admit that my opinion of christian (well ALL religious) beliefs is really very low. I find them to be actually quite harmful to society as a whole and any good they do in the form of charities and such is greatly overshadowed by the absolute horror they are causing in the form of terrorism (not just islamic extremists) forcing political decisions in their favor, guilting people into giving money or having a specific viewpoint, denying basic human rights to certain groups of people, and the absolutely atrocious way they try to invade the education system.
I am sure the terrorism bit caught your attention. If you don't believe christian engage in terrorism, watch the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ28n3Lksck
It is nothing more than a scare tactic. Christians continually use the fear of eternal torture and pain in hell to convert adults and even the youngest children to their point of view. They create the false belief that hell is real and use it to literally scare people into belief that Jesus can save them from it.
The definition of terrorism is as follows - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
That was taken directly from the Merriam Webster online dictionary.
If that does not describe that video, I don't know what does. Have you ever seen the christian plays that are put on during classes that are designed to turn gay people straight? They are one big "Don't be gay or you will burn in hell!" -fest.
It is all very sickening to people who see through it all.
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
That number (6500) that is somehow calculated into finding the supposed age of the Earth according to the Bible is taken not directly stated in the Bible. It is yet another manmade assumption about the Bible that people have calculated based on one interpretation that every word in the Bible should be taken literally. I highly doubt that when God made the Earth, he took his massive hands and literally sculpted the giant Third Rock. The simple fact that he is a spirit and had only one physical manifestation contradicts any such thing. Another point is that God never put a "How I Did It" instruction manual into the Word to enlighten us on the calculations and measurements he took with respect to time and mass, etc. Just as he did other things, God left humans to explore their surroundings on their own for which action I find such fascination in Science. I think this whole Church vs. Science debate started during the Enlightenment when Catholicism was threatened by those who supported free thought without regard to the traditional beliefs of the church. But who is to say, as a Christian, that everything the Catholic Church said in the 1400's was absolutely true? After all, people like Martin Luther founded churches and belief systems (Protestantism) that were rooted in doctrines that strictly opposed the Catholic system. My point is that God outlined the framework for his plan of "Earth" in the Bible. The "How I Did It" is evident in the Earth through the human search for knowledge in the truth, science.
You compare Jesus and Dionysus as they are both myths, of whom evidence of existence according to studies of the past does not exist (or is at least scarce). This is what I tried to combat. Evidence of wine into water comes as a result of faith in Jesus. Ah, but what about belief in Jesus himself? Evidence in Jesus comes as yet another personal feeling. A feeling that the word "Love" has tried to outline, but have you ever "loved" someone truly? It's more a feeling that cannot be described by words. If anyone ever tried to say that that same person you love doesn't exist, well you could pull out a logical argument concerning physics that proves the physical existance of your loved one. But there is no way that you personally could deny that feeling of love that you feel for the person. Say you could not physically prove the existence of that love one; are you now delusional for that feeling you have? Maybe, but who am I to say that when I can't logically disprove your own feelings if I am not you? It is possible according to wordly logistics that you in fact are demented, but as someone who strongly feels that mutual love for that person, you stay faithful to that feeling. This feeling is shared among believers of Jesus worldwide.
This, unfortunately, is very true. What you have said and how it has influenced your conclusions is exactly what Christian doctrine specifically opposes. We, as Christians, are not supposed to shove Christianity "down people's throats" because it does exatly this: turn people away from belief in Jesus. When I say "spread Christianity," I should say "spread Jesus." The Spanish settlers in Southwest America spread Catholicism in the indigenous Indian cultures by force and without love. They were not spreading Jesus. We, as Christians, are supposed to walk in Jesus' footsteps and be as loving and kind as he was when he walked the Earth. Jesus, according to the Bible, attracted many followers not by degrading others (as a sort of Richard Wright), not by preaching "Hell Fire!!111!!" (as a sort of Jonathan Edwards [I think he was a Puritan; correct me if I'm wrong]), but by loving others and teaching those who were willing to hear.
"Judge" is a loaded word to say the least. Example: I should help spread belief in Jesus; I should not think of another as lower than me. Implication: A person's beliefs do not determine the "betterness" or "worseness" of one person relative to another; moreover, if motivated by love, a Christian should be spreading Jesus so that other people can feel his love. Problem: Some people forget the part about love and condescend the heck out of others and yell helfire to use some sort of scare tactic (you would call it terrorism) to bring people into yet another "religion." This, again, is like the Spanish Catholics when they came into the Americas in the 1400s.
As for the scare tactics themselves and their apparent dominance in the religious realm, I have to disagree. Conflict in places like the Middle East was not only addressed in the Bible, but those people are obviously not motivated by love. They are misguided. The terrorists who shout "Death to America" seriously believe, and it is written in their doctrines, that they need to kill their enemies. Assuming that we are discussing Islam, Sunni Muslims actually claim that the Shiites are wrong and have veered from true Islamic teachings that disdain violence. Islam is, after all, a religion that seeks converts, not martyrs. Likewise, sects of Christianity have veered from what others believe is true Christian doctrine; like I said before, people who shove Christian "religion" down others' throats are not supposed to do that. They are misguided.
But there I go "judging" people. Nevertheless, if Christians, as another group of people who seek converts, truly wish to bring others to know Jesus, they will have to logically address the problems of the world without blindly going out into the world worried about being politically correct and certainly without the shouting of "Hellfire!!!@!@!!11"
Dexter Morgan
Smash Apprentice
The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.
The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information... did it come about just by chance? Was it merely biological causes, perfectly forming the right tissue, blood flow, neurons, structure? The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. How does one explain the human brain?
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.
The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information... did it come about just by chance? Was it merely biological causes, perfectly forming the right tissue, blood flow, neurons, structure? The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. How does one explain the human brain?
Who says the Creator is actually the type of god christians believe in? That's only one way to view It. In my opinion, christianity is just people pulling the Creator down to our level so we can try to comprehend It. The rituals and beliefs of christianity in my eyes show nothing of what the Creator truly is. The reason alot of people say God doesn't exist may be because they only see the view of the christians. You cannot put the Creator in a book, you cannot put It in a building, you cannot lay It out and say this is what It is. The Creator is in everything, the Creator is in life, in death, in nature, in the soul. The Creator is beyond our comprehension, a force that we cannot mentally grasp.
Ever hear of the Anthropic Principle? I suggest you inform yourself.
And Crystalnite, your argument about loving Jesus is irrelevant. You can have "feelings" for an imaginary friend, but that doesn't mean the imaginary friend exists.
The number can be easily calculated from the bible using the genealogy charts listed in the bible and a few other entries that lead all the way up to jesus. After that, just add 2000 years and you come up with 6500 give or take a decade. You talk about this process as if it was some massive undertaking requiring a little math and a lot of guess work. But the truth is it is laid out in the bible and a surprisingly large number of people believe it as 100% truth. And the bible does spell out gods "how I did it" very clearly. He spoke things into existence. That is it. No evolution, no gravity, no magnetic forces, things just appear when he speaks in perfect working order. That is the only explanation a creationist will take. Perhaps you think there is more to it than that, but then that would just be pure speculation or 'just a guess' on your part, with absolutely no evidence to support your claim, not even the bible.
Your second paragraph is leading me to believe you think of jesus as more of a feeling than an actual person. If this was how everybody felt, then I feel christianity wouldn't be as big a problem as it is. But again there is a problem with this idea. Most people do not feel that way. They believe Jesus was a real person and some will literally kill to defend that idea. And if I have a loved one, I can prove they existed. First of all, they have a physical body, a family, there are birth records, school records, social security numbers, IDs, pictures, personal belongings, other people to confirm they have seen the person, etc. So yes I could prove somebody exists, and if I love that person I can not deny that love, but if I love somebody who never actually existed (I don't know how that could happen) then I would have no choice but to deny that love because it is literally a love for nothing.
The spread of jesus. The whole idea behind the christian spread of jesus is that a person can only enter heaven if they have a personal relationship with jesus. So if there is a person who has never heard of jesus, it is up to the good christian people to let them know. So basically, if somebody goes to hell because they never heard of jesus, or didn't spend enough time thinking about jesus, then it is the fault of whoever the closest christian to them was. This is why so many christians 'shove jesus down your throat' and try to scare you with hell and such. Never once do christians stop and think "Their beliefs might be the right ones, maybe they don't want to hear about jesus. Maybe hell is over rated and it is more like a sunny day on Hawaii and everybody should go there?" No, they just assume their myth is the right one and work hard to spread it because they are afraid of going to hell for allowing others to go to hell. It is a wonder anybody ever gets into heaven. So yes, christians are 'supposed' to go and convert as many other people as they can to christianity. It is part of being a good christian. Spread the word, the word of god. Blah blah blah.
Yes, judge is a loaded word but it has a simple definition. And I never said christians judge other people (though a lot of them do) but instead judge other peoples beliefs. You can't think your belief is superior to others without first judging that the other belief is lacking in some way. Sure, you can be nice about it and offer up kind words and fluffy kittens, but you are still judging. There is nothing wrong with this. I judge chrisitan beliefs as stupid just as they judge my beliefs so. But I don't insult the christians themselves by trying to claim I am not judging their beliefs.
You don't agree that religions use fear to sell their ideas? Did you not watch that video? It was made by a christian church. It is one of thousands. The entire new testament is full of jesus telling people what they have to do to not go to hell. Just go to your church and ask about any plays, skits, or films they have that they may use to 'convert' new people to the church or their programs for straightening out gay people. I bet you 90% of them use the fear of hell to that purpose. It may start out as praising jesus, or love this and that, but it always ends up with the 'or else' attached to it. And what do you really know about what islam is supposed to do? Well I suppose if it were the catholics, you could go to venice and ask the pope, or the somebody in the main offices of the catholic church. If it were mormons you could go to salt lake city Utah and ask. But what about the islams? They have no centralized leadership. It is up to each individual church to interpret their holy book on their own. No two muslims think the same way on anything. So yes, some are kind and gentle and want only converts, but others take the literal word of their book and go kill anybody who doesn't believe what they believe, even the other peaceful muslims.
Ok I can't let this go by unchallenged.
1. The size of the earth.
The size of the earth has really nothing to do with the chemical makeup of the atmosphere. If the earth were 80% of it's current size the atmosphere would be the same only thinner, such as it is on high mountain tops. If the earth were 120% it's current size, the atmosphere would be the same, only thicker, such as it would be a few thousand feet below sea level, if such a place existed. the chemical makeup of the atmosphere is determined by the amount of each chemical available on the planet. And yes, the earth is the only known planet with an atmosphere capable of sustaining human life. But who is to say that other forms of life could not survive in a different atmosphere? Life as we know it IS NOT the ONLY way life can exist.
2. The distance from the sun.
I suppose that means you didn't know that earths orbit is not a perfect circle but elliptical. So the earth is closer to the sun twice in a year than it is the other parts of the year. The change in distance from the sun is about 3.1 million miles. that is a fairly large change in distance considering the earth is roughly 8000 miles wide. So on a yearly basis the earth moves about 387 'earths' closer to the sun from its farthest point away. According to you we should all be roasting and freezing to death every year. And really, even if we moved two or 3 times that distance it wouldn't matter too much in terms of temperature. Our atmosphere and magnetic field keep us pretty well protected.
3. The moons size and distance.
The moon is receding. At a rate of 1.6 inches a year. 65 million years ago at the end of the dinosaurs, the moon was 1600 miles closer to the earth. 200 million years ago while dinosaurs were roaming the earth, the moon was 5000 miles closer than it is today. 1 billion years ago when life was still mostly single celled organisms with maybe a few multicellular guys and very very simple animals, the moon was 25,000 miles closer. The tides would have been much larger back then and yet life carried on seemingly unaware. It might be worth mentioning that the moon has nothing to do with the oceans inability to spill over the continents. Even if there were no moon the oceans would stay right where they are, and even if the moon was 10 times the size it is, we would only see massive tides, but surely no flooding of continents or anything as dramatic as that. And do you really think the tides are the only thing stopping the oceans from becoming stagnate? The tides affect such a small percentage of the oceans volume that would be impossible. Things like deep ocean currents, swimming fish, thunder storms, earth quakes, land slides, volcanoes, and the largest contributor, photo plankton which releases more oxygen into the oceans than all the trees on land combined release.
4. The human brain (as opposed to any other brain I guess)
Yep, sure is amazing isn't it? I suggest you put yours to use and actually study how evolution works so you don't look foolish by saying things like "...did it come about just by chance?" because that is NOT how evolution says it happened.
There is a clear and unarguable line showing the evolution of the brain from the most basic of nervous systems to simple brains, and advancing all the way up to the complicated brains of primates (including humans) and other somewhat intelligent animals such as dolphins, elephants, dogs, and some birds.
There is no arguing that there are less amazing and simpler brains than our own in the animals kingdom correct? So what is so impossible about one of those brains becoming slightly more complicated? What is so impossible about that brain becoming slightly more complicated a few more times? Eventually it becomes a complicated brain.
Evolution is anything but chance. Natural selection is a strong driving force. The mutations may be chance, but chance alone won't make anything evolve. Nature has to select which mutations will become prominent and which will not. This is done by the very fact that everything dies and something with a beneficial mutation may live longer than something without. This is natural selection. It is a driven process. Evolution is NOT chance.
This is the part where I point out the inherent flaw in your arguments.
You are basically saying "I can't imagine it happening that way, so it must not be true." Just because you can't fathom something does not mean it is unfathomable to the rest of us.
Your second mistake is assuming that the universe and our planet was created around the idea of supporting us. Wouldn't it be much more plausible that life adapted to the environment it lives in? Meaning life was 'created' to live in the environment that was available? The position of the earth and moon and all that is just a set of variables that worked out in a certain way. Life conformed to those variables, not the other way around.
And you might argue that it is impossible for all of those variables to work out the way they did. I often hear "What are the odds of the earth being here, while the moon is there, while the sun is that size, while the atmosphere... etc. etc." and yes those are impossible odds. But it happened. Here is an easy demonstration to show how it happened:
Get 5 dice. Roll all 5 dice and pay careful attention to the exact way each rolled, the direction each took and the way each tumbled. Write down the number each showed, the position of each on the table, the way each dice is oriented, and even the airflow across the room.
After all of that, pick up the dice and roll them again. See how many times you get the same exact results.
You never will. The odds of that particular outcome are impossible, but it did happen. Just like the position of the earth, the size of the moon, and all that stuff.
Also, never assume that this life is the only way life can exist. Think about the crabs and fish and such that live in the deep ocean on 'smoke stacks' that spew 1500 degree water and toxic chemicals. The pressure is immense, there is absolutely zero light, the temperature is capable of melting aluminum and the toxic chemicals would kill everything else in seconds, yet the life can exist there, who knows where else life is capable of surviving.
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
The Bible is very selective with its wording. It does not have a "How I Did It"; if I told you how to install an entertainment system in your house by saying "open the box and pull its contents out," you would eventually find out yourself by seeing and reading the instruction manual and going from there. If you needed help after that, I might or might not help you depending on if youreallydo or do not need it. Once you have installed the set, you will have learned on your own how to install it. Its a fundamental educational principle, and I like to liken life to school, in that its a lifelong quest for knowledge.
But again I must point out that the point of the Bible is NOT to provide scientists with the end-all-be-all explanation of the Earth's origin. God said he spoke matter into existance; he could very well have spoken matter into existance and then let the laws of science take over, which would have been molded into his will.
You're right in that I don't KNOW that these possibilities are true. What I think is true is that science and Christian beliefs CAN work together. Who is to say that every single generation was outlined in the Bible? Who is to say things didn't ge lost in translation? Who is to say that Jesus existed exactly 2008 years ago? I can't prove these things, but I believe them because the Bible says so, and it's never done any harm by me, only good. And a lot of it.
I was not saying that Jesus is a feeling. I said that evidence of Jesus is a feeling. Jesus lives.
God also says that all people will have the opportunity to seek or reject Jesus. Whether or not you think that is plausible, the Bible does address this issue, and I choose to side with it.
I never that that it wasn't the job of Christians to spread the word. It's really in the delivery and spirit of the message. Again, Christians are trying to spread Jesus. A good missionary is doing his job by representing Jesus through every walk of his life without once quoting the Bible or Christian rhetoric.
I also never said that Christians don't use fear. I said they shouldn't use fear. the repercussions of such things are blatantly evident in that video. They are misguided.
I don't know where you might have been, but my church does not have some video or program to change gay people. I personally believe in gay rights (and no I'm not gay). The Bible teaches that sins are not any better or worse than others. Would you combat that by saying that I believe that murder is on the same level as gay sex? Maybe, but I don't know. Christians who claim to know everything really shouldn't; they also shouldn't judge others. We are all sinners, and God never said that sinners can't get into heaven...
The representation of true Christianity today is very misleading. It is a result of free will. God gave us free will. What can keep us on track? The Bible. Bring me another more efficient and result providing doctrine, and I might consider reading of it.
Again I say christianity in my eyes is just people dragging the Creator down to their level of understanding. No wonder so many people don't believe there is a God, the christian view belittles It so much. You can't put what It is in a book, it's just not possible. Christian rituals and beliefs seem so petty to me, they can't possibly show the essence of the true Creator. The Creator is beyond all we can hope to comprehend, a force that is in everything. Yes I do believe in this higher force, but no, I do not believe it is as Christianity portrays it.
Edit: I am talking about the ideas that christianity is about in general, I am not against christians as individuals, many of my friends are christians and we do in fact agree on some things and are able to work out the similarities in our beliefs.
Edit: I am talking about the ideas that christianity is about in general, I am not against christians as individuals, many of my friends are christians and we do in fact agree on some things and are able to work out the similarities in our beliefs.
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
According to Christian belief, God wrote the Bible and put whatever he needed us to know in the Holy scriptures. Also, a major aspect of our lives are supposed to be a growing relationship with Jesus. If he wanted us to know everything about him in the Bible, he might have put much more in it. But he addresses this by stating humans cannot comprehend the full power of God, and it is therefore not as important to human well-being as what he did put in the Bible. I look forward to fulfillment of my personal curiousities after life on Earth. Until then, I'll listen to God as he decrees not to question him.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Kur, stop double posting. I'd hate to ban you for something trivial.
and here is where things get tedious. The more I poke and prod at the reasoning behind your beliefs, the more often you say you believe something simply because "the bible says so".
You say yourself that you don't KNOW if your ideas are true, yet you believe them anyway. Do you not see the foolishness and danger in that? Not only do you yourself not know if any of it is true, but then you go out and spread it, trying to tell others it is true.
The evidence of jesus is a feeling? That isn't evidence at all. Having a feeling, fear for example, is not evidence that there are monsters under the bed. "But how can I be afraid if there are no monsters?"
And again you choose to side with the bible concerning everybody having a chance to accept or reject jesus. But why? Based on what? What reason do you give for siding with the bible? you have nothing to go on. The bible is right because the bible says so?
"A good missionary is doing his job by representing Jesus through every walk of his life without once quoting the Bible or Christian rhetoric." Come on now. I have NEVER met a missionary who didn't quote the bible. As a matter of fact, missionary training is all about memorizing bible passages and rhetoric.
Your church is a christian church. As such it is part of the christian religion, which does have plays and videos and programs that attempt to make gay people straight. Maybe the particular building you go to every sunday doesn't have them, but the religion you are aligned with does have them.
Actually the is one sin god said can never be forgiven and is a one way ticket to hell. Blasphemy. So saying just once that god doesn't exist, or even questioning the validity of the bible, god, or jesus, means you are going to hell no matter what else you may do with your life.
And when you say "What can keep us on track? The Bible." I am assuming you are talking about the bible being the source of morals and good conduct that people follow to lead good and decent lives.
Try thinking of it this way. The bible is indeed full of morals. But some are better than others. For example, the bible does say "thou shalt not kill" which is a good one, but it also clearly says that we should immediately kill anybody caught working on the sabbath. It also says that anybody not willing to accept jesus should be killed. And even if you deny these particular examples, you know there are many other examples of questionable rules and morals in the bible.
So, how do we know which morals to follow? Even the people who take the bible as literal truth don't follow every rule laid out in the bible. So if the bible is the source of our morals, how do we know which ones to follow?
Doesn't it seem more likely that the bible is a long list of morals that man is choosing from? 100 years ago this set of morals was choosen to follow, but times change so those morals were left behind while these other morals were added. It is man himself choosing what morals to follow, and reading bible passages accordingly.
It is no different than ordering food from a menu. Did you order the steak, potatoes, and beans because you wanted them or was the menu itself the source of your craving?
And yes, before you ask, there is a perfectly naturalistic explanation for morals in human society.
Sorry, I only did that because I was responding to different people and had a lot to say to both. I find that if I try to respond to more than one person in a single post, my wall of text becomes very long and some people don't bother reading it, or just skim through missing the points entirely.
I will stop double posting. Thanks for the warning.
Crystalnite, the point is that there is absolutely no reason to believe in such a thing as a "Creator", especially one like the God outlined in the Bible.
Time and time again, science and simple knowledge of history proves the Bible to be false. Without the inerrancy of the Bible, Christians have no footing.
I'm still boggled as to why things like Christianity are allowed to go on uninformed in today's world. I mean people can believe whatever they want, but why scrub yourself in religion and faith when you could actually strive for truth? Religion is the antithesis of science.
Time and time again, science and simple knowledge of history proves the Bible to be false. Without the inerrancy of the Bible, Christians have no footing.
I'm still boggled as to why things like Christianity are allowed to go on uninformed in today's world. I mean people can believe whatever they want, but why scrub yourself in religion and faith when you could actually strive for truth? Religion is the antithesis of science.
How do you know the Creator was the one that wrote that book other than what you have been told? You may say you have faith with no need of proof but then I may have faith that God will respawn me when I die, but that does not make it anymore true. I am like you in that I follow and believe in my Creator untill I myself experience life after death, but PEOPLE are the ones telling me, this book is the law, this is what happened and what is. I pay no attention to what christians tell me to believe because I do not trust what people have to say. I simply go through life trying to be one with myself and my creator and the life It gifted us with.
Also when I use the word Creator I am mainly referencing a Higher Force. I simply don't really know what to call it. People throw the word God around too much, it can mean so many different things.
Do you believe my beliefs are wrong? Do you believe this is not enough? I'm asking simply because I am curious of your views. I am not trying to instigate an argument, simply curiosity.
- Status