pianofrieak2

Actually, Ghost's reason is the reason behind the Bible forbidding it. :shock: As for this comment, your example is ridiculous. Not only are animals sometimes homosexual, but they also eat their young and are cannibals, eating their own kind!! Does that mean cannibalism is natural? According to you, yes. :-s

Actually, you're wrong again. Christianity is an off-shoot of Judaism. Judaism is still looking for its Messiah to enter into the scene whereas Christianity says that Messiah is Jesus Christ. Christianity and Judaism were the same thing back before Jesus was born. Then it became an off-shoot.

[-X Wrong. Your god, who you listen to for your moral compass, is yourself. Thus, your god is yourself.

Interesting quote. But what's wrong with one God being the one true God? I don't get it. I guess I'm just too indoctrinated to think straight. :wink: Here's my response: "I contend that we are both theists. You just believe in a different god than I. When you compare history with your god, then you will understand why I believe in mine."

By keeping religion out, you are in essence advocating atheism or secular humanism. Because you clearly do not believe religion to be worthwhile in the political arena. The only "open" way is to let anyone's religion be tolerated in public circles. But then again, you get the politician's religious viewpoints into the political arena. Thus, to be equal, you must have both involved intimately. By the way, the American system is to let anyone's religion have equal footing. They didn't want to be like the church of england with a government's church telling you how to worship God. The whole idea of "separation of church and state" stems from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Anabaptists who were being persecuted for not being a part of the religion which most of the state was involved in.

Interesting choice of words. Most people would have said "I'm a Christian." Was it intentional? Yes. It most certainly was. What stuff? The war? Such as...? This is also a good point. Even when you don't have a choice, you still have a choice. Dr. Dobson (Focus on the Family) said that it's not a sin to have feelings or desires for the same gender, but it is a sin to act on them. (Paraphrased) It's an inclination but not forced. That's just what people say to be politically correct, which I also disagree with. I disagree with you here. I think tolerance is important. I think that different theological views (including Christian, but by no means limited to it) should be taught in public schools. I mean tolerance as in "You have to accept my beliefs because I'm different and you shouldn't judge." It'd be nice if Christianity was on equal footing as other religions and even atheism. How about even close? So am I. I love the message of Christ, but the message of today's Christians seems far different. With exceptions, of course. One could have such a change in other religions as well. Buddhism, for example, with it's search for enlightenment can lead to some very positive life changes. Me, too, but not just Christians. I wish that followers of all religions would spend more time praying/speaking/meditating with their deity of choice. Again, I agree, but again I think it should be all religions. To quote Serendipity "It doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. Until that day comes, may you have a long and happy life. Thanks for sharing your views! 1. How well do you know the message of Christ? 2. Life change-something few Christians actually have. I call them hypocrites, which is why I call myself a Christ-follower instead of a Christian. 3. Jesus said that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That's pretty exclusive. OK, I correct myself, it's REALLY exclusive. Your turn lol.

If you've read any of my other posts, you would see why I don't like repeating myself to accomodate your "sweeping generalizations." It seems to me that we're already done debating big topics. Instead of quoting people's sayings, let's just remark on the nature of God. That way nobody gets offended! :? (Hint: I will use the Biblical God to argue. I will use the Bible.) 1. God is good. By His nature, He is good. He can only do good things. Therefore, don't blame bad things on God since God does no bad. Acts 10:38 I believe is what you're looking for. 2. God is just. Because He is just, you can't just waltz right into heaven because you're more good than bad. That's just plain ridiculous. God is just and you must have consequences for your actions. Christians are forgiven because they entered into the blood covenant between Jesus and the Father. Thus, as a part of that covenant, you give your life to God and God takes your sins and cleanses them with the blood of Jesus. When God sees you, He sees His perfect Son. Thus, you are able to enter into heaven, where the perfect holy God is. Christians will still face punishments for their actions, for God is just, but that comes before you enter heaven. Ask good theologians for the specifics. 3. God is merciful. The only reason you even have a CHANCE at heaven is because He's merciful and loving. He wants everyone to enter heaven but, obviously, it's not going to heaven. That's where you have the dichotomy of divine wills. (No one cares about that) 4. God is holy. Thus, He cannot be in close contact with sin. In fact, He can't be anywhere near sin. Thus, if you have even one sin, you are automatically denied heaven. Unless, of course, you have a way to get rid of all of your sin (i.e. The Christian message) See point 1. 5. God is jealous. God does not want your love and devotion going to another god. He is the only true God. If you're Buddhist or atheistic, your god is certainly not the true God. Atheists have their gods as themselves. Muslims have their god as Allah. It makes no difference seeing as it's not the real God. He wants you to be sold out for Him. 6. God is love. You are His creation and He wants your love. He created you to love and be loved. God in His perfect trinitarian shape needs nothing but He wanted you. He chose you as His beautiful creation. 7. God is personal. He talks to you, for the Bible says, "My sheep hear my voice." You can't hear a voice if that voice doesn't speak. Thus, God speaks. Audibly? Perhaps, but more like impressions on your heart. He performs miracles, even today. Physical, emotional, or spiritual. All types for all types of people. Some may argue that they haven't seen any, but that's like saying I haven't seen any Asian people so they don't exist. Satenza said that God is love, so He would let anyone who was "good" into heaven. But God's definition of good is perfect. Thus, no one is good and all are condemned. He also said that jealousy is a sin, but there can be a righteous jealousy. Does an honorable husband stand by while this other man is hitting on his wife? Heck no. Thus, there are two types of jealousy. Gotta go to work :)

I'm a follower of Christ. I lean right although some of Bush's stuff I disagree with. I am conservative almost teetering on civil libertarian if it weren't for the Bible condoning some things. The government's involvement always makes life tougher with more rules, more taxes, and less family involvement. I hate Big Brother. Get the government back in its place! I am anti-homosexuality, for while one's genetics may cause you to have certain tendencies, you have a choice. It is wrong and God will never give you something you can't handle. I am anti-abortion, for life begins at conception and murder is wrong. I hate multi-culturalism, political correctness, and special rights for minorities. Why can't we just hire the best people? I hate this impression of post-modern beliefs on kids in public schools. I disagree with the forced form of tolerance we preach today. I disagree with the post-modern view of truth and relativism. I am disappointed with the Christian church today and wish people would start having an actual life change instead of finding more rules to follow. I wish Christians would actually talk to God and hear His voice. I wish Christians would fall in love with Christ. I pray I do more every day. I wish they would love Him with all of their heart, mind, soul, and strength. I am eagerly awaiting the day of Christ's return.

If it doesn't make sense to you, you must not know enough. That's hardly an excuse. If other religions make more sense to other people, then I would say they don't know enough about their religion. Fact-something that is true in all cases for all people at all times. How many people know about it is irrelevant, as two of you have tried to argue. I was merely telling logic-is-overrated why I'm a Christian. Don't attack my reasons because they don't make sense. That's ridiculous and stupid since it's my personal viewpoint. We've been talking 76 pages on Christianity, so please, if you're confused, go back and read the past 76 pages. :roll: Actually I would agree with insane in how atheists choose to be atheists because they don't want someone to be over them. If you want to be selfish, then go New Age and look to the godhead within. Do whatever you want. There are plenty of religions like that. You commented on God and letting rapists enter heaven. We've already addressed your topic but you think you know everything. God is a God of love so He WOULDN'T let rapists in? I'm confused. Oh, and since God is God, He makes the rules. If one of the rules is to believe in Him for salvation alone (i.e. jealousy. The Bible says God is a jealous God and wants all of our undivided love) then that's the rule and you have to play by his rules. His rules have consequences. *d'oh* Besides, God forgives. He forgives those who have sin if they enter into the covenant for salvation. If you don't enter into the covenant, God doesn't forgive your sins. Pretty basic stuff. Your comment on good also makes no sense. The Bible says that we are to do good because we WANT to. We have a changed heart that is now fixed upon God and upon people. Not upon ourselves. Don't be ridiculous in saying works get you into heaven. Since you all read signatures so well, read my new one. Or answer the questions me, Astra, and insane have brought up. And when can we rule our miracles? Those make up a large portion of the Bible. Your comment on "we can safely rule those out" makes absolutely no sense. Try reading 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

No christians beleive in God eisting they do not know it for fact. Thats why they take their leap of faith, thats what faith is beleiving in God without facts. So what are you on about? Well, actually, I also know that Christianity is true. 1. I could cite different evidence, but then we just get into our argument of "my proof v. your proof" 2. The change I have had in my heart after accepting Christ. 3. It makes sense, something rare in today's religions. 4. I can feel close to God and feel His presence when I worship Him. Christianity is about that "leap of faith" but once you've taken it, then everything falls into place perfectly.

I just cannot see how any positive attribute can be applied to something that will punish its creations for ever, and ever, and ever, and ever; especially when they're only alive for 50-80 years. Infinite punishment for finite sins-why? Another question. Do all people who go to hell receive the same sort of punishment? I'm not just talking about people who were "worse" or more "morally corrupt". I'm talking about the fact that some people just have more reason to believe. Take for example, the people who lived with Jesus while he walked the Earth and other people in the Bible. They supposedly saw people raised from the dead, severed limbs magically healed, blind people being able to see, leprosy healed, fireballs raining from the sky destroying cities, entire seas being magically separated, the various plagues, etc. Today, we have a book that is thousands of years old, plagued by various copy and translation errors and I personally have not heard of any varifiable miracles occuring any time recently (if you have please point me to them). My question is, does somebody who saw Jesus healing severed limbs and raising the dead and yet still denied him, suffer the same punishment as somebody now who denies him even though the amount of evidence for the two is completely lopsided? How about a missionary who goes to visit a friend in Africa for a week. While in Africa he meets somebody who has never heard the word of God. For the week he's there he tries to convince the African to believe and the African says no (which he more than likely would since somebody he has never met is trying to convince him to believe in something he has never heard of). Now, that African has been exposed to the gospel, has been offered the choice to accept Jesus, and refused. Is he going to hell? Even though he has been exposed to it for only a week and he has had no prior knowledge of it? Answer me this: How can a perfect, holy, blameless God be in the same presence as a filthy, dirty, sinful person and not lose His holiness. As for the African missionary: the Bible says that all have knowledge of God through nature. As far as the question of WHICH God, I'm sure God in His loving mercy will somehow make it fair.

That's not agnostic, that's most christians. Lol, how true. And how terribly sad... :(

Shaq made 5 points in the entire game. 5 points. Let's here it again for confirmation: 5 points!! *as if they have a chance*

You know it is ineffective how? What's wrong with positive peer pressure? (In the school setting at least)

Satenza, I never said that God is not limited. He can't sin, for that goes against His nature. Thus, God is limited by Himself. But He's not limited in the rock example because that is a baited question. It has no "yes or no" answer. Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all part of God. Without one of them, "God" is incomplete. They all make up God. How is God loving if He allows wars in His name? Well, His people were the only ones to follow after Him, and they were surrounded by enemies. Now would you rather have your people slaughtered or defend them against their enemies? Besides, the "enemies" as I call them had the good land which God wanted to leave as an inheritance for His people. A way of them to remember Him. It's called Jericho, Ai, and the 10 Amorite kings. They were destroyed for Israel to have their wonderful land. Perhaps you understand now? And anyway, it wasn't like Israel was going to take their stuff. Actually, they burned everything. All of the cattle were killed, the gold was burned, and they even killed the women and children. God wanted Israel to be pure and not intermingle with the sinful tribes outside. And back to the one who is searching: Salvation comes to all different ways except through Christianity. Have you found out how Christianity is different yet? :)

logic, I would recommend "New Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Or, since you have a Christian background, try "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Now the C.S. Lewis one really isn't an apologetic book, but it sure helps Christians in their search for God. Now I don't know how philosophical or understanding of really tough arguments is, because Mere Christianity took me a LONG time to actually read it. I kept re-reading it lol. But you might be able to understand it on the first time. As for the Bible being the divinely-inspired word of God, I would have to part ways with Ghost and argue that all of it (historical, metaphysical, prophecy, etc.) are true and are infallible. The parts in the NT, like where Jesus says "Eat my flesh and drink my blood" must be taken figuratively. That's kinda my view. It's all literal unless the literal doesn't make sense so make it figurative. :) Revelation is opposite? And I'm glad to see you're searching. That's great! Oh, and about that question with God and the rock: Sorry that's not an answer to the question. You must answer yes or no, just like you are demanding of me. When you do, then get back to me.

Okay, I read it carefully, but it still doesn't make sense. You're making this whole argument out of a word play with the word "created." There is absolutely no reason why logic can only exist if a supernatural being created us. As death_by_pod said earlier - the premise of your argument, that a logical mind can only be created by the supernatural, has no basis. You've just assumed that point and that point is the premise of your argument. Okay, I'll try and refragment his argument using one of my own, that may not be correct, but is interesting to think about. Reductionism (or the general scientific community) has reduced all things to a bunch of atoms and electrons. Thus, a tree is a bunch of atoms, and so is thought - a bunch of atoms, or electrons. Why are we able to call thought logical, or true, and not a tree? Both are mere electron/atom patterns - according to science, the only difference is in their electronic makeup. But of course, it would be absurd to assign truth values to a tree, and it would be absurd to not assign truth values to a thought. Ah, now I'm starting to follow. So basically, we can't reduce thought to anything of this world. It's not like a tree where we can see what it's made of - it can't be reduced, so is it of another realm? Is that where you are going? Ghost, I understand your point. But I still disagree. Why do you think the mind is logical? The only way I see it being "logical" is if it was created in the image of a logical God. There's no reason to assume otherwise. Insane brought up an off-shoot of my point, but the above paragraph is my whole point. As for the many other topics, let me address the Bible's inerrancy. 1. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states, "All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." This is the foundation for Sola Scriptura, the inerrancy of all Scripture. 2. I don't claim to know all about Hebrew custom, but from what I do know, when a rabbi picked a follower, that follower did EVERYTHING with the rabbi. They even followed them into the bathroom, so they wouldn't miss anything the rabbi said or did. Were there tape recorders? No, but they stuck to their rabbi like glue and they definately wrote down what he said. Verbatim. It's a part of their job, after all. Their job was to become the next Jesus or whoever their rabbi was. 3. The events were repeated because, d'oh, Jesus' followers were with him the entire time and saw whatever He did or said. They recorded it, so that they would act the same way if put in the same situation. Their different backgrounds (1 was a tax collector, another a doctor) enabled them to see the same event differently. Let me respond by asking you a question: Have you stopped beating your wife yet? You answer my question and I'll answer yours. As far as God's commandments with him dying for forgiveness: 1. The Old Testament shows us how sinful we are. It is a list of rules designed to keep God's people in His ways, that is, doing the correct moral thing. 2. The New Testament shows us how wonderful God's grace is. The NT is about the MOTIVE, not the action as the OT shows. We are very sinful but even more so loved and forgiven. imhomer: 1. God has no beginning and no end. Any being that created God would have to be greater than God. Since there is no being greater than God, God has no creation. He has always existed and will always exist since nothing can destroy God. 2. Christians cannot be "tolerant" of others simply because God says that those who do not believe in Him as one's Savior is condemned with no forgiveness. 3. Just because you haven't seen a miracle doesn't mean they don't happen. I, personally, have seen miracles. Besides, He did when Jesus was here too. Just read the Bible. 4. God does not punish us. He simply lets us have our own consequences. Yes, everything good is God's benevolence. 5. God's predestination and foreknowledge are two different things.

OK, we're going to start over. There's some major miscommunication. The supernatural realm is something that is above the natural realm. That's the definition. You can only define the supernatural realm with natural terms, making descriptions merely symbolic at best. C.S. Lewis called it "sacramental," but basically the best you can do is describe it with symbols. Sometimes they work great and sometimes they don't just capture the true essence. The supernatural realm MUST be able to interact with the natural because...voila...it created it. Evolution describes the change from the beginning but never described the beginning. That's why creationism and evolution can be combined but why evolution can never describe everything. The supernatural realm is not confined to its "space." By definition, it is ABOVE the natural realm, so, really, it can do whatever it wants to. It just has a different basis for reality. That's the only difference. Now to define logic: Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner. (taken from the dictionary) Should I give my point again? Well, since the first guy missed it, yes. 1. Atheism says 1 thing: No God (no creator, no higher being, no higher power, etc.) 2. If there is no Creator, then the mind was not created to be logical. 3. If your mind was not created logical, why assume it is? 4. Most assume it to be logical because it makes sense, but, then again, they never answer the why. Or the how for that matter. 5. Some try to argue for impulses, but, then again, that's a far cry from logical trains of thought. 6. Thus, no one has any reason to even assume the mind is logical, which unfortunately dictates that any train of thought from their mind to not be trusted to be logical...not really illogical but just not logical. That's my point. Read it carefully please. Absolute statements, like the ones we are all making here, only make sense in an absolute environment. The very presence of an absolute destroys the entire relativistic environment. Law of non-contradiction, anyone? For instance, you can't say this is an absolute statement with varying degrees of merit, but you can say your relativistic statement has much merit. That's the best you can do. Science is not absolute, as we have all seen. Effects are seen but reasons why (what we call science) cannot be absolute since we don't "know" anything. Our theories just make sense to us. Now you can post your thoughts.

Well, I thought my post would generate quote some responses. :) Let's see. For those who missed my point, let me rephrase it. 1. If you don't believe in a supernatural realm, there is no reason to believe that you mind is logical. 2. How can you trust your mind to be logical if you have no reason to believe it to be logical in the first place? 3. If your mind has no reason to be logical, then you cannot assume it to be logical. 4. If you can't assume your mind to be logical, then you can't trust your thoughts about disproving God. 5. Thus, you need God, specifically a creator, to disprove God's existence. When everyone else can come to consensus on a subject it either means we are correct, or that we are all wrong. In most cases itâââ‰â¢s the former; however the latter is not too uncommon. Thatâââ‰â¢s the lovely thing about science, instead of hating the person who proved your idea wrong, you embrace them with open arms. Sorry, but I have no idea why you just said that. 1. Who cares about a concensus? That's like saying a democracy is the best government, which it's not even close. Just ask one in politics. 2. It'd be nice if you didn't hate me when I prove your idea wrong and instead embrace me with open arms. :wink: Its not merely anything, they are chemicals and impulses are formed into a structure capable of logical thought. A computer is merely chemicals and impulses, so how are they all capable of logical thought and drawing the same conclusion independent of one another? A train of thought is "chemicals and impulses formed into a structure of capable thought." Well, I was right on the first half. And you never proved that the mind is a structure of capable thought. Elaborating, specifically proving your point instead of making baseless statements, would be nice. But reality is not based on absolute thoughts, there is no truth. Everything is based in relative terms, even science. However we have a reason to be logical, itâââ‰â¢s the way brains are formed. Even if what you say is true, there still is reality; it just isnâââ‰â¢t homogenous from person to person. Is that an absolute statement? Funny, the same thing can be said to many ignorant people here (including you). Just because you canâââ‰â¢t comprehend how nature works doesnâââ‰â¢t mean you can go off and invent something in your mind that does. Boy, you really get into this ad-hominem logical fallacy in which you attack me as a person instead of my views. Nice job. :roll: And your viewpoint is inconsistent with consensus. In order to make it consensus, you need to make a compelling argument for it over the current consensus. What you have so far is faulty reasoning; you can trust other people so long as their experiences match your own. If you canâââ‰â¢t trust someone else, prove why your view is right. Either your right or you were ignorant of your own observation, its called science. Let me ask you again: WHO THE HECK CARES ABOUT THE CONCENSUS? I have faulty reasoning? Funny, I'm the one who backs up my views instead of calling the other person ignorant and making baseless statements. Science is a concensus, but that concensus can be wrong. Thus, truth cannot be based on the leading concensus...you can't really even call science truth since nothing is really true. We "know" 2 plus 2 to equal 4 simply because it works so far with our theories. Besides, who wouldn't want God, the source of truth and creator of all things, as our "idol," our external influences. I'd rather have a good God as my influence than myself. That's for sure. Back at you? Okay, random, your turn. Your stove example works, but your whole idea is wrong. Really, your example just proves how animals work. But humans are above animals in that we can think about things. We can decide to do the thing that makes the least sense (i.e. running into a burning building to save your dog). My TRAIN OF THOUGHT, as I said before, cannot be trusted if the mind was not created to be "logical." It just evolves. No one made it logical, if you are atheistic. And yet you are trusting your thoughts to disprove God to be logical. Hmm... Atheism has no basis for logical thoughts and yet uses logical thoughts to prove itself. Patterns are different from thinking critically and logically. You're still stuck in the old argument of IMPULSES! Precisely. That's fine. But then again, if I'm right, why wouldn't you? You're just arguing against impulses...something far different. Yep! You're so smart. :) Nothing reliable? How about the past 4 posts.

Hitler was elected. Lets say that again - elected. The Nazi party had a great following in Germany. Hitler himself was offered the chancellorship because he was so popular. There is no such thing as a true democracy either. I cba to explain but perhaps someone else who does politics can explain. He was "elected" after his brown shirts assasinated all his rivals :roll: Actually, I'm pretty sure that Hitler was elected by the people. He amassed a huge following. It was only after he got into power that he assassinated all of his rivals. That's only one example of why a true democracy fails.

I have found that the best way to enact change is to not try to accomplish great, far-reaching goals like saving the environment or stopping war. Rather, it has been my experience that the greatest results come from small groups of people working towards small goals, such as rescuing a few slaves in the Underground Railroad.

YOu know, I've been wondering this: What is wrong with the 10 Commandments that you would go to Satanism? Do you do it just to be cool and rebel against the status quo? Or do you actually have a reason to be a Satanist?

Didn't you look at the links I posted? Between the OT and NT the Bible contracts nearly everything it says. BTW, NO MORE HUGE BLOCKS OF TEXT!!!! Just link to the sites and post your opinion please. My finger is sore from using the scroll key on my mouse too much. I agree about the huge blocks of text. But, remember, that's on BOTH sides of the argument. I like it when you quote something to prove your point but when you quote THE ENTIRE THING it gets kind of annoying. By the way, bjbj, I saw some of your links but they can be reconciled. If you actually care, that is. Also, did you read my post. Tell me what you think. :P

This is illogical, evolution=biology=science. From what logic do you derive that someone who believes in evolution does not blieve in science? I'm sorry. That was my mistake. I meant "supernatural". Of course thoughts alone are not proof for prticular subjects, it's the evidence that backs up those thoughts that gives it weight. This is where I believe you are incorrect. It is your train of thought that one cannot support or even take into account as halfway true or "logical, whatever that term means, if your thoughts are merely chemicals and electrical impulses. How is it usless? Our thoughts still allow us to formualte ideas and influence others towards those ideas. Boy, you missed my entire topic. Try posting more stuff than one sentence before you make a comment that is totally irrelevant to the topic. Oh, I already answered that question in the above so see that too. Science is methodical, not philosophical. Again, from what logic do you derive these conclusions? To dismiss the supernatural is not to dismiss science, considering that conclusions are based on the evidence and phenomenon observed around us. And in most cases, science thaught in schools is able to be proved in a lab We use REASONING to determine what we believe. Science gives us facts and we DEDUCT the conclusion and hypothesize reasons behind those facts. Those are the things that are based upon our chemicals and brain cells; those cannot be trusted. Which I have already proven so please see above. Says you. Now where is the logic? Please read my post before you make such ridiculous comments. Your inablility to comprehend others does in noway make your argument logical.[/code] I know I sound harsh but I'm really annoyed by people who quote 1 sentence and argue that sentence even though they did not even comprehend HALF of what I talked about. So don't hate me for saying this: Your inability to comprehend my view does in no way validate your comments. @Godzira: I talked about our powers of inductive and deductive reasoning. Not the laws of science. You and the person after you refer to your reasonings as clear and factual when, in fact, your reasonings are based upon chemicals and electrical impulses...such things that cannot be trusted to be "logical" if you do not believe in a higher power that created your thoughts with authority to be "logical." Your ability to even debate with me assumes that your thoughts can be trusted, when, in fact, they cannot. At least without the supernatural realm, specifically God, a Creator.