Atheism on the rise in every single US state.

[z0sa]

I'm still waiting for the moral justification in reasoned measure of my previous post, regarding the logic of a God refusing to show himself to humanity demanding fealty and exacting retribution upon those who don't.

(Holy run-on sentence Batman!)

God has revealed himself to us without making the choice extremely explicit - and that's the only way it can be.

Like I've said, if God came down and cut you down for not believing, where'd the justice be? But where is the justice in many martyrs dying only because of their faith, while the murderers deny their God even exists?

I won't play like I know all the answers you want. I can assure you God will help me get you the answers I can.

[LnGrrrR]

Correct, and as I knew you would be alluding to...

This is a straw man completely. Saying we have no choice in the matter is undermining the very premise of how one receives eternal grace.

It is not a straw man if that is one of my criticisms of some strains of modern day religious creeds.


Could I choose to not believe in God, and once again believe atheistically? Most definitely. But it would be foolish - God has revealed himself, so why act like he never did?

And yet, God has not revealed himself to me. So why should I act like he has, and choose to believe?

As well, it would prove your point that you are able to change your beliefs. If you are sure of your beliefs, why not choose NOT to believe for a day? As you well know, you will be able to change your belief back the next day.


Besides, even believers are met with "right and wrong" choices, both of them possibly seeming right and wrong at the same time, concerning God's justice, the proper worshipping of him, and other obvious issues.

That would be what I mentioned in my first post, the aforementioned "choices that can lead to belief or disbelief".

For instance, I can choose whether or not to eat a grapefruit. I can not 'choose' whether or not to like the flavor of it.

[peewee's lovechild]

Why even bother stating it that way.... did you want a first hand account from Adam that he walked with GOD?

Of course, were such an account ever discovered would you go out of your way to try and discredit it as well... the mind only sees what its heart wants to believe... you've already made your choice perfectly clear.

Objectivity has never been an attribute of yours.... don't start pretending that you somehow possess it now.

No, pheno, it's nothing like that.

The tale of Adam and Eve is an allegory. You just have to know that by now. There was never a real Adam and Eve. To believe so is just ridiculous.

Let's say you're right. Let's say that god came down and hung out with Adam. That should be enough, right?

Wrong. Because if he did it once, why wouldn't he do it again? Why did he do it only with Adam?

I guess I'll rephrase it, god hasn't showed himself since the time man began documenting events.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Damn peewee. You are so smart.

[CuckingFunt]

These threads are hilariously futile.

[LnGrrrR]

These threads are hilariously futile.

I know this. And yet, I can not refrain. It is a character flaw, I feel. :)

[peewee's lovechild]

You deny such a thing could exist? Then why ask for it, fool?

I specifically asked for spirits to be left out, fool.

Fool is the one that thinks that there are invisible thingies about us making things happen.

So, since we're on the ridiculous topics of spirits, then I bring up Davy Crockett. And, he's much better than your god spirit because there is actual proof that Crockett existed.

[peewee's lovechild]

You're 15 I'm guessing?

I won't respond to a child's meanderings furthermore, besides this: God is justice and morality, and cutting down non-believers when Jesus died on the cross for them too, would be abhorrently immoral and unjust.

You want God to forcefeed himself down your throat, it'll never happen bro - that's why we're on this earth, for a choice, at least according to the Bible.

:lol:lol

Yea, I'm 15.

Nice defense there.

Anyway, I'm sorry you can't see the simplicity of this god showing up and ending all that ails us, if it really is as omnipotent as the bible sells it.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Peewee is way too smart to believe in anything that can't be proved by doing a Google search.

[peewee's lovechild]

Because human history has been flawlessly documented to date? Yeah mea culpa! :rolleyes

So, the documentation of human history is flawed, yet the bible is flawless??

I would love to bask in your genius one of these days.

[peewee's lovechild]

Like I've said, if God came down and cut you down for not believing, where'd the justice be?

And yet, that is exactly what god will do after the Rapture.

So, god is not just, using your rationale of course.

[peewee's lovechild]

Damn peewee. You are so smart.

I know, huh.

[I. Hustle]

I enjoy reading your retarded posts.

So, keep posting.

Then we are in agreement?!

agreement
Definition
Meeting of minds (or an evidence of mutual accord or understanding) between two or more legally competent parties, about their relative duties and rights regarding current or future performance. Although a binding contract can (and often does) result from an agreement, an agreement typically documents the give-and-take of a negotiated settlement and a contract specifies the minimum acceptable standard of performance.

[peewee's lovechild]

Peewee is way too smart to believe in anything that can't be proved by doing a Google search.

Hahaha.

[z0sa]

It is not a straw man if that is one of my criticisms of some strains of modern day religious creeds.

But it is. In order to go to heaven, you must CHOOSE the religion. If he chooses buddhism and your Islamic, do you think he goes to heaven? Most likely not. Just like you can CHOOSE to deny God even exists. It's completely a choice.



And yet, God has not revealed himself to me. So why should I act like he has, and choose to believe?

So we agree that it IS a choice? You're completely right otherwise. Nothing forces you to choose Jesus, Allah and Mohammed, the Annunaki, or nothing at all.


As well, it would prove your point that you are able to change your beliefs. If you are sure of your beliefs, why not choose NOT to believe for a day? As you well know, you will be able to change your belief back the next day.

You say why not, and I ask simply why?

What you're saying to me is the equivalent of me asking you:

"Why don't you just believe in God, Jesus, and the Bible for a day?" and expecting you to truly believe and go to heaven. It's every man's decision for himself, I can't make it for you and God won't make it for you, which is basically what you and PeeWee are asking for.




That would be what I mentioned in my first post, the aforementioned "choices that can lead to belief or disbelief".

For instance, I can choose whether or not to eat a grapefruit. I can not 'choose' whether or not to like the flavor of it.

An interesting analogy. You're accepting the fact you or may not like the flavor of grapefruit, but your choice is whether to eat it or not. If you "eat" God's word, you may or may not like the flavor, yet the grapefruit (god's word) continues to exist whether you like its flavor or you don't. that grapefruit may taste like so much shit now, but it won't eventually (or when you're in heaven).

[z0sa]

And yet, that is exactly what god will do after the Rapture.

So, god is not just, using your rationale of course.

you're extremely far off

and that's if I even believe in the rapture, numbnuts. There's plenty of christians (possibly the majority) who don't.

[peewee's lovechild]

you're extremely far off

Dude, you just said god wouldn't kill non-believers because that wouldn't be "just". Yet, that is exactly what it will do after the Rapture.

So, using your rationale, god isn't just.

[jman3000]

:lol religion threads are always a good read.

and they ALWAYS play out the exact same way.

[z0sa]

Dude, you just said god wouldn't kill non-believers because that wouldn't be "just". Yet, that is exactly what it will do after the Rapture.

So, using your rationale, god isn't just.

actually knowing what the hell I'm talking about, let me just say this: :lmao

you simply have no clue.

[I. Hustle]

:lol religion threads are always a good read.

and they ALWAYS play out the exact same way.

I disagree! People that think like you are dumb.

[jman3000]

The atheist percentage will increase astromically right after the Rapture happens.
But soon after, that number will decrease again, as people turn to God and become former atheists.
End times harvest! Book it. :)

that is one of the creepiest posts i've ever read.

that smiley and the use of the phrase "Book it" puts it over the top.

[jman3000]

I disagree! People that think like you are dumb.

microcasm :clap

[LnGrrrR]

But it is. In order to go to heaven, you must CHOOSE the religion. If he chooses buddhism and your Islamic, do you think he goes to heaven? Most likely not. Just like you can CHOOSE to deny God even exists. It's completely a choice.

Given your belief system, yes. Given my 'belief system' for lack of a better word, no. I do not think that 'choice' exists.


What you're saying to me is the equivalent of me asking you:

"Why don't you just believe in God, Jesus, and the Bible for a day?" and expecting you to truly believe and go to heaven. It's every man's decision for himself, I can't make it for you and God won't make it for you, which is basically what you and PeeWee are asking for.

And am I asking that you CHOOSE to disbelieve, yes? Yet you think you have this ability to turn your belief on and off, as if a lightswitch. I do not think anyone has that capability. Hence my argument with 'choice' being a necessity for heaven/hell distinction.


An interesting analogy. You're accepting the fact you or may not like the flavor of grapefruit, but your choice is whether to eat it or not. If you "eat" God's word, you may or may not like the flavor, yet the grapefruit (god's word) continues to exist whether you like its flavor or you don't. that grapefruit may taste like so much shit now, but it won't eventually (or when you're in heaven).

Interesting that you saw it that way. But I meant it more like this: I can not CHOOSE to determine what the flavor of the grapefruit is, can I? I can choose to eat it. I can choose NOT to eat it. BUt I can not choose the flavor, or how my brain reacts to that flavor.

The same goes for religion. I can CHOOSE to pray, I can choose to go to religion, I can choose to do any number of religiously-themed events. However, the actual BELIEF in a higher being is not a spontaneous decision, but an outlook that is determined through numerous other actions. The same goes for other strongly-held personal beliefs.

[scott]

Why do chicks love Jesus?

They know he'll cum again.

[peewee's lovechild]

actually knowing what the hell I'm talking about, let me just say this: :lmao

you simply have no clue.

Okay.

Davy Crockett says "Hi".

[Phenomanul]

So, the documentation of human history is flawed, yet the bible is flawless??

The Bible was never part of my argument... as you had already thrown it out in a disclaimer...

But even within those constraints I held that you could not keep claiming that every event in history has been documented...

Nevertheless, you keep insisting that they have... for in your mind, lack of documentation was proof enough that said event(s) never really took place...

You stated:

There is no documented proof that GOD ever presented himself to earthlings [mankind].

I then stated that your comment could not be proven either way.

You said it had to, as grand an event as that would be...

I said not necessarily... for if history was never explicitly documented to perfection from the get-go... that you couldn't then hold instances of that particular event to the same standard....

Then your strawman fell.... you changed the subject by throwing an irrelevant jab... and here we are.

[CuckingFunt]

that is one of the creepiest posts i've ever read.

that smiley and the use of the phrase "Book it" puts it over the top.

Agreed.

[Blake]

According to the Bible, even someone who has sinned all their life and done so willingly, may be saved on their deathbed if all they do is accept and BELIEVE Jesus has forgiven them of their sins. Someone who has will get to heaven, period.

No matter if you believe we evolved from monkeys.

No matter if you murdered someone, or stole a thousand times. Jesus wasn't crucified alone - the story related in the gospels of those two men receiving (or at least being preached) forgiveness as they too, met a grisly fate on the crosses, is one of the most hopeful stories in all of the Bible.



No matter if you receive the mark of the beast.......

oh wait.....

[Blake]

If God came down and made the world a peaceful, perfect place, what use is there of heaven? even you would be forced to believe in God if he physically revealed himself.


true or false: you lose "free will" after you die and go to Heaven?

[Blake]

You're 15 I'm guessing?

I won't respond to a child's meanderings furthermore, besides this: God is justice and morality, and cutting down non-believers when Jesus died on the cross for them too, would be abhorrently immoral and unjust.

true or false: Jews will go to Heaven


You want God to forcefeed himself down your throat, it'll never happen bro - that's why we're on this earth, for a choice, at least according to the Bible.

true or false: free will is lost after you die and go to Heaven

oh wait....already did that one.

[Blake]

So we agree that it IS a choice? You're completely right otherwise. Nothing forces you to choose Jesus, Allah and Mohammed, the Annunaki, or nothing at all.

An interesting analogy. You're accepting the fact you or may not like the flavor of grapefruit, but your choice is whether to eat it or not. If you "eat" God's word, you may or may not like the flavor, yet the grapefruit (god's word) continues to exist whether you like its flavor or you don't. that grapefruit may taste like so much shit now, but it won't eventually (or when you're in heaven).

true or false: you lose free will when you get to Heaven

godammit, I forgot I already asked this....

[Borosai]

God is boring. Satan is quirky. Difficult choice.

[DAF86]

probably? i thought the science was settled. nice fail by the athiests. funny that dawkins headed this.

probably
:lmao

what a campaign
:tu

Yes probably, 'cause we atheist, don't claim something to be certain unless we're 100% sure of it. Are you telling me that you're 100% sure that there's a God?

For me to bealive in something, I gotta be sure it exists, that's why I don't bealive in God, Aliens, Ghosts, etc. but you'll not see me around saying "God doesn't exist" I just won't bealive untill somebody brings me some proves that make me change my mind.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Yes probably, 'cause we atheist, don't claim something to be certain unless we're 100% sure of it. Are you telling me that you're 100% sure that there's a God?

For me to bealive in something, I gotta be sure it exists, that's why I don't bealive in God, Aliens, Ghosts, etc. but you'll not see me around saying "God doesn't exist" I just won't bealive untill somebody brings me some proves that make me change my mind.

I thought the very definition of ATHEISM was the belief that there was no God...not the belief that there is PROBABLY no God.

[Cane]

The Bible's a load of shit. Same deal with the other religions. Its only a matter of time before America catches up with the rest of our first-world country counterparts and remove the stupid religious backdrop that our government's decisions are based around. I want my legalized prostitutes dammit!

[Blake]

If there really was a God would he let Jesus get dunked on like this?

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h290/midgetonadonkey/l_2ca7b3ca365bc5718f64ccfc802c4868.gif

that has to be fake. Jesus doesn't wear Converse.

[Blake]

You stated:

There is no documented proof that GOD ever presented himself to earthlings [mankind].

I then stated that your comment could not be proven either way.



you can't prove that documented proof doesn't exist any more than you can prove that God doesn't exist.

His comment could actually be proven if there was documented proof that God presented himself to earthlings [mankind].

you fail.

[LnGrrrR]

I thought the very definition of ATHEISM was the belief that there was no God...not the belief that there is PROBABLY no God.

As I stated earlier:

Atheism = Without Belief
Agnosticism = Without Knowledge

I can not believe in something, even if I do not know for sure if he, or she, of they, or something else is up/out there.

[I Love Me Some Me]

As I stated earlier:

Atheism = Without Belief
Agnosticism = Without Knowledge

I can not believe in something, even if I do not know for sure if he, or she, of they, or something else is up/out there.

So atheism means you don't believe in a higher power, although one might exist?

Or it means, you don't believe one exists?

[SpuronyourFace]

atheism is gay.

[DAF86]

I thought the very definition of ATHEISM was the belief that there was no God...not the belief that there is PROBABLY no God.

You're obviously a religious guy, so you bealive that there's a God. Now let me ask you, are you 100% sure that said God exists?

[LnGrrrR]

So atheism means you don't believe in a higher power, although one might exist?

Or it means, you don't believe one exists?

Atheism is a matter of belief. Whether you believe in something or not. (Yes, the gnereal population tends to say agnostic means you don't know but you don't believe, and atheist means you KNOW and don't believe, but that's somewhat a bastardization.)

I personally do not believe in a higher power. I do not know for sure whether one exists or not.

[I Love Me Some Me]

You're obviously a religious guy, so you bealive that there's a God. Now let me ask you, are you 100% sure that said God exists?

Yes I believe, and yes I'm 100% sure.

And before you ask....no, I cannot provide you with empirical evidence to support that knowledge. It is based on my personal life experiences. It would be futile to attempt to explain those experiences with someone who is not spritual, and does not believe.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Atheism is a matter of belief.

Like a religion.

[LnGrrrR]

Like a religion.

Except religions have specific tenets, creeds, culture, etc, and atheism does not.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes I believe, and yes I'm 100% sure.

And before you ask....no, I cannot provide you with empirical evidence to support that knowledge. It is based on my personal life experiences. It would be futile to attempt to explain those experiences with someone who is not spritual, and does not believe.

Making you a gnostic theist.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Except religions have specific tenets, creeds, culture, etc, and atheism does not.

But, a belief system nonetheless.

[DoubtingThomas]

I've read some pretty interesting posts in here.

[angel_luv]

Yes I believe, and yes I'm 100% sure.

And before you ask....no, I cannot provide you with empirical evidence to support that knowledge. It is based on my personal life experiences. It would be futile to attempt to explain those experiences with someone who is not spritual, and does not believe.

" We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. "

( 1 Cor 2:12-14)

[tlongII]

As I stated earlier:

Atheism = Without Belief
Agnosticism = Without Knowledge

I can not believe in something, even if I do not know for sure if he, or she, of they, or something else is up/out there.

Actually atheists don't believe in God and agnostics don't care. I consider myself agnostic.

[angel_luv]

Actually atheists don't believe in God and agnostics don't care. I consider myself agnostic.

This is a sidebar to the thread, but I am rooting for the Blazers.
I pray they win for you. :)

[Phenomanul]

you can't prove that documented proof doesn't exist any more than you can prove that God doesn't exist.

His comment could actually be proven if there was documented proof that God presented himself to earthlings [mankind].

you fail.

:rolleyes

Go back and read the thread... All you've done is troll around in it.

Lacking documentation that an event transpired is not sufficient proof to claim that x or y event never took place. It's really that simple.

In other words... He can't use lack of documentation as defacto proof for his assertions.

[baseline bum]

If there really was a God would he let Jesus get dunked on like this?

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h290/midgetonadonkey/l_2ca7b3ca365bc5718f64ccfc802c4868.gif

LMAO Oderus

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Except religions have specific tenets, creeds, culture, etc, and atheism does not.
:lmao
now that's real funny. atheistic dogma is awfully religious to me.

[Phenomanul]

...

[Blake]

:rolleyes

Go back and read the thread... All you've done is troll around in it.

go back and read the thread. I've done nothing of the sort.


Lacking documentation that an event transpired is not sufficient proof to claim that x or y event never took place. It's really that simple.

you are lacking documentation that peewee made that claim......but I guess according to you, that would not be sufficient proof that the claim never took place.

you fail. It's really that simple.


In other words... He can't use lack of documentation as defacto proof for his assertions.

in other words, he also cannot prove that aliens have never visited Earth.

do you believe that aliens visited Earth?

[Blake]

I pray they win for you. :)

I pray the Rockets win. How many people praying does it take to tip the balance in favor of one team over the other?

[angel_luv]

I pray the Rockets win. How many people praying does it take to tip the balance in favor of one team over the other?

I'm just happy to hear you will be praying. If you can get your friends to pray with you, all the better. :)

[Blake]

I'm just happy to hear you will be praying. If you can get your friends to pray with you, all the better. :)

maybe I'm praying to my lord and master, the anti christ, Obama.

so the content of the prayer doesn't matter?

let me ask you something....if thing always end up being "God's will" then what is the point of prayer when asking for something?

[angel_luv]

maybe I'm praying to my lord and master, the anti christ, Obama.

so the content of the prayer doesn't matter?

let me ask you something....if thing always end up being "God's will" then what is the point of prayer when asking for something?

I pray to talk to Jesus, because He is a friend to me.

It is the same way as I don't only talk to my family members when I need a favor, but more often than not call them simply because I love and value their input in my life.

And things don't always end up being God's will.
God has a will in all things certainly, but because man has free will he can choose to go against God's will.

[Blake]

And things don't always end up being God's will.

God has a will in all things certainly, but because man has free will he can choose to go against God's will.

If a person suffering from cancer has 10,000 people praying for him/her and that person still dies an early death, is that or isn't that God's will?

God called that person to "come home", right? What was the point of praying then?

[Blake]

I also take it you don't believe in pre destination?

I also will ask again, what happens to your "free will" after you die and go to Heaven?

[angel_luv]

I also take it you don't believe in pre destination?

I also will ask again, what happens to your "free will" after you die and go to Heaven?

I believe that God desires everyone to come to a saving knowledge of him. so if you mean predestination in the sense that God pinpoints specific people to be saved and excludes others- no I don't believe that.


When I die, my free will will be acheived in the ultimate sense. I have chosen to be with Christ forever. In Heaven I will do so without the restraints of flesh or sin. To be absent from the body is to be fully, wonderfully present with the Lord.

[I Love Me Some Me]

I also will ask again, what happens to your "free will" after you die and go to Heaven?

Your "free will" will still exist in Heaven.

[angel_luv]

If a person suffering from cancer has 10,000 people praying for him/her and that person still dies an early death, is that or isn't that God's will?

God called that person to "come home", right? What was the point of praying then?

I cannot explain to you why some prayers get answered as the praying person and others do not.


However, I do believe the following:

Cancer and murder and all pain is a result of the fall.
The fall happened when Adam and Eve exercised their free will and rebelled against God's will.
So death, especially a painful one, was never God's will for man but rather is a consequence of sin.

All deaths are a result of sin in some way or another.
I don't mean that people who die have sinned and that is why they die, but rather that we are all victims of the world we live in- i.e. our bodies age and wear out, there are famines that cause death from starvation, etc.
There was no disease before the fall of man.

None of this was present in the Garden of Eden, the home God created for Adam and Eve- the home that they forfeited in their rebellion.

I don't believe it was God's will that I lose my father when I was only sixteen years old.
My dad's death was a result of stress, poor diet, and years of smoking- again all things that are a byproduct of Adam's disobedience.

[Blake]

I believe that God desires everyone to come to a saving knowledge of him. so if you mean predestination in the sense that God pinpoints specific people to be saved and excludes others- no I don't believe that.

I mean the apparent contradiction that God [being all-knowing] wants everyone to be saved, yet knows everyone won't be.

What kind of love is that? Why would you create something knowing that you will have to destroy it later because it doesn't acknowledge you?


When I die, my free will will be acheived in the ultimate sense. I have chosen to be with Christ forever. In Heaven I will do so without the restraints of flesh or sin. To be absent from the body is to be fully, wonderfully present with the Lord.

ugh. you may as well have posted some verses here instead.

[angel_luv]

ugh. you may as well have posted some verses here instead.

Way ahead of you. :)

I referenced 2 Corinthians 5:5-8 in my post.

[Blake]

Your "free will" will still exist in Heaven.

so you are saying the capacity to do evil will still exist in Heaven?

if not, define what free will in Heaven will be.

[Blake]

I cannot explain to you why some prayers get answered as the praying person and others do not.

then there is apperently no point of asking God for anything.



However, I do believe the following:

Cancer and murder and all pain is a result of the fall.


but not everyone is subject to cancer, murder or pain.........

only death.

There is no apparent rhyme or reason for how God passes out "blessings".

There are plenty of good Christians that have had the best things in life.

There are plenty of good Christians that have been crapped on.

There are plenty of bad people that have had the best things in life.

There are plenty of bad people that seemed to get what they deserve.

[LnGrrrR]

But, a belief system nonetheless.

A system? No. It IS a matter of belief. But there is no 'system' for not believing in a god(s). I've known people who don't believe for rational and irrational reasons.

Or, to put it more clearly, there is no one shared atheist belief system. Someone saying they are an atheist does not mean automatically anything but they don't believe in a God, whereas saying you are, for instance, a Christian, implies more than a belief in God, but also belief in the Bible, 10 Commandments, etc etc.

[I Love Me Some Me]

so you are saying the capacity to do evil will still exist in Heaven?

if not, define what free will in Heaven will be.

Capacity and will are two different things.

[LnGrrrR]

Actually atheists don't believe in God and agnostics don't care. I consider myself agnostic.

Tlong, that's the general usage. However, technically speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief. (Look at the root words.)

In your case, you'd be an agnostic atheist most likely. You don't know if God exists or not, and you don't have a belief in him.

[LnGrrrR]

:lmao
now that's real funny. atheistic dogma is awfully religious to me.

Tell me, what 'dogma' do atheists believe?

Yes, many atheists believe in certain things... separation of church and state, global warming, any number of things such as that. But believing in those has nothing to do with not believing in a God.

Looking at the opposite, it would be tough to qualify yourself as "Christian" if you believed that Christ existed but you didn't believe in the Bible, the Commandments or going to church. (Sure, many people do that anyways... they're, IMHO, poor Christians.)

[I Love Me Some Me]

A system? No. It IS a matter of belief. But there is no 'system' for not believing in a god(s). I've known people who don't believe for rational and irrational reasons.

Or, to put it more clearly, there is no one shared atheist belief system. Someone saying they are an atheist does not mean automatically anything but they don't believe in a God, whereas saying you are, for instance, a Christian, implies more than a belief in God, but also belief in the Bible, 10 Commandments, etc etc.

There is a shared belief that a higher power does not exist.

[LnGrrrR]

I pray the Rockets win. How many people praying does it take to tip the balance in favor of one team over the other?

Something tells me that God's not tipping jump shots... if anything, he's giving players the ability to find the skill within them. Or something like that. :)

[LnGrrrR]

There is a shared belief that a higher power does not exist.

That's not a system, though. Atheists have a shared belief system as much as everyone who believes the sky will be blue tomorrow has a shared belief system.

Edit: Reworded post to make it more clear.

[Blake]

Capacity and will are two different things.

cmon now.... you are better than playing the semantics game.

[I Love Me Some Me]

That's not a system, and technically, I don't have a belief that a higher power does not exist. I don't know. There very well might be. However, I don't have belief in any specific being like that. (The English language is poor in this case, as there's two different kinds of 'belief'.)

Atheists have a shared belief system as much as everyone who believes the sky will be blue tomorrow has a shared belief system.

That's a bad analogy. Everyone has KNOWLEDGE that the sky will be blue. Atheist don't have knowledge that a god doesn't exist...they believe one doesn't.

If you say you don't know, that makes you agnostic.

Having beliefs isn't a bad thing, just don't pretend you don't when it's blatantly obvious that you do.

[Blake]

That's a bad analogy. Everyone has KNOWLEDGE that the sky will be blue. Atheist don't have knowledge that a god doesn't exist...they believe one doesn't.

If you say you don't know, that makes you agnostic.

Having beliefs isn't a bad thing, just don't pretend you don't when it's blatantly obvious that you do.

I hate that society as a whole feels the need to stick labels on everyone.

[IronMexican]

Tlong, that's the general usage. However, technically speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief. (Look at the root words.)

In your case, you'd be an agnostic atheist most likely. You don't know if God exists or not, and you don't have a belief in him.

Does that make me Agnostic? I don't care if he exists or not and I don't believe in him.

[I Love Me Some Me]

cmon now.... you are better than playing the semantics game.

It's more than just a semantic difference. They are two different things.


As much as I WANT (free will) to dunk a basketball I am not able to do so (capacity).

[I Love Me Some Me]

I hate that society as a whole feels the need to stick labels on everyone.
Hater.

[Phenomanul]

go back and read the thread. I've done nothing of the sort.

You haven't?? Your cynical smugness speaks for itself... You may not realize it... but your presence here has not really enlightened the discourse... For one, your condescending tone against angel_luv is not really warranted. I mean, why bother asking questions only for the sake of scorning those who answer them???



you are lacking documentation that peewee made that claim......

Really??? You mean he didn't make that very assertion in this very thread? If that isn't 'documentation' I don't know what is....



but I guess according to you, that would not be sufficient proof that the claim never took place.

you fail. It's really that simple.

I'm amused by the boldness of your self-perceived wit... It's a shame it's grotesquely outdone by your lack of reading comprehension... or worse, your lack of logic... could it be that bias has clouded your ability to see the simplicity of this concept merely because you can't face the possibility that what I stated is logically true?
Now go along and find a way to mirror this quote too...
If no one is 'there' to see a tree fall in the forrest, it doesn't take away the fact that it did. The tree falls [an event takes place] regardless of whether or not someone is there to document it.



in other words, he also cannot prove that aliens have never visited Earth.

Can anyone prove that they haven't?



do you believe that aliens visited Earth?
My opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the question at hand. But just for the sake of argument, either answer: "yes" or "no" is equally acceptable. Besides, we don't need a rehash of Fermi's Paradox in this thread also....

[LnGrrrR]

That's a bad analogy. Everyone has KNOWLEDGE that the sky will be blue. Atheist don't have knowledge that a god doesn't exist...they believe one doesn't.

If you say you don't know, that makes you agnostic.

Having beliefs isn't a bad thing, just don't pretend you don't when it's blatantly obvious that you do.

For the 10th time... I am an AGNOSTIC... ATHEIST. :) I do not know (agnostic) and I do not believe (atheist).

Sheesh people.

Anyways, the English word for belief is somewhat poor. Technically, I could say you BELIEVE that the sky will be blue based off prior knowledge, and you are extrapolating that data to future events.

The point that atheists have a belief, but not a belief system, stands valid, I feel.

[LnGrrrR]

Does that make me Agnostic? I don't care if he exists or not and I don't believe in him.

Agnostic atheist.

Most people would call you an agnostic, but technically, that makes you an atheist.

Edit: I think not caring would fall under the agnostic, as not caring would lead you to not have knowledge of whether someone/thing is out there or not.

[Blake]

It's more than just a semantic difference. They are two different things.

As much as I WANT (free will) to dunk a basketball I am not able to do so (capacity).

in this context, I don't think so because the definition of sin is very general and is not purely a physical act.

either way, I'm sure you are well aware what I am getting at.

[Blake]

Hater.

zing

[clambake]

I cannot explain to you why some prayers get answered as the praying person and others do not.


However, I do believe the following:

Cancer and murder and all pain is a result of the fall.
The fall happened when Adam and Eve exercised their free will and rebelled against God's will.
So death, especially a painful one, was never God's will for man but rather is a consequence of sin.

All deaths are a result of sin in some way or another.
I don't mean that people who die have sinned and that is why they die, but rather that we are all victims of the world we live in- i.e. our bodies age and wear out, there are famines that cause death from starvation, etc.
There was no disease before the fall of man.

None of this was present in the Garden of Eden, the home God created for Adam and Eve- the home that they forfeited in their rebellion.

I don't believe it was God's will that I lose my father when I was only sixteen years old.
My dad's death was a result of stress, poor diet, and years of smoking- again all things that are a byproduct of Adam's disobedience.

:rollin that is absolutely the most cult like analogy i've heard from you.

[Blake]

You haven't?? Your cynical smugness speaks for itself... You may not realize it... but your presence here has not really enlightened the discourse... For one, your condescending tone against angel_luv is not really warranted. I mean, why bother asking questions only for the sake of scorning those who answer them???

you changing the subject to my posting here definitely does nothing.

please refrain from making false accusations about my posts.



Really??? You mean he didn't make that very assertion in this very thread? If that isn't 'documentation' I don't know what is....

then you don't know what 'documentation' is.

and you also haven't really read the posts in this thread.



I'm amused by the boldness of your self-perceived wit... It's a shame it's grotesquely outdone by your lack of reading comprehension... or worse, your lack of logic... could it be that bias has clouded your ability to see the simplicity of this concept merely because you can't face the possibility that what I stated is logically true?
Now go along and find a way to mirror this quote too...
If no one is 'there' to see a tree fall in the forrest, it doesn't take away the fact that it did. The tree falls [an event takes place] regardless of whether or not someone is there to document it.

I doubt anyone is amused by your lack of wit.

I'll go ahead and assume you meant "did the tree make a sound", but either way, it's a fail.


Can anyone prove that they haven't?

Asking the other person in a philosophical debate to prove a negative of any kind is an automatic fail.

see: invisible flying spaghetti monster


My opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the question at hand. But just for the sake of argument, either answer: "yes" or "no" is equally acceptable. Besides, we don't need a rehash of Fermi's Paradox in this thread also....

If someone starts out with "IMO" then yes, it's acceptable. If the sentence is finished with "because there is verifiable proof and we can't possibly be alone in the universe" then that would be unacceptable.

[IronMexican]

Agnostic atheist.

Most people would call you an agnostic, but technically, that makes you an atheist.

Edit: I think not caring would fall under the agnostic, as not caring would lead you to not have knowledge of whether someone/thing is out there or not.

Thanks:toast I had to go change my religion on Myspace because of this.

[ALVAREZ6]

None of this was present in the Garden of Eden, the home God created for Adam and Eve- the home that they forfeited in their rebellion.


My dad's death was a result of stress, poor diet, and years of smoking- again all things that are a byproduct of Adam's disobedience.
It scares me that some people believe this...

angel, I'm assuming you believe our earth is only 5,000 years old?

[I Love Me Some Me]

in this context, I don't think so because the definition of sin is very general and is not purely a physical act.

either way, I'm sure you are well aware what I am getting at.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm stating you'll have free will in heaven...I think you disagree with that, but I'm not sure why.

[Phenomanul]

What's up with your constant use of the word fail? What are you? a teen?

Grow up. Like I said... smugness eeks out of every one of your posts...


you changing the subject to my posting here definitely does nothing.

please refrain from making false accusations about my posts.

I changed the subject? You're the one that entered the conversation that I was having with PeeWee... not the other way around.

As for 'false' accusations??? Of what? Calling you out for tolling? Let me see....

Did you or did you not quote somebody by asking a question... only to immediately quote something else and reference your silly question from the previous post... patting yourself on the back in the process... finally to end up writing down some other condescending blip... wondering why no one had answered your first question???

So yeah... I called you out for your trollish behavior... unless of course, you actually feel that is how constructive dialogue is attained... :rolleyes



then you don't know what 'documentation' is.

and you also haven't really read the posts in this thread.


I didn't specify the scientific standard behind the meaning of the word, nor did I attempt define it. PeeWee's initial comment simply said "there is no documentation that GOD ever...." a statement which I later challenged as untrue.



I doubt anyone is amused by your lack of wit.

Oooooh! :lol Did I strike a nerve?



I'll go ahead and assume you meant "did the tree make a sound", but either way, it's a fail.


I wrote it down exactly how I meant it... Or are you implying I should always use clichéd analogies 'as written' without giving any thought as to how they relate to my argument?

I'm talking about the historicity of events... I'm challenging the notion that someone must witness something before it can go down in the annals of history as having occurred. Billions upon billions of events go undocumented each day... not reading about them, or not having all of the necessary 'scientific data' to prove that they transpired, does not in itself 'prove' that those events did not occur.

By that premise... talking about some random falling tree was more poignant to my argument than trying to question whether or not it produced sound as it fell... the latter effect can be repeated/reproduced... but the event itself?? well, it goes down in history the very moment it happens... and that occurs whether or not someone is there to document it.

But your reluctance to accept that simple concept goes beyond your ability to say, "OK, I can see your point"... Deep down your aversion to my logic is based solely on the fact that we answer the "GOD Question" differently... meaning any form of concession... is too much concession in your mind...

If GOD ever came to earth to present Himself to mankind... lack of documentation for said event would not by itself suggest that the event never took place. Perhaps said evidence (you like that word better :rolleyes) is buried somewhere, perhaps it was destroyed, perhaps no one wrote about it, or perhaps someone did (only to have future generations doubt its varacity). Either way you look at it... there is no way to prove that the event never took place...



Asking the other person in a philosophical debate to prove a negative of any kind is an automatic fail.

see: invisible flying spaghetti monster


I didn't ask him to prove a negative. I'm saying lack of proof, isn't proof enough to claim something never occurred... Apparently though, your skull is too dense for you listen.

As a matter of fact, I never said that my belief in GOD was based on having physical proof of His existence. My belief in His existence occurs on terms of faith... particularly because no amount of personal experience would ever hold enough weight to validate my belief to others.

Believe what you will...

As for the flying spaghetti monster... purposely inventing a "mock" substitutionary GOD-figure pretty much negates any possibility that "it" exists.



If someone starts out with "IMO" then yes, it's acceptable. If the sentence is finished with "because there is verifiable proof and we can't possibly be alone in the universe" then that would be unacceptable.

Well then, since PeeWee didn't start his initial statement with an "IMO" we're back where we started...

[Blake]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm stating you'll have free will in heaven...I think you disagree with that, but I'm not sure why.

Then I guess I'm not sure what your definition of free will is.

Mine is that you have the choice to do whatever it is you want,*if you have the capacity to do so*.

I may have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure the consensus is that there will be no more sin in Heaven.

How exactly is the ability to sin removed from the people in Heaven? Why will Christians no longer have the *capacity* to sin?

Even though punching someone in the face in Heaven probably will not hurt and not be a sin, I can think of some sins that I should still have the *capacity* for.

[Blake]

What's up with your constant use of the word fail? What are you? a teen?

Grow up. Like I said... smugness eeks out of every one of your posts...

what's up with you calling out my posts instead of answering them?

Think of me as your adult teacher when I say you fail in your arguments.



I changed the subject? You're the one that entered the conversation that I was having with PeeWee... not the other way around.

this is a discussion board. I didn't intercept any PMs.


As for 'false' accusations??? Of what? Calling you out for tolling? Let me see....

Did you or did you not quote somebody by asking a question... only to immediately quote something else and reference your silly question from the previous post... patting yourself on the back in the process... finally to end up writing down some other condescending blip... wondering why no one had answered your first question???

So yeah... I called you out for your trollish behavior... unless of course, you actually feel that is how constructive dialogue is attained... :rolleyes

do you feel that this is constructive dialogue?

I don't think you know what "trolling" means.



I didn't specify the scientific standard behind the meaning of the word, nor did I attempt define it. PeeWee's initial comment simply said "there is no documentation that GOD ever...." a statement which I later challenged as untrue.

right, Peewee said "there is no documentation that God ever...."

that's not the same thing as you initially accused him of


Oooooh! :lol Did I strike a nerve?

No, I don't take anyone's lack of wit personal.


I wrote it down exactly how I meant it... Or are you implying I should always use clichéd analogies 'as written' without giving any thought as to how they relate to my argument?

wow, then it was an even worse failed attempt at an analogy.


I'm talking about the historicity of events... I'm challenging the notion that someone must witness something before it can go down in the annals of history as having occurred. Billions upon billions of events go undocumented each day... not reading about them, or not having all of the necessary 'scientific data' to prove that they transpired, does not in itself 'prove' that those events did not occur.

By that premise... talking about some random falling tree was more poignant to my argument than trying to question whether or not it produced sound as it fell... the latter effect can be repeated/reproduced... but the event itself?? well, it goes down in history the very moment it happens... and that occurs whether or not someone is there to document it.

But your reluctance to accept that simple concept goes beyond your ability to say, "OK, I can see your point"... Deep down your aversion to my logic is based solely on the fact that we answer the "GOD Question" differently... meaning any form of concession... is too much concession in your mind...

If GOD ever came to earth to present Himself to mankind... lack of documentation for said event would not by itself suggest that the event never took place. Perhaps said evidence (you like that word better :rolleyes) is buried somewhere, perhaps it was destroyed, perhaps no one wrote about it, or perhaps someone did (only to have future generations doubt its varacity). Either way you look at it... there is no way to prove that the event never took place...

all to say "oh yeah? prove that God doesn't exist"

which is always a fail. Ask just about anyone.


I didn't ask him to prove a negative. I'm saying lack of proof, isn't proof enough to claim something never occurred... Apparently though, your skull is too dense for you listen.

apparently you are too dense to understand what proving a negative means.



As for the flying spaghetti monster... purposely inventing a "mock" substitutionary GOD-figure pretty much negates any possibility that "it" exists.

no it doesn't. I could say the same thing about Zeus or Bigfoot. Pick one......either way, you cannot disprove their existence.


Well then, since PeeWee didn't start his initial statement with an "IMO" we're back where we started...

No we aren't. Peewee doesn't have to say "IMO, there is no documented proof of God's existence."

[I Love Me Some Me]

Then I guess I'm not sure what your definition of free will is.

Mine is that you have the choice to do whatever it is you want,*if you have the capacity to do so*.

I may have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure the consensus is that there will be no more sin in Heaven.

How exactly is the ability to sin removed from the people in Heaven? Why will Christians no longer have the *capacity* to sin?

Even though punching someone in the face in Heaven probably will not hurt and not be a sin, I can think of some sins that I should still have the *capacity* for.

Perhaps my dunking a basketball example was as good as it should be. More accurately, evil will be defeated and no longer exist. Your volition will exist exactly as it does now. And, I'll use your definition of free will...you currently have ti free will to do whatever it is you want, if you have the capacity to do so.

So, I want to build a house, and I want my living room to be in the shape of a square-circle. Now, obviously there is no such thing as a square-circle, so I can't do that.

Since the problem of evil will not exist...since there is no such thing as sin...your capacity to commit sin no longer exists. Your will is still free, but as it exists now, you will be limited to exercise that will according to choices that actually exist.

The trouble you and others have with this is that you're all for God dealing with the problem of evil when it comes to murder, and genocide, and torture, and all the REALLY evil stuff. But when it comes to the FUN evil stuff, you'd prefer that He just leave you alone.

[Phenomanul]

what's up with you calling out my posts instead of answering them?

Think of me as your adult teacher when I say you fail in your arguments.

Ummm no... how about I think of you as a jerk instead...




this is a discussion board. I didn't intercept any PMs.
So then your accusation that I changed the subject was thrown out in jest???...



do you feel that this is constructive dialogue?

I don't think you know what "trolling" means.
I respond in kind... I never implied otherwise. angel_luv, however, didn't do anything but express her opinion... and you somehow felt compeled to scorn, mock and ridicule her statements... What's worse is that you tried to pass your own opinions off as fact. In the process you demonstrated your propensity for being a classless jerk. But hey... with a few exceptions here and there, that attitude seems to go hand in hand with your belief set. Way to go! :wakeup




right, Peewee said "there is no documentation that God ever...."

that's not the same thing as you initially accused him of

I didn't accuse him of anything....


The Christian god hasn't made its presence known to anyone.


You know very well that this statement can't be proven either way.


Yes it can.

There has never been a documented case of the christian god making himself known to earthlings.

And, don't give me that trinity crap about Jesus being god because that's the biggest cop out in the history of cop outs.

I challenged the footing of his statement. There is a difference. You however, have gone out of your way to wage a meaningless war of attrition because of it...

I never said I had the proof... GOD isn't some scientific subject that needs to be studied and 'measured'... HE is above it all.



No, I don't take anyone's lack of wit personal.
Nor would I expect you to understand the severity of your problem... Jerks seldom do.



wow, then it was an even worse failed attempt at an analogy.
I'm sorry if the concept is beyond your grasp... Don't worry maybe one day you'll understand the subtle differences of why I had to change the point of emphasis on that old tired cliché... that day may come when you actually invest the time to actually read people's responses, instead of just sneering at them... but since we've established that you are a jerk, that day may not come soon enough...



all to say "oh yeah? prove that God doesn't exist"

which is always a fail. Ask just about anyone.
Beliefs of the masses aren't always the correct ones.



apparently you are too dense to understand what proving a negative means.

Simply post when I requested that of PeeWee...



no it doesn't. I could say the same thing about Zeus or Bigfoot. Pick one......either way, you cannot disprove their existence.
I don't care if people believe in them or not... nor do I care to disprove their existence... Frankly, it is irrelevant to my belief set.



No we aren't. Peewee doesn't have to say "IMO, there is no documented proof of God's existence."

So you subject my stance to random standards but don't apply them across the board... I see....

sigh....

[LnGrrrR]

Thanks:toast I had to go change my religion on Myspace because of this.

Kudos!

[LnGrrrR]

Perhaps my dunking a basketball example was as good as it should be. More accurately, evil will be defeated and no longer exist. Your volition will exist exactly as it does now. And, I'll use your definition of free will...you currently have ti free will to do whatever it is you want, if you have the capacity to do so.

So, I want to build a house, and I want my living room to be in the shape of a square-circle. Now, obviously there is no such thing as a square-circle, so I can't do that.

Since the problem of evil will not exist...since there is no such thing as sin...your capacity to commit sin no longer exists. Your will is still free, but as it exists now, you will be limited to exercise that will according to choices that actually exist.

The trouble you and others have with this is that you're all for God dealing with the problem of evil when it comes to murder, and genocide, and torture, and all the REALLY evil stuff. But when it comes to the FUN evil stuff, you'd prefer that He just leave you alone.

Wait a second. If I was able to brainwash someone into not performing any sort of evil acts, as if he could not think of them, would you consider him to have free will? :D

[MiamiHeat]

I seriously cannot believe adults still believe in fairy tales.

I was smart enough to figure all of this shit out, by myself, when I was 14.

Respectable study after study, always shows that over 95%-98% of all leading scientists and those elected to the National Academy of Sciences in the USA DO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD.


You know who makes up the largest percentage of believers on planet earth?

Everyday citizens

However, the everyday citizen is normally a good person. loves almost everyone, or everyone, on this earth and would help you in any way they can. If you ever needed help, they would probably be there for you.

It's just people like them are....simpletons, sheeple who are led by others smarter than them.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Wait a second. If I was able to brainwash someone into not performing any sort of evil acts, as if he could not think of them, would you consider him to have free will? :D

This statement, and the appearance of MiamiHeat make this discussion no longer worth it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I seriously cannot believe adults still believe in fairy tales.

I was smart enough to figure all of this shit out, by myself, when I was 14.

Respectable study after study, always shows that over 95%-98% of all leading scientists and those elected to the National Academy of Sciences in the USA DO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD.


You know who makes up the largest percentage of believers on planet earth?

Everyday citizens

However, the everyday citizen is normally a good person. loves almost everyone, or everyone, on this earth and would help you in any way they can. If you ever needed help, they would probably be there for you.

It's just people like them are....simpletons, sheeple who are led by others smarter than them.

you talking about someone else being a simpleton... I'm sorry but :lmao

[Blake]

Perhaps my dunking a basketball example was as good as it should be. More accurately, evil will be defeated and no longer exist. Your volition will exist exactly as it does now. And, I'll use your definition of free will...you currently have ti free will to do whatever it is you want, if you have the capacity to do so.

So, I want to build a house, and I want my living room to be in the shape of a square-circle. Now, obviously there is no such thing as a square-circle, so I can't do that.

Since the problem of evil will not exist...since there is no such thing as sin...your capacity to commit sin no longer exists. Your will is still free, but as it exists now, you will be limited to exercise that will according to choices that actually exist.

The trouble you and others have with this is that you're all for God dealing with the problem of evil when it comes to murder, and genocide, and torture, and all the REALLY evil stuff. But when it comes to the FUN evil stuff, you'd prefer that He just leave you alone.

what is your definition of sin?

and has heaven changed since Lucifer sinned, or will we just not have the capacity to try to rise up against God?

Would it be a sin to give God the middle finger in Heaven? Or is that something I won't be capable of doing?

[Blake]

It's just people like them are....simpletons, sheeple who are led by others smarter than them.

but obviously still not as smart as you

[Blake]

Ummm no... how about I think of you as a jerk instead...

sure. As long as you think of yourself as a hypocrite while you're at it.


So then your accusation that I changed the subject was thrown out in jest???...

it's pretty clear that you calling me a troll is off topic.



I respond in kind... I never implied otherwise. angel_luv, however, didn't do anything but express her opinion... and you somehow felt compeled to scorn, mock and ridicule her statements... What's worse is that you tried to pass your own opinions off as fact. In the process you demonstrated your propensity for being a classless jerk. But hey... with a few exceptions here and there, that attitude seems to go hand in hand with your belief set. Way to go! :wakeup

angel luv is a big girl that can take care of herself.

please show what opinion I have that I passed off as fact.

I have only passed facts off as facts.

Way to go, hypocrite!


I challenged the footing of his statement. There is a difference. You however, have gone out of your way to wage a meaningless war of attrition because of it...

you said he claimed that absence of documentation was proof that God doesnt exist.

Watch out behind you while you backpedal.



Nor would I expect you to understand the severity of your problem... Jerks seldom do.

obviously you don't understand the severity of your problem. I guess hypocrites seldom do.



I'm sorry if the concept is beyond your grasp... Don't worry maybe one day you'll understand the subtle differences of why I had to change the point of emphasis on that old tired cliché... that day may come when you actually invest the time to actually read people's responses, instead of just sneering at them... but since we've established that you are a jerk, that day may not come soon enough...

no, the concept behind your failed analogy was not beyond my grasp.


If no one is 'there' to see a tree fall in the forrest, it doesn't take away the fact that it did. The tree falls [an event takes place] regardless of whether or not someone is there to document it.

it's a fail because a tree that is lying down in the forest can be proven to have fallen.

Now we have established you are not only a hypocrite, but also a dumbass.


Beliefs of the masses aren't always the correct ones.

It is not belief that asking someone else to disprove that your assertion is true is a fail. It is a fact.

If you make the assertion that God exists, then it is on you to prove it. It is not on anyone else to disprove it.


I don't care if people believe in them or not... nor do I care to disprove their existence... Frankly, it is irrelevant to my belief set.

Of course you don't care to because you can't disprove their existence.



So you subject my stance to random standards but don't apply them across the board... I see....

sigh....

no, I apply the same standards across the board, even regarding random statements like yours.

[I Love Me Some Me]

what is your definition of sin?

and has heaven changed since Lucifer sinned, or will we just not have the capacity to try to rise up against God?

Would it be a sin to give God the middle finger in Heaven? Or is that something I won't be capable of doing?

Sin is anything that is contrary to the instructions of God.

Heaven has not changed since Lucifer sinned, except for his dismissal and the 1/3 of the angels that followed him. We will not have the capacity to rise up against God, because evil will have been defeated and we'll not have the inclination to do so.

[LnGrrrR]

This statement, and the appearance of MiamiHeat make this discussion no longer worth it.

Well, you said yourself they would no longer have the capacity to perform evil in heaven, because there is none, correct?

Let's take a hypothetical situation. If I brainwashed someone so he was physically incapable of committing an evil act, even MENTALLY incapable of thinking of committing an evil act, would you still consider that to be 'free will'?

It's a valid question. (If I've misunderstood your capacity/will argument, please correct me.)

[Blake]

Sin is anything that is contrary to the instructions of God.

Heaven has not changed since Lucifer sinned, except for his dismissal and the 1/3 of the angels that followed him. We will not have the capacity to rise up against God, because evil will have been defeated and we'll not have the inclination to do so.

1. why won't we have the inclination? you said we will have the same free will in heaven as we do today.

there are still 2/3 angels left. If 1/3 were dumb enough to fall for it the first time with Lucifer, I'm betting there are a few that were on the fence that could be swayed again.

2. evil has not yet been defeated, so is it then possible for the people currently in heaven to sin? or are they not in heaven and instead in purgatory?

by saying that Heaven has not changed, by default then it will still be possible to sin.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Let's take a hypothetical situation. If I brainwashed someone so he was physically incapable of committing an evil act, even MENTALLY incapable of thinking of committing an evil act, would you still consider that to be 'free will'?

No, I would not.

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. why won't we have the inclination? you said we will have the same free will in heaven as we do today.

there are still 2/3 angels left. If 1/3 were dumb enough to fall for it the first time with Lucifer, I'm betting there are a few that were on the fence that could be swayed again.

2. evil has not yet been defeated, so is it then possible for the people currently in heaven to sin? or are they not in heaven and instead in purgatory?

by saying that Heaven has not changed, by default then it will still be possible to sin.

1. You cannot be inclined towards something that does not exist. The source of all sin will be destroyed. I know it's difficult to wrap our minds around, but think of it this way. When you're booking a flight, you have the volition to fly on any airline you want. However, when exercising that free will, you don't even consider booking a flight on TWA. Why? Because TWA doesn't exist anymore. Your free will to fly whatever airline you want isn't changed, but you can't choose TWA.

And the problem of Lucifer will be resolved as well. Remember, he was a unique angle created with "perfect knowledge"...no other such being exists/existed, except God himself.

2. The people currrently in Heaven do not exist there (currently) as physical bodies...the facilitator for sin in living people. (Prepare for kooky rapture talk.....) They will be reunited with their physical bodies upon Christ's return. In fact, they'll go first....I Thessalonians says, "...and the dead in Christ shall rise first."

[LnGrrrR]

No, I would not.

Great! We have a starting point.

Now, you said that we will no longer have the capacity to do evil in Heaven, correct?

Will that be because we WANT to perform evil, but be unable to? Or because we will no longer WANT to perform evil?

If the latter, is it your contention that everyone that goes to Heaven will FREELY choose not to perform sin?

If so, then what changes the human psyche from wanting to commit sin to not, if not some sort of 'brainwashing'?

If you disagree with many at any of these steps, just stop me there and we can continue from where you disagree. :D

[LnGrrrR]

1. You cannot be inclined towards something that does not exist. The source of all sin will be destroyed. I know it's difficult to wrap our minds around, but think of it this way. When you're booking a flight, you have the volition to fly on any airline you want. However, when exercising that free will, you don't even consider booking a flight on TWA. Why? Because TWA doesn't exist anymore. Your free will to fly whatever airline you want isn't changed, but you can't choose TWA.


Interesting way to look at it. However, the only reason I do not exercise my free will to choose TWA is because it isn't there. However, I might still WANT to choose TWA because I flew on it in the past; I am just unable to.

Will past knowledge of pleasurable sin be erased from the minds of those who go to Heaven? Or will it still exist, yet something will make these people find it unpleasurable? Or will they still want to perform these acts, but they will just be unable to per your analogy.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Great! We have a starting point.

Now, you said that we will no longer have the capacity to do evil in Heaven, correct?

Will that be because we WANT to perform evil, but be unable to? Or because we will no longer WANT to perform evil?

If the latter, is it your contention that everyone that goes to Heaven will FREELY choose not to perform sin?

If so, then what changes the human psyche from wanting to commit sin to not, if not some sort of 'brainwashing'?

If you disagree with many at any of these steps, just stop me there and we can continue from where you disagree. :D

It is my contention that evil will no longer exist. Those in heaven will live with free will.

See my TWA analogy to blake. Have you been "brainwashed" against TWA?

[I Love Me Some Me]

Interesting way to look at it. However, the only reason I do not exercise my free will to choose TWA is because it isn't there. However, I might still WANT to choose TWA because I flew on it in the past; I am just unable to.

Will past knowledge of pleasurable sin be erased from the minds of those who go to Heaven? Or will it still exist, yet something will make these people find it unpleasurable? Or will they still want to perform these acts, but they will just be unable to per your analogy.

One could argue that the DESIRE to sin, is a sin itself.

Second part, I'm not sure I know the answer to. I know the Bible teaches that God forgets our sin (they are cast "into the sea of forgetfulness"), but I can't say what impact that will have on heaven's general population, and whether or not we'll have memories of our earthly sin.

[Phenomanul]

I'm only going to address this part... For I've no desire to keep this up indefinitely...




no, the concept behind your failed analogy was not beyond my grasp.

it's a fail because a tree that is lying down in the forest can be proven to have fallen.



Really??? Is that your standard?

So there is documented proof of when every tree in existence has fallen? I see... How about those that burned?

Like I said, apparently my point was beyond your grasp.

Has the life of everyone who has ever walked the face of the earth been documented??? By your logic if they weren't, then surely they never existed... We may not know their names, but people being unearthed today existed regardless of whether or not their remains were exhumed to attest that fact... There is no onus or burden of proof on these matters... lack of scientific evidence to validate their existence does not in itself negate the fact that they did. No amount of kicking and screaming on your part can change that.

Put another way "History is history", regardless of whether or not we are able to decipher it all.

All I'm trying to say is that we can't certifiably prove that an event never took place, solely based on the assumption that documentation for said event has yet to be found or does not exist...

If you can't agree with that statement... your motives, and not logic, have taken control and clouded your mind.

What's more, is that all of my arguments were constrained by PeeWee's assumption that the Bible has zero credibility as a documented source (a stance I don't agree with)... But even under that constraint, based on what I've explained above, his statement was unfounded...

And forgive me for insulting you... Like I said, I have a fiery personality... seeing everyone here scorn angel_luv was not easy to dismiss...

[z0sa]

Interesting way to look at it. However, the only reason I do not exercise my free will to choose TWA is because it isn't there. However, I might still WANT to choose TWA because I flew on it in the past; I am just unable to.

Will past knowledge of pleasurable sin be erased from the minds of those who go to Heaven? Or will it still exist, yet something will make these people find it unpleasurable? Or will they still want to perform these acts, but they will just be unable to per your analogy.

i don't get you people.

its Heaven, not some magic isle with bikini dancers and drugs.

the only people who made it are moral. the only people there are TRUE believers. And there is approximately 0% temptation to sin of any sort. or like I just said: we're all believers, we don't want to throw God who we're in Paradise because of the finger.

Your lukewarm "why can't i still sin?" approach will not exist, because people like that will not be in heaven. Yeah, that means a majority of people today are going to hell, deal with it.

that's not to say you can't make it because you have sinned - but reveling in sin is exactly the opposite of what God wants. That want and need to sin is what believers constantly fight against. Just because you give in to that sin, and deny God even exists .... while still wanting all the answers about us Believers getting there with a total different belief set? well of course it won't all make sense to you.

[LnGrrrR]

One could argue that the DESIRE to sin, is a sin itself.

Second part, I'm not sure I know the answer to. I know the Bible teaches that God forgets our sin (they are cast "into the sea of forgetfulness"), but I can't say what impact that will have on heaven's general population, and whether or not we'll have memories of our earthly sin.

Great! Thanks for this conversation. It's fun to dicuss theological arguments for me, especially since it can be tough to find believers willing to engage in logical argumentation. :)

So, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you feel that the desire to sin will be erased in some fashion from the human condition.

To reflect on your TWA analogy, no one's been 'brainwashed' into not selecting TWA. However, no one has the CAPABILITY to choose TWA, no? :)

Now, IIRC, you've said that the capability to perform sin would be eliminated in Heaven. Since sin can also be mental, and it is human to sin, some would say, to me it would seem to take some form of mental manipulation to PREVENT us from sinning, even in Heaven (hence my 'brainwashing' example.)

If the human brain is incapable of processing the idea of sin, then it follows that we would not be able to sin (reflections of 1984's paring down of language there). But that still seems like it would almost take a form of brainwashing, rather than a spontaneous free will gesture on the part of everyone who enters Heaven. I assume the latter is your contention?

[LnGrrrR]

i don't get you people.

its Heaven, not some magic isle with bikini dancers and drugs.

the only people who made it are moral. the only people there are TRUE believers. And there is approximately 0% temptation to sin of any sort. or like I just said: we're all believers, we don't want to throw God who we're in Paradise because of the finger.

Your lukewarm "why can't i still sin?" approach will not exist, because people like that will not be in heaven. Yeah, that means a majority of people today are going to hell, deal with it.

that's not to say you can't make it because you have sinned - but reveling in sin is exactly the opposite of what God wants. That want and need to sin is what believers constantly fight against. Just because you give in to that sin, and deny God even exists .... while still wanting all the answers about us Believers getting there with a total different belief set? well of course it won't all make sense to you.

Are we not all sinners? Do we not make it to Heaven because we choose NOT to sin? Without that ability to make a choice, how would God determine who is and is not worthy?

Given that it is an inborn propensity for humanity to sin, how is that removed when we go to Heaven, without fundamentally changing our human nature?

[Blake]

1. You cannot be inclined towards something that does not exist. The source of all sin will be destroyed. I know it's difficult to wrap our minds around, but think of it this way. When you're booking a flight, you have the volition to fly on any airline you want. However, when exercising that free will, you don't even consider booking a flight on TWA. Why? Because TWA doesn't exist anymore. Your free will to fly whatever airline you want isn't changed, but you can't choose TWA.

that's a contradiction of you saying that heaven will be the same in the future as it was when Lucifer sinned.


And the problem of Lucifer will be resolved as well. Remember, he was a unique angle created with "perfect knowledge"...no other such being exists/existed, except God himself.

so Lucifer and angels in heaven are able to turn against God because they have/had the capacity, but we will not?

if Heaven is the same, that makes no sense.

Why will the notion to turn against God be removed unless our free will has been removed?


2. The people currrently in Heaven do not exist there (currently) as physical bodies...the facilitator for sin in living people. (Prepare for kooky rapture talk.....) They will be reunited with their physical bodies upon Christ's return. In fact, they'll go first....I Thessalonians says, "...and the dead in Christ shall rise first."

Nope. Doesn't jive.

Evil has not been defeated and Satan/Lucifer exists on the same dimensional plane as the people currently living in Heaven.

How can Satan have the capability to sin, but people currently in Heaven do not, unless their free will has been removed?

[Blake]

One could argue that the DESIRE to sin, is a sin itself.


so why will desire be removed?

and why did Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels desire to sin?

[Blake]

I'm only going to address this part... For I've no desire to keep this up indefinitely...

that's probably wise on your part since you are failing.




Really??? Is that your standard?

So there is documented proof of when every tree in existence has fallen? I see... How about those that burned?

no but we have evidence that trees have fallen. we have witnessed trees falling, therefore believing that trees have fallen is not any real stretch of the imagination.

Those that burned can be proven to have burned.


Like I said, apparently my point was beyond your grasp.

Like i said, your analogy fails.

Proving that trees have fallen in the forest before has nothing to do with proving the existence of a God that nobody sees.

Apparently the ability to make good analogies is beyond your grasp


Has the life of everyone who has ever walked the face of the earth been documented??? By your logic if they weren't, then surely they never existed... We may not know their names, but people being unearthed today existed regardless of whether or not their remains were exhumed to attest that fact... There is no onus or burden of proof on these matters... lack of scientific evidence to validate their existence does not in itself negate the fact that they did. No amount of kicking and screaming on your part can change that.

great, and people being unearthed today prove they existed.

I'm not sure what part of "if you make a claim, you need to be the one to back it up" you don't understand.

No amount of kicking and screaming on your part can change the fact that your logic is a fail.


Put another way "History is history", regardless of whether or not we are able to decipher it all.

All I'm trying to say is that we can't certifiably prove that an event never took place, solely based on the assumption that documentation for said event has yet to be found or does not exist...

If you can't agree with that statement... your motives, and not logic, have taken control and clouded your mind.



All peewee said (and I agree) is that you can't certifiably prove that God exists.

Anyone can make a crazy claim about invisible beings floating above us in the sky and you can't certifiably disprove it.

Your argument that "purposely inventing a "mock" substitutionary GOD-figure pretty much negates any possibility that "it" exists" is a fail because you cannot prove God exists to begin with.

Telling someone "oh yeah, prove it doesn't exist" never works no matter how much you think it might.

[Phenomanul]

that's probably wise on your part since you are failing.

no but we have evidence that trees have fallen. we have witnessed trees falling, therefore believing that trees have fallen is not any real stretch of the imagination.

Those that burned can be proven to have burned.

Like i said, your analogy fails.

Proving that trees have fallen in the forest before has nothing to do with proving the existence of a God that nobody sees.

Apparently the ability to make good analogies is beyond your grasp

great, and people being unearthed today prove they existed.

I'm not sure what part of "if you make a claim, you need to be the one to back it up" you don't understand.

No amount of kicking and screaming on your part can change the fact that your logic is a fail.

All peewee said (and I agree) is that you can't certifiably prove that God exists.

Anyone can make a crazy claim about invisible beings floating above us in the sky and you can't certifiably disprove it.

Your argument that "purposely inventing a "mock" substitutionary GOD-figure pretty much negates any possibility that "it" exists" is a fail because you cannot prove God exists to begin with.

Telling someone "oh yeah, prove it doesn't exist" never works no matter how much you think it might.

:lmao

I never asked him to prove that GOD didn't exist (for that matter, Science can't either).... I said his statement was unfounded... that's all... Still, you decided to go on some self-pompous crusade trying to back up your faulty logic. No matter how many times you try to punctuate a thought with the word "fail," it won't change the fact that what I've said is by very definition true...

That you don't want to accept that truth at face value is not my problem... :rolleyes

[baseline bum]

Do they have beer in heaven? What about strippers, boxing, and craps tables? Can you get laid there? Does god look down on the three-way? Or do you just have to sit on a cloud and jerk off all over yourself for eternity?

[CuckingFunt]

If I can't get laid in heaven, bring on hell.

[I Love Me Some Me]

If I can't get laid in heaven, bring on hell.

So, hypothetically speaking, lets say someone presented us with an opprtunity to remove all the horrible things of this world. No more rape, no more torture, no more child abuse or molestation, no more hunger, no more poverty, no more genocide, no more war, no more sickness...but , in the process we'd have to lose things like drunkenness, drug use, casual sex, porn, and other things like that.

It goes to a global vote....you'd vote no?

[I Love Me Some Me]

Great! Thanks for this conversation. It's fun to dicuss theological arguments for me, especially since it can be tough to find believers willing to engage in logical argumentation. :)

So, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you feel that the desire to sin will be erased in some fashion from the human condition.

To reflect on your TWA analogy, no one's been 'brainwashed' into not selecting TWA. However, no one has the CAPABILITY to choose TWA, no? :)

Now, IIRC, you've said that the capability to perform sin would be eliminated in Heaven. Since sin can also be mental, and it is human to sin, some would say, to me it would seem to take some form of mental manipulation to PREVENT us from sinning, even in Heaven (hence my 'brainwashing' example.)

If the human brain is incapable of processing the idea of sin, then it follows that we would not be able to sin (reflections of 1984's paring down of language there). But that still seems like it would almost take a form of brainwashing, rather than a spontaneous free will gesture on the part of everyone who enters Heaven. I assume the latter is your contention?

I'm not sure if there's a different way for me to put it. Evil will not exist. Period. So, if desiring evil is inherently evil, that desire will simply not be there. There will be no convincing required. No manipulation will be necessary. The evil will simply not exist. It's not an issue of the brain processing sin, it's that there is no sin for the brain to process.

[Blake]

:lmao

I never asked him to prove that GOD didn't exist (for that matter, Science can't either).... I said his statement was unfounded... that's all... Still, you decided to go on some self-pompous crusade trying to back up your faulty logic. No matter how many times you try to punctuate a thought with the word "fail," it won't change the fact that what I've said is by very definition true...

I know you never asked him to prove that GOD didn't exist.

you said this:


You stated:

There is no documented proof that GOD ever presented himself to earthlings [mankind].

I then stated that your comment could not be proven either way.

I said, actually his comment could be proven one of those ways. I said 'you fail'. You got butt hurt over that and said I've done nothing but TROLL.

just because you say something that is true by definition won't change the fact that it fails as an argument.


That you don't want to accept that truth at face value is not my problem... :rolleyes

I accept the truth that trees can fall in a forest with nobody around.

You failing in this thread is not my problem.

[baseline bum]

Heaven sounds pretty bland. :td

[Phenomanul]

I know you never asked him to prove that GOD didn't exist.

you said this:



I said, actually his comment could be proven one of those ways. I said 'you fail'. You got butt hurt over that and said I've done nothing but TROLL.

just because you say something that is true by definition won't change the fact that it fails as an argument.

:lmao your insecurity complex is really something to behold...




I accept the truth that trees can fall in a forest with nobody around.


So then not everything in history has been explicitly documented? You don't say!

Don't let that subtle concession slam you in the face on the way out...

:wakeup

[IronMexican]

Heaven sounds gay. None of those things I Love Me listed effect me.

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. that's a contradiction of you saying that heaven will be the same in the future as it was when Lucifer sinned.



2. so Lucifer and angels in heaven are able to turn against God because they have/had the capacity, but we will not?

if Heaven is the same, that makes no sense.

3. Why will the notion to turn against God be removed unless our free will has been removed?



4. Nope. Doesn't jive.

Evil has not been defeated and Satan/Lucifer exists on the same dimensional plane as the people currently living in Heaven.

How can Satan have the capability to sin, but people currently in Heaven do not, unless their free will has been removed?

I numbered these since I can't multi-quote from my phone.

1. You'll have to explain the contradiction, because it's not abundantly clear to me.

2. Lucifer was able to turn against God because he was created with perfect wisdom. He was aware of the existence of evil, and chose to rebel because he wanted to be worshipped like God. The angels sent with him were decieved into following him. No other angel was created with that knowledge.

3. If the notion itself is evil, and the evil is removed, the notion is non-existant.

4. This doesn't jive because your understanding is wrong. Satan does not exist on the same "dimensional level" as those in heaven. In fact, the
Bible says he was "cast out into the earth."

Again, the people who have died and are in heaven are not susceptible to the temptations of this world because they do not have physical bodies.

[Phenomanul]

Heaven sounds gay. None of those things I Love Me listed effect me.

The Bible speaks more of 'Hell' than it does of heaven...

I wouldn't be nearly as dismissive of how hell could affect its inhabitants.

[Blake]

So, hypothetically speaking, lets say someone presented us with an opprtunity to remove all the horrible things of this world. No more rape, no more torture, no more child abuse or molestation, no more hunger, no more poverty, no more genocide, no more war, no more sickness...but , in the process we'd have to lose things like drunkenness, drug use, casual sex, porn, and other things like that.

It goes to a global vote....you'd vote no?

from an earthly standpoint, that is a ridiculous poll. Drunkeness in public and drug use are currently against the law. There's also no way to give up casual sex without giving up your free will.

from a heavenly standpoint, what kind of sex will there be? I'm guessing none.

But that's not the type of sin I've been asking you about.

[Blake]

:lmao your insecurity complex is really something to behold...

your continued attempt to prove something using the same failed argument repeatedly is fun to read.


So then not everything in history has been explicitly documented? You don't say!

Don't let that subtle concession slam you in the face on the way out...

:wakeup

Nope and it's not an argument of any kind no matter how many times you say it.

Keep punching yourself in the face though. It's really something to behold.....

[baseline bum]

If I can't get laid in heaven, bring on hell.

It sounds more like heaven and hell are isomorphic to each other; the same thing with different names.

[Duff McCartney]

"The spirit makes it clear that as time goes on, some are going to give up on the faith and chase after illusions put forth by professional liars. These liars have lied so well and for so long that they've lost their capacity for truth. They will tell you not to get married. They will tell you not to eat this or that food..."

Doesn't the Bible do the same thing? You know with the whole shellfish/pork thing.

I personally am a devout atheist but what I am not is a militant atheist. Nothing will ever change my atheism at all. But I do understand why people follow religion and believe there is a god.

I think people make too much of a big deal about religion in general. People love to tell you that they are Christian, Muslim whatever...but to me that's a totally irrelevent subject. The worlds most devout christian is no different to me than the worlds most devout atheist. You might as well told me something just as irrelevent like your blood type...it might have importance to me if you die but not likely.

[Blake]

The Bible speaks more of 'Hell' than it does of heaven...

I wouldn't be nearly as dismissive of how hell could affect its inhabitants.

why am I not surprised you are talking out of your ass again.

[Phenomanul]

your continued attempt to prove something using the same failed argument repeatedly is fun to read.

Not as depressing as seeing your failure to grasp it.

Now hurry! Find someway to hurl that comment back towards me... (your shtick has become rather tiresome...)



Nope and it's not an argument of any kind no matter how many times you say

Keep punching yourself in the face though. It's really something to behold.....

:lmao

What's really amusing is that you can't produce any original smack of your own...

I mean seriously? Can you not find any of your own idioms??? Lame.

:wakeup

[baseline bum]

Nothing will ever change my atheism at all.

I'd like to think most atheists would be open to change their minds if there was any convincing demonstration of a god's existence being likely.

[Blake]

Not as depressing as seeing your failure to grasp it.

Now hurry! Find someway to hurl that comment back towards me... (your shtick has become rather tiresome...)

and yet here you are.

more fail.




:lmao

What's really amusing is that you can't produce any original smack of your own...

I mean seriously? Can you not find any of your own idioms??? Lame.

:wakeup

what's amusing is that your arguments are lame and your logic fails.

please provide a source that says hell is mentioned more than heaven.

[Blake]

I'd like to think most atheists would be open to change their minds if there was any convincing demonstration of a god's existence being likely.

there is no proof that God doesn't exist.

yours truly,
phenomanul

[Phenomanul]

and yet here you are.

more fail.

I've been a member of this forum long before you were... is that the best you could muster???

:lmao




what's amusing is that your arguments are lame and your logic fails.

Suuuuuuureee buddy! Whatever helps you sleep at night.



please provide a source that says hell is mentioned more than heaven.



So now you want to change the subject??? I do believe the point of emphasis in my comment to IronMexican was "Don't have a dismissive attitude towards hell"...

Besides, there are so many different terms and symbolisms to describe both heaven and hell that you're not likely to find exact numbers....

Sheol, hades, tartaroo (or tartarus), gehenna, etc...

Heaven, the third sky, Kingdom of GOD, eternal life, etc....

Fact of the matter is Jesus himself gave the topic of hell enough burn. :hat

[MiamiHeat]

there -is- proof that god does not exist

aside from the obvious one that you live on this planet with -0- interaction with a god...

human history and the evolution of world religions. study it and you will find the 'smoking gun'

start way back with the Sumerian civilization, in particular the epic of Gilgamesh to see exactly where the flood story comes from...

then work your way down through history, through the babylonian, persian and egyptian empires, etc...to around 1600-1700ish CE, and you'll see it for yourself. it becomes very obvious.

[Blake]

I've been a member of this forum long before you were... is that the best you could muster???

:lmao

you've been a member of the forum this long and you still are getting owned this badly?


Suuuuuuureee buddy! Whatever helps you sleep at night.

your failures have nothing to do with my getting sleep at night, but laughing at your ignorant posts has made for some fun today.


So now you want to change the subject??? I do believe the point of emphasis in my comment to IronMexican was "Don't have a dismissive attitude towards hell"...

I'm not changing anything. You brought up hell being mentioned more than heaven in the bible. I'd like to see your source.


Besides, there are so many different terms and symbolisms to describe both heaven and hell that you're not likely to find exact numbers....[

Sheol, hades, tartaroo (or tartarus), gehenna, etc...

Heaven, the third sky, Kingdom of GOD, eternal life, etc....

Fact of the matter is Jesus himself gave the topic of hell enough burn. :hat

:lol pick a translation and go with it.

what's your source? I'm betting it's your ass.

[Blake]

there -is- proof that god does not exist


no, there isn't

just because man might have made up stories about a higher power does not mean that a higher power does not exist.

[CuckingFunt]

So, hypothetically speaking, lets say someone presented us with an opprtunity to remove all the horrible things of this world. No more rape, no more torture, no more child abuse or molestation, no more hunger, no more poverty, no more genocide, no more war, no more sickness...but , in the process we'd have to lose things like drunkenness, drug use, casual sex, porn, and other things like that.

It goes to a global vote....you'd vote no?

So, then, "getting laid" = drunkenness, drug use, casual sex, porn, and more? That's a pretty big leap.

[MiamiHeat]

no, there isn't

just because man might have made up stories about a higher power does not mean that a higher power does not exist.

Lol

If Mankind invented the idea of a God, it means there is no God.

If you want to hold onto the possibility that we invented the concept of God, but there still could be "a" God, then you are desperate.

[MiamiHeat]

So, then, "getting laid" = drunkenness, drug use, casual sex, porn, and more? That's a pretty big leap.

All of those Christian ideals come from pagan and much older religions, it's the whole philosophy of denying yourself, your 'animal' self, your 'primal' human flesh so that you can 'grow' into a spiritual self. This doesn't originate in christianity at all.

[Blake]

Lol

If Mankind invented the idea of a God, it means there is no God.

If you want to hold onto the possibility that we invented a God, but there still could be "a" God, then you are desperate.

no, it means that the existence of a God or higher power is a theory.

do you always shoot down theories if they lack physical evidence?

[MiamiHeat]

LOL.

First of all, change

"do you always shoot down theories if they lack physical evidence?"

to

"do you always shoot down theories if they lack any evidence?"

and then take a look at the scientific process on planet earth.

[I Love Me Some Me]

So, then, "getting laid" = drunkenness, drug use, casual sex, porn, and more? That's a pretty big leap.

Yes...that's what I said.

C'mon.

I posed a hypothetical question...no leap was made. If you don't want to answer it, don't answer it. But don't assume a leap was made where I equated getting laid to everything else. That never happened, and it was quite a leap of your own to try and come to that conclusion.

[Blake]

LOL.

First of all, change

"do you always shoot down theories if they lack physical evidence?"

to

"do you always shoot down theories if they lack any evidence?"

and then take a look at the scientific process on planet earth.

you don't read much about theories of the universe, do you.

LOL, string theory.

you are an idiot.

[baseline bum]

Nothing wrong with casual sex or drug use.

[MiamiHeat]

a Theory needs actual observation, experiment... something to substantiate it so that it can become a valid scientific theory. it's not just guessing.

String theory, as of now, has barely any, if any at all, valid quantitative evidence.

so as of now, we don't build churches and live our lives based on string theory.

"LOL"


alright blake, welcome to ignore. you throw the word idiot around and have no proof or arguments, you behave like an immature teen.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not sure if there's a different way for me to put it. Evil will not exist. Period. So, if desiring evil is inherently evil, that desire will simply not be there. There will be no convincing required. No manipulation will be necessary. The evil will simply not exist. It's not an issue of the brain processing sin, it's that there is no sin for the brain to process.

Is that not the same as my hypothetical brainwashed man whose brain cannot process sin?

[LnGrrrR]

So, hypothetically speaking, lets say someone presented us with an opprtunity to remove all the horrible things of this world. No more rape, no more torture, no more child abuse or molestation, no more hunger, no more poverty, no more genocide, no more war, no more sickness...but , in the process we'd have to lose things like drunkenness, drug use, casual sex, porn, and other things like that.

It goes to a global vote....you'd vote no?

Honestly, I'd vote no. One, because I like liberty, and that would deny such.

Two, it doesn't make sense on the face of it. If God didn't want us to do such, why put it there? To test us? I might accept that theory if the 'punishment' was something milder than eternal torment. :)

If I leave out a cookie that my son knows he is not supposed to eat, sure, he might get punished. But I'm not going to ground him forever. He doesn't have the INTELLIGENCE/KNOWLEDGE to understand the future ramifications of his actions, in my opinion.

[MiamiHeat]

I love Me Some Me :

Are animals evil for raping each other? Male cats rape female cats, apes, dogs, it's very common. It's just a natural way of reproduction that has gone on forever.

We are no different, for we are animals. The only problem is, we are more advanced, so we recognized rape = hurt people, bad for economy, bad for family structures, bad for everyone.... and we don't live like animals.

That is where 'evil' comes from. It's 'human' behavior that we recognized is bad for us.

Your concept of 'good' and 'evil' is just a natural evolution of human societal interaction.

Not some ridiculous supernatural concept. Really, if God made your world, then why aren't the animals perfect?

[Duff McCartney]

I'd like to think most atheists would be open to change their minds if there was any convincing demonstration of a god's existence being likely.

I'm not open to change my mind about that. But you're talking in hypotheticals not factuals. The fact is...the entire Bible and religion in general is that there doesn't have to be any convincing demonstration of the existence of god. That's not what these things speak to.

They speak about and live off of something entirely different. Remove all facts, logic, and science and religion falls apart...any religion does. But as stated before that's not the point of religion. It's about faith.

The thing that always worries me and I simply can't stand is proselytizing. I can't stand people like angel_luv, phenomenaul and the likes...they make me sick. Too busy worrying about peoples religion and not enough caring about something deeper than that. Angel_luv especially an attitude like I (for example) being an atheist have to have something inherently wrong with me or I'm broken or I need to be saved and pitied. That's what really bugs me.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Is that not the same as my hypothetical brainwashed man whose brain cannot process sin?

Look up what brainwashing is, and explain to me how it's the same as what I described.

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. Honestly, I'd vote no. One, because I like liberty, and that would deny such.

2. Two, it doesn't make sense on the face of it. If God didn't want us to do such, why put it there? To test us? I might accept that theory if the 'punishment' was something milder than eternal torment. :)

3. If I leave out a cookie that my son knows he is not supposed to eat, sure, he might get punished. But I'm not going to ground him forever. He doesn't have the INTELLIGENCE/KNOWLEDGE to understand the future ramifications of his actions, in my opinion.

1. Rather selfish, don't you think?

2. It's there to give you the free will that is seemingly so important. Also, he doesn't what a bunch of cloned robots serving him because he's the only option. He wants you to follow him because you've chosen to do so.

3. No, you offer him forgiveness. But what about the second time...or the third....or the seventeenth....or the hundredth? You'll still forgive him, but the consequences will probably be greater after the hundredth occurrence than they were the first time. At some point you'd think he'd learn that he shouldn't eat the cookie, right?

[Phenomanul]

I'm not open to change my mind about that. But you're talking in hypotheticals not factuals. The fact is...the entire Bible and religion in general is that there doesn't have to be any convincing demonstration of the existence of god. That's not what these things speak to.

They speak about and live off of something entirely different. Remove all facts, logic, and science and religion falls apart...any religion does. But as stated before that's not the point of religion. It's about faith.

The thing that always worries me and I simply can't stand is proselytizing. I can't stand people like angel_luv, phenomenaul and the likes...they make me sick. Too busy worrying about peoples religion and not enough caring about something deeper than that. Angel_luv especially an attitude like I (for example) being an atheist have to have something inherently wrong with me or I'm broken or I need to be saved and pitied. That's what really bugs me.



????

I've personally tried to convince you to change your mind??? When???

I've always valued people's decision to believe what they want... You deserve no pity, judgement, praise, or condemnation on my part as long as as you treat me with the same consideration...

For that matter, why would you condemn me for standing up for my beliefs, as if I had no voice in the matter??? Again, another subtle double standard of "do as I say, not as I do"...

Look... I've no jurisdiction to cast judgement over how you choose to live your life... Why then would you then criticize me for defending the way I live mine??? I don't knock on your door... bother you during lunch, at school, work or any other place... So how have I proselytized you?

Any attempt to solicit empathy from the 'tolerance' crowd by suggesting that all Christians are judgemental only goes as far as the person (or the motives) making the claim. You think that Christians aren't constantly belittled by the athiest agenda that tries to suggest that our belief in GOD equates to 'lack of intelligence'??? Those two concepts are mutually exclusive, and nevertheless you all constantly insult us with that assumption. You said it yourself... and take it as a given.

Personally I don't care about your beliefs... you're grown-up and free to believe whatever you wish... No one is forcing you to believe what I believe. You've made your decision and I've made mine. You want respect??? How about you extend us the same courtesy...

Nothing personal...

[E20]

The change in energy is porportional to the change in mass mutliplied by the speed of light to the second power.

[baseline bum]

The change in energy is porportional to the change in mass mutliplied by the speed of light to the second power.

Show your work or you get no points.

[MiamiHeat]

before birth, all animals with backbones—including humans—pass through a stage of development in which they have gill clefts. This fact suggests that these animals are descended from organisms that once lived in water

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4067039.stm


That's right. All human fetuses essentially go through a phase with fish gills during development.

[Viintex]

I took the other way round, from hard core atheist to agnostic, and Im pretty relaxed, but lookin at the stars and stuff, there could be somethin, jus not human.

[LnGrrrR]

Look up what brainwashing is, and explain to me how it's the same as what I described.

Alright, let's replace the word 'brainwashed' with 'hypnotized' and we'll assume the person volunteered themselves. This would be analagous, correct?

If a person were to go to the best hypnotist in the world and volunteer themselves to be hypnotized, with the request that he could no longer think/do/create sin, would this be analagous enough for you?

If so, would you consider the man after hypnotizing to have free will? :)

[LnGrrrR]

1. Rather selfish, don't you think?

2. It's there to give you the free will that is seemingly so important. Also, he doesn't what a bunch of cloned robots serving him because he's the only option. He wants you to follow him because you've chosen to do so.

3. No, you offer him forgiveness. But what about the second time...or the third....or the seventeenth....or the hundredth? You'll still forgive him, but the consequences will probably be greater after the hundredth occurrence than they were the first time. At some point you'd think he'd learn that he shouldn't eat the cookie, right?

1) Liberty is selfish? :)

2) Which I'm fine with, assuming that the punishment isn't everlasting damnation.

3) Yes, he should probably learn. But only if I DO punish him. However, let's say I'm 'denying' God. I have never seen any explicit punishment from God. Now say I die, and even though I've led a good life, I haven't believed. Do I deserve eternal torment, even if I did not feel/see/experience any sort of heavenly rebuke? (And please don't say, "You've been rebuked, you just don't know it", as that's kinda my whole point. Not being explicitly punished for a lack of belief would make the eternal torment thing a bit unfair. :D)

[I Love Me Some Me]

Alright, let's replace the word 'brainwashed' with 'hypnotized' and we'll assume the person volunteered themselves. This would be analagous, correct?

If a person were to go to the best hypnotist in the world and volunteer themselves to be hypnotized, with the request that he could no longer think/do/create sin, would this be analagous enough for you?

If so, would you consider the man after hypnotizing to have free will? :)

I already answered this...I say NO. But I'm not talking about God tricking everyone (through hypnotics or brainwashing) into thinking He's taken care of evil. I'm talking about a heaven with no evil, in reality not in someone's imagination.

[Blake]

a Theory needs actual observation, experiment... something to substantiate it so that it can become a valid scientific theory. it's not just guessing.

String theory, as of now, has barely any, if any at all, valid quantitative evidence.

so as of now, we don't build churches and live our lives based on string theory.

"LOL"


alright blake, welcome to ignore. you throw the word idiot around and have no proof or arguments, you behave like an immature teen.




waterboarding is nothing..

You KNOW they aren't going to drown you, so all you have to do is let go and conquer the fear of drowning and control your stress level

I can do that easy. I hope Hannity actually goes through with this, but I know he wont. hes a pussy



your "waterboarding is easy" theory has no quantitative evidence, especially since you have never been waterboarded, but you still went several pages trying to convince everyone it is.

by your logic, waterboarding is not easy no matter how many times you act like an immature teen calling someone else a pussy for not trying it.

Goddam, you are one focking idiot. :lol

"LOL"

[Blake]

1. Rather selfish, don't you think?

2. It's there to give you the free will that is seemingly so important. Also, he doesn't what a bunch of cloned robots serving him because he's the only option. He wants you to follow him because you've chosen to do so.

3. No, you offer him forgiveness. But what about the second time...or the third....or the seventeenth....or the hundredth? You'll still forgive him, but the consequences will probably be greater after the hundredth occurrence than they were the first time. At some point you'd think he'd learn that he shouldn't eat the cookie, right?

1. so what's the point of living then if liberty is taken away? Might as well just live in a cage for the rest of your healthy, non harmed life.

2. but once you get into heaven, the way you are describing existence would make us nothing more than pets

3. you offer the kid forgiveness after punishment. The kid gets punished for taking the 1st cookie, then he most likely never reaches the 100th time.

After the 1st time someone commits adultery, God doesn't stick the person in hell for a "timeout" and then lets him go back to earth, having learned his lesson.

[I Love Me Some Me]

1) Liberty is selfish? :)

2) Which I'm fine with, assuming that the punishment isn't everlasting damnation.

3) Yes, he should probably learn. But only if I DO punish him. However, let's say I'm 'denying' God. I have never seen any explicit punishment from God. Now say I die, and even though I've led a good life, I haven't believed. Do I deserve eternal torment, even if I did not feel/see/experience any sort of heavenly rebuke? (And please don't say, "You've been rebuked, you just don't know it", as that's kinda my whole point. Not being explicitly punished for a lack of belief would make the eternal torment thing a bit unfair. :D)

1. Liberty is not selfish. The desire to continue things like rape, torture, and abuse so you can still get your drink is selfish.

2. What should the final judgement be? 3 years probation and community service? We're talking about a God who has created everything. A God who offerred his only son as sacrifice for your mistakes. He watched that son get physically abused in horrible ways. He watched that son die a horrific death by crucifixion. At amoment's notice, He could have stepped in and stopped that death. At His word, his son would be spared. But because of His love for you, He watched His son die this death. Because of you, He forsake His son...because he wants you avoid the eternal damnation. All He asks in return is that you believe in the son that he allowed to be sacrificed for you.

And you say "no" to his face, and expect a light sentence?

3. See above....He only asks that you believe. But look at the brightside...you'll have eternal torment, but at least you'll still have the free will to bang whoever you want!

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. so what's the point of living then if liberty is taken away? Might as well just live in a cage for the rest of your healthy, non harmed life.

2. but once you get into heaven, the way you are describing existence would make us nothing more than pets

3. you offer the kid forgiveness after punishment. The kid gets punished for taking the 1st cookie, then he most likely never reaches the 100th time.

After the 1st time someone commits adultery, God doesn't stick the person in hell for a "timeout" and then lets him go back to earth, having learned his lesson.

1. No one ever said liberty was taken away. YOU have drawn that conclusion (incorrectly, BTW). You just don't like God's definition of evil.

I can't believe people are trying to talk themselves into believing that
heaven will be this horrible place.

2. You'll have to elaborate on how you equate heaven to a giant kennel for God's pets. What is it exactly that you'd like to be able to do there?

3. You're not sent to hell because of the horrible things you've done, just like you don't get to heaven because of the good things you've done. You don't get eternal damnation for cheating on your wife or for eating the 100th cookie. Hence, the sacrifice of His son...so that these acts can be forgotten, and you can avoid the damnation at the end. All you have to do in believe. If you don't, that's when the eternal damnation comes in.

[Blake]

1. Liberty is not selfish. The desire to continue things like rape, torture, and abuse so you can still get your drink is selfish.

I don't know how you came up with these standards, but comparing drinking a couple of beers to rape and torture is beyond ridiculous.


2. What should the final judgement be? 3 years probation and community service? We're talking about a God who has created everything. A God who offerred his only son as sacrifice for your mistakes. He watched that son get physically abused in horrible ways. He watched that son die a horrific death by crucifixion. At amoment's notice, He could have stepped in and stopped that death. At His word, his son would be spared. But because of His love for you, He watched His son die this death. Because of you, He forsake His son...because he wants you avoid the eternal damnation. All He asks in return is that you believe in the son that he allowed to be sacrificed for you.

And you say "no" to his face, and expect a light sentence?

if he is omniscient and knows before he makes me that I am going to hell, then why make me to begin with?

and true or false: Jews go to Heaven



3. See above....He only asks that you believe. But look at the brightside...you'll have eternal torment, but at least you'll still have the free will to bang whoever you want!

If I'm in Heaven and I know that someone I loved very much went to hell, would I have the free will to trade places with that person?

[Blake]

1. No one ever said liberty was taken away. YOU have drawn that conclusion (incorrectly, BTW). You just don't like God's definition of evil.

True or false: once in heaven, will I have the free will to try to take over Heaven like Lucifer did?

will greed and envy not be capable?

Again, the you describe people in heaven, it's as if they are nothing more than pets.


I can't believe people are trying to talk themselves into believing that
heaven will be this horrible place.

what's so good about it?


2. You'll have to elaborate on how you equate heaven to a giant kennel for God's pets. What is it exactly that you'd like to be able to do there?

are you kidding me?

what makes life worth living down here if Heaven is so much better?


3. You're not sent to hell because of the horrible things you've done, just like you don't get to heaven because of the good things you've done. You don't get eternal damnation for cheating on your wife or for eating the 100th cookie. Hence, the sacrifice of His son...so that these acts can be forgotten, and you can avoid the damnation at the end. All you have to do in believe. If you don't, that's when the eternal damnation comes in.

James 2:24

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. I don't know how you came up with these standards, but comparing drinking a couple of beers to rape and torture is beyond ridiculous.



2. if he is omniscient and knows before he makes me that I am going to hell, then why make me to begin with?

and true or false: Jews go to Heaven




3. If I'm in Heaven and I know that someone I loved very much went to hell, would I have the free will to trade places with that person?

1. Read carefully...I've never compared the two. What I'm doing is pointing out that the problem of evil exists on many levels. Clearly, rape and torturing children are evil. But in God's eyes, so is sex between anyone other than a married heterosexual couple. So if we expect Him to defeat evil, you'll see no more rape and torture, but you'll also see no more of a lot of minor things that are evil in His eyes. It's those minor things that most people (including you) don't want Him to deal with. You'd like to be able to define what is evil and what isn't.

2. You were created to annoy people on message boards! Kidding, kind of....but just because you don't choose to believe does not mean you don't have purpose while you're here. Do you kids? Maybe they'll grow up to believe, and to convince others to believe. Maybe that was your purpose.

As far as who gets in and who doesn't, the qualifications are simple: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved."

3. No, but not because of a lack of free will, but because of a lack of authority. It's simply not your call.

If someone you love is convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison right now on earth, can you just ask the judge to let the criminal free and put you in the slammer instead?

[Blake]

1. Read carefully...I've never compared the two. What I'm doing is pointing out that the problem of evil exists on many levels. Clearly, rape and torturing children are evil. But in God's eyes, so is sex between anyone other than a married heterosexual couple. So if we expect Him to defeat evil, you'll see no more rape and torture, but you'll also see no more of a lot of minor things that are evil in His eyes. It's those minor things that most people (including you) don't want Him to deal with. You'd like to be able to define what is evil and what isn't.

I did read careful.

What you asked to people to give up in your weird poll has little to do with what could be gained.

I'd like you to define sin. Is sin the same thing as evil?


2. You were created to annoy people on message boards! Kidding, kind of....but just because you don't choose to believe does not mean you don't have purpose while you're here. Do you kids? Maybe they'll grow up to believe, and to convince others to believe. Maybe that was your purpose.

Since purpose is not part of the Heaven equation, I don't care about my purpose...... and that's not what I asked.

If heaven is so much better, then why should I want to stay here.


As far as who gets in and who doesn't, the qualifications are simple: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved."

so are you then saying that Orthodox Jews that don't believe Jesus was the messiah are going to hell?

simple yes or no would be fine.


3. No, but not because of a lack of free will, but because of a lack of authority. It's simply not your call.

Then why did he create Earth to begin with? why not just skip that part and go straight to Heaven.


If someone you love is convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison right now on earth, can you just ask the judge to let the criminal free and put you in the slammer instead?

see: Jesus dying on cross for my sins

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. True or false: once in heaven, will I have the free will to try to take over Heaven like Lucifer did?

will greed and envy not be capable?

2. Again, the you describe people in heaven, it's as if they are nothing more than pets.



what's so good about it?



3.are you kidding me?

what makes life worth living down here if Heaven is so much better?



4. James 2:24

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone

1. You're confusing position/authority and free will. You (with free will) cannot overthrow the Cuban government. Not because you lack free will, but because you are not in position to do so.

2. You'll have to explain to me how you've concluded that living in heaven is like being a pet. I don't see the correlation.

What's good? Perfect health, for one. Two, no poverty. Three, no war....I could go on, but you'll prefer to focus on the fact that you probably won't be able to have a beer there.

3. Purpose.

4. Read that verse in the context of the chapter and you'll have a clearer understanding of what that means.

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. I did read careful.

What you asked to people to give up in your weird poll has little to do with what could be gained.

I'd like you to define sin. Is sin the same thing as evil?



2. Since purpose is not part of the Heaven equation, I don't care about my purpose...... and that's not what I asked.

If heaven is so much better, then why should I want to stay here.



3. so are you then saying that Orthodox Jews that don't believe Jesus was the messiah are going to hell?

simple yes or no would be fine.



4. Then why did he create Earth to begin with? why not just skip that part and go straight to Heaven.



5. see: Jesus dying on cross for my sins

1. If you read carefully and concluded that I said drinking was the same as rape, you're reading comprehension needs some work.

Again...sin is anything contrary to the laws of God. Is sin evil? Sin is the result of evil.

2. But you're not talking about heaven anymore wen you ask why you're here on earth.

3. If Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah, then yes...they will go to hell. Jesus even spoke directly to them and said, "Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

4.Because he wanted people to choose him, with other options available.

5. You are not Jesus. We're talking about free will, aren't we? You seem to think having free will suddenly gives you position and authority, and that's just not the case.

[Bigzax]

Atheism on the rise in every single US state.


God damn it!

[Duff McCartney]

????

I've personally tried to convince you to change your mind??? When???

I've always valued people's decision to believe what they want... You deserve no pity, judgement, praise, or condemnation on my part as long as as you treat me with the same consideration...

For that matter, why would you condemn me for standing up for my beliefs, as if I had no voice in the matter??? Again, another subtle double standard of "do as I say, not as I do"...

Look... I've no jurisdiction to cast judgement over how you choose to live your life... Why then would you then criticize me for defending the way I live mine??? I don't knock on your door... bother you during lunch, at school, work or any other place... So how have I proselytized you?

Any attempt to solicit empathy from the 'tolerance' crowd by suggesting that all Christians are judgemental only goes as far as the person (or the motives) making the claim. You think that Christians aren't constantly belittled by the athiest agenda that tries to suggest that our belief in GOD equates to 'lack of intelligence'??? Those two concepts are mutually exclusive, and nevertheless you all constantly insult us with that assumption. You said it yourself... and take it as a given.

Personally I don't care about your beliefs... you're grown-up and free to believe whatever you wish... No one is forcing you to believe what I believe. You've made your decision and I've made mine. You want respect??? How about you extend us the same courtesy...

Nothing personal...

It's probably more angel_luv than you. I apologize because I know you haven't proselytized to me. But I also haven't lumped you into having a lack of intelligence either.


I do show respect. I'm not saying you can't believe what you believe. Like I said before it doesn't matter to me what anyone believes. It's irrelevent. I'm not bashing you per se for your beliefs I'm bashing Christians in general that attempt to go around proselytizing to people and treating them like there is something wrong with them if they aren't a Christian, and disguising it all in kindness (ALA angel_luv)

That may or not be you but if it's not then like I said I apologize.

[LnGrrrR]

I already answered this...I say NO. But I'm not talking about God tricking everyone (through hypnotics or brainwashing) into thinking He's taken care of evil. I'm talking about a heaven with no evil, in reality not in someone's imagination.

But the hypnotized person isn't being 'tricked' if he's volunteering for it, right? In much the same way that your idea that once man enters Heaven, he will no longer be able to process/think/create sin, so the same goes for the hypnotized man in my scenario. I am merely reducing it from a supernatural state to a (somewhat) more natural scenario. I don't see how you don't find it analagous, unless you feel the supernatural aspect is a necessity.

[LnGrrrR]

1. Liberty is not selfish. The desire to continue things like rape, torture, and abuse so you can still get your drink is selfish.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with drinking, and I don't think the Bible did either.

Anyways, your question was whether I would be willing to trade in rape, murder, etc etc if I also had to give up sleeping before marriage, no drugs, etc etc for the world. I don't honestly think it's my place to choose something like that. Personally, I HAVE chosen that option, as I'm married and haven't murdered/raped/badstuffed anyone yet. :)


2. What should the final judgement be? 3 years probation and community service? We're talking about a God who has created everything. A God who offerred his only son as sacrifice for your mistakes. He watched that son get physically abused in horrible ways. He watched that son die a horrific death by crucifixion. At amoment's notice, He could have stepped in and stopped that death. At His word, his son would be spared. But because of His love for you, He watched His son die this death. Because of you, He forsake His son...because he wants you avoid the eternal damnation. All He asks in return is that you believe in the son that he allowed to be sacrificed for you.

And you say "no" to his face, and expect a light sentence?

Like I said before, just because I have been told this story does not mean I've seen any sort of evidence from God. YOU have seen the evidence obviously, and so it is obvious for YOU. However, I never have. To me, the above is merely a story, one amongst many of different religious stories, none of which seem plausible.

I can tell you that if God WERE to come down face-to-face and tell me he's here, I am relatively positive I would believe in him.


3. See above....He only asks that you believe. But look at the brightside...you'll have eternal torment, but at least you'll still have the free will to bang whoever you want!

Why is belief in God more important than living a good/moral life? If I live my life morally, why should that mean less than someone who doesn't live morally but believes in God?

[Blake]

1. You're confusing position/authority and free will. You (with free will) cannot overthrow the Cuban government. Not because you lack free will, but because you are not in position to do so.

Lucifer did not have the capability to overthrow God, yet he tried any way and got thrown out.

(which if that's the case, either Lucifer is a real dumbass or God is not omnipotent, but that's a new tangent)

If Lucifer had the capability to make the attempt, why wouldn't I?


2. You'll have to explain to me how you've concluded that living in heaven is like being a pet. I don't see the correlation.

because according to you, all capabilities that lead to our free will here on earth are gone.

will there be sports in heaven? will I be able to cheat, or is my capability to cheat gone too.

Are all mansions the same size in heaven? are some closer to God's throne than others? Will jealousy of someone else's mansion not be possible?

I think you know I can do this all day. :lol


What's good? Perfect health, for one. Two, no poverty. Three, no war....I could go on, but you'll prefer to focus on the fact that you probably won't be able to have a beer there.

No sex in Heaven?

Will we have servants?

Will we have work to do or will we be just sitting around, playing the harp?


3. Purpose.

so what purpose will we have once we reach Heaven?


4. Read that verse in the context of the chapter and you'll have a clearer understanding of what that means.



14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.


you can justify how you want, but I can read where it says "faith without deeds is dead"

and what judge on earth would ever say "you had faith? even though you are murderer, then you are innocent" while he says "You had no faith? even though you sacrificed your own life to feed the hungry in Africa, you are guilty and will go to Hell"

I don't care what you say.......that SUCKS.

[Blake]

1. If you read carefully and concluded that I said drinking was the same as rape, you're reading comprehension needs some work.

Again...sin is anything contrary to the laws of God. Is sin evil? Sin is the result of evil.

2. But you're not talking about heaven anymore wen you ask why you're here on earth.

3. If Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah, then yes...they will go to hell. Jesus even spoke directly to them and said, "Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

4.Because he wanted people to choose him, with other options available.

5. You are not Jesus. We're talking about free will, aren't we? You seem to think having free will suddenly gives you position and authority, and that's just not the case.

1. if I am not capable of breaking some of the ten commandments in Heaven, then by definition, my free will is gone.

2. I'm asking what the point of earth is. Why not just skip the earth thing altogether and get straight to the heaven thing, the way you are describing.

Why would God even put the stupid tree in the garden to begin with?

3. So the orthodox Jews that follow the rules laid out to them in the Old Testament by God himself will go to hell.

I guess someone should tell them that even though they are worshipping the same God that they are wasting their time.

4. and if they don't choose him, then instead of simply destroying them, he will burn and torture them. Why?

5. So i can sacrifice myself for someone else here on Earth, but I will not be able to do so in Heaven. More free will gone.

Please explain what exactly we will be capable of doing in Heaven, but because according to you, it's not much.

"You will have free will, only you won't be capable of doing anything"

Heaven sounds super!!

[I Love Me Some Me]

But the hypnotized person isn't being 'tricked' if he's volunteering for it, right? In much the same way that your idea that once man enters Heaven, he will no longer be able to process/think/create sin, so the same goes for the hypnotized man in my scenario. I am merely reducing it from a supernatural state to a (somewhat) more natural scenario. I don't see how you don't find it analagous, unless you feel the supernatural aspect is a necessity.

He not being tricked into hypnosis, but once hypnotized his mind is tricked into believing something that's not real. Nothing in reality has changed, but his perception is altered.

God is not going to alter your perception, he's going to change your reality.

[angel_luv]

Wow this thread grew a ton. I have to catch up from page 14 on! :wow


Alvarez- I don't know exactly how old the world is but I don't believe it is millions of years old. 5,000 years old is probably a pretty close estimate.
Close to my guess estimate that is.







Hey Angel, I was just wondering. If you chosen folks miss out on the tribulation, then what will you be judged on? According to your bible, you will be tempted by satan. How is that going to happen if you guys are going on vacation with God and rest of us are down here suffering. That reminds me of a time my whole fam went to Disneyland and I had to stay at home with the sitter... I was pissed.

Also, what about people like myself who would like to wait and see, first. I mean, I dont like to rush to make a decision so cant I atleast see a miracle before I choose sides. Satan might have a good setup down here. You saw Devils Advocate right? That seemed like a pretty good deal ya know.

I believe that Christians are covered in the blood of Jesus and therefore are not judged when they die.
I also believe that Christians are rewarded for the good they have done, though all the ways in which God will honor us, I will have to wait and see when I get to Heaven.
I look forward to it.

I think you are asking questions regarding what the Bible calls the 1,000 year reign of Christ.
I don't know exactly how that will all unfold. I am by no means a prophecy scholar. I am very interested in the subject though.

Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins, I believe, have written some informational books on the subject in addition to their fiction series.
I recommend their work.

[tlongII]

Wow this thread grew a ton. I have to catch up from page 14 on! :wow


Alvarez- I don't know exactly how old the world is but I don't believe it is millions of years old. 5,000 years old is probably a pretty close estimate.
Close to my guess estimate that is.








I believe that Christians are covered in the blood of Jesus and therefore are not judged when they die.
I also believe that Christians are rewarded for the good they have done, though all the ways in which God will honor us, I will have to wait and see when I get to Heaven.
I look forward to it.

I think you are asking questions regarding what the Bible calls the 1,000 year reign of Christ.
I don't know exactly how that will all unfold. I am by no means a prophecy scholar. I am very interested in the subject though.

Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins, I believe, have written some informational books on the subject in addition to their fiction series.
I recommend their work.



Aaaaaaack! Can't let you get away with that Angel. The earth is over 4 Billion years old!

[angel_luv]

Aaaaaaack! Can't let you get away that Angel. The earth is over 4 Billion years old!

I know you're pretty old :) but even you have no lived long enough to have been there since the beginning of time and to know for sure.

You can only choose your source and make your best guess just like the rest of us.

[LnGrrrR]

He not being tricked into hypnosis, but once hypnotized his mind is tricked into believing something that's not real. Nothing in reality has changed, but his perception is altered.

God is not going to alter your perception, he's going to change your reality.

Thanks for the clarification. (Again, alot of these terms are tough to define, and so if I ask alot of questions, it's merely to tease out certain understandings of thought processes.)

Ok, so God will not 'trick' your mind into not performing sin. There will be no CAPABILITY for your mind to perceive/create sin, because God will change your reality so that sin is incapable, correct?

Given this, it is your belief that we will have free will still, because it isn't as if we COULD perform sin but are tricked into not doing it, but because there's no such thing as sin, therefore precluding that from being an option, yes?

To me, there is no ultimate difference between God creating a new reality without sin, and some non-supernatural theoretical person who could not sin. Is the only justifying difference the fact that God creates the first but not the latter? How is God not 'tricking' our brains by altering the reality of everyone in Heaven?

[tlongII]

I know you're pretty old :) but even you have no lived long enough to have been there since the beginning of time and to know for sure.

You can only choose your source and make your best guess just like the rest of us.

No, you use various isotopes with proven rates of radioactive decay. You can then estimate the age with some level of confidence.

[LnGrrrR]

He not being tricked into hypnosis, but once hypnotized his mind is tricked into believing something that's not real. Nothing in reality has changed, but his perception is altered.

God is not going to alter your perception, he's going to change your reality.

Another note: The reality AROUND the man hasn't changed, but from the man's viewpoint, the world HAS changed. But that's a whole nother argument about solipsism. :D

[LnGrrrR]

I know you're pretty old :) but even you have no lived long enough to have been there since the beginning of time and to know for sure.

You can only choose your source and make your best guess just like the rest of us.

Why do you think God would provide clues for scientists that the world is millions of years old if it was not? Or do you think that the majority of scientists just happen to be wrong? If so, why do you side against them?

[angel_luv]

No, you use various isotopes with proven rates of radioactive decay. You can then estimate the age with some level of confidence.


As I said, we all choose our source.

[tlongII]

As I said, we all choose our source.

Choose wisely my friend.

[angel_luv]

Why do you think God would provide clues for scientists that the world is millions of years old if it was not? Or do you think that the majority of scientists just happen to be wrong? If so, why do you side against them?

God told us exactly how Creation occurred.

See Genesis 1 & 2.

I support science and scientists so long as they show proper and due honor to God in their findings.

Anythng else is a mistake.

[angel_luv]

Choose wisely my friend.

Thank you. I have. I am most happy with my choice. :)

I respectfully extend your advice back to you.

[LnGrrrR]

God told us exactly how Creation occurred.

See Genesis 1 & 2.

I support science and scientists so long as they show proper and due honor to God in their findings.

Anythng else is a mistake.

Does the Bible say how long ago God created the Earth? :)

[Blake]

Alvarez- I don't know exactly how old the world is but I don't believe it is millions of years old. 5,000 years old is probably a pretty close estimate.
Close to my guess estimate that is.


wow.

science is proving more and more that the Earth is roughly 4+ billion years old.

....and thanks to the rate of expansion of the universe, it is pretty easy to calculate that the age of the universe itself is somewhere more than 13 billion years old.

Don't worry though.........if 1000 years = a blink of God's eye, then you don't really have to take the 7 days of creation so literal.

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. I don't see anything inherently wrong with drinking, and I don't think the Bible did either.

Anyways, your question was whether I would be willing to trade in rape, murder, etc etc if I also had to give up sleeping before marriage, no drugs, etc etc for the world. I don't honestly think it's my place to choose something like that. Personally, I HAVE chosen that option, as I'm married and haven't murdered/raped/badstuffed anyone yet. :)



2. Like I said before, just because I have been told this story does not mean I've seen any sort of evidence from God. YOU have seen the evidence obviously, and so it is obvious for YOU. However, I never have. To me, the above is merely a story, one amongst many of different religious stories, none of which seem plausible.

I can tell you that if God WERE to come down face-to-face and tell me he's here, I am relatively positive I would believe in him.



3. Why is belief in God more important than living a good/moral life? If I live my life morally, why should that mean less than someone who doesn't live morally but believes in God?

1. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with drinking either...just drunkenness, which was my original statement.

The point to the hypothetical was to say that everyone is so concerned about losing things like their sex and their drugs, but fail to see the greatness of evil being defeated.

2. When God does come down here, it'll be too late. But hey, I'm not here to convert anyone...your beliefs are yours.

3.Because a true belief in God will result in those moral behaviors. See the verse in James that Blake erroneously referenced. What that chapter is doing is calling out the hypocrisy of those who claim to believe, but deny Jesus by their lifestyle.

[Blake]

As I said, we all choose our source.

wow.

I'm sorry, but that it is extremely close minded and you are doing yourself no favors.

[z0sa]

wow.

science is proving more and more that the Earth is roughly 4+ billion years old.

....and thanks to the rate of expansion of the universe, it is pretty easy to calculate that the age of the universe itself is somewhere more than 13 billion years old.

Don't worry though.........if 1000 years = a blink of God's eye, then you don't really have to take the 7 days of creation so literal.

scientific research is comprised mainly of atheists, why doesn't it surprise you ALL their findings are supporting naturalism?

[LnGrrrR]

1. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with drinking either...just drunkenness, which was my original statement.

The point to the hypothetical was to say that everyone is so concerned about losing things like their sex and their drugs, but fail to see the greatness of evil being defeated.

Hey, I'm all for evil being defeated. That's why I joined the Air Force, among other things. :) I'm just not comfortable with deciding for the world; I can only decide for myself. (And what's so wrong with sex and drugs? lol)


2. When God does come down here, it'll be too late. But hey, I'm not here to convert anyone...your beliefs are yours.

That never made sense to me. When God comes down, can't I believe in him then? Isn't a soul eternal?

Again, if God has found a way to convince you to follow his word, why hasn't he found a way to convince me yet? Doesn't seem quite fair. :D


3.Because a true belief in God will result in those moral behaviors. See the verse in James that Blake erroneously referenced. What that chapter is doing is calling out the hypocrisy of those who claim to believe, but deny Jesus by their lifestyle.

Is it your opinion that only those who believe in God can be truly moral?

[angel_luv]

Does the Bible say how long ago God created the Earth? :)

No it does not.

But I don't think Creation was the long process Evolutionist speak about.
I believe God said ( for example) let there be a tree and that instantly there was a tree.

[LnGrrrR]

scientific research is comprised mainly of atheists, why doesn't it surprise you ALL their findings are supporting naturalism?

It's somewhat tough to prove evidence of God. :)

[LnGrrrR]

No it does not.

But I don't think Creation was the long process Evolutionist speak about.
I believe God said ( for example) let there be a tree and that instantly there was a tree.

Cmon Angel_Luv... you have Bible verses for everything. Let's see some! :)

Do you think that the Bible is to be taken literally?

[angel_luv]

wow.

I'm sorry, but that it is extremely close minded and you are doing yourself no favors.

That is your opinion and you are allowed it, just as I am allowed to proceed as I will in spite of it.

I mean that not disrespectfully, but as a matter of fact.

[I Love Me Some Me]

To me, there is no ultimate difference between God creating a new reality without sin, and some non-supernatural theoretical person who could not sin. Is the only justifying difference the fact that God creates the first but not the latter? How is God not 'tricking' our brains by altering the reality of everyone in Heaven?

I disagree with your conclusion, but can kinda see how you got there.

I would just say that if reality is changed, and your brain processes that change, then there is no mind alteration necessary.

[Blake]

[quote]1. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with drinking either...just drunkenness, which was my original statement.

The point to the hypothetical was to say that everyone is so concerned about losing things like their sex and their drugs, but fail to see the greatness of evil being defeated.

drunkeness in public is currently illegal, so I think we can all agree it's already wrong.

how is exactly is drunkeness in your own house evil?



3.Because a true belief in God will result in those moral behaviors. See the verse in James that Blake erroneously referenced. What that chapter is doing is calling out the hypocrisy of those who claim to believe, but deny Jesus by their lifestyle.

Like i said, you can try to explain it, but it is pretty clear in what it says.

and James is the only one that pretty much references the importance of works.

Paul continues to preach that faith through grace is all you need.

If Paul is right, then what James says is irrelevant.

If I am a mass murderer and I repent and believe at the last second, I am in Heaven.

If I repent and believe at the age of 21 but go the rest of my life on killing spree after unrepentant killing spree, do I still get into Heaven?

[Blake]

That is your opinion and you are allowed it, just as I am allowed to proceed as I will in spite of it.

I mean that not disrespectfully, but as a matter of fact.

Do you literally believe that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea?

What if I told you that King James translated it wrong and it should be the "Reed Sea"?

[z0sa]

It's somewhat tough to prove evidence of God. :)

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that supports a God(s).

Imminent design in the universe.
There's life on planet earth (did it evolve? maybe, but there's really no chance life was conceived naturally).

What about the annunaki? There's evidence that ancient aliens may have already contacted humans, or had a say in their evolution - but you don't see scientists going for that, either, even though there's likely evidence supporting/dispelling the theory somewhere unfound. Not a great example, but just somewhere mainstream scientists said "its bullshit" and didn't follow up.

Scientists subjectively take the evidence and throw their naturalistic beliefs all over it. It's painfully obvious to anyone with an objective eye. Is it how the vast majority of science works? Yes, naturalistic causes generally are the reason for everything. But its because God put them into action. Ignoring what is possibly the Cause of every Cause is stupid and closedminded, if you ask me.

Where would I like to see improvement?

Less bullshit in our high/middle school science books. There's plenty of misinformation about naturalism in these books, and its been proven time and time again by creationists. Don't preach, just put the right info in there so people can make up their own minds (its funny that these textbook writers take it so much upon themself to impress evolution/abiogenesis and our "naturalistic origins" upon our young minds that they will outright lie about certain issues like the actual results of Miller's experiment yielding huge amounts of tar).

[angel_luv]

Cmon Angel_Luv... you have Bible verses for everything. Let's see some! :)

Do you think that the Bible is to be taken literally?

Since you asked. :)


Genesis 1:1-5

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.



Genesis 1:6-10

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

All through the chapter, Genesis 1, it states what God said He wanted and that what God said He wanted was.
It is written in a way that makes me believe God said it and it instantly appeared. That is what I understand from the wording of the text.

Also in Genesis 1:31 it says, " God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

That to me again emphasizes that all of it was done by the sixth day.

I take the Bible literally as it is written.

When it says that Jesus told such and such as a parable, then I take it as a parable.

Example Matthew 13: 31-43


Matthew 13: 31-43

He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field.
Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."
He told them still another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."

Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:
"I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."[c]


Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.

The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.


Otherwise I take the Bible as it is written- as an actual occurence and absolute fact- such as I do the account of Creation.

[LnGrrrR]

I disagree with your conclusion, but can kinda see how you got there.

I would just say that if reality is changed, and your brain processes that change, then there is no mind alteration necessary.

Well, God's just cheating in that instance. Instead of altering everyone's brains individually, he just alters the world they're in. It ends up with the same general effect I find. :D

But I see that is an important aspect for your free will POV. I will respectfully agree to disagree that it makes a difference. :) *shakes hands*

[Blake]

scientific research is comprised mainly of atheists, why doesn't it surprise you ALL their findings are supporting naturalism?

great. Then please explain how we can see light from stars that are millions of light years away.

[Blake]

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that supports a God(s).

Imminent design in the universe.
There's life on planet earth (did it evolve? maybe, but there's really no chance life was conceived naturally).

What about the annunaki? There's evidence that ancient aliens may have already contacted humans, or had a say in their evolution - but you don't see scientists going for that, either, even though there's likely evidence supporting/dispelling the theory somewhere unfound. Not a great example, but just somewhere mainstream scientists said "its bullshit" and didn't follow up.

Scientists subjectively take the evidence and throw their naturalistic beliefs all over it. It's painfully obvious to anyone with an objective eye. Is it how the vast majority of science works? Yes, naturalistic causes generally are the reason for everything. But its because God put them into action.

so you believe in evolution then.

[LnGrrrR]

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that supports a God(s).

Imminent design in the universe.
There's life on planet earth (did it evolve? maybe, but there's really no chance life was conceived naturally).

What about the annunaki? There's evidence that ancient aliens may have already contacted humans, or had a say in their evolution - but you don't see scientists going for that, either, even though there's likely evidence supporting/dispelling the theory somewhere unfound. Not a great example, but just somewhere mainstream scientists said "its bullshit" and didn't follow up.

Scientists subjectively take the evidence and throw their naturalistic beliefs all over it. It's painfully obvious to anyone with an objective eye. Is it how the vast majority of science works? Yes, naturalistic causes generally are the reason for everything. But its because God put them into action.

One, the evidence you cited may support some sort of 'higher being', but not necessarily the God of the Bible. And then again, you're only stepping back one step. If it's nearly impossible for life to come about on its own, then how did God come about? :D (I expect the "He's always been there" rebuttal, which can not be proven either way.)

Two, everyone has their own biases, but ultimately the facts will out. If there were enough facts proving incontrivertibly some form of higher intelligence, then I believe the science community would have to change their ideals to reflect that. (And rioting and general chaos would probably ensue.)

Look at any of the big revelations in history.... Einstein, Galileo, etc etc. Widely panned when they made their predictions/hypothesis, but the data proved them out, and so the scientific community readjusted their thinking to account for that.

[E20]

Show your work or you get no points.

We actually just started to use this equation and I was like FTW. The course we're using it in isn't calc based, but is there calc involved in the equation or is it as simple as that? I'd assume the delta E and delta M had something to do with derivitaves or implicit diff/DE's

[z0sa]

so you believe in evolution then.

generally, not really. There's plenty of room in the DNA for something called Adaptation, which means, for example, a bird may completely change its coloring, type of beak, even overall size - but never truly evolved, instead staying within the overall constraints of its genetic coding.

i don't act like I know the answer to this question: there's plenty of evidence which DOES support evolution. But there's relatively only a tiny bit of evidence for abiogenesis which means something started us up, even if natural selection was the ultimately decider in who lived and who died.

[LnGrrrR]

Since you asked. :)

Genesis 1:1-5

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Sounds like a "Big Bang" to me, eh? :D


Genesis 1:6-10

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.


Tectonic plate movement... :)



All through the chapter, Genesis 1, it states what God said He wanted and that what God said He wanted was.
It is written in a way that makes me believe God said it and it instantly appeared. That is what I understand from the wording of the text.


Also in Genesis 1:31 it says, " God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

That to me again emphasizes that all of it was done by the sixth day.

But how do you know that a day to God is the same as a day to us? Perhaps the Earth revolved much more slowly then :) In fact, weren't the stars created after the Earth? That would imply that a day may not mean the same to us as it does to Him.

As well, it does seem to be instant, but that could be a misunderstanding on our part. After all, I could say, "My wife has just become pregnant, and she will have a baby!" and the next line could logically be "And it was so". Doesn't mean it happened instantly. :)

I'm sure you've guessed, but I'm somewhat playing Devil's Advocate so you can look at the Bible from a different viewpoint.

[z0sa]

One, the evidence you cited may support some sort of 'higher being', but not necessarily the God of the Bible.

Agreed.


And then again, you're only stepping back one step. If it's nearly impossible for life to come about on its own, then how did God come about? :D (I expect the "He's always been there" rebuttal, which can not be proven either way.)

I have a couple different 'God' theories.

1) The exact rebuttal you expected. God is ethereal, and functions outside the universe - therefore, is not constrained to the physical limits of this universe

2) God is a timeless being which exists within the universe as some space creature - perhaps of such gigantic size and mental capacity that it serves to function as God would, and having existed since during or even before the big bang possibly, does not constrain itself to this universe's limits (but may be constrained to a different universe with different physics)

Not great, but I'd like to think its the best humanity could think up rationally while still entertaining the God concept.

One problem is the amount of space in the universe - supposedly some 96% of it is unseen dark matter (this is actually evidence against an ancient universe, but that's a different subject). What is this dark matter and what purpose can it serve? Could an ethereal being survive in dark matter?

Additionally, If such a being could travel from universe to universe in the 'multiverse,' he would be the equivalent of God.



Two, everyone has their own biases, but ultimately the facts will out. If there were enough facts proving incontrivertibly some form of higher intelligence, then I believe the science community would have to change their ideals to reflect that. (And rioting and general chaos would probably ensue.)

This is often the argument of any naturalist. Science is proof - not belief. The problem is, much of the evidence is highly subjective and may be interpreted to support a variety of different theories. Rather than take the extra effort and work through them, they simply assume it always supports evolution.


Look at any of the big revelations in history.... Einstein, Galileo, etc etc. Widely panned when they made their predictions/hypothesis, but the data proved them out, and so the scientific community readjusted their thinking to account for that.

All of Darwin's observations were no real signs of evolution - all were consistently within the parameters of life's natural Adaptation, which was perfectly within any creature's preset genetic code without need for mutation. Mankind has taken this possibility of a completely naturalistic origin, and applied it everywhere possible rather than continue weighing the God option due to a "lack" of evidence. Like I said, the imminent design around us denotes a creator, at least to me.

[Blake]

generally, not really. There's plenty of room in the DNA for something called Adaptation, which means, for example, a bird may completely change its coloring, type of beak, even overall size - but never truly evolved, instead staying within the overall constraints of its genetic coding.

i don't act like I know the answer to this question: there's plenty of evidence which DOES support evolution. But there's relatively only a tiny bit of evidence for abiogenesis which means something started us up, even if natural selection was the ultimately decider in who lived and who died.

yeah, I tend to generally agree with that assessment.

[angel_luv]

Do you literally believe that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea?

What if I told you that King James translated it wrong and it should be the "Reed Sea"?

Yes I do believe the Israelites crossed the Red Sea.


For your consideration:




http://www.discoverynews.us/red_sea.html


Forty miles south of Eilat, Israel, on the western shore of the Gulf of Aqaba is a huge sandy beach and peninsula that researchers have now verified as the Red Sea crossing site where Moses and the people of Israel escaped the wrath of the Pharaoh of Egypt.

The site was first identified by a Biblical archeological explorer named Ron Wyatt after he flew over the area in a small private plane in 1978. Wyatt reasoned that evidence should still exist at the Red Sea crossing site where God miraculously separated the waters and delivered His people from Egypt.

Wyatt’s first evidence was the discovery of a large stone column lying in the water. Later, on the eastern shore of the Red Sea, opposite Neweiba Beach, Wyatt found a matching column with an inscription that could still be read. It was erected by King Solomon as a memorial to the Great God of Israel Who delivered His people from the armies of Egypt.

Wyatt also began to find evidence of chariot wheels underwater. They had been preserved by coral that had attached themselves to the four, six and eight spoked wheels which were typical of the wheels used in the 18th Dynasty. He recovered the metal of a wheel with the remains of eight spokes and gave this significant find to Nassif Mohammed Hassan, Director of Antiquities in Cairo. Mr. Hassan immediately identified the artifact as a chariot wheel dating 3500 years ago during the 18th Dynasty, the only time the ancient Egyptians used an eight spoked wheel.

Repeated dives by Wyatt and his two sons, over a stretch of nearly two miles, revealed that chariot parts literally littered the area. It is estimated that Pharaoh’s army of nearly 250,000 soldiers was totally destroyed while Moses and his unarmed Hebrew nation were miraculously delivered as described in Exodus 14:28-30 – “And the waters returned and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came to the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them. But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore.”

What an incredible confirmation of the literal Exodus through the Red Sea!


I post that article not in defense of the Bible.
On the contrary, I believe this article because it lines up with the Bible.

As I told T-Long, I support Science and it's discoveries so long as it gives God the glory He is due.

[angel_luv]

Another article about the Chariot wheels.

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/pharaohs-chariots-found-in-red-sea/

[angel_luv]

Sounds like a "Big Bang" to me, eh? :D



Tectonic plate movement... :)



But how do you know that a day to God is the same as a day to us? Perhaps the Earth revolved much more slowly then :) In fact, weren't the stars created after the Earth? That would imply that a day may not mean the same to us as it does to Him.

As well, it does seem to be instant, but that could be a misunderstanding on our part. After all, I could say, "My wife has just become pregnant, and she will have a baby!" and the next line could logically be "And it was so". Doesn't mean it happened instantly. :)

I'm sure you've guessed, but I'm somewhat playing Devil's Advocate so you can look at the Bible from a different viewpoint.


If you mean Big bang as in:" God said it and 'Bang!' There it was" ( to borrow the quote from a once popular church kid t-shirt) than I am with you. Otherwise, no. :)

I don't think God is out to confuse anyone. I think God told us a day because He meant a day, as we understand a day.
That is my belief.

Silly you! Why would you attempt to advocate the devil to a Christian?
Surely you did not expect success.
:)

There is no middle ground. The Bible is either true or it is not.
I believe it is true- thus no need for any other point of view.

[angel_luv]

Another article about the Chariot wheels.

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/pharaohs-chariots-found-in-red-sea/


WorldNetDaily.com



“And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.” (Exodus 14:21)

One of the most famous stories of the Bible is God’s parting of the Red Sea to save the Israelites from the Egyptian army and the subsequent drowning of soldiers and horses in hot pursuit.

But is there evidence that such an event did in fact happen – and if so, precisely where did it take place?

The issue is surfacing some 3,500 years after the event is said to have taken place with reports of Egyptian chariot wheels found in the Red Sea, photographs to document it and new books by scientists that could lead to a whole remapping of the Exodus route and a fresh look at ancient biblical accounts.

Wheel of fortune


Is this a chariot wheel that chased Moses?
“I am 99.9 percent sure I picked up a chariot wheel,” Peter Elmer tells WorldNetDaily after two diving trips to the Gulf of Aqaba branch of the sea. “It was covered in coral.”

The 38-year-old forklift mechanic from Keynsham, England, traveled to the region with his brother, Mark, after being inspired by videos of explorers Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray, who have documented artifacts that in at least one case authorities have confirmed to be a chariot wheel dating to the time of the Exodus.

“I believe I actually sat in an ancient chariot cab,” Elmer said, referring to his time exploring a submerged item in what he describes as an underwater scrapyard. “Without question, it is most definitely the remains of the Egyptian army.”

But despite all of Elmer’s excitement, others who have been to the same location are not so sure what is being viewed underwater are the remnants of the great chase and urge extreme caution regarding the unsubstantiated claims.

“All kinds of people are finding coral and calling it chariot parts,” says Richard Rives, president of Wyatt Archaeological Research in Tennessee. “It’s most likely coral covered with coral. … Opportunists are combining false things with the true things that are found. These people are making it up as they go to be TV stars.”

Rives was a longtime partner of Ron Wyatt, an anesthetist and amateur archaeologist who died of cancer in 1999. Before passing away, Wyatt devoted years searching for and documenting physical evidence for events mentioned in the Bible. In addition to chariot wheels, Wyatt claimed to have found Noah’s Ark on the mountain next to Ararat in Turkey, the “true” Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia and the Ark of the Covenant with the Ten Commandments near the site of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion.


Submerged ‘land bridge’ (wyattmuseum.com)
Among those who accompanied Wyatt on many of his excursions is his wife, Mary Nell. She’s concerned about over-exuberance regarding new claims, but the Spring Hill, Tenn., woman tells WorldNetDaily she’s “convinced” there are chariot parts located on a subsurface “land bridge” connecting Egypt to Saudi Arabia through the Gulf of Aqaba.

She cites Ron’s discovery of a wheel hub that he brought to the surface in the late 1970s as proof.

The hub had the remains of eight spokes radiating outward and was examined by Nassif Mohammed Hassan, director of Antiquities in Cairo. Hassan declared it to be from the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, explaining the eight-spoked wheel was used only during that dynasty around 1400 B.C.

Curiously, no one can account for the precise whereabouts of that eight-spoked wheel today, though Hassan is on videotape stating his conclusion regarding authenticity.

When Mary Nell went diving with Ron, she says it was very easy to assume (wrongly) that every item on the flat bottom had historical significance.

“[At first] I thought everything was a chariot wheel!” Mrs. Wyatt exclaimed, noting how difficult it is for the untrained eye to distinguish an artifact from a piece of coral. “I’m just trying to be cautious about over-identifying too much. … It is God’s truth, and we can’t hype it up. We can’t add to it.”

However, she notes a big problem for explorers and scientists is that the Egyptian government no longer allows items to be removed from the protected region. Thus, someone claiming to find an artifact will have a hard – if not impossible – time verifying its authenticity, a classic catch-22.

The watery grave

“And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.” (Exodus 14:28)

The Bible account makes it clear that once the Israelites had marched through the parted sea on dry ground, that the waters rushed back to completely engulf the doomed army of ancient Egypt.

With that in mind, many of the items being seen in the Gulf of Aqaba have been photographed by divers for comparison to the Exodus story.

Many other photographs show formations in a circular pattern with projections that could be spokes, but those items remain at the bottom and have not been authenticated.

Another issue is the route of the Exodus, and which body of water the Israelites crossed. Many travel maps and Bibles indicate a crossing point in the Gulf of Suez, the western branch of the Red Sea. But those may have to be updated if the Aqaba location is confirmed as the true location for the miraculous event.

“The truth is, no one really knows where the crossing of the Red Sea took place,” says Carl Rasmussen, a biblical geographer and professor of Old Testament at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minn.

Rasmussen compiled the “Zondervan NIV Atlas of the Bible” and personally thinks the crossing took place somewhere along what is now the Suez Canal.


Yellow highlights possible spot of Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia. Gulf of Aqaba branch of Red Sea is at center, with main Red Sea at bottom-right of photo (wyattmuseum.com)

Some scientists from Europe say the current maps are wrong, and the Wyatts are right – that the crossing began at the Nuweiba beachhead, went through the Gulf of Aqaba, and then into what is now Saudi Arabia where they claim the “true” Mount Sinai is located.

For years, scholars have speculated as to the location of the actual Mount Sinai where Moses received the Ten Commandments from God. At least 13 sites have actually been claimed on the Sinai peninsula as being the correct spot.

But Ron Wyatt believed it was in Arabia, even referenced as “mount Sinai in Arabia” by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 4:25.

So he and his sons made their way to “Jebel a Lawz,” the mountain of the Law, which is known by the locals as “Jebel Musa” – Moses’ mountain.

Unfortunately for the Wyatts, they were arrested and held in prison. His wife says someone had phoned embassy authorities for the Muslim country, claiming that Ron was spying for Israel. They were released after spending 78 days behind bars.

Rasmussen doesn’t agree with the Arabian Mount Sinai theory.

“I believe the strongest candidate is Jebel Sin Bisher,” he told WorldNetDaily. “The sites in Saudi Arabia have very, very weak scriptural backing, in spite of the hype.”

Now, a new book by Cambridge University physicist Colin Humphreys titled “The Miracles of Exodus” supports not only the claim for an Aqaba crossing, but also the location of Mount Sinai in Arabia.

“If my book is correct, and I believe the evidence is very strong,” says Humphreys, “then world maps will need to be redrawn to relocate Mount Sinai. History books, travel guides and biblical commentaries will need to be rewritten.”

Throughout his work, Humphreys provides scientific explanations to corroborate the accounts of the Old Testament.

“‘The waters piled up, the surging waters stood firm like a wall,’ is a remarkable description of what the mathematics reveals to be the case for water pushed back by a very strong wind,” he writes.

“What I have found is that the events of the Exodus are even more dramatic than is generally believed,” Humphreys said. “The Exodus of the ancient Israelites from Egypt really is one of the greatest true stories ever told.”

A Swedish scientist who believes the Red Sea was split says while Humphreys is correct about the Aqaba crossing, there are no natural, scientific explanations for the parting miracle described in Scripture.


Walls of water as depicted in ‘The Ten Commandments’ (Paramount Pictures)
“The wind did not separate the water,” says Lennart Moller of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. “No person could be in that wind and survive. … If God has created all the Earth, it’s no problem for Him to separate the water for a while.”

Speaking to WorldNetDaily from the isle of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, Moller, the author of “The Exodus Case,” says the key in finding the correct route of the Israelites is to understand that the Hebrew reference to “yum suph” does not mean “sea of reeds” as many scholars have claimed.

Moller says it refers specifically to the Gulf of Aqaba, and while he’s not formally affiliated with the Wyatts, he agrees with them that a host of other evidence can be found on the Arabian side of the water, including remains of the golden calf, pillars, altars and the even the rock the Bible says Moses split to bring forth water for the Israelites.

Regarding the items found beneath the waters, Moller believes there are remnants not only of chariots and wheels, but also human and animal skeletons.

“There was a disaster [there] a long time ago,” he said. “Whatever that is, it’s open to interpretation.”

He also notes that the downward and upward slope of the Aqaba crossing path actually falls within current U.S. standards for handicapped ramps.

And while Mary Nell Wyatt warns overstating the claims by divers and authors could do more harm than good, she does believe there’s a reason why her husband was led to discover what Ron called “God’s attention-getters.”

“God preserved all these evidences,” she said, “[otherwise] there would have been nothing left. … God has been lost today. Even Christians still can’t believe this all happened. … We need to pray for the Lord to help us get people to see it.”

Back in England, Peter Elmer says people have mockingly asked “Why should a forklift mechanic from Keynsham be able to go to the same place Moses was?”

He takes the criticism in stride, pointing out “Jesus used fishermen, tax collectors and publicans. Why not a forklift mechanic?”

[z0sa]

There is no middle ground. The Bible is either true or it is not.
I believe it is true- thus no need for any other point of view.

"Let there be Light" is about the most literal religious idea of the Big Bang as you could find, I presume. :wakeup

[batman2883]

harlem on the rise

[td4mvp21]

But how do you know that a day to God is the same as a day to us? Perhaps the Earth revolved much more slowly then :) In fact, weren't the stars created after the Earth? That would imply that a day may not mean the same to us as it does to Him.


Good point.

[Brutalis]

Most of the people I know think we die and that's that, game over. No afterlife or anything.

[MiamiHeat]

angel_Luv


Genesis says the Light was created FIRST. It says he separated day from night on day 1.


And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

But wait a second, day and night is only a product of the rotation of the earth. The Sun never stops shining.

So, if the Earth isn't formed yet until DAY 3, then when "God" created light, how could he possibly create day and night? The Sun, in space, never stops shining. "Days" are an illusion of earth's rotation.

then Genesis is proven to have a lack of understanding about the universe, in accordance with human knowledge at the time.

GAME OVER

[ElMuerto]

Most of the people I know think we die and that's that, game over. No afterlife or anything.

:wakeup

[MiamiHeat]

Also in Genesis :


And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

"God" creates the Earth and puts VEGETATION on it on the third day...... but doesn't create the SUN until the FOURTH DAY!

Laugh out loud!

This creates huge problems :

1) Vegetation functions on photosynthesis. Need the sun to live. That's their energy source.

2) If you listen to the Bible, the Earth would now be OLDER than the Sun?

3) All the Stars in the sky are now younger than the Earth too!

GAME OVER TIMES 2

[LnGrrrR]

generally, not really. There's plenty of room in the DNA for something called Adaptation, which means, for example, a bird may completely change its coloring, type of beak, even overall size - but never truly evolved, instead staying within the overall constraints of its genetic coding.

i don't act like I know the answer to this question: there's plenty of evidence which DOES support evolution. But there's relatively only a tiny bit of evidence for abiogenesis which means something started us up, even if natural selection was the ultimately decider in who lived and who died.

The theory of evolution though is separate from abiogenesis. Evolution of creatures has alot of strong research behind it, abiogenesis, much less.

[LnGrrrR]

There is no middle ground. The Bible is either true or it is not.
I believe it is true- thus no need for any other point of view.

I respectfully disagree, but you may think as you wish. :)

[MiamiHeat]

I predict angel_luv will choose to close her eyes at my posts up there

Genesis is proven bs.

[ALVAREZ6]

I know you're pretty old :) but even you have no lived long enough to have been there since the beginning of time and to know for sure.

You can only choose your source and make your best guess just like the rest of us.
I'll choose the thousands of astronomers and other scientists with PhDs over some clowns from over 2,000 years ago who still believed the earth was flat.

[ALVAREZ6]

As I told T-Long, I support Science and it's discoveries so long as it gives God the glory He is due.
Well you can't negate scientific findings simply because they are contradictory to many principles that religions are based on...well, technically you can, but it's not wise to do so. If all scientific findings had to legally abide by christian principles, we wouldn't know shit compared to what we know now, and it's precisely this which christianity and other religions are based on...keeping the followers ignorant and/or scared to control them.

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. That never made sense to me. When God comes down, can't I believe in him then? Isn't a soul eternal?

2. Again, if God has found a way to convince you to follow his word, why hasn't he found a way to convince me yet? Doesn't seem quite fair. :D



3. Is it your opinion that only those who believe in God can be truly moral?

1. How can you expect the reward reserved for those who have faith, when you never truly had faith? "Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe."

2. Seek, and ye shall find. We are both presented with that same evidence. I approach it looking for reasons to believe, you approach it looking for reasons to NOT believe.

Also...this is where your free will comes into play. You don't have to believe if you don't want to. You can choose not to, and hope you're right.

3. No, that is not my opinion. In fact, I contend that there are many people who live their lives with a high moral conviction, and reap the rewards of their good actions that God has promised. However, they may miss heaven if they do not believe in Jesus.

[angel_luv]

Miami Heat. I apologize for not answering your posts sooner.

I was away from my computer. I was not ignoring you.

Did you know that before the Fall of Man, snakes did not crawl on their belly ( that happened after God cursed the snake for being used by Satan) and, as the talking serpent in Genesis 3 did not shock Eve, it s very possible that it was not an unusual occurence for man to directly communicate with some ( all?) the animals.

Amazing? Yes! But true.

My present understanding does not dictate my faith in the Bible, rather my faith in the Bible is what dictates my mind.

There are many, many things I do not have an explanation for.

But I serve the God who knows all, created all, and to whom all belongs, and He gives me all I need in daily knowledge as well as physical and emotional sustenance.


When this earth has passed away, (and it will!) science will perish with it. But God is eternal.
I choose God- always and forever.

You should too. I pray you do. :)

[angel_luv]

Genesis 3:1-5- Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

The above text explains that the serpent was more crafty than any of the other animals, so maybe it was the only one who talked.
This was a point God for whatever reason did not deem necessary to clarify.
But notice Eve responds to the serpent as if it is quite natural to do so.
I think that is cool.





Genesis 3: 13-15 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

The underlined shows where God sentenced snakes to crawl on their belly, making it clear that snakes got around previously by some other means, perhaps it had feet or claws. Maybe it flew.
The Bible does not say.

[angel_luv]

All right. Good night all. :)

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. drunkeness in public is currently illegal, so I think we can all agree it's already wrong.

how is exactly is drunkeness in your own house evil?



2. Like i said, you can try to explain it, but it is pretty clear in what it says.

and James is the only one that pretty much references the importance of works.

Paul continues to preach that faith through grace is all you need.

If Paul is right, then what James says is irrelevant.

3. If I am a mass murderer and I repent and believe at the last second, I am in Heaven.

If I repent and believe at the age of 21 but go the rest of my life on killing spree after unrepentant killing spree, do I still get into Heaven?

1. Yes, because nothing bad can happen when you're drunk at home.

2. I can explain it, but you've already made up your mind.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and are in no way contradictory.

3. I can't say it any easier for you Blake...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved.

[Phenomanul]

Well you can't negate scientific findings simply because they are contradictory to many principles that religions are based on...well, technically you can, but it's not wise to do so. If all scientific findings had to legally abide by christian principles, we wouldn't know shit compared to what we know now, and it's precisely this which christianity and other religions are based on...keeping the followers ignorant and/or scared to control them.

Really???

I guess you've repeatedly heard those revisionist lies stated on so many occasions that you've actually come believe them??? Talk about mass deception...

Sir Isaac Newton (widely regarded as one of the most brilliant men to ever walk the earth) spent as much time writing about theology as he did about math and science... It was Newton's belief in GOD that compeled him to seek out the ordered mechanisms and laws that could only be produced by His hand...

Many other prominent Christian scientists contributed to the rise of 'western' civilization...

To say that Cristianity held Science back is an outright lie...

Don't confuse the "Dark ages" with Christianity...

Check out this article:



Daniel Graves, author of Scientists of Faith and Doctors Who Followed Christ, writes: "Many of the sciences derive directly from the work of a Christian or were greatly influenced at their inception by a Christian. … It may seem an outrageous claim that Christians were seminal to much of what dominates modern scientific thinking, but it is true. There is hardly a science or scientific idea which cannot trace its inception as a viable theory to some Christian."


A careful study of history reveals that technology and modern science was, in fact, pioneered by Christians. The case is made by Dr. Ian Hutchison and Dr. Loren Eiseley (below) and at the essays found at the subsequent links.


Ian H.Hutchinson, Head of Department of Nuclear Energy. Plasma Science and Fusion Center and Department of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. ASA Conference, 4 August 2002. "Science: Christian and Natural," http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/asa2002/. (http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/asa2002/.)

Going further, though, I believe there is a constructive case to be made for the phrase Christian Science.

First, as represented by the theme of this conference "Christian Pioneers", we should recognize that modern science is built upon the foundational work of people who more than anything else were Christians. Christians were the pioneers of the revolution of thought that brought about our modern understanding of the world. MIT, my home institution, the high-temple of science and technology in the United States, has a pseudo-Greek temple architecture about its main buildings. The fluted columns are topped not with baccanalian freizes, but with the names of the historical heroes of science (not to mention William Barton Rogers, the founder). A rough assessment was carried out by a few of us some years ago of the fraction of the people listed there who were Christians. The estimate we arrived at was about 60%.

Any list of the giants of physical science would include Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, all of whom, despite denominational and doctrinal differences among them, and opposition that some experienced from church authorities, were deeply committed to Jesus Christ.

List of prominent scientists who admitted that the universe is created by a Creator and who are known by their cited attributes are:

Sir Isaac Newton (the father of calculus and physics)

Johannes Kepler (the father of physical astronomy)

James Clerk Maxwell (one of the world's most renown physicists - father of electromagnetism)

Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)

Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)

Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)

Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)

Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)

John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)

Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)

John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)

Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)

Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)

Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)

Max Planck (one of the fathers of quantum physics)

Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)

Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

William Thompson, "Lord Kelvin" (founder of thermodynamics)


Second, I observed over the years in my interactions with Christians in academia, that far from scientists being weakly represented in the ranks of the faithful, as one would expect if science and faith are incompatible, they are strongly overrepresented. The sociological evidence has been studied systematically for example by Robert Wuthnow [Robert Wuthnow, The Struggle for America's Soul, Eerdmanns, Grand Rapids, (1989), p146.], who established that while academics undoubtedly tend to be believers in lower proportion than the US population as a whole, among academics, scientists were proportionally more likely to be Christians that those in the non-science disciplines. The common misconception that scientists were or are inevitably sundered from the Christian faith by their science is simply false.

Third, the question arises, why did modern science grow up almost entirely in the West, where Christian thinking held sway? There were civilizations of comparable stability, prosperity, and in many cases technology, in China, Japan, and India. Why did they not develop science? It is acknowledged that arabic countries around the end of the first millenium were more advanced in mathematics, and their libraries kept safe eventually for Christendom much of the Greek wisdom of the ancients. Why did not their learning blossom into the science we now know? More particularly, if Andrew White's portrait of history, that the church dogmatically opposed all the "dangerous innovations" of science, and thereby stunted scientific development for hundreds of years, why didn't science rapidly evolve in these other cultures?

A case that has been made cogently by Stanley Jaki [Stanley L. Jaki, The road of science and the ways to God, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (1978).], amongst others, is that far from being an atmosphere stifling to science, the Christian world view of the West was the fertile cultural and philosophical soil in which science grew and flourished. He argues that it was precisely the theology of Christianity which created that fertile intellectual environment. The teaching that the world is the free but contingent creation of a rational Creator, worthy of study on its own merits because it is "good", and the belief that because our rationality is in the image of the creator, we are capable of understanding the creation: these are theological encouragements to the work of empirical science. Intermingled with the desire to benefit humankind for Christian charity's sake, and enabled by the printing press to record and communicate results for posterity, the work of science became a force that gathered momentum despite any of the strictures of a threatened religious hierarchy.

So I suggest that there is a deeper reason why scientists are puzzled about how one might pursue a Christian Science distinguished from what has been the approach developed over the past half millenium. It is that modern science is already in a very serious sense Christian. It germinated in and was nurtured by the Christian philosophy of creation, it was developed and established through the work of largely Christian pioneers, and it continues to draw Christians to its endeavours today.

[MiamiHeat]

Christians are among the possible suspects for the burning of the Library of Alexandria

Christianity did indeed keep science back, and killed/persecuted any man who tried to say anything that was in conflict with the Bible.

[baseline bum]

You had a solid post until this.



Sir Isaac Newton (widely regarded as one of the most brilliant men to ever walk the earth) spent as much time writing about theology as he did about math and science... It was Newton's belief in GOD that compeled him to seek out the ordered mechanisms and laws that could only be produced by His hand...

[MiamiHeat]

I wouldn't call it solid

He listed Galileo.... the poor man would have been put to a swift death by the Inquisition if he renounced the Church.

I'm sure if I go down that list, I can find other bullshit ones.


or, you could just post a list of realists/non-believers and that would take up the whole thread.

[MiamiHeat]

FIRST POST

Genesis says the Light was created FIRST. It says he separated day from night on day 1.


And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

But wait a second, day and night is only a product of the rotation of the earth. The Sun never stops shining.

So, if the Earth isn't formed yet until DAY 3, then when "God" created light (Sun isn't even created yet, so what light is Genesis referring to?), how could he possibly create day and night? The Sun, in space, never stops shining. "Days" are an illusion of earth's rotation.

then Genesis is proven to have a lack of understanding about the universe, in accordance with human knowledge at the time.

========================

========================

SECOND POST

Next we have................

"God" creates the Earth and puts VEGETATION on it on the third day...... but doesn't create the SUN until the FOURTH DAY!

Laugh out loud!

This creates huge problems :

1) Vegetation functions on photosynthesis. Need the sun to live. That's their energy source.

2) If you listen to the Bible, the Earth would now be OLDER than the Sun?

3) All the Stars in the sky are now younger than the Earth too!


Anyone care to take this on? This proves the Bible is already wrong in the first few chapters.

[50Bestspurever]

The bible is a nice fairy tale.

[Cane]

Nah, its a poorly written anthology of fairy tales that dehumanizes and exploits groups of people.

Christians should be ashamed of themselves for believing that crap.

[I Love Me Some Me]

FIRST POST

Genesis says the Light was created FIRST. It says he separated day from night on day 1.



But wait a second, day and night is only a product of the rotation of the earth. The Sun never stops shining.

So, if the Earth isn't formed yet until DAY 3, then when "God" created light (Sun isn't even created yet, so what light is Genesis referring to?), how could he possibly create day and night? The Sun, in space, never stops shining. "Days" are an illusion of earth's rotation.

then Genesis is proven to have a lack of understanding about the universe, in accordance with human knowledge at the time.

========================

========================

SECOND POST

Next we have................

"God" creates the Earth and puts VEGETATION on it on the third day...... but doesn't create the SUN until the FOURTH DAY!

Laugh out loud!

This creates huge problems :

1) Vegetation functions on photosynthesis. Need the sun to live. That's their energy source.

2) If you listen to the Bible, the Earth would now be OLDER than the Sun?

3) All the Stars in the sky are now younger than the Earth too!


Anyone care to take this on? This proves the Bible is already wrong in the first few chapters.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heaven and the EARTH.

How did you conclude that earth was not created first?

[Phenomanul]

You had a solid post until this.

My point of contention still stands...

As for your reproach of my comment.... I only paraphrased what Newton himself wrote on many occasions.

The truth is that many of the scientific pioneers that shaped our western civilization believed in GOD. Attempts to hide this very fact has been one of the athiestic agenda's dirtiest tricks... even though it is remarkably easy to counter... by opening a history book.