Will you go see "Religulous"?

[Omen]

You have no proof that evolution is true but you buy that fantasy, give me a break!

:toofunny:

What makes you think I believe evolution is correct? I denounced evolution and stated I do not believe in it in my earlier posts :toofunny:

Here!

Evolution is just as retarded as Creationism, both THEORIES are MAJORLY flawed.

Remember slaves, if religion wasn't as popular as it is today, you'd all be baker acted......one day....

Invalid Link Removed

You really think I'm smart enough to know Creationism is BS but dumb enough to believe Evolution? :toofunny:

I don't buy into any fantasy.....I'm very content with reality thank you very much

 

[Rick28]

My bad :rant:

 

[Rick28]

Just looking for a friendly fight is all. Lol!

 

[Rick28]

:frustrate

 

[Omen]

So have we made you re consider you beliefs?

Come to the dark side....we have cookies.....

 

[Rick28]

Just trying to start something he he he.

 

[Rick28]

So have we made you re consider you beliefs?

Come to the dark side....we have cookies.....

That's not funny.

 

[Rick28]

You guys are fun.

 

[Rick28]

Bad things happen in the dark. LOL

 

[Rick28]

Omen
What made u change your mind about evolution?

 

[supersize77]

Tyler, I'd like your thoughts on this vid... if you get a few minutes (its like ten min long)

Invalid Link Removed

It's all so clear to me...I've been freed from my delusional belief in God...thank you! thank you!....hahahaha! what a joke...if there was ever an example of conforming the facts to fit your premise, this video was it. I will say one thing...the videos' best argument (which I assume is also why it's the address of their website) is the whole "why won't God heal amputees". This is actually somewhat difficult to understand without applying general principles from scripture that talk about God making people "deaf and lame" from birth as well as blind b/c it "pleased God to do so". The other examples are laughable and actually strengthened my belief in the God of scripture as I thought through them.
BTW, I'm a new attorney (once I get sworn in) so I guess I qualify as an "intelligent, educated" Christian.

 

[dsade]

Sin has a price! If they listened to him none of those things would've taken place!

Jesus crap, man, can you read?

Please tell me what sin a freaking 2 month old BABY committed to deserve to be slaughtered.

Again, the problem people have with uber religious types is their either inability or refusal to think rationally and use reason.

I have brought up several inconsistencies and used several examples of horrible atrocities committed either DIRECTLY BY, or on orders FROM god...as specifically detailed in your "good holy book"...and you are either purposely ignoring the details or just don't "get it."

Tell me what sin a freaking 2 month (hell, a 2 HOUR) old child could have possibly committed to deserve to be killed/enslaved/punished. A MORAL god would punish those that commit the sin ALONE...not his children, not his wife, not his descendents.

Tell me...if you grandfather stole a car should YOU go to prison? And your children? Your grandchildren? WOuld you not find such a punishment to be an abortion of the word JUSTICE?

 

[supersize77]

Jesus crap, man, can you read?

Please tell me what sin a freaking 2 month old BABY committed to deserve to be slaughtered.

Again, the problem people have with uber religious types is their either inability or refusal to think rationally and use reason.

I have brought up several inconsistencies and used several examples of horrible atrocities committed either DIRECTLY BY, or on orders FROM god...as specifically detailed in your "good holy book"...and you are either purposely ignoring the details or just don't "get it."

Tell me what sin a freaking 2 month (hell, a 2 HOUR) old child could have possibly committed to deserve to be killed/enslaved/punished. A MORAL god would punish those that commit the sin ALONE...not his children, not his wife, not his descendents.

Tell me...if you grandfather stole a car should YOU go to prison? And your children? Your grandchildren? WOuld you not find such a punishment to be an abortion of the word JUSTICE?

Hey dsade you bring up very good points. I don't have all the answers, not even close but I can argue from a biblical world view.

From scripture it can be argued that sin is imputed on all of us, from birth, from Adam and Eve. Whether or not you accept that is another issue but as I stated, I'm coming from a biblical world view. Even though we are born with a sin nature an infant obviously cannot mentally comprehend the meaning of right and wrong and thus has not reached the age (i.e. condition) of accountability. That basically means, because God is just, He may choose to take a child's life but that child will not be held accountable for his inherent sin nature or the sins of his parents.

So what happened to these children (as well as all other children who are aborted or otherwise die during infancy)? I believe the answer is instant heaven (to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord). The parents are left to suffer here on earth but in my opinion their children actually got an instant trip to paradise (eye hath not seen nor ear heard what the Lord has in store for them that love him).

So that's how I, in my feeble human understanding, can reason that God could take a child's life due to the parent's sin yet still be just. Unfortunately (for us) there are always consequences to sin; that's what we have crack babies, molestation victim's, etc.

We live in a fallen depraved world after all. However, I believe God is not some distant, standoffish ogre. He came down here in the form of man and beared the brunt of all His children's sin. He understands all the pain, suffering, and hurt of this world because He chose to humble Himself and experience it firsthand. Rational, maybe not, but I believe it in my heart. As scripture says: "the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing."

 

[dsade]

Hey dsade you bring up very good points. I don't have all the answers, not even close but I can argue from a biblical world view.

From scripture it can be argued that sin is imputed on all of us, from birth, from Adam and Eve. Whether or not you accept that is another issue but as I stated, I'm coming from a biblical world view. Even though we are born with a sin nature an infant obviously cannot mentally comprehend the meaning of right and wrong and thus has not reached the age (i.e. condition) of accountability. That basically means, because God is just, He may choose to take a child's life but that child will not be held accountable for his inherent sin nature or the sins of his parents.

So what happened to these children (as well as all other children who are aborted or otherwise die during infancy)? I believe the answer is instant heaven (to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord). The parents are left to suffer here on earth but in my opinion their children actually got an instant trip to paradise (eye hath not seen nor ear heard what the Lord has in store for them that love him).

So that's how I, in my feeble human understanding, can reason that God could take a child's life due to the parent's sin yet still be just. Unfortunately (for us) there are always consequences to sin; that's what we have crack babies, molestation victim's, etc.

We live in a fallen depraved world after all. However, I believe God is not some distant, standoffish ogre. He came down here in the form of man and beared the brunt of all His children's sin. He understands all the pain, suffering, and hurt of this world because He chose to humble Himself and experience it firsthand. Rational, maybe not, but I believe it in my heart. As scripture says: "the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing."

I had heard that one before as well...but there was also an example of slavery, which would not entail instant heaven, but instead a prolonged "torture".

Then again, there is the original problem of the existence of evil itself.

 

[Tyler1]

Considering the quote I just posted and the second one, this is too funny

I ended the post with a quote, yes, I know you don't have the ability to reason.

You believe that there's an invisible entity that has the power to do anything, anywhere. You have no proof, yet you still believe this fantasy.

The word of god, that you believe in, is criminal, yet, you still follow it.

To me, that's irrational, religion is not for rational free thinkers, only irrational slaves.

What were you a slave to before you became a slave for religion?

If I misunderstood your quotes..oops. But I though I answered them, maybe my answer was just funny.

You and me are going to disagree on this one. I'll say what I believe and you'll tell me what that makes me.
I dont want to make you think I'm judging here, I don't know you. But I came from disbelief to belief, and was freed from the entrapments (ice cream addiction ) that catch us on earth. Not following Jesus's teachings does not make you a freeer(?) thinker compared to me, it's a common statement, and for how many times I hear people say it to me I wonder who brainwashed who.

If want to discuss this stuff, who are you to tell me if I can reason or not. Have I said anything about you in that regards? Try a different route, this is the same argument atiest tell me all the time. I understand that my faith in your opininion makes the reasoning section of my brain fly out the window, but man I've heard it before and don't agree.

If for any reason what I said above pisses you off, just drop it or PM me what you think about me. I would like to keep this conversation going and as soon as somebody takes this route it usually ends.

 

[supersize77]

I had heard that one before as well...but there was also an example of slavery, which would not entail instant heaven, but instead a prolonged "torture".

Then again, there is the original problem of the existence of evil itself.

True, slavery would not entail instant heaven and I'm assuming you're referring to God's commands to the Israelites in regards with how to treat their enemies. However, in scripture, the Jews are God's chosen people and he was guiding them according to His plan to bring about the Messiah. In scripture, God definitely condones war and war entails killing and other unpleasantness. Also, the enemies of the of Israelites were also enemies of God and by no means regarded as "innocent." As far as children being born into slavery...I don't want to minimize it but that type of thing happens in life. People are born into horrible situations all over the world everyday. In this country we are among the most fortunate people on earth to be born into such blessed circumstances. I was in Iraq in 2007 and the children over there were born into a pretty bad situation also (through no fault of their own).

As far as where evil came from, that's a great question. The way I understand it is that God did not directly create evil but He most definitely created the capacity or possibility for evil when He gave His creations (Lucifer included) free will. I assume God didn't want to create mindless robots that would automatically worship Him but chose to give use the power to choose. The first humans chose evil, which originated with Satan's rebellion, when they chose to disobey God.

 

[dsade]

True, slavery would not entail instant heaven and I'm assuming you're referring to God's commands to the Israelites in regards with how to treat their enemies. However, in scripture, the Jews are God's chosen people and he was guiding them according to His plan to bring about the Messiah. In scripture, God definitely condones war and war entails killing and other unpleasantness. Also, the enemies of the of Israelites were also enemies of God and by no means regarded as "innocent." As far as children being born into slavery...I don't want to minimize it but that type of thing happens in life. People are born into horrible situations all over the world everyday. In this country we are among the most fortunate people on earth to be born into such blessed circumstances. I was in Iraq in 2007 and the children over there were born into a pretty bad situation also (through no fault of their own).

As far as where evil came from, that's a great question. The way I understand it is that God did not directly create evil but He most definitely created the capacity or possibility for evil when He gave His creations (Lucifer included) free will. I assume God didn't want to create mindless robots that would automatically worship Him but chose to give use the power to choose. The first humans chose evil, which originated with Satan's rebellion, when they chose to disobey God.

you then bring out two issues - again contradictions.

A perfect being that is also all-powerful would be able to both envision and create a world without the necessity of evil.

as well, you claim all being have free will, thus creating the possibility of evil...however once again the exercise of free will by one creature necessarily removes or negates any free will that might be exercised by small children, etc. Psychological damage done to victims of abuse can lead to disrupted perception, skewed morality,etc NOT undertaken by free choice. Are they as well to be eternally punished?

 

[supersize77]

you then bring out two issues - again contradictions.

A perfect being that is also all-powerful would be able to both envision and create a world without the necessity of evil.

as well, you claim all being have free will, thus creating the possibility of evil...however once again the exercise of free will by one creature necessarily removes or negates any free will that might be exercised by small children, etc. Psychological damage done to victims of abuse can lead to disrupted perception, skewed morality,etc NOT undertaken by free choice. Are they as well to be eternally punished?

I don't see a contradiction. Your examples are compatible with what I said. Of course, a perfect being COULD create such a world and I'm sure He did envision what would happen. As I stated, for whatever reason He didn't want to create mindlessly obedient creatures but rather those that had the ability to love and obey Him voluntarily. That seems to make for a much more genuine and personal situation than making us all robots who are programed to worship God. I know I don't want my son to be a robot who mindlessly obeys me...it wouldn't be a real relationship.

He also saw what would happen (man's fall) and went through with it anyway because it honored and pleased him to do so. Man's fall from grace and Christ's sacrificial atoning work on the cross brings glory to God and creates a "bride" (the church) for Christ. When it comes down to it, this is God's "show" and we are His creations created for His glory.

In a fallen world there are always victims, some of whom are horrifically abused physically and mentally. I have several in my immediate and extended family. Some of them are strong Christians and some of them aren't but they all still suffer mentally to some degree from the abuse. We can't always chose what happens to us and some people suffer much worse than others. However, I have seen people in my own family chose not to let what happened to them control their lives. Instead, they have exercised their God given free will to make the most out themselves and what happened to them. As a matter of fact, my own sister was abused and councils and encourages other young women in similar circumstances.

By no means are abuse victims condemned to suffer eternal punishment. Even for those who experience "hell on earth" can chose to do great good in this world and they retain the possibility for a blissful eternity.

 

[dsade]

I don't see a contradiction. Your examples are compatible with what I said. Of course, a perfect being COULD create such a world and I'm sure He did envision what would happen. As I stated, for whatever reason He didn't want to create mindlessly obedient creatures but rather those that had the ability to love and obey Him voluntarily. That seems to make for a much more genuine and personal situation than making us all robots who are programed to worship God. I know I don't want my son to be a robot who mindlessly obeys me...it wouldn't be a real relationship.

He also saw what would happen (man's fall) and went through with it anyway because it honored and pleased him to do so. Man's fall from grace and Christ's sacrificial atoning work on the cross brings glory to God and creates a "bride" (the church) for Christ. When it comes down to it, this is God's "show" and we are His creations created for His glory.

In a fallen world there are always victims, some of whom are horrifically abused physically and mentally. I have several in my immediate and extended family. Some of them are strong Christians and some of them aren't but they all still suffer mentally to some degree from the abuse. We can't always chose what happens to us and some people suffer much worse than others. However, I have seen people in my own family chose not to let what happened to them control their lives. Instead, they have exercised their God given free will to make the most out themselves and what happened to them. As a matter of fact, my own sister was abused and councils and encourages other young women in similar circumstances.

By no means are abuse victims condemned to suffer eternal punishment. Even for those who experience "hell on earth" can chose to do great good in this world and they retain the possibility for a blissful eternity.

if I were to tell you you had an exam tomorrow on quantum physics and that your entire future depended on you getting 100%...then refused to give you all the informatio you needed to understand, fully comprehend, not to mention answer the questions....especially in an environment of contrdictory information....would that be fair?

and once again, if god were able to prevent evil and doesn't then he cannot be benevolent and all-loving. If he is unable to prevent it, the he cannot be omnipotent - either of which turns solid beliefe into blind clawing and wishful thinking - thevery reason a vast majority of scientists and intellectuals reject it.

 

[whiskers]

It's all so clear to me...I've been freed from my delusional belief in God...thank you! thank you!....hahahaha! what a joke...if there was ever an example of conforming the facts to fit your premise, this video was it. I will say one thing...the videos' best argument (which I assume is also why it's the address of their website) is the whole "why won't God heal amputees". This is actually somewhat difficult to understand without applying general principles from scripture that talk about God making people "deaf and lame" from birth as well as blind b/c it "pleased God to do so". The other examples are laughable and actually strengthened my belief in the God of scripture as I thought through them.
BTW, I'm a new attorney (once I get sworn in) so I guess I qualify as an "intelligent, educated" Christian.

please give specific examples.

That video is not my pride and Joy, "This'll get 'em," one stop shop for deconversion.
I just really liked a few questions.
Why has god never once ever healed an amputee? Because god doesnt heal anyone. Other "healings" happen in circumstances where the body can heal itself. Whereas in the case of a missing limb, we do not have the ability to regenerate. So it doesnt happen.

Why the f*ck would god care about you getting a raise over the other problems which he refuses to solve?


If God were willing to help someone find a lost wallet or something (as many claim he does), but would let the holocaust happen, I would want nothing to do with him.

In what way did that video force the facts into their premise?
Forcing facts into a premise is when christians make a museum with dinosaurs living amongst humans....with saddles on the dinosaurs backs.

 

[supersize77]

if I were to tell you you had an exam tomorrow on quantum physics and that your entire future depended on you getting 100%...then refused to give you all the informatio you needed to understand, fully comprehend, not to mention answer the questions....especially in an environment of contrdictory information....would that be fair?

and once again, if god were able to prevent evil and doesn't then he cannot be benevolent and all-loving. If he is unable to prevent it, the he cannot be omnipotent - either of which turns solid beliefe into blind clawing and wishful thinking - thevery reason a vast majority of scientists and intellectuals reject it.

That exam hypothetical is similar to the old covenant or law that had to be followed in the old testament. They had to follow the law 100% and not deviate; of course no one could and thus failed to meet God's standard for perfection (new testament cross reference: "if any man keeps the whole law and yet fails in one point he is guilty of all.") The fact that no one could or can score 100% was the entire point of the the old testament law; it pointed out man's fallibility and need for a savior.

Under the new covenant I don't need to score a 100% on the exam b/c I have a savior who already aced it for me. The only answer I need is Christ.

Although the bible says God is love it also says He hates and cannot tolerate sin. I think it goes without saying that God is a very complex entity which we can only partly comprehend through concepts such as holy trinity (God the father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit). Needless to say, He is able to both to love his creation and yet have intolerable hatred of their sin simultaneously. God's love and benevolence was demonstrated sufficiently when He sent His own son to die for that very sin (to spare us the consequences). So while God may not meet your particular standard for love and benevolence by preventing evil, He has spared us the ultimate consequences of that evil (eternal separation from Him) by sacrificing His son. That demonstrate both amazing love and omnipotence.

Also, people from all walks of life both accept and reject the biblical truths. There are accomplished scientists and intellectuals on both sides of the issue.

 

[whiskers]

So have we made you re consider you beliefs?

Come to the dark side....we have cookies.....

greener grass, a tenth of your income, and a seventh of your life

 

[dsade]

That exam hypothetical is similar to the old covenant or law that had to be followed in the old testament. They had to follow the law 100% and not deviate; of course no one could and thus failed to meet God's standard for perfection (new testament cross reference: "if any man keeps the whole law and yet fails in one point he is guilty of all.") The fact that no one could or can score 100% was the entire point of the the old testament law; it pointed out man's fallibility and need for a savior.

Under the new covenant I don't need to score a 100% on the exam b/c I have a savior who already aced it for me. The only answer I need is Christ.

Although the bible says God is love it also says He hates and cannot tolerate sin. I think it goes without saying that God is a very complex entity which we can only partly comprehend through concepts such as holy trinity (God the father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit). Needless to say, He is able to both to love his creation and yet have intolerable hatred of their sin simultaneously. God's love and benevolence was demonstrated sufficiently when He sent His own son to die for that very sin (to spare us the consequences). So while God may meet your particular standard for love and benevolence by preventing evil, He has spared us the ultimate consequences of that evil (eternal separation from Him) by sacrificing His son. That demonstrate both amazing love and omnipotence.

Also, people from all walks of life both accept and reject the biblical truths. There are accomplished scientists and intellectuals on both sides of the issue.

Ahh, but see one person is telling you "Christ" and another is telling you "buddha" and another it telling you "Ra" and so on times 1000. Yet, this god REFUSES to offer objective proof (ie. knowledge) necessary to pass the test of who to follow and why.

Faith breaks down completely, because if faith were a valid method of obtaining knowledge, there would be no disagreement.

You have a creature that lives by reason - man - and then you have a god that bases man's eternal damnation on crippling that reason and blindly accepting on "faith". Fair?

And you are misusing the word "truth"...nothing in the bible qualifies as "true" or "false" inherently, since it claims to raise itself above all scientific questioning.

And once again, a perfect being woulld have gotten it perfect from the beginning...so why the "old" covenenant and "new" covenannt....unless he were...wrong?

 

[whiskers]

Ahh, but see one person is telling you "Christ" and another is telling you "buddha" and another it telling you "Ra" and so on times 1000. Yet, this god REFUSES to offer objective proof (ie. knowledge) necessary to pass the test of who to follow and why.

Think of how different this debate would be if we all lived in India. There likely be NO christians. The religious would be raised Hindu by their parents, and would defend it to the death, just like we're seeing here.

 

[dsade]

Think of how different this debate would be if we all lived in India. There likely be NO christians. The religious would be raised Hindu by their parents, and would defend it to the death, just like we're seeing here.

Reason is the only protection we have against tyranny...those that forfeit reason open the furnace of their minds for use to forge their own chains of bondage.

 

[supersize77]

Ahh, but see one person is telling you "Christ" and another is telling you "buddha" and another it telling you "Ra" and so on times 1000. Yet, this god REFUSES to offer objective proof (ie. knowledge) necessary to pass the test of who to follow and why.

Faith breaks down completely, because if faith were a valid method of obtaining knowledge, there would be no disagreement.

You have a creature that lives by reason - man - and then you have a god that bases man's eternal damnation on crippling that reason and blindly accepting on "faith". Fair?

And you are misusing the word "truth"...nothing in the bible qualifies as "true" or "false" inherently, since it claims to raise itself above all scientific questioning.

And once again, a perfect being woulld have gotten it perfect from the beginning...so why the "old" covenenant and "new" covenannt....unless he were...wrong?

As I stated before, I coming from a biblical world view so I'll let someone else advocate for buddha;-). My worldview also assume the position that the bible is true thus my use of the term "biblical truth/s".

This is not a personal attack but you (a creation) appear to apply your own standards and tests of reason on an all powerful God (your creator). You then reject the idea of God b/c He doesn't demonstrate His attributes as you see fit. I'm sure an all powerful God doesn't feel the need to "pass" any test or met the personal criteria of one of creations objective reasoning . He has provided sufficient knowledge in His word. He has also given man free will to do what he wants with that knowledge.

Oh yeah, whose to say He didn't get it perfect. The old covenant, as I said, set the stage for the messiah by showing man his need for a savior. It wasn't a mistake and haphazard "quickfix". It is part of the bigger perfect plan of God to create a bride for Christ.

 

[dsade]

As I stated before, I coming from a biblical world view so I'll let someone else advocate for buddha;-). My worldview also assume the position that the bible is true thus my use of the term "biblical truth/s".

Circular logic...you assume the truth of your conclusion first, then try to fit your premises.

This is not a personal attack but you (a creation) appear to apply your own standards and tests of reason on an all powerful God (your creator). You then reject the idea of God b/c He doesn't demonstrate His attributes as you see fit. I'm sure an all powerful God doesn't feel the need to "pass" any test or met the personal criteria of one of creations objective reasoning . He has provided sufficient knowledge in His word. He has also given man free will to do what he wants with that knowledge.

You are misdefining "knowledge", as well as retreating back to where I predicted - the "who are we to question" which first assumes the existence and truth of the bible, which is NOT demonstrated or proved, then proceeds forward. We have already demonstrated that your definition of All powerful is in contradiction to the other attributes given to this god, given his inability to create a world where innocents are not chewed up in this flawed machine. And again, man is a being of reason, cause and effect, etc. Given the way at least SOME men were "created" to need reasons and proof, it is a failure on HIS part to show himself. Hey, I would be the first in line to admit if given proof. However, my very existence and making makes me unable to accept anything on faith...is this my failure, or a failure of the being that created me so?

Oh yeah, whose to say He didn't get it perfect. The old covenant, as I said, set the stage for the messiah by showing man his need for a savior. It wasn't a mistake and haphazard "quickfix". It is part of the bigger perfect plan of God to create a bride for Christ.

What makes Christ so special, as to get special treatment? Read the story of the flood, and find the passage where god admits he made a "mistake" by flooding the earth, and swears never to do it again. Perfect? Hmm...contradiction again.

 

[whiskers]

Someone explain to me what us atheists are missing. Where's the 'Duh, its so obvious' arguement for Christianity.

I'd love for someone to change my beliefs (or disbeliefs), I really would. Being proven wrong is a GOOD thing. You learn something. I'd rather have someone inform me of my errors than keep repeating them over and over.


As far as a religion making you happy. I sometimes can let that go, but for the most part religious people are sleeping in a machine thats a cancer to the world.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
- George Bernard Shaw

In Religulous, Maher talks to two ex mormons and asks them why more non believers dont come out of the closet in Utah. They said its social suicide in utah. Familys hate it and often disown non believing children (as in any religion), and the non believer stands to lose a lot of friends. I choose to be open about my disbelief, and I have to admit it a little difficult to find girls who are okay with that, and very hard to find non believers. So in some cases, I think people can be happier with belief. Personally I cant really say I'm any more happy or unhappy.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
-Carl Sagan

 

[supersize77]

Circular logic...you assume the truth of your conclusion first, then try to fit your premises.

You are misdefining "knowledge", as well as retreating back to where I predicted - the "who are we to question" which first assumes the existence and truth of the bible, which is NOT demonstrated or proved, then proceeds forward.

I want to say that you are a very thoughtful and obviously intelligent man. You are also, forcing me to think and I thank you for that.

As far as "assuming the truth" I was actually explaining my use of the word "truth" which comes from my particular worldview (which we've already been over multiple times).

If I don't start with any objective absolutes then I start applying my own subject tests and standards to everyone and everything (sound familiar?). Also, you're misdefining "retreating". I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning and have done much questioning myself before coming to many conclusions about my beliefs. I was merely making an observation of your dismissive attitude towards the God of the bible b/c He doesn't pass your test/s.

I think a more logical and REASONABLE approach would be to admit that you don't know (b/c you don't), or don't believe. I will admit that...I don't know, however, I undoubtedly believe the bible is God's perfect word. Whatever you you chose to believe or disbelieve, there is an element of faith involved either way.

[/QUOTE]We have already demonstrated that your definition of All powerful is in contradiction to the other attributes given to this god, given his inability to create a world where innocents are not chewed up in this flawed machine.[/QUOTE]

Who is "we". Do you have a mouse in your pocket. Also, why do you think you've demonstrated this? You haven't. I've already been over this; God is able to do whatever He wishes. He chose to create a world in which His creations have free will (and aren't robots). Man chose to disobey which unfortunately has a ripple effect.

Your also assuming some people are innocent when in reality none of us are (ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). We are only innocent when God views us through the "blood" of His son's sacrifice.

And again, man is a being of reason, cause and effect, etc. Given the way at least SOME men were "created" to need reasons and proof, it is a failure on HIS part to show himself. Hey, I would be the first in line to admit if given proof. However, my very existence and making makes me unable to accept anything on faith...is this my failure, or a failure of the being that created me so?

Again, you are applying your standards to God and then boldly announce He has failed to meet them.

[/QUOTE] What makes Christ so special, as to get special treatment? Read the story of the flood, and find the passage where god admits he made a "mistake" by flooding the earth, and swears never to do it again. Perfect? Hmm...contradiction again.[/QUOTE]
Could you show it to me?

BTW, with all due respect, what do you believe? Or what conclusion has you reasoning led you to? Just curious.

 

[whiskers]

Supersize, How old do you think the world is?

 

[dsade]

'We' meaning centuries of critical analysis - these are by no means my original arguments, much as I would like to claim them.

As for my belief, I freely admit that "I don't know". However, my admission of this fact, does not tempt me to jump at the first delusional life preserver that I find. I no more think that the idea of an anthropomorphic god is a logical conclusion than that there is no god at all..or that everything is turtles alll the way down - or even a flying spaghetti monster. Nothing in existence points towards supporting any of these, while some of the examples I have used certainly points to DIScredit the idea of a personal, benevolent god. I am atheist, meaning "without belief in god". There simply is no evidence, therefore I lack belief.

There are logical tracks to follow that lead to an acceptable morality very similar to what is CLAIMED to be biblical - so the concept of god is superfluous - needlessly overcomplicating.

 

[supersize77]

Supersize, How old do you think the world is?

Honestly don't know man. I assume you've heard the view the earth is only 6-7,000 years old...something I've heard argued from bible scholars. It may be, or it may be much older...it's really all theory. I believe in a literal 6 day creation but I don't hold that view as essential to Christianity. Many respectable Christians believe the world to be millions or billions of years old.

 

[supersize77]

'We' meaning centuries of critical analysis - these are by no means my original arguments, much as I would like to claim them.

As for my belief, I freely admit that "I don't know". However, my admission of this fact, does not tempt me to jump at the first delusional life preserver that I find. I no more think that the idea of an anthropomorphic god is a logical conclusion than that there is no god at all..or that everything is turtles alll the way down - or even a flying spaghetti monster. Nothing in existence points towards supporting any of these, while some of the examples I have used certainly points to DIScredit the idea of a personal, benevolent god. I am atheist, meaning "without belief in god". There simply is no evidence, therefore I lack belief.

There are logical tracks to follow that lead to an acceptable morality very similar to what is CLAIMED to be biblical - so the concept of god is superfluous - needlessly overcomplicating.

I know where you are coming from. I have questioned God's existence but I eventually came to believe (even before I was a Christian) in some sort of "god" just from observing the world around me.

I would argue there is most certainly evidence of God. Note I did not say conclusive proof but the mere complexity of the universe is undoubtedly evidence of intelligent design. It It doesn't prove anything but it does give considerable weight to the argument that everything we see (and the things we don't) could not have gotten here by chance.

 

[dsade]

I know where you are coming from. I have questioned God's existence but I eventually came to believe (even before I was a Christian) in some sort of "god" just from observing the world around me.

I would argue there is most certainly evidence of God. Note I did not say conclusive proof but the mere complexity of the universe is undoubtedly evidence of intelligent design. It It doesn't prove anything but it does give considerable weight to the argument that everything we see (and the things we don't) could not have gotten here by chance.

This is where a problem is...first of all, there is chaos everywhere - not the complete ordered peace that seems to be.

Second, chance is the wrong word for it. Given the behaviour of chemicals and molecules, they cannot "behave" other than their natures. The electron configurations and nuclear forces draw Hydrogen and Oxygen to make water, as well as countless other molecules.

If you look at some of the experiments done with an atmosphere full of organic molecules and an outside energy source (sunlight, electricity from lightning, etc.) many complex organic molecules including amino acids can be formed. Given sufficient time, and physical rules, what we see is bound to be formed...and will someday also cease, likely to be reformed in different configurations, on and on ad infinitum.

again, god is superfluous, and no it is not intellectually honest to try to attempt to remove god from infinite regress - you cannot claim that the universe is so complex that is requires a creator - yet that very same creator, who must therefore be MORE complex that what he creates requires no such creator.

 

[supersize77]

This is where a problem is...first of all, there is chaos everywhere - not the complete ordered peace that seems to be.

Second, chance is the wrong word for it. Given the behaviour of chemicals and molecules, they cannot "behave" other than their natures. The electron configurations and nuclear forces draw Hydrogen and Oxygen to make water, as well as countless other molecules.

If you look at some of the experiments done with an atmosphere full of organic molecules and an outside energy source (sunlight, electricity from lightning, etc.) many complex organic molecules including amino acids can be formed. Given sufficient time, and physical rules, what we see is bound to be formed...and will someday also cease, likely to be reformed in different configurations, on and on ad infinitum.

again, god is superfluous, and no it is not intellectually honest to try to attempt to remove god from infinite regress - you cannot claim that the universe is so complex that is requires a creator - yet that very same creator, who must therefore be MORE complex that what he creates requires no such creator.

Well it all has to originate somewhere; I think we agree on that. I personally find it the idea of an intelligent creator origin more plausible than a bunch of molecules that autonomously "behaved" their way into existence as we know it.

I certainly believe the experiments you mentioned have merit as they give a glimpse into the mechanics of intelligent design.
Also, I agree the complexity of the universe doesn't prove the existence of a creator. However, it certainly is compelling evidence for the argument a creator exists.

 

[dsade]

However, it certainly is compelling evidence for the argument a creator exists.

I would disagree...but also point out that "a creator" could be anything at all, with any number of characteristics (if even conscious) - and doesn't lend any credence to the judeo-christian picture.


/ramen

 

[supersize77]

I would disagree...but also point out that "a creator" could be anything at all, with any number of characteristics (if even conscious) - and doesn't lend any credence to the judeo-christian picture.


/ramen

True, the existence of a creator or higher power doesn't prove the judeo-christian picture but it's obviously a prerequisite to faith in this picture or to any other religion for that matter. It just so happens, my personal belief in a creator (based on evidence in nature) and subsequent "searching" led me to faith in Christ.

 

[dsade]

True, the existence of a creator or higher power doesn't prove the judeo-christian picture but it's obviously a prerequisite to faith in this picture or to any other religion for that matter. It just so happens, my personal belief in a creator (based on evidence in nature) and subsequent "searching" led me to faith in Christ.

Fair enough...whatever works for you.

 

[supersize77]

Fair enough...whatever works for you.

Same to you brother.

 

[Rick28]

Tell me...if you grandfather stole a car should YOU go to prison? And your children? Your grandchildren? WOuld you not find such a punishment to be an abortion of the word JUSTICE?

Things are not like this today, I've already explained "dispensations". Your arguments are so weak to me at best. Unless you're a bible believing christian you'll never understand so it's like beating a dead horse.

 

[Rick28]

Honestly don't know man. I assume you've heard the view the earth is only 6-7,000 years old...something I've heard argued from bible scholars. It may be, or it may be much older...it's really all theory. I believe in a literal 6 day creation but I don't hold that view as essential to Christianity. Many respectable Christians believe the world to be millions or billions of years old.

So called Christians who believe that the earth is billions of years old are Gap Theorist or Day Age Theorist. Neither "theory" is biblically since you have to compromise scripture with unproven lies!

 

[supersize77]

So called Christians who believe that the earth is billions of years old are Gap Theorist or Day Age Theorist. Neither "theory" is biblically since you have to compromise scripture with unproven lies!

Yeah some Christians don't take the creation account literally. It's a slippery slope for sure; We are definitely in agreemnt on this, I don't buy into the 'gap theory' or whatever it's called but its not an essential element of being a Christian...it's just incorrect (in my opinion).

 

[Hurleyboy05]

Things are not like this today, I've already explained "dispensations". Your arguments are so weak to me at best. Unless you're a bible believing christian you'll never understand so it's like beating a dead horse.

Dude, are you serious? All dsade's arguments have been quite applicable and his comparisons are spot on. This comment makes you sound like just another brain washed, close-minded, christian fool who is unwilling to give others' views even a possible chance.

I can't believe how ridiculous you sound, yet you don't even see it. I guess if I believed in an invisible, unloving, almighty (yet incapable) "being", then maybe I would understand you better.

 

[Tyler1]

That exam hypothetical is similar to the old covenant or law that had to be followed in the old testament. They had to follow the law 100% and not deviate; of course no one could and thus failed to meet God's standard for perfection (new testament cross reference: "if any man keeps the whole law and yet fails in one point he is guilty of all.") The fact that no one could or can score 100% was the entire point of the the old testament law; it pointed out man's fallibility and need for a savior.

Under the new covenant I don't need to score a 100% on the exam b/c I have a savior who already aced it for me. The only answer I need is Christ.

Although the bible says God is love it also says He hates and cannot tolerate sin. I think it goes without saying that God is a very complex entity which we can only partly comprehend through concepts such as holy trinity (God the father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit). Needless to say, He is able to both to love his creation and yet have intolerable hatred of their sin simultaneously. God's love and benevolence was demonstrated sufficiently when He sent His own son to die for that very sin (to spare us the consequences). So while God may not meet your particular standard for love and benevolence by preventing evil, He has spared us the ultimate consequences of that evil (eternal separation from Him) by sacrificing His son. That demonstrate both amazing love and omnipotence.

Also, people from all walks of life both accept and reject the biblical truths. There are accomplished scientists and intellectuals on both sides of the issue.

Good post.

 

[supersize77]

Dude, are you serious? All dsade's arguments have been quite applicable and his comparisons are spot on. This comment makes you sound like just another brain washed, close-minded, christian fool who is unwilling to give others' views even a possible chance.

I can't believe how ridiculous you sound, yet you don't even see it. I guess if I believed in an invisible, unloving, almighty (yet incapable) "being", then maybe I would understand you better.

I have to say, though we differ greatly in our beliefs, I appreciate dsades ability to present his arguments in an articulate and intelligent manner.
I think discussion of very sensitive issues (like religion) is a positive thing as long as people keep it civil.

 

[Tyler1]

Ahh, but see one person is telling you "Christ" and another is telling you "buddha" and another it telling you "Ra" and so on times 1000. Yet, this god REFUSES to offer objective proof (ie. knowledge) necessary to pass the test of who to follow and why.

Faith breaks down completely, because if faith were a valid method of obtaining knowledge, there would be no disagreement.

You have a creature that lives by reason - man - and then you have a god that bases man's eternal damnation on crippling that reason and blindly accepting on "faith". Fair?

And you are misusing the word "truth"...nothing in the bible qualifies as "true" or "false" inherently, since it claims to raise itself above all scientific questioning.

And once again, a perfect being woulld have gotten it perfect from the beginning...so why the "old" covenenant and "new" covenannt....unless he were...wrong?

You ask some good questions. All other religions require you to complete certain tasks to find salvation, Jesus asks you to follow him, that's all. Keep your free will and free thinking, he wants us to be who we are.

 

[Tyler1]

This is where a problem is...first of all, there is chaos everywhere - not the complete ordered peace that seems to be.

Second, chance is the wrong word for it. Given the behaviour of chemicals and molecules, they cannot "behave" other than their natures. The electron configurations and nuclear forces draw Hydrogen and Oxygen to make water, as well as countless other molecules.

If you look at some of the experiments done with an atmosphere full of organic molecules and an outside energy source (sunlight, electricity from lightning, etc.) many complex organic molecules including amino acids can be formed. Given sufficient time, and physical rules, what we see is bound to be formed...and will someday also cease, likely to be reformed in different configurations, on and on ad infinitum.

again, god is superfluous, and no it is not intellectually honest to try to attempt to remove god from infinite regress - you cannot claim that the universe is so complex that is requires a creator - yet that very same creator, who must therefore be MORE complex that what he creates requires no such creator.

The molecules created were amino acids in Mullers (?) exp. My first degree was in cell molec bio., but I haven't been involved in it for a long time. The possibility of a molecule combinging in a primordial soup is really small and I mean infinitely small. If we take the molecules necessary to combine in an oily bubble (cell) to replicate another molecule we are taking about something that is nearing impossible, if we add in the miolecules necessary to make a replicating oily bubble it's off the charts.

Even if we used the universe as a scale, if I remember right, and asteroids seeding bacterial spores to plant themselves on other planets to spread life, we still wouldn't be nearing the amount of time and space necesssary for it to occur by spontaneous generation.

 

[Hurleyboy05]

I have to say, though we differ greatly in our beliefs, I appreciate dsades ability to present his arguments in an articulate and intelligent manner.
I think discussion of very sensitive issues (like religion) is a positive thing as long as people keep it civil.

And I respect you for this very fact - you can handle others questioning religion, without getting all worked up. Dsade is only questioning and comparing thoughts and facts, and if someone is truly solid in their beliefs, then they should be able to handle this. I'm truly repulsed by christians that think with the "I'm right and thats all that matters" mindset. It's foolish, and ultimately sad. Thank you supersize, for being willing to share your beliefs, and allowing others to do so also. I wish more of your fellow christians where as respectable, and levelheaded as you are.

 

[Zero V]

Yes...that you contradict yourself and/or bring in beliefs out of thinner air than just the bible.

EDIT: I'll make this a bit clearer...to first discuss the concept of god, you have to define god. I am just jumping ahead and assuming that you think that god is, among other things, perfect. Therefore your words concerning the OT where you said the New Testament "destroys" the old so it no longer applied implies that there was something either wrong with the OT, or that god "changed his mind" - meaning he was/is NOT perfect.

ie. contradiction.

The old testament was put in place until Christ came to fulfill the old testament, and institute the new testament. Instead of finding salvation through the law, it is found through faith and good works.

 

[dsade]

The old testament was put in place until Christ came to fulfill the old testament, and institute the new testament. Instead of finding salvation through the law, it is found through faith and good works.

God is eternal, omniscient, and perfect...there should have been only one covenant needed...ever...and it should have covered everything without question (I refer you once again to my point about Slavery NOT being forbidden by the perfect book.)

A new covenant implies imperfection with the old.