Barihawk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Testament, I will concede is a lot better than the morals and ethics of the Old Testament. Jesus was way ahead of his time, love thy neighbour is a brilliant concept with modern application. (Of course, back then it didn't mean quite that. In fact, Jesus limited his in group of "neighbours" to mean fellow Jews.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that's the whole point isn't it? Jesus didn't dervive his morality from the scripture, he deliberately went against a lot of the original teachings. So clearly, he didn't need to get his morality from God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, the whole idea of Jesus dying for original sin cheeses me off a bit. The fact that the eating of the forbidden fruit was supposedly passed down the line of males through their semen (according to St. Augustine, apparently an expert on sin). So according to Christian ethical philosophy, every child is condemned to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor (who didn't exist). If Jesus was the redeemer of all sins, as God incarnate, isn't he redeeming all future sins, whether or not we decide to commit them? What happened to free will? If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just do it? Without condemning future generations of Jews to persecution as "Christ-Killers". Oops.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off: Any Christian who dares call a Jew a "Christ-Killer" needs to get the Hell out of our faith. Christ was a Jew, all the disciples were Jews, the Early Church were Jews, and by all rites of birth I can be considered Jewish. All Christians are Messianic Jews. If someone blames the Jews for killing Christ AFTER IT'S FREAKING PROPHECIZED BY 4 MAJOR PROPHETS, then they are ignorant morons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second: Original sin still exists. The method of appeasing it has changed. By believing that Christ died on the Cross as our scapegoat, original sin is not an issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say Christ went against the earlier teachings. That was God's way of saying "I gave you those laws for a reason, but you have taken them too far." Christ was the Ammendum to the laws layed out in Deuteronomy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And in closing, any idiot who says Jews are Christ-Killers knows jack-crap about Christianity, and is nothing but a bigot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, I know people who call Jews "christ-killers" are not following their religion very well, but they're out there, deal with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, that's nice that Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual. Who was he trying to impress?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thirdly, people taking God's laws too far? Correct me if i'm wrong but I could list numerous quotes in the Bible of God directly condoning sacrifices, ethnic killings, mass murder, rape and sexist attitudes. No wonder they were confused before Jesus came along.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barihawk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Testament, I will concede is a lot better than the morals and ethics of the Old Testament. Jesus was way ahead of his time, love thy neighbour is a brilliant concept with modern application. (Of course, back then it didn't mean quite that. In fact, Jesus limited his in group of "neighbours" to mean fellow Jews.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that's the whole point isn't it? Jesus didn't dervive his morality from the scripture, he deliberately went against a lot of the original teachings. So clearly, he didn't need to get his morality from God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, the whole idea of Jesus dying for original sin cheeses me off a bit. The fact that the eating of the forbidden fruit was supposedly passed down the line of males through their semen (according to St. Augustine, apparently an expert on sin). So according to Christian ethical philosophy, every child is condemned to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor (who didn't exist). If Jesus was the redeemer of all sins, as God incarnate, isn't he redeeming all future sins, whether or not we decide to commit them? What happened to free will? If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just do it? Without condemning future generations of Jews to persecution as "Christ-Killers". Oops.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off: Any Christian who dares call a Jew a "Christ-Killer" needs to get the Hell out of our faith. Christ was a Jew, all the disciples were Jews, the Early Church were Jews, and by all rites of birth I can be considered Jewish. All Christians are Messianic Jews. If someone blames the Jews for killing Christ AFTER IT'S FREAKING PROPHECIZED BY 4 MAJOR PROPHETS, then they are ignorant morons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second: Original sin still exists. The method of appeasing it has changed. By believing that Christ died on the Cross as our scapegoat, original sin is not an issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say Christ went against the earlier teachings. That was God's way of saying "I gave you those laws for a reason, but you have taken them too far." Christ was the Ammendum to the laws layed out in Deuteronomy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And in closing, any idiot who says Jews are Christ-Killers knows jack-crap about Christianity, and is nothing but a bigot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, I know people who call Jews "christ-killers" are not following their religion very well, but they're out there, deal with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, that's nice that Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual. Who was he trying to impress?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thirdly, people taking God's laws too far? Correct me if i'm wrong but I could list numerous quotes in the Bible of God directly condoning sacrifices, ethnic killings, mass murder, [assault] and sexist attitudes. No wonder they were confused before Jesus came along.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wall: Well, all I can add to this debate is that; Religion gives people hope in an after life, it can heal you physically/ mentally, and you can go around saying I love GOD<>.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is giving people hope in an after-life a good thing? I think people would appreciate and make the most of this life much more if they realised that this is all they've got.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It cannot heal you physically, proven fact. The mental advantages could be replaced by anything, imaginary friend, purple elephant, why make a whole religion out of it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think loving mankind and fellow man is a much better alternative to loving God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wall: Well, all I can add to this debate is that; Religion gives people hope in an after life, it can heal you physically/ mentally, and you can go around saying I love GOD<>.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is giving people hope in an after-life a good thing? I think people would appreciate and make the most of this life much more if they realised that this is all they've got.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It cannot heal you physically, proven fact. The mental advantages could be replaced by anything, imaginary friend, purple elephant, why make a whole religion out of it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think loving mankind and fellow man is a much better alternative to loving God.

 

 

 

IMHO giving people hope in an after-life can be a good thing, since it gives you less worries in this current life i.e. You are worried someone close to you may die - but religion gives you the advantage to 'Knowing' they will go to a good place; this means that you will worry much less and can get along with life. You say people will do things better if they all realised this is all we got, but you can flip that on it's head and imagine that people will have no consequence for their actions in this life, so therefore they can murder, rape who they want without facing consequences in the after life, hence I think religion is also a kind of deterrent for many people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mental advantages can be replaced but i think religion brings a group of people together to ponder on the same subject, a purple elephant would attract say 1k people, but an all mighty God would attract a substantial amount more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion is mostly about community and self worth; it gives you a sense of belonging to a group, which is ultimately our goal.

Is giving people hope in an after-life a good thing? I think people would appreciate and make the most of this life much more if they realised that this is all they've got.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't jsut s true the other way around? Christains and the like have something to live for, giving incentive to lead a decent and happy life.

 

I meant that we haven't had any real proof of God existing since two thousand years ago, of which records aren't really all that great. You'd think that after going through all the trouble of saving us, he'd check up on us every once in a while. Rather rude of him, I think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus returns!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen several "mysterious ways" in which God works with. For one, my father has been looking for a new job for years. He stopped looking when my grandmother was ill. In his prayers, he told God that he would stop looking in order to take care of my grandmother to the very end. When we came home from her funeral, a job offer for Vice President was waiting in his inbox.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today, we had a freak tornado system at my Uni. My mother lives 400 miles away, and had an instinct to call me to see if I was all right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because God doesn't pop out and go "LOL, ITS ME!" every hundred years doesn't mean he isn't working.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's hundreds of tornado systems yearly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hundreds of people die. I wouldn't doubt some of them were devout Christians.

 

 

 

If someone can give me some hard evidence, or just some evidence, I'll reconsider my piousness. Until then, I believe that the world was created by a freak reaction and that we are evolving to better suit our environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, first off, have you ever taken biology, molecular chemistry or physics? Once you begin looking at matter at an atomic level, you begin to realize how complicated this universe of ours really is. How do you propose that a huge explosions occures at just the right temperature, pressure, and position, that our universe would end up not collapsing in on itself? Second, if you look at the variety of life (from archebacteria to protista to animlia) you begin to find evolution hard to belive... For even the most basic of cells to form, you have to have at least 12 different components come together in the right order, within a certain time frame, and in the correct place. The odds of this happening are approximatly 12 trillion to one... The odds of this evolving into modern life forms makes this grow exponentialy. Finally, we have the problem of the law of conservation of matter; if we belive this law (that states matter is neither created nor destroyed) then the orgin's of the universe theory is smashed to pieces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I belive that the big bang, evolution, etc, did occur, but they only occured due to the intervention of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no hard evidence (this is where faith comes in), that God exsist, and I will never be able to prove this, due to the fact that God rules, he can choose how he appears and we can't just step away from him and view him under a microscope. Laugh if you will, you will never be able to prove me wrong...

And? I didn't say God magically moved the tornado to spare me because I prayed. To be honest, I was so chilled out about the storm that I didn't even pray.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point was that my mother had the instinct to call me to see if I was allright. She didn't even know it was raining here.

And? I didn't say God magically moved the tornado to spare me because I prayed. To be honest, I was so chilled out about the storm that I didn't even pray.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point was that my mother had the instinct to call me to see if I was allright. She didn't even know it was raining here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, sorry, it was rather suggestive the way you said it after the university job position thing.

I don't think that any honest person's beliefs are bunk, whether it's believing there is a God or believing in science or whatever. However, I do believe I have found the truth in God. Reading the Bible and listening to what Jesus has done, is what really moves me and touches my heart. That is probably the main reason I believe. But also, when I look at the world and all the beatiful places and people, I feel it must have been created by someone. And when I'm around christians and talk about God, I feel this great connection as if we were experiencing the same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course you might say I'm deluded. But God makes me happy, he is the only one who never let's me down. The only one I can truely rely on. And the only one who can save my soul. If I were to rely on people like myself I would be without hope. What I've discovered is that I love sin. Sure I hate the fact that I love sin, but it's still rather disturbing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heaven is perfect and I would love to be there today, but I'm not there and I can't sit around and do nothing as it's not God's will. I don't believe in telling people they will go Hell either, it's up to God to decide everyone's fate. I can't look into people's hearts like God can. Then who am I to judge anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just wish everyone would believe in God, but I know people who claim they've seeked God and not found him. Why that is I can't tell, only advice is probably not to give up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I don't like is compromising. Like God used evolution to create man. Or the Bible has some good points but is mostly myths. You can't just take what you like and disregard the rest. If something is the truth, it's the truth regardless to if it's not modern or fits into the society. Of course you should always question if it's possible that we have misinterpreted the Bible. But more often than not it's pretty obvious what's being said.

Curious for answers, what happens to an child, just born, but is killed in a, let's say in this instance, a hurricane? I am merely curious to what the "religious" answer is.

Curious for answers, what happens to an child, just born, but is killed in a, let's say in this instance, a hurricane? I am merely curious to what the "religious" answer is.

 

 

 

It goes straight to...nah only God knows.

Reading the Bible

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only city in Sweden

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I really want to see a Swedish Bible, I mean, how cool would that be. :D :P :)

 

 

 

 

If someone can give me some hard evidence, or just some evidence, I'll reconsider my piousness. Until then, I believe that the world was created by a freak reaction and that we are evolving to better suit our environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, first off, have you ever taken biology, molecular chemistry or physics? Once you begin looking at matter at an atomic level, you begin to realize how complicated this universe of ours really is.

 

 

 

1. How do you propose that a huge explosions occures at just the right temperature, pressure, and position, that our universe would end up not collapsing in on itself?

 

 

 

Second, if you look at the variety of life (from archebacteria to protista to animlia) you begin to find evolution hard to belive... For even the most basic of cells to form, you have to have at least 12 different components come together in the right order, within a certain time frame, and in the correct place. The odds of this happening are approximatly 12 trillion to one... The odds of this evolving into modern life forms makes this grow exponentialy.

 

 

 

3. Finally, we have the problem of the law of conservation of matter; if we belive this law (that states matter is neither created nor destroyed) then the orgin's of the universe theory is smashed to pieces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I belive that the big bang, evolution, etc, did occur, but they only occured due to the intervention of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no hard evidence (this is where faith comes in), that God exsist, and I will never be able to prove this, due to the fact that God rules, he can choose how he appears and we can't just step away from him and view him under a microscope. 4. Laugh if you will, you will never be able to prove me wrong...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. First of all, the universe includes an infinite amount of time-lines, so instead of "our universe" you should've said "our time-line."

 

 

 

The chances of our time-line forming are more than 0. There's an infinite number of time-lines. Therefore there are more than 0 time-lines in which the big bang did not go wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Link (This was posted on the thread about the Jesus tomb documentary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. How is the theory smashed to pieces? Think about black holes. They have an almost infinite mass compressed together in a space whose volume is almost 0. Our time-line's space could've originally been a singularity. Also, it's not the law of conservation of matter anymore. Since the theory of relativity (which may be slightly off if the speed of light is not constant) states that E=Mc^2, or M=E/c^2, it's the law of conservation of mass or energy. (Nuclear reactions don't conserve matter.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Why would anyone laugh? One can prove neither God's existence nor His non-existence. Normal people would only laugh at/pity you when you start acting like korskin was on the Jesus tomb documentary thread.

 

 

 

4. Why would anyone laugh? One can prove neither God's existence nor His non-existence. Normal people would only laugh at/pity you when you start acting like korskin was on the Jesus tomb documentary thread.

 

 

 

If I made someone laugh, then at least I did something good. I'd rather look like a fool and try to express what I believe in, than shut up and worry about what other people think of me.

I don't think that any honest person's beliefs are bunk, whether it's believing there is a God or believing in science or whatever. However, I do believe I have found the truth in God. Reading the Bible and listening to what Jesus has done, is what really moves me and touches my heart. That is probably the main reason I believe. But also, when I look at the world and all the beatiful places and people, I feel it must have been created by someone. And when I'm around christians and talk about God, I feel this great connection as if we were experiencing the same thing.

 

 

 

Meh, fair enough I suppose. Personally I find that that "feeling" is just one being overwhelmed and blinded by emotion, but to each his own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course you might say I'm deluded. But God makes me happy, he is the only one who never let's me down. The only one I can truely rely on. And the only one who can save my soul. If I were to rely on people like myself I would be without hope. What I've discovered is that I love sin. Sure I hate the fact that I love sin, but it's still rather disturbing.

 

 

 

THIS is a religious opinion I despise. It's basically detaching oneself from the world and the people in it for a belief you aren't even all that sure about. Love the people around you first, rely on them. And go around calling "loving people" "loving God" if you want, sounds right to me I guess, seeing as how god is the energy and matter of existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may not be classifying relying on God as being detached from the world, and if so I'm sorry if I'm misenterpreted, but so many religions say that that is just ticks the Hell out o' me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the bolded part, sorry, but no duh. We all like sin, that's why it's tempting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heaven is perfect and I would love to be there today, but I'm not there and I can't sit around and do nothing as it's not God's will. I don't believe in telling people they will go Hell either, it's up to God to decide everyone's fate. I can't look into people's hearts like God can. Then who am I to judge anyone?

 

 

 

Heaven and Hell are no more logical than the soul and Karma :-w .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, please stop sounding like you're reading out of a Bible on the bolded parts. We know we're not supposed to judge people, that's common sense (even though we do it anyways, we still know it's wrong, and don't need it explained in Christian-talk). It's like getting a Kindergarten lesson...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just wish everyone would believe in God, but I know people who claim they've seeked God and not found him. Why that is I can't tell, only advice is probably not to give up.

 

 

 

Eh, fine. Just don't get too evangelic on us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I don't like is compromising. Like God used evolution to create man. Or the Bible has some good points but is mostly myths. You can't just take what you like and disregard the rest. If something is the truth, it's the truth regardless to if it's not modern or fits into the society. Of course you should always question if it's possible that we have misinterpreted the Bible. But more often than not it's pretty obvious what's being said.

 

 

 

But it's not totally true. I don't want to get into another Bible debate, but the Bible was written by man; it's not going to be perfect, especially not for every generation... seriously, there's nothing wrong with finding what is and isn't correct and useful for us today in the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and if the Christian God exists (doubt it), he used evolution. That stuff in Genesis is just fluffy stuff and fables to read to kids at night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, can't you see the anti-women feeling of the time all over the story of Adam and Eve? It's the opinion of man at the time. They're just stories.

THIS is a religious opinion I despise. It's basically detaching oneself from the world and the people in it for a belief you aren't even all that sure about. Love the people around you first, rely on them. And go around calling "loving people" "loving God" if you want, sounds right to me I guess, seeing as how god is the energy and matter of existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may not be classifying relying on God as being detached from the world, and if so I'm sorry if I'm misenterpreted, but so many religions say that that is just ticks the Hell out o' me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the bolded part, sorry, but no duh. We all like sin, that's why it's tempting.

 

 

 

The people around you can change, die, abandon you etc. Sure I love the people around me and I do rely on them to some extent. But God is unchanging and is the only one I can truely, always, no matter what, rely on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heaven and Hell are no more logical than the soul and Karma Whistle .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, please stop sounding like you're reading out of a Bible on the bolded parts. We know we're not supposed to judge people, that's common sense (even though we do it anyways, we still know it's wrong, and don't need it explained in Christian-talk). It's like getting a Kindergarten lesson...

 

 

 

Maybe it sounds like I'm reading out of a Bible since it's my source of truth. I know it annoys people but as I've said before, I'd rather you listen to the Bible than what I have to say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it's not totally true. I don't want to get into another Bible debate, but the Bible was written by man; it's not going to be perfect, especially not for every generation... seriously, there's nothing wrong with finding what is and isn't correct and useful for us today in the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and if the Christian God exists (doubt it), he used evolution. That stuff in Genesis is just fluffy stuff and fables to read to kids at night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, can't you see the anti-women feeling of the time all over the story of Adam and Eve? It's the opinion of man at the time. They're just stories.

 

 

 

There are many ways of saying something that is true. Just because it's written by man and man isn't perfect, doesn't mean God can't use man to write a book the way he intended . Don't limit God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd still say if the christian God exists he didn't use evolution (I'm refering to macro-evolution). Adam and Eve are both guilty of eating the forbidden fruit. I don't think I've ever heard the question: Are we punished for Eve's sin? It's always Adam's sin.

I don't think that any honest person's beliefs are bunk, whether it's believing there is a God or believing in science or whatever. However, I do believe I have found the truth in God. Reading the Bible and listening to what Jesus has done, is what really moves me and touches my heart. That is probably the main reason I believe. But also, when I look at the world and all the beatiful places and people, I feel it must have been created by someone. And when I'm around christians and talk about God, I feel this great connection as if we were experiencing the same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course you might say I'm deluded. But God makes me happy, he is the only one who never let's me down. The only one I can truely rely on. And the only one who can save my soul. If I were to rely on people like myself I would be without hope. What I've discovered is that I love sin. Sure I hate the fact that I love sin, but it's still rather disturbing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heaven is perfect and I would love to be there today, but I'm not there and I can't sit around and do nothing as it's not God's will. I don't believe in telling people they will go Hell either, it's up to God to decide everyone's fate. I can't look into people's hearts like God can. Then who am I to judge anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just wish everyone would believe in God, but I know people who claim they've seeked God and not found him. Why that is I can't tell, only advice is probably not to give up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I don't like is compromising. Like God used evolution to create man. Or the Bible has some good points but is mostly myths. You can't just take what you like and disregard the rest. If something is the truth, it's the truth regardless to if it's not modern or fits into the society. Of course you should always question if it's possible that we have misinterpreted the Bible. But more often than not it's pretty obvious what's being said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=D> i think? :-k

 

THIS is a religious opinion I despise. It's basically detaching oneself from the world and the people in it for a belief you aren't even all that sure about. Love the people around you first, rely on them. And go around calling "loving people" "loving God" if you want, sounds right to me I guess, seeing as how god is the energy and matter of existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may not be classifying relying on God as being detached from the world, and if so I'm sorry if I'm misenterpreted, but so many religions say that that is just ticks the Hell out o' me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the bolded part, sorry, but no duh. We all like sin, that's why it's tempting.

 

 

 

The people around you can change, die, abandon you etc. Sure I love the people around me and I do rely on them to some extent. But God is unchanging and is the only one I can truely, always, no matter what, rely on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heaven and Hell are no more logical than the soul and Karma Whistle .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, please stop sounding like you're reading out of a Bible on the bolded parts. We know we're not supposed to judge people, that's common sense (even though we do it anyways, we still know it's wrong, and don't need it explained in Christian-talk). It's like getting a Kindergarten lesson...

 

 

 

Maybe it sounds like I'm reading out of a Bible since it's my source of truth. I know it annoys people but as I've said before, I'd rather you listen to the Bible than what I have to say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it's not totally true. I don't want to get into another Bible debate, but the Bible was written by man; it's not going to be perfect, especially not for every generation... seriously, there's nothing wrong with finding what is and isn't correct and useful for us today in the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and if the Christian God exists (doubt it), he used evolution. That stuff in Genesis is just fluffy stuff and fables to read to kids at night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, can't you see the anti-women feeling of the time all over the story of Adam and Eve? It's the opinion of man at the time. They're just stories.

 

 

 

There are many ways of saying something that is true. Just because it's written by man and man isn't perfect, doesn't mean God can't use man to write a book the way he intended . Don't limit God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd still say if the christian God exists he didn't use evolution (I'm refering to macro-evolution). Adam and Eve are both guilty of eating the forbidden fruit. I don't think I've ever heard the question: Are we punished for Eve's sin? It's always Adam's sin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm curious why you would accept micro evolution but not macro. Ok, sure, your belief is that you can't, but that dosen't mean macro evolution didn't happen. This is where you're limiting yourself. Do you think that god would be limited by a book of what, 2000 pages? (terrible estimate probably, sorry). I seriously doubt that. The rest of the bible is in your head. All those nuts and bolts god gave you in the form of a logical brain. If micro evolution happens, which it does, then why can't macro evolution happen? It just takes a little longer but follows essentially the same principals and logic. Why should god's creation be limited to one stagnant, unchanging existance? And why should god and his word be limited to a finite book? I just though of it and it makes me curious why god would want such a thing to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, as a sidenote you've redeemed yourself to me (although from what you've said, you don't care what others think, which is fine) when you said you believe that the bible is the source of truth. It's refreshing once in a while for a believer to actually recognise what they follow is a belief in an absolute truth and not an absolute truth.

 

 

 

I'm curious why you would accept micro evolution but not macro. Ok, sure, your belief is that you can't, but that dosen't mean macro evolution didn't happen. This is where you're limiting yourself. Do you think that god would be limited by a book of what, 2000 pages? (terrible estimate probably, sorry). I seriously doubt that. The rest of the bible is in your head. All those nuts and bolts god gave you in the form of a logical brain. If micro evolution happens, which it does, then why can't macro evolution happen? It just takes a little longer but follows essentially the same principals and logic. Why should god's creation be limited to one stagnant, unchanging existance? And why should god and his word be limited to a finite book? I just though of it and it makes me curious why god would want such a thing to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will refer to the simpsons episode I watched yesterday. Professor Frink is asked: "So does this theory of evolution necessarily mean that there is no God?" He replies: "Of course not. It just says that God is an impotent nothing from nowhere with less power than the Under Secretary of Agriculture, who has very little power in our system".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These verses (or rather the whole creation story) doesn't make any sense to me if we evolved from other species:

 

 

 

Genesis 1:

 

 

 

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27 So God created man in his own image,

 

 

 

in the image of God he created him;

 

 

 

male and female he created them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I missed your point but to me God must correspond with the Bible as I believe it's his words.

 

 

 

Sidenote: I do care to some extent what other people think of me (I think everyone does), however I do not let that stop me from expressing what I believe in. Kind of like the saying: "I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I'm not."

Since there isn't a different place for this I figured I'd throw out some food for the thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What, in your opinion, would be more likely to get into heaven on the basis god is real:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. A man who belives in god but doesn't follow much of his word, 'repents' but doesn't mean it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. A man who does not belive in god but gods word.

A. A man who belives in god but doesn't follow much of his word, 'repents' but doesn't mean it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. A man who does not belive in god but gods word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really like this one, as I have often considered this myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cannot claim to know whether ot not god exists, but I can acknowledge the worth of morals, whether they originate from/are bound to religion or not. I try to live by my own moral principles and be a goodish kind of person. Due to my upbringing, these are mostly catholic morals... the ones that make sense to me, I incorporate in my life. I cannot imagine any god condemning me for that, as long as they somewhat coincide with his/her idea of a good life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, God's wrath for the man who claims to follow His word, but in fact only gives a hypocritical semblance, is said to be unmeasurable...

 

But it's not totally true. I don't want to get into another Bible debate, but the Bible was written by man; it's not going to be perfect, especially not for every generation... seriously, there's nothing wrong with finding what is and isn't correct and useful for us today in the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and if the Christian God exists (doubt it), he used evolution. That stuff in Genesis is just fluffy stuff and fables to read to kids at night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, can't you see the anti-women feeling of the time all over the story of Adam and Eve? It's the opinion of man at the time. They're just stories.

 

 

 

There are many ways of saying something that is true. Just because it's written by man and man isn't perfect, doesn't mean God can't use man to write a book the way he intended . Don't limit God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of reasoning I have trouble swallowing. You claim God used man to write a book the way he intended. Galilei, a devout Catholic, wrote a book in support of the heliocentric worldview of Copernicus. Yet, he was deemed a heretic by the clergy.

 

 

 

How does one combine the two: on one hand saying the bible was written with Divine inspiration, but on the other hand dismissing a possible similar inspiration (which was proven right later on) as herecy ? Maybe God used Galilei to correct his original legacy ? Oh, but God is infallable ? The same basically goes for the evolution theory and Darwin.

 

 

 

I'm stuck in a loop here, but to me it seems the followers of God do a good job in limiting God as well.

 

A. A man who belives in god but doesn't follow much of his word, 'repents' but doesn't mean it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. A man who does not belive in god but gods word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really like this one, as I have often considered this myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cannot claim to know whether ot not god exists, but I can acknowledge the worth of morals, whether they originate from/are bound to religion or not. I try to live by my own moral principles and be a goodish kind of person. Due to my upbringing, these are mostly catholic morals... the ones that make sense to me, I incorporate in my life. I cannot imagine any god condemning me for that, as long as they somewhat coincide with his/her idea of a good life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, God's wrath for the man who claims to follow His word, but in fact only gives a hypocritical semblance, is said to be unmeasurable...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats why I felt I should bring it up. I Don't deny or acknowledge that there is a god (If asked I'll probaly say there isn't , however, it isn't a big importance to me). However I do agree that the morals set out in the bible are, or the most part, good. (Minus the more extreme views of homosexuality, abortion, ect.)

However I do agree that the morals set out in the bible are, or the most part, good. (Minus the more extreme views of homosexuality, abortion, ect.)

I would of course argue that while the bible contains some example of good morality it never actual set any of it out. Morals existed far before the existence of the bible and of course one must have their own views on morality before reading the bible in order to decide which bits are good and which bits are bad as you showed in your own post by saying "Minus the more extreme views of homosexuality, abortion, ect"

Since there isn't a different place for this I figured I'd throw out some food for the thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What, in your opinion, would be more likely to get into heaven on the basis god is real:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. A man who belives in god but doesn't follow much of his word, 'repents' but doesn't mean it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. A man who does not belive in god but gods word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good question. I honestly don't know how to answer. I would say that A is cursed, however. God has repeatedly shown that he does not enjoy "Weekend Warriors."