The God of Bible Literalists

[SprintRightOption]

In my understanding, millions of Christians, many devout fundamentalists, believe everything in the Holy Bible is the word of God, and is 100% fact. By this I mean that they reject the idea that some stories in the bible 1) are parables, or that it presents stories, ideas and situations that have a meaning or lesson but aren't necessarily historical fact; and 2) Contain more than sufficient evidence of God, his wishes, desires and expectation of mortal men on earth and that the Bible makes him seem truly amazing, loving, all-knowing and all-powerful.

At the time the bible was written, in the decades after Christ's death, there was no doubt a lot of awe in the words of God, and his scope and size. But in modern times, it seems to me that the bible's literal version God is in some ways lacking. To take the bible literally, you have to believe in a God who is:

- spiteful and jealous because of the actions of small groups of people or even individual. He gets angry at Adam's descendents in Genesis for defying him or angering him, and also in all of the first 5 or 6 books, just for one example.

- There is a massive difference in generations of Jesus' lineage in Mark/Luke/the other two books detaililng Christ's life. Like a 15 generation difference in one, an inconsistency in a book that he approves as his Word.

- Jesus was told by God and related to his followers at The Sermon on the Mount [I think it was this speech, but def. at some point in a sermon/speech] that the Kingdom of Heaven was pretty close at hand, at least "in the lifetime of some of those in this audience today".

There is not a single thing revealed by God that was beyond the scope of humans in the time of Jesus that would hint at his true size and scope. By this I mean a single sentence that could not possibly be known by men at the time but was discovered later, such as:

"The earth is rounder than the roundest apple, and is 100000000000000 times the size of a man", or

"The world moves arond the sun just as the moon moves around the earth, as do 8 other giant rocks that I have not blessed with life." or

"The tiniest piece of flesh contains libraries of information about the man or beast it came from [DNA reference], coiled and wrapped up so tightly and small that no man's eyes can see it", or

"All life has this coiled information in every one of trillions of tiny compartments of blood and flesh, but man is different, for you are my chosen sons who can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the only life that can conceive of me and come to know me and my love for you and hopes for you"

"There are billions of galaxies in the universe that I have created, and there are billions of suns in each, but I have chosen you as favored", or

"There is a limit to the speed of light and sound, which no mortal could every surpass."

That would seem to be a trivially easy slam dunk that could not be explained away that would give strong proof of God's existence. Considering how much time his subjects spend trying to convince others of his existence and how he is the one true God versus the time spent teaching the ideas that Jesus believed and all the beautiful, great things that the Bible and Christianity stands for, a God could make things easier and eliminate all the ambiguity by establishing proof beyond a doubt by tell Jesus and other prophets things that would only be proven hundreds or thousands of years later and could not have been faked. Just a couple of statements that would merely seem cryptic centuries ago but would become astounding when proven and understood later would seem so right without removing the tenet of faith from the religion.

If humans are the pinnacle of all life in the universe, why would that literal God design such an imperfect speices, one where more people have died over religion than probably any other cause except old age and illness? Wars, murder, hatred, jealousy, wishing death or bad things on other people, valuing the life of another human so lowly, it's just weird. We got damn near having a massive nuclear war that might have made us all extinct in the 60's, less than 150 years after the Industrial Revolution began and our thinking minds began really using technology and stopped just being farmers and hunter/gatherers. It seems likely that terrorists will sneak a nuke into New York or DC sometime in the next 50-100 years and destroy millions of lives and a city or cities. That is what some humans do, us, the image of god. If we are really created in the image of God, what was he thinking? And even if the world did being in 6006 BC at 9:00 am on a Monday morning like creationist doctrine dictates, why did God take 6000 years to create the messiah? What was the point if everyone pre Christ would go to hell, why not put him in the early days of [the biblical version of] human civilizattion, in Egypt or at least thousands of years earlier, so all those millions of souls would have the opportunity to be saved and come to know the true nature of God?

To me, the literal god of the bible just seems kind of sad and small compared to the kind of God I expect exists: instead of taking 6 days to make a single planet and solar systen, He instantly created all the galaxies by causing the Big Bang. He established the elegant laws of physics and math for the universe to obey, knowing the nearly infinite possibilities for worlds, life and maybe even intelligence. He is truly above it all, having not a trace of people's failings that he has in the Bible like jealousy, rage, revenge, and seemly only mariginally more intelligence than man's instead of infinite wisdom and no need to be caught up in the minutia of the single actions of single men and women on this one planet. He caused evolution, knowing how it would eventually form life that was intelligent enough to discover (if only so crudely) his sublime universe and worship him, and recognize and wonder at Him and the unbelievable greatness of him and how rare and precious intelligent life is.

The more I learn about biology and the thousands of proteins that work and run our bodies, doing unbelievable and complex things in every single cell in our bodies with speed and precision, how amazing and unbelievable it all is, how our DNA for all 30000 genes are in every single cell, replicated perfectly millions of times per day in everyone by polymerase proteins that are so small that many many millions of them can literally fit on the head of a pin, how they are blueprints and code that other proteins understand and build living beings from. It makes me think of the powerful omniscience and understanding of a God that would be the architect of it all, the designer and author of life. The creator of numinousness.

Instead of existing for less than 10000 years, he has been around for billions, and there may be thousands of other kinds of intelligent life in other galaxies trying like us to understand their world and our universe. Everything that we humans may discover in the future are a testament to him, like wormholes to travel the galaxy and circumvent the speed of light or eternal life. There may be extraterrestrial intelligence out there that is orders of magnitudes beyond us but still nowhere near the awesomeness of God, instead of the biblical god deciding that man would be created in his image, alone as his focus, when our species does so much to tarnish that image at times, even though we also do so many amazing loving, heroic and wise acts.

For a pretty small example, if I think of a God that created the laws of the universe, and mathematics, so many things are just straight dazzling. If you take 1, add 1/3, subtract 1/5, add 1/7, subtract 1/9, and keep going forever, adding two to the bottom number in the fraction, alternating adding and subtracting, you will approach pi / 4, getting an ever smaller distance from it. Alternating a little larger then even closer but smaller than it over and over. Pi, the constant that relates a circle to its diameter no matter where you are in the world or universe. You'll never get there, but the difference becomes infinitely small as you approach infinity in the denominator. Is that an accident? It's incomprehensible, but my kind of God created that, and he knew EXACTLY what he was doing. We can't make much of it now, but maybe someday we will discover something truly profound in mathematical series like this in a thousand or more years, but it's cool to comtemplate. (Some of these ideas are inspired by or mentioned in Sagan's Contact).

That is my kind of God. He is capable of the most truly awesome things that we can ever imagine, but even more, he is capable of things that are beyond us, that we cannot imagine, we are not cabable of it. And next to him, the God described in the scriptures compares poorly, poorly enough that he seems in some ways small and pathetic.

[Blueflame]

*Blue heads to the kitchen to make popcorn*

[SprintRightOption]

BTW, this is not trying to offend or instigate, this is just my view on what God really is vs. the biblical god that many people take totally literally. I definitely respect people who believe this, because the Bible is a great book, and so much of it is great, as is Jesus of Nazareth as a person, whether he is the son of god or not. I love the Sermon on the Mount. And look what has become of a quirky little offshoot of Judaism in a backward Roman colony. Some of my point is a denying those who say everything with Christ is binary: you believe every single thing stated in the bible or you are going to hell.

As someone said said on SNL, either you believe in evolution, or you believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.

Funny, but I think there are more than two choices, and many scientists and even evolutionary biologists are Christians or Jews or otherwise religious (including some dude named Einstein I've heard of), many devout. There is a great article in Discover last month about a southern evangelical christian paleontologist that found dinosaur fossils with soft tissue that seemed a few thousands of years old when that species was extinct 65+ million years ago. She got so many letters from creationists demanding her to declare that this was evidence that dinosaurs were not millions of years old, to destroy the "evoution conspiracy" that so-called scientists keep supporting. She said if the only things she knew about Jesus was from these people, she never would be a Christian. The Christian God she believes in is so much bigger than the one these people were demanding she publicly support. Reading it I took her side, and thought of the religious scientists and mathematicians I've come across in life. That is what my post is about, support for that kind of god, my kind of god.

[Taco John]

Ever do any reading on the Bible code? Interesting research at the very lest...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Excellent post, SRO. :thumbsup:

[SprintRightOption]

TJ - If you are talking about the supposed messages in the Torah that show up when you make the text into a matrix and take every 43rd (or 18th or 61st or whatever) letter and it makes a prophetic message, I think it's fake. It was demonstrated that you can find "messages" in nearly every text (Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, speeches by 20th century Presidents and Winston Churchill, etc.) if you try enough combinations. The messages weren't put there, they were just random chance. Thanks, LABF. This post is also an "up" post from the NPN thread on the old DPO. ;)

[ludo21]

TJ - If you are talking about the supposed messages in the Torah that show up when you make the text into a matrix and take every 43rd (or 18th or 61st or whatever) letter and it makes a prophetic message, I think it's fake. It was demonstrated that you can find "messages" in nearly every text (Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, speeches by 20th century Presidents and Winston Churchill, etc.) if you try enough combinations. The messages weren't put there, they were just random chance. Thanks, LABF. This post is also an "up" post from the NPN thread on the old DPO. ;)


I think thats Kabbalah (only few can see it)

Rabbi's studying the bible missed something is the premise........

[alkemical]

no the qbl is different

[Rock Chalk]

BTW, this is not trying to offend or instigate, this is just my view on what God really is vs. the biblical god that many people take totally literally. I definitely respect people who believe this, because the Bible is a great book, and so much of it is great, as is Jesus of Nazareth as a person, whether he is the son of god or not. I love the Sermon on the Mount. And look what has become of a quirky little offshoot of Judaism in a backward Roman colony. Some of my point is a denying those who say everything with Christ is binary: you believe every single thing stated in the bible or you are going to hell.

As someone said said on SNL, either you believe in evolution, or you believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.

Funny, but I think there are more than two choices, and many scientists and even evolutionary biologists are Christians or Jews or otherwise religious (including some dude named Einstein I've heard of), many devout. There is a great article in Discover last month about a southern evangelical christian paleontologist that found dinosaur fossils with soft tissue that seemed a few thousands of years old when that species was extinct 65+ million years ago. She got so many letters from creationists demanding her to declare that this was evidence that dinosaurs were not millions of years old, to destroy the "evoution conspiracy" that so-called scientists keep supporting. She said if the only things she knew about Jesus was from these people, she never would be a Christian. The Christian God she believes in is so much bigger than the one these people were demanding she publicly support. Reading it I took her side, and thought of the religious scientists and mathematicians I've come across in life. That is what my post is about, support for that kind of god, my kind of god.
Why should God give you proof? Anyone can believe with solid evidence. The whole point is faith. If you believe without proof, that is the strength of the Lord.

Any schmuck can believe something they can see with their own two eyes. Look at science for an example.

Faith is a way of weeding out the weak.

JMO.

[alkemical]

God gives proof, all the time. It's hidden in maths.

[ludo21]

God gives proof, all the time. It's hidden in maths.


He made the world for crying out loud!

You, Me, EVERYONE!! I dont know about you, but thats enough proof for me.

(Now that whole religion thing is where it gets complicated)

To me its simple tho, Jesus is the Way, no other way get there.

[alkemical]

i differ, but i say that if you live like jesus did you are doing a good job.... if you live like buddah did.... if you live like krsna wants.....

[BroncoInferno]

Why should God give you proof? Anyone can believe with solid evidence. The whole point is faith. If you believe without proof, that is the strength of the Lord.

Any schmuck can believe something they can see with their own two eyes. Look at science for an example.

Faith is a way of weeding out the weak.

JMO.

Well, if He is going throw me and the other nonbelievers (hell, not just nonbelievers...people who simply disagree on His nature) in a burning furnace for all eternity, I don't think a couple of concrete clues would be asking too much.

[bronco_diesel]

Well, if He is going throw me and the other nonbelievers (hell, not just nonbelievers...people who simply disagree on His nature) in a burning furnace for all eternity, I don't think a couple of concrete clues would be asking too much.

we could argue clues over and over again - it comes down to choice. you choose not to see the clues before you.

[bronco_diesel]

- There is a massive difference in generations of Jesus' lineage in Mark/Luke/the other two books detaililng Christ's life. Like a 15 generation difference in one, an inconsistency in a book that he approves as his Word.


if you were to take a closer look at this, you would not see this as a contradiction....

[alkemical]

in that case, i get god's affirmation all the time for being a whatever the hell i am

[bronco_diesel]

- spiteful and jealous because of the actions of small groups of people or even individual. He gets angry at Adam's descendents in Genesis for defying him or angering him, and also in all of the first 5 or 6 books, just for one example.

the one small group of people He chose to be a light to all peoples. this small group was not the light and instead brought dishonor to God by their sins in idolitry. asdide from that, you are ignoring the massive amount of literature in the Bible that displays God as loving, honest, just, honorable and righteous.


- Jesus was told by God and related to his followers at The Sermon on the Mount [I think it was this speech, but def. at some point in a sermon/speech] that the Kingdom of Heaven was pretty close at hand, at least "in the lifetime of some of those in this audience today".

There is not a single thing revealed by God that was beyond the scope of humans in the time of Jesus that would hint at his true size and scope. By this I mean a single sentence that could not possibly be known by men at the time but was discovered later, such as:

"The earth is rounder than the roundest apple, and is 100000000000000 times the size of a man", or

"The world moves arond the sun just as the moon moves around the earth, as do 8 other giant rocks that I have not blessed with life." or

"The tiniest piece of flesh contains libraries of information about the man or beast it came from [DNA reference], coiled and wrapped up so tightly and small that no man's eyes can see it", or

"All life has this coiled information in every one of trillions of tiny compartments of blood and flesh, but man is different, for you are my chosen sons who can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the only life that can conceive of me and come to know me and my love for you and hopes for you"

"There are billions of galaxies in the universe that I have created, and there are billions of suns in each, but I have chosen you as favored", or

"There is a limit to the speed of light and sound, which no mortal could every surpass." .

the bible is not a book set out to prove the mysteries of creation or the elements within the creation. i will hold that it does not contradict the honest scientific evidence.

however, the issue of the bible is the state of the heart. Jesus did not come to tell us how fast the speed of light is - He came to tell us the way to eternal life with He and the Father - and he gave witness by miracles and ultimatly his resurrection.

to argue the evidence of the resurrection is to simply choose to not believe.

[BroncoInferno]

we could argue clues over and over again - it comes down to choice. you choose not to see the clues before you.

No, you choose to interpret things into objects or events that aren't apparent in the nature of that object or event at all. As an agnostic, I can see where someone might conclude that objects/nature is just to complex for it not have a creator...the problem of the infinite regression and all that...but even if you accept that premise it is still a far cry from concluding from the existing evidence that the Christian God is that creator and will send you to hell if you don't believe He exists, or even if you believe in a creator but choose to believe in the wrong one.

[bronco_diesel]

No, you choose to interpret things into objects or events that aren't apparent in the nature of that object or event at all. As an agnostic, I can see where someone might conclude that objects/nature is just to complex for it not have a creator...the problem of the infinite regression and all that...but even if you accept that premise it is still a far cry from concluding from the existing evidence that the Christian God is that creator and will send you to hell if you don't believe He exists, or even if you believe in a creator but choose to believe in the wrong one.

do you think the Christian God should force you to be with Him in heaven, if your entire life you deny Him?

He is only granting your wish - he respects you do not want to be with him. on the flip side, when you are completely separated from him, your end result is hell.

God is comfort - separated from him there is no comfort
God is love - separated from him there is no love
God is light - separated from him there is no light

it's your choice, and you can NEVER argue that.

[BroncoInferno]

do you think the Christian God should force you to be with Him in heaven, if your entire life you deny Him?

He is only granting your wish - he respects you do not want to be with him. on the flip side, when you are completely separated from him, your end result is hell.

God is comfort - separated from him there is no comfort
God is love - separated from him there is no love
God is light - separated from him there is no light

it's your choice, and you can NEVER argue that.

Well, now you've just gone into the stump speech. We're talking about evidence that not only establishes the existence of a creator, but that also defines that creator as the Christian God. There is no such empirical evidence. Without that, I would consider it evil for any creator to throw people into a fiery furnace for all enternity. Heck, Jesus supposedly let Doubting Thomas touch the holes in his hands, why can't he do that for BroncoInferno?

[bronco_diesel]

Well, now you've just gone into the stump speech. We're talking about evidence for the existence that not only establishes the existence of a creator, but that also defines that creator as the Christian God. There is no such empirical evidence. Without that, I would consider it evil for any creator to throw people into a fiery furnace for all enternity. Heck, Jesus supposedly let Doubting Thomas touch the holes in his hands, why can't he do that for BroncoInferno?

i believe the ressurection is a good case for the evidence of the Christian God.

[BroncoInferno]

i believe the ressurection is a good case for the evidence of the Christian God.

Huh? There is no evidence at all that the resurrection actually happened, what are you talking about?

[bronco_diesel]

Huh? There is no evidence at all that the resurrection actually happened, what are you talking about?

there is a great deal of evidence.

[Crushaholic]

I believe in the lessons of the Bible, but I don't take it literally. For example, we have scientific evidence that dinosaurs existed before man. Genesis says that the world and everything living was created in 6 days. I believe a "day" equates to a few million years. The stories about an angry God lets me know that he is displeased when we sin against him. I believe you CAN read the Bible and believe WITHOUT seeing that it's a blow-by-blow account of what actually happened.

[BroncoInferno]

there is a great deal of evidence.

Only if you consider the accounts relayed in the Bible as viable evidence. Scholars date the earliest of the gospels as having been composed somewhere between 18-30 years after Jesus' death. Sorry, that is not strong evidence. If you are referring to something else, please elaborate.

[bronco_diesel]

Only if you consider the accounts relayed in the Bible as viable evidence. Scholars date the earliest of the gospels as having been composed somewhere between 18-30 years after Jesus' death. Sorry, that is not strong evidence. If you are referring to something else, please elaborate.

actually, the evidence all encompassing is overwhelming.

riddle me this - if all that was needed to squash the entire christain movement was to provide the body of Jesus, why then has it never happened?

we have the romans who had much to gain with the evidence of the body
we had the rabbinic jews who also had much to prove with a dead body of christ...

so why no body?

this is just a small aspect of the argument - there is an incredible amount of evidence. care to take it on?

[bronco_diesel]

I believe in the lessons of the Bible, but I don't take it literally. For example, we have scientific evidence that dinosaurs existed before man. Genesis says that the world and everything living was created in 6 days. I believe a "day" equates to a few million years. The stories about an angry God lets me know that he is displeased when we sin against him. I believe you CAN read the Bible and believe WITHOUT seeing that it's a blow-by-blow account of what actually happened.

crush, there is actually quite a bit of evidence to suggest that man and dino lived together.

aside from that, if you do not believe it is a literal book i would suggest you study prophecy. it is overwhelming and there are prophecies being fulfilled this very day. God means what he says, and He says what he means.

[BroncoInferno]

crush, there is actually quite a bit of evidence to suggest that man and dino lived together.

No, there isn't. That is absurd, and it is hard to take your arguments seriously when you say something like this.

[BroncoInferno]

actually, the evidence all encompassing is overwhelming.

riddle me this - if all that was needed to squash the entire christain movement was to provide the body of Jesus, why then has it never happened?

we have the romans who had much to gain with the evidence of the body
we had the rabbinic jews who also had much to prove with a dead body of christ...

so why no body?

this is just a small aspect of the argument - there is an incredible amount of evidence. care to take it on?

The myth did not take flight immediately following Jesus' death. During this time there were many people who claimed to be the messiah, Jesus was not unique in that regard. Once he was dead, I doubt they would have been too concerned with him. It was only years later that the myth really began to take shape and gain traction with people, and by then he place of buriel was probably long forgotten. Even if it wasn't, there was no such thing as DNA testing in the first century. The Romans could have produced any body and claimed it was Jesus if it had occured to them, and it would not have meant much. This is a really poor example of concrete evidence.

[Rock Chalk]

Well, if He is going throw me and the other nonbelievers (hell, not just nonbelievers...people who simply disagree on His nature) in a burning furnace for all eternity, I don't think a couple of concrete clues would be asking too much.
Yes, it is asking too much.

If you choose to believe in whatever you believe in and its not Jesus, then you will perish in Hell. I dont say that to be mean, I say that because that is my belief.

God only wants those who will follow him WITHOUT proof of His existance other thn the scriptures.

If you choose not to believe, knowing the contents of the scriptures, then that is your free will that God gave to you. God wants people to come to Him freely, of their own volition, because they CHOSE to believe in something greater without having to see it first hand. The faithful.

You want proof, read a science book, but dont expect access to Heaven. You have to take a leap of faith, that Jesus died for your sins, and you have to believe that in your heart.

That's the Christian faith as I see it. I have no more proof that God exists than you have that God does not exist. Yet, I believe.

Ask anyone here, I am a very scientific minded person and believe in the majority of the scientific foundations of our civilization INCLUDING evolution, yet I believe. I do so "blindly" because, to me, it makes sense. Its a solid, good, fair way to live life, to treat others. Am I an idiot for believing?

Loko at it this way, what harm can come of believing? If you are wrong, you are wrong, you turn into worm food right? If you are right though, you have eternity in paradise to look forward to. If you choose not to believe, if you are right you are worm food, no harm done. If you are wrong, you ahve an eternity of hell to look forward to.

Its a pretty much no brainer for me. I hurt no one by believing, and have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

[alkemical]

didn't you watch the flintstones?

[bronco_diesel]

No, there isn't. That is absurd, and it is hard to take your arguments seriously when you say something like this.

look into it. it's not as absurd as you might think. there are ancient aritisic artifacts that have depcitions of dinasours. how would a pre-historic man know what a dinasour was if he hadn't seen him with his eye?

how do you explain the consistencies across cultures?

[alkemical]

Loko at it this way, what harm can come of believing? If you are wrong, you are wrong, you turn into worm food right? If you are right though, you have eternity in paradise to look forward to. If you choose not to believe, if you are right you are worm food, no harm done. If you are wrong, you ahve an eternity of hell to look forward to.

Its a pretty much no brainer for me. I hurt no one by believing, and have everything to gain and nothing to lose.


ahh love and salvation brought to you by fear.

[alkemical]

look into it. it's not as absurd as you might think. there are ancient aritisic artifacts that have depcitions of dinasours. how would a pre-historic man know what a dinasour was if he hadn't seen him with his eye?

how do you explain the consistencies across cultures?


krisna was an avatara before jesus....

[BroncoInferno]

Yes, it is asking too much.

If you choose to believe in whatever you believe in and its not Jesus, then you will perish in Hell. I dont say that to be mean, I say that because that is my belief.

God only wants those who will follow him WITHOUT proof of His existance other thn the scriptures.

If you choose not to believe, knowing the contents of the scriptures, then that is your free will that God gave to you. God wants people to come to Him freely, of their own volition, because they CHOSE to believe in something greater without having to see it first hand. The faithful.

You want proof, read a science book, but dont expect access to Heaven. You have to take a leap of faith, that Jesus died for your sins, and you have to believe that in your heart.

That's the Christian faith as I see it. I have no more proof that God exists than you have that God does not exist. Yet, I believe.

Ask anyone here, I am a very scientific minded person and believe in the majority of the scientific foundations of our civilization INCLUDING evolution, yet I believe. I do so "blindly" because, to me, it makes sense. Its a solid, good, fair way to live life, to treat others. Am I an idiot for believing?

Loko at it this way, what harm can come of believing? If you are wrong, you are wrong, you turn into worm food right? If you are right though, you have eternity in paradise to look forward to. If you choose not to believe, if you are right you are worm food, no harm done. If you are wrong, you ahve an eternity of hell to look forward to.

Its a pretty much no brainer for me. I hurt no one by believing, and have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Sure, there is plenty for you to potentially lose. Suppose you are not wrong about there being a Creator, but ARE wrong about His/Her/It's identity. What if the Hindus have it right, not Christians? You could be looking at spending your next life as a dung beetle.

[Rock Chalk]

Sure, there is plenty for you to potentially lose. Suppose you are not wrong about there being a Creator, but ARE wrong about His/Her/It's identity. What if the Hindus have it right, not Christians? You could be looking at spending your next life as a dung beetle.
Then that is my karma according to Hinduism and I will have another life in another form to try again. That's not the point of my post though.

[Rock Chalk]

ahh love and salvation brought to you by fear.
Josh, I have nevr ridiculed your beliefs, please do not ridicule mine. We may not always agree, but there is a line I do not cross and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

[BroncoInferno]

Then that is my karma according to Hinduism and I will have another life in another form to try again. That's not the point of my post though.

Well, you said you would not have lost anything by being a Christian if you turn out to be wrong, I was just pointing out that there are other religious ideas about the nature of the creator and what happens when we die, and most of them don't give you a second chance like Hinduism. You're taking a chance just like I am.

As far as the rest of your post, I don't buy that a loving God would be so angry about someone not believing in his existence without proof that he would throw them into a fiery furnace for eternity. That would be evil.

[Rock Chalk]

Well, you said you would not have lost anything by being a Christian if you turn out to be wrong, I was just pointing out that there are other religious ideas about the nature of the creator and what happens when we die, and most of them don't give you a second chance like Hinduism. You're taking a chance just like I am.

As far as the rest of your post, I don't buy that a loving God would be so angry about someone not believing in his existence without proof that he would throw them into a fiery furnace for eternity. That would be evil.
That is your belief then, and when it comes time to settle up, you will have that logic going for you in your defense when trying to convince God to let you in.

or you are worm food.

Or whatever.

Your lack of understanding why christians believe what they believe is due in large part because you have chosen not to believe.

[BroncoInferno]

That is your belief then, and when it comes time to settle up, you will have that logic going for you in your defense when trying to convince God to let you in.

or you are worm food.

Or whatever.

Your lack of understanding why christians believe what they believe is due in large part because you have chosen not to believe.

Fair enough. I was raised a Presbyterian and was a believer for many years, but as I got older and learned new things it just didn't really hold for me logically. If it does for you, so be it.

[Falconer]

I decided to give this a shot so here goes.

I believe with others on this board who talked about faith. You definitely need to have faith to believe in the Christian God. Things are not laid out for anyone to have empirical evidence that God exists. However I believe that there is quite a bit of evidence out there, although it is circumstantial, to say that God has exists. Like the first poster alluded to the order of things, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, miracles, and personal experience.

The problem for most people is that they want the proof of God to come directly to them for authentication. However, this is problematic as well. Take for example the story of Exodus. Let us say for the moment that it is a completely true account. God delivers His people from bondage, guides them through the desert, parts the Red Sea for them, and decimates their pursuers. Moses goes up the mountain for a mere 40 days, and God's chosen people begin to worship a golden calf idol. What I am trying to show you is that faith based on works is typically only there for as long as the works are happening. Once they are over, human nature takes over and one decides that they were temporarily deceiving themselves, or they begin to look for something else that will give them what they were looking for.

If you would further indulge me for a minute, I will give one more example. Let us say that God did indeed understand the nature of man and how he needed revelation to enhance his faith. He therefore decided to send His Son (also known as God) to earth to not only witness to the people, but to actually become their salvation. He then made sure that the entire event would end up in recorded history forever. Once again many believed while Jesus walked the earth, but fell away when he wasn't what they had imagined he should be. Likewise many authentic believers come to Him today in times of trouble to be delivered, but fall away once they get what they what or don't get what they thought they wanted.

All of that is just a long winded way of saying that there is no proof that would ever be good enough for humans to say that the Christian God existed. Believe me; I walked through this process myself along with seeing many other walk along side of me.

Regards,
Falconer

[alkemical]

Josh, I have nevr ridiculed your beliefs, please do not ridicule mine. We may not always agree, but there is a line I do not cross and I would appreciate the same courtesy.


That is your belief then, and when it comes time to settle up, you will have that logic going for you in your defense when trying to convince God to let you in.

or you are worm food.

Or whatever.

Your lack of understanding why christians believe what they believe is due in large part because you have chosen not to believe.


actually alec, i am giving you the same. Psycologically the reason of chosing a faith, due to the 'damnation' of the afterlife is rooted in fear.

I was raised prodestant - but found the dogma and the..... foundations that lie in an all loving message of the NT (which correspond to pretty much what buddah taught) - with the vengeful side of god (how could god be angry at what he created enough to destory if love is the way to god?) didn't agree.

I didn't like the dualism that christianity professed, and i didn't think god would be seperate from what is good/bad.

[JCMElway]

*Blue heads to the kitchen to make popcorn*

I'm going with you Blue. Wow.

[Chimporilla]

Ever do any reading on the Bible code? Interesting research at the very lest...

Actually, you can do that with any book. I wish I had the link. I'll look for it. But the funniest one I saw was a guy who wanted to find 80's metal bands in the Bible. On one page he found Iron Maiden, Judas Priest and Ratt. Seriously.

[Chimporilla]

Why should God give you proof?

Oh gee, lemme see.. How about so I don't worship a false god or become an atheist* which would damn me to hell for like-EVER! I think that's a solid reason.

Any schmuck can believe something they can see with their own two eyes. Look at science for an example.

You mean like modern medicine being able to cure my child of a deadly disease? It took lots and lots of work and lots of proof to come up with said hypothetical cure. I dig science. I think we should keep it around.

Faith is a way of weeding out the weak.

Really? So what constitutes weakness? Is it questioning? Is it using the old thinkbone that your god supposedly gave us?

But proof is the meat of the thingy here. When your god wanted himself to be known he provided all kinds of proof to the Israelits and Jesus, along with a bunch of zombies provided mucho proof of the supernatural. So why not now 2,000 years later? Were barbarians with a 98% illiteracy rate more competent than us at writing down and interpreting a deity's do's and don'ts?

JMO.[/QUOTE]

[Northman]

Bottom line: the bible was written by man, not God. If people want to believe in it so be it. But for myself, ill believe whats in my heart not what some guy might have thought up one day and wrote out.

[orangenblue2]

actually, the evidence all encompassing is overwhelming.

Um, okay...let's hear it

riddle me this - if all that was needed to squash the entire christain movement was to provide the body of Jesus, why then has it never happened?

Maybe jesus never existed. There is certainly no eyewitness proof to substantiate it.

we have the romans who had much to gain with the evidence of the body
we had the rabbinic jews who also had much to prove with a dead body of christ...

See above...

this is just a small aspect of the argument - there is an incredible amount of evidence. care to take it on?

anytime amigo...although I'm quite sure we'll be at it awhile...:peace:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, you choose to interpret things into objects or events that aren't apparent in the nature of that object or event at all. As an agnostic, I can see where someone might conclude that objects/nature is just to complex for it not have a creator...the problem of the infinite regression and all that...but even if you accept that premise it is still a far cry from concluding from the existing evidence that the Christian God is that creator and will send you to hell if you don't believe He exists, or even if you believe in a creator but choose to believe in the wrong one.

Inferno with the reality check. :thumbsup:

I know this is basic Philosophy of Religion 101 stuff, but it never ceases to amaze me how the Xian fundies/literalists trot out the old "free will" argument to rationalize their belief in hell, eternal damnation, etc.

Bottom line: If God is both omniscient and omnipotent, and if he created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing) then nothing comes into existence outside of God's will - including hell, eternal damnation, etc. - or without his foreknowledge.

Since God is omniscient, it follows that He already knows before He creates the world that some people are supposedly going to use their "free will" to make 'bad choices' and are going to be damned for all eternity. Given His omnipotence, it must be His will that this scheme of things exists as it does. Hence, the choices man makes out of his own "free will" are actually God's will.

The only other possibility is that evil came into existence from some source other than God, in which case God can no longer be said to be omnipotent.

Now, you have to ask yourself this question:

Why would some supposedly omnibenevolent creator God - who could imagine and create any sort of world he chose - given his omniscience and omnipotence - conceive and create a world that included evil, hell, eternal damnation for some of his creatures, etc?

This sort of God would be a very cruel and sadistic fellow.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Required reading for the literalists:

http://www.bartcop.com/jesus-lib-banner.jpg (http://www.myjesuswasaliberal.com/)

A nice excerpt:

And speaking of love, I want to repeat that liberals love America just as much as conservatives. In fact, I happen to think we love it more. It is because I love my country that I have a responsibility to speak out when we’re off course. Loving your country shouldn’t be confused with never questioning the government. That is not what our forefathers had in mind. I love my children but that doesn’t mean I’m never critical of their behavior. If anything I expect more from my children because I know they understand the difference between right and wrong. That makes me either a lousy parent or a father with high expectations. Have you ever been around children whose parents never correct them? I rest my case. People will rise or fall to the expectations we have for them. The same is true for governments. There are times liberals are critical of our government because we expect more from the world’s only superpower. If the new catchphrase for America is, “Well, China did it, too,” then we’re all in a lot of trouble.

[Mile High Shack]

Bottom line: the bible was written by man, not God. If people want to believe in it so be it. But for myself, ill believe whats in my heart not what some guy might have thought up one day and wrote out.

written by man
inspired by the Holy Spirit (part of the trinity...so thus from God)

[alkemical]

speaking of trinity - in the QBL & some native religions it's believed you have 3 souls...

[BroncoInferno]

written by man
inspired by the Holy Spirit (part of the trinity...so thus from God)

So claim the men who actually wrote the stuff down. How do you know they weren't mistaken, or didn't just flat out lie in order to further along some personal agenda?

[Mile High Shack]

So claim the men who actually wrote the stuff down. How do you know they weren't mistaken, or didn't just flat out lie in order to further along some personal agenda?

like I've said before, faith is involved in any type of religion

I think...personally...if the bible was lying, after a few hundred years, it would've been proven false a long time ago

it matches up with history pretty well

[BroncoInferno]

like I've said before, faith is involved in any type of religion

I think...personally...if the bible was lying, after a few hundred years, it would've been proven false a long time ago

Hinduism is older than the Jewish/Christian faith. By this line of reasoning, Hinduism must be true as well.

[Mile High Shack]

Hinduism is older than the Jewish/Christian faith. By this line of reasoning, Hinduism must be true as well.

hindusim started at the beginning of time, eh?

cool

[alkemical]

well considering christianity didn't start till... well jesus was dead..........

[BroncoInferno]

hindusim started at the beginning of time, eh?

cool

LOL

OK, put it this way, scholars can trace it back further than they can trace back Judaism.

The point is that something being old doesn't make it true.

[Mile High Shack]

well considering christianity didn't start till... well jesus was dead..........

well yeah...LOL
but that was part of the plan

but I feel like I keep saying the same thing :sunshine:

[alkemical]

yeah me too - i just believe there's more than one way to get where you are going. You can walk, run, jump, fly, drive - doesn't matter on the vehicle just the destination.

[fdf]

Well, now you've just gone into the stump speech. We're talking about evidence that not only establishes the existence of a creator, but that also defines that creator as the Christian God. There is no such empirical evidence. Without that, I would consider it evil for any creator to throw people into a fiery furnace for all enternity. Heck, Jesus supposedly let Doubting Thomas touch the holes in his hands, why can't he do that for BroncoInferno?

I didn't come to Christianity easily. I didn't want to believe in an exclusive God. But I was talked into reading John and Acts -- maybe 50 pages of the Bible. Combined with the historic record of the explosion of Christianity after Christ's death, it was impossible for me to come to any conclusion other than that Christ's disciples saw the resurrected Christ and things happened pretty much exactly the way described in Acts.

For a while, I rationalized the willingness of the disciples to go to jail, torture and death as something like blind fananticism. But that didn't work. People will go to death for something they believe in; but not for something they believe to be a lie. Hundreds of people knew they saw the resurrected Christ and were willing to die horrible deaths to tell others about it.

Once I got to that point, I realized I had to take the rest of what Christ said somewhat more seriously than, say, Aristotle, Kierkegaard or Northhead. None of them have shown up after death. And what Christ has to say about who he is is pretty unambiguous: "I am the way and the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except thru me." "All authority and judgement have been given to me by the Father." (parahrasing)

Personally, I wish He had said "I am a way. I know the truth and I know how to live life. You can find the Father thru me." But that's not what He said. And I'm not God. He is. So he gets to make up the rules. I don't. He gets to be an exclusive God and to send sinners to Hell. I don't. A lot of his rules wouldn't be the one's I would make up. But I'm not God.

I'm a scientist. And I pick at inconsistencies between what we know now and parts of the Bible and have my doubts. But I always come back to the overwhelming evidence of the resurrection and to the change in my life that has occurred since I stopped fighting Him. Despite my difficulty getting there, accepting Him as my savior has been by far the best thing that ever happened to me.

Getting over the notion that, somehow, an omnipotent God has to make up a world that seems fair and satisfies me or he doesn't exist was one of the first steps in realizing that I'm not the center of the universe. It's a false dilemma posed by folks (and at one time by me) who resent being told by anyone that they would be better off behaving differently than they do.

God does want us to behave differently. He wants us to follow Jesus. That's the truth and I hope you someday can find your way to your knees.

As for your evidence, I too would like a burning bush to show up in my front yard and tell me what to do. But, again, I'm not God and I don't get to pick and choose the nature of the evidence. I would suggest that, if you ever get really interested in this, read John and Acts and then pick up some works by CS Lewis and modern Christian apologists. Ask yourself how John and Acts got written if a lot of folks didn't see the resurrected Jesus with their own eyes.

[alkemical]

I wonder if at a point in time, the human brain didn't have an active bridge to their unconsiouss as we do today.....

[bendog]

I wonder if at a point in time, the human brain didn't have an active bridge to their unconsiouss as we do today.....
hmmm, I suspected that in the past there may not have been such a division between mans' consious and unconsious.

[alkemical]

would pato's 'voice of god' then have been his 'subliminal' side?

[BroncoInferno]

As for your evidence, I too would like a burning bush to show up in my front yard and tell me what to do. But, again, I'm not God and I don't get to pick and choose the nature of the evidence. I would suggest that, if you ever get really interested in this, read John and Acts and then pick up some works by CS Lewis and modern Christian apologists.

I've read several works by Lewis and come away unconvinced. He makes a fairly good argument for why there must be a creator, but he skips entirely over the logical progression from deciding there is a creator and defining that creator as the Judeo-Christian god. I find Kierkgaard the most satisfying of the Christian philosophers, although he was not a literalist.

Ask yourself how John and Acts got written if a lot of folks didn't see the resurrected Jesus with their own eyes.

Most legends have some sort of basic historical fact about them. I'm satisfied based on the historical record that a man named Jesus existed and was executed by the Romans. I'm satisfied on this point because there are a variety of sources outside the Bible that confirm this. The problem with the resurrection is that the only accounts we have are Biblical accounts. No other outside sources confirm this. Another problem is that the earliest of the gospels were written 18-30 years after Jesus' death. That is a long time for a story to get passed around without being tainted with inaccuracies.

[Mile High Shack]

Most legends have some sort of basic historical fact about them. I'm satisfied based on the historical record that a man named Jesus existed and was executed by the Romans. I'm satisfied on this point because there are a variety of sources outside the Bible that confirm this. The problem with the resurrection is that the only accounts we have are Biblical accounts. No other outside sources confirm this. Another problem is that the earliest of the gospels were written 18-30 years after Jesus' death. That is a long time for a story to get passed around without being tainted with inaccuracies.

don't you think, based upon how much the Jews hated Jesus, they could've easily debunked the claim of a risen Messiah, by producing the body?

[alkemical]

the essne's also had a ritual of rebirth

[BroncoInferno]

don't you think, based upon how much the Jews hated Jesus, they could've easily debunked the claim of a risen Messiah, by producing the body?

Not really. If the story of the resurrection emerged over time as legend following Jesus' death, as I suspect, then by the time the story gained enough influence to concern the Romans Jesus' place of buriel would likely be long forgotten, and even if not the body would be decomposed, and thus in a pre-DNA era would have been unlikely to sway the faithful.

[Mile High Shack]

Not really. If the story of the resurrection emerged over time as legend following Jesus' death, as I suspect, then by the time the story gained enough influence to concern the Romans Jesus' place of buriel would likely be long forgotten, and even if not the body would be decomposed, and thus in a pre-DNA era would have been unlikely to sway the faithful.

I'm saying right after the fact
Peter preached on the day of pentecost, not long after Jesus' death and 2000 people were converted that day

don't you think the Jews wanted to stop that right away? I mean they had guys like Paul (pre-conversion) out there arresting and killing christians

[BroncoInferno]

I'm saying right after the fact
Peter preached on the day of pentecost, not long after Jesus' death and 2000 people were converted that day

don't you think the Jews wanted to stop that right away? I mean they had guys like Paul (pre-conversion) out there arresting and killing christians

Well, again, you're taking the penecost and 2000 converted as historical fact based on the Biblical account. Without other corroborating sources, I think it was a part of the legend that emerged in the years following Jesus' death.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Not really. If the story of the resurrection emerged over time as legend following Jesus' death, as I suspect, then by the time the story gained enough influence to concern the Romans Jesus' place of buriel would likely be long forgotten, and even if not the body would be decomposed, and thus in a pre-DNA era would have been unlikely to sway the faithful.

You are doing alot of speculating with these statements that the most respected Biblical historians of our time would have some problems with. John T. Robinson, a textual critic and historial decided to base his deduction on the fact that the immense Jewish/Christian historical event of of the era occurred in AD 70 when Jerusalem fell. This wasnt included in the Gospels at all. This is recognized in Mark, and Mark is largely considered to be an edited version of Matthew and/or Luke or what could be their predecessor in "Q". This would place the synoptic gospels at a date from AD 32 to AD 64 according to many scholars. If you place the gospels as already being in existence before the fall of Jerusalem, you have individuals who were first hand witnesses of the phenomenon of Jesus' life that were still around to cross-check the gospels that we have today.

[BroncoInferno]

You are doing alot of speculating with these statements that the most respected Biblical historians of our time would have some problems with. John T. Robinson, a textual critic and historial decided to base his deduction on the fact that the immense Jewish/Christian historical event of of the era occurred in AD 70 when Jerusalem fell. This wasnt included in the Gospels at all. This is recognized in Mark, and Mark is largely considered to be an edited version of Matthew and/or Luke or what could be their predecessor in "Q". This would place the synoptic gospels at a date from AD 32 to AD 64 according to many scholars. If you place the gospels as already being in existence before the fall of Jerusalem, you have individuals who were first hand witnesses of the phenomenon of Jesus' life that were still around to cross-check the gospels that we have today.

Sure, I understand that, but memories can be subject to manipulation or wish. A lot of people claim to have witnessed Babe Ruth calling his shot, others who were at the same game say nothing of the kind happened. Witnesses to the same event saying two totally different things occured.

What I'd like to see are some non-Biblical accounts of the resurrection and what they say. Maybe something from a Roman official who was disturbed by Peter's rally in the days after the resurrection. Something along those lines would be more convincing than the gospels authors alone, who have a vested interest in the calims they are making and how miraculous they sound.

[epicSocialism4tw]

What I'd like to see are some non-Biblical accounts of the resurrection and what they say. Maybe something from a Roman official who was disturbed by Peter's rally in the days after the resurrection. Something along those lines would be more convincing than the gospels authors alone, who have a vested interest in the calims they are making and how miraculous they sound.

You'll be the first one to find it if you do. There are some non-Christian parallels to the biblical accounts that provide for some historical evidence, but the simple fact is that there werent many people who put together books. Those that did had the money to hire educated scribes and pay for the materials. Jesus' impact was felt by at least some of the educated class as well because Luke and Paul both became Christians. Luke was a physician, and Paul was an educated Pharisee. Nicodemus was a wealthy trader.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus recorded Jesus' life, resurrecion, and impact in his document "antiquities". Josephus specifically said: "Upon endictment by members of our society, Pilate sentanced him to the cross." He wrote in the 1st century AD.

[fdf]

"Most legends have some sort of basic historical fact about them. I'm satisfied based on the historical record that a man named Jesus existed and was executed by the Romans. I'm satisfied on this point because there are a variety of sources outside the Bible that confirm this. The problem with the resurrection is that the only accounts we have are Biblical accounts. No other outside sources confirm this. Another problem is that the earliest of the gospels were written 18-30 years after Jesus' death. That is a long time for a story to get passed around without being tainted with inaccuracies."

I see you've thought about this a lot. We actually have a lot in common because I have been exactly where you are in my beliefs. As I said, I had a long and very painful path to the cross. I came kicking and screaming.

Actually, 18 years isn't long. As I understand it, most anthropologists agree that it takes a lot longer for legend to develop--especially when living witnesses still exist and especially on a fact of this importance.

When Paul wrote his earliest epistles, most of the eyewitnesses were still alive and Paul is quite unambiguous about who Christ is and what happened. He does not address that subject as if it were the slightest bit controversial amongst the early Christians and Paul had no problem addressing controversies explicitly (gross understatement of the day award goes to that one). Everything I have looked at strongly suggests that, from the git go, the first Christians believed that: (1) Jesus was God; and (2) He was resurrected. And, they were willing to die for that belief. As many of them were there when the resurrection occurred, well, you draw your own conclusion (as I can tell you will :).

Now, some inaccuracies did creep in--eg, the slightly different accounts of who first found the empty tomb. I used to be a litigator and you get used to two perfectly sincere people having somewhat different recollection of events on small matters (date, time, what folks were wearing, who got to the meeting first, where the meeting was). The types of inaccuracies you see in the gospels seem to me like these sort of things and, to me, enhance the credibility of the core message. Were these faked or some part of a conspiracy to lie about the resurrection, the accounts would be more pat. You see that all the time in litigation. When folks get together to lie about something, their stories are amazingly consistent.

You also raise the question elsewhere, how come the only accounts we have of the resurrection are from Christians? That may be because folks who actually saw the resurrected Christ tended strongly to become Christians.

Thanks for the exchange. Some folks aren't even interested in big questions--and this is the biggest of all questions. If Jesus was resurrected, then his word about who he was and why he was here are the most important words ever spoken--far moreso than any silly words I have to write. You obviously are interested in the big questions and are willing to think about it hard and critically. Good luck in your quest. Now I need to get back to work.

[freak6]

If you choose to believe in whatever you believe in and its not Jesus, then you will perish in Hell.

You want proof, read a science book, but dont expect access to Heaven.

I have no proof that God exists, yet, I believe.

I do so "blindly" because, to me, it makes sense.

What harm can come of believing?


Ignorance is bliss.
Unreal. You are a sheep Alec. You are barely human. I know your're smart, but your unquestioning mind deserves to be de-programmed. To answer your question, what harm can it do?

Christian scientists die because they refuse medical attention. Children are taught falsehoods and are brought up to be ignorant of the truth. Later in life, this transcends into other aspects of life, and leads to IGNORANT AMERICANS TRUSTING THIER JESUS FREAK PRESIDENT, which gets my brothers killed in IRAQ!!!

That is how it is dangerous.

It also gets our freedoms taken away. It gets us lied to over and over and over, while SHEEP like you ALEC just continue to eat the grass, because you <i> believe blindly.

[Mile High Shack]

Ignorance is bliss.
Unreal. You are a sheep Alec. You are barely human. I know your're smart, but your unquestioning mind deserves to be de-programmed. To answer your question, what harm can it do?

Christian scientists die because they refuse medical attention. Children are taught falsehoods and are brought up to be ignorant of the truth. Later in life, this transcends into other aspects of life, and leads to IGNORANT AMERICANS TRUSTING THIER JESUS FREAK PRESIDENT, which gets my brothers killed in IRAQ!!!

That is how it is dangerous.

It also gets our freedoms taken away. It gets us lied to over and over and over, while SHEEP like you ALEC just continue to eat the grass, because you <i> believe blindly.

LOL
christian scientists don't seek medical attention

you are crazy

LOL

maybe SCIENTOLOGISTS, but not christians that are scientists

LOL

that was funny ROFL!

[BroncoInferno]

LOL
christian scientists don't seek medical attention

you are crazy

LOL

maybe SCIENTOLOGISTS, but not christians that are scientists

LOL

that was funny ROFL!

Christian science is an actual religion, he wasn't refering to Christians who are scientists.

[Mile High Shack]

Christian science is an actual religion, he wasn't refering to Christians who are scientists.

yeah
but let's not lump those wackos in with us ;)

[orangeatheist]

like I've said before, faith is involved in any type of religion

And thus my sig.


I think...personally...if the bible was lying, after a few hundred years, it would've been proven false a long time ago

It was.


it matches up with history pretty well

Flatly untrue. Creation. The Flood. Separation of Languages. The Exodus. The Conquest. All false "history".

[alkemical]

i believe there is some truth to the christian science -

[alkemical]

And thus my sig.



It was.



Flatly untrue. Creation. The Flood. Separation of Languages. The Exodus. The Conquest. All false "history".


oa i'm a bit different than the rest - the tower of babel IMO can be attributed to lots of things applicalbe today (internet, etc) - maybe when mankind reaches so far, it destoys it's self to a more basic/pure element and goes from there

[Mile High Shack]

And thus my sig.



It was.



Flatly untrue. Creation. The Flood. Separation of Languages. The Exodus. The Conquest. All false "history".

all your statements are lies

but thanks for playing

[bendog]

Actually, the flood and the Jewish genocide of Palestine were prolly correct as historical facts. Separation of languages is prolly a myth based on what happened when man procreated to a multitude of bands or tribes.

But a question on scientology: this 'silent birth' stuff. I'm not sure how that'd work. At best you'd have a silent scream, wouldn't you. And if not, how does the woman tell the nurse to 'give me some more fcking pain meds, NOW, you BITCH!"

[epicSocialism4tw]

Flatly untrue. Creation. The Flood. Separation of Languages. The Exodus. The Conquest. All false "history".

You are going to be hard pressed to find any mesopotamian journalist that was able to record and dissemenate what you consider accurate history from any of the events you listed above. Historians know that there is alot of information in the Torah that you can use to cross-check other events in the region. There simply arent any reasons for people outside of Israel to compile a detailed historical account of those events.

The flood has been corroborated by other mesopotamian sources (the Enuma Elish, I believe). There has also been a working thoeretical model put in place by archaeologists, and historical geologists that is widely accepted as reasonable.

The Exodus has been corroborated by other sources in Egypt.

How on earth are you going to have corroboration for the creation? There are parallels between the Torah's account and some other religious cosmologies if you need that sort of affirmation.

[alkemical]

if other cultures in vastly different areas of the world have a 'flood myth' - does that mean not everyone perished?

[epicSocialism4tw]

if other cultures in vastly different areas of the world have a 'flood myth' - does that mean not everyone perished?

With the theoretical model, that is a possibility. The possibility also is that the connection is made because they came from the same set of survivors. There is a verse in the Torah that says that Noah's daughter married someone outside of the group on the ark, but I cant remember the specifics. There is definately a possibility that the event was local, that it covered the mediterranean area and spread from there to the Arabic Sea...

[alkemical]

With the theoretical model, that is a possibility. The possibility also is that the connection is made because they came from the same set of survivors. There is a verse in the Torah that says that Noah's daughter married someone outside of the group on the ark, but I cant remember the specifics. There is definately a possibility that the event was local, that it covered the mediterranean area and spread from there to the Arabic Sea...


Or it's it's one of those 'lost' texts that no one wants to acknowledge ;)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Or it's it's one of those 'lost' texts that no one wants to acknowledge

They are aknowledged, they just arent included in the canon of scripture for various reasons. That doesnt mean that there isnt any valuable info there, but that it isnt treated as crucial to the faith.

[ClevelandBronco]

I didn't come to Christianity easily. I didn't want to believe in an exclusive God. But I was talked into reading John and Acts -- maybe 50 pages of the Bible. Combined with the historic record of the explosion of Christianity after Christ's death, it was impossible for me to come to any conclusion other than that Christ's disciples saw the resurrected Christ and things happened pretty much exactly the way described in Acts.

For a while, I rationalized the willingness of the disciples to go to jail, torture and death as something like blind fananticism. But that didn't work. People will go to death for something they believe in; but not for something they believe to be a lie. Hundreds of people knew they saw the resurrected Christ and were willing to die horrible deaths to tell others about it.

Once I got to that point, I realized I had to take the rest of what Christ said somewhat more seriously than, say, Aristotle, Kierkegaard or Northhead. None of them have shown up after death. And what Christ has to say about who he is is pretty unambiguous: "I am the way and the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except thru me." "All authority and judgement have been given to me by the Father." (parahrasing)

Personally, I wish He had said "I am a way. I know the truth and I know how to live life. You can find the Father thru me." But that's not what He said. And I'm not God. He is. So he gets to make up the rules. I don't. He gets to be an exclusive God and to send sinners to Hell. I don't. A lot of his rules wouldn't be the one's I would make up. But I'm not God.

I'm a scientist. And I pick at inconsistencies between what we know now and parts of the Bible and have my doubts. But I always come back to the overwhelming evidence of the resurrection and to the change in my life that has occurred since I stopped fighting Him. Despite my difficulty getting there, accepting Him as my savior has been by far the best thing that ever happened to me.

Getting over the notion that, somehow, an omnipotent God has to make up a world that seems fair and satisfies me or he doesn't exist was one of the first steps in realizing that I'm not the center of the universe. It's a false dilemma posed by folks (and at one time by me) who resent being told by anyone that they would be better off behaving differently than they do.

God does want us to behave differently. He wants us to follow Jesus. That's the truth and I hope you someday can find your way to your knees.

As for your evidence, I too would like a burning bush to show up in my front yard and tell me what to do. But, again, I'm not God and I don't get to pick and choose the nature of the evidence. I would suggest that, if you ever get really interested in this, read John and Acts and then pick up some works by CS Lewis and modern Christian apologists. Ask yourself how John and Acts got written if a lot of folks didn't see the resurrected Jesus with their own eyes.

Very powerful.

[alkemical]

They are aknowledged, they just arent included in the canon of scripture for various reasons. That doesnt mean that there isnt any valuable info there, but that it isnt treated as crucial to the faith.


of course not, that's why they aren't included. If people lived on another part of the planet, and weren't wiped out in the flood - it would contradict what was written in the bible that god wiped out everyone but noah's sailing party.....

[ludo21]

Very powerful.


Agreed. Great stuff fdf. Im glad you found your way to Him. Most important decision you ever made my friend.:)

[SprintRightOption]

What I meant by asking why God didn't put something in the bible that was beyond man's comprehension or scope is simply this: There is nothing to disprove the possibility that it was just stories written by people instead of the word of God. There's nothing in scripture such as "3 billion letters in a 4-letter alphabet are written in double helix inside every cell of men, and other living things have more or less letters in different order" or the like that you could look at and say, "well this here shows without ambiguity that men couldn't write this, because people didn't know that <INSERT 4 time that at men than power higher a from come only could things? living other all in numbers different and men, of cells inside helix double written are code holy letter letters billion ?3 like something>until many centuries later. It's too clear and specific to be a guess. It must be from God".

An omniscient God would know all that the bible doesn't have anything in it that could destroy the naysayers. If it did, however, that would mean many millions more people would become Christians and come to know Jesus, and probably many fewer people would be killed in the name of religion. You would think a loving God would want as many good people as possible to live John 3:16, and such a simple thing would be so powerful.

Of course, that does nothing to disprove God at all, it just would make it purely a matter of faith instead of a little bit of suspension of disbelief plus faith for modern people.

As for the humans & dinosaurs or evolution, people who actually know a lot about the earth's history and paleontology usually have a distaste for arguing with loud, dismissive people who argue against the scientific fact or proven theory in question. For the most part, what's the point? It's a little like someone with a math degree arguing with someone who is certain that substraction is a myth or a conspiracy by all the mathematicians and, boy, all those lying math guys aren't going to tell him that you can SUBTRACT 3 from 8 and get 5 when they know that subtraction is a lie. Who wants to be part of that argument?

The bottom line is, aruging scientific facts as political points of view where there are two sides and shades of grey always involves one party either having a very superficial understanding of something or not actually understanding it at all. And my guess is God appreciates the difference.

[footstepsfrom#27]

It's always safe to jump on what individuals or groups of collectively alligned individuals "believe" when the discussion is limited in scope to those who approach their understanding from personal perception rather than scolarship. The average Joe sitting in a church pew on Sunday is probably as unaware of the nuances of theological debate as he is the inner workings at the Pentagon. Arguments over matters of religious faith between the faithful and faithless are probably the least productive and most useless excercise in time wasting on this board. You might do better discussing playoff football with a Chiefs fan...in other words, little or no practical or common frame of experiencial reference exists, so what's the point? I do however, have a couple of issues with inaccurate statements in the original post that are not really part of the larger editorial rant:
In my understanding, millions of Christians, many devout fundamentalists, believe everything in the Holy Bible is the word of God, and is 100% fact. By this I mean that they reject the idea that some stories in the bible 1) are parables...
This is a false presentation of what Christians in general or more specifically, "fundamentalists" believe regarding either a literal interpretation of the text, or more specifically...of parables. "Fundamentalists", ie; those who accept the historical core theological elements of Christianity...do not dispute that the Bible contains parables, nor does the acceptance of the fact that parables exist in the biblical text have anything to do with accepting a literal interpretation of that text. The ideas are not mutually exclusive; in fact a literal interpretation of the biblical text MUST accept that parables exist since Jesus specifically stated that he was speaking some things in parables.
...or that it presents stories, ideas and situations that have a meaning or lesson but aren't necessarily historical fact...
This is another distortion of what constitutes a literal interpretive hermeneutic. A literal/historical/gramatical interpretation of ANY form of written communication allows for the existence of linguistic tools that do not demand wooden interpretive methodology limited to hyper-literalism. Included in this are "stories, ideas and situations" that are not intended as historical fact. No one who understands hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) would deny that. Fables...a current cultural rough equivalent...offer a story meant to be understood as a moral lesson, but the language used to tell the story is interpreted literally. Jokes are another example. Biblical texts include fictional and non-fictional narative, poetry, prophetic utterances, historical and geneological information, and dozens of variant forms of genre specific communication that can be understood literally ONLY when textual, gramatical, historical, cultural or linguistic factors are considered.

Representing conservative Christian theology as accepting or demanding of hyper-literalistic hermeneutics is a straw man commonly used to assault those who hold the biblical text to the same basic interpretive standards society holds virtually all written forms of communication to. The fact that many/most within "fundamentalism" or the evangelical community at large, don't properly understand the hermeneutical principles they use to interpret the text with is more relevant to a discussion about failure in church leadership than it is to one about the validity of the hermeneutic itself.

Carry on...

[Smiling Assassin27]

It's always safe to jump on what individuals or groups of collectively alligned individuals "believe" when the discussion is limited in scope to those who approach their understanding from personal perception rather than scolarship. The average Joe sitting in a church pew on Sunday is probably as unaware of the nuances of theological debate as he is the inner workings at the Pentagon. Arguments over matters of religious faith between the faithful and faithless are probably the least productive and most useless excercise in time wasting on this board. You might do better discussing playoff football with a Chiefs fan...in other words, little or no practical or common frame of experiencial reference exists, so what's the point? I do however, have a couple of issues with inaccurate statements in the original post that are not really part of the larger editorial rant:

This is a false presentation of what Christians in general or more specifically, "fundamentalists" believe regarding either a literal interpretation of the text, or more specifically...of parables. "Fundamentalists", ie; those who accept the historical core theological elements of Christianity...do not dispute that the Bible contains parables, nor does the acceptance of the fact that parables exist in the biblical text have anything to do with accepting a literal interpretation of that text. The ideas are not mutually exclusive; in fact a literal interpretation of the biblical text MUST accept that parables exist since Jesus specifically stated that he was speaking some things in parables.

This is another distortion of what constitutes a literal interpretive hermeneutic. A literal/historical/gramatical interpretation of ANY form of written communication allows for the existence of linguistic tools that do not demand wooden interpretive methodology limited to hyper-literalism. Included in this are "stories, ideas and situations" that are not intended as historical fact. No one who understands hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) would deny that. Fables...a current cultural rough equivalent...offer a story meant to be understood as a moral lesson, but the language used to tell the story is interpreted literally. Jokes are another example. Biblical texts include fictional and non-fictional narative, poetry, prophetic utterances, historical and geneological information, and dozens of variant forms of genre specific communication that can be understood literally ONLY when textual, gramatical, historical, cultural or linguistic factors are considered.

Representing conservative Christian theology as accepting or demanding of hyper-literalistic hermeneutics is a straw man commonly used to assault those who hold the biblical text to the same basic interpretive standards society holds virtually all written forms of communication to. The fact that many/most within "fundamentalism" or the evangelical community at large, don't properly understand the hermeneutical principles they use to interpret the text with is more relevant to a discussion about failure in church leadership than it is to one about the validity of the hermeneutic itself.

Carry on...

smartest thing i've seen posted yet. ask most Fundamentalists why they believe in the Bible and you get nothing but circular argumentation. ask them how they know that the Bible is actually the right collection of writings and you get more circular argumentation. ask them why their interpretation of Scripture is better than yours and they'll use the unbiblical principle of 'claiming the Holy Spirit' for themselves. very strange.

as for literal hermeneutics, one has no choice but to start with the literal meanings of words. but if you read it in a vacuum, you make statements like 'Dinosaurs didn't exist since they're not mentioned in Scripture..'--a very shallow and WRONG hermeneutic. three things must be clear before you try tackling SCripture--first, Scripture possesses an intrinsic unity. it was put together with this unity in mind and intact. it ain't called 'Salvation HISTORY' for nothing. The books that compose it are quite different in literary style and intent but all fall under the umbrella of 'God revealing Himself'.

second, the Christian faith has never been a 'religion of the book' and never will be. the implication of this is that using it as an instruction manual yields narrowminded and false ideologies. God does not write through men and then expect the single mom who works two jobs just to survive to have to read a single book to know Him, worship Him, and attain salvation. In the OT, He had an authority dedicated to teaching His word, written and oral. In these times, he does as well.

third and finally, Scripture has ALWAYS had various senses in which it was to be read. the literal sense is one, allegorical sense is one, moral sense is one, and anagogical sense is one. to limit it to literal or any single sense is to miss the boat, IMO.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Christian science is an actual religion, he wasn't refering to Christians who are scientists.

:laugh:

The fact that you actually have to explain this tells you a lot about the intellect of the person you are debating.

:D

[orangeatheist]

all your statements are lies

but thanks for playing

Wow. True Believer(TM).

*shudder*

[Smiling Assassin27]

:laugh:

The fact that you actually have to explain this tells you a lot about the intellect of the person you are debating.

:D

Christian Scientists are neither Christian nor scientists...ironic.

[Rock Chalk]

Well, you said you would not have lost anything by being a Christian if you turn out to be wrong, I was just pointing out that there are other religious ideas about the nature of the creator and what happens when we die, and most of them don't give you a second chance like Hinduism. You're taking a chance just like I am.

As far as the rest of your post, I don't buy that a loving God would be so angry about someone not believing in his existence without proof that he would throw them into a fiery furnace for eternity. That would be evil.
Not angry, sad.

He wants you to believe, He does not want you to perish in Hell. He has given you enough to let you make a choice. Whether you choose to believe or not, is your choice.

If you don't buy it, then you don't buy it. That is your choice that He gave to you.

[clarker]

Not angry, sad.

He wants you to believe, He does not want you to perish in Hell. He has given you enough to let you make a choice. Whether you choose to believe or not, is your choice.

If you don't buy it, then you don't buy it. That is your choice that He gave to you.What about in countries where there is no freedom of religion so they are not exposed to Christian beliefs. Are they doomed then?

What about Primitive(SP?) tribes in Africa that are cut off from the "civilized" world. Are they doomed too, just because they don't know about the Christ and his teachings?

[BroncoInferno]

What about in countries where there is no freedom of religion so they are not exposed to Christian beliefs. Are they doomed then?

What about Primitive(SP?) tribes in Africa that are cut off from the "civilized" world. Are they doomed too, just because they don't know about the Christ and his teachings?

Exactly, clarker. There are still remote corners of the world where people have not and will not ever hear the name Jesus, much less His message. Heck, until Columbus, there was an entire continent of people who for thousands of years had never been exposed the Judeo-Christian faith. If it is so important to God that people believe that Jesus is the savior to the point he will send you to hell if you don't, why doesn't he make sure that everyone has access to the message? I have never received a satisfactory answer to this question. Some people will make the claim that God reveals himself to everyone at some point, which is of course ludicrous, but that is the best answer to that question I've heard. Most folks realize how dumb this answer is, and so just go with the old 'God works in mysterious ways' stand by answer.

[BroncoInferno]

Not angry, sad.

Throwing someone in a fiery pit for all eternity is not a sad, reluctant response. It is a vengeful, angry, irrational response.

[Broncos Rule]

Faith is a way of weeding out the weak.



Odd. It seems to me it's the weak who need religion.

[Bronx33]

Odd. It seems to me it's the weak who need religion.


Religion is a pain in the a** if you ask me, with all the different religions and different interpertations (Who is right)? and without 100% certainty claim it as the dominate way of life.

[alkemical]

i admit, i have used my sprituality as a crutch sometimes.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I think that the more revealing idea is that the non-believers somehow think that they are strong.

[Bronx33]

I think that the more revealing idea is that the non-believers somehow think that they are strong.

I guess that could go both ways. 8')

[BroncoInferno]

I think that the more revealing idea is that the non-believers somehow think that they are strong.

You're right; avoiding belief in fairy tales does not necessarily make one a strong individual. It just means one is sensible and realistic on that particular point. Nothing more.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I guess that could go both ways. 8')

The whole deal about being a Christian is realizing that there are things that you will never be strong enough to overcome.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You're right; avoiding belief in fairy tales does not necessarily make one a strong individual. It just means they are sensible and realistic on that particular point and nothing more.

That's changing the subject quite a bit.

[BroncoInferno]

That's changing the subject quite a bit.

Not really; I'm actually agreeing with you, with a small caveat. ;D

[epicSocialism4tw]

Not really; I'm actually agreeing with you, with a small caveat. ;D

Anyhoo, it's good that you agree.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Throwing someone in a fiery pit for all eternity is not a sad, reluctant response. It is a vengeful, angry, irrational response.

Actually, God doesn't throw anyone into a fiery pit. People throw themselves in via their choices and outright, open, and freely chosen turning away from God. What would be irrational is letting them into eternal happiness when they don't want to be there, IMO.

[alkemical]

The whole deal about being a [insert diety name] is realizing that there are things that you will never be strong enough to overcome.


:)

[Smiling Assassin27]

What about in countries where there is no freedom of religion so they are not exposed to Christian beliefs. Are they doomed then?

What about Primitive(SP?) tribes in Africa that are cut off from the "civilized" world. Are they doomed too, just because they don't know about the Christ and his teachings?

People that, though no fault of their own, do not know Christ cannot be held accountable for this. The Christian Church has always taught this from the beginning--invincible ignorance is not worthy of Hell. Scripture says God desires that EVERY man be saved, not just ones who can read, write, or have a TV.

[Bronx33]

Actually, God doesn't throw anyone into a fiery pit. People throw themselves in via their choices and outright, open, and freely chosen turning away from God. What would be irrational is letting them into eternal happiness when they don't want to be there, IMO.


Answer this: Did god put us all here on earth?

[Smiling Assassin27]

I think that the more revealing idea is that the non-believers somehow think that they are strong.

Ayn Rand represents that ideology well (though mistakenly). The only God that exists, according to Rand, is Rand.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Answer this: Did god put us all here on earth?

Our mom(s) and dad(s) had some part in putting us on Earth, along WITH God.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Ayn Rand represents that ideology well (though mistakenly). The only God that exists, according to Rand, is Rand.

The uberwench?


Sorry, couldnt resist! A little Niezche word play.

[Smiling Assassin27]

The uberwench?


Sorry, couldnt resist! A little Niezche word play.

LOL

[Bronx33]

Our mom(s) and dad(s) had some part in putting us on Earth, along WITH God.

My point is that if you are a good person in life and god with the help of your parents put you on earth that should not keep you out of (eternal happiness) IF it exists, because one doesn't go to church every sunday.

[BroncoInferno]

Actually, God doesn't throw anyone into a fiery pit. People throw themselves in via their choices and outright, open, and freely chosen turning away from God.

That is semantics. God sets up the punishment (allegedly).

What would be irrational is letting them into eternal happiness when they don't want to be there, IMO.

It's not that they don't want to 'be with God'; it's that they don't see the evidence to support the belief that there is any God to be with. Without providing that evidence, how is it fair to throw someone into an eternal fire? Heck, even if He did provide sufficient proof, is it reasonable to throw someone into an eternal fiery pit simply for lack of belief? They didn't kill anyone. They didn't steal from anyone. They loved their neighbor as themself. They did what they could to help others. They just lacked belief. And you are going to tell me that it is rational to throw someone in a fiery pit for lack of belief? That is preposterous.

[BroncoInferno]

People that, though no fault of their own, do not know Christ cannot be held accountable for this. The Christian Church has always taught this from the beginning--invincible ignorance is not worthy of Hell. Scripture says God desires that EVERY man be saved, not just ones who can read, write, or have a TV.

So, the African bushmen get a pass? That doesn't seem fair. Surely some would reject belief in Jesus if presented with his story; why should they get a pardon for their ignorance?

[Falconer]

You're right; avoiding belief in fairy tales does not necessarily make one a strong individual. It just means one is sensible and realistic on that particular point. Nothing more.

I think I might have related this before, but it coincides with this post. Samuel had an allergic reaction to an antibiotic that we were giving him. He broke out in the worst case of hives I had ever seen, red from head to toe. He only has the functioning ability of a two month old, so he could not scratch himself or find any other comfort. He was in bed with us squirming around like a maggot in hot ashes. I finally figured I would pray for him. As soon as I prayed he stopped squirming around, fell asleep, and was able to sleep the rest of the night. I might be insensible, unrealistic, and hey throw weak in there for good measure, but Samuel and I were able to get some rest that night.

[BroncoInferno]

I think I might have related this before, but it coincides with this post. Samuel had an allergic reaction to an antibiotic that we were giving him. He broke out in the worst case of hives I had ever seen, red from head to toe. He only has the functioning ability of a two month old, so he could not scratch himself or find any other comfort. He was in bed with us squirming around like a maggot in hot ashes. I finally figured I would pray for him. As soon as I prayed he stopped squirming around, fell asleep, and was able to sleep the rest of the night. I might be insensible, unrealistic, and hey throw weak in there for good measure, but Samuel and I were able to get some rest that night.

This post is too personal a thing to touch on a message board. I'm just glad your son is OK, and I'll leave it at that.

[Smiling Assassin27]

My point is that if you are a good person in life and god with the help of your parents put you on earth that should not keep you out of (eternal happiness) IF it exists, because one doesn't go to church every sunday.

now you fall into a giant problem. 'good', as seen through the eyes of sinful, weak, and worldy humans may not be the Good (with a capital 'G') as seen through Divine eyes. I will say that God's mercy and grace are His to give and His alone so anyone pronouncing anybody else to be in Hell is overstepping his/her bounds. But God has revealed to all of us certain things that are necessary for salvation. Going to Church is only half the story--people who go to Church will be in Hell. Entering the building does not save you--worshiping our Lord can, however.

[Smiling Assassin27]

So, the African bushmen get a pass? That doesn't seem fair. Surely some would reject belief in Jesus if presented with his story; why should they get a pardon for their ignorance?

read my post again. i never said they get a pass. i said they cannot be held accountable for not knowing Christ. they are, however, held accountable for upholding the Natural Law that's inscribed on every human's heart by God. an Aborigine who is ignorant of Christ who spent his life murdering will have a problem. One who lives an upright life is certainly in a better position on judgment day. speculating on 'if' one would reject Christ or not becomes irrelevant. we're judged according to our works, according to Paul. if they're ignorant of Christ, they are judged differently--God is justice.

[BroncoInferno]

now you fall into a giant problem. 'good', as seen through the eyes of sinful, weak, and worldy humans may not be the Good (with a capital 'G') as seen through Divine eyes.

Why is it that so many Christians have this misanthropic world view? People screw up occasionally, but most of us are sorry when we do and try our best to do the right thing. That does not make them sinful, waek and worldly...just decent human beings who aren't perfect. I'm sorry, I think hell is a pretty irrational (evil, really) punishment for mere lack of belief.

[epicSocialism4tw]

It's not that they don't want to 'be with God'; it's that they don't see the evidence to support the belief that there is any God to be with. Without providing that evidence, how is it fair to throw someone into an eternal fire? Heck, even if He did provide sufficient proof, is it reasonable to throw someone into an eternal fiery pit simply for lack of belief? They didn't kill anyone. They didn't steal from anyone. They loved their neighbor as themself. They did what they could to help others. They just lacked belief. And you are going to tell me that it is rational to throw someone in a fiery pit for lack of belief? That is preposterous.

I have experienced God, and I have heard his "voice". I know that he exists. I had to make a decision to give it an honest try and not to depend on empiricism alone to explain a phenomenon that occurs in the silent depths of the mind.

We are soaked and sumberged in evidence for God. Just close your eyes for a minute, or look around. God wont be loud. He'll be a whisper on the breeze.

[Bronx33]

I will beleive there is a god if the redwings get kicked out of the playoffs...;D for as you say (God is justice)

[alkemical]

Actually, God doesn't throw anyone into a fiery pit. People throw themselves in via their choices and outright, open, and freely chosen turning away from God. What would be irrational is letting them into eternal happiness when they don't want to be there, IMO.


hindu's, jews, muslim's, pagans, etc - don't turn away from god....

[Bronx33]

I have experienced God, and I have heard his "voice". I know that he exists. I had to make a decision to give it an honest try and not to depend on empiricism alone to explain a phenomenon that occurs in the silent depths of the mind.

We are soaked and sumberged in evidence for God. Just close your eyes for a minute, or look around. God wont be loud. He'll be a whisper on the breeze.


Then he is there for everybody? even if you don't go prove your loyalty every sunday?

[Falconer]

This post is too personal a thing to touch on a message board. I'm just glad your son is OK, and I'll leave it at that.

No, really it is ok. I am pretty thick skinned in most of my dealings on a message board. I am not one to write something, and then become inflamed if someone holds a difference of opinion with me.

I would further like to take another example of my life. We all like to talk about "good," and how we could be judged guilty of something when we have lead the "good life." Samuel has had a traumatic brain injury. He will never walk, talk, crawl, sit up, eat by himself, ect. Yet I am asked everyday by people who know him, and those who do not, how is Sam doing? That answer could vary a lot according to how I feel I suppose. It could also depend on the perception of who is asking. I feel that Samuel is perfect most days though. He is everything I could wish in a son, and even more. Kind of like the old saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Well if there is a God, I would guess that goodness will be judged by Him and not us.

[alkemical]

I have experienced God, and I have heard his "voice". I know that he exists. I had to make a decision to give it an honest try and not to depend on empiricism alone to explain a phenomenon that occurs in the silent depths of the mind.

We are soaked and sumberged in evidence for God. Just close your eyes for a minute, or look around. God wont be loud. He'll be a whisper on the breeze.


I have expierenced the voice of god too - i also believe i was helped out by an angel when i was homeless as well -

[Bronx33]

hindu's, jews, muslim's, pagans, etc - don't turn away from god....


See that's where religion is a big turn off to me (who the he11 is right?) and if you had one of each faith in the room and asked that question they would say (mine is) and that list is just a few.

[alkemical]

No, really it is ok. I am pretty thick skinned in most of my dealings on a message board. I am not one to write something, and then become inflamed if someone holds a difference of opinion with me.

I would further like to take another example of my life. We all like to talk about "good," and how we could be judged guilty of something when we have lead the "good life." Samuel has had a traumatic brain injury. He will never walk, talk, crawl, sit up, eat by himself, ect. Yet I am asked everyday by people who know him, and those who do not, how is Sam doing? That answer could vary a lot according to how I feel I suppose. It could also depend on the perception of who is asking. I feel that Samuel is perfect most days though. He is everything I could wish in a son, and even more. Kind of like the old saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Well if there is a God, I would guess that goodness will be judged by Him and not us.


maybe through your praying you actually communicated with your son in a manner that allowed him to understand

[epicSocialism4tw]

I think I might have related this before, but it coincides with this post. Samuel had an allergic reaction to an antibiotic that we were giving him. He broke out in the worst case of hives I had ever seen, red from head to toe. He only has the functioning ability of a two month old, so he could not scratch himself or find any other comfort. He was in bed with us squirming around like a maggot in hot ashes. I finally figured I would pray for him. As soon as I prayed he stopped squirming around, fell asleep, and was able to sleep the rest of the night. I might be insensible, unrealistic, and hey throw weak in there for good measure, but Samuel and I were able to get some rest that night.

That's great Falconer. I had a similar experience as an 6 month old. I was given no hope to live, my parents were told that there was nothing more to be done, that I was a lost cause. They went straight over to some great Christian people's home and prayed with them all night. I straightened out immediately. Like someone flipped a switch, my condition stabilized and I started recovering. My doctors couldnt believe it.

[alkemical]

See that's where religion is a big turn off to me (who the he11 is right?) and if you had one of each faith in the room and asked that question they would say (mine is) and that list is just a few.


"religion" is a big turn off to me as well. I found my own 'path' if you will and it's not what is good or right for you. Hell i get riduculed all the time for my belief structure and how i live my life - I think humans let more ego than they think get in the way of religion. Bent on being 'right', and focusing on the differences causes much of the strife today.

[BroncoInferno]

read my post again. i never said they get a pass. i said they cannot be held accountable for not knowing Christ. they are, however, held accountable for upholding the Natural Law that's inscribed on every human's heart by God. an Aborigine who is ignorant of Christ who spent his life murdering will have a problem. One who lives an upright life is certainly in a better position on judgment day. speculating on 'if' one would reject Christ or not becomes irrelevant. we're judged according to our works, according to Paul. if they're ignorant of Christ, they are judged differently--God is justice.

Well, that is pretty wishy-washy. I thought none of us lived an 'upright' life, and were lost without Christ? Why should an 'upright' living Aborigine without belief be held to a different standard than an equally upright nonbelieving Virginian? Wouldn't it be simpler and fairer for a God to have a single standard? If belief is so important to Him, wouldn't it make more sense for Him to make sure everyone has access to His message?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Then he is there for everybody? even if you don't go prove your loyalty every sunday?

Yes. He is there waiting with open arms when you screw up royally...for things lot worse than missing church.

[Bronx33]

Yes. He is there waiting with open arms when you screw up royally...for things lot worse than missing church.


LOL!

[Bronx33]

"religion" is a big turn off to me as well. I found my own 'path' if you will and it's not what is good or right for you. Hell i get riduculed all the time for my belief structure and how i live my life - I think humans let more ego than they think get in the way of religion. Bent on being 'right', and focusing on the differences causes much of the strife today.


And another factor is the one that gets the most folks the beleive he/she is right makes more money, and yes that's the truth.

[epicSocialism4tw]

And another factor is the one that gets the most folks the beleive he/she is right makes more money, and yes that's the truth.

For charlatans and thieves maybe, but not for people who practice the faith daily.

[alkemical]

And another factor is the one that gets the most folks the beleive he/she is right makes more money, and yes that's the truth.


After my dad died, my mom had a talk with the paster of the church we attended. Everyone said she had to stay married to my dad - well he was nuts (clinically) - and when she went to talk to them after he died, it was just not good - and when i talked to them - they provided no answers and no comfort.

From then on, church was a bible, at home in the living room. God doesn't live in the church, IMO god would be angry at the sins done by those that profess their faith. (this is for ALL religions) -

it's why i choose to be on my own, i figure i've been living this way for a while and i have had a good life, so it must be 'my' way to travel this path.

[Bronx33]

After my dad died, my mom had a talk with the paster of the church we attended. Everyone said she had to stay married to my dad - well he was nuts (clinically) - and when she went to talk to them after he died, it was just not good - and when i talked to them - they provided no answers and no comfort.

From then on, church was a bible, at home in the living room. God doesn't live in the church, IMO god would be angry at the sins done by those that profess their faith. (this is for ALL religions) -

it's why i choose to be on my own, i figure i've been living this way for a while and i have had a good life, so it must be 'my' way to travel this path.



More power to you..

[Bronx33]

For charlatans and thieves maybe, but not for people who practice the faith daily.


Ya i remember the bakers and that dude with the crappy toupe/side comb you know the ones on TV that has already been exposed faking faith healings, but the people still come.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Ya i remember the bakers and that dude with the crappy toupe/side comb you know the ones on TV that has already been exposed faking faith healings, but the people still come.

Those people feed on the hopes and the retirement money of the elderly. They will have their day to answer before God for that. People sin, and are forgiven. But if they just sin and never ask for forgiveness? They walk themselves into a pile of judgment.

[Bronx33]

Those people feed on the hopes and the retirement money of the elderly. They will have their day to answer before God for that. People sin, and are forgiven. But if they just sin and never ask for forgiveness? They walk themselves into a pile of judgment.


It's not just the elderly that throw money at them, it's just another reason religion is a turn off to me (who right) and (who can ya trust).

[alkemical]

More power to you..


This is going to address the faith healer post below as well....

I believe in mankind, i believe that mankind isn't of just the flesh, but also has a soul.

Are you born with a soul, or do you earn it by living? I have no clue, but how you believe and percieve things, influences the world around you.

If someone believes hard enough, does it come true.

If enough people believed in Odin again, would he be real again?

that's why i don't have a problem with any/all/no relgions, i get irritated when people obviously let their ego and their need to believe and belong to something override what is in their heart.

(I guess in short as long as you believe what you want, and it doesn't tred on me - i don't care - just don't say 'this is THE right way' cuz until you die - you don't know - and if you use the afterlife to influence you - you aren't living on earth, you are living to die)

[Bronx33]

This is going to address the faith healer post below as well....

I believe in mankind, i believe that mankind isn't of just the flesh, but also has a soul.

Are you born with a soul, or do you earn it by living? I have no clue, but how you believe and percieve things, influences the world around you.

If someone believes hard enough, does it come true.

If enough people believed in Odin again, would he be real again?

that's why i don't have a problem with any/all/no relgions, i get irritated when people obviously let their ego and their need to believe and belong to something override what is in their heart.

(I guess in short as long as you believe what you want, and it doesn't tred on me - i don't care - just don't say 'this is THE right way' cuz until you die - you don't know - and if you use the afterlife to influence you - you aren't living on earth, you are living to die)


This post would solve all the problems in the middle east if they didn't have blinders on.

[alkemical]

[/B]


This post would solve all the problems in the middle east if they didn't have blinders on.


actually, it's where humans are at right now. Look at how our country has a % of people that buy into politics like it matters worth a damn, like they are some champion for this side or that. Always makes me think of alice & wonderland.....

[Bronx33]

actually, it's where humans are at right now. Look at how our country has a % of people that buy into politics like it matters worth a damn, like they are some champion for this side or that. Always makes me think of alice & wonderland.....


Yep we got republicans and democrats that can't agree on anything making the rules.

[alkemical]

Yep we got republicans and democrats that can't agree on anything making the rules.


unless it's getting after our money... :)

[epicSocialism4tw]

unless it's getting after our money... :)

You beat me to it.

They keep that special interest pipeline a-flowin'!

[alkemical]

You beat me to it.

They keep that special interest pipeline a-flowin'!


a flowin round the bend

i ain't seen my wallet, since i don't know when

i'm stuck in....

sorry, i had folsom prisin running through my head...

[orangenblue2]

The whole deal about being a Christian is realizing that there are things that you will never be strong enough to overcome.

Care to "enlighten" us as to what those might things might be?

[orangenblue2]

I have experienced God, and I have heard his "voice". I know that he exists.

So do suicide bombers...

We are soaked and sumberged in evidence for God.

I must have missed this "soaking" and "submerging" bash. Where was it held? Was the booze free?

[TheDave]

I'm telling you guys... Church of TheDave

were running our annual 2 for 1 salvation special :thumbsup:

[TheDave]

crush, there is actually quite a bit of evidence to suggest that man and dino lived together.



Damn i wish i had more time these days :rofl:

[Bronx33]

unless it's getting after our money... :)


Touche'

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...were running our annual 2 for 1 salvation special :thumbsup:

Heh heh heh! :laugh:

Live an amoral, profligate life, then go for the deathbed repentance. :D

[TheDave]

Heh heh heh! :laugh:

Live an amoral, profligate life, then go for the deathbed repentance. :D

Only if their up to date on their "Dues"

were more of a bottom line religion

[Bronx33]

Only if their up to date on their "Dues"

were more of a bottom line religion


I burst into flames going near anything religious.

[Taco John]

written by man
inspired by the Holy Spirit (part of the trinity...so thus from God)



And then voted on, put through committee, deals were made, books were burned... and control was gained.

Frankly, I just don't trust Paul, given that his writings are often in direct conflict with Christ's teachings. Also, the fact that he never heard Christ's teachings interests me, yet he became the authority on them.

Frankly, I find that to believe the Bible is a word for word translation from God, you have to put more faith in Paul than you do in Christ. That disturbs me.

Plus, I don't think God would make as many mistakes and contradictions as there are in the New Testament.

That said, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater... I just keep things in perspective.

[Taco John]

Christian Scientists are neither Christian nor scientists...ironic.



Not true. Christian Scientists believe in Christ the risen Saviour. They just take him more seriously than most do when he said "greater things ye shall do," and believe that there is a spiritual science behind miracles. Most people are pretty ignorant of what Christian Scientists believe, and relegate them unfairly to the same level as Scientologists due to their unfortunately named religion.

[alkemical]

Not true. Christian Scientists believe in Christ the risen Saviour. They just take him more seriously than most do when he said "greater things ye shall do," and believe that there is a spiritual science behind miracles. Most people are pretty ignorant of what Christian Scientists believe, and relegate them unfairly to the same level as Scientologists due to their unfortunately named religion.


How is it so diffucult to understand that by will you can influence 'reality'?