Do YOU believe in God?

[Fiery_Gyr]

 

The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)./The earth was a flat disk./The earth is a sphere.

 

 

Isaiah translates to circle. When did science ever say it was flat?

 

 

 

Erm, the Earth is not flat and not a sphere either. It's egg-shaped >.<

[pianofrieak2]

Hehe, we've got a New Age person on the boards!! :lol:

 

 

 

(Just so you all know, New Age is NOTHING like Christianity...or Christ's teachings for that matter. It stems from the ideas of Hinduism and Buddhism but is one of the fastest religions in the world.)

 

 

 

 

 

Well first of all, I would like to tell I belive in God but not fully. There are many different faiths and they all tell us, God/s created the world. Maybe they think of something else? Never though of this? When we take a look back to the ancient Rome we shall see that they named the gods after the planets, they surely didn't done it without a reason. Also, what if the God is mother earth herself? What if the air we breath, the trees we look each days, what if this are the God/s we speak of?

 

 

 

So God is in everything and is everything. The trees are God as is the plants, weeds, cement, dirt, foxes, you and me.

 

 

 

So when I kill a roach, I'm killing god? Or how about when I mow the lawn? Am I chopping God up? (Boy that sucks)

 

 

 

In the Holy Bible, they say, god created human by his own shape. The Christians belive in a spirit, a ghost, that is called soul. This is in every human, and this is the shape of us and the shape of god. Many people don't realise in what some people belive. They look but don't see. They watch a human but only see body. They are blind. Look within.

 

 

 

Christianity says that man is fallen and inclined toward doing evil. That's certainly quite different from your belief. For if we are all God, then we are all morally good. God created man "IN HIS OWN IMAGE." The soul is the eternal part of our being. It is what makes us "human." It is not the shape of God though.

 

 

 

There is a soul, an immortal one and this is the true god. Everything is possible, you just need to wish it and belive that you can succed. There are no miracles that some say like first be sick then healed in a minute. This is not done by God. This is the work of human belief. If you want it and if you got the will to live, you shall be healed.

 

 

 

Just wondering, but have you ever been sick?

 

 

 

And if we can do anything we want, why can't people (even people who believe like you) fly? I've read books by New Age people who have transcended time and all that, but it has been in their sleep. Why can't they fly in front of people as proof? That'd be kinda cool to see.

 

 

 

Now for the finish, I would like to ask a question to everyone. I don't need the answers, think for yourself. Who are you?

 

 

 

I am a sinful person who has been redeemed. I am in more sin than I know but loved even more than that by a holy God.

[my_pet_worm]

Erm, the Earth is not flat and not a sphere either. It's egg-shaped >.<

 

 

 

lol smart aleck 8-)

[bearofthunder]

I was showing you that I don't need to be omniscient (see very bottom) to know what non-existence feels like.

 

 

 

Eh, this may sound stupid, but you've never been to hell. Fire and brimstone are symbolic words used in Revelation - hell is basically the lack of God's presence, which is exactly what you want if you choose "not God" in your life here on Earth.

 

 

 

Why should God send you to heaven, if you don't want to believe in Him or be in His presence? It seems that by sending you to hell, God is giving you exactly what you want.

 

 

 

You have the wrong interpretation of the word "non-existence." We were not discussing hell. I was talking about non-existence as in not having been created. This extension into a discussion on non-existence was in reference to Atralinre's post:

 

 

 

No one's life is all bad. Even starving, HIV infected orphans in Africa have some simple joys - a kind word or bit of spare change from a stranger, seeing a sunset, finding the tastiest scrap of food ever. Could it be that God believes that if a person is able to experience one moment of pleasure, the pain is worth it? Is it possible that one fleeting glimpse of heaven makes a man's existence worthwhile, even if he is doomed to hell for eternity? Maybe, just maybe, God loves the damned enough that he'd rather them experience a little joy among an eternity of sadness, than to never exist or know happiness at all.

 

 

 

In other words, he was saying that experiencing life is enough compensation for someone who will have to spend eternity in hell.

 

 

 

Would you rather experience life and then spend eternity in hell, or not exist at all?

 

 

 

I would choose the latter. I disagree with Astralinre's claim that experiencing life is worth an eternity of damnation. I would rather not have been created at all. In other words, I would rather that god had spared me by not creating me during creation and left me non-existent.

 

 

 

 

That's why science cannot be your basis for absolute truth morality. It changes.

 

 

 

And I ask you again, what is the your system of "absolute truth morality?" (truth and morality are both nouns, by the way)

 

 

 

Let me remind you that

 

- It cannot be science, as you said

 

and

 

- It cannot be religion, as you helped me explain:

 

 

 

 

What you just argued:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the Vedas took the truth found in God and perverted it before the Bible came along to write down God's truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is what I wished for you to understand all along - that you cannot prove whether any religion is the absolute truth. There is no way to determine whether:

 

 

 

 

 

-Vedas subverted the Bible

 

or

 

-Bible subverted the Vedas.

 

 

 

Either one could be right. Therefore, you cannot claim that Christianity is the absolute truth, or that Hinduism is the absolute truth, and so on.

 

 

 

Since "absolute truth morality" is neither religion nor science, what is it?

[Astralinre]

The point of the passage is not that God is hypocritical in doing this

 

 

 

I don't think you read through my post. In it, I agreed with you completely. I can no longer accuse god of being hypocritical because your quote from the bible shows me that his actions of bringing bringing non-believers to earth in order to punish them and show believers how fortunate they are match up with his holy text.

 

 

 

Before, I said that Christianity doesn't support the part I underlined, but because of your bible quote, I admit that I am wrong.

 

 

 

Oops, sorry. I misinterpreted your post, thinking that you were saying that it proved God was hypocritical. My mistake. :oops:

 

 

 

(Astra, that's a weird translation. What translation is it?)

 

 

 

English Standard Version. It's basically a word-for-word, literal translation from the original text.

[insane]

Your rolley eyes smilies merely make your already badly constructed arguments even more pointless to read.

 

 

 

Ah, way to actually show how his arguments are badly constructed.

 

 

 

You do alot of baseless insulting/assuming on this thread without providing much real reasoning...

[Mercifull]

i gave up trying to post to full potential because most of my other posts here got ignored

[pianofrieak2]

 

I would choose the latter. I disagree with Astralinre's claim that experiencing life is worth an eternity of damnation. I would rather not have been created at all. In other words, I would rather that god had spared me by not creating me during creation and left me non-existent.

 

 

 

Bear, I don't know if Astra's claim is actually true. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But since you're not omniscient, you really have no idea. None of us do. Only God, who is omniscient, can have all of the knowledge to make that decision. And, besides, Astra showed in Scripture how God can do whatever He wants (as long as it doesn't contradict His nature, basically) showing God isn't hypocritical.

 

 

 

Now, take a thought experiment with me. Think of nothing. That's right, nothing. Most people think of a white room with nothing in it, but that's not true. You have a room and walls. Think of nothing. Out in space? Well, there are molecules in space.

 

 

 

Problem is: You can't think of nothing. You can't comprehend "nothingness", just like you can't comprehend eternity. Our minds can't even think of them. Try thinking of another color.

 

 

 

Our minds are limited in what we can comprehend or even fathom. Eternity and non-existence are both something we can't understand. We can guess at how long it will be but it's never really exact.

 

 

 

 

That's why science cannot be your basis for absolute truth morality. It changes.

 

 

 

And I ask you again, what is the your system of "absolute truth morality?" (truth and morality are both nouns, by the way)

 

 

 

Let me remind you that

 

- It cannot be science, as you said

 

and

 

- It cannot be religion, as you helped me explain:

 

 

 

My basis for truth is God's Word. Not religious doctrine or what some guy in Rome tells me to believe. Not even my pastor. The ONLY true basis for truth is Scripture.

 

 

 

Christianity isn't about religious rules. It's actually gone away from that in the New Testament. It is about relationship with Jesus. It's about His grace and mercy that enables one to receive salvation and eternal life. It's about His justice that helps one realize just how wonderful He is to give it to oneself. It's a paradox, how God is just but merciful, but true in every sense.

 

 

 

 

 

i gave up trying to post to full potential because most of my other posts here got ignored

 

 

 

If so, I'm sorry but it happens. But don't get all onto people with unsubstantiated claims simply because people have ignored you. Those are called spam and help no cause in this debate.

[Masterattacker]

Yes, I believe in God but, I RARELY ever go to church.

 

I ussually only go to church like twice a year. =0

[hazardmaster]

Sorry pianofreak and purplecrayon, got lost in the thread which grows too fast :wink:

 

 

 

OK, hazardmaster, this is fun debating with you, but you're (no offense) ridiculous.

 

 

 

Heh, don't take any offence.

 

 

 

The Bible says heaven and hell exist.

 

 

 

Exactly. Now you move on to say how do you know the Bible tells the truth? No offence to God, but there is no proof that the Bible in 100% authenthic. Christianity is based on beleif far too much in my opinion.

 

 

 

Let me be perfectly honest with you: It doesn't matter what you believe because truth is independent of what people believe about it. Gravity exists whether or not I believe it to be true. Truth is truth. God is truth.

 

 

 

Truth needs to be defined. Truth can be the real truth, regardless if you actually know it. Or it could be somebody has been tricked into believe something false is the truth; that is their truth.

 

 

 

Your statement about "I have the right to and will" is what love is all about. God wants you to have choice, which you do, because love can only exist in choice. Whether or not you believe is your decision, but I wouldn't make it too lightly.

 

 

 

I will believe what I will. If you defeat me in this debate I'll still not go towards religion; your position must be likewise.

 

 

 

The reason the editors of the book put a white man with a brown moustache dressed in white clothing is to make Jesus more like a Father to the kids. After all, God is our heavenly father. It makes him become more personal, a very good trait in my opinion.

 

 

 

I agree completely. I see my flaw.

 

 

 

Why? Why would you not believe an eyewitness?

 

 

 

People lie; eyewitnesses may lie for prejudice or bribery. Tell me two those eyewitnesses are and I'll reconsider?

 

 

 

I can't explain it

 

 

 

Exactly. you're come to the end of your fight; I've pinpointed a flaw in the religion.

 

 

 

So let me turn your question around: How do you know the spiritual realm doesn't exist?

 

 

 

Here we are stalemated; neither can prove of its nonexistance or existance. I stated previously; I will believe what is proven.

[insane]

People lie; eyewitnesses may lie for prejudice or bribery. Tell me two those eyewitnesses are and I'll reconsider?

 

 

 

And in the Bible, eyewitnesses lied so that they could get tortured, burned at the stake, and killed?

 

 

 

Give me a break...

[Jain_Charin]

I Believe in God with my whole heart

 

 

 

And I believe that he died for us all and rose again.

 

 

 

correct me if im wrong but wasnt jesus the one who died?

 

 

 

anyway no i dont beleive, i honestly cant beleive something that is so unrealistic and insane. people who are very religious actually make me mad knowing that there are people who beleive in something with all their heart not knowing if it even exists. I think more people "want" to beleive than actually do they want to beleive that people that they knew or loved or whatever, are in a better place and they want to beleive that when they die they will be accepted into that better place also. and i would type more but i really dont want to so...

 

 

 

i dont beleive, and i beleive no one else should beleive...did that make sense?

[bearofthunder]

People lie; eyewitnesses may lie for prejudice or bribery. Tell me two those eyewitnesses are and I'll reconsider?

 

 

 

And in the Bible, eyewitnesses lied so that they could get tortured, burned at the stake, and killed?

 

 

 

Give me a break...

 

 

 

I think he meant those as two examples of why people lie, not as the sole reasons why they do so. All we know is that five people claim they witnessed Jesus perform supernatural acts. If five people in today's world said they saw their friend walk on water, they would be just as doubted.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Nuh uh, miracles were way more common back in the day. D'oh! :P

[insane]

People lie; eyewitnesses may lie for prejudice or bribery. Tell me two those eyewitnesses are and I'll reconsider?

 

 

 

And in the Bible, eyewitnesses lied so that they could get tortured, burned at the stake, and killed?

 

 

 

Give me a break...

 

 

 

I think he meant those as two examples of why people lie, not as the sole reasons why they do so. All we know is that five people claim they witnessed Jesus perform supernatural acts. If five people in today's world said they saw their friend walk on water, they would be just as doubted.

 

 

 

But they wouldn't be crucified - like some of the disciples. What I'm saying is, these people had all the reasons NOT to lie about something - they had nothing to gain by it except a painful death.

[bearofthunder]

 

But they wouldn't be crucified - like some of the disciples. What I'm saying is, these people had all the reasons NOT to lie about something - they had nothing to gain by it except a painful death.

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the four writers of the gospel all died natural deaths, and the information about certain apostles being imprisoned, mistreated, and dying unusual deaths came only from later Christian writers who heard "stories" that were past down. Jesus' death was the only one confirmed by outside sources during his own time. This is why most encyclopedias/sources of information directly go into Jesus' death, but descriptions of the supposed persecution and crufixions of the disciples are usually preceded by the phrase "later tradition states that..."

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that Christianity started becoming prominent enough to be discrimnated against in the second century (long after all of the apostles had died), as that is when outside/neutral accounts of persecutions against Christians began to be written.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

But they wouldn't be crucified - like some of the disciples. What I'm saying is, these people had all the reasons NOT to lie about something - they had nothing to gain by it except a painful death.

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the four writers of the gospel all died natural deaths, and the information about certain apostles being imprisoned, mistreated, and dying unusual deaths came only from later Christian writers who heard "stories" that were past down. Jesus' death was the only one confirmed by outside sources during his own time. This is why most encyclopedias/sources of information directly go into Jesus' death, but descriptions of the supposed persecution and crufixions of the disciples are usually preceded by the phrase "later tradition states that..."

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that Christianity started becoming prominent enough to be discrimnated against in the second century (long after all of the apostles had died), as that is when outside/neutral accounts of persecutions against Christians began to be written.

 

 

 

Before Paul became an apostle, he was rounding up and killing Christians for a living.

[____]

i gave up trying to post to full potential because most of my other posts here got ignored

 

 

 

If so, I'm sorry but it happens. But don't get all onto people with unsubstantiated claims simply because people have ignored you. Those are called spam and help no cause in this debate.

 

What do you expect to happen when all worthwhile posts go unnoticed and ignored?

 

I for one find it amusing that you actually bothered to reply to the spam than the posts which actually mattered.

[geohood]

Yes I do, with faith.

 

 

 

You need to know where you are going in the future, and what your calling is for life.

 

 

 

I encourage everyone to buy this book - Purpose Driven Life. http://www.purposedrivenlife.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why WOULDNT you want Jesus on your side? "My plans are for good and not to harm you"

[my_pet_worm]

Why WOULDNT you want Jesus on your side? "My plans are for good and not to harm you"

 

 

 

Curiosity my friend, that's the only reason people believe in evolution(or whatever).

[my_pet_worm]

Questions for Evolutionists

 

by Dr. Kent Hovind

 

 

 

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain manÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theoryÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[HugATree]

 

Come now...you don't know your history? It was Christopher Columbus' day that contemporary science called the earth flat. It's why so few people were willing to go on his voyage...they thought they would all die.

 

 

 

The Mayans actually thought the earth sat on a turtle and created all kinds of fictional stories about it. That was contemporary science at the time, and his example shows how the Bible was true over the contemporary science. History? :wink:

 

 

Sorry, science isn't just what someone believes. Look up the definition before attacking it, both explanations isn't science.

[HugATree]

Questions for Evolutionists

 

by Dr. Kent Hovind

 

 

I'll answer what I can. Anyway I thought alot of Creationists reject Kent Hovind because even he fails to grasp just what evolution is.

 

 

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

 

Nothing to do with evolution.

 

2. Where did matter come from?

 

Nothing to do with evolution.

 

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

 

Nothing to do with evolution.

 

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

 

Its not; still nothing to do with evolution.

 

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

Nothing to do with evolution.

 

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

Nothing to do with evolution.

 

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Self-replicating polymers?

 

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Nothing, single cells don't use sexual reproduction. Conjugation isn't technically sexual reproduction.

 

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

With the abundance of food it actually increases the survival of the species.

 

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties?

Because its genetic code, if the genetic code changes don't you think so will the organism.

 

(Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

When did Chinese become a new and improved English?

 

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

 

Yea, and the sun rising proves it knows when people need to go to work.

 

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Mutation.

 

13. How did the intermediate forms live?

No different then anything other animal/plant. All life is intermediate.

[HugATree]

 

THIS IS SCIENCE AT THE SAME TIME THE BIBLE WAS FIRST WRITTEN

 

contemporary science, as pianofrieak says. He may be on the science side, but saying that just helped teh other. It may only be contemporary, but pretty much most science was, untill someone found out something else.

 

Please look up what science is, just because someone believes something does not make it science.

 

 

 

 

Its your fictional creation story calling it a "creation".

 

 

 

Show me this proof it is fictional, and I will listen.

 

The evidence contradicts the creation story, mankind has been around alot long than 6000 yrs.

[insane]

 

But they wouldn't be crucified - like some of the disciples. What I'm saying is, these people had all the reasons NOT to lie about something - they had nothing to gain by it except a painful death.

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the four writers of the gospel all died natural deaths, and the information about certain apostles being imprisoned, mistreated, and dying unusual deaths came only from later Christian writers who heard "stories" that were past down. Jesus' death was the only one confirmed by outside sources during his own time. This is why most encyclopedias/sources of information directly go into Jesus' death, but descriptions of the supposed persecution and crufixions of the disciples are usually preceded by the phrase "later tradition states that..."

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that Christianity started becoming prominent enough to be discrimnated against in the second century (long after all of the apostles had died), as that is when outside/neutral accounts of persecutions against Christians began to be written.

 

 

 

Maybe I've just heard bias accounts, but I heard that only the apostle John died a natural death.

 

 

 

I don't have time to search around now, but I'll quote Tacitus, about Nero in 64AD (first century, not 2nd). This is taken from wikipedia about emperor Nero.

 

 

 

"And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up [i.e., falsely accused] as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. NeroÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s scapegoats were the perfect choice because it temporarily relieved pressure of the various rumors going around Rome. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for a moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Iudaea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome... Accordingly, arrest was first made of those who confessed; then, on their evidence, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as because of [their] hatred for the human race. Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clothed in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even towards men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual.

 

 

 

(emphasis mine)