Continuation of Christianity debate.

[Jenos Ridan]

So i guess that's just one of the many scriptures that were only for the early church, and no longer apply to Christians.

What you fail to notice this that now we have access to prosperity in this age. Does that then mean that poor (materially speaking) christians are an old evil? No. But all good things (barring that which catters to your flesh) are not to be shunned because of some poverty doctrine. What does the Lord have to say about what the meek inherit? THE EARTH! If you are a good christian and don't sow into your sin but sow into the Kingdom, you will be rewarded. Not just in the spiritual sence, but good things will come your way. Don't worry about riches, if God feeds the birds and clothes the grass then what cause is there for worry? Are riches bad? Only if they become a new (false) god for you.

[CrazyAnglican]

You seem to get confused a lot. What's confusing you? I'm sure I did it properly. The way you 'answered' it was pretty low. Let's give you an example. Let's say you're the only Christian in your family, and the others had their different religions. You didn't know that you could save them by praying to God, and so you were worried about it. Would you still follow God even if your family may not of been saved? Or would you love your family, who you know exists, and just leave God behind?

Aw, C'mon Skittles there are way too many variables to make that meaningful. You're reaching here to try to get the answer you want. This is almost exactly the question I answered (In depth, as I recall) but you've specifically added the non-Christian family as a stumbling block. Stipulating that Jehan has to be ignorant of the saving power of prayer seems a little thin too. You're also assuming that every non-Christian goes to Hell, which not many Christians believe; as has been stated repeatedly on this thread. You acknowledge this yourself in allowing Moses, Abraham, & Ezekiel into Heaven, none of whom were Christian. This has gone over into a strawman argument in that you are trying to attribute beliefs to your opposition, that they may not have, in an effort to pin them down.

[Jenos Ridan]

After reading the above post by CA, I call for the honerable Skittles to shut up and admit he/she has lost.

[b.k. barunt]

So i guess that's just one of the many scriptures that were only for the early church, and no longer apply to Christians.

What you fail to notice this that now we have access to prosperity in this age. Does that then mean that poor (materially speaking) christians are an old evil? No. But all good things (barring that which catters to your flesh) are not to be shunned because of some poverty doctrine. What does the Lord have to say about what the meek inherit? THE EARTH! If you are a good christian and don't sow into your sin but sow into the Kingdom, you will be rewarded. Not just in the spiritual sence, but good things will come your way. Don't worry about riches, if God feeds the birds and clothes the grass then what cause is there for worry? Are riches bad? Only if they become a new (false) god for you.

Congratulations jenos! The "CC Jesus Freaks" are by far the most shallow, superficial examples of Christianity that i have found (and in this country, that's saying a lot), and you are without a doubt the pick of the litter.

[CrazyAnglican]

Alright Skittles, here is my answer to the ones I haven't answered already.

1. Why do you believe it's a 'gift' that God has given us, and not a bribe? Sure, in the Bible, it may say that it's a gift, but the Bible has been translated time and time again that it may not be correct. What if it was a bribe? It'll just be like "Hey, follow me, and I'll give you eternal life". Why would God give us a 'gift' anyway?

This is a more complex question than it appears to be. You can mean more than one thing when you say “bribe”. For example, giving money to a mayor so that your inferior company gets a million dollar sanitation contract is a bribe. This is illegal because the populace gets shafted with bad sanitation, and I’m sure you’re aware of the rest of the implications. Suffice it to say this type of bribe is a bad thing. But we also have a parent bribing his children. For example, I’ll give you dessert if you finish your vegetables. Nobody gets shafted here. The vegetables are good for the kid, and the loving parent treats the kid for good behavior. Hopefully, this is also setting up a good habit of vegetable eating for later in life. Thankfully, this kind of bribe isn’t illegal, otherwise I’d probably writing this from jail. So there is bribing for personal gain and bribing in the best inerests of another, but they are hardly the same even though we use the same word.

Now, from my Christian perspective, God is on a rescue mission. Sure you could consider that the park ranger is bribing you by saying “follow me and I’ll lead you out of the woods”, but who cares you’re getting out of the woods. The firefighter could also be bribing you by saying “give me your hand and I’ll pull you out of there”, but once again I’d give her my hand because it’s in my best interest to do so. Now, if you’ll allow me a little guesswork I’ll try to think about where you might be going with this.

An omnipotent park ranger or firefighter wouldn’t need me to do anything, right? So, that would constitute toying with me and lead us to think of God as capricious and mean. There is a big problem with this reasoning. Omnipotence has a down side. God is limited a little by the fact that he is omnipotent. Strange thought, eh? It is, however, what almost every Christian has said and almost every atheist has refused to accept. An omnipotent God really only has three choices. Those choices are never intervene, intervene sometimes, or intervene all of the time? These really are the only options he has.

This leads us directly into the nature of God. I don’t like going here, but what the heck. The baby’s teething and I’m up in the middle of the night anyway. The first option gives us the blind watchmaker. God creates the world and walks away. That’s not the Christian God, and few people have said it is. So we can rule out that option. The third option is a God that “loves” us so much he wouldn’t let us do anything wrong. So we have a father who smothers his kids to the point that they are mindless zombies completely incapable of existing independently from him. Yes, I said that and believe it. People can exist independently from God. Christians call that Hell.

Finally, we come to the second option. God intervenes sometimes. Now there are two versions of this God. The atheist version goes something like this.

God gives us free will, then imposes a huge number of seemingly nonsensical rules on us, just so when we choose to exercise the free will that he gave us and disobey these rules, he can jump out from behind a bush and yell "Ha ha!" and banish us to hell for all eternity.

Seems like a particularly sane and rational god you got there...

I agree, but this isn’t the God I believe in. Remember that whole gift - bribe thing? God is rescuing us, but to walk in and save everybody automatically means that he’s the option three “loving” god that forbids free-will. So the problem is who does he help? The one’s who ask for help.
Does God impose rules simply to jump out and damn the ones who don’t follow them? No, he gives directions, remember the park ranger? It’s our choice to follow him out of the woods or stay in there. If we ask for help, though, Christians believe that it will be given. God gives us directions on how to find him, and we believe Heaven is in his presence. We can choose not to follow those directions and not attempt to find him. By default that choice leads to not finding him (missing Heaven) which is in our belief means we've found Hell. If we choose to go to Heaven or Hell it’s our choice. Perhaps not the best explanation, but I see nothing insane about it.

3. (I've previously asked Caleb this, but I want other views by other Christians). Why did only 3 men go to Heaven? Moses, Ezelkiel (SP), and Abraham (if I remember correctly). All from the Old Testament, all under Yahweh.
Let's see why those three would of been the only ones to go to Heaven.
Moses - He freed the Israelites from the Egyptians, and led the to the land of Milk and Honey. (Which, even after freeing them, they didn't even get to ) He imposed the will of Yahweh to kill livestock, people, and to plague Egypt. Why, when it was just to save the Israelites? Sure, they were the followers of Yahweh, but they also pillaged, killed and drove other cultures into the ground, just so Yahweh was the only 'god'.
Abraham - He was the forefather of the line of which Jesus was born. He almost killed his Son in the name of Yahweh, and it was all to test his faith in the god. He did everything his god told him to.
Ezelkiel (SP) - He didn't send rain to some country or other, because they worshipped different gods other than Yahweh. Why would that get him into Heaven? It's inhumane, and not even logical that someone can command the weather like that.
Why would these three get into Heaven whilst the diciples of Jesus of Nazareth didn't get into Heaven? They started the New Testament, they started many Churches of Christianity. And why wasn't Paul? He even went to Rome to preach Christianity. Why wasn't anyone from the New Testament allowed into Heaven, when God was meant to be loving and different from the way He was before when he was called Yahweh.

It'll be nice if you answer them, and if it stregthens your faith, then I'll respect you even more.

I have read the Bible, but I have seen nothing in it that states this. You have missed Elijah who was bodily taken into Heaven in Elisha’s presence. There are certainly more non-Christians in Heaven than these three alone. As I said earlier, It’s been stated many times in this thread that non-Christians can be saved, but as I’m not a non-Christian I have no idea how. I’ll also not speculate on how this occurs.

[Neutrino]

God gives us free will, then imposes a huge number of seemingly nonsensical rules on us, just so when we choose to exercise the free will that he gave us and disobey these rules, he can jump out from behind a bush and yell "Ha ha!" and banish us to hell for all eternity.

Seems like a particularly sane and rational god you got there...

I agree, but this isn’t the God I believe in. Remember that whole gift - bribe thing? God is rescuing us, but to walk in and save everybody automatically means that he’s the option three “loving” god that forbids free-will. So the problem is who does he help? The one’s who ask for help.
Does God impose rules simply to jump out and damn the ones who don’t follow them? No, he gives directions, remember the park ranger? It’s our choice to follow him out of the woods or stay in there. If we ask for help, though, Christians believe that it will be given. God gives us directions on how to find him, and we believe Heaven is in his presence. We can choose not to follow those directions and not attempt to find him. By default that choice leads to not finding him (missing Heaven) which is in our belief means we've found Hell. If we choose to go to Heaven or Hell it’s our choice. Perhaps not the best explanation, but I see nothing insane about it.

Firstly, I would like to say: very eloquent post.

I would argue that god's 'help' is actually limiting free will. Christianity, although a lot less limiting than a few other religions I could name (Women don't have to be veiled, you are still allowed to eat pork and such), still puts a lot of duties and responsibilities on anyone who chooses it, therefore limiting freedom.

If god gave us free will, what would be the purpose of then creating rules that must be followed if salvation is to be achieved? As I said before, burning in fire and brimstone for all eternity is a bit of a steep punishment for simply ignoring a suggestion.
Hell, the very choice between going to heaven or hell is limiting a whole ton of various freedoms.

[Skittles!]

After reading the above post by CA, I call for the honerable Skittles to shut up and admit he/she has lost.

I never said I wanted to win, or debate, I just wanted to ask some questions as to see what some Christians would answer with - as I seem to recall, you haven't.

I personally have no quarrel with CA, as I respect him, more so now than before, and thinks he's a wonderful person to ask questions to, because he actually answers them, also in depth, something I don't see apart from Luns (except he's too conservative for my liking ) doing.

[Skittles!]

You seem to get confused a lot. What's confusing you? I'm sure I did it properly. The way you 'answered' it was pretty low. Let's give you an example. Let's say you're the only Christian in your family, and the others had their different religions. You didn't know that you could save them by praying to God, and so you were worried about it. Would you still follow God even if your family may not of been saved? Or would you love your family, who you know exists, and just leave God behind?

Aw, C'mon Skittles there are way too many variables to make that meaningful. You're reaching here to try to get the answer you want. This is almost exactly the question I answered (In depth, as I recall) but you've specifically added the non-Christian family as a stumbling block. Stipulating that Jehan has to be ignorant of the saving power of prayer seems a little thin too. You're also assuming that every non-Christian goes to Hell, which not many Christians believe; as has been stated repeatedly on this thread. You acknowledge this yourself in allowing Moses, Abraham, & Ezekiel into Heaven, none of whom were Christian. This has gone over into a strawman argument in that you are trying to attribute beliefs to your opposition, that they may not have, in an effort to pin them down.

You've stumped me CA, next time I won't try to participate, because all I really need to do is PM you a question and at least you'll give an adequate answer.
I'll eventually think of a new question in time, and I'll just do what I said I'd do; PM you.

Good luck Tom with the other Christians

[WidowMakers]

how do scientists know that dinosaurs are 65 million years old were they there?

No, but, as stated previously, they have a pretty accurate system for measuring the age of the rocks that the fossils were found in.

If god wants us to think the universe is 13 billion years old, who are we to prove him wrong?

why cant God make the fossil fuels?

Why would god make fossil fuels?

Why would god use a system that, to all accurate systems of measurement, took millions of years?

if there is so much fossil fuels shouldn't there be millions of fossils per square mile because if the earth is that old wouldn't it have plenty of time to create fossils?

http://www3.iptv.org/exploremore/energy ... fossil.cfm

Yes, there has been plenty of time to create fossils, but there has also been plenty to destroy them.
The animal forming the fossil has to fall in or near a river-bed so they can be covered in mid which then hardens. This eliminates the vast, vast majority of all animals to die. Then the fossil has to survive uncounted years of weathering and natural disasters. This will destroy most of those that actually were buried in the right conditions.

If you want to read about some of the issues associated with saying the earth is billions of years old and why the assumptions and method used to date it are flawed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... dating.asp

Why it does not take millions of years for oil
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=259
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i3/noah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/coal.asp

Unfossilized dinosaur bones
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... rbones.asp

more here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

People who believe in evolution and the billions of years try to bend the observed world today to explain why billions of years is fact.

Science is:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

evolutionists and creationists can only observe and experiment in the present and not billions of years ago. It is the difference in how each group theorizes the past (explanation of phenomena). Each side has a bias.

Evolutionist think millions of years, therefore they try to make the current observation and study show how that is possible.

Creationists believe much less time (6,000- 10,000 years), therefore they try to make the current observation and study show how that is possible.

If you look at the facts and see what they best fit you will have the best scientific result. Evolution is not the best fit for the facts.

Evolutionary theory has changed and been reworked many times. Different explanations and theories once another idea of issue comes up that cannot be explained. (Many holes and assumptions that cannot be proven, thus varying numbers and theories about evolution that contradict themselves often)

The creation account in the Bible has not changed and it is a good explanation of why the earth is like it is today. (The assumptions used to support the bible are consistent with each other and line up better with actual observation today)

[Backglass]

To equate religious devotion with heroine addiction is to overlook the serious health risks associated with heroin addiction.

And the clouded reasoning of the addicted theists.

Once again, thought that's a bit of a red herring, you are moving away from the question at hand and have offered no evidence that a religious life is by definition a wasted life. Have you changed you mind? Are you agreeing that a person can have a perfectly happy, healthy, and productive life as a Christian?

A life spent living for fairy tales, even if those fairy tales bring you happiness and direction, is to ME a life wasted. You are saying "Whats wrong with living in a cave all my life? The cave brings me great peace and security. I am protected here." Well, I would rather live outside in the big scary world of reality then in my safe cave of superstition.

Like I said no regrets. Even if you're right, I choose a life that works for me. I work hard at being a good guy. I get the feeling that someone is on my side ready to help me through each day if I need it. I certainly have a church family that has shown up to help me. When I die poof! Your side doesn't seem to be very convincing. Why again should I anyone be an atheist? Too smart for all of this? Perhaps?

That's lovely but religion is not needed to have close family & good friends around you...helping you out in times of trouble. One does not need rituals in order to feel supported. Evidently you need such things to help you get through life. Others don't.

Poof! Yup thats it. Sorry there aren't any golden trumpets and angelic ticket takers at the gate. Not as Hollywood as your fables, I know. Sorry.

I find it strange that that you believe "my side" (which is simply saying these magical things don't exist) is less convincing than claiming we are all living in some invisible child's cosmic ant farm.

To a Non-believer religious ferver can certainly exhibit alot if not all the signs of a drug addiction. You have a course of action that is clearly leading to negative consequences which the person continues despite having to bypass the inborn survival instinct or at the least the comfort instinct. (a different conversation topic - do humans have instincts?) Yet they continue. ie-suicide bombers, self-flagelation, ritual self mutilation, martydom in general, celibacy, vows of poverty, and so on.) You have people acting in ways very similar to addiction- speaking in tongues, having visions, hearing voices, and so on.

Awesome. <Applauds>.

I was born into a christian home and even though I do not have any experience with anything other than christianity. I have however seen many lives change in such amazing ways and I believe that everyone should at least look into it.

So basically, you have been indoctrinated since birth. You even admit you know nothing else and surely don't question any of it. Well, I have seen Muslims change and Hindu's change AND atheists change. PEOPLE change themselves in amazing ways.

[MR. Nate]

why cant God have emotions?

Because he is supposed to be perfect. If you are perfect then you cannot have such flawed emotions as anger or hate.

I don't think anger or hatred are intrinsically flawed, just that we direct them incorrectly. Jesus (being perfect) experienced anger when the name or character of God was defamed. Even Jealousy, which we often consider inherently wrong, is not necessarily always an ungodly response. God is jealous of our worship, because it is to be His alone, like a husband would be jealous if his wife was sleeping around. It's the fact that we incorrectly apply our emotions, or allow them to continue when they are inappropriate that is the problem.

Even a single person, seeking a better religion than the normal human-sacrifice ones of Central America, gifted with the ability to make god nuke anyone he didn't like the look of could have easily spread Christianity through the Americas. Yet this didn't happen. Why?

You are saying across the entire world, absolutly no-one, with the notable exception of the Jews, was prepared to look for a better religion and then follow the trail of miracles to eternal salvation?

I would disagree with your assumption. At some point those people groups separated themselves from God. I don't know if God sent later prophets, (we have no evidence one way or the other) but if He did, they were rejected. And for all the prophets that Israel received, they still crucified Jesus when he came. Don't underestimate the desire of humanity to reject God.

If he wanted us to obey him, then why not make humanity a race of mindless drones?
He gave us free will and gave us rules. If he wanted us to follow those rules, why bother with the free will at all?

God didn't create mindless drones because they cannot love. God wanted us to love Him. Love is always a choice.

Do you believe that you should be punished, especially with a punishment as severe as this one, for simply not doing something that someone asked you? The whole point of asking is that the act is purely voluntary on your part, so how can you be punished for failing to do it?

But how is it even a reasonable law?! I'm sure this question was hinted at in the rest of my post.

I don't think you're understanding the concept of God. He is perfect in every way. Therefore, anything that deviates from His charecter is wrong, and anything that's wrong is reprehensible. In every form, sin is essentially flipping the bird at the charecter and person of God. Also because He is perfect, He is just. So what is wrong must be punished. If it is not, He ceases to be just and therefore is no longer perfect, and no longer God. His requests, or law, is fairly simple. There is no way in our sinful condition that we can be perfect, so he provided a substitute for our punishment. If we accept that our actions are evil, and accept His substitute, then we can enter into a relationship with Him, and He will give us the strength to attempt to live in a way that is not offensive to His being.

P.S. Would you say, or does it say anywhere in the Bible, whether or not god is Infinite?

Look it up yourself: Romans 11:33 Psalm 90:2 1 Timothy 1:17 Heb 1:8-12

I would argue that god's 'help' is actually limiting free will. Christianity, although a lot less limiting than a few other religions I could name (Women don't have to be veiled, you are still allowed to eat pork and such), still puts a lot of duties and responsibilities on anyone who chooses it, therefore limiting freedom.

If god gave us free will, what would be the purpose of then creating rules that must be followed if salvation is to be achieved? As I said before, burning in fire and brimstone for all eternity is a bit of a steep punishment for simply ignoring a suggestion.
Hell, the very choice between going to heaven or hell is limiting a whole ton of various freedoms.

I'm not sure about the veiling of women or the forbidding of pork in the Evangelical church today, but I see your point. You're arguing for a libertarian freedom, which means essentially freedom from rules. I would argue that true freedom occurs within limitations. Think of driving. Are you less free because you and your fellow drivers obey traffic lights? Would absolute anarchy on the roads be true freedom? Or are the rules set down to enhance the freedom of everyone?

[raith]

how do scientists know that dinosaurs are 65 million years old were they there?

No, but, as stated previously, they have a pretty accurate system for measuring the age of the rocks that the fossils were found in.

If god wants us to think the universe is 13 billion years old, who are we to prove him wrong?

why cant God make the fossil fuels?

Why would god make fossil fuels?

Why would god use a system that, to all accurate systems of measurement, took millions of years?

if there is so much fossil fuels shouldn't there be millions of fossils per square mile because if the earth is that old wouldn't it have plenty of time to create fossils?

http://www3.iptv.org/exploremore/energy ... fossil.cfm

Yes, there has been plenty of time to create fossils, but there has also been plenty to destroy them.
The animal forming the fossil has to fall in or near a river-bed so they can be covered in mid which then hardens. This eliminates the vast, vast majority of all animals to die. Then the fossil has to survive uncounted years of weathering and natural disasters. This will destroy most of those that actually were buried in the right conditions.

If you want to read about some of the issues associated with saying the earth is billions of years old and why the assumptions and method used to date it are flawed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... dating.asp

Why it does not take millions of years for oil
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=259
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i3/noah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/coal.asp

Unfossilized dinosaur bones
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... rbones.asp

more here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

People who believe in evolution and the billions of years try to bend the observed world today to explain why billions of years is fact.

Science is:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

evolutionists and creationists can only observe and experiment in the present and not billions of years ago. It is the difference in how each group theorizes the past (explanation of phenomena). Each side has a bias.

Evolutionist think millions of years, therefore they try to make the current observation and study show how that is possible.

Creationists believe much less time (6,000- 10,000 years), therefore they try to make the current observation and study show how that is possible.

If you look at the facts and see what they best fit you will have the best scientific result. Evolution is not the best fit for the facts.

Evolutionary theory has changed and been reworked many times. Different explanations and theories once another idea of issue comes up that cannot be explained. (Many holes and assumptions that cannot be proven, thus varying numbers and theories about evolution that contradict themselves often)

The creation account in the Bible has not changed and it is a good explanation of why the earth is like it is today. (The assumptions used to support the bible are consistent with each other and line up better with actual observation today)

I read those articles. Not very convincing. anybody with a decent writing ability could have written those articles or others like them to "disprove" any number of widely accepted beliefs. I am sure there must be better, more convincing articles supporting your stance. If not, then someone should write some. Or stop trying to use scientific arguments with out backing them up with scientific methodology.

[CrazyAnglican]

To equate religious devotion with heroine addiction is to overlook the serious health risks associated with heroin addiction.

And the clouded reasoning of the addicted theists.

Hmm. "Clouded reasoning" eh? Then perhaps you could actually debate the point, as it's put, to show me the fallacies in my argument. I think you're avoiding the question.

Once again, thought that's a bit of a red herring, you are moving away from the question at hand and have offered no evidence that a religious life is by definition a wasted life. Have you changed you mind? Are you agreeing that a person can have a perfectly happy, healthy, and productive life as a Christian?

I would never claim that Mother Theresa wasted her life simply because she is religious....

A life spent living for fairy tales, even if those fairy tales bring you happiness and direction, is to ME a life wasted.

I’m sensing inconsistency in your argument. Are you sure your reasoning isn’t “clouded”?

You are saying "Whats wrong with living in a cave all my life? The cave brings be great peace and security. I am protected here." Well, I would rather live outside in the big scary world of reality then in my safe cave of superstition.

I guess you can twist my words any way you want. I’m sure anyone who reads them can tell that’s not at all what I said. Nice little Ad Hominem fallacy to end it up with too. You can’t come up with any evidence that I’m wrong, so you're trying to characterize my beliefs as cowardly.

Like I said no regrets. Even if you're right, I choose a life that works for me. I work hard at being a good guy. I get the feeling that someone is on my side ready to help me through each day if I need it. I certainly have a church family that has shown up to help me. When I die poof! Your side doesn't seem to be very convincing. Why again should I anyone be an atheist? Too smart for all of this? Perhaps?

That's lovely but religion is not needed to have close family & good friends around you...helping you out in times of trouble. One does not need rituals in order to feel supported. Evidently you need such things to help you get through life. Others don't.

Remember I never denied the validity of any other lifestyle. You were the one who denied the validity of mine. It’s interesting that you brought this topic up. You seem to be doing everything possible to get out of it. Everything but produce evidence that you are right, or admit that you were wrong. The point we were arguing was, of course, that a Christian life is not, by definition, a life wasted. I’m not interested in what type of life you think is superior. I’m just waiting for you to logically defend your statement that mine is a waste.

[MeDeFe]

Finally, we come to the second option. God intervenes sometimes. Now there are two versions of this God. The atheist version goes something like this.

God gives us free will, then imposes a huge number of seemingly nonsensical rules on us, just so when we choose to exercise the free will that he gave us and disobey these rules, he can jump out from behind a bush and yell "Ha ha!" and banish us to hell for all eternity.

Seems like a particularly sane and rational god you got there...

I agree, but this isn’t the God I believe in. Remember that whole gift - bribe thing? God is rescuing us, but to walk in and save everybody automatically means that he’s the option three “loving” god that forbids free-will. So the problem is who does he help? The one’s who ask for help.
Does God impose rules simply to jump out and damn the ones who don’t follow them? No, he gives directions, remember the park ranger? It’s our choice to follow him out of the woods or stay in there. If we ask for help, though, Christians believe that it will be given. God gives us directions on how to find him, and we believe Heaven is in his presence. We can choose not to follow those directions and not attempt to find him. By default that choice leads to not finding him (missing Heaven) which is in our belief means we've found Hell. If we choose to go to Heaven or Hell it’s our choice. Perhaps not the best explanation, but I see nothing insane about it.

However, many of the rules ARE nonsensical, I can see the sense in everyone being nice to ones neighbours, not stealing and not killing others, those things are also in my own interest. I can also see the sense in taking a day off every week for recreational purposes, but where's the sense in spending this day prattling away at "sky-daddy", as Backglass likes to call him? Where's the sense in not wearing clothes made of different materials? Why can't we eat crabs, clams, lobsters and things like that? What's so bad about hares and rabbits, and don't forget pork. Anyway, can you think of a small flying animal that has 4 feet?

[CrazyAnglican]

I can see the sense in everyone being nice to ones neighbours, not stealing and not killing others, those things are also in my own interest. I can also see the sense in taking a day off every week for recreational purposes, but where's the sense in spending this day prattling away at "sky-daddy", as Backglass likes to call him? Where's the sense in not wearing clothes made of different materials? Why can't we eat crabs, clams, lobsters and things like that? What's so bad about hares and rabbits, and don't forget pork. Anyway, can you think of a small flying animal that has 4 feet?

You're thinking in terms of laws, which is completely understandable, Paul and James had a similar debate early in the Church history. To Christians, salvation isn't found in the law. Yes, we could go through every law of the Holy Bible and question it's validity. For instance, pork and shellfish can be very dangerous if not prepared carefully. Not as much of an issue now, but handy two thousand years ago.

Christians look upon the laws as valid, but a pragmatic view would state that we aren't going to be able to always obey them all. Thereby we have general confession of sins to be forgiven for them. Nothing you stated, not even murder, is unforgivable. So God is giving us directions rather than making us jump through hoops. Whether we always understand the reasons behind the directions isn't relevant for most of us, but we can always study further if it is. I've asked some questions like this and received reasonable answers to them. I'm not qualified, nor do I think we'd have the space in this forum, to go over every law and defend it's sensibility. So I guess I have to conceed the point with the provision that most Christians probably don't pay much attention to the finer points because we don't see that it puts our souls in peril.

P.S. I love lobster. ............ and four feet & flies? ........... a bat?

[MeDeFe]

Still, it's in the bible, the bible is the word of god, the word of god must be obeyed, or at least one should do ones best. Even so christians disobey these"small" laws all the time, on purpose even! Even fairly devout christians will do so, I'm sure. Simply because they are not taught as important, probably because noone can see the sense in them. What's so "unclean" about a pig or a hare? Noone can tell so everyone ignores it.
Assuming that they don't put ones soul in peril is also just that, an ssumption, it's not as if those laws appear suddenly within the text somewhere as a side note, no, they are described as direct commands straight from the top, listed, with details about how to treat specific cases. Hardly the way to put in some minor stuff that's all voluntary, but I think I'm starting to digress so I'll stop here.


That still leaves us with this big commandment though, "Love me! Obey me!", with the extension "If you don't you're screwed". Basically all the free will we want, but if we exert it in a way that god doesn't like we don't get a slice of salvation but get sent to bed without dinner instead. Oh, and not to forget we have to like him, too.
Nate said that love is a choice, I don't know if you agree with that, but I definitely don't see how it can be one. Not from a biological-chemical point of view, nor from a psychological point of view, not even from a literary point of view. I've never heard of anyone thinking things through (logically or otherwise) and then reaching the decision that they are going to love someone else. I don't think you or Nate has either.

To act pre-emptively: Next thing someone is going to say that I'm talking about freedom from all rules and that we need rules in order to be truly free to do what's in our best interest or something along those lines. I would probably basically agree, but why do those rules have to come from outside? What prevents us from creating rules for ourselves? Nothing. In fact we do it all the time, every time a law is passed, revoked, revised or anything you can think of we do it. We can make up all sorts of rules, from the Geneva Convention to how to use fork and knife when eating. Laws, rules and guidelines don't have to come from outside us in order to be binding, the fact that we recognize them rules to be obeyed is enough.

[Guiscard]

If you want to read about some of the issues associated with saying the earth is billions of years old and why the assumptions and method used to date it are flawed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... dating.asp

Why it does not take millions of years for oil
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=259
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i3/noah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/coal.asp

Unfossilized dinosaur bones
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... rbones.asp

more here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

This post is ridiculous... You cannot take scientific 'evidence' from a site called 'answersingenisis.com'... It is obviously a highly subjective and biased site which seeks to disprove scientific evidence which sheds doubt on the accuracy of the Bible. In itself, there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that the people who are using carbon dating, as well as many other kinds of dating which you haven't dealt with, are not seeking to disprove genesis. Their research is not 'biased' against Religion. Why should we accept, or even bother to read, anything from a site like that? How about you produce some independently published peer-review material. That is the standards set down by science. Would you give any heed to evidence given by 'our side' from a site like 'godiswrong.com' or something? I strongly doubt it. Yes, dating methods do have flaws and are constantly being revised and developed, but what we have to rely on is the collective output of the scientific community at any given time. Our 'best guess' considering all the evidence. This post isn't seeking to disprove Genesis, but just to point out that if you want to be taken seriously you're going to have to construct at least some form of credible scientific argument with valid sources.

[CrazyAnglican]

Still, it's in the bible, the bible is the word of god, the word of god must be obeyed, or at least one should do ones best. Even so christians disobey these"small" laws all the time, on purpose even! Even fairly devout christians will do so, I'm sure. Simply because they are not taught as important, probably because noone can see the sense in them. What's so "unclean" about a pig or a hare? Noone can tell so everyone ignores it.

For pork, trikenosis, My mom still cooks the life out of pork chops even though the guys on "The Food Network" say it's safe nowadays. Hare's, I don't know, I conceeded this point remember?

Assuming that they don't put ones soul in peril is also just that, an ssumption, it's not as if those laws appear suddenly within the text somewhere as a side note, no, they are described as direct commands straight from the top, listed, with details about how to treat specific cases. Hardly the way to put in some minor stuff that's all voluntary, but I think I'm starting to digress so I'll stop here.

According to the faith God, himself (Jesus), gave the apostle's authority to forgive sins. They passed it on through Apostolic sucession. So it's a pretty safe assumption for believers.

That still leaves us with this big commandment though, "Love me! Obey me!", with the extension "If you don't you're screwed".

Hmmm, don't remember seeing it put quite like that, even in the Old Testament. For Christians the two great commandments are "Love thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Loving and always obeying aren't always the same thing hence the the need for forgiveness. I believe my kids love me, but they don't always obey me.

Basically all the free will we want, but if we exert it in a way that god doesn't like we don't get a slice of salvation but get sent to bed without dinner instead. Oh, and not to forget we have to like him, too.

This goes back to the "jump through my hoops God" that several people in this foum have tried to force on us. I don't believe in him and I don't think many (if any) Christians do. He's a strawman construct based on assumptions about what omniscient and omnipotent mean (assumptions that Christians may or may not believe, they are by no means universally accepted), and also based on faulty (according to my beliefs) assumptions about how an omnipoent being should behave. I presented an alternate to him that's actually based on my beliefs a couple of frames back.

Nate said that love is a choice, I don't know if you agree with that, but I definitely don't see how it can be one. Not from a biological-chemical point of view, nor from a psychological point of view, not even from a literary point of view. I've never heard of anyone thinking things through (logically or otherwise) and then reaching the decision that they are going to love someone else. I don't think you or Nate has either.

This presuposes that love is one emotion. This is an entirely different topic so I'll just suggest C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves , if you haven't already read it. It deals with the topic from a Christian perspective. Even if you don't agree with it, it's quite logical.

To act pre-emptively: Next thing someone is going to say that I'm talking about freedom from all rules and that we need rules in order to be truly free to do what's in our best interest or something along those lines. I would probably basically agree, but why do those rules have to come from outside? What prevents us from creating rules for ourselves? Nothing. In fact we do it all the time, every time a law is passed, revoked, revised or anything you can think of we do it. We can make up all sorts of rules, from the Geneva Convention to how to use fork and knife when eating. Laws, rules and guidelines don't have to come from outside us in order to be binding, the fact that we recognize them rules to be obeyed is enough.

Here, once again, I agree with you. Given that God let us off the hook, Why do you expect us to be perfectly obedient to these laws when nobody else does? They form the basis for a pretty good moral code that we use as a guide.

[luns101]

if you want to be taken seriously you're going to have to construct at least some form of credible scientific argument with valid sources.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

- Richard Lewontin, Evolutionary Biologist & Geneticist working at Harvard (not a Christian or creationist)

[vtmarik]

God isn't proof, God is an explanation made in the absence of evidence.

Example: Ancient Greeks though that the sun and moon cross the sky because they were carried on chariots driven by the Gods.
Fact: The earth rotates on its axis, causing the optical effect of a sun crossing the sky.

Example: The early Christians thought that the sun revolved around the earth
Fact: We know that the earth revolves around the sun because the sun is more massive and generates more gravitational force.

Example: God created man from the dust.
Fact: We don't know yet, so this explanation still holds water.

[Guiscard]

if you want to be taken seriously you're going to have to construct at least some form of credible scientific argument with valid sources.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

- Richard Lewontin, Evolutionary Biologist & Geneticist working at Harvard (not a Christian or creationist)

And your point (based on a quote from a single scientist) is?

Luns, as always, could it perhaps be that the entire scientific world ISN'T totally and utterly committed to the rubbishing of Christianity?

What do you say of the many many theists who are also scientists who support arguments which go against the strict Biblical interpretation? Colossus, on this forum, is a good example.

[Backglass]

Hmm. "Clouded reasoning" eh? Then perhaps you could actually debate the point, as it's put, to show me the fallacies in my argument. I think you're avoiding the question.

You believe in magical beings that no one has ever seen, yet you believe they exist. Seems like pretty clouded reasoning to me.

I guess you can twist my words any way you want. I’m sure anyone who reads them can tell that’s not at all what I said. Nice little Ad Hominem fallacy to end it up with too. You can’t come up with any evidence that I’m wrong, so you're trying to characterize my beliefs as cowardly

.

There is a bit of cowardice, in my eyes to those (not necessarily you) who say "I'm not going to be concerned with (insert problem here) because my god(s) will take care of everything" instead of facing up to reality and dealing with life.

Remember I never denied the validity of any other lifestyle. You were the one who denied the validity of mine. It’s interesting that you brought this topic up. You seem to be doing everything possible to get out of it.

Huh? I'm right here buddy! And I don't have a "lifestyle". I am an atheist by definition only...no church, no pledge, no book, no gatherings, no rituals. I haven't denied you anything. You can believe in anything you want, worship any creature you wish and perform any ritual you deem necessary as long as it doesn't involve me, my kids or public spaces. Go nuts!

The point we were arguing was, of course, that a Christian life is not, by definition, a life wasted.

By my definition, living a fantasy life filled with magical beings, no matter the religion is a waste. You don't seem to think so, but obviously feel threatened by such words and are "hell bent" (:lol:) on making me "prove it" somehow...which we both know I never will be able to do to your satisfaction.

[luns101]

And your point (based on a quote from a single scientist) is?

I have many quotes from many evolutionists who have admitted that their bias influences how the interpret scientific evidence. I didn't want to fill up the whole page, as I don't know how many people would take the time to read them all.

My point(s):

1. Your assertion that the referencing of a creationist website is so highly biased, while true...should also apply to yourself in the interpretation of why you discredit that website (and others like it).

2. Since you won't accept a creationist citation, perhaps you would consider the quotation of an evolutionist and considered an "expert" in his field.

3. You and I haven't had the best of discourse because of how far apart we are on so many issues. I thought you might be willing to listen to someone else. If you had a problem with what was said, it would be a problem with the evolutionist, and I wouldn't come across as hostile.
In order for my side to be taken seriously, I would have to introduce something that was separate from the usual creation science website.

Luns, as always, could it perhaps be that the entire scientific world ISN'T totally and utterly committed to the rubbishing of Christianity?

Yes, and I think Einstein was an example of that. But I see a connection between a majority of those who subscribe to the evolutionary theory of origins, and their skepticism of the Biblical account on a variety of subjects.

What do you say of the many many theists who are also scientists who support arguments which go against the strict Biblical interpretation? Colossus, on this forum, is a good example.

That many of them do indeed bring value to the discussions. As far as Colossus, or you or I go...it's impossible to separate the fact that everyone has a bias in interpreting data. My bias is rooted in how my life changed once I accepted Christ. I don't think you could deny a bias in your own life in how you view what I or other Christians have written in these forums, perhaps some of which is based on your educational background.

[Coleman]

I read this entire topic. Most of you don't know what you are talking about or are representing some completely bizarre denomination of Christianity. Is anyone in here debating actually presbyterian?

Edit: I have mostly agreed with Mr.Nate & Caleb though whenever they talk. Caleb a little bit less then Mr.Nate though.

[MeDeFe]

That still leaves us with this big commandment though, "Love me! Obey me!", with the extension "If you don't you're screwed".

Hmmm, don't remember seeing it put quite like that, even in the Old Testament. For Christians the two great commandments are "Love thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Loving and always obeying aren't always the same thing hence the the need for forgiveness. I believe my kids love me, but they don't always obey me.

Not in so direct words, but there are countless passages where people are told to love god and to obey the laws that "Their Lord, God" (this really gets said again and again) gives them. Often with the addition that if they do they will do well. And given the stories of what happens if people don't... well, I think you get my point.

Basically all the free will we want, but if we exert it in a way that god doesn't like we don't get a slice of salvation but get sent to bed without dinner instead. Oh, and not to forget we have to like him, too.

This goes back to the "jump through my hoops God" that several people in this foum have tried to force on us. I don't believe in him and I don't think many (if any) Christians do. He's a strawman construct based on assumptions about what omniscient and omnipotent mean (assumptions that Christians may or may not believe, they are by no means universally accepted), and also based on faulty (according to my beliefs) assumptions about how an omnipoent being should behave. I presented an alternate to him that's actually based on my beliefs a couple of frames back.

I'm not trying to force anything on you, but the bible can just as easily support such an opinion as I presented. I never referred to omniscience or omnipotence in my posts, or their logical consequences, because I don't need to. I'm not an expert on bible studies, far from it, but I'm not basing what I've said so far on hearsay or popular premises. It's all in that book, the god who says "do this and do that" and also "kill those because I don't like what they do". I'm not constructing something that has no basis whatsoever.