is the bible a lie ? - 2
This is the continuation of the discussion initiated by IanTh here:
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/27715786/is-the-bible-a-lie.html?anchorAnswerId=38143323#a38143323
because became a too long thread.
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/27715786/is-the-bible-a-lie.html?anchorAnswerId=38143323#a38143323
because became a too long thread.
random life does have a purpose!
Really that's like saying all other life on the planet do not have a purpose.
If plants had no purpose then we would not be here at all plants made things like oxygen and your telling me plant life is not random LOL
If the animals had no purpose then humans wouldn't exist and after all humans are a form of animal.
So all life including plants and animals do have a purpose
My problem is the bible is too local and not global if its connected with god who made the earth really that was created about 5 billion years ago from an accretion process when our universe was being built. If god is the designer as the bible states did he create the dinosaurs or all the previous human ancestors. No he made humans, Adam and he was a modern human the same as us not a previous homo like Neanderthal so that points to god not knowing about all of the other previous humans that are proved by archaeology.
Really that's like saying all other life on the planet do not have a purpose.
If plants had no purpose then we would not be here at all plants made things like oxygen and your telling me plant life is not random LOL
If the animals had no purpose then humans wouldn't exist and after all humans are a form of animal.
So all life including plants and animals do have a purpose
My problem is the bible is too local and not global if its connected with god who made the earth really that was created about 5 billion years ago from an accretion process when our universe was being built. If god is the designer as the bible states did he create the dinosaurs or all the previous human ancestors. No he made humans, Adam and he was a modern human the same as us not a previous homo like Neanderthal so that points to god not knowing about all of the other previous humans that are proved by archaeology.
> Random life does not have a purpose.
Just 2 points:
1. Nobody who understands evolution claims that life is random. Instead, it is random mutations that are directed by selection (natural or sexual) .
2. Who, apart from believers in religion, claims that life has to have a purpose?
There is one difference between science and religion. In science different people may have different ideas about how nature is, but eventually, as new evidence comes in, they will arrive at the correct solution - until the next generation of scientists improves it again. With religion on the other hand, you are stuck in your interpretation of your book. You're blinkered by your interpretation of one book. Just imagine a christian and a muslim agreeing on an experiment to settle their differences...
And, no the bible is not a "lie", no more than Homer's Iliad is. Both are important books. They are mythical stories that are based on underlying facts. Just as Troy really existed, but Aphrodite didn't, so Jericho also did exist (and for a long longer than the bible implies), but the tower of Babel did not.
Just 2 points:
1. Nobody who understands evolution claims that life is random. Instead, it is random mutations that are directed by selection (natural or sexual) .
2. Who, apart from believers in religion, claims that life has to have a purpose?
There is one difference between science and religion. In science different people may have different ideas about how nature is, but eventually, as new evidence comes in, they will arrive at the correct solution - until the next generation of scientists improves it again. With religion on the other hand, you are stuck in your interpretation of your book. You're blinkered by your interpretation of one book. Just imagine a christian and a muslim agreeing on an experiment to settle their differences...
And, no the bible is not a "lie", no more than Homer's Iliad is. Both are important books. They are mythical stories that are based on underlying facts. Just as Troy really existed, but Aphrodite didn't, so Jericho also did exist (and for a long longer than the bible implies), but the tower of Babel did not.
I have changed my question from a lie to more of a miss truth
I dont think any bible stories have any true facts look at the noah flood for instance it was meant to be a global flood if that was the case we would all be related to him and that's not the case is it instead every 'modern' human is related to about 6 families that left Africa, the central rift valley about 200000 - 140000 years its refered to the latest 'out of Africa theory' as there appears to have been absolutely loads
If the flood didn't happen the Moses couldn't have done his party piece I don't think he existed either personally and if he didn't exist what happened to the 'ten commandments'
I dont think any bible stories have any true facts look at the noah flood for instance it was meant to be a global flood if that was the case we would all be related to him and that's not the case is it instead every 'modern' human is related to about 6 families that left Africa, the central rift valley about 200000 - 140000 years its refered to the latest 'out of Africa theory' as there appears to have been absolutely loads
If the flood didn't happen the Moses couldn't have done his party piece I don't think he existed either personally and if he didn't exist what happened to the 'ten commandments'
IanTh . . . your penchant for arguing only against the literalist view of the bible makes it very difficult to take you seriously. It's like trying to discuss race with a bigot.
Enjoy,
Steve
Enjoy,
Steve
But what the heck . . .
Genesis 1 says God created the heavens and the earth . . . and said let there be light. To literalists, that means one "day" passed. Tell me, however, how that obviates the big bang theory to a non-literalist?
To your comment @viki2000 . . . he said "random life does not have a purpose" and you responded, somewhat bewilderingly, that purposeful life does indeed have a purpose. I don't think you gave his point any thought at all.
@hdhondt
"In science different people may have different ideas about how nature is, but eventually, as new evidence comes in, they will arrive at the correct solution - until the next generation of scientists improves it again. "
. . . or vainly attempts to correct the disastrous mistakes of the prior generation. I don't think you can put such a pretty bow on science as you just did and be taken as intellectually honest.
Steve
Genesis 1 says God created the heavens and the earth . . . and said let there be light. To literalists, that means one "day" passed. Tell me, however, how that obviates the big bang theory to a non-literalist?
To your comment @viki2000 . . . he said "random life does not have a purpose" and you responded, somewhat bewilderingly, that purposeful life does indeed have a purpose. I don't think you gave his point any thought at all.
@hdhondt
"In science different people may have different ideas about how nature is, but eventually, as new evidence comes in, they will arrive at the correct solution - until the next generation of scientists improves it again. "
. . . or vainly attempts to correct the disastrous mistakes of the prior generation. I don't think you can put such a pretty bow on science as you just did and be taken as intellectually honest.
Steve
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Well, you may very well be making salient points. Or you may simply be wrong about your assertions. But to believe you I would have to have faith that you are the world's smartest individual . . . because there are some very, very sharp folks who have faith.
I would only answer that the bible is the story of God and his character given to someone to write . . . your expectation that thousands of years ago, someone would have been able to understand and grasp the notion of infinity or universality or local vs global, or the ability to "take dictation for God" is not very well thought out.
Yes, that's a weak explanation. But I have no problem confessing that I am not the world's greatest intellect. Nor do I have the faith in science that you appear to have. There have been scads of world changing scientific discoveries, some of which may effect the ability of the human race to sustain itself. Yet, provided it can be demonstrated that 2+2 = 4 then the masses simply follow along like lemmings.
Lots of people get on these forums and tout science, but actually know far less about it than they seem to know about the bible. Perhaps you are a specialist Life Science or in DNA research. Or perhaps you are simply parroting something you've read and you actually have no real clue if what you claim as true is factual. But it supports what you want to believe. If in fact you are a DNA expert, you are in the minority. The overwhelming majority of folks are clueless about the science they seem to worship, and point only to its successes, not it's failures. Nobody refers to "blood letting" any more as "medical science" but there was a time when that was believed to be a revolutionary approach to curing all sorts of ailments. Less than 100 years ago, the best form of advertising that cigarette companies could come up with was doctors smoking and pushing their brand.
Yet, on and on and on religion on these forums is "challenged" by "science".
Steve
I would only answer that the bible is the story of God and his character given to someone to write . . . your expectation that thousands of years ago, someone would have been able to understand and grasp the notion of infinity or universality or local vs global, or the ability to "take dictation for God" is not very well thought out.
Yes, that's a weak explanation. But I have no problem confessing that I am not the world's greatest intellect. Nor do I have the faith in science that you appear to have. There have been scads of world changing scientific discoveries, some of which may effect the ability of the human race to sustain itself. Yet, provided it can be demonstrated that 2+2 = 4 then the masses simply follow along like lemmings.
Lots of people get on these forums and tout science, but actually know far less about it than they seem to know about the bible. Perhaps you are a specialist Life Science or in DNA research. Or perhaps you are simply parroting something you've read and you actually have no real clue if what you claim as true is factual. But it supports what you want to believe. If in fact you are a DNA expert, you are in the minority. The overwhelming majority of folks are clueless about the science they seem to worship, and point only to its successes, not it's failures. Nobody refers to "blood letting" any more as "medical science" but there was a time when that was believed to be a revolutionary approach to curing all sorts of ailments. Less than 100 years ago, the best form of advertising that cigarette companies could come up with was doctors smoking and pushing their brand.
Yet, on and on and on religion on these forums is "challenged" by "science".
Steve
So we're back where we started: science makes mistakes (and everybody, scientist or not, accepts that), and the bible is always correct, no matter how often it is proven wrong.
I accept the use of religion as a moral arbiter - even to tell scientists where they go wrong. As long as you accept that our present, secular, morality is a lot better than what we got from your holy book. For example, it certainly was not the bible that proclaimed that we should not have slaves.
I'll finish with a question: please prove to me that the bible is less incorrect than the koran, or any of the other "holy" books. Please use impartial arguments, not just your interpretation of a translation of a translation of a myth.
I accept the use of religion as a moral arbiter - even to tell scientists where they go wrong. As long as you accept that our present, secular, morality is a lot better than what we got from your holy book. For example, it certainly was not the bible that proclaimed that we should not have slaves.
I'll finish with a question: please prove to me that the bible is less incorrect than the koran, or any of the other "holy" books. Please use impartial arguments, not just your interpretation of a translation of a translation of a myth.
please prove to me that the bible is less incorrect than the koran, or any of the other "holy" books. Please use impartial arguments, not just your interpretation of a translation of a translation of a myth.
It was translated.
By men.
ASKER
Not only Bible, but all the religions in the world have something common: the human being is considered to have soul.
The soul is considered to be far more important than body. And the religion deals with that aspect.
The soul is considered immaterial and eternal.
How do you expect today’s science to put it in evidence when everything accepted as truth has to be measured, observed and replicated in the laboratory?
There is no microscope, no rays, no particle accelerator to interact with the “substance” of the soul.
I can understand that there is good reason behind: people do not want to trust until they see because during the history was too much deceit. But that generate a new “believing system” having as support the science: truth is what we can prove only.
The fact that we cannot prove or understand certain things at a certain time do not make them less real. This is how I see the story of Moses or Jesus.
It will always be about how we allocate trust to certain things or persons. It is about authority.
Jesus said “I do these things so you may believe”, meaning trust, because He knew we cannot prove them.
What real chances are for a grandmother somewhere at the farm to trust and understand the nature of subatomic experiments from CERN?
In Darwinism evolution theory there are 2 important ingredients (among other) which cannot be trusted:
1) There is this concentrated sauce which binds the elements of theory together named “billions of years” of possible combinations in all kind of conditions which probabilistic may lead to an organized form of life. But so far nobody proved how from simple matter, only chemical elements – one single living cell is done. Why don’t we make in the lab grass from simple elements? –which is far more simple than creatures. Chaotic possible combinations cannot – never – lead to organized form of life – no matter how many billions of years you allow to develop. It is proved by entropy. When I said “random life does not have a purpose” I did not mean that had not a cause. I meant there is no way to generate the law of species survival from random possible combinations without a code written in it.
2) Survival law. The strongest survive. All other are eliminated. Then we as homo sapiens are not the most evolved species from earth. We are in decline. On one side we declare that the rational thinking and ultimate the consciousness is what put us in top and then as a result we violate the main law which brought us to this level:” the survival law”. Don’t you realize that there is a contradiction? How come since known history – homo sapiens – there were always examples of “save your friend even with the price of your life”? The consciousness fights against the body and is using rational thinking for that.
The Bible explains why is like that and what is the cause behind.
The soul is considered to be far more important than body. And the religion deals with that aspect.
The soul is considered immaterial and eternal.
How do you expect today’s science to put it in evidence when everything accepted as truth has to be measured, observed and replicated in the laboratory?
There is no microscope, no rays, no particle accelerator to interact with the “substance” of the soul.
I can understand that there is good reason behind: people do not want to trust until they see because during the history was too much deceit. But that generate a new “believing system” having as support the science: truth is what we can prove only.
The fact that we cannot prove or understand certain things at a certain time do not make them less real. This is how I see the story of Moses or Jesus.
It will always be about how we allocate trust to certain things or persons. It is about authority.
Jesus said “I do these things so you may believe”, meaning trust, because He knew we cannot prove them.
What real chances are for a grandmother somewhere at the farm to trust and understand the nature of subatomic experiments from CERN?
In Darwinism evolution theory there are 2 important ingredients (among other) which cannot be trusted:
1) There is this concentrated sauce which binds the elements of theory together named “billions of years” of possible combinations in all kind of conditions which probabilistic may lead to an organized form of life. But so far nobody proved how from simple matter, only chemical elements – one single living cell is done. Why don’t we make in the lab grass from simple elements? –which is far more simple than creatures. Chaotic possible combinations cannot – never – lead to organized form of life – no matter how many billions of years you allow to develop. It is proved by entropy. When I said “random life does not have a purpose” I did not mean that had not a cause. I meant there is no way to generate the law of species survival from random possible combinations without a code written in it.
2) Survival law. The strongest survive. All other are eliminated. Then we as homo sapiens are not the most evolved species from earth. We are in decline. On one side we declare that the rational thinking and ultimate the consciousness is what put us in top and then as a result we violate the main law which brought us to this level:” the survival law”. Don’t you realize that there is a contradiction? How come since known history – homo sapiens – there were always examples of “save your friend even with the price of your life”? The consciousness fights against the body and is using rational thinking for that.
The Bible explains why is like that and what is the cause behind.
> But so far nobody proved how from simple matter, only chemical elements – one single living cell is done.
Correct, but we are getting closer. A group led by Craig Venter built a living cell using synthetic DNA. The cell's cytoplasm came from a bacterium, the DNA came from a test tube. That seems to prove conclusively that no special "life force" is required.
I do hope that it will not be long before we can come up with some simple chemicals that show the ability to reproduce with modifications - and hence evolve. When that happens, I'm sure the religions will come up with some other reason why that was not the way "our" life started.
> Then we as homo sapiens are not the most evolved species from earth.
Correct, we are not, but you misunderstand evolution. Every species on earth now is as evolved as we are. They all have about 3.8 billion years of evolution behind them. And there is nothing special about our species (apart from the fact that, being human, I'm biased). We are not "on top"; we just happen to be the species with the highest level of intelligence.
Correct, but we are getting closer. A group led by Craig Venter built a living cell using synthetic DNA. The cell's cytoplasm came from a bacterium, the DNA came from a test tube. That seems to prove conclusively that no special "life force" is required.
I do hope that it will not be long before we can come up with some simple chemicals that show the ability to reproduce with modifications - and hence evolve. When that happens, I'm sure the religions will come up with some other reason why that was not the way "our" life started.
> Then we as homo sapiens are not the most evolved species from earth.
Correct, we are not, but you misunderstand evolution. Every species on earth now is as evolved as we are. They all have about 3.8 billion years of evolution behind them. And there is nothing special about our species (apart from the fact that, being human, I'm biased). We are not "on top"; we just happen to be the species with the highest level of intelligence.
ASKER
" We are not "on top"; we just happen to be the species with the highest level of intelligence. "
Is not that to be on top?
As long as we can control other species, we can analyze them and not the other way around, is not that to be on top?
Is not that to be on top?
As long as we can control other species, we can analyze them and not the other way around, is not that to be on top?
ASKER
I looked at "living cell"
That is not what I am talking about.
They "used it to 'reboot' a cell from a different species of bacterium".
They used something alive and modify it.
Is nothing like dead elements to life form.
That is not what I am talking about.
They "used it to 'reboot' a cell from a different species of bacterium".
They used something alive and modify it.
Is nothing like dead elements to life form.
Life could have come via a impact event as there where absolutely loads in the past but until we find the same dna out in the solar system then that can not be proved
Your saying religion doesn't get it wrong well ask the muslims
Your saying religion doesn't get it wrong well ask the muslims
hdhondt
You could also go further and say that the idea of random mutation is also only theory. While random mutation is most likely a factor, it may not be the only factor affecting changes to DNA. There is enough evidence to suggest that other factors may play a part.
Nobody who understands evolution claims that life is random. Instead, it is random mutations that are directed by selection (natural or sexual) .
You could also go further and say that the idea of random mutation is also only theory. While random mutation is most likely a factor, it may not be the only factor affecting changes to DNA. There is enough evidence to suggest that other factors may play a part.
When talking about the origin of life, we need to have a defintion of life. Like the word "God", the wrod "life" can mean many different things to different people.
ASKER
I guess here we refer to the definition from biology, something like:
"The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death"
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Ii was not about life after death, not spiritual life.
"The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death"
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Ii was not about life after death, not spiritual life.
"growth, reproduction"...that's a fair enough definition.
It would include viruses, but then again... some say that virus are not alive, but mere complex bio-chemical mechanisms.
It would include viruses, but then again... some say that virus are not alive, but mere complex bio-chemical mechanisms.
@viki
>Is nothing like dead elements to life form.
I did admit that we're not there yet, but that artificial cell is getting us closer to the goal.
However, you're using the "god of the gaps" argument: find something that science can't explain (yet) and bingo, god must have done it. That may have been good enough in the days when gods caused floods, lightning, pestilence, etc but we're past that stage in our intellectual development.
Here are some other things you may use as reasons for god. We don't know how intelligence emerges in the brain. We can't create artificial intelligence. We don't know "why" the vacuum is unstable to the point it can create a big bang, i.e we don't know why there is something rather than nothing.
As we're talking about why's, please explain why there is a god.
This is all leading us a long way from the original question (is the bible a lie?) though...
>Is nothing like dead elements to life form.
I did admit that we're not there yet, but that artificial cell is getting us closer to the goal.
However, you're using the "god of the gaps" argument: find something that science can't explain (yet) and bingo, god must have done it. That may have been good enough in the days when gods caused floods, lightning, pestilence, etc but we're past that stage in our intellectual development.
Here are some other things you may use as reasons for god. We don't know how intelligence emerges in the brain. We can't create artificial intelligence. We don't know "why" the vacuum is unstable to the point it can create a big bang, i.e we don't know why there is something rather than nothing.
As we're talking about why's, please explain why there is a god.
This is all leading us a long way from the original question (is the bible a lie?) though...
ASKER
When we speak about God we have to refer to a specific religion, philosophical understanding, ...maybe a region on earth.
When people speak about God maybe they have some things in common, but not always - there are different understandings.
Do you refer here to the God from Bible?
I assume yes due to the subject title, topic.
First you need to see how is God described and what interaction has with His creation.
These are first questions to ask and understand.
Next is the nature of human being and its history as created being.
Then you know where you are placed in space-time (creation) and with Who you are dealing - the Creator.
In the light of such view you can understand the possibilities and the limits of what can we achieve and find out by asking questions or doing things - of any kind.
If you find interesting I can go briefly through the above topics.
In the end, only after you understand the things above from God perspective revealed to the prophets you will find that your question "why there is God?" make no sense in the limits of the references that we have as created beings.
There are far more important questions than that one. They are about us. Because we are not external observers, we are active players and the above information affects us deeply.
When people speak about God maybe they have some things in common, but not always - there are different understandings.
Do you refer here to the God from Bible?
I assume yes due to the subject title, topic.
First you need to see how is God described and what interaction has with His creation.
These are first questions to ask and understand.
Next is the nature of human being and its history as created being.
Then you know where you are placed in space-time (creation) and with Who you are dealing - the Creator.
In the light of such view you can understand the possibilities and the limits of what can we achieve and find out by asking questions or doing things - of any kind.
If you find interesting I can go briefly through the above topics.
In the end, only after you understand the things above from God perspective revealed to the prophets you will find that your question "why there is God?" make no sense in the limits of the references that we have as created beings.
There are far more important questions than that one. They are about us. Because we are not external observers, we are active players and the above information affects us deeply.
His creation !!!! like what ? Humans or homo sapiens rather where not created we evolved from another previous ancestor
Hdhondt
I can see a problem with this line of thought. The implication is that science will eventually fill all the gaps, but this is an assumption. What if there is always a gap, however hard you look? As with the fractal, that infinitely repeats its self-similarity, you may look for the end (completion) but never find it. This is a possibility.
Or perhaps there is an ulitmate gap, something we can never know, and when confronted with it, we are forced to accept that we do not know, or that there is something beyond what we know?
Perhaps it doesn't matter, conceptually, where we see that gap.
However, you're using the "god of the gaps" argument: find something that science can't explain (yet) and bingo, god must have done it. That may have been good enough in the days when gods caused floods, lightning, pestilence, etc but we're past that stage in our intellectual development.
I can see a problem with this line of thought. The implication is that science will eventually fill all the gaps, but this is an assumption. What if there is always a gap, however hard you look? As with the fractal, that infinitely repeats its self-similarity, you may look for the end (completion) but never find it. This is a possibility.
Or perhaps there is an ulitmate gap, something we can never know, and when confronted with it, we are forced to accept that we do not know, or that there is something beyond what we know?
Perhaps it doesn't matter, conceptually, where we see that gap.
I think the 'science of everything' is quite possibly very close once they find the higgs boson at LHC to make the 'standard model' work as currently all the physics cannot point to why things have mass as the building blocks of everything molecules are effectively empty if they don't find the higgs boson then the 'standard model' is wrong
The "God " particle is a media invention and a theme picked up on by Dan Brown. This Higgs Boson is just another piece in the conceptual jigsaw puzzle. It may validate current theories, but will it explain everything? Will it explain the big bang? Will it explain consciousness? Evolution? Will we even know what it is, fundamentally, or is it itself another mystery? Many questions will remain unanswered. The Higgs Boson will not help with the fundamental questions of why we are here. It would just be another thing, to add to the list of things we already know.
It just moves the gap - again.
It just moves the gap - again.
no the higgs will point to 'the standard model' being correct as at the moment the building block of matter the molecules in everything are effectively empty when did i call it the 'god particle' you cannot prove every thing with 'the standard model'. The big bang was proved by the faint radiation left over by 'the big bang'. Evolution is understood, homo sapiens are from a long line of previous ancestors.
There will still be mysteries afterwards
I mean how else can you prove 'the big bang' happened it was about 15 billion years ago its what we have left over which cannot be from anywhere else.
There will still be mysteries afterwards
I mean how else can you prove 'the big bang' happened it was about 15 billion years ago its what we have left over which cannot be from anywhere else.
> The implication is that science will eventually fill all the gaps, but this is an assumption.
No I do not assume that. As Richard Feynman said, it's possible that the laws of the universe are like an infinite onion, an unending series of deeper and deeper layers. In that case we will never get to the bottom of it. Even if that is not the case, it appears that for every deeper layer we need more and more energy. Unless there are some very important things we are missing, that will eventually limit our experimental abilities. Any further probing will have to be purely theoretical. Theories about what caused the big bang are currently in that realm: we do not have, and may never have, the ability to fully test them
People who believe in a god are the ones that make the mistake: they believe that their god fills in any gaps for which we don't have an explanation.
No I do not assume that. As Richard Feynman said, it's possible that the laws of the universe are like an infinite onion, an unending series of deeper and deeper layers. In that case we will never get to the bottom of it. Even if that is not the case, it appears that for every deeper layer we need more and more energy. Unless there are some very important things we are missing, that will eventually limit our experimental abilities. Any further probing will have to be purely theoretical. Theories about what caused the big bang are currently in that realm: we do not have, and may never have, the ability to fully test them
People who believe in a god are the ones that make the mistake: they believe that their god fills in any gaps for which we don't have an explanation.
ianTh
However, although evolution is known to be fact, the mechanism of evolution remains theoretical. In a previous post of this thread, the concept of random mutation came up, and my comment there was that we do not know if it this mutation is entirely random, and that there is evidence to support the idea that other factors may be influencing it as well. We don't know what they are.
There are several kinds of mistakes being made. Two of them are. (1)People who reject accepted scientific explanations and interpret scripture as the true empirical explanations, and (2)People who accept scientific explanations and interpret scripture as a challenge to these explanations, like IanTh. Such a mistake is the basis of IanTH's original thread. I've said time and time again that although the scripture does appear to make some attempt to provide an explanation of the Universe in empirical terms, that is not the purpose of the scripture. Because it is not the purpose of scripture, if it gets those explanations wrong, it does not invalidate the scripture, whose true purpose is to attempt to convey experience of divine or describe some other inner development or transformation.
Here's a thought, that's not really related to my argument above, but is interesting from a philosphical point of view anyway... There were (and still are) people who believed in Newtons "laws", and yet, at the beginning of the twentieth century, those laws were seen to be over-simplifications of a more complex theory. What is the difference between a man from 1694, who believed Newton's theories, and a man of today, who believes God fills the gaps that science cannot? Both, in sense, are wrong, because a new explanation can emerge; and yet, both in a sense are right, because at the time there is or was no better explanation. Today we either say, "That is God's work", or, "One day science will answer it." From a philosphical viewpoint, both these are beliefs based on belief systems. History tells us that it's rational to believe the latter, that empirical knowledge will reveal more about that Universe as time rolls on, disproving the God explantation. In this sense, God becomes a symbol of the unknown, and is constantly pushed further and deeper into obscurity, and becomes smaller and ever more mysterious. But ultimately, where do we end up? We end up in places that science may never be able to touch... what then?
From a purely philosophical point of view, if you are interested in truth, an agnostic position is the only rational position you can take on the question of God. However, philosophy is only one way of looking at things.
no the higgs will point to 'the standard model' being correct as at the moment the building block of matter the molecules in everything are effectively empty when did i call it the 'god particle' you cannot prove every thing with 'the standard model'.Yes, it will validate the current theories, as I said. And quite right, you didn't mention the God particle, but this is what popular media have dubbed the Higgs Boson particle.
The big bang was proved by the faint radiation left over by 'the big bang'.Yes, evidence definitely supports that there was a big bang, but what caused it?
Evolution is understood, homo sapiens are from a long line of previous ancestors.Yes, quite right Ian. Five stars to you for correctly informing us that we evolved from our ancestors.
However, although evolution is known to be fact, the mechanism of evolution remains theoretical. In a previous post of this thread, the concept of random mutation came up, and my comment there was that we do not know if it this mutation is entirely random, and that there is evidence to support the idea that other factors may be influencing it as well. We don't know what they are.
People who believe in a God are the ones that make the mistake: they believe that their god fills in any gaps for which we don't have an explanation.
There are several kinds of mistakes being made. Two of them are. (1)People who reject accepted scientific explanations and interpret scripture as the true empirical explanations, and (2)People who accept scientific explanations and interpret scripture as a challenge to these explanations, like IanTh. Such a mistake is the basis of IanTH's original thread. I've said time and time again that although the scripture does appear to make some attempt to provide an explanation of the Universe in empirical terms, that is not the purpose of the scripture. Because it is not the purpose of scripture, if it gets those explanations wrong, it does not invalidate the scripture, whose true purpose is to attempt to convey experience of divine or describe some other inner development or transformation.
Here's a thought, that's not really related to my argument above, but is interesting from a philosphical point of view anyway... There were (and still are) people who believed in Newtons "laws", and yet, at the beginning of the twentieth century, those laws were seen to be over-simplifications of a more complex theory. What is the difference between a man from 1694, who believed Newton's theories, and a man of today, who believes God fills the gaps that science cannot? Both, in sense, are wrong, because a new explanation can emerge; and yet, both in a sense are right, because at the time there is or was no better explanation. Today we either say, "That is God's work", or, "One day science will answer it." From a philosphical viewpoint, both these are beliefs based on belief systems. History tells us that it's rational to believe the latter, that empirical knowledge will reveal more about that Universe as time rolls on, disproving the God explantation. In this sense, God becomes a symbol of the unknown, and is constantly pushed further and deeper into obscurity, and becomes smaller and ever more mysterious. But ultimately, where do we end up? We end up in places that science may never be able to touch... what then?
From a purely philosophical point of view, if you are interested in truth, an agnostic position is the only rational position you can take on the question of God. However, philosophy is only one way of looking at things.
Yes but saying something is unknown as its gods work is really blinkered it is unknown to current science. I believe in science because things have to be proved in science whereby theology is thinking up stuff that's the difference for me how can theology be proved unless its backed up by one of the sciences and proved. As far as I am concerned god is a fable just like the bible. Where is heaven and hell ? Heaven was above the clouds until we learned how to fly high enough. That's kind of my point there is a theology about something and then a science will come along and disprove it.
Well, Ian, I operate in a similar way. I believe in science because history shows it tends to win out - within the epirical world. Also, we have all this technology around us that is a testimony to the validity of science.
However, you appear to be unable to see the bible as anything other than a failed attempt to explain the universe on an empirical level. It is not that. History comes into it but the books of the bible are not primarily history books.
You asked about Heaven and Hell. Again, with your comment "Heaven was above the clouds until we learned how to fly high enough" you show you have interpreted the bible in a empirical way, and then reject that interpretation. But was your interpretation correct?
If you want I can give you an explanation of Heaven and Hell, but you need to start another PR thread with a Heaven and Hell question as the subject.
Science and religion are two different worlds, each with their own language that attempts to descibe it. The only people who make a war between the two are those who think that one is right and the other wrong.
Both make mistakes. Neither science nor religion is infallible. Science and religion should compliment one another, not be at odds.
However, you appear to be unable to see the bible as anything other than a failed attempt to explain the universe on an empirical level. It is not that. History comes into it but the books of the bible are not primarily history books.
You asked about Heaven and Hell. Again, with your comment "Heaven was above the clouds until we learned how to fly high enough" you show you have interpreted the bible in a empirical way, and then reject that interpretation. But was your interpretation correct?
If you want I can give you an explanation of Heaven and Hell, but you need to start another PR thread with a Heaven and Hell question as the subject.
Science and religion are two different worlds, each with their own language that attempts to descibe it. The only people who make a war between the two are those who think that one is right and the other wrong.
Both make mistakes. Neither science nor religion is infallible. Science and religion should compliment one another, not be at odds.
I always find it interesting that Bohr and Einstein spent most of their lives arguing with each other and trying to get one over on the other.
Today, we think today of Einstein as being the closer to God, and Bohr as the pure physicist. Yet could it have been the other way round. After all, it was Bohr who stopped trying to delve into the underlying cause of things, and just accepted that the mathematical description was all there was. He just accepted things as they were, on an emprical level. In other words, he recognised that there were areas that science could not touch, and accepted that. He accepted the unknown. Einstein, on the other hand, wanted to get to the ulitmate cause of it all - through science! As a result, kind of disappeared up his own ass. God does not play dice!? Hmmmm...
Today, we think today of Einstein as being the closer to God, and Bohr as the pure physicist. Yet could it have been the other way round. After all, it was Bohr who stopped trying to delve into the underlying cause of things, and just accepted that the mathematical description was all there was. He just accepted things as they were, on an emprical level. In other words, he recognised that there were areas that science could not touch, and accepted that. He accepted the unknown. Einstein, on the other hand, wanted to get to the ulitmate cause of it all - through science! As a result, kind of disappeared up his own ass. God does not play dice!? Hmmmm...
ASKER
We speak here about evolution. Is it only biological? Or any other consciousness aspect is involved from your point of view?
I just remembered something. Was an experience in 2006. I was in Africa. I have seen very poor people. I was also in desert, North part of Sahara. Then I look around me now in “civilized”, modern world from West. And I see these differences. How much there is here and how we do not care about the others. And is not about survival of species. It is about ignorance, about “we do not care”.
When you visit those people for few days then all our discussions cease, make no more sense. You feel and realize we waste time and energy.
If it is about survival of species – as DNA code-instinct in all living creatures – then why we have compassion, mercy and love?
I just remembered something. Was an experience in 2006. I was in Africa. I have seen very poor people. I was also in desert, North part of Sahara. Then I look around me now in “civilized”, modern world from West. And I see these differences. How much there is here and how we do not care about the others. And is not about survival of species. It is about ignorance, about “we do not care”.
When you visit those people for few days then all our discussions cease, make no more sense. You feel and realize we waste time and energy.
If it is about survival of species – as DNA code-instinct in all living creatures – then why we have compassion, mercy and love?
every modern human is the same dna proves that but the is some evidence that our dna does still have some Neanderthal and denisovans parts around 2-4%
All the animals on the planet share our dna
'Out of Africa' is controversial because of the fact that race is pointless we are all the same as when our ancestors left the central rift valley between 200000 and 140000 years they must have been black so being white now is not your fault.
The bible is just a guide to live a modern life ie control the people 'the 10 commandments' etc but as I have said previously I doubt that actually happened there is no evidence for the exodus and Moses. That's my point I don't believe that genesis is correct at all and if the start is not right how can the rest ?
All the animals on the planet share our dna
'Out of Africa' is controversial because of the fact that race is pointless we are all the same as when our ancestors left the central rift valley between 200000 and 140000 years they must have been black so being white now is not your fault.
The bible is just a guide to live a modern life ie control the people 'the 10 commandments' etc but as I have said previously I doubt that actually happened there is no evidence for the exodus and Moses. That's my point I don't believe that genesis is correct at all and if the start is not right how can the rest ?
[Bohr] just accepted things as they were, on an empirical level.
That's not quite right. What Bohr said is that the underlying physics does not have to work in a way that's intuitive to our intelligence. That's why we can only go by the maths to discover how quantum mechanics works. Einstein is the one who insisted on the universe being "constructed" in a way he could understand. That's why he wanted an ultimate cause - not necessarily a god, but something we can at least understand. All evidence to date points to the fact that Einstein was wrong.
You are correct though in that Bohr said the nature is not "understandable", in the same way that religions claim god cannot be understood. The difference is that nature is computable, but god is claimed to be, without any evidence, not. With science we can close in on the truth bit by bit; with religion we have to accept "the book" as the final answer.
Re "out of Africa"
One thing the DNA evidence is very definite about is that we did not descend from one couple (either Adam/Eve or Noah/unnamed wife) who lived in the Middle East a few thousand years ago.
hdhondt
What do you mean by "underlying physics"?
But do we really have to accept this? We are free to look at all religions, and come to our own conclusions. Some religions seem to be more advanced than others, which suggest that development and evolution exist within religion also. Some religions, like Zen Buddhsim, do not even have books. Probably a modern day Buddhist would not even enter a discussion about Buddhism. You wouldn't know.
Religion is a word tends to mean a specific, established belief system; and yet many who claim to be in touch with the divine will resent being labelled as religious becauase they do not follow any such system. Instead of the word religious, they prefer the word spiritual. Spirituality is a word that gradually seems to be replacing the word religion. (I think it only becomes religion when it is written down and passed on, and someone misunderstands it!) It seems to me that this is some kind of evolution / progress in this area. Religion is not static, but it is subject to a different dynamic than science. It lacks the agreed framework that science has established for itself. It is not difficult to see why, since science is empirical and can be shared, spirituality is subjective and cannot.
However, Gensis is not nonsense - looked at metaphorically it has meanings. As a physics book, it's off, but it was never written as a Physics book. It was written as a spiritual book. Just like Shakespeare is written primarily as literature, not history. Theerfore it can't be dismissed as a lie, anymore than Shakespeare's Richard II can. While not historically accurate, it's subject - human nature, the huiman condition - is very accurate!
Perhaps the same can be said of the Genesis. While not historically accurate, it's subject - spirituality - may be very accurate. In this sense Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden, could be an explanation of the growth of consciousness, and dawn of self-awareness, by a visionary. Certainly, the idea of taking a bite from the apple from the tree of knowledge of good and evil strikes me as being allegorical in meaning. It seems to be a description of innocence enjoyed because of the absence of self-awareness, being followed by loss of that innocence as self-awareness develops along with thoughts and ideas, which we then take as reality, as symbolised by the concepts of good and evil.
It is pretty much a description of the psyhological state of modern man.
What do you mean by "underlying physics"?
With science we can close in on the truth bit by bit; with religion we have to accept "the book" as the final answer.
But do we really have to accept this? We are free to look at all religions, and come to our own conclusions. Some religions seem to be more advanced than others, which suggest that development and evolution exist within religion also. Some religions, like Zen Buddhsim, do not even have books. Probably a modern day Buddhist would not even enter a discussion about Buddhism. You wouldn't know.
Religion is a word tends to mean a specific, established belief system; and yet many who claim to be in touch with the divine will resent being labelled as religious becauase they do not follow any such system. Instead of the word religious, they prefer the word spiritual. Spirituality is a word that gradually seems to be replacing the word religion. (I think it only becomes religion when it is written down and passed on, and someone misunderstands it!) It seems to me that this is some kind of evolution / progress in this area. Religion is not static, but it is subject to a different dynamic than science. It lacks the agreed framework that science has established for itself. It is not difficult to see why, since science is empirical and can be shared, spirituality is subjective and cannot.
One thing the DNA evidence is very definite about is that we did not descend from one couple (either Adam/Eve or Noah/unnamed wife) who lived in the Middle East a few thousand years ago.DNA and the fossil record. There are plenty of other examples like this, where a claim in the bible has been proved wrong by scientific knowledge. For example, the idea that the Universe was made in seven days and so on. Of course it cannot be true empirically!
However, Gensis is not nonsense - looked at metaphorically it has meanings. As a physics book, it's off, but it was never written as a Physics book. It was written as a spiritual book. Just like Shakespeare is written primarily as literature, not history. Theerfore it can't be dismissed as a lie, anymore than Shakespeare's Richard II can. While not historically accurate, it's subject - human nature, the huiman condition - is very accurate!
Perhaps the same can be said of the Genesis. While not historically accurate, it's subject - spirituality - may be very accurate. In this sense Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden, could be an explanation of the growth of consciousness, and dawn of self-awareness, by a visionary. Certainly, the idea of taking a bite from the apple from the tree of knowledge of good and evil strikes me as being allegorical in meaning. It seems to be a description of innocence enjoyed because of the absence of self-awareness, being followed by loss of that innocence as self-awareness develops along with thoughts and ideas, which we then take as reality, as symbolised by the concepts of good and evil.
It is pretty much a description of the psyhological state of modern man.
Just to get back to the Einstein / Bohr situation, I think it could be an important example as to how our knowledge may reach natural barriers, that things may be beyond our knowledge or undertstanding, and we just have to accept them.
The fact that Einstein wanted to understand something that was not understandable was the final nail in the coffin of Aristotle's way of thinking - that the Universe can be thought through. It can't ( or at least it appears that it can't).
The fact that Einstein wanted to understand something that was not understandable was the final nail in the coffin of Aristotle's way of thinking - that the Universe can be thought through. It can't ( or at least it appears that it can't).
I think self awareness started not with religion but with maths, science etc in ancient Greece
the bible was generally written in the 4th and 5th century and I thnk was heavily censored by those in charge throwing out and quashing other texts I think there was one called the agnostic text.
the bible was generally written in the 4th and 5th century and I thnk was heavily censored by those in charge throwing out and quashing other texts I think there was one called the agnostic text.
It comes long before maths or science. Maths and science is made of later concepts, when we begin to analyse. It comes before religion too, but perhaps religious visonaries were the first to try to express it?
Anyway, self-awareness means that you have a concept of yourself as a separate object or thing in a world/universe. In the biological terms this comes about when the self-reflective mechanism is sufficiently developed to allow it. This arose during the evolution of our species. It also recurrs after every birth, during the growth of the baby (they say at about 1 to 1.5 years old).
The primary concept of self-awareness is expressed by the "I", which is a result of the thought/sense/feeling of separate being.
Anyway, self-awareness means that you have a concept of yourself as a separate object or thing in a world/universe. In the biological terms this comes about when the self-reflective mechanism is sufficiently developed to allow it. This arose during the evolution of our species. It also recurrs after every birth, during the growth of the baby (they say at about 1 to 1.5 years old).
The primary concept of self-awareness is expressed by the "I", which is a result of the thought/sense/feeling of separate being.
so it was more like when our species bigger brain developed if you think about it it must be before language to having language meant you can think and share you ideas with your friends and they under stand by having the same language
so it was more like when our species bigger brain developedYes!
if you think about it it must be before languageProbably
having language meant you can think and share you ideas with your friends and they under stand by having the same languageAgreed.
@Jason 210
I was just trying to say that what causes particles to behave the way they do (i.e. quantum mechanics, or QED) does not have to be comprehensible.
Of course not. As you point out there are many religions. But, this question started with the truth of the bible, so I'm trying to stick with Christianity.
What do you mean by "underlying physics"?
I was just trying to say that what causes particles to behave the way they do (i.e. quantum mechanics, or QED) does not have to be comprehensible.
But do we really have to accept this?
Of course not. As you point out there are many religions. But, this question started with the truth of the bible, so I'm trying to stick with Christianity.
I think the bible and other religious tomes are all the same miss truth I have yet to be convinced by things like the rebirth of Christ. The role played by Mary Madeleine for instance was actually quashed by religious leaders when the bible was being written according to a program I watched on TV the other night the ancient - x files Meaning the bible was actually censored how can that lead to anything true. Have you ever seen redacted documents ?
"Nobody who understands evolution claims that life is random. Instead, it is random mutations that are directed by selection (natural or sexual) ."
The crazy thing about so called natural selection is "who does the selecting?" Evolutionist, grasping for an alternative explanation, other than God, so as to not be accountable to a Creator, come up with some very strange ideas. If something selects, then it is an act of intelligence to do so. Where did that intelligence come from? I understand the sexual is the choice of at least one human--if human sexuality.
The crazy thing about so called natural selection is "who does the selecting?" Evolutionist, grasping for an alternative explanation, other than God, so as to not be accountable to a Creator, come up with some very strange ideas. If something selects, then it is an act of intelligence to do so. Where did that intelligence come from? I understand the sexual is the choice of at least one human--if human sexuality.
There are a lot of "programs" out there that are bold faced lies that attempt to discredit the Bible. There is no other book in the world that has so many copies of the manuscript that vary so little in content. That alone is a miracle. If you have ever played the game "gossip" where you whisper a story a person sitting in a big circle and they tell the next and so forth, by the time it gets back around it is usually nothing like the original. With the Bible, this is not the case. There are minute grammatical errors at times, but nothing that significantly alters the meaning. That is from many text, including the "Dead Sea Scrolls" over various periods. This is because, being the word of God, the Living God is watching over it to make sure a faithful copy endures.
The Bible is obviously NOT censored. What other people do you know that include all of their dirty laundry in their history. God didn't leave out much in the Bible. We see King David's flaws. He committed adultery because of a momentary fall to the sin of lust, had sex with a war hero's wife (one of his own army). Then he tried to get that man drunk and to go home and sleep with his wife so he'd think it was his child. That didn't work so he sent sealed orders, via that very man, to the war campaign commander, instructing him to withdraw from Uriah when the battle was fierce, i.e. he had him murdered. God didn't cover this up. Humans writing history would have censored this and left it out. BTW, King David's life was filled with grief after this and from events in his own household.
How about Peter. He goofed on several occasions, including denying that he even knew Christ three times! A person censoring, would have removed this fact to make Peter look better--especially the Catholics who consider him the first Pope. I don't hold to that teaching, but you must consider that they would have tried to censor it if allowed. Now the Catholic church did try to keep ordinary people in the dark--during the dark ages by not allowing Bibles in their own languages. However, as usual, God raised someone to get the Bible in their hands in an accurate translation--Wycliffe for one.
How about Lot's two daughters getting their Dad drunk, having sex with him because they thought they had to, to continue the species? How about Abraham telling half-truths, aka lies twice about his wife Sarah to save his own neck? How about Judah unknowingly sleeping with his daugther-in-law who was dressed as a temple prostitute? These are not things that PEOPLE normally tell. The list is almost endless. God included these in His book on purpose to show that He can use fallen people with all of their problems and still makes something of their lives. Peter became "The Rock"--one of the greatest leaders of the church, after he was reinstated.
If we didn't have these failures recorded we'd think they were super humans and that what they had and did would be unattainable to humans like us that make mistakes frequently.
The Bible is obviously NOT censored. What other people do you know that include all of their dirty laundry in their history. God didn't leave out much in the Bible. We see King David's flaws. He committed adultery because of a momentary fall to the sin of lust, had sex with a war hero's wife (one of his own army). Then he tried to get that man drunk and to go home and sleep with his wife so he'd think it was his child. That didn't work so he sent sealed orders, via that very man, to the war campaign commander, instructing him to withdraw from Uriah when the battle was fierce, i.e. he had him murdered. God didn't cover this up. Humans writing history would have censored this and left it out. BTW, King David's life was filled with grief after this and from events in his own household.
How about Peter. He goofed on several occasions, including denying that he even knew Christ three times! A person censoring, would have removed this fact to make Peter look better--especially the Catholics who consider him the first Pope. I don't hold to that teaching, but you must consider that they would have tried to censor it if allowed. Now the Catholic church did try to keep ordinary people in the dark--during the dark ages by not allowing Bibles in their own languages. However, as usual, God raised someone to get the Bible in their hands in an accurate translation--Wycliffe for one.
How about Lot's two daughters getting their Dad drunk, having sex with him because they thought they had to, to continue the species? How about Abraham telling half-truths, aka lies twice about his wife Sarah to save his own neck? How about Judah unknowingly sleeping with his daugther-in-law who was dressed as a temple prostitute? These are not things that PEOPLE normally tell. The list is almost endless. God included these in His book on purpose to show that He can use fallen people with all of their problems and still makes something of their lives. Peter became "The Rock"--one of the greatest leaders of the church, after he was reinstated.
If we didn't have these failures recorded we'd think they were super humans and that what they had and did would be unattainable to humans like us that make mistakes frequently.
So god wrote the bible did he like I have stated if that was true he must have known about gravity to build the world so wouldn't there be something about that in the bible. He made Adam well thats not true Adam was a modern human and we come from a very long line of our ancestors in our hominid genus, Neanderthal and denisovans etc. Also he made woman from Adams rib rubbish so Adam must have been the first man and that's not true.
We know now that the world was not made by anyone it was created when our galaxy was about 5 billion years ago.
The crazy thing about so called natural selection is "who does the selecting? the answer is no one the alternative is survival of the fittest. As our brains where bigger than our predecessors that was the difference we could do more due to our larger thinking capacity
We know now that the world was not made by anyone it was created when our galaxy was about 5 billion years ago.
The crazy thing about so called natural selection is "who does the selecting? the answer is no one the alternative is survival of the fittest. As our brains where bigger than our predecessors that was the difference we could do more due to our larger thinking capacity
The crazy thing about so called natural selection is "who does the selecting?" Evolutionist, grasping for an alternative explanation, other than God, so as to not be accountable to a Creator, come up with some very strange ideas. If something selects, then it is an act of intelligence to do so. Where did that intelligence come from? I understand the sexual is the choice of at least one human--if human sexuality.So do you go along with the scientific view of evolution, fitting God into the "gaps" that science cannot explain, rather than accept genesis as an empirical description of what actually happened? THis is what I understand you to be saying here.
I don't believe god has anything to do with anything I don't think he existed. I think Jesus was just a normal man nothing divine I don't believe he was resurrected. I mean the dead sea scrolls don't even mention Jesus or any disciple do they so they would have been censored as well
ASKER
Ian, I will give you my tip regarding your entire question mark: „if the beginning is not true then nothing can be true as long as is built on it“.
You will be amazed.
What you call “the beginning” it is not the beginning.
The story of Moses is not the beginning.
And something else more interesting than you think: the first pages from Bible are not the beginning of the story.
The entire story is so “fantastic” that is no wonder that is hard to be believed by people which accept only what “they” can prove.
The beginning of the story starts somewhere in the middle of the Bible.
Star Wars was inspired by the same ideas and structure.
The story starts before human beings were created.
God created an order of beings (before humans) who rebelled against God.
For some good reasons God did not destroyed them. Instead He created Earth and us.
And the justice will be done in the right way.
First order of beings had no capacity to procreate. We do.
From this point of view we are more like God.
Those first beings are spiritual beings. One third of them rebelled and they were thrown on Earth, among us, but we do not see them unless we access the spiritual world. If you want is parallel world with us here on Earth.
Their plan is to destroy us, to destroy the creature of God by influencing/making us to not have the initial character designed by God for us, by trying in any way to force us to be against God, up to the point of denying Him.
The story is interesting and is written in the Bible and everything in the Bible relates with that.
When we speak about us as beginning, is not Adam and Eve. Is first the Light, the Son of God.
Was a plan well established from beginning in case something goes wrong with the second order of beings – us, in case we repeat the initial mistake done by first order of beings.
That’s why Jesus came and is named Savior. Because of the initial fight in Heavens.
The 3rd part of celestial beings who rebelled will go into prison, an eternal prison where the beings are tormented for their actions and decisions – the rebellion against God. And a good part of human beings will go with them.
Will be an end war. That is called Armageddon.
When you speak about beginning then take Christ as beginning of all things. Study Him. Then comes the rest.
People speak usually about God. From various religions point of view. Some cannot define God clear, some other make all kind of images and symbols.
Then, if God exists, how is God? Who is right?
Are as many images of God as many religions?
For our minds yes, but no true. There is only one true.
I describe now in poor words how is the God from Bible:
- He is a being, is not an impersonal force, a matrix of all things. He is with intelligence.
- He is Light, a strong Light. His Light is so strong that we cannot see Him and live.
- He is the Creator and Destroyer of the worlds and of the beings.
- He is just, right. He has feelings, especially love, but not only.
- He is Holy – and that implies a lot of things.
- He is beyond time, has no beginning and no end. He is the beginning and the end.
- He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
- ….
We are called to be with God in the new worlds created by Him for us, after the war is over.
You will be amazed.
What you call “the beginning” it is not the beginning.
The story of Moses is not the beginning.
And something else more interesting than you think: the first pages from Bible are not the beginning of the story.
The entire story is so “fantastic” that is no wonder that is hard to be believed by people which accept only what “they” can prove.
The beginning of the story starts somewhere in the middle of the Bible.
Star Wars was inspired by the same ideas and structure.
The story starts before human beings were created.
God created an order of beings (before humans) who rebelled against God.
For some good reasons God did not destroyed them. Instead He created Earth and us.
And the justice will be done in the right way.
First order of beings had no capacity to procreate. We do.
From this point of view we are more like God.
Those first beings are spiritual beings. One third of them rebelled and they were thrown on Earth, among us, but we do not see them unless we access the spiritual world. If you want is parallel world with us here on Earth.
Their plan is to destroy us, to destroy the creature of God by influencing/making us to not have the initial character designed by God for us, by trying in any way to force us to be against God, up to the point of denying Him.
The story is interesting and is written in the Bible and everything in the Bible relates with that.
When we speak about us as beginning, is not Adam and Eve. Is first the Light, the Son of God.
Was a plan well established from beginning in case something goes wrong with the second order of beings – us, in case we repeat the initial mistake done by first order of beings.
That’s why Jesus came and is named Savior. Because of the initial fight in Heavens.
The 3rd part of celestial beings who rebelled will go into prison, an eternal prison where the beings are tormented for their actions and decisions – the rebellion against God. And a good part of human beings will go with them.
Will be an end war. That is called Armageddon.
When you speak about beginning then take Christ as beginning of all things. Study Him. Then comes the rest.
People speak usually about God. From various religions point of view. Some cannot define God clear, some other make all kind of images and symbols.
Then, if God exists, how is God? Who is right?
Are as many images of God as many religions?
For our minds yes, but no true. There is only one true.
I describe now in poor words how is the God from Bible:
- He is a being, is not an impersonal force, a matrix of all things. He is with intelligence.
- He is Light, a strong Light. His Light is so strong that we cannot see Him and live.
- He is the Creator and Destroyer of the worlds and of the beings.
- He is just, right. He has feelings, especially love, but not only.
- He is Holy – and that implies a lot of things.
- He is beyond time, has no beginning and no end. He is the beginning and the end.
- He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
- ….
We are called to be with God in the new worlds created by Him for us, after the war is over.
ASKER
Ian,
You are not the only one who does not believe God exists or Jesus is a legend.
That does not change anything. It just makes you to rally on one side with a specific point of view.
I met enough people who changed their point of view becoming believers. Sometimes was hard.
I learned these things:
“The truth is not known unless is revealed.” The truth is revealed by God.
“If you are not called then you are not among the believers.” The call is from God.
Is nothing that we can do except pray. Praying is a “tool” to intercede for the non-believers.
We cannot force God in any way.
You could also take it logical up to a certain point:
- If God exists and is the way how is described, the what chances do you have to prove His existence through your means of knowledge and discovery defined by the science?
- You cannot.
- If you are a believer and God does not exist then you lose nothing when you die here on Earth. If are a non-believer and God exists then you lose everything when you die.
- Then how to believe? Based on what? You need something to convince you. And that is valid for everyone.
- There are few steps: first you need to be very serious. Second: you have to really want to find the right proof which works for you. Third: you have to try God. Ask Him.
- Start with beginning, that is Jesus. Study His life and the information sent by God through Him to us.
You are not the only one who does not believe God exists or Jesus is a legend.
That does not change anything. It just makes you to rally on one side with a specific point of view.
I met enough people who changed their point of view becoming believers. Sometimes was hard.
I learned these things:
“The truth is not known unless is revealed.” The truth is revealed by God.
“If you are not called then you are not among the believers.” The call is from God.
Is nothing that we can do except pray. Praying is a “tool” to intercede for the non-believers.
We cannot force God in any way.
You could also take it logical up to a certain point:
- If God exists and is the way how is described, the what chances do you have to prove His existence through your means of knowledge and discovery defined by the science?
- You cannot.
- If you are a believer and God does not exist then you lose nothing when you die here on Earth. If are a non-believer and God exists then you lose everything when you die.
- Then how to believe? Based on what? You need something to convince you. And that is valid for everyone.
- There are few steps: first you need to be very serious. Second: you have to really want to find the right proof which works for you. Third: you have to try God. Ask Him.
- Start with beginning, that is Jesus. Study His life and the information sent by God through Him to us.
"So god wrote the bible did he like I have stated if that was true he must have known about gravity to build the world so wouldn't there be something about that in the bible"
Gravity is a name that we have given to the consistency of God whereby we are held onto this planet. Yes he knows about it. He made it.
The Bible is not a book that has every detail of everything in it. It is a book to answer the basics and point you toward a personal relationship with Jesus Christ whyby you can know God and have forgiveness of sins and spend eternity with Him--forever learning about Him and what He has done. There, if anyone still cares--wrapped up in pleasure--all of our questions may be answered. So there is enough in the Bible to tell of origins--where did we come from? The fall of man--Why is the world in such a mess? God's working through history through the Jewish people to bring about the Messiah-Jesus. The new covenant God has with men based not on the works and merits of men but upon the perfect works and merit of His Son who took the punishment of men. So there is enough in there to let us know what God wanted to reveal to us, by inspiring men through His Spirit to write the books of the Bible.
Gravity is a name that we have given to the consistency of God whereby we are held onto this planet. Yes he knows about it. He made it.
The Bible is not a book that has every detail of everything in it. It is a book to answer the basics and point you toward a personal relationship with Jesus Christ whyby you can know God and have forgiveness of sins and spend eternity with Him--forever learning about Him and what He has done. There, if anyone still cares--wrapped up in pleasure--all of our questions may be answered. So there is enough in the Bible to tell of origins--where did we come from? The fall of man--Why is the world in such a mess? God's working through history through the Jewish people to bring about the Messiah-Jesus. The new covenant God has with men based not on the works and merits of men but upon the perfect works and merit of His Son who took the punishment of men. So there is enough in there to let us know what God wanted to reveal to us, by inspiring men through His Spirit to write the books of the Bible.
>So do you go along with the scientific view of evolution, fitting God into the "gaps" that >science cannot explain, rather than accept genesis as an empirical description of what >actually happened? THis is what I understand you to be saying here.
Genesis, tells in a simple way what actually happened. God, who is all powerful spoke, and in His word is the power to accomplish what He wants. When He spoke the world into existence it was a big bang allright. From nothing everything exploded into existence.
Genesis, tells in a simple way what actually happened. God, who is all powerful spoke, and in His word is the power to accomplish what He wants. When He spoke the world into existence it was a big bang allright. From nothing everything exploded into existence.
SStory
Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve are the beginning of us humans. An original man and woman, pretty much the same as we are now.
That is either an empirical truth, or not. What is your position?
Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve are the beginning of us humans. An original man and woman, pretty much the same as we are now.
That is either an empirical truth, or not. What is your position?
the world is in a mess sometimes because of religion but most because of man
So wouldn't god tell jesus by the way the universe has billions of other stars I made them all in a a click of my fingers so where did the background microwave radiation come from god - jesus hers how to build a telescope as its important for you to see my work !
God - Jesus tell your disciples I know how atoms work there are quarks and other stuff inside the atom. Jesus - god I don't understand what an atom is , god - jesus don't worry man will work it out in a few centuries after they have worked out how magnets work.
you see if god knew as he created everything don't you think he must have known about all the aspects of science and he couldn't help the us instead he used fire to destroy sodom whey didn't he just zap it or click his fingers to destroy Sodom all that god did this was using natural earthly forces fire, water pestilence, plague of locusts.
god - jesus tell your disciples the world is not flat its a sphere its important to know that if you drill over there you can find oil it will help you disciples to help the people to advance technology it will make life easier.
No all the technology was developed by man using his large brain with an ability to think how to do this and that
God - jesus tell your disciples to tell the people that we are made of the ashes of extinct supernova's all the chemicals where created this way as otherwise all that would exist is hydrogen and helium as thats what happens in the sun by the way our sun will die in about 5 biliion years
God - Jesus I am going to create a volcanic eruption to kill some roman's in 79 AD as its my right as they are going to kill you I am getting my own back
it doesn't work god doesn't help us in anyway if he cared why ?????
So wouldn't god tell jesus by the way the universe has billions of other stars I made them all in a a click of my fingers so where did the background microwave radiation come from god - jesus hers how to build a telescope as its important for you to see my work !
God - Jesus tell your disciples I know how atoms work there are quarks and other stuff inside the atom. Jesus - god I don't understand what an atom is , god - jesus don't worry man will work it out in a few centuries after they have worked out how magnets work.
you see if god knew as he created everything don't you think he must have known about all the aspects of science and he couldn't help the us instead he used fire to destroy sodom whey didn't he just zap it or click his fingers to destroy Sodom all that god did this was using natural earthly forces fire, water pestilence, plague of locusts.
god - jesus tell your disciples the world is not flat its a sphere its important to know that if you drill over there you can find oil it will help you disciples to help the people to advance technology it will make life easier.
No all the technology was developed by man using his large brain with an ability to think how to do this and that
God - jesus tell your disciples to tell the people that we are made of the ashes of extinct supernova's all the chemicals where created this way as otherwise all that would exist is hydrogen and helium as thats what happens in the sun by the way our sun will die in about 5 biliion years
God - Jesus I am going to create a volcanic eruption to kill some roman's in 79 AD as its my right as they are going to kill you I am getting my own back
it doesn't work god doesn't help us in anyway if he cared why ?????
Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve are the beginning of us humans. An original man and woman, pretty much the same as we are now.
not true the first humans where about 2-3 million years ago and nothing like us
for instance see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
If god made the earth as he made everything why did he make the dinosaurs
not true the first humans where about 2-3 million years ago and nothing like us
for instance see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
If god made the earth as he made everything why did he make the dinosaurs
ASKER
Many things of what we understand now seems to make sense from our scientific point of view.
For God is not like that. For Him our science is a crazy thing – this is how Bible said about us when we hit with the fists in our chest like monkeys for what we succeeded.
If we would just change our references for what is important in life, the scale of values, then everything would be different.
God comes to you and tells you:
- You cannot reach the Heavens through your science – that is crazy. It is not possible. Heavens do not mean sky.
- You do not have enough time, you have to hurry up – the world will have an end and you cannot do anything to survive using your knowledge and science. You have only one shot: to believe what I said as true. I send some messengers and even a Savior.
-
Then you come: c’mon, that’s a bed time story. Show me something to believe. Prove it to me.
People looked always for signs to believe, something specific for their times and knowledge.
About Jesus is written that He made many signs and miracles. And He said that He did them so they/we can believe.
Still they/we asked always, like now. And He told them/us that will be only one sign, the sign of Jonah.
How do you see the prophecies? I speak here about things clear said with hundreds- thousands of years before and happened.
They are like miracles, hard to believe at the time when are made known.
For instance the prophecy that Israel will become one nation again was made with thousands of years before.
There are many prophecies. Related with the one just mentioned is said that when Israel will become one nation again then we are close to the end of times. And specific for end of times is spiritual coldness. People will reject God.
Maybe is important to mention that not only Bible mention that. And spiritual coldness does not apply only to Bible but also for other religions.
I lived in the 4th most important Muslim city from the world. I have friends Muslims there and they told me the same: the people do not believe as before.
We may say that people woke up due to the science; they are not stupid anymore to accept all kind of lies put on their throats by the religious leaders or different religious books.
But in fact we fulfill a prophecy made long time ago.
You see, is always a way to see things from 2 different perspective, because we live in a dualistic world.
And we cannot be in a neutral position.
I heard people saying that they do not educate their children in any religion and they let them later to choose.
That is crap.
The children grow influenced any way. They are not in vacuum, somewhere far away, neutral.
The old wise teaching says: as you sow so shall you reap. What you put in his/her education when is young that will have effect later.
Give them science without God and you create atheistic people.
And is only a point of view, a reference, like the reflected light and things change 180 degree.
God does not need smart scientists. He needs beings of character, to trust them.
That is all.
We have to build our character. And that means to be like God in the same way as Jesus did.
The rest as knowledge, answers will come later, on top of it.
Just imagine: let’s say you have a family, wife, children, your house, your car, a good life, you like your job…and suddenly you lose them. Then you are so touched in your feelings that you see no more point in working at the job projects as before. Or you have an accident. Things may change. Then also our references and our understandings.
You will not see the same things in the same way after 40 years, because our universe is dynamic and we are subject of the change too.
For God is not like that. For Him our science is a crazy thing – this is how Bible said about us when we hit with the fists in our chest like monkeys for what we succeeded.
If we would just change our references for what is important in life, the scale of values, then everything would be different.
God comes to you and tells you:
- You cannot reach the Heavens through your science – that is crazy. It is not possible. Heavens do not mean sky.
- You do not have enough time, you have to hurry up – the world will have an end and you cannot do anything to survive using your knowledge and science. You have only one shot: to believe what I said as true. I send some messengers and even a Savior.
-
Then you come: c’mon, that’s a bed time story. Show me something to believe. Prove it to me.
People looked always for signs to believe, something specific for their times and knowledge.
About Jesus is written that He made many signs and miracles. And He said that He did them so they/we can believe.
Still they/we asked always, like now. And He told them/us that will be only one sign, the sign of Jonah.
How do you see the prophecies? I speak here about things clear said with hundreds- thousands of years before and happened.
They are like miracles, hard to believe at the time when are made known.
For instance the prophecy that Israel will become one nation again was made with thousands of years before.
There are many prophecies. Related with the one just mentioned is said that when Israel will become one nation again then we are close to the end of times. And specific for end of times is spiritual coldness. People will reject God.
Maybe is important to mention that not only Bible mention that. And spiritual coldness does not apply only to Bible but also for other religions.
I lived in the 4th most important Muslim city from the world. I have friends Muslims there and they told me the same: the people do not believe as before.
We may say that people woke up due to the science; they are not stupid anymore to accept all kind of lies put on their throats by the religious leaders or different religious books.
But in fact we fulfill a prophecy made long time ago.
You see, is always a way to see things from 2 different perspective, because we live in a dualistic world.
And we cannot be in a neutral position.
I heard people saying that they do not educate their children in any religion and they let them later to choose.
That is crap.
The children grow influenced any way. They are not in vacuum, somewhere far away, neutral.
The old wise teaching says: as you sow so shall you reap. What you put in his/her education when is young that will have effect later.
Give them science without God and you create atheistic people.
And is only a point of view, a reference, like the reflected light and things change 180 degree.
God does not need smart scientists. He needs beings of character, to trust them.
That is all.
We have to build our character. And that means to be like God in the same way as Jesus did.
The rest as knowledge, answers will come later, on top of it.
Just imagine: let’s say you have a family, wife, children, your house, your car, a good life, you like your job…and suddenly you lose them. Then you are so touched in your feelings that you see no more point in working at the job projects as before. Or you have an accident. Things may change. Then also our references and our understandings.
You will not see the same things in the same way after 40 years, because our universe is dynamic and we are subject of the change too.
40 years is a blip in the true sense of time our sun is 5 billion years old our universe is about 14-15 billion years old like I said 14-15 billion years ago the only chemical was hydrogen the rest was created by massive stars going supernova and creating the rest of the chemicals that everything is built from including us we are basically just like any animal on earth a carbon life form we are mostly water (h2o)
science is also dynamic finding new things all the time
science is also dynamic finding new things all the time
@SStory
Can I assume you believe that what science proves is correct, and you just want to change some terminology, as in "gravitation = the force of god"?
In that case, do you also believe in the literal truth of the bible? In other words, that the earth is about 6000 years old, that the flood wiped out all people except Noah's family, etc? Or do you mean that science is correct when it talks about a universe that's 13.7 billion years old, and that life started on earth almost 4 billion years ago?
Please tell us, as you can't have it both ways. Either science is correct or the bible is, but not both.
Gravity is a name that we have given to the consistency of God whereby we are held onto this planet.
Can I assume you believe that what science proves is correct, and you just want to change some terminology, as in "gravitation = the force of god"?
In that case, do you also believe in the literal truth of the bible? In other words, that the earth is about 6000 years old, that the flood wiped out all people except Noah's family, etc? Or do you mean that science is correct when it talks about a universe that's 13.7 billion years old, and that life started on earth almost 4 billion years ago?
Please tell us, as you can't have it both ways. Either science is correct or the bible is, but not both.
IanTh
@SStory
Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve are the beginning of us humans. An original man and woman, pretty much the same as we are now. That is either an empirical truth, or not. What is your position?
Well?
not true the first humans where about 2-3 million years ago and nothing like usI wasn't asking you I was asking Mr Story what his belief was. Try reading the entire post before you jump in. In fact, don't jump in. Here it is again for Mr Story. I think Hondt is also after the same thing:
@SStory
Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve are the beginning of us humans. An original man and woman, pretty much the same as we are now. That is either an empirical truth, or not. What is your position?
Well?
Viki200
So long as you don't push it, the child in a free society will decide for him/herself anyway. Only in societies where they are not free, so they know nothing else, do problems arise.
The old wise teaching says: as you sow so shall you reap. What you put in his/her education when is young that will have effect laterChildren have a way of turning out not as we expect. It's not like programming. If you try to "program" your child with your religion, you will reap the effects of having forced something on your child, which is likely to be a reaction of some kind.
So long as you don't push it, the child in a free society will decide for him/herself anyway. Only in societies where they are not free, so they know nothing else, do problems arise.
ASKER
What do you mean by free society? Not speaking about God means God does not exist for that person.
The child has anyway something inoculated in his/her environment.
Let's just take 2 examples:
1) One child raised in a strong Muslim environment
2) Another one in a west country where religion is not taught in schools.
What do you have after 30 years?
It is most likely the one from west, if has no basic knowledge from home about God, will not have anything to do with God, unless something happen in his/her life - as a experience which will change his/her way of viewing things.
How do you expect people to know God if they are not taught about God?
This is the chimera of our days, a true lie, we lie to ourselves:
- a "free" society in which schools have a "neutral" position about religion will generate an army of atheists. People who believe God does not exist based on their limited knowledge.
With what is that better than any other position?
There is no neutral position.
The child has anyway something inoculated in his/her environment.
Let's just take 2 examples:
1) One child raised in a strong Muslim environment
2) Another one in a west country where religion is not taught in schools.
What do you have after 30 years?
It is most likely the one from west, if has no basic knowledge from home about God, will not have anything to do with God, unless something happen in his/her life - as a experience which will change his/her way of viewing things.
How do you expect people to know God if they are not taught about God?
This is the chimera of our days, a true lie, we lie to ourselves:
- a "free" society in which schools have a "neutral" position about religion will generate an army of atheists. People who believe God does not exist based on their limited knowledge.
With what is that better than any other position?
There is no neutral position.
What do you mean by free society?A democratic one, like France, USA, Sweden, England. God exists in such a society because people are free to worship and talk about God there. There are books, plenty of sign posts.
Let's just take 2 examples:In the first case, a strong muslim environment is not a free one, so the child doesn't get a choice. Of course you can program a child like this - in extreme cases the result is Taliban.
1) One child raised in a strong Muslim environment
2) Another one in a west country where religion is not taught in schools.
ASKER
You are right about becoming Taliban, which shows children are programmable under certain conditions. And agree that they may change sometimes, even if they became Taliban.
A free society as one from west countries have a lot of information about God, but as long as nobody gives a direction to at least arouse curiosity then how they will go close to that information?
Lucky there are still people home to point in that direction, of searching God.
The society itself promote especially trough media another scale of values – far away from Bible teachings.
In this free society is a mixed info which for teenagers creates big confusions.
And most of them tend to choose what shines nicer, pointed by values of their environment through a daily repeated story similar with commercials on TV: science is our new God.
A free society as one from west countries have a lot of information about God, but as long as nobody gives a direction to at least arouse curiosity then how they will go close to that information?
Lucky there are still people home to point in that direction, of searching God.
The society itself promote especially trough media another scale of values – far away from Bible teachings.
In this free society is a mixed info which for teenagers creates big confusions.
And most of them tend to choose what shines nicer, pointed by values of their environment through a daily repeated story similar with commercials on TV: science is our new God.
ASKER
What I wanted to point out here is „the denial of the philosophy is still a philosophy“.
And that applies also to religion, science as tool in discovering the truth about reality, everything what we believe and has an impact over us, over our thinking system.
There is one thing in which I agree with Ian: the beginning has to be right, only that beginning is not how he expected to be from Bible point of view.
And that “beginning” is important in every aspect of our understandings.
In science we call the “beginning” with specific name as axioms.
And we do not prove them. We just believe them as true because in the dimensions of our reality they seem true during many observations sustained by long time periods.
If they change then entire structure may change.
And we work with models to explain the reality, which emulate it only on segments.
When the conditions in reality/universe will change dramatically then our models may be totally wrong because the initial axioms may be not true anymore.
This is one of the reasons why was promoted the idea that reality cannot be known. Beside that there is our independent, virtual projection of the world in our minds, which is not the same for all of us.
The results of science can lead us to a beautiful world or to auto destruction. Science is only a tool.
What makes the difference about our future is our spiritual life, our consciousness, how we use science.
The Bible is also a guide for us to have a good character, to know how to behave one each other.
Is called the letter from God to us.
The Bible tells us about our future which cannot be discovered with the investigation means accessible to our dimensions.
It has warnings about what reality is, how it started and the end of it.
Science is good for our life time but the changes in the universe makes science powerless. And is not because we are not smart or whatever…is about something extremely “fantastic”: the other dimensions, the other worlds, spiritual worlds, which have effects over our world.
Arnold in Terminator 2 just copied, paraphrased Jesus: I'll be back.
And that applies also to religion, science as tool in discovering the truth about reality, everything what we believe and has an impact over us, over our thinking system.
There is one thing in which I agree with Ian: the beginning has to be right, only that beginning is not how he expected to be from Bible point of view.
And that “beginning” is important in every aspect of our understandings.
In science we call the “beginning” with specific name as axioms.
And we do not prove them. We just believe them as true because in the dimensions of our reality they seem true during many observations sustained by long time periods.
If they change then entire structure may change.
And we work with models to explain the reality, which emulate it only on segments.
When the conditions in reality/universe will change dramatically then our models may be totally wrong because the initial axioms may be not true anymore.
This is one of the reasons why was promoted the idea that reality cannot be known. Beside that there is our independent, virtual projection of the world in our minds, which is not the same for all of us.
The results of science can lead us to a beautiful world or to auto destruction. Science is only a tool.
What makes the difference about our future is our spiritual life, our consciousness, how we use science.
The Bible is also a guide for us to have a good character, to know how to behave one each other.
Is called the letter from God to us.
The Bible tells us about our future which cannot be discovered with the investigation means accessible to our dimensions.
It has warnings about what reality is, how it started and the end of it.
Science is good for our life time but the changes in the universe makes science powerless. And is not because we are not smart or whatever…is about something extremely “fantastic”: the other dimensions, the other worlds, spiritual worlds, which have effects over our world.
Arnold in Terminator 2 just copied, paraphrased Jesus: I'll be back.
ASKER
During times people have always looked to find the truth about reality.
They named it in various ways as “Philosopher's Stone”, “Holy Grail”….today we call it “Unified Field Theory”.
Pilate’s question was: “What is the truth?”
The question is profound because hides meaning as: the ultimate eternal knowledge which does not change.
Jesus did not answer him at that question because knew that Pilate cannot understand and accept what truth is.
With other occasions Jesus said:” I am the way the truth and the life.”
http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/27-What-Is-Truth.pdf
Why we search? Why we have that curiosity and that need?
Bible says that God put in man the thought of immortality.
In Eden beside the tree of knowledge of right and wrong there was one more important tree: the tree of life, of immortality. God chased out Adam and Eve from Eden and guarded that tree so we cannot become like God, immortals.
They named it in various ways as “Philosopher's Stone”, “Holy Grail”….today we call it “Unified Field Theory”.
Pilate’s question was: “What is the truth?”
The question is profound because hides meaning as: the ultimate eternal knowledge which does not change.
Jesus did not answer him at that question because knew that Pilate cannot understand and accept what truth is.
With other occasions Jesus said:” I am the way the truth and the life.”
http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/27-What-Is-Truth.pdf
Why we search? Why we have that curiosity and that need?
Bible says that God put in man the thought of immortality.
In Eden beside the tree of knowledge of right and wrong there was one more important tree: the tree of life, of immortality. God chased out Adam and Eve from Eden and guarded that tree so we cannot become like God, immortals.
ASKER
We speak here about Bible and Jesus among other things.
The way how Jesus is described in Bible, His life indicate that He has special power provided by God in doing all those special things.
Then came a time for Him when was tempted by Lucifer.
They met each other and, perhaps surprisingly, they did not fight like in Star Wars with supernatural powers, lightings and thunders. And I believe they could have done that.
Satan comes with whispers and words, promises of temptations.
And how Jesus fights back?
By quoting verses from Scripture, the eternal Word of God given in Old Testament.
Even Lucifer tries that, of course twisting the truth, making the references of such nature that the result to be favorable to him.
This is how the fought.
How do you fight back when evil comes with a “nice temptation”, which slowly surrounds you as a thin thread with small daily compromises which in the end lead to a character not acceptable by God?
That is another good reason why you have to know the word of God, the words of life.
But let me guess: there is no sin, no God, no Lucifer, no Jesus.
Well for a Christian is a nonsense to let the children untrained for spiritual fight. You cannot let them in a “neutral” state – which in fact does not exists – and they will choose later their proper spiritual influenced by what or who? And until then what do they do if everything is real as God, Jesus, Lucifer and sin exist?
The way how Jesus is described in Bible, His life indicate that He has special power provided by God in doing all those special things.
Then came a time for Him when was tempted by Lucifer.
They met each other and, perhaps surprisingly, they did not fight like in Star Wars with supernatural powers, lightings and thunders. And I believe they could have done that.
Satan comes with whispers and words, promises of temptations.
And how Jesus fights back?
By quoting verses from Scripture, the eternal Word of God given in Old Testament.
Even Lucifer tries that, of course twisting the truth, making the references of such nature that the result to be favorable to him.
This is how the fought.
How do you fight back when evil comes with a “nice temptation”, which slowly surrounds you as a thin thread with small daily compromises which in the end lead to a character not acceptable by God?
That is another good reason why you have to know the word of God, the words of life.
But let me guess: there is no sin, no God, no Lucifer, no Jesus.
Well for a Christian is a nonsense to let the children untrained for spiritual fight. You cannot let them in a “neutral” state – which in fact does not exists – and they will choose later their proper spiritual influenced by what or who? And until then what do they do if everything is real as God, Jesus, Lucifer and sin exist?
In this free society is a mixed info which for teenagers creates big confusions.That doesn't mean we have to force religion on them. It won't work anyway, unless as I said, we are in a extreme society where they have no choice. Would you want that?
And most of them tend to choose what shines nicer, pointed by values of their environment through a daily repeated story similar with commercials on TV: science is our new God.
The important thing in bringing up children is love, that you are there for them, and that you give them time, and that you let them play. They will learn from you. If you are a spiritual person, then it will rub off.
ASKER
Not teaching religion in schools belongs only to our days. That is a sign of the times.
Before, children were taught in schools and nobody was afraid or against it. Was natural. Is true many did not pay attention, but they had a background.
We are afraid because we have seen too many bad things happened in the past due to religious conflicts. And many religious leaders misslead people, they were not clean. And I can understand that.
And beside with so many nations, cultures, immigrants in one country is quite clear why the state does not want to offend one group or another. People lost their spiritual personality. They are afraid to say “Merry Christmas”.
But when is coming to find the truth – many claim to have it – then how would somebody proceed alone as adult to search in the multitude of the religions today? Which one is the right one?
On the other hand, home, in family, friends, neighbors are believers and society around you will influence you.
How could you be Hindu or Muslim if all your life live between Christians?
The same applies for atheist people, or people without religious education. They have no spiritual authority as reference.
In the end is a personal spiritual fight. And when you are serious you find the answers.
Before, children were taught in schools and nobody was afraid or against it. Was natural. Is true many did not pay attention, but they had a background.
We are afraid because we have seen too many bad things happened in the past due to religious conflicts. And many religious leaders misslead people, they were not clean. And I can understand that.
And beside with so many nations, cultures, immigrants in one country is quite clear why the state does not want to offend one group or another. People lost their spiritual personality. They are afraid to say “Merry Christmas”.
But when is coming to find the truth – many claim to have it – then how would somebody proceed alone as adult to search in the multitude of the religions today? Which one is the right one?
On the other hand, home, in family, friends, neighbors are believers and society around you will influence you.
How could you be Hindu or Muslim if all your life live between Christians?
The same applies for atheist people, or people without religious education. They have no spiritual authority as reference.
In the end is a personal spiritual fight. And when you are serious you find the answers.
ASKER
Bible says that now the spiritual ruler of our world is Lucifer. He still has some time remained. The same for us.
He achieved what he wanted: the creature to deny the existence of Creator and many children to remain not taught, not trained for spiritual life.
At your question: if I want to have children forced in schools to learn religion, the answer is: it does not matter what I want, there is no chance for that now, too late, unless is a special school or a specific country.
The religion in school would be a problem now with so many religions and nations in one country. Which religion? And what, how deep to teach from it?
In countries with one nation, one culture, one language and one religion was/is not a problem like that. Because here is not so much about the conflict between science and religion (there are /were scientist believers), is about cultures, nations, histories. And people want to avoid the conflict.
I do not believe into true “ecumenism”, except a formal one.
I think in the end the conflict will come out at the surface, because the pressure from spiritual world has to pop-up through the weak ones.
He achieved what he wanted: the creature to deny the existence of Creator and many children to remain not taught, not trained for spiritual life.
At your question: if I want to have children forced in schools to learn religion, the answer is: it does not matter what I want, there is no chance for that now, too late, unless is a special school or a specific country.
The religion in school would be a problem now with so many religions and nations in one country. Which religion? And what, how deep to teach from it?
In countries with one nation, one culture, one language and one religion was/is not a problem like that. Because here is not so much about the conflict between science and religion (there are /were scientist believers), is about cultures, nations, histories. And people want to avoid the conflict.
I do not believe into true “ecumenism”, except a formal one.
I think in the end the conflict will come out at the surface, because the pressure from spiritual world has to pop-up through the weak ones.
ASKER
Why many people after clinical death experience become believers?
People start to believe that spiritual world exists.
They claim after that experience which they had that reality perceived during death is so real as the present world.
I am not saying here that is true NDE or is just a brain chemical experience – we discussed that a lot before – but are people revived after few hours or even days (rare situations) which they said that time was different for them during that experience.
Ian, do you think now that you would change your view if you would have such experience, not necessarily NDE, but something of such nature, magnitude?
Regarding the spiritual world and interaction with our world, the Bible warn us to not practice certain things which will open doors between our world and the spiritual world. Today we name them paranormal activities, which are still subject of investigations. Did you read about these things?
The Asian teachings speaks about the spiritual force inside us. There were experiences done to understand that force promoted for instance in martial arts. Is not only agility and mussels power.
Life is more than lab science, no matter how big is the lab.
The spiritual world cannot be seen, accessed directly by the common people, but we can see the effects in our lifes. And that should give some questions marks for us.
People start to believe that spiritual world exists.
They claim after that experience which they had that reality perceived during death is so real as the present world.
I am not saying here that is true NDE or is just a brain chemical experience – we discussed that a lot before – but are people revived after few hours or even days (rare situations) which they said that time was different for them during that experience.
Ian, do you think now that you would change your view if you would have such experience, not necessarily NDE, but something of such nature, magnitude?
Regarding the spiritual world and interaction with our world, the Bible warn us to not practice certain things which will open doors between our world and the spiritual world. Today we name them paranormal activities, which are still subject of investigations. Did you read about these things?
The Asian teachings speaks about the spiritual force inside us. There were experiences done to understand that force promoted for instance in martial arts. Is not only agility and mussels power.
Life is more than lab science, no matter how big is the lab.
The spiritual world cannot be seen, accessed directly by the common people, but we can see the effects in our lifes. And that should give some questions marks for us.
my view of religion will never change I think its very divisive and I still stand by my comments that genesis is a miss truth so my belief in the rest is also a miss truth
I will never believe the exodus happened and if that didn't happen how did the ten commandments happen. I believe moses didn't exist
Also the flood was not global dna proves all the humans on earth are not descended from noah and his wife
So I will not change my view that religion is a way to control people and I prefer free thinking instead of indoctrinated by religions teachings I prefer to think that science is my religion
I will never believe the exodus happened and if that didn't happen how did the ten commandments happen. I believe moses didn't exist
Also the flood was not global dna proves all the humans on earth are not descended from noah and his wife
So I will not change my view that religion is a way to control people and I prefer free thinking instead of indoctrinated by religions teachings I prefer to think that science is my religion
ASKER
Wait and see.
Life is full of surprises.
Life is full of surprises.
Not teaching religion in schools belongs only to our days. That is a sign of the times.We teach religious studies in schools, where not one but many religions are taught, in an objective sense. That is really the only way you can do it in a free, multi-cultural school in a multi-cultural society.
Before, children were taught in schools and nobody was afraid or against it. Was natural. Is true many did not pay attention, but they had a background.
You are all for your own religion, Christianity. You want to push it on your children, but what about other religions? Should they not also have the right to do what you want to do? And in a multi-cultural society, why favour one religion and not another? Fine for you if the state chooses your religion, but what if your child had to study Islam? How would you feel?
What you are striving for is an environment for your child that is free of every other religion than Christianity...
ASKER
That's why Christians who bring their children to Church have "Sunday School" lessons for children about God from Bible.
If the Bible is true and Jesus is who is said to be in the Bible then religious studies about all religions make sense only as general introduction, but not to form you as Christ follower.
If the Bible is true and Jesus is who is said to be in the Bible then religious studies about all religions make sense only as general introduction, but not to form you as Christ follower.
If the Bible is true
That's the question we started with, isn't it? Until that question is resolved, I don't see how you can push christianity onto other people. It's just as likely that Islam or Buddhism are correct, in which case you are forcing children into the wrong religion, and at least in the case of Islam, condemning them to hell.
And when I say "it's just as likely", I mean that there is zero probability that a literal interpretation of the bible (or the koran) is correct. Science has not (and can never) rule out that there is not some "god" who initiated the universe, but that is very far removed from anything taught in any religion.
Until someone can come up with some real evidence for the truth of the bible, it cannot be more than a set of mythical stories. Note that even the story of Jesus is a myth: there is no evidence for his existence apart from the bible and other christian documents.
ASKER
Everyone enjoys the freedom of democracy and we wanted it so bad, so long time and now we want it to be like that forever.
From this perspective I can understand what Jason and hdhondt say.
Because in this “neutral” freedom state which people seems to have equal basic rights appear always 2 issues:
- Pushing one religion to all different people in a multicultural society implies automatic the restriction of freedom. And we do not want that.
- If would be to do it, then which religion is better than other? And based on what?
Well, here are serious implications.
We are now in the stage of: if you want to worship then do it in your way in your reserved/dedicated place/community.
But then there are groups and differences/tensions between them. And will always be because the basis of the believe is different. Some ideas are common, but the way how you live and the motivations behind are different.
I think the main problem here is this one:
- We want freedom and democracy; to do what we want, what we consider better for ourselves.
- God from Bible does not proclaim a democracy. Is a monarchy, but with a nice relations as Father to His children, based on love.
There is next issue: if one of the religions is true then other are wrong and even more: the democratic freedom in which we do what we want is wrong. Because the multitude of options push out the real truth. And because of that, because people do not know how to deal with this matter they choose to believe there is no real truth, everything is relative and in the end there is no God.
That is the dilemma of a dualistic world where freedom is the law and the truth is only one.
The dilemma is solved when we do not consider ourselves outside, neutrals and rulers dictating the position of God in society. Because this is what we do: we tell God where to stay. We just repeat the initial mistake of “degodding” God.
What does it mean wrong and true here?
Most of religions speak about soul as immortal and world as a “perishable” place which is under the change having beginning and an end.
What will remain is God, outside of the time and world created. He is the ultimate truth, source of knowledge, energy and life, unchangeable. Everything out of that is wrong and not true.
People do not want God. And that is not new. In the Old Testament is a story similar:
- It came a moment when Jews said to the prophet: how come God speaks only to you? We do not believe you anymore, we do not want to listen to you. He may speak also to us if He wants. We want Him to speak to all of us….
- And He did.
- The event of God showing up and speaking directly to the people had so big impact over the Jews that they said: from now on we promise that we listen the prophets. Please do not speak with us directly anymore.
- They were frightened deeply.
- They said the same: live us alone, us and our children, the future generations. Crying for that.
- And He did.
- And today, after so long time we say He is not more.
Look what Jesus said in John 12:
“37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
42 Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved human praise more than praise from God.
44 Then Jesus cried out, “Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me. 46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
47 “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. 49 For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. 50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”
From this perspective I can understand what Jason and hdhondt say.
Because in this “neutral” freedom state which people seems to have equal basic rights appear always 2 issues:
- Pushing one religion to all different people in a multicultural society implies automatic the restriction of freedom. And we do not want that.
- If would be to do it, then which religion is better than other? And based on what?
Well, here are serious implications.
We are now in the stage of: if you want to worship then do it in your way in your reserved/dedicated place/community.
But then there are groups and differences/tensions between them. And will always be because the basis of the believe is different. Some ideas are common, but the way how you live and the motivations behind are different.
I think the main problem here is this one:
- We want freedom and democracy; to do what we want, what we consider better for ourselves.
- God from Bible does not proclaim a democracy. Is a monarchy, but with a nice relations as Father to His children, based on love.
There is next issue: if one of the religions is true then other are wrong and even more: the democratic freedom in which we do what we want is wrong. Because the multitude of options push out the real truth. And because of that, because people do not know how to deal with this matter they choose to believe there is no real truth, everything is relative and in the end there is no God.
That is the dilemma of a dualistic world where freedom is the law and the truth is only one.
The dilemma is solved when we do not consider ourselves outside, neutrals and rulers dictating the position of God in society. Because this is what we do: we tell God where to stay. We just repeat the initial mistake of “degodding” God.
What does it mean wrong and true here?
Most of religions speak about soul as immortal and world as a “perishable” place which is under the change having beginning and an end.
What will remain is God, outside of the time and world created. He is the ultimate truth, source of knowledge, energy and life, unchangeable. Everything out of that is wrong and not true.
People do not want God. And that is not new. In the Old Testament is a story similar:
- It came a moment when Jews said to the prophet: how come God speaks only to you? We do not believe you anymore, we do not want to listen to you. He may speak also to us if He wants. We want Him to speak to all of us….
- And He did.
- The event of God showing up and speaking directly to the people had so big impact over the Jews that they said: from now on we promise that we listen the prophets. Please do not speak with us directly anymore.
- They were frightened deeply.
- They said the same: live us alone, us and our children, the future generations. Crying for that.
- And He did.
- And today, after so long time we say He is not more.
Look what Jesus said in John 12:
“37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
42 Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved human praise more than praise from God.
44 Then Jesus cried out, “Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me. 46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
47 “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. 49 For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. 50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”
But then there are groups and differences/tensions between them. And will always be because the basis of the believe is different.
That's the real problem. No matter what you think about your religion, other people think differently. And unfortunately religion has probably been the major cause of friction between people, even more than race. I'm not singling out any religion here; while at present islam and hinduism may be the main offenders, in earlier times it was christianity.
On the other hand, science can accept everyone. Yes, you have to use the rules of science (i.e. produce models, usually mathematical ones, and test them against the real world) but if you do that, no scientist will stop you from joining the debate. And, if you don't play by the rules, the worst that will happen is that scientists will shun you. Unlike religion, they won't come and kill you for your belief.
Viki, you're using the words of the bible to prove your answer to the question: the bible must be true, because I like what it says. Unfortunately, you're picking the best bits. Why don't you include the parts where it allows slavery, or advocates "an eye for an eye", or where the prophet gives his virgin daughters to strangers so he can sleep in peace, or where god gets some children eaten by bears because the mocked his prophet? I could go on...
Where is your god in the modern world? He disappeared at least 13.7 billion years ago. Since then he has not done anything that cannot be explained better by science. By all means use the teachings of Jesus to guide you in your life, but you can just as well use Buddha's teachings. They're just as relevant and we have at least some evidence that Buddha really did exist.
ASKER
Is not only about teachings of the different wise men or prophets.
Is about who is alive now and who is coming back.
Christians expect Jesus to come back.
And the deeper side of the differences between wise teachings with moral values for individual and society and Christianity is the sacrifice of Jesus at the cross.
Without the fact the He died and is alive now and took the sins of the world upon Him, probably He would be as "good" as others.
That's the main difference.
Is about who is alive now and who is coming back.
Christians expect Jesus to come back.
And the deeper side of the differences between wise teachings with moral values for individual and society and Christianity is the sacrifice of Jesus at the cross.
Without the fact the He died and is alive now and took the sins of the world upon Him, probably He would be as "good" as others.
That's the main difference.
Jason210,
I believe the literal account of Genesis. "In the beginning God..." That means that God was here before anything else. How someone just exists, I have no idea. That is because I am human and have a beginning. He did not. Adam and Eve were just like us. The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. There was a literal flood of which many cultures have spoken.
Man and woman were created perfect, but given the freewill to choose to trust God, live dependent upon Him in every way--which meant acknowledging that He knows best, letting Him worry about evil with us remaining oblivious to it, trusting Him for all our provisions, believing that He is good and has our best interests at heart, etc.
Adam and Eve were deceived and tempted and chose to disobey God's one command to them (the test of loyalty) and in so doing they chose independence, to distrust God, to rebel against His rule, to believe the lie, to seek their own wisdom and provision by their own hands. What we know live in is the result of this. Obviously it was not a wise choice.
I'm sure they repented many times of having made it. God, in the garden promised Eve, who was deceived, that one day here Seed (singular and capitalized) would defeat the serpent, a.k.a. the devil. That Seed came in the person of Jesus Christ. The devil struck at His heal by the cross, the cruelty the religious leaders and government officials of the day, but He arose from the grave on the third day and changed history forever. And thus He crushed the head of the Devil. Like a snake with a crushed head's tail still wags a while. That is the condition the Devil is left in. He was spoiled and made a spectacle of by what God did through the cross to reconcile the people He loves to Himself. Jesus did it perfect, died for our guilt, not His and made the way back to a relationship with Father God--which is what all are looking for--even if they don't know it.
I believe the literal account of Genesis. "In the beginning God..." That means that God was here before anything else. How someone just exists, I have no idea. That is because I am human and have a beginning. He did not. Adam and Eve were just like us. The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. There was a literal flood of which many cultures have spoken.
Man and woman were created perfect, but given the freewill to choose to trust God, live dependent upon Him in every way--which meant acknowledging that He knows best, letting Him worry about evil with us remaining oblivious to it, trusting Him for all our provisions, believing that He is good and has our best interests at heart, etc.
Adam and Eve were deceived and tempted and chose to disobey God's one command to them (the test of loyalty) and in so doing they chose independence, to distrust God, to rebel against His rule, to believe the lie, to seek their own wisdom and provision by their own hands. What we know live in is the result of this. Obviously it was not a wise choice.
I'm sure they repented many times of having made it. God, in the garden promised Eve, who was deceived, that one day here Seed (singular and capitalized) would defeat the serpent, a.k.a. the devil. That Seed came in the person of Jesus Christ. The devil struck at His heal by the cross, the cruelty the religious leaders and government officials of the day, but He arose from the grave on the third day and changed history forever. And thus He crushed the head of the Devil. Like a snake with a crushed head's tail still wags a while. That is the condition the Devil is left in. He was spoiled and made a spectacle of by what God did through the cross to reconcile the people He loves to Himself. Jesus did it perfect, died for our guilt, not His and made the way back to a relationship with Father God--which is what all are looking for--even if they don't know it.
err
Adam and Eve were just like us. The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old
What a laugh!
Adam and Eve just like us ! What about all the previous ancient species of our genus? Out genus is several million years old. There are hundred of ancestors of homo sapien.
The world is 4.9 billion years old not 6000-10000. I mean the last ice age finished about 10000 years ago didn't it? If the world is 6000-10000 and the ice age was before that. After all our world is still recovering from the last ice age!
If god made the earth what about the rest of the universe there are billions of galaxies and in those billions of stars. Did he also create the black holes? I mean we could get totally wiped out by a coronal mass ejection heading our way did he design that. Or any of the dangerous different problem our tiny world could suffer. I mean the dinosaurs where around for hundreds of million of years humans have been round for about 2-3 million years and the dinosaurs got obliterated by a asteroid 65million years old if that didn't happen we wouldn't be here after all.
Adam and Eve were just like us. The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old
What a laugh!
Adam and Eve just like us ! What about all the previous ancient species of our genus? Out genus is several million years old. There are hundred of ancestors of homo sapien.
The world is 4.9 billion years old not 6000-10000. I mean the last ice age finished about 10000 years ago didn't it? If the world is 6000-10000 and the ice age was before that. After all our world is still recovering from the last ice age!
If god made the earth what about the rest of the universe there are billions of galaxies and in those billions of stars. Did he also create the black holes? I mean we could get totally wiped out by a coronal mass ejection heading our way did he design that. Or any of the dangerous different problem our tiny world could suffer. I mean the dinosaurs where around for hundreds of million of years humans have been round for about 2-3 million years and the dinosaurs got obliterated by a asteroid 65million years old if that didn't happen we wouldn't be here after all.
>Adam and Eve were just like us. The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old
>What a laugh!
We will see who has the last laugh in the end my friend, although I won't be laughing at your misfortune.
>Adam and Eve just like us ! What about all the previous ancient species of our genus? >Out genus is several million years old. There are hundred of ancestors of homo sapien.
You have no way to prove that. You weren't h ere 4 million years ago. Carbon dating is also a joke and the people doing this science have something to try to disprove before they ever started. Real science asks, who, when, what, where and how and accepts whatever the evidence leads too. However these people, rejecting the idea of a Creator to whom they'd have to give an account and because of whom they'd have to control their passions, sought some alternative way in which to try to explain the world. It is a very weak explanation to say the least.
>The world is 4.9 billion years old not 6000-10000. I mean the last ice age finished about >10000 years ago didn't it? If the world is 6000-10000 and the ice age was before that. >After all our world is still recovering from the last ice age!
How do we know that is true. What if God really did flood the Earth and as part of the way that He chose to remove that excess water, he froze some of it, which produced these large glaciers. Now man being finite and unable to explain things in another way, decided that things, if placed on the order of millions and millions of years could explain somethings. However, if I take the parts that make up a bicycle and place them in a box for 1000 billion years, they will never assemble to become a bicycle, will they?
>If god made the earth what about the rest of the universe there are billions of galaxies >and in those billions of stars. Did he also create the black holes?
Yes He did. There was a Big Bang. God spoke, and bang, all there is came into existence at a high speed. Scientists want to know what happened before that instant that universes exploded into existence from a single point. The Bible tells us that all of this something came out of nothing because the Almighty Creator spoke and the power of His word was enough to cause the creation of everything based upon His infinite power, might, and wisdom.
> I mean we could get totally wiped out by a coronal mass ejection heading our way did >he design that.
We haven't been wiped out have we? I wonder why? Why have none of these asteroids hit us? If we are as science would suggest, an accident without purpose, just waiting upon another accident to take us out, then why are we still here? Why do things stay constant? Why do you fall at a fixed rate? Why doesn't the earth alter its orbit and freeze or fry us? Why to a billion questions like that? Because an Intelligent, All Powerful Being is behind the scenes keeping it all together just like He designed it. Yes, there is some chaos in this world at present because of the rebellion of the original man and the rebellion of a Gardian Cherub (angel) named Lucifer who because the Devil, but that will soon all be removed and harmony will be restored and evil wiped out.
>dinosaurs where around for hundreds of million of years humans have been round for >about 2-3 million years and the dinosaurs got obliterated by a asteroid 65million years
Again, you can't prove the millions. You are also only speculating on the asteroid. What if they were created and here when Adam and Eve were here but were not allowed to go on the boat with Noah when the whole globe was under water to the highest mountain. Do you know what that much water would have done to them. They'd be buried in the dirt like we find them and one might try to explain that burial as an event that took millions and millions of years when in fact like pouring out a five gallon bucket of water into some small gravel makes wholes and buries things, so could it have been with the recession of the waters. BTW, there is evidence of a world wide flood, but it is ignored. Sea creatures are found on high mountains and canyon walls. Wonder how they got there. It wasn't evolution. They were in the flood when it was that high, and got stranded on dry ground as it went away and died there as proof.
There is plenty of evidence. There are also a lot of scientific theories now proclaimed as facts in order to explain away the Bible. The Bible is not a lie. In the end all mankind will be judged as books are opened. I believe one of those books will be the Bible.
The Bible told us of the deep trenches in the ocean before anyone could know of it and that the earth was round, when men still thought it flat and square and many other things that were impossible for anyone to know. Until recently no one could go to the Marianas trenches--for example--and certainly not 1000's of years ago.
>What a laugh!
We will see who has the last laugh in the end my friend, although I won't be laughing at your misfortune.
>Adam and Eve just like us ! What about all the previous ancient species of our genus? >Out genus is several million years old. There are hundred of ancestors of homo sapien.
You have no way to prove that. You weren't h ere 4 million years ago. Carbon dating is also a joke and the people doing this science have something to try to disprove before they ever started. Real science asks, who, when, what, where and how and accepts whatever the evidence leads too. However these people, rejecting the idea of a Creator to whom they'd have to give an account and because of whom they'd have to control their passions, sought some alternative way in which to try to explain the world. It is a very weak explanation to say the least.
>The world is 4.9 billion years old not 6000-10000. I mean the last ice age finished about >10000 years ago didn't it? If the world is 6000-10000 and the ice age was before that. >After all our world is still recovering from the last ice age!
How do we know that is true. What if God really did flood the Earth and as part of the way that He chose to remove that excess water, he froze some of it, which produced these large glaciers. Now man being finite and unable to explain things in another way, decided that things, if placed on the order of millions and millions of years could explain somethings. However, if I take the parts that make up a bicycle and place them in a box for 1000 billion years, they will never assemble to become a bicycle, will they?
>If god made the earth what about the rest of the universe there are billions of galaxies >and in those billions of stars. Did he also create the black holes?
Yes He did. There was a Big Bang. God spoke, and bang, all there is came into existence at a high speed. Scientists want to know what happened before that instant that universes exploded into existence from a single point. The Bible tells us that all of this something came out of nothing because the Almighty Creator spoke and the power of His word was enough to cause the creation of everything based upon His infinite power, might, and wisdom.
> I mean we could get totally wiped out by a coronal mass ejection heading our way did >he design that.
We haven't been wiped out have we? I wonder why? Why have none of these asteroids hit us? If we are as science would suggest, an accident without purpose, just waiting upon another accident to take us out, then why are we still here? Why do things stay constant? Why do you fall at a fixed rate? Why doesn't the earth alter its orbit and freeze or fry us? Why to a billion questions like that? Because an Intelligent, All Powerful Being is behind the scenes keeping it all together just like He designed it. Yes, there is some chaos in this world at present because of the rebellion of the original man and the rebellion of a Gardian Cherub (angel) named Lucifer who because the Devil, but that will soon all be removed and harmony will be restored and evil wiped out.
>dinosaurs where around for hundreds of million of years humans have been round for >about 2-3 million years and the dinosaurs got obliterated by a asteroid 65million years
Again, you can't prove the millions. You are also only speculating on the asteroid. What if they were created and here when Adam and Eve were here but were not allowed to go on the boat with Noah when the whole globe was under water to the highest mountain. Do you know what that much water would have done to them. They'd be buried in the dirt like we find them and one might try to explain that burial as an event that took millions and millions of years when in fact like pouring out a five gallon bucket of water into some small gravel makes wholes and buries things, so could it have been with the recession of the waters. BTW, there is evidence of a world wide flood, but it is ignored. Sea creatures are found on high mountains and canyon walls. Wonder how they got there. It wasn't evolution. They were in the flood when it was that high, and got stranded on dry ground as it went away and died there as proof.
There is plenty of evidence. There are also a lot of scientific theories now proclaimed as facts in order to explain away the Bible. The Bible is not a lie. In the end all mankind will be judged as books are opened. I believe one of those books will be the Bible.
The Bible told us of the deep trenches in the ocean before anyone could know of it and that the earth was round, when men still thought it flat and square and many other things that were impossible for anyone to know. Until recently no one could go to the Marianas trenches--for example--and certainly not 1000's of years ago.
@hdhondt
I mean that science is that of observation. What we call laws, are just God's will maintaining consistency in the galaxy to hold things together. The Bible says, that by him and through him all things were made and have their being. He holds them together.
We are always learning things in our world. God already knows them because He made them. We think something is so for a while and then sometimes discover different. However gravity on the Earth is constant. We know that if you jump out a window you will hit the ground and based on distance, how long that should take, etc. We have observed mathmatical constants. The same is true for material sciences, physics, and all the sciences. How could we type on this machine if electrons didn't behave in a predictable, consistent manner, if the elements didn't behave as we are taught in Chemistry, etc. ?
An accidental, chance world would likely not be so consistent and well ordered.
I mean that science is that of observation. What we call laws, are just God's will maintaining consistency in the galaxy to hold things together. The Bible says, that by him and through him all things were made and have their being. He holds them together.
We are always learning things in our world. God already knows them because He made them. We think something is so for a while and then sometimes discover different. However gravity on the Earth is constant. We know that if you jump out a window you will hit the ground and based on distance, how long that should take, etc. We have observed mathmatical constants. The same is true for material sciences, physics, and all the sciences. How could we type on this machine if electrons didn't behave in a predictable, consistent manner, if the elements didn't behave as we are taught in Chemistry, etc. ?
An accidental, chance world would likely not be so consistent and well ordered.
SStory
Again in your last post, you do it again. You say you accept scientific knowledge and explanations -
Genesis is not a history or science book and it's contents are not empirical. The earth is not 6000 years old ac. That doesn't mean to see it's all rubbish. On the contrary Genesis is a very profound book, and you can call it God insipred if you wish. But it is not a history book - it is a spiritual book and science and the spirit are two very different realms.
I believe the literal account of Genesis. "In the beginning God..." That means that God was here before anything else. How someone just exists, I have no idea. That is because I am human and have a beginning. He did not. Adam and Eve were just like us. The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. There was a literal flood of which many cultures have spokenI thought you accepted natual selection, because in your post 38166227 you said:
The crazy thing about so called natural selection is "who does the selecting?" Evolutionist, grasping for an alternative explanation, other than God, so as to not be accountable to a Creator, come up with some very strange ideas. If something selects, then it is an act of intelligence to do so. Where did that intelligence come from? I understand the sexual is the choice of at least one human--if human sexuality.By that statement you seem to be implying that you accept the scientific explanation but with God firmly behind it all - God in evolution, so to speak.
Again in your last post, you do it again. You say you accept scientific knowledge and explanations -
We think something is so for a while and then sometimes discover different. However gravity on the Earth is constant. We know that if you jump out a window you will hit the ground and based on distance, how long that should take, etc. We have observed mathmatical constants. The same is true for material sciences, physics, and all the sciences. How could we type on this machine if electrons didn't behave in a predictable, consistent manner, if the elements didn't behave as we are taught in Chemistry, etc. ?It is inconsistent to accept science and then reject evolution, the fossil record and natural selection in favour of a description found in Genesis. Evolution is the same science. It is consistent with the same scientific theories and knowledge that you accept. For example, take the age of the planet. There are many sceintific ways to date various things found on the planet. If you reject these observations then you reject large portions of science, that would affect your daily life.
Genesis is not a history or science book and it's contents are not empirical. The earth is not 6000 years old ac. That doesn't mean to see it's all rubbish. On the contrary Genesis is a very profound book, and you can call it God insipred if you wish. But it is not a history book - it is a spiritual book and science and the spirit are two very different realms.
ASKER
The way how God is described in Bible is having feelings.
We have too.
Why under Darwinist evolution view an intelligent being will need feelings?
Sometimes they drive us more than our rational thinking or our instincts (even life conservation instincts).
I will be away for few weeks without any PC around, but I will be back in August.
We have too.
Why under Darwinist evolution view an intelligent being will need feelings?
Sometimes they drive us more than our rational thinking or our instincts (even life conservation instincts).
I will be away for few weeks without any PC around, but I will be back in August.
@SStory
Can I assume that you use a mobile phone and GPS? If you do, you will need to agree that the earth is much older than 10,000 years.
Why? I have explained this in a previous question, but I'll do it again.
To explain it in simple terms, the 2 science disciplines that tell scientists that the earth is 4.6 billion years old (and the universe 13.7 billion) are General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I won't go into details on how those sciences are used to tell the ages, but you can look it up on the internet.
Now, which scientific discipline is used to design semiconductors like the transistors and tunnel diodes used in your mobile and GPS? It's Quantum Mechanics. And which discipline is used to ensure your GPS works accurately? You may have guessed that it's General Relativity.
So, unless your god created a universe that is nothing more than a massive lie (as in "believe what the book says, not what your eyes tell you"), you cannot have it both ways: either the universe is billions of years old, or your GPS cannot possibly work.
BTW, your PC and the internet are also based on Quantum Mechanics. What makes you think they work?
@viki2000
Don't you think that dogs and monkeys and other animals also have feelings? If god created them just for us people, why did he have to give them feelings? They don't need them, and it only means that they suffer when we kill them for food.
Can I assume that you use a mobile phone and GPS? If you do, you will need to agree that the earth is much older than 10,000 years.
Why? I have explained this in a previous question, but I'll do it again.
To explain it in simple terms, the 2 science disciplines that tell scientists that the earth is 4.6 billion years old (and the universe 13.7 billion) are General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I won't go into details on how those sciences are used to tell the ages, but you can look it up on the internet.
Now, which scientific discipline is used to design semiconductors like the transistors and tunnel diodes used in your mobile and GPS? It's Quantum Mechanics. And which discipline is used to ensure your GPS works accurately? You may have guessed that it's General Relativity.
So, unless your god created a universe that is nothing more than a massive lie (as in "believe what the book says, not what your eyes tell you"), you cannot have it both ways: either the universe is billions of years old, or your GPS cannot possibly work.
BTW, your PC and the internet are also based on Quantum Mechanics. What makes you think they work?
@viki2000
Don't you think that dogs and monkeys and other animals also have feelings? If god created them just for us people, why did he have to give them feelings? They don't need them, and it only means that they suffer when we kill them for food.
An asteroid did kill the dinosaurs have you not heard of the KT boundary its a global layer covering the earth but its far higher near the site of the asteroid impact and as it is nearly 100% iridium that is quite rare on earth. How would it be far higher if the was no impact. Also no dinosaur bones are above the KT boundary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_boundary
The Bible told us of the deep trenches in the ocean before anyone could know
So why did it take until somebody go down there that there where volcanic hot springs and very active life around them not living in sunshine which kind of told us well that means life is probably not rare in the universe I mean the odds of life elsewhere is coming down all the time. Also the deepest trench in the sea is a volcanic rift. So if the bible said there was a trench it did not say why it was there and its purpose. Also did the bible say the world was covered by tectonic plates and the world millions of years ago all the continents where in a super continent called pangea. Have you never though that the coasts of Africa and South America seem to fit well it did several million years ago.
So if the world is static you are refuting tectonic plates if you think the world never changes its because you don't believe the facts like pangea. The world is not static never changing its always changing it just takes a long time. So don't have a limited view that's all I will say.
Dinosaurs ? Don't you have a museum in your area. If we where around when the dinosaurs where there is only one winner and its not humans. So you saying dinosaurs didn't happen.
As the world is not static neither is the universe if fact it looks like the big bang is still happening as why are all the galaxies still moving. If you disagree then your are refuting Edwin Haley who found that fact out by seeing the red shift from the galaxies which means its going away not coming towards us.
It looks like amino acid is very common in the universe
So again if god made the earth why did he put super volcanoes here. Why did he put tectonic plates here. I assume your saying when Vesuvius went pop in ad 79 was a divine event.
God created the big bang really so why was only hydrogen created that was created because its the simplest chemical and has nothing to do with carbon that came much later after several billion years as all the carbon was created in super nova's of absolutely giant suns. All the chemicals all 92 of them where created this way. Which means we and everything else are made of star dust.
Sea creatures are found on high mountains and canyon walls. Wonder how they got there
thats due to geologic process the mountain was at the bottom of a earlier sea . Canyon walls means its flipped from horizontal as all sea are essentially flat.
If the flood was global the DNA would show that and it doesn't. The first bipedal ancestor looks likely to have been Australopithecus. If there was no Neanderthals and Denisova why does our DNA have 2-4 % of theirs again its a very limited view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_boundary
The Bible told us of the deep trenches in the ocean before anyone could know
So why did it take until somebody go down there that there where volcanic hot springs and very active life around them not living in sunshine which kind of told us well that means life is probably not rare in the universe I mean the odds of life elsewhere is coming down all the time. Also the deepest trench in the sea is a volcanic rift. So if the bible said there was a trench it did not say why it was there and its purpose. Also did the bible say the world was covered by tectonic plates and the world millions of years ago all the continents where in a super continent called pangea. Have you never though that the coasts of Africa and South America seem to fit well it did several million years ago.
So if the world is static you are refuting tectonic plates if you think the world never changes its because you don't believe the facts like pangea. The world is not static never changing its always changing it just takes a long time. So don't have a limited view that's all I will say.
Dinosaurs ? Don't you have a museum in your area. If we where around when the dinosaurs where there is only one winner and its not humans. So you saying dinosaurs didn't happen.
As the world is not static neither is the universe if fact it looks like the big bang is still happening as why are all the galaxies still moving. If you disagree then your are refuting Edwin Haley who found that fact out by seeing the red shift from the galaxies which means its going away not coming towards us.
It looks like amino acid is very common in the universe
So again if god made the earth why did he put super volcanoes here. Why did he put tectonic plates here. I assume your saying when Vesuvius went pop in ad 79 was a divine event.
God created the big bang really so why was only hydrogen created that was created because its the simplest chemical and has nothing to do with carbon that came much later after several billion years as all the carbon was created in super nova's of absolutely giant suns. All the chemicals all 92 of them where created this way. Which means we and everything else are made of star dust.
Sea creatures are found on high mountains and canyon walls. Wonder how they got there
thats due to geologic process the mountain was at the bottom of a earlier sea . Canyon walls means its flipped from horizontal as all sea are essentially flat.
If the flood was global the DNA would show that and it doesn't. The first bipedal ancestor looks likely to have been Australopithecus. If there was no Neanderthals and Denisova why does our DNA have 2-4 % of theirs again its a very limited view.
It seems to me that the only valid argument that SStory can have, if he accepts both science and Genesis as empircial truths, is that God first did it as stated in Genesis, literally, and then created a giant conspiracy to fool us all into believing otherwise. He planted these fossils of ape-like men that never existed for us to find, made everything we can observe consistent with that. He also made sure there was no evidence at all to support Genesis. .
If he did create the world why did he do it the way it is its just a hard way to live I mean super volcano's did god have something again north america with yellow stone ! Oh hang on he didn't know about that did he it was over the horizon lol
Did god also decide how work out all the chemicals or is it nature that decided how higher order chemicals where built I favour nature
I mean calling the higgs boson the god particle was a very bad move IMHO. It just is the weight of every molecule as without it the molecule was empty really so that's why it was predicted.
I am absolutely fascinated by super continents like Pangea, Laurasia and Gondwana and what they meant for biodiversity. Also super volcano's are fascinating imagine if we could get all the power we needed from our super hot interior I know some people are putting water in extinct volcano's to use the latent heat to heat the water I think its in the states somewhere.
Did god also decide how work out all the chemicals or is it nature that decided how higher order chemicals where built I favour nature
I mean calling the higgs boson the god particle was a very bad move IMHO. It just is the weight of every molecule as without it the molecule was empty really so that's why it was predicted.
I am absolutely fascinated by super continents like Pangea, Laurasia and Gondwana and what they meant for biodiversity. Also super volcano's are fascinating imagine if we could get all the power we needed from our super hot interior I know some people are putting water in extinct volcano's to use the latent heat to heat the water I think its in the states somewhere.
@Jason210. I do not accept natural selection. My question was if there is some selection, which implies intelligence in order to select, then who does the selecting. I agree there is some micro-evolution in that species can adapt, but no macro evolution. There is not one single proof of macro evolution, i.e. one species becoming another. This is a theory and if Darwin could see what we now know about the cell, he'd probably never even suggested it. It was just a glob of protoplasm to him. He couldn't see much inside it.
I can believe in the Bible and science and not evolution. True science looks at the facts, no matter where they lead. What we now call science is so prejudiced toward evolution having to be a fact that any evidence that proves otherwise is ignored. This is not true science. Science say How? Why? When? Where? Who? Hypothesis....test it....accept or reject based on results.
I can believe in the Bible and science and not evolution. True science looks at the facts, no matter where they lead. What we now call science is so prejudiced toward evolution having to be a fact that any evidence that proves otherwise is ignored. This is not true science. Science say How? Why? When? Where? Who? Hypothesis....test it....accept or reject based on results.
@IanTh
Believe it or not I have studied Biology and Geology. I understand the theories.
It is possible that God had a big hunk of land and separated them into different continents.. But it didn't take billions of years according to what I can tell from the Bible. The world is ever replenishing. This is a great argument against man made global warming. God made the Earth take care of itself. While we can cause some polution for sure, the Earth is pretty good at renewing itself. Techtonic plates get renewed and volcanos spit out more land, but the Earth remains the Earth. It's orbital degree stays constant or we'd fry or freeze.
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the book of Job. This leads me to believe they were here with Adam and Eve and probably not put on the ark during the flood. Search for the Leviathan and the Behemoth in Job, near chapters 38-41 I believe. The description, though liberals like to say is a hippopotamus or Crocodile, I believe to be that of a dinosaur. I even believe in fire breathing dragons...that is also part of the description....it said its legs or tail was like timbers (all this just from memory)
>I assume your saying when Vesuvius went pop in ad 79 was a divine event.
God is in control of all things. He permits a lot of things at present that we do not understand. There is an end goal in mind and He brings beauty from ashes.
I don't say that God created a Big Bang. I saw that when God spoke there was a Big Bang of creation flinging into existence.
The Bible says that in the end God is going to melt the elements with a fervent heat. Yes He did design them all. Do I understand why He does things that seem like the hard way or the long way around to me as a human? I do not. He says He is God.His thought are not our thoughts and His ways not our ways. His thoughts are higher than ours. He sees the whole picture from the beginning until the end so He can make choices that may seem wrong to us at the time or needlessly painful, but with a glorious result in mine.
Again, there is no way to prove your billions and billions. You just need billions and billions to try to explain these weak theories such as evolution.
You think you were made of stardust? Who made the star dust? Eventually you have to come to something coming from nothing, or something coming from someone intelligent, who made something out of nothing just by His power.
Believe it or not I have studied Biology and Geology. I understand the theories.
It is possible that God had a big hunk of land and separated them into different continents.. But it didn't take billions of years according to what I can tell from the Bible. The world is ever replenishing. This is a great argument against man made global warming. God made the Earth take care of itself. While we can cause some polution for sure, the Earth is pretty good at renewing itself. Techtonic plates get renewed and volcanos spit out more land, but the Earth remains the Earth. It's orbital degree stays constant or we'd fry or freeze.
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the book of Job. This leads me to believe they were here with Adam and Eve and probably not put on the ark during the flood. Search for the Leviathan and the Behemoth in Job, near chapters 38-41 I believe. The description, though liberals like to say is a hippopotamus or Crocodile, I believe to be that of a dinosaur. I even believe in fire breathing dragons...that is also part of the description....it said its legs or tail was like timbers (all this just from memory)
>I assume your saying when Vesuvius went pop in ad 79 was a divine event.
God is in control of all things. He permits a lot of things at present that we do not understand. There is an end goal in mind and He brings beauty from ashes.
I don't say that God created a Big Bang. I saw that when God spoke there was a Big Bang of creation flinging into existence.
The Bible says that in the end God is going to melt the elements with a fervent heat. Yes He did design them all. Do I understand why He does things that seem like the hard way or the long way around to me as a human? I do not. He says He is God.His thought are not our thoughts and His ways not our ways. His thoughts are higher than ours. He sees the whole picture from the beginning until the end so He can make choices that may seem wrong to us at the time or needlessly painful, but with a glorious result in mine.
Again, there is no way to prove your billions and billions. You just need billions and billions to try to explain these weak theories such as evolution.
You think you were made of stardust? Who made the star dust? Eventually you have to come to something coming from nothing, or something coming from someone intelligent, who made something out of nothing just by His power.
Ah, so you don't accept science. Or, at least, you don't accept the bits you don't like.
"One species becoming another" is about two different species having a prehistoric common ancestor, of which we have plenty of evidence, beginning with the fossil record. You have already stated you accept "microevolution", which means change is taking place in a living organisim. Apply to that the dimension of time and enough time will eventually pass for those changes to significantly change the appearance of a species, so much so that by modern classifiication standards we can designate it a new species.
As far as facts go, evolution is fact, because it is happening, and can be observed happening now. Natural selection in its current, modernised form still remains a theory, but whether it's true or not, there isn't a better one.
What I find ridiculous about this kind of creationist/evolution discussion is the importance creationists attach to creationsim. Why do they need creationism to be true? What's it go to do with God? .
There's suprising little evidence for creationism in the Bible. I'm not a Bible expert, but I don't know of any references in the Bible where it rules out speciation, where it says one species cannot evolve into another. Why is it a problem if they can? I don't get it.
SStory
There is not one single proof of macro evolution, i.e. one species becoming anotherMacro evolution is not about one species becoming another.
"One species becoming another" is about two different species having a prehistoric common ancestor, of which we have plenty of evidence, beginning with the fossil record. You have already stated you accept "microevolution", which means change is taking place in a living organisim. Apply to that the dimension of time and enough time will eventually pass for those changes to significantly change the appearance of a species, so much so that by modern classifiication standards we can designate it a new species.
As far as facts go, evolution is fact, because it is happening, and can be observed happening now. Natural selection in its current, modernised form still remains a theory, but whether it's true or not, there isn't a better one.
What I find ridiculous about this kind of creationist/evolution discussion is the importance creationists attach to creationsim. Why do they need creationism to be true? What's it go to do with God? .
There's suprising little evidence for creationism in the Bible. I'm not a Bible expert, but I don't know of any references in the Bible where it rules out speciation, where it says one species cannot evolve into another. Why is it a problem if they can? I don't get it.
SStory
You think you were made of stardust? Who made the star dust? Eventually you have to come to something coming from nothing, or something coming from someone intelligent, who made something out of nothing just by His powerThis is more interesting line of discussion. At least science is not challenging you here.
we are made from stardust its a natural way all that was in the very early universe was hydrogen well thats after it was built from sun atomic partials. Then gravity started to push the hydrogen into spheres and then these spheres dragged more and more hydrogen in making them into super massive stars. The centre of these stars reached at least 100 million degrees as that's the fusion point then helium was created.
SStory you have studied geology and don't accept the geologic answer to the true age of the universe you still think its 6000-10000 years. Also you don't understand that sea creatures being embedded in a canyon wall is a geologic event there are examples all over the world created by tectonic actions. It happens when tectonic plates crash together or possible volcanic events lifting the ground.
If god created the earth why did he put a super volcano in the heart of America?
As for stable earth like I said there are numerous dangers from space that could wipe us out, there have been absolutely loads of mass extinctions in the past.
I mean one of the previous mass extinctions was called the oxygen catastrophe when the extinction was because most life was not used to oxygen at that time. How does that show a stable earth. Also Andromeda Galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way. Andromeda is approaching at an average speed of about 110 kilometres (68 mi) per second and thus impact is predicted in about four billion years.
SStory you have studied geology and don't accept the geologic answer to the true age of the universe you still think its 6000-10000 years. Also you don't understand that sea creatures being embedded in a canyon wall is a geologic event there are examples all over the world created by tectonic actions. It happens when tectonic plates crash together or possible volcanic events lifting the ground.
If god created the earth why did he put a super volcano in the heart of America?
As for stable earth like I said there are numerous dangers from space that could wipe us out, there have been absolutely loads of mass extinctions in the past.
I mean one of the previous mass extinctions was called the oxygen catastrophe when the extinction was because most life was not used to oxygen at that time. How does that show a stable earth. Also Andromeda Galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way. Andromeda is approaching at an average speed of about 110 kilometres (68 mi) per second and thus impact is predicted in about four billion years.
@Sstory
I assume you read my earlier comment about mobile phones and GPS systems being based on the same science that tells us the universe is 13.72 billion years old.
But you seem to think you can get out of it by just claiming that you believe in science, but just don't believe in evolution. In that case, I have more news for yew.
In another branch of science, biology, the big thing at present is DNA. You know, the chemistry that controls how cells make our bodies, which is also used to identify criminals in court - so you'll probably agree that some of that science is quite valid. You're probably aware that all of life uses the same DNA mechanism, which is easily explained when you accept evolution. But again, I suppose that, if evolution could do it, so could your god.
DNA science also tells us that life is extremely old. For example, it tells us that the first fully human people lived around 150,000 to 250,000 years ago, in Africa. As you can see, there is a fair bit of uncertainty about the date (and, as may not be obvious to someone who does not believe in evolution, there never was a first human).
However, the DNA dates most definitely exclude the possibility that all of us are descended from 1 middle-eastern couple who lived about 6,000 years ago. Even if the mythical Adam and Eve really existed, they lived almost 200,000 years earlier, and on a different continent.
Or is this another part of science you don't believe? The only way we could both be correct is, as I and Jason210 pointed out earlier, the entire universe is one gigantic lie.
For your reference, I have attached a little chart that indicates just how much of science would need to be completely wrong if the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I did not create it myself, but I got it from the internet quite some time ago. Unfortunately I cannot remember where I found it, so I cannot give credit where it's due.
YoungEarthFlaws.pdf
I assume you read my earlier comment about mobile phones and GPS systems being based on the same science that tells us the universe is 13.72 billion years old.
But you seem to think you can get out of it by just claiming that you believe in science, but just don't believe in evolution. In that case, I have more news for yew.
In another branch of science, biology, the big thing at present is DNA. You know, the chemistry that controls how cells make our bodies, which is also used to identify criminals in court - so you'll probably agree that some of that science is quite valid. You're probably aware that all of life uses the same DNA mechanism, which is easily explained when you accept evolution. But again, I suppose that, if evolution could do it, so could your god.
DNA science also tells us that life is extremely old. For example, it tells us that the first fully human people lived around 150,000 to 250,000 years ago, in Africa. As you can see, there is a fair bit of uncertainty about the date (and, as may not be obvious to someone who does not believe in evolution, there never was a first human).
However, the DNA dates most definitely exclude the possibility that all of us are descended from 1 middle-eastern couple who lived about 6,000 years ago. Even if the mythical Adam and Eve really existed, they lived almost 200,000 years earlier, and on a different continent.
Or is this another part of science you don't believe? The only way we could both be correct is, as I and Jason210 pointed out earlier, the entire universe is one gigantic lie.
For your reference, I have attached a little chart that indicates just how much of science would need to be completely wrong if the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I did not create it myself, but I got it from the internet quite some time ago. Unfortunately I cannot remember where I found it, so I cannot give credit where it's due.
YoungEarthFlaws.pdf
Yes if SStory did geology and biology as he claims I don't think he passed either or understood the whole science of geology lol
DNA is just another kind of natural cell IMHO all the building blocks of life aren't exactly rare in the universe so what will the bible brigade say when we find this other life. It could take a while and as we don't know how many galaxies there are any way.
I mean the whole biology thing must have changed now they have found all of these extremophiles in things like acidic pools, actually eating rock for food and living inside the rocks. Also in Ice in the frozen poles and glaciers around the world.
The fact that modern life could have started 10000 years ago at the end of the last ice age is kind of plausible however the homo genus is several million years old
How long for v3 lol
DNA is just another kind of natural cell IMHO all the building blocks of life aren't exactly rare in the universe so what will the bible brigade say when we find this other life. It could take a while and as we don't know how many galaxies there are any way.
I mean the whole biology thing must have changed now they have found all of these extremophiles in things like acidic pools, actually eating rock for food and living inside the rocks. Also in Ice in the frozen poles and glaciers around the world.
The fact that modern life could have started 10000 years ago at the end of the last ice age is kind of plausible however the homo genus is several million years old
How long for v3 lol
Well, I had prepared a large answer for you Jason210, but alas it got erased. Maybe another day.
Let me say that in terms of no creationism in the Bible:
Job 38:4-7
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
How about the first few chapters of Genesis....God said...and there was...and it was good. There is plenty of evidence of creationism. He didn't need some long billions of years to do so. God created a mature Earth so billions weren't needed. If you need to explain it by pixie dust it make make you feel better by throwing in a large number of years that neither of us were around to verify. Question though, who made the pixie dust? I don't care what you started with, the question is, "And where did that come from?"
I don't need to spend billions of dollars in research studying the galaxy to find out who I am, why I'm here, where I came from or what happens after this life. This so called science sure is wearisome to the so called "atheists" of the world.
BTW, I passed both courses of Biology and Geology. I heard all of the theories and understood them. However, evolution is the biggest malarkey I ever heard.
Let me say that in terms of no creationism in the Bible:
Job 38:4-7
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
How about the first few chapters of Genesis....God said...and there was...and it was good. There is plenty of evidence of creationism. He didn't need some long billions of years to do so. God created a mature Earth so billions weren't needed. If you need to explain it by pixie dust it make make you feel better by throwing in a large number of years that neither of us were around to verify. Question though, who made the pixie dust? I don't care what you started with, the question is, "And where did that come from?"
I don't need to spend billions of dollars in research studying the galaxy to find out who I am, why I'm here, where I came from or what happens after this life. This so called science sure is wearisome to the so called "atheists" of the world.
BTW, I passed both courses of Biology and Geology. I heard all of the theories and understood them. However, evolution is the biggest malarkey I ever heard.
I don't care what you started with, the question is, "And where did that come from?"
And, where did god come from?
I don't understand how it is that science can always ask the next question, but with religion you are required to stop when you get to the answer "god".
And if the earth was built by god why did he put that many volcano's here, why did he do tectonic plates I am assuming he built the moon too if that was the case the earth would be upright its not its on a 23% tilt which was caused by a planet to planet impact billions of years ago and the fact that the moon is actually moving away means our tides will get weaker as the tides are created by the moons gravity so the earth is not in any way stable.
I agree there is no scientific evidence from pre big bang I am wondering if it could have been a super massive black hole and its singularity actually reaching some kind of maximum threshold and going pop as we dont yet know enough of the science behind black holes to say what happens with molecules they could actually be destroyed into the sub atomic building blocks of quarks and bosons. It would make some kind of sense wouldn't it. If that's the case the universe is even older than 13.8 billion years. Also we don't yet know how big the universe is.
I agree there is no scientific evidence from pre big bang I am wondering if it could have been a super massive black hole and its singularity actually reaching some kind of maximum threshold and going pop as we dont yet know enough of the science behind black holes to say what happens with molecules they could actually be destroyed into the sub atomic building blocks of quarks and bosons. It would make some kind of sense wouldn't it. If that's the case the universe is even older than 13.8 billion years. Also we don't yet know how big the universe is.
SStory
Of course, stupid of me. The 10000 years would not allow time for speciation, which requires thousands if not millions of years. So forget I said that about there being no evidence against it in the Bible.
Well, I had prepared a large answer for you Jason210, but alas it got erased. Maybe another daySo annoying when that happens! It has happened to me several times . sometimes for the best ;-)
Of course, stupid of me. The 10000 years would not allow time for speciation, which requires thousands if not millions of years. So forget I said that about there being no evidence against it in the Bible.
I don't care what you started with, the question is, "And where did that come from?"Of course, this is the question...
However, evolution is the biggest malarkey I ever heardWhat makes you think you are a better scientist, in this particular area, than the qualified experts? The basis for your rejection of evolution is your belief in the Bible -- it's not based on any science.
@SStory
I have noticed you have not yet replied to any of my posts. I would really appreciate one, especially to my last question: And, where did god come from?
I have noticed you have not yet replied to any of my posts. I would really appreciate one, especially to my last question: And, where did god come from?
It is interesting that the questions of where God comes from, and where the Universe comes from, are both philosophically identical.
The idea of causation means that the causes either go on in infinite regression, or can be traced back to something that is original and uncaused. However, causes that goes on in infinite regression mean a series of universes that were always here. Either way, it seems the only logical conclusion can be that something is uncaused
This is the ultimate question. What is that uncaused thing. Whatever it is, it's certainly not something that was long ago, and disappeared. Just like the Higgs-Boson, it's most certainly ever present and without it there would be no universe.
The idea of causation means that the causes either go on in infinite regression, or can be traced back to something that is original and uncaused. However, causes that goes on in infinite regression mean a series of universes that were always here. Either way, it seems the only logical conclusion can be that something is uncaused
This is the ultimate question. What is that uncaused thing. Whatever it is, it's certainly not something that was long ago, and disappeared. Just like the Higgs-Boson, it's most certainly ever present and without it there would be no universe.
I think the bible says we are built in gods image which adds to my reason for this question
Science has proved that the homo genus is several million years old and we came from gorilla's or chimps due to DNA.
Science has proved that the homo genus is several million years old and we came from gorilla's or chimps due to DNA.
As Richard Feynman said, it is possible that the universe is like an onion with an infinite number of layers: you peel them away one by one, but there's always an unlimited number of them underneath. And, of course, the layers are getting harder and harder (requiring more energy) to peel away.
I think it's the other way around: we built our gods in our image. We don't know (yet, or perhaps never) what is the ultimate cause of the universe, but you can be quite certain that it's not any of the gods we have invented.
Our gods are far too small for the universe. To imagine that any god, capable of building a universe with more than 1 trillion stars for every human, would be particularly interested in anything I do, is just plain hubris.
we are built in gods image
I think it's the other way around: we built our gods in our image. We don't know (yet, or perhaps never) what is the ultimate cause of the universe, but you can be quite certain that it's not any of the gods we have invented.
Our gods are far too small for the universe. To imagine that any god, capable of building a universe with more than 1 trillion stars for every human, would be particularly interested in anything I do, is just plain hubris.
@hdhondt,
>And, where did god come from
That's easy. He's always been here. For any answer that we would understand as humans there isn't one because to have always been doesn't make sense to us. However either something came from nothing by accident, or with an evolutionary cop-out, everything came from something that somehow existed and banged together for a long time until life came about, or from the Christian point of view. Everything was made by God who's always existed --the self existent "I AM"--would brought forth all matter from nothing. Out of nothingness came everything at the spoken command of His word, "the Big Bang" was the powerful voice of the Creator saying "Let there be...." And then there was....
>And, where did god come from
That's easy. He's always been here. For any answer that we would understand as humans there isn't one because to have always been doesn't make sense to us. However either something came from nothing by accident, or with an evolutionary cop-out, everything came from something that somehow existed and banged together for a long time until life came about, or from the Christian point of view. Everything was made by God who's always existed --the self existent "I AM"--would brought forth all matter from nothing. Out of nothingness came everything at the spoken command of His word, "the Big Bang" was the powerful voice of the Creator saying "Let there be...." And then there was....
@Jason210
>it seems the only logical conclusion can be that something is uncaused
I can agree with that. Except the something is a Someone and that someone is intelligent and shows it by the intricate design of His creation. The Bible says: (NIV)
Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
That means it should be obvious by looking at the design and creativity that someone made it all.
>it seems the only logical conclusion can be that something is uncaused
I can agree with that. Except the something is a Someone and that someone is intelligent and shows it by the intricate design of His creation. The Bible says: (NIV)
Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
That means it should be obvious by looking at the design and creativity that someone made it all.
@hdhondt,
(sorry, I have been really busy lately, just getting back from vacation)
>I think it's the other way around: we built our gods in our image. We don't know (yet, or >perhaps never) what is the ultimate cause of the universe, but you can be quite certain that >it's not any of the gods we have invented.
This is very interesting. I agree with you that most people make a god in their own image. Look at Zeus, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Thor, etc. They are all too human. There is always a way for a human to beat them. They always have flaws and weaknesses. Zeus had sex with everyone, which means He was not fully satisfied in self existence but needed someone else, some pleasure.... None of these represent the God of the Bible. He needs no one. He bows to no one. He has NO weakness. He cannot be defeated. He demands allegiance. He will be victorious over all of His enemies and those who do not join His Kingdom will be forever exiled to sheer doom, gloom, hopelessness and torture forever. This is the God of the Bible. Yes He has great love for those He's created--great compassion, and great patience. He has made a way to come to Him and receive forgiveness and live in that kingdom forever. He is fully self existent, full of His own pleasure and in need of no other. He is not lonely. He laughs at the plans of evil doers. He knows their time is short. They are but a joke as the shake their fists at Him in defiance.
>Our gods are far too small for the universe. To imagine that any god, capable of building >a universe with more than 1 trillion stars for every human, would be particularly >interested in anything I do, is just plain hubris.
This is also an amazing statement my friend. Let me first tell you that the true God did make everything. Being spirit He is everywhere in this universe and yet outside it as well.
I'd challenge you to read Psalms 8:3-5 NIV which expresses just what you are saying. Here is the part most similar:
"3) When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place, 4) what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 5) You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor."
So King David, the man after God's own heart, said the same thing. God with all of what I see that you have made, what is a spec of dust like me to you? That is the marvel of it all. The infinite God of the universe cares about specs like us! This is the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus is God's way of showing His love for us. He willing took our punishment so that we could have a way of redemption and salvation and spend eternity with this God that wants us to get in on His presence, glory and goodness because it is too large to be contained and too good not to share.
(sorry, I have been really busy lately, just getting back from vacation)
>I think it's the other way around: we built our gods in our image. We don't know (yet, or >perhaps never) what is the ultimate cause of the universe, but you can be quite certain that >it's not any of the gods we have invented.
This is very interesting. I agree with you that most people make a god in their own image. Look at Zeus, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Thor, etc. They are all too human. There is always a way for a human to beat them. They always have flaws and weaknesses. Zeus had sex with everyone, which means He was not fully satisfied in self existence but needed someone else, some pleasure.... None of these represent the God of the Bible. He needs no one. He bows to no one. He has NO weakness. He cannot be defeated. He demands allegiance. He will be victorious over all of His enemies and those who do not join His Kingdom will be forever exiled to sheer doom, gloom, hopelessness and torture forever. This is the God of the Bible. Yes He has great love for those He's created--great compassion, and great patience. He has made a way to come to Him and receive forgiveness and live in that kingdom forever. He is fully self existent, full of His own pleasure and in need of no other. He is not lonely. He laughs at the plans of evil doers. He knows their time is short. They are but a joke as the shake their fists at Him in defiance.
>Our gods are far too small for the universe. To imagine that any god, capable of building >a universe with more than 1 trillion stars for every human, would be particularly >interested in anything I do, is just plain hubris.
This is also an amazing statement my friend. Let me first tell you that the true God did make everything. Being spirit He is everywhere in this universe and yet outside it as well.
I'd challenge you to read Psalms 8:3-5 NIV which expresses just what you are saying. Here is the part most similar:
"3) When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place, 4) what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 5) You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor."
So King David, the man after God's own heart, said the same thing. God with all of what I see that you have made, what is a spec of dust like me to you? That is the marvel of it all. The infinite God of the universe cares about specs like us! This is the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus is God's way of showing His love for us. He willing took our punishment so that we could have a way of redemption and salvation and spend eternity with this God that wants us to get in on His presence, glory and goodness because it is too large to be contained and too good not to share.
@SStory
Yep, it's the ultimate cop-out. Once the answer is god we do not need to question any further. You say "he's always been there". I say "the universe has always been there", so maybe the universe is god?
More to the point, I hope that you've now given up using computers, mobile phones, and all the other modern conveniences that are so obviously built on science which is proven dead wrong by the bible. I guess scientists are in a conspiracy to believe their intelligence rather than that of 4000 year old mystics.
Yep, it's the ultimate cop-out. Once the answer is god we do not need to question any further. You say "he's always been there". I say "the universe has always been there", so maybe the universe is god?
More to the point, I hope that you've now given up using computers, mobile phones, and all the other modern conveniences that are so obviously built on science which is proven dead wrong by the bible. I guess scientists are in a conspiracy to believe their intelligence rather than that of 4000 year old mystics.
@SStory
You'll probably tell me that those predictions were just people's interpretations of the bible - and I would be in full agreement with that. But, if their interpretation can be wrong, why can't yours?
He is fully self existent, full of His own pleasure and in need of no other. He is not lonely. He laughs at the plans of evil doers. He knows their time is short. They are but a joke as the shake their fists at Him in defiance.etc, etc. And I suppose you know all that because the bible tells you. That's the same book that has predicted the end of the world dozens or even hundreds of times. And as far my limited senses tell me, it was flat-out wrong every time. Or maybe I'm just delusional?
You'll probably tell me that those predictions were just people's interpretations of the bible - and I would be in full agreement with that. But, if their interpretation can be wrong, why can't yours?
As Richard Feynman said, it is possible that the universe is like an onion with an infinite number of layers: you peel them away one by one, but there's always an unlimited number of them underneath. And, of course, the layers are getting harder and harder (requiring more energy) to peel away,But even with this analogy, you still don't have an explanation as to why the onion is there. Besides, as an analogy, it's not quite right, because an onion is not infinite. It clearly has an outer shell, and a core. It also has a seed that contains it's blueprint. I don't go along with Feynman's idea. He's a mathematician for one thing, and mathematicians seem to only believe in what mathematics does.
One thing that I have always found interesting is how the Universe seems to mirror consciousness. You can peel away at the layers of consciousness and find something more primitive underneath, but still aware. For example, if you could remember what is like to be a 10 year old boy, you'd be missing all your sophisicated knowledge and experience, yet you'd still be you. Go back to your earliest memory - mine is about when I was two and half. I don't know much, but I am still essentially the same. Going back further, one can assume a new-born baby is aware (but not self-aware) and that this awareness is what gives life its essential identity. Awareness is not dependant on memory - memory just gives us the idea of continuity. We can assume that awareness has been with us for along time. Why not in the womb? Pinpointing exactly what gives rise to awareness, and the point in a system at which it arises, is rather like looking for a particles.
There seems to be a parallel of sorts here. I believe we can look two ways for the essential...outwardly, using the CERN LHC, and inwardly, tracing the levels of consciousness back to their origin. I don't think it is a strange idea to consider the possibility a particle - or field - may be responsible for awareness.
Anway, these two paths seem to me to be the essential difference between the emprical study of the Universe (science), and the spiritual study of it (is there a name for that?). The former requires lots of knowledge and energy, and the latter requires some form of meditation. The latter is, in my opinion, what gives rise to religion. When people follow religion, they miss the essential point, and that is what gives rise to the conflicts and problems associated with religion. At least this is my theory :-)
Knowledge and meditation are perfectly useful. The problem I see with religion is that you are required to stop thinking at some point.
I know Feynman's onion comparison is flawed - all models are to some extent. The point is that we may never discover everything about the universe. And, the mind has this interesting way of always wanting a deeper answer, the next "why". I assume that's another reason for religion's existence: it gives us a prop for when we run up against the unknown.
To my thinking, intelligence (mind) is an emergent property. When a brain gets sufficiently complex (in some unknown direction), mind emerges. There are many other ways in which order spontaneously emerges from complexity, but not always on this grand scale. Examples include the simplicity of crystals, the way proteins fold, the earth's ecosystems, and even life itself. As to whether we will be able to make computers complex enough in just the right way to make them intelligent is at present unknown. I'm betting that we will do it, as I'm also betting that we'll create life from scratch.
I know Feynman's onion comparison is flawed - all models are to some extent. The point is that we may never discover everything about the universe. And, the mind has this interesting way of always wanting a deeper answer, the next "why". I assume that's another reason for religion's existence: it gives us a prop for when we run up against the unknown.
To my thinking, intelligence (mind) is an emergent property. When a brain gets sufficiently complex (in some unknown direction), mind emerges. There are many other ways in which order spontaneously emerges from complexity, but not always on this grand scale. Examples include the simplicity of crystals, the way proteins fold, the earth's ecosystems, and even life itself. As to whether we will be able to make computers complex enough in just the right way to make them intelligent is at present unknown. I'm betting that we will do it, as I'm also betting that we'll create life from scratch.
Just though of another emergent property, in a completely different field: the spiral arms of galaxies, which is still not completely understood.
But spiral arms of galaxies kind of point to the fact that the galaxy is spinning. Some galaxies are travelling at over 1000000 miles per hour. Wow.
One fact is for certain here. Awareness is not understood. No scientific explanation can explain it.
Intelligence may well be an emergent property, depending on how you measure it or what you consider to be intelligence. Complexity and brain activity can be observed as giving rise to thinking, memory and knowledge and that form of intelligence. But thinking, memory and knowledge is not awareness.
We are self-aware, which is a key property of intelligent life, and it is mind that makes this possible, but before something can be self-aware, it must be aware. What is that awareness, what is that dependant on? No-one knows. How can it possibly be considered emergent, when it can't be observed empirically, let alone explained?
Intelligence may well be an emergent property, depending on how you measure it or what you consider to be intelligence. Complexity and brain activity can be observed as giving rise to thinking, memory and knowledge and that form of intelligence. But thinking, memory and knowledge is not awareness.
We are self-aware, which is a key property of intelligent life, and it is mind that makes this possible, but before something can be self-aware, it must be aware. What is that awareness, what is that dependant on? No-one knows. How can it possibly be considered emergent, when it can't be observed empirically, let alone explained?
But, chimps, dolphins and elephants are also self-aware. That points to the fact that it can arise as an emergent property from brain complexity. I'll grant that we don't (yet) understand how.
Yes, spiral arms arise from the spinning of the galaxy, but it is order arising out of "nothing".
Yes, spiral arms arise from the spinning of the galaxy, but it is order arising out of "nothing".
the force moving galaxies away from each other is the big bang still going
Some galaxies are travelling at over 1000000 miles per hour
They're not actually traveling at that speed, it's the expansion of the universe that's doing it (including the 1000000 miles per hour). We've seen galaxies at a redshift of more than 7 - that means they're moving at .8c, 240,000 km/sec or 864,000,000 km/h. The Cosmic Background Radiation is at a redshift of about 1000, or .99c.
And some galaxies are traveling away from us at more than light speed. They're of course invisible to us, but the visible universe is expanding at 1 ly per year.
@hdhondt,
>That's the same book that has predicted the end of the world dozens or even hundreds of >times.
Yes people have tried to predict the end many times. Jesus, in the Bible said, that no man knows the day nor the hour of His return. He also said many will come claiming to be Him and not to run after them because when He comes, as lighting goes from east to west so will His coming be. In other words only God knows the end of the world--the date--and when Jesus comes all we see Him and know. The Bible speaks of the mountains fleeing away and there being no where for rebellious sinners who've refused Him and His reign to hide when the King returns. They will cry out for the rocks to hide them from the face of Him who sits on the throne. Today is the day to accept His mercy--not then.
The Bible has not been wrong. People have come up with all sorts of crazy ideas and predictions by misinterpreting it. I'm not about to tell you when the end of the world is. I don't know. I do know for you and I, it is less than 100 years most likely as we are going to die if He doesn't return.
>That's the same book that has predicted the end of the world dozens or even hundreds of >times.
Yes people have tried to predict the end many times. Jesus, in the Bible said, that no man knows the day nor the hour of His return. He also said many will come claiming to be Him and not to run after them because when He comes, as lighting goes from east to west so will His coming be. In other words only God knows the end of the world--the date--and when Jesus comes all we see Him and know. The Bible speaks of the mountains fleeing away and there being no where for rebellious sinners who've refused Him and His reign to hide when the King returns. They will cry out for the rocks to hide them from the face of Him who sits on the throne. Today is the day to accept His mercy--not then.
The Bible has not been wrong. People have come up with all sorts of crazy ideas and predictions by misinterpreting it. I'm not about to tell you when the end of the world is. I don't know. I do know for you and I, it is less than 100 years most likely as we are going to die if He doesn't return.
@hdhondt,
>The problem I see with religion is that you are required to stop thinking at some point.
If you mean that eventually it requires faith, you'd be correct. However to say you must stop thinking, I don't know. The God of the Bible wants us to think. He said "come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as wool." (this quote from memory)
God wants us to explore His world and see He handy work, but to give credit where credit is due. The world was made for His pleasure. Man did mess things up temporarily by rebellion by which the creation itself was cursed--temporarily. That is the reason for all inequities. If we rightfully examine how intricate and precise things are made and are honest we must admit that some awesome Creator, designed things in an incredible way.
Look how small He wrote the program (DNA) to build you and I. That is amazing. Look at the efficiency and speed of the tail that spins on bacteria. It's like an outboard motor. It has many parts and does high RPMs, yet stops on a dime and reverses without ruining the motor. Consider the elegant flight of the hummingbird. We have built no aircraft that can mimic it completely. Consider the stars, the heavens the oceans and all its creatures. The glory of God shows forth in all creation. To attribute His work to another or to accident is an insult to Him for sure.
>The problem I see with religion is that you are required to stop thinking at some point.
If you mean that eventually it requires faith, you'd be correct. However to say you must stop thinking, I don't know. The God of the Bible wants us to think. He said "come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as wool." (this quote from memory)
God wants us to explore His world and see He handy work, but to give credit where credit is due. The world was made for His pleasure. Man did mess things up temporarily by rebellion by which the creation itself was cursed--temporarily. That is the reason for all inequities. If we rightfully examine how intricate and precise things are made and are honest we must admit that some awesome Creator, designed things in an incredible way.
Look how small He wrote the program (DNA) to build you and I. That is amazing. Look at the efficiency and speed of the tail that spins on bacteria. It's like an outboard motor. It has many parts and does high RPMs, yet stops on a dime and reverses without ruining the motor. Consider the elegant flight of the hummingbird. We have built no aircraft that can mimic it completely. Consider the stars, the heavens the oceans and all its creatures. The glory of God shows forth in all creation. To attribute His work to another or to accident is an insult to Him for sure.
Just like I said: others misinterpret the bible, but your interpretation is the only correct one.
And right from the beginning christians been expecting the imminent end. Christ himself said (according to your bible) that the end would come while some people present at that time were still alive. No doubt that interpretation of the bible has been proven correct as well.
Note that there are many many christians who have no problem with an old earth or evolution - and they use the very same bible as you, just a different interpretation.
But, you know that your interpretation is correct. And to prove the accuracy of the bible, you use the bible, so you're always right.
And right from the beginning christians been expecting the imminent end. Christ himself said (according to your bible) that the end would come while some people present at that time were still alive. No doubt that interpretation of the bible has been proven correct as well.
Note that there are many many christians who have no problem with an old earth or evolution - and they use the very same bible as you, just a different interpretation.
But, you know that your interpretation is correct. And to prove the accuracy of the bible, you use the bible, so you're always right.
I don't understand why you point out that chimps and dolphins are self-aware?
Chimps actually can use tools like rocks to crack coconut's, sticks to poke into holes to get bugs and dolphins have a 'language' which are self aware functions
Ian, can you also explain what the self-awareness of chimps and dolphins has got to do with any of my contibutions to this discussion? I'm quite happy for chimps and dolphins to be self-aware. I think dogs are too. But this has nothing whatsover to do with anything I've been saying.
@Jason210
You asked how self-awareness can possibly be an emergent property.
If you put a pot of paint on the head of chimps or dolphins, and then put them in front of a mirror, they will understand that the spot is on their head and, in the case of the chimp, will reach for it and rub their head. In other words, they are aware who the creature in the mirror is. That can only be the case if they are self-aware. Chimps are also able to deliberately fool others, and will sometimes check whether others are watching them, before hiding something. They can also deliberately plan for future actions. All this implies that they are not only aware, but also know that others are aware. Various other animals, including dogs and elephants have also been shown to have some self-awareness (elephants understand the paint trick, too).
As I pointed out earlier, if chimps and dolphins are self-aware that means that it can arise spontaneously from intelligence. In other words, self-awareness can appear via evolution, instead of requiring the actions of a "designer". Unless of course we stipulate that the designer created various levels of intelligence and awareness into different species. Either way, we are not that special.
You asked how self-awareness can possibly be an emergent property.
If you put a pot of paint on the head of chimps or dolphins, and then put them in front of a mirror, they will understand that the spot is on their head and, in the case of the chimp, will reach for it and rub their head. In other words, they are aware who the creature in the mirror is. That can only be the case if they are self-aware. Chimps are also able to deliberately fool others, and will sometimes check whether others are watching them, before hiding something. They can also deliberately plan for future actions. All this implies that they are not only aware, but also know that others are aware. Various other animals, including dogs and elephants have also been shown to have some self-awareness (elephants understand the paint trick, too).
As I pointed out earlier, if chimps and dolphins are self-aware that means that it can arise spontaneously from intelligence. In other words, self-awareness can appear via evolution, instead of requiring the actions of a "designer". Unless of course we stipulate that the designer created various levels of intelligence and awareness into different species. Either way, we are not that special.
@SStory
I'm still waiting for your explanation why you keep using computers and mobile phones. As I explained before, by your reasoning our theories of quantum mechanics (QED) and General Relativity are dead wrong - even though they have been tested to very high accuracy. In the case of QED, to 13 decimal places.
Of course, one answer could be that god created the universe as a gigantic lie: created 6000 years ago, with a 13.7 billion year history. In that case why not say it was created yesterday, or 10 seconds ago? Nobody would be able to tell the difference - but it means that god is a con man.
So, why are you still using an impossible contraption like a computer?
I'm still waiting for your explanation why you keep using computers and mobile phones. As I explained before, by your reasoning our theories of quantum mechanics (QED) and General Relativity are dead wrong - even though they have been tested to very high accuracy. In the case of QED, to 13 decimal places.
Of course, one answer could be that god created the universe as a gigantic lie: created 6000 years ago, with a 13.7 billion year history. In that case why not say it was created yesterday, or 10 seconds ago? Nobody would be able to tell the difference - but it means that god is a con man.
So, why are you still using an impossible contraption like a computer?
If you put a pot of paint on the head of chimps or dolphins, and then put them in front of a mirror, they will understand that the spot is on their head and, in the case of the chimp, will reach for it and rub their head. In other words, they are aware who the creature in the mirror is. That can only be the case if they are self-awareActually there is no empirical proof of self-awareness. There can't be, because self-awareness is subjective. This experiment suggests self-awareness certainly, but it does not prove. A complex machine that is not self-aware could do the same.
However, I have never argued that self-awareness is not an emergent property, nor that humans are special in the sense you are implying :-)
What I said is that I believe that awareness, which must be prior to self-awareness, need not be an emergent property.
@hdhondt,
Science:
Webster's Dictionary:
"knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena"
"Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science?show=0&t=1342748879
Science is knowledge. The scientific method, I'm sure you know. So there is true science and there is junk science. Global warming, for example, is a politically motivated, control-oriented "tax" that ignores the truth and demands to be excepted even though at the last two summits on global warming they had record cold. ;) Evolution, I would say, is accepted by biased scientists who don't want to entertain any idea of a God to whom they'd have to give and account and thus give up their short-term pleasures (sins). They ignore facts. They have information of which Darwin never dreamed, microscopic views of which he would never have dreamed.
"Darwin said one thing pretty strongly in The Origin of Species. He said that if it can be shown that any system or organ could not be produced by many small steps, continuously improving the system at each step, then his system would absolutely fall apart." Quoted from Michael J. Behe, Department of Biological Sciences, Leigh University.
This is shown by many things such as the tail of the bacteria that has many parts that were all needed to be a useful addition. Also for sexual reproduction between humans to have been possible, the male and female would have had to have evolved at exactly the same time into people who could reproduce. So macro evolution as suggested by Darwin is based upon junk science by people who do not want to bow to a Creator who demands their allegiance. That is the simple truth.
Now as to valid science, we know without doubt how the electron behaves and electricity, electronics, and computers are built on these facts. These aren't built on disputable or controversial theories, but on facts. You can shove electrons down a copper wire or good conductor. Anyone that argues against that might shock themselves real good to see what happens (with a low voltage of course) and then try to explain the reason for getting shocked in another way if he like.
There are many scientific facts. There are laws of nature. You can't walk on water according to science and nature, but Jesus did. He made it all and can override the normal
attributes of natural things if He likes.
Yes I base my world view on the Bible. The Bible has never been wrong. Many people have made many crazy claims from it. Many have taken a single verse out of context and twisted it to do all sorts of dastardly things. This does not invalidate the Bible, it just means the people who misused it didn't understand what it meant or maybe had no intention of it and just used it and abused it for their own selfish motives.
As to the ice age and billions of years...etc. etc(whoever asked)... what if, God just dried up the world wide flood, by blowing a lot of that excess water up north and south into big heaps and just froze it instantly? That wouldn't take billions of years for an omnipotent being, would it? So the theory of billions of years and the ice age is just a theory. The dinosaurs could have lived with Adam and Eve and not been permitted on the ark and thus drowned, got buried, and/or froze inside of the ice that was used to store some of that excess water. How the ice got there is a theory of mine of course, but it's just as good of a theory as the ice age and billions of years. Neither can really be proven...only declared as fact and accepted by some as fact instead of theory...with no real basis to do so. At some point on things like that you will believe what you wish.
You use a computer. Do you think it assembled itself after billions of years? Do you think it could? I bet you could drop a trillion alphabetical letters for a billion years and they'd never land so that they spelled out the Constitution of the USA. Do you think it would? If not why believe that given billions of year junk bumped together made choices and became us? It takes no greater faith to believe in the one than the other?
Science:
Webster's Dictionary:
"knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena"
"Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science?show=0&t=1342748879
Science is knowledge. The scientific method, I'm sure you know. So there is true science and there is junk science. Global warming, for example, is a politically motivated, control-oriented "tax" that ignores the truth and demands to be excepted even though at the last two summits on global warming they had record cold. ;) Evolution, I would say, is accepted by biased scientists who don't want to entertain any idea of a God to whom they'd have to give and account and thus give up their short-term pleasures (sins). They ignore facts. They have information of which Darwin never dreamed, microscopic views of which he would never have dreamed.
"Darwin said one thing pretty strongly in The Origin of Species. He said that if it can be shown that any system or organ could not be produced by many small steps, continuously improving the system at each step, then his system would absolutely fall apart." Quoted from Michael J. Behe, Department of Biological Sciences, Leigh University.
This is shown by many things such as the tail of the bacteria that has many parts that were all needed to be a useful addition. Also for sexual reproduction between humans to have been possible, the male and female would have had to have evolved at exactly the same time into people who could reproduce. So macro evolution as suggested by Darwin is based upon junk science by people who do not want to bow to a Creator who demands their allegiance. That is the simple truth.
Now as to valid science, we know without doubt how the electron behaves and electricity, electronics, and computers are built on these facts. These aren't built on disputable or controversial theories, but on facts. You can shove electrons down a copper wire or good conductor. Anyone that argues against that might shock themselves real good to see what happens (with a low voltage of course) and then try to explain the reason for getting shocked in another way if he like.
There are many scientific facts. There are laws of nature. You can't walk on water according to science and nature, but Jesus did. He made it all and can override the normal
attributes of natural things if He likes.
Yes I base my world view on the Bible. The Bible has never been wrong. Many people have made many crazy claims from it. Many have taken a single verse out of context and twisted it to do all sorts of dastardly things. This does not invalidate the Bible, it just means the people who misused it didn't understand what it meant or maybe had no intention of it and just used it and abused it for their own selfish motives.
As to the ice age and billions of years...etc. etc(whoever asked)... what if, God just dried up the world wide flood, by blowing a lot of that excess water up north and south into big heaps and just froze it instantly? That wouldn't take billions of years for an omnipotent being, would it? So the theory of billions of years and the ice age is just a theory. The dinosaurs could have lived with Adam and Eve and not been permitted on the ark and thus drowned, got buried, and/or froze inside of the ice that was used to store some of that excess water. How the ice got there is a theory of mine of course, but it's just as good of a theory as the ice age and billions of years. Neither can really be proven...only declared as fact and accepted by some as fact instead of theory...with no real basis to do so. At some point on things like that you will believe what you wish.
You use a computer. Do you think it assembled itself after billions of years? Do you think it could? I bet you could drop a trillion alphabetical letters for a billion years and they'd never land so that they spelled out the Constitution of the USA. Do you think it would? If not why believe that given billions of year junk bumped together made choices and became us? It takes no greater faith to believe in the one than the other?
>If god made the earth what about the rest of the universe there are billions of galaxies >and in those billions of stars. Did he also create the black holes? I mean we could get >totally wiped out by a coronal mass ejection heading our way did he design that.
Yes. He made it all. There was nothing. He spoke and bang, everything exploded into being and rapid order. This includes black holes. The earth will never be destroyed by any such thing, unless it becomes time for God to destroy it. His word says that there is coming a day when He will do so. It will be worse than the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" or any of these earthquake, tornado, volcano, movies that Hollywood puts out. Until that time comes, you can rest assure that the one who made the Earth, will sustain the Earth. If He were not looking out for His planet, for sure a large asteroid or something cataclysmic would already have wiped us out.
>Dinosaurs where around for hundreds of million of years humans have been round for >about 2-3 million years and the dinosaurs got obliterated by a asteroid 65million years >old if that didn't happen we wouldn't be here after all.
No proof of the obliteration of millions of years. No proof of humans being around that long either. This is all by error ridden dating techniques.
Yes. He made it all. There was nothing. He spoke and bang, everything exploded into being and rapid order. This includes black holes. The earth will never be destroyed by any such thing, unless it becomes time for God to destroy it. His word says that there is coming a day when He will do so. It will be worse than the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" or any of these earthquake, tornado, volcano, movies that Hollywood puts out. Until that time comes, you can rest assure that the one who made the Earth, will sustain the Earth. If He were not looking out for His planet, for sure a large asteroid or something cataclysmic would already have wiped us out.
>Dinosaurs where around for hundreds of million of years humans have been round for >about 2-3 million years and the dinosaurs got obliterated by a asteroid 65million years >old if that didn't happen we wouldn't be here after all.
No proof of the obliteration of millions of years. No proof of humans being around that long either. This is all by error ridden dating techniques.
@hdhondt,
>Just like I said: others misinterpret the bible, but your interpretation is the only correct >one.
I'm not perfect and I may misnterpret something in the Bible, but that does not invalidate the Bible. But the Bible is very clear on origins. In fact the word Genesis comes from a Hebrew word for "origins." So God wanted us to know how it began.
>And right from the beginning christians been expecting the imminent end. Christ >himself said (according to your bible) that the end would come while some people >present at that time were still alive. No doubt that interpretation of the bible has been >proven correct as well.
No He didn't. He told the Jews that their end...the end of Jerusalem, the destruction...the end of the old way was imminent..That is what He was talking of and it 70AD the temple was destroyed and God turned His back on an apostate nation that had left following Him to following laws and rules they'd made up or borrowed from other nations.
Jesus said some would not die before they'd seen His kingdom. He also said His kingdom did not come by outward observation. It isn't something you can see at present. His kingdom at present is within people. People who receive Jesus, have the Holy Spirit live in them. Together they form His kingdom rule on Earth and He move through them to accomplish much of His work on Earth. One day He, Himself will return and that will be visible but hasn't yet taken place.
>Note that there are many many christians who have no problem with an old earth or >evolution - and they use the very same bible as you, just a different interpretation.
People will believe what they want to, but I see nothing in the Bible that would lead me to believe in evolution. Usually people come to this decision because they lack faith to just take God at His word and believe in the supernatural--they need to be able to "explain" everything in a way that is acceptable to their "rational" logical minds.
Also, not everyone who calls himself a Christian, really is--really knows Jesus. He said that many would stand before Him in the day of Judgment and say that they've prophesied in His name, cast out demons in His name and done many miracles, but He will say depart from me because I NEVER KNEW YOU. Now there were Christians who probably believed the world was flat at one time. They were wrong...it didn't keep them from being true Christians. I find it hard to believe that a true Christian, one who must by faith alone, put their trust in Jesus Christ to be their eternal Lord and Savior, to rescue them from the flames of hell, to save their soul, and lead their lives (see Ephesians 2:8-9), would have a problem having faith that God just spoke and bang it came into being in 7 literal days.
>Just like I said: others misinterpret the bible, but your interpretation is the only correct >one.
I'm not perfect and I may misnterpret something in the Bible, but that does not invalidate the Bible. But the Bible is very clear on origins. In fact the word Genesis comes from a Hebrew word for "origins." So God wanted us to know how it began.
>And right from the beginning christians been expecting the imminent end. Christ >himself said (according to your bible) that the end would come while some people >present at that time were still alive. No doubt that interpretation of the bible has been >proven correct as well.
No He didn't. He told the Jews that their end...the end of Jerusalem, the destruction...the end of the old way was imminent..That is what He was talking of and it 70AD the temple was destroyed and God turned His back on an apostate nation that had left following Him to following laws and rules they'd made up or borrowed from other nations.
Jesus said some would not die before they'd seen His kingdom. He also said His kingdom did not come by outward observation. It isn't something you can see at present. His kingdom at present is within people. People who receive Jesus, have the Holy Spirit live in them. Together they form His kingdom rule on Earth and He move through them to accomplish much of His work on Earth. One day He, Himself will return and that will be visible but hasn't yet taken place.
>Note that there are many many christians who have no problem with an old earth or >evolution - and they use the very same bible as you, just a different interpretation.
People will believe what they want to, but I see nothing in the Bible that would lead me to believe in evolution. Usually people come to this decision because they lack faith to just take God at His word and believe in the supernatural--they need to be able to "explain" everything in a way that is acceptable to their "rational" logical minds.
Also, not everyone who calls himself a Christian, really is--really knows Jesus. He said that many would stand before Him in the day of Judgment and say that they've prophesied in His name, cast out demons in His name and done many miracles, but He will say depart from me because I NEVER KNEW YOU. Now there were Christians who probably believed the world was flat at one time. They were wrong...it didn't keep them from being true Christians. I find it hard to believe that a true Christian, one who must by faith alone, put their trust in Jesus Christ to be their eternal Lord and Savior, to rescue them from the flames of hell, to save their soul, and lead their lives (see Ephesians 2:8-9), would have a problem having faith that God just spoke and bang it came into being in 7 literal days.
I honestly can't answer the QED and general relativity. I'd have to study up on those to give an intelligent response. Perhaps another Christian has a response to this one.
How are you measuring 13 billions years? How can you be sure that whatever instrument you are using is based upon something that has always remained constant? There is really no way. You'd have to have been here 13 billions years ago and lived unto now to really now. There's only one being who's been around 13 billion years and more...unless He created some angels that were around then too.
How are you measuring 13 billions years? How can you be sure that whatever instrument you are using is based upon something that has always remained constant? There is really no way. You'd have to have been here 13 billions years ago and lived unto now to really now. There's only one being who's been around 13 billion years and more...unless He created some angels that were around then too.
Well, Mr Story, thank you for stating your belief in the old book, and for informing us all what is and what isn't valid science. But you really didn't need to go into all those words - all you needed to say was "Valid science is science not contradicted by the old book, wheareas junk science is that which contradicts the old book.
I find your attempts to redefine science and challenge physics amusing...but not half-as-amusing as the way you continue on, like the Black Knight in Monty Python, utterly oblivious to the tattered remnants of whatever philosophical or scientific credibility you still cling to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4&feature=player_embedded
I find your attempts to redefine science and challenge physics amusing...but not half-as-amusing as the way you continue on, like the Black Knight in Monty Python, utterly oblivious to the tattered remnants of whatever philosophical or scientific credibility you still cling to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4&feature=player_embedded
How are you measuring 13 billions years?
That is measured using the exact same sciences used in computers and GPSs: quantum mechanics and general relativity.
If those measurements are wrong then quantum mechanics and general relativity are wrong, and your computer, mobile phone, GPS system and many other devices cannot possibly work as claimed.
So which is it: is you GPS working, or is the earth 6000 years old? You cannot have it both ways unless you are fooling yourself.
@Jason210
The reason why I mentioned chimps etc is because I got the impression from your earlier comment that you felt awareness could not arise through evolution. If I was wrong in that assumption, my apologies.
The dinosaurs where here if they had been round when adam and eve that means adam and eve who where modern humans where around over 65 million years ago and would have been wiped out by the same asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. The KT boundary is worldwide and no dinosaur bones are above it. Its thought the only way that mammals survived the dinosaur extinction event was because our ancient ancestor back then was small and could live underground and that means very small.
There have been multiple ice ages in fact there is a theory because of drop stones in deserts that only happen when they are carried by glaciers that there was a worldwide ice age and only got fixed by volcano's.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
That was before the dinosaurs about 650 million years ago.
So I think the bible especially genesis as literal rubbish.
I mean Jericho is on a tectonic boundary between the Arabian plate and the African plate that has nearly destroyed Jericho multiple times is that mentioned in the bible? Does that mean you don't believe in tectonic plates as they are not in the bible? Well they are there if you believe it or not. In fact they are all connected volcano's plate tectonics, deep sea trenches, subduction zones. Mountains are created when tectonic plates push against each other.
There have been multiple ice ages in fact there is a theory because of drop stones in deserts that only happen when they are carried by glaciers that there was a worldwide ice age and only got fixed by volcano's.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
That was before the dinosaurs about 650 million years ago.
So I think the bible especially genesis as literal rubbish.
I mean Jericho is on a tectonic boundary between the Arabian plate and the African plate that has nearly destroyed Jericho multiple times is that mentioned in the bible? Does that mean you don't believe in tectonic plates as they are not in the bible? Well they are there if you believe it or not. In fact they are all connected volcano's plate tectonics, deep sea trenches, subduction zones. Mountains are created when tectonic plates push against each other.
What I said that I believe awareness is fundamental whereas self-awareness is something that evolved.
ASKER
Hi guys.
I just came back from a busy holiday.
I just have read above:
"How are you measuring 13 billions years?
That is measured using the exact same sciences used in computers and GPSs: quantum mechanics and general relativity."
Could you point to a specific procedure where is described the measurement?
Here is basic info about age of universe from where the 13 billions of years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
Do not forget one thing: before quantum mechanics and general relativity was Newtonian physics.
The same can be in future: another physics theory can appear which will prove that quantum mechanics and general relativity are true as models with certain limits only as part of reality.
Then numbers or actual proofs have different meanings.
Then only looking at today knowledge from a different perspective maybe we can have also next view as bridge:
http://www.holycrossmonastery.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27:the-universe-6-days-and-13-billion-years-old&catid=7:science-and-religion&Itemid=20
I just came back from a busy holiday.
I just have read above:
"How are you measuring 13 billions years?
That is measured using the exact same sciences used in computers and GPSs: quantum mechanics and general relativity."
Could you point to a specific procedure where is described the measurement?
Here is basic info about age of universe from where the 13 billions of years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
Do not forget one thing: before quantum mechanics and general relativity was Newtonian physics.
The same can be in future: another physics theory can appear which will prove that quantum mechanics and general relativity are true as models with certain limits only as part of reality.
Then numbers or actual proofs have different meanings.
Then only looking at today knowledge from a different perspective maybe we can have also next view as bridge:
http://www.holycrossmonastery.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27:the-universe-6-days-and-13-billion-years-old&catid=7:science-and-religion&Itemid=20
I'm afraid that measuring the age of the universe is not as simple as putting a tape measure alongside it. The age of the universe is something that is deduced, using various techniques. These techniques are all based on the concepts of modern physics, including quantum mechanics and general relativity. It starts from calculating, using quantum mechanics, what the universe would look like at very early times. In the case of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, we're talking about the characteristics of the universe at an age of 300,000 years. We then calculate how that radiation would look like at present, using general relativity. Then we measure what it looks like today, and we find an extremely good match.
This is what gives us the age of 13.72 Gy. However, if this was the only measurement indicating an old universe, we should indeed be sceptical. Fortunately for science it isn't. There are many other avenues that all indicate similar ages. As just one example from a completely different field, the Oklo natural nuclear rector indicates that the laws of physics were the same 2 GY ago as they are today.
The holycross link states (on unknown calculations) that the genesis time at the "edge of the universe" is 6 days. That implies that there is an edge to the universe, something which is currently under debate, but many scientists lean towards the view that there is no such thing. Either the universe is finite but unbounded (like a sphere, but in more than 3 dimensions), or it could be infinite. There is also general agreement that, due to inflation, the universe is enormously larger than just the visible one. And here's something the holycross guy forgot: even the observable universe is much larger than he thinks. Instead of being 27.44 billion lightyears (2 x 13.72) across, the real figure is 93GLy. Have a look at this Wikipedia link.
So yes, you can discard our current theories. However, you will need to replace them with something that gives at least as good a result for current measurements. Do any "young earthers" and (un)intelligent designers have such a theory?
Until you can do that, you may as well accept the theory that god created the universe 6000 years ago, with a size of 93 GLy and a history of 13.72Gy. In other words, the universe would be a gigantic lie. There is no way anyone can prove such a theory incorrect, but in that case, I could equally claim that I created it personally, last week. I just forgot how I did it and now I'm stuck with the mess.
On the other hand, if you do want to stick with scriptures, why not look at Hinduism where the universe is billions of years old. Why believe the Bible instead of the Veda? Better still, why not believe our intelligence, and reality?
This is what gives us the age of 13.72 Gy. However, if this was the only measurement indicating an old universe, we should indeed be sceptical. Fortunately for science it isn't. There are many other avenues that all indicate similar ages. As just one example from a completely different field, the Oklo natural nuclear rector indicates that the laws of physics were the same 2 GY ago as they are today.
The holycross link states (on unknown calculations) that the genesis time at the "edge of the universe" is 6 days. That implies that there is an edge to the universe, something which is currently under debate, but many scientists lean towards the view that there is no such thing. Either the universe is finite but unbounded (like a sphere, but in more than 3 dimensions), or it could be infinite. There is also general agreement that, due to inflation, the universe is enormously larger than just the visible one. And here's something the holycross guy forgot: even the observable universe is much larger than he thinks. Instead of being 27.44 billion lightyears (2 x 13.72) across, the real figure is 93GLy. Have a look at this Wikipedia link.
before quantum mechanics and general relativity was Newtonian physics.You overlook the fact that GR gives exactly the same predictions a Newton in everyday situations. The same has to be true for any future theories: they will confirm the measurements where GR is correct. We already know that GR is not the final answer, but at the same time we know that it is extremely accurate in most situations.
The same can be in future
So yes, you can discard our current theories. However, you will need to replace them with something that gives at least as good a result for current measurements. Do any "young earthers" and (un)intelligent designers have such a theory?
Until you can do that, you may as well accept the theory that god created the universe 6000 years ago, with a size of 93 GLy and a history of 13.72Gy. In other words, the universe would be a gigantic lie. There is no way anyone can prove such a theory incorrect, but in that case, I could equally claim that I created it personally, last week. I just forgot how I did it and now I'm stuck with the mess.
On the other hand, if you do want to stick with scriptures, why not look at Hinduism where the universe is billions of years old. Why believe the Bible instead of the Veda? Better still, why not believe our intelligence, and reality?
"On the other hand, if you do want to stick with scriptures, why not look at Hinduism where the universe is billions of years old. Why believe the Bible instead of the Veda? Better still, why not believe our intelligence, and reality?"
With all due respect,
Because the leaders of all other religions are still rotting in their graves. True Christianity was started by God in the Flesh (Jesus). He died, crucified in front of many, and He was placed in a tomb that was sealed by the authority of Rome, with guards even posted there and yet He arose from the grave--proving that He is who He said He was. He was seen by over 400 witnesses. He did many miracles while on Earth that were witnessed by many people. There is a reason to believe the Bible. The author of the Bible came to Earth, died for our sins, and rose from the grave to prove His claims.
With all due respect,
Because the leaders of all other religions are still rotting in their graves. True Christianity was started by God in the Flesh (Jesus). He died, crucified in front of many, and He was placed in a tomb that was sealed by the authority of Rome, with guards even posted there and yet He arose from the grave--proving that He is who He said He was. He was seen by over 400 witnesses. He did many miracles while on Earth that were witnessed by many people. There is a reason to believe the Bible. The author of the Bible came to Earth, died for our sins, and rose from the grave to prove His claims.
ASKER
And because He is alive and He comes back to Earth.
And because He is alive and He comes back to Earth.So does Santa Claus. He comes every year...
I do not deny that Jesus may have existed, but where are the independent reports of his life? The Romans were pretty damn good bureaucrats, but they do not mention any of the amazing happenings in Palestine. The proof of the bible is in the bible - except where it contradicts itself, of course.
As it does for example in the idea of the trinity. The old testament is pretty clear there is only 1 god, but Jesus is said to be god and he talked about his father who is also god. Then there is the holy spirit, yet another flavour. No contradiction? Only if you believe in Santa. Of course some christians (same bible) do not believe Jesus was god, but then which version am I supposed to believe?
I'll say this one more time. If you believe in modern technology and you also believe in a 6000 year old universe, you had better come up with a real scientific theory that explains all the currently known facts. To be a real scientific theory you also need to come up with some predictions (facts that are not yet known but predicted by your theory) and ways to falsify your theory (some experiment that, when confirmed, would indicate your theory is wrong). I've yet to see any unintelligent designers come up with any idea that could not be refuted in minutes.
If you can't do that you should either stop using modern technologies, or upgrade your religion so it fits the facts.
ASKER
"I do not deny that Jesus may have existed, but where are the independent reports of his life? The Romans were pretty damn good bureaucrats, but they do not mention any of the amazing happenings in Palestine"
Some historical proofs here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0
Some historical proofs here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0
Please read the last 2 paragraphs of my last post.
ASKER
The modern technologies and religion are not incompatible. The same for science.
There were and are enough scientists believers.
There were and are enough scientists believers.
I said: "If you believe in modern technology and you also believe in a 6000 year old universe, you had better come up with a real scientific theory that explains all the currently known facts."
Where is the theory that explains the bending of light, the slowing of clocks in a gravitational field and at high speed, that explains how electrons and quarks behave like particles as well as waves, that lets the universe look 13 billion years old, and that, at the same time, proves that it is really only 6000 years old?
Creation "scientists" and unintelligent designers have never come up with any argument that stood a scientific test. It used to be that eyes or wings could not have evolved (and yes, even Darwin had problems with that) but now we know how easily they can. Now they're groping at things like molecular structures of microbes and every time science can point out a way in which it can evolve. All they're left with is to say that "the book says so" without explaining why a translation of a translation of a 3000 year old book has any particular scientific value.
Of course I cannot prove you wrong if you believe in a god who started the universe 13 billion years ago and the left it alone, apart from perhaps an occasional tweak (how??) so that people could evolve. A totally invisible god can no more be disproved than the fairies in my garden. I believe in them, I can see them; if you can't there is something wrong with your eyes. I just haven't written a book about them yet.
BTW, I did also say that "I do not deny that Jesus may have existed". I looked at your youtube link and noticed all the evidence dates from a couple of generations after Jesus. Not what I was looking for.
Where is the theory that explains the bending of light, the slowing of clocks in a gravitational field and at high speed, that explains how electrons and quarks behave like particles as well as waves, that lets the universe look 13 billion years old, and that, at the same time, proves that it is really only 6000 years old?
Creation "scientists" and unintelligent designers have never come up with any argument that stood a scientific test. It used to be that eyes or wings could not have evolved (and yes, even Darwin had problems with that) but now we know how easily they can. Now they're groping at things like molecular structures of microbes and every time science can point out a way in which it can evolve. All they're left with is to say that "the book says so" without explaining why a translation of a translation of a 3000 year old book has any particular scientific value.
Of course I cannot prove you wrong if you believe in a god who started the universe 13 billion years ago and the left it alone, apart from perhaps an occasional tweak (how??) so that people could evolve. A totally invisible god can no more be disproved than the fairies in my garden. I believe in them, I can see them; if you can't there is something wrong with your eyes. I just haven't written a book about them yet.
BTW, I did also say that "I do not deny that Jesus may have existed". I looked at your youtube link and noticed all the evidence dates from a couple of generations after Jesus. Not what I was looking for.
More proof of Jesus' existence:
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
@SStory
Please read what I said: "I do not deny that Jesus may have existed"
That makes it 3 times now. And, a quick glance at your link (I did not fully read it) shows that it is mostly the same "evidence" that viki gave, and all of it is from long after Jesus lived.
Do you have any relevant answers to the points I made about science vs a 6000 year old earth?
Please read what I said: "I do not deny that Jesus may have existed"
That makes it 3 times now. And, a quick glance at your link (I did not fully read it) shows that it is mostly the same "evidence" that viki gave, and all of it is from long after Jesus lived.
Do you have any relevant answers to the points I made about science vs a 6000 year old earth?
I have nothing against people wanting to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, so long as they are harmless. Such people serve a purpose - at the very least stimulate arguments and stimulate thought.
However, at the same time I find it sad that their life is dependant on such a belief system, and that they require that belief system in order to do to have faith and do "good" to others.
I also find it impossible to be friends with people who hold strange belief because often I cannot respect them. I feel like I am patronising them when I am talking to them.
However it's a different story when they are not harmless and try to impose their belief system on others - we see too much of that in this world.
However, at the same time I find it sad that their life is dependant on such a belief system, and that they require that belief system in order to do to have faith and do "good" to others.
I also find it impossible to be friends with people who hold strange belief because often I cannot respect them. I feel like I am patronising them when I am talking to them.
However it's a different story when they are not harmless and try to impose their belief system on others - we see too much of that in this world.
Amen to that, Jason
These people seem to have 2 completely incompatible versions of the world. They want to believe in all the science and technology, but at the same time they want to keep their old-fashioned, comfortable beliefs. Unfortunately, these belief systems are at odds with each other. Even common things like computers are designed with science that is completely incompatible with a 6000 year old world. This would not be a scientific problem if they tried to come up with theories to explain the facts as they see it, but they seem totally unable to do that. In the case of evolution all they can do is point out things that could be a problem to the accepted science (and they dismally failed so far), but in the other sciences they don't even seem to understand that they have a problem.
These people seem to have 2 completely incompatible versions of the world. They want to believe in all the science and technology, but at the same time they want to keep their old-fashioned, comfortable beliefs. Unfortunately, these belief systems are at odds with each other. Even common things like computers are designed with science that is completely incompatible with a 6000 year old world. This would not be a scientific problem if they tried to come up with theories to explain the facts as they see it, but they seem totally unable to do that. In the case of evolution all they can do is point out things that could be a problem to the accepted science (and they dismally failed so far), but in the other sciences they don't even seem to understand that they have a problem.
ASKER
“However it's a different story when they are not harmless and try to impose their belief system on others - we see too much of that in this world.”
We should make here a clear observation:
- I agree that forced conversions = “impose their belief system on others” is totally wrong and in particular the Christianity through the Bible does not say that, in fact is against that. Only people as those from Inquisition did it on their purpose.
- Jesus commands to disciples to spread the Gospel. That implies that the Word has to be made known to the people that never heard. That is not imposing. But a Christian cannot be silent.
We should make here a clear observation:
- I agree that forced conversions = “impose their belief system on others” is totally wrong and in particular the Christianity through the Bible does not say that, in fact is against that. Only people as those from Inquisition did it on their purpose.
- Jesus commands to disciples to spread the Gospel. That implies that the Word has to be made known to the people that never heard. That is not imposing. But a Christian cannot be silent.
Jesus commands to disciples to spread the GospelBut what is the Gospel? That the earth is 6000 years old? Not according to Paul, who defined it as follows:
“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”
- 1st Corinthians 15:1-4
Now that's Paul telling us what he thinks the Gospel is. Paul had a lot to say about his version of Christianity. Very influential was Paul. Yet Paul never met Jesus. Go figure.
Viki, you might also want to consider that there are a large number of different christian religions. Many of those have their own version of the bible, and accept none of the others. And there are differences between those bibles as well as between the religions. Would you expect a protestant to use a catholic bible?
I suggest that, until you can agree with each other about what the bible actually says, you should stop being dogmatic about it.
I suggest that, until you can agree with each other about what the bible actually says, you should stop being dogmatic about it.
ASKER
“But what is the Gospel?”
Gospel is not about Earth 6000 years old of course.
Gospel means “Good News”.
And the good news are:
- Man kind does not need to follow a set of rules in order to reconnect with God.
- God came down from heavens in flesh and did all the necessary work in order to re-establish the connection between men and God
- What men have to do is only to accept that work: that Jesus died for all the sins one for all.
- And the news were spread not only by Paul.
“Viki, you might also want to consider that there are a large number of different christian religions. Many of those have their own version of the bible, and accept none of the others. And there are differences between those bibles as well as between the religions. Would you expect a protestant to use a catholic bible?”
The core of the Bible is the same for all; is the same as I presented short above.
What makes the differences is: the “church” interpretations on various things not essential, the “tradition” and various things which are not mentioned in the Bible. That’s why the Reform was done. They started to add things which were not originally written. From here the differences. But the essence and the origin is the same.
The problem of modern man is the difficulty to accept God and then is looking at different things as reasons to say: that is old fashioned, God does not exist…
Is only a period of waiting, of chance for some generations…and things will change again. Man will see the power of God again – for some to late.
What is all this big deal with present science and 6000 years old? When we speak about God and His power, miracles for us, everything is possible. The time is counted different for instance. The laws of physics are different. He made the laws; He decided how the time evolved. For us seems in a certain way. Not for Him.
Don’t you remember that even us, Hawking said that in proximity of a black hole the time is different; the laws of physics prior big bang are not the same as now?
Christians believe that God and Jesus existed prior and big bang or whatever…God is the cause of all things. He is beyond time and beyond of our ways to investigate the laws of universe.
Gospel is not about Earth 6000 years old of course.
Gospel means “Good News”.
And the good news are:
- Man kind does not need to follow a set of rules in order to reconnect with God.
- God came down from heavens in flesh and did all the necessary work in order to re-establish the connection between men and God
- What men have to do is only to accept that work: that Jesus died for all the sins one for all.
- And the news were spread not only by Paul.
“Viki, you might also want to consider that there are a large number of different christian religions. Many of those have their own version of the bible, and accept none of the others. And there are differences between those bibles as well as between the religions. Would you expect a protestant to use a catholic bible?”
The core of the Bible is the same for all; is the same as I presented short above.
What makes the differences is: the “church” interpretations on various things not essential, the “tradition” and various things which are not mentioned in the Bible. That’s why the Reform was done. They started to add things which were not originally written. From here the differences. But the essence and the origin is the same.
The problem of modern man is the difficulty to accept God and then is looking at different things as reasons to say: that is old fashioned, God does not exist…
Is only a period of waiting, of chance for some generations…and things will change again. Man will see the power of God again – for some to late.
What is all this big deal with present science and 6000 years old? When we speak about God and His power, miracles for us, everything is possible. The time is counted different for instance. The laws of physics are different. He made the laws; He decided how the time evolved. For us seems in a certain way. Not for Him.
Don’t you remember that even us, Hawking said that in proximity of a black hole the time is different; the laws of physics prior big bang are not the same as now?
Christians believe that God and Jesus existed prior and big bang or whatever…God is the cause of all things. He is beyond time and beyond of our ways to investigate the laws of universe.
The core of the Bible is the same for all; is the same as I presented short above.Really????? You mean that the fact that some religions claim Jesus is God while others don't, is not a core belief? Look up, for example, Nontrinitarianism or Unitarianism. Or try Arianism (Newton's religion).
When we speak about God and His power, miracles for us, everything is possibleOf course. And as I said, he may have made a universe that looks 13 billion years old and then told us not to believe our senses, but to trust his book instead. If that is the case, I call him a conman. As for black holes, yes time does indeed run differently there - just like it does for the GPS satellites. And the theory of time that explains this (general relativity) also tells us that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
I'm looking forward to your theory that explains GPS satellites, while showing the universe is 6000 years old.And, by the way, if your theory explains the facts, scientists will even consider it - which is very different from bible believers, who ignore the facts when they don't suit them.
Christians believe that God and Jesus existed prior and big bang or whateverIf god is just the "ultimate cause" of the universe, then I can't prove you wrong. But in that case you're saying that he made the universe 13.7 billion years ago, and left it alone after that. We're not talking 6000 years. And, science never stops questioning. Once you've answered the question "why was there a the big bang?", the next question would be: "why is there a god?"
Jason210:
"Yet Paul never met Jesus. Go figure."
That's not true. Paul did meet Jesus. You need to read Acts 9, the first few verses.
Verses 3-5 say(NIV):
"3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied."
He met a post resurrection, post ascension Jesus--in person. His name was later changed from Saul to Paul.
"Yet Paul never met Jesus. Go figure."
That's not true. Paul did meet Jesus. You need to read Acts 9, the first few verses.
Verses 3-5 say(NIV):
"3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied."
He met a post resurrection, post ascension Jesus--in person. His name was later changed from Saul to Paul.
>If god is just the "ultimate cause" of the universe, then I can't prove you wrong.
OK
>>But in that case you're saying that he made the universe 13.7 billion years ago, and left it >>alone after that. We're not talking 6000 years.
There's no real way to prove the time, but who cares. The question is, "is the Bible a lie?"
As to "left it alone after that." That is a Deist mentality. I do not believe that and the Bible, showing God's intervention in human history again and again, shows us that He didn't just disappear. Now He has not yet brought all things to a close and completely reversed the curse, but that day is coming when all will be set right and evil will be stamped out of the universe by relegating all evil to the penitentiary of the damned forever.
>And, science never stops questioning. Once you've answered the question "why was >there a the big bang?", the next question would be:
>>"why is there a god?"
Why wouldn't there be God? It makes much more sense to believe that the ordered creation that we see was made by a grand Designer, who is all powerful. It is not logical to our minds to understand how anything or anyone could have always just been, but something or someone had to have always just been. It had to start somewhere. Genesis is the book of origins and it starts matter factually with "In the beginning, GOD..."
If you believe there was a bang and believe there is God, then it is imperative to know what He said, what He wants and for what you will give an account to Him. This is the real reason "science" looks to disprove of a God, because MEN/WOMEN LOVE THEIR SIN and do not want to be accountable to anyone.
OK
>>But in that case you're saying that he made the universe 13.7 billion years ago, and left it >>alone after that. We're not talking 6000 years.
There's no real way to prove the time, but who cares. The question is, "is the Bible a lie?"
As to "left it alone after that." That is a Deist mentality. I do not believe that and the Bible, showing God's intervention in human history again and again, shows us that He didn't just disappear. Now He has not yet brought all things to a close and completely reversed the curse, but that day is coming when all will be set right and evil will be stamped out of the universe by relegating all evil to the penitentiary of the damned forever.
>And, science never stops questioning. Once you've answered the question "why was >there a the big bang?", the next question would be:
>>"why is there a god?"
Why wouldn't there be God? It makes much more sense to believe that the ordered creation that we see was made by a grand Designer, who is all powerful. It is not logical to our minds to understand how anything or anyone could have always just been, but something or someone had to have always just been. It had to start somewhere. Genesis is the book of origins and it starts matter factually with "In the beginning, GOD..."
If you believe there was a bang and believe there is God, then it is imperative to know what He said, what He wants and for what you will give an account to Him. This is the real reason "science" looks to disprove of a God, because MEN/WOMEN LOVE THEIR SIN and do not want to be accountable to anyone.
This is the real reason "science" looks to disprove of a GodI'm afraid that science cannot ever prove that something does not exist, and scientists are well aware of that. If you don't believe me, try to prove that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden.
ASKER
When we speak about God and Bible we do not focus on "13 billion years" things.
It is about your and my soul.
With what will help for me to prove that I am right and you wrong or vice-versa as long as we both may lose our souls?
But you do not believe that you have soul as you do not believe there is God.
It is about your and my soul.
With what will help for me to prove that I am right and you wrong or vice-versa as long as we both may lose our souls?
But you do not believe that you have soul as you do not believe there is God.
SStory
You mean he met a dead Jesus.
*Sighs*
I'm talking about history and facts, not the imaginary or supernatural, and it is an established historical fact that Paul did not meet Jesus. That Paul had a vision where he met Jesus after Jesus's death is irrevelant. Many people have had visions of Jesus and so on. So what?
So there we go. A man who never met jesus dictates to us what Christianity is and what the Gospel is.
Jason210:
"Yet Paul never met Jesus. Go figure."
That's not true. Paul did meet Jesus. You need to read Acts 9, the first few verses.
Verses 3-5 say(NIV):
"3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied."
He met a post resurrection, post ascension Jesus--in person. His name was later changed from Saul to Paul.
You mean he met a dead Jesus.
*Sighs*
I'm talking about history and facts, not the imaginary or supernatural, and it is an established historical fact that Paul did not meet Jesus. That Paul had a vision where he met Jesus after Jesus's death is irrevelant. Many people have had visions of Jesus and so on. So what?
So there we go. A man who never met jesus dictates to us what Christianity is and what the Gospel is.
ASKER
"Many people have had visions of Jesus and so on. So what? "
When was for real everyone of them was changed.
So was Paul.
He became an apostle of Jesus. Before was against Him.
Was not just a vision as a dream. He was real blind due to the light of Jesus.
When was for real everyone of them was changed.
So was Paul.
He became an apostle of Jesus. Before was against Him.
Was not just a vision as a dream. He was real blind due to the light of Jesus.
@SStory
Further to the idea that science is trying to disprove god. Apart from not understanding the inability to prove negatives, you also seem to have the wrong idea about science.
Science tries to discover how nature works, what rules and laws are followed by natural phenomena. In that search, to this day it has never found anything that requires a non-natural or supernatural explanation. In other words, science has not yet seen anything that requires a god. That does not mean that he/she/it does not exist, it's just that so far everything can be explained in other ways.
It also means that your bible does not match what science has discovered about the world: the earth does go around the sun, it is far older than 6000 years, there was no global flood, the sun (or earth) did not stop when Joshua ordered it to, etc. Those are facts, as noncontroversial as the fact that the earth is a globe.
Further to the idea that science is trying to disprove god. Apart from not understanding the inability to prove negatives, you also seem to have the wrong idea about science.
Science tries to discover how nature works, what rules and laws are followed by natural phenomena. In that search, to this day it has never found anything that requires a non-natural or supernatural explanation. In other words, science has not yet seen anything that requires a god. That does not mean that he/she/it does not exist, it's just that so far everything can be explained in other ways.
It also means that your bible does not match what science has discovered about the world: the earth does go around the sun, it is far older than 6000 years, there was no global flood, the sun (or earth) did not stop when Joshua ordered it to, etc. Those are facts, as noncontroversial as the fact that the earth is a globe.
Jason210,
>You mean he met a dead Jesus
I'm afraid not. Either Jesus Christ was a Liar, a Lunatic, or The God Incarnate (in the flesh) LORD. His resurrection, which is attested to by many sources, proves this. He ascended to Heaven and yet chose Saul of Taursus to be His messenger to the Gentiles and appeared personally to him. Jesus is not on that cross! He is also not in that tomb. The leaders of all other religions can be found in their graves, thus proving their claims were false. The Egyptian pharoahs were to live forever as the pyramids have shown they planned--however their grave and treasures were looted. Their bones are on display in museums. Show me the bones of Jesus. You cannot. He IS NOT DEAD! He is risen and alive forever more and holds the keys to death, hell and the grave.
The choice of all people is to believe Him or reject Him. Eternal destination for all people will be determined by that choice made on Earth. It appears you have chosen to reject Him. I would implore you to search out the facts....look at the evidence..be open to the possibility. I think and honest look will prove to you that He was and is in fact the LORD of all.
>You mean he met a dead Jesus
I'm afraid not. Either Jesus Christ was a Liar, a Lunatic, or The God Incarnate (in the flesh) LORD. His resurrection, which is attested to by many sources, proves this. He ascended to Heaven and yet chose Saul of Taursus to be His messenger to the Gentiles and appeared personally to him. Jesus is not on that cross! He is also not in that tomb. The leaders of all other religions can be found in their graves, thus proving their claims were false. The Egyptian pharoahs were to live forever as the pyramids have shown they planned--however their grave and treasures were looted. Their bones are on display in museums. Show me the bones of Jesus. You cannot. He IS NOT DEAD! He is risen and alive forever more and holds the keys to death, hell and the grave.
The choice of all people is to believe Him or reject Him. Eternal destination for all people will be determined by that choice made on Earth. It appears you have chosen to reject Him. I would implore you to search out the facts....look at the evidence..be open to the possibility. I think and honest look will prove to you that He was and is in fact the LORD of all.
>Science tries to discover how nature works, what rules and laws are followed by natural >phenomena. In that search, to this day it has never found anything that requires a >non-natural or supernatural explanation.
That is the blinded amazing ignorance of it all. All of creation screams that it was designed. The order, the beauty, the seemingly infinite variations and the majesty.
Science should try to discover the truth no matter where the facts lead. Unfortunately what has been portrayed as science has become people who start with the presupposition that there can be no God and there must be another explanation. This is NOT honest science. Honest science says, "Who? What? When? Where? Why? How?" And makes theories and sets about to prove or disprove. The theory of evolution has been now presented as if fact when there is NO evidence to prove macro evolution at all. Creation at the least should be considered a theory and yet it is outright rejected. Even Intelligent Design as a theory--the idea that someone or something with intelligence designed all that we see so that it is organized and works so well--is rejected.
>In other words, science has not yet seen anything that requires a god. That does not >mean that he/she/it does not exist, it's just that so far everything can be explained in >other ways.
Perhaps to feeble minds, looking for an escape from the reality of accountability to this God. If there is no need for a God, what was the first cause? How did people come about? Why are people so much more intelligent that animals? Why do we have higher reasoning skills, the ability to love, laugh, think and logically deduce--to create, etc?
Natural selection is some intelligent choice made by no one to slightly modify an organism for its betterment and if that one change doesn't make it better it is rejected--that is Darwin's theory. Yet the bacteria flagellum--the tail is made of many complex parts--all of which are useless if added one at a time--natural selection should have rejected each part. It is an irreducibly complex piece. There are so many holes in the theory of evolution that I am amazed that intelligent people would even suggest it. This refers me to my original point. There is a reason to accept a ludicrous theory over a sane one of there being a grand designer--that reason is to try to comfort oneself in believing there is no one to give account to for sin.
>It also means that your bible does not match what science has discovered about the >world: the earth does go around the sun, it is far older than 6000 years, there was no
Who said the earth doesn't go around the sun. The Bible said God made two lights--the greater to govern the day and the lesser the night. He made the stars and such to be signs of dates and made seasons, etc. Where does it say in the Bible that we do go around the sun?
global flood,
>the sun (or earth) did not stop when Joshua ordered it to, etc. Those are facts, as >noncontroversial as the fact that the earth is a globe.
The bible said the "circle of the earth" in Job--even when people thought it was flat.
I don't think that you can prove the sun didn't stop. The God who stopped the sun is well able to make things look normal to any human. So that is no proof. You do have to either believe it or not, because we weren't there.
That is the blinded amazing ignorance of it all. All of creation screams that it was designed. The order, the beauty, the seemingly infinite variations and the majesty.
Science should try to discover the truth no matter where the facts lead. Unfortunately what has been portrayed as science has become people who start with the presupposition that there can be no God and there must be another explanation. This is NOT honest science. Honest science says, "Who? What? When? Where? Why? How?" And makes theories and sets about to prove or disprove. The theory of evolution has been now presented as if fact when there is NO evidence to prove macro evolution at all. Creation at the least should be considered a theory and yet it is outright rejected. Even Intelligent Design as a theory--the idea that someone or something with intelligence designed all that we see so that it is organized and works so well--is rejected.
>In other words, science has not yet seen anything that requires a god. That does not >mean that he/she/it does not exist, it's just that so far everything can be explained in >other ways.
Perhaps to feeble minds, looking for an escape from the reality of accountability to this God. If there is no need for a God, what was the first cause? How did people come about? Why are people so much more intelligent that animals? Why do we have higher reasoning skills, the ability to love, laugh, think and logically deduce--to create, etc?
Natural selection is some intelligent choice made by no one to slightly modify an organism for its betterment and if that one change doesn't make it better it is rejected--that is Darwin's theory. Yet the bacteria flagellum--the tail is made of many complex parts--all of which are useless if added one at a time--natural selection should have rejected each part. It is an irreducibly complex piece. There are so many holes in the theory of evolution that I am amazed that intelligent people would even suggest it. This refers me to my original point. There is a reason to accept a ludicrous theory over a sane one of there being a grand designer--that reason is to try to comfort oneself in believing there is no one to give account to for sin.
>It also means that your bible does not match what science has discovered about the >world: the earth does go around the sun, it is far older than 6000 years, there was no
Who said the earth doesn't go around the sun. The Bible said God made two lights--the greater to govern the day and the lesser the night. He made the stars and such to be signs of dates and made seasons, etc. Where does it say in the Bible that we do go around the sun?
global flood,
>the sun (or earth) did not stop when Joshua ordered it to, etc. Those are facts, as >noncontroversial as the fact that the earth is a globe.
The bible said the "circle of the earth" in Job--even when people thought it was flat.
I don't think that you can prove the sun didn't stop. The God who stopped the sun is well able to make things look normal to any human. So that is no proof. You do have to either believe it or not, because we weren't there.
I believe Jesus was a man. Since Paul could not have known this man, I don't consider Paul to have the best understanding of him.
there is NO evidence to prove macro evolution at allDoes that mean you're now ready to accept micro-evolution?
Think of this. For years the creationists and (un)intelligent designers (C&UDs) have been asserting that certain features of living organisms could not possibly have evolved. Even Darwin himself said he could not see how the eye has evolved. However, the answer to that is now very well known, down to molecular level. Another such feature was the wing, with the question "what use is half a wing". The C&UDs have given up on such macro-features and are now focusing their attention on molecular features of bacteria. For example, they have claimed that the flagellae of micro-organisms could not have evolved. That was proven wrong too, when plausible predecessors of flagellae were shown to exist.
The C&UDs should also explain such evolutionary facts as why the human retina is back-to-front. And, why the retina of the octopus is built the right way around. What reasons would god have for such weird designs? Evolution has no problem with it, at all. It's a clear case of parallel evolution. Of course, the C&UDs never do any science, all the want to do is show evolution wrong. That's why ID should not be taught as a science - it belongs in the religion class.
So where exactly is your god hiding? We have not yet found anything that requires him as an explanation. I accept that we cannot yet explain how life first started. But the beauty of science is that it never gives up. There is never a point where we have to stop asking questions. So we'll figure it out eventually. That's also why, if science did conclude that there is a god, the next question would be "and what came before him?". Claiming that god does not require a cause is just semantics, and no more or less logical than the claim that the universe does not require a cause.
Where does it say in the Bible that we do go around the sun?Are you telling me that the earth is not going around the sun?
As I've said before, if you claim to believe in science as well as in the literal truth of the bible, try to come up with a theory that explains why your GPS works if the universe is only 6000 years old.
ASKER
"I believe Jesus was a man. Since Paul could not have known this man, I don't consider Paul to have the best understanding of him. "
Jesus was a man, but not only.
Who else did what He did and said what He said? Beside, very important, do not forget the prophecies from Old Testament fulfilled by Him.
Jesus was a man, but not only.
Who else did what He did and said what He said? Beside, very important, do not forget the prophecies from Old Testament fulfilled by Him.
ASKER
“So where exactly is your god hiding? We have not yet found anything that requires him as an explanation.”
He just give us time for some generations. Will appear again in full power and unfortunately will be to late for many to say “I believe now”.
When will appear again: the situation on Earth will be so bad in future that even many of those who are believers now will say “God does not exists. We were wrong.” Because will happen many bad things. Everybody else will ask them “Where is your God now?”, “Why does not save you?”…because they do not understand that is about saving your soul.
He just give us time for some generations. Will appear again in full power and unfortunately will be to late for many to say “I believe now”.
When will appear again: the situation on Earth will be so bad in future that even many of those who are believers now will say “God does not exists. We were wrong.” Because will happen many bad things. Everybody else will ask them “Where is your God now?”, “Why does not save you?”…because they do not understand that is about saving your soul.
Jesus was a man, but not only.Doesn't this description apply to everyone?
I believe Jesus was the same as us - a mortal. Why should I believe otherwise? A superhuman being like both you and Mr Story insist Jesus was has never been observed, nor is there any theory that supports such a being.
ASKER
"Why should I believe otherwise? "
Everything what is said about Him:
- birth, life, miracles, speaking, His story of death and resurrection, fulfilling a destiny prophesied with hundreds of years before by many, what followed after Him - Christianity.
Everything what is said about Him:
- birth, life, miracles, speaking, His story of death and resurrection, fulfilling a destiny prophesied with hundreds of years before by many, what followed after Him - Christianity.
I thought this discussion was about "is the bible a lie", not about how we'll all be better and happier if only we believe in everything the bible says.
You believe the bible because you want to. If that makes you happier, good, but we've been talking about whether all the stories in the bible make sense or not. If you want to ignore your senses and just believe everything the book says, why are we having this discussion?
You believe the bible because you want to. If that makes you happier, good, but we've been talking about whether all the stories in the bible make sense or not. If you want to ignore your senses and just believe everything the book says, why are we having this discussion?
I used to believe it all when I was younger. I went to a Christian junior school where we had to say prayers and sing hymns. We even had a canon to teach us Religious Education, which was invariably about the way Christians had been persecuted. I enjoyed his lessons immensely, and I also enjoyed attending that school. I certainly don't feel damaged by it in any way.
However there came a time (perhaps I was about 11 or 12) when I began to question it all. I never dismissed it as lies, but simply started realising that things don't happen (at least in physical, emprical way) as suggested in the Bible.
I don't understand how intelligent people don't come to the same realisation. There must be an awful amount of repression going on in such individuals.
However there came a time (perhaps I was about 11 or 12) when I began to question it all. I never dismissed it as lies, but simply started realising that things don't happen (at least in physical, emprical way) as suggested in the Bible.
I don't understand how intelligent people don't come to the same realisation. There must be an awful amount of repression going on in such individuals.
On my side, I was brought up in a Jesuit boarding school (happy to say I had no encounters with pedophiles, but one priest was jailed a decade after I left...). At age 12 I wanted to become a Jesuit myself, but that phase did not last long. First I discovered girls, and then at about 18, I started to realise that it was mostly fairytales. Since then I've been thinking for myself instead of letting someone else do it for me.
As I said in my first post in these 2 threads, no, the bible is not a lie, no more than the Iliad is or any other mythical stories. They're usually based on facts, but that does not make them literal truth either.
As I said in my first post in these 2 threads, no, the bible is not a lie, no more than the Iliad is or any other mythical stories. They're usually based on facts, but that does not make them literal truth either.
ASKER
If an apocalyptic event as the one described in Revelation (fire that will melt the rocks) will take place in future, then what are our present scientific/technological possibilities to send information in future about our technological realizations?
I mean: if the Earth will burn as would many volcanoes will erupt and/or big rocks from heavens will fall and will have impact with Earth and the present civilizations is destroyed, then let’s say somehow a small group of people will remain and in hundreds-thousands of years will start a new living. How will they know/find about what we achieved today?
I mean: if the Earth will burn as would many volcanoes will erupt and/or big rocks from heavens will fall and will have impact with Earth and the present civilizations is destroyed, then let’s say somehow a small group of people will remain and in hundreds-thousands of years will start a new living. How will they know/find about what we achieved today?
Jason210, hdhondt,
I am sorry that you had an experience with religion and not with relationship. Let me explain. Many use the Bible as a tool to beat people up (The Pharisees did this with the Old Testament and people do it now). Others twist a verse out of context and form a religion on it. A religion is mans attempt to get to God on his own terms and to get good enough through works to deserve it. Jesus Christ does not want more religious people He was more down on the "religious" crowd than harlots, tax collectors and people considered to be "scum sinners" by the religious crowd. Jesus Christ is after a personal relationship between He and you. I am also glad you were not violated by a Jesuit. This fortunately has nothing to do with the real Jesus.
Jesuits (from Wikipedia):
"The Society of Jesus (Latin: Societas Iesu, S.J., SJ or SI) is a Christian male religious order that follows the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church"
The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and Jesus Christ are not always synonymous. And even if they are, simply trying to follow "the rules" without the relationship will never get anyone to Heaven.
Ephesians 2-8-9(ESV) "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-9&version=ESV
Also Jesus said:
Matthew 7:22-23(ESV)
"22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’"
In these verses He shows us a group of people who stand before Him listing their good works and what they have done and expecting to enter heaven by their own merits (this is religion). Jesus' reply is key. It shows that relationship with Him is the only way into Heaven. "I NEVER KNEW YOU; depart from me...." (emphasis mine)
So the key here is not attending a Jesuit school or going to a Catholic or Protestant church or doing a lot of good stuff. The Jesus of the Bible wants us to know Him personally as our Savior by asking Him to forgive our sins and enter our hearts and be the King of our lives in a personal relationship. Many other Jesuses are presented by many false religions and in ways that are not truly representative of who He is and what He wants. There is an enemy of all mankind, the Devil, who works to confuse it on purpose and turn people off and in one way or another wants to drag as many souls to hell with him as he can because he knows he's going.
I am not at all insulted that either of you reject God. You are not rejecting me, but Him and to Him you will one day give an account.
I am very sorry that you had a negative experience with religion and believed that, that was truly what Christianity is about. It is not. As the name implies true Biblical Christianity is about knowing Jesus personally in our hearts, being transformed by his Holy Spirit and following Him proclaiming the good news that He loves people and came to die for their sins and they can be saved from the coming judgment by placing their faith in Him alone. So accept no phony substitutes. Seek the real thing...the real Jesus. If necessary just seek Him by praying and reading the Bible. I say to you that it is true. I stake my eternal soul on that fact that it is true and Jesus is the Savior and King of all.
He is not like us. He chooses to speak in a still small voice and allow us to chose to believe what is all around us or not. In the end, all will see Him and know that He is undeniably in charge and without equal. For those who don't know Him at that time, the window of opportunity will have passed.
I am sorry that you had an experience with religion and not with relationship. Let me explain. Many use the Bible as a tool to beat people up (The Pharisees did this with the Old Testament and people do it now). Others twist a verse out of context and form a religion on it. A religion is mans attempt to get to God on his own terms and to get good enough through works to deserve it. Jesus Christ does not want more religious people He was more down on the "religious" crowd than harlots, tax collectors and people considered to be "scum sinners" by the religious crowd. Jesus Christ is after a personal relationship between He and you. I am also glad you were not violated by a Jesuit. This fortunately has nothing to do with the real Jesus.
Jesuits (from Wikipedia):
"The Society of Jesus (Latin: Societas Iesu, S.J., SJ or SI) is a Christian male religious order that follows the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church"
The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and Jesus Christ are not always synonymous. And even if they are, simply trying to follow "the rules" without the relationship will never get anyone to Heaven.
Ephesians 2-8-9(ESV) "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-9&version=ESV
Also Jesus said:
Matthew 7:22-23(ESV)
"22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’"
In these verses He shows us a group of people who stand before Him listing their good works and what they have done and expecting to enter heaven by their own merits (this is religion). Jesus' reply is key. It shows that relationship with Him is the only way into Heaven. "I NEVER KNEW YOU; depart from me...." (emphasis mine)
So the key here is not attending a Jesuit school or going to a Catholic or Protestant church or doing a lot of good stuff. The Jesus of the Bible wants us to know Him personally as our Savior by asking Him to forgive our sins and enter our hearts and be the King of our lives in a personal relationship. Many other Jesuses are presented by many false religions and in ways that are not truly representative of who He is and what He wants. There is an enemy of all mankind, the Devil, who works to confuse it on purpose and turn people off and in one way or another wants to drag as many souls to hell with him as he can because he knows he's going.
I am not at all insulted that either of you reject God. You are not rejecting me, but Him and to Him you will one day give an account.
I am very sorry that you had a negative experience with religion and believed that, that was truly what Christianity is about. It is not. As the name implies true Biblical Christianity is about knowing Jesus personally in our hearts, being transformed by his Holy Spirit and following Him proclaiming the good news that He loves people and came to die for their sins and they can be saved from the coming judgment by placing their faith in Him alone. So accept no phony substitutes. Seek the real thing...the real Jesus. If necessary just seek Him by praying and reading the Bible. I say to you that it is true. I stake my eternal soul on that fact that it is true and Jesus is the Savior and King of all.
He is not like us. He chooses to speak in a still small voice and allow us to chose to believe what is all around us or not. In the end, all will see Him and know that He is undeniably in charge and without equal. For those who don't know Him at that time, the window of opportunity will have passed.
>Since then I've been thinking for myself instead of letting someone else do it for me.
Maybe. But maybe you've just been disillusioned by false Christianity and a lack of this relationship, and got tired of rules without Jesus. Maybe you then found some other explanations and let those people think for you by accepting what deep down you probably know is ludicrous to believe. Only you and God know. If you are thinking for yourself, then I'd say, 'What have you got to lose?' Ask Jesus with a humble heart that if He is real to show you so. If you are sincere and humble, He will do just that. If He isn't real as you suppose (I know that He is), then you'll have nothing to lose and you can do this in the privacy of your own home so that no one ever knows you asked. But if you ask, do so with sincerity and humility and a heart open to receive whatever He shows you.
It is true that many things must be believed by faith. That probably will only happen when one knows Him.
Be blessed today!
Maybe. But maybe you've just been disillusioned by false Christianity and a lack of this relationship, and got tired of rules without Jesus. Maybe you then found some other explanations and let those people think for you by accepting what deep down you probably know is ludicrous to believe. Only you and God know. If you are thinking for yourself, then I'd say, 'What have you got to lose?' Ask Jesus with a humble heart that if He is real to show you so. If you are sincere and humble, He will do just that. If He isn't real as you suppose (I know that He is), then you'll have nothing to lose and you can do this in the privacy of your own home so that no one ever knows you asked. But if you ask, do so with sincerity and humility and a heart open to receive whatever He shows you.
It is true that many things must be believed by faith. That probably will only happen when one knows Him.
Be blessed today!
@SStory
What on earth gave you the idea I dismissed religion because of my experience with the Jesuits? Read my post again, because I did not say anything like that. In fact I rather enjoyed the experience.
It's only when I started thinking for myself, instead of letting the Jesuits do it for me, that I realised there is no evidence for god at all. For many years I called myself an agnostic - I just did not have proof of god. Then I realised that there is so much evidence against the existence of a biblical god, that I have to call myself an atheist. The bible, or rather the religions based on it, make no sense whatsoever. That does not mean there cannot be a god who initiated the big bang 13 billion years ago. However, scientists are already thinking it may not be that difficult to start a big bang (all you need to do is to squeeze the vacuum in the right way), so maybe we will become "gods" one day.
And, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, if you cannot consider the question of what came before god, I'll stick with the concept that "the universe is" instead of your "god is".
@viki2000
That's a lot of ifs you're listing there. And what if something like an asteroid slammed into the earth? Why would that be an act of god, rather than just nature? Hundreds of years ago, even lightning and floods were acts of god. Now we know better. We know there are asteroids out there that can hit the earth. As for volcanoes suddenly erupting as you suggested, yes that will eventually happen too. For example, Yellowstone is a supervolcano that will one day destroy most of the US. I suppose that, when it happens, you'll claim it's an act of god?
When the Boxing Day tsunami wiped out large areas around the Indian Ocean, some Christians, like the Anglican Deacon in Sydney, claimed it was god punishing the countries because of sex tourism. Maybe so, but why in hell did he have to kill the children as well as the adults?!
What on earth gave you the idea I dismissed religion because of my experience with the Jesuits? Read my post again, because I did not say anything like that. In fact I rather enjoyed the experience.
It's only when I started thinking for myself, instead of letting the Jesuits do it for me, that I realised there is no evidence for god at all. For many years I called myself an agnostic - I just did not have proof of god. Then I realised that there is so much evidence against the existence of a biblical god, that I have to call myself an atheist. The bible, or rather the religions based on it, make no sense whatsoever. That does not mean there cannot be a god who initiated the big bang 13 billion years ago. However, scientists are already thinking it may not be that difficult to start a big bang (all you need to do is to squeeze the vacuum in the right way), so maybe we will become "gods" one day.
And, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, if you cannot consider the question of what came before god, I'll stick with the concept that "the universe is" instead of your "god is".
@viki2000
That's a lot of ifs you're listing there. And what if something like an asteroid slammed into the earth? Why would that be an act of god, rather than just nature? Hundreds of years ago, even lightning and floods were acts of god. Now we know better. We know there are asteroids out there that can hit the earth. As for volcanoes suddenly erupting as you suggested, yes that will eventually happen too. For example, Yellowstone is a supervolcano that will one day destroy most of the US. I suppose that, when it happens, you'll claim it's an act of god?
When the Boxing Day tsunami wiped out large areas around the Indian Ocean, some Christians, like the Anglican Deacon in Sydney, claimed it was god punishing the countries because of sex tourism. Maybe so, but why in hell did he have to kill the children as well as the adults?!
What on earth gave you the idea I dismissed religion because of my experience with the Jesuits? Read my post again, because I did not say anything like that. In fact I rather enjoyed the experience.You took the words out of my mouth!
I enjoyed attending my Christian school too. The canon we had as a teacher was really special. I don't think I'm came across any bad teachers there. The prayers were a bit boring but I always enjoyed the hymns. A lot of stuff we did was centered around the religion and I enjoyed it.
Then, exactly as you say, it was only when I started thinking for myself that I began to realise there was no empirical basis for the events described in the bible.
But I appreciate SStory's efforts.
ASKER
"That's a lot of ifs you're listing there. And what if something like an asteroid slammed into the earth? Why would that be an act of god, rather than just nature?"
Is not important the cause. You may consider a "natural" cosmic disaster. Still, my questions remains.
"When the Boxing Day tsunami wiped out large areas around the Indian Ocean, some Christians, like the Anglican Deacon in Sydney, claimed it was god punishing the countries because of sex tourism. Maybe so, but why in hell did he have to kill the children as well as the adults?! "
The Deacon said what he believed. Jesus answered different:
Luke 13:1-5:
"Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
Is not important the cause. You may consider a "natural" cosmic disaster. Still, my questions remains.
"When the Boxing Day tsunami wiped out large areas around the Indian Ocean, some Christians, like the Anglican Deacon in Sydney, claimed it was god punishing the countries because of sex tourism. Maybe so, but why in hell did he have to kill the children as well as the adults?! "
The Deacon said what he believed. Jesus answered different:
Luke 13:1-5:
"Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
ASKER
>What on earth gave you the idea I dismissed religion because of my experience with the >Jesuits? Read my post again, because I did not say anything like that. In fact I rather >enjoyed the experience.
At the risk of offending some folks, I'm gonna say that the Catholic church often teaches peoples lots of liturgy and rules and regs and religious behaviour and what to pray, etc.,
and a lot of right stuff, but yet people seem to become legalistic and following a thing rather than knowing a Person. This sort of religious experience leaves one dry, bored, empty and longing for more and thinking if this is all there is it's worthless and they are right. There is more. There is a real person, Jesus--God of the universe--who actually wants to have a personal, real relationship with you and I. That is amazing, but true! Religious traditions and ritualistic behavior keep many people from a true relationship with Christ. Jesus Himself said that on the last day, many people would stand before Him and say...but Lord we've done many miracles in your name, prophesied, and cast out demons and He reveals the issue. He says to them "depart from me you workers of iniquity because I NEVER KNEW you." (I'm paraphrasing from memory). So the people stand before Him with religious good works and He says...you didn't have a relationship with me so you are rejected. This is the difference I'm trying to tell you guys.
I definitely don't want to do so in any manner other than that all may know the Love Jesus has for them and how to know Him.
>However, scientists are already thinking it may not be that difficult to start a big bang >(all you need to do is to squeeze the vacuum in the right way), so maybe we will become >"gods" one day.
You always have to start somewhere...and this still doesn't explain a thing.
I challenge you both to get out a Bible and read the new testament. First with an open mind, humble yourself and pray and ask God if He is really real that He'd reveal that to you through the Bible. Be really open, really genuine and really seeking and I believe you'll get a response and be surprised. What have you got to lose other than a few weeks of reading?
May you be blessed!
>And, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, if you cannot consider the question of what >came before god, I'll stick with the concept that "the universe is" instead of your "god is".
That's definitely your choice.
@Jason210:
I enjoyed attending my Christian school too. The canon we had as a teacher was really special. I don't think I'm came across any bad teachers there. The prayers were a bit boring but I always enjoyed the hymns. A lot of stuff we did was centered around the religion and I enjoyed it.
At the risk of offending some folks, I'm gonna say that the Catholic church often teaches peoples lots of liturgy and rules and regs and religious behaviour and what to pray, etc.,
and a lot of right stuff, but yet people seem to become legalistic and following a thing rather than knowing a Person. This sort of religious experience leaves one dry, bored, empty and longing for more and thinking if this is all there is it's worthless and they are right. There is more. There is a real person, Jesus--God of the universe--who actually wants to have a personal, real relationship with you and I. That is amazing, but true! Religious traditions and ritualistic behavior keep many people from a true relationship with Christ. Jesus Himself said that on the last day, many people would stand before Him and say...but Lord we've done many miracles in your name, prophesied, and cast out demons and He reveals the issue. He says to them "depart from me you workers of iniquity because I NEVER KNEW you." (I'm paraphrasing from memory). So the people stand before Him with religious good works and He says...you didn't have a relationship with me so you are rejected. This is the difference I'm trying to tell you guys.
I definitely don't want to do so in any manner other than that all may know the Love Jesus has for them and how to know Him.
>However, scientists are already thinking it may not be that difficult to start a big bang >(all you need to do is to squeeze the vacuum in the right way), so maybe we will become >"gods" one day.
You always have to start somewhere...and this still doesn't explain a thing.
I challenge you both to get out a Bible and read the new testament. First with an open mind, humble yourself and pray and ask God if He is really real that He'd reveal that to you through the Bible. Be really open, really genuine and really seeking and I believe you'll get a response and be surprised. What have you got to lose other than a few weeks of reading?
May you be blessed!
>And, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, if you cannot consider the question of what >came before god, I'll stick with the concept that "the universe is" instead of your "god is".
That's definitely your choice.
@Jason210:
I enjoyed attending my Christian school too. The canon we had as a teacher was really special. I don't think I'm came across any bad teachers there. The prayers were a bit boring but I always enjoyed the hymns. A lot of stuff we did was centered around the religion and I enjoyed it.
@Sstory
Your comments about Catholics are totally beside the point. If anything, you are just proving something I said in an earlier comment: different christian religions can't even agree on which parts of the bible are true. Just remember that catholics use the same bible - a different "version" though, which good protestants won't have a bar of. So which bible is the correct one?
So, if you want me to read the bible, which one should it be? And, will I then be allowed to have slaves as per that bible?
Your comments about Catholics are totally beside the point. If anything, you are just proving something I said in an earlier comment: different christian religions can't even agree on which parts of the bible are true. Just remember that catholics use the same bible - a different "version" though, which good protestants won't have a bar of. So which bible is the correct one?
So, if you want me to read the bible, which one should it be? And, will I then be allowed to have slaves as per that bible?
@hdhondt,
>So which bible is the correct one?
I'm not sure it's the Bible that is the problem. I've only read a bit of the Catholic one. The problem I have found with most Catholics I know is that they depend upon a man--a priest and another man--a pope to tell them everything that is right and tell them if they are OK or not. And I'm not saying that no Catholics are Christians--I don't know them all, but in my experience with the ones around here it seems like a lot of ritual and such, and worship of Mary, and the saints, praying to her instead of God, and remaining largely ignorant while believing whatever the priest says.
Since I haven't read the entire Catholic bible--I can't verify what it says. However, if you'd just pick up a KJV, NIV, ESV, (ESV and NIV would be easier to understand)--that would be fine. Just looking online at the Douay-Rheims Catholic bible I see the following verses:
Romans 3:23 (all are sinners)
Romans 6:23 (the wages of sin is death; God's grace (gift) is eternal life in Jesus)
Romans 10:9 (Confess Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead and you will be saved)
So even in the Catholic bible--with admittedly slightly different wording--due to the translator, the basic message of our plight and God's remedy still shines through. So it isn't the book that's the problem. But you have to read it for yourself and seek God yourself instead of letting some priest say "you are absolved..." The same Jesus of their Bible says, in John 14:6 "Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." That says He's the only way. So I can agree with all of these basic verses--and I'm not Catholic.
I'm not sure what you mean about slaves. There were slaves in the old testament.
In the new testament if you'll read Paul's letters you will notice that if a person was a slave the Bible said if you can gain your freedom, do so, but by all means, otherwise be a good slave. So the Bible is for freedom for man--not a license to do destructive sinful things, but true freedom to really live and enjoy life and the Creator. He was just saying a Christian who is a slave and can't be free should show the best example so as to make his master see that he is a Christian and so that the master would be won to Christ--which is the goal of all Christians--one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.
So I have done a little research in this response and found that there is enough information in that Catholic bible for a person to see their need for Jesus and receive Him.
Matthew 7:22-23 (same Catholic bible) "[22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." This is Jesus saying, your religious works are not enough--that is not what I was after--you must have had a personal relationship with me, i.e. "I never knew you." Of course He knew about them--He knows all things. But they never had an close personal relationship with Him--never asked Him to save them and live in their hearts through the Holy Spirit.
The reason for freedom from slavery and that women have rights now is all based in Christianity. If you don't believe it look to another religion that is popular all over the world and how they treat women--how women are consider half the value of a man and how they are not free to live and learn and do what women in free countries can do. America was based upon Christianity. The fact that we have three branches of government was modeled upon the Trinty of the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost--one God in three persons). Our Supreme court still has Moses and the ten commandments on it. There is Christian heritage all over this country.
So, if you want a Bible version that I have read and could recommend, it would be KJV, NIV, ESV, or NASB, or even the NLT. I have also read some of SRV(Spanish Reina Valera), and a few other Spanish translations. The basic gospel is still clear in all of them.
Be blessed, I hope you will read the New Testament in one of them. There is a paraphrase out there called the Message--it is not a translation--but is a paraphrase of the Bible--it might be more clear to you and put things in a more modern way. I wouldn't hold it as absolute scripture, but if you really want to know, you could read one of the real translations and then compare to what is said in the Message to perhaps see it more clearly as it uses modern idioms, etc.
Well, be blessed and have a great day!
>So which bible is the correct one?
I'm not sure it's the Bible that is the problem. I've only read a bit of the Catholic one. The problem I have found with most Catholics I know is that they depend upon a man--a priest and another man--a pope to tell them everything that is right and tell them if they are OK or not. And I'm not saying that no Catholics are Christians--I don't know them all, but in my experience with the ones around here it seems like a lot of ritual and such, and worship of Mary, and the saints, praying to her instead of God, and remaining largely ignorant while believing whatever the priest says.
Since I haven't read the entire Catholic bible--I can't verify what it says. However, if you'd just pick up a KJV, NIV, ESV, (ESV and NIV would be easier to understand)--that would be fine. Just looking online at the Douay-Rheims Catholic bible I see the following verses:
Romans 3:23 (all are sinners)
Romans 6:23 (the wages of sin is death; God's grace (gift) is eternal life in Jesus)
Romans 10:9 (Confess Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead and you will be saved)
So even in the Catholic bible--with admittedly slightly different wording--due to the translator, the basic message of our plight and God's remedy still shines through. So it isn't the book that's the problem. But you have to read it for yourself and seek God yourself instead of letting some priest say "you are absolved..." The same Jesus of their Bible says, in John 14:6 "Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." That says He's the only way. So I can agree with all of these basic verses--and I'm not Catholic.
I'm not sure what you mean about slaves. There were slaves in the old testament.
In the new testament if you'll read Paul's letters you will notice that if a person was a slave the Bible said if you can gain your freedom, do so, but by all means, otherwise be a good slave. So the Bible is for freedom for man--not a license to do destructive sinful things, but true freedom to really live and enjoy life and the Creator. He was just saying a Christian who is a slave and can't be free should show the best example so as to make his master see that he is a Christian and so that the master would be won to Christ--which is the goal of all Christians--one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.
So I have done a little research in this response and found that there is enough information in that Catholic bible for a person to see their need for Jesus and receive Him.
Matthew 7:22-23 (same Catholic bible) "[22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." This is Jesus saying, your religious works are not enough--that is not what I was after--you must have had a personal relationship with me, i.e. "I never knew you." Of course He knew about them--He knows all things. But they never had an close personal relationship with Him--never asked Him to save them and live in their hearts through the Holy Spirit.
The reason for freedom from slavery and that women have rights now is all based in Christianity. If you don't believe it look to another religion that is popular all over the world and how they treat women--how women are consider half the value of a man and how they are not free to live and learn and do what women in free countries can do. America was based upon Christianity. The fact that we have three branches of government was modeled upon the Trinty of the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost--one God in three persons). Our Supreme court still has Moses and the ten commandments on it. There is Christian heritage all over this country.
So, if you want a Bible version that I have read and could recommend, it would be KJV, NIV, ESV, or NASB, or even the NLT. I have also read some of SRV(Spanish Reina Valera), and a few other Spanish translations. The basic gospel is still clear in all of them.
Be blessed, I hope you will read the New Testament in one of them. There is a paraphrase out there called the Message--it is not a translation--but is a paraphrase of the Bible--it might be more clear to you and put things in a more modern way. I wouldn't hold it as absolute scripture, but if you really want to know, you could read one of the real translations and then compare to what is said in the Message to perhaps see it more clearly as it uses modern idioms, etc.
Well, be blessed and have a great day!
the Catholic church often teaches peoples lots of liturgy and rules and regs and religious behaviour and what to pray, etc.,I have a connection to Catholicism. Officially I am one, as I was Christened in a catholic church. My mother, however was Protestant and I grew up in the UK where I went to Church of England junior school. I was one of only two other Roman Catholics there. It hardly mattered - we were treated just the same as everyone else but it was intersting to compare the differences between the two religions.
and a lot of right stuff, but yet people seem to become legalistic and following a thing rather than knowing a Person. This sort of religious experience leaves one dry, bored, empty and longing for more and thinking if this is all there is it's worthless and they are right
My father was Catholic (from Italy) and although he wasn't religious, most of his family and the village where he came from was. When I was a boy we went there a lot, and I was always impressed by the religous atmosphere. I could often see nuns and monks walking about and they were always treated with the utmost repsect, and any buildings connected with the church had sanctified atmosphere that was almost tangible. I remember cemetaries were particualr "heavy" places to visit.
We'd probably stay there for 3 to 6 weeks, and during that time we'd attend at least two "Fiestas", which are local religious festivals celebrating the patron saint of the local parish. They'd have a lifelike, painted wooden figure of the patron saint in the church and during the fesitival they'd carry it through the streets. This would take place at after dark. The streets would be lined with crowds, lights, music, stalls selling food etc. I always remember my cousins would cross themsleves when the saint came past. Weddings and funerals were also important religious events, that somehow inovlved the whole village in one way or another.
It was all quite powerful. Deep, impressive and symbolical, as weall as enjoyable. There was nothing dry, boring or empty about Catholicism in this part of the world, because the religion was alive and taken seriously.
There were slaves in the old testament.
As the bible has no problem with slaves (as long as you don't sell your sister, I seem to remember) it must be OK if I keep some slaves, too. I would prefer to think that in this instance our modern, secular, morality has improved on the bible. I also do not want to live by the "an eye for an eye" rule.
I know that Jesus preached different and better rules. But how do you square that with the old testament? They can't both be correct.
And of course, there are old chestnuts like this one:
"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26
That tells us that pi (the mathematical constant) is equal to 3. Do you reckon that's correct, or is the bible only approximately correct?
I know that Jesus preached different and better rules. But how do you square that with the old testament? They can't both be correct.What is the problem if both are not correct?
@Jason210,
>We'd probably stay there for 3 to 6 weeks, and during that time we'd attend at least two >"Fiestas", which are local religious festivals celebrating the patron saint of the local parish. >They'd have a lifelike, painted wooden figure of the patron saint in the church and during >the fesitival they'd carry it through the streets. This would ta
I'm sure there was plenty of religion. However none of this has anything to do with the Bible. Jesus never wanted us to worship so called saints. Paul wrote to the saints in one area or another---meaning those who'd received Jesus as their LORD. One can be impressed with religion, but God is not. Again Jesus was most down on the religious leaders of His day because they followed rules and rituals but had no relationship with Him--with God--and little real desire for one. They sought respect by the people, wanted the best seats and for people to look up to them. They missed the point. Jesus called them white-washed tombs--i.e. white and pretty--cleaned up on the outside, but inside full of death. They were called clouds without rain--in other words they looked like the real thing but were only empty inside. So again, I'd say, read the New Testament and seek the Jesus of the bible instead of all of these man made religious orders and rules and traditions.
>We'd probably stay there for 3 to 6 weeks, and during that time we'd attend at least two >"Fiestas", which are local religious festivals celebrating the patron saint of the local parish. >They'd have a lifelike, painted wooden figure of the patron saint in the church and during >the fesitival they'd carry it through the streets. This would ta
I'm sure there was plenty of religion. However none of this has anything to do with the Bible. Jesus never wanted us to worship so called saints. Paul wrote to the saints in one area or another---meaning those who'd received Jesus as their LORD. One can be impressed with religion, but God is not. Again Jesus was most down on the religious leaders of His day because they followed rules and rituals but had no relationship with Him--with God--and little real desire for one. They sought respect by the people, wanted the best seats and for people to look up to them. They missed the point. Jesus called them white-washed tombs--i.e. white and pretty--cleaned up on the outside, but inside full of death. They were called clouds without rain--in other words they looked like the real thing but were only empty inside. So again, I'd say, read the New Testament and seek the Jesus of the bible instead of all of these man made religious orders and rules and traditions.
>As the bible has no problem with slaves (as long as you don't sell your sister, I seem to >remember) it must be OK if I keep some slaves, too. I would prefer to think that in this >instance our modern, secular, morality has improved on the bible. I also do not want to >live by the "an eye for an eye" rule.
"eye for an eye" was an old testament thing. It was showing the people that every sin would receive a just recompense. This is true. God never forgets sin. The only way ours can be forgiven is because Jesus came and took them all upon Himself and took the just recompense--punishment for them so that we wouldn't have to. So in the new testament--the time of grace--because God's wrath for sin was redirected to another instead of us, we no longer have the "eye for an eye" law.
As to slavery...God has never been for slavery or for sin. However Adam and Eve made a bad choice and until the time of restoration comes the results of those choices (sin) will be that people will be self-loving, and do things for the love of money and selfish ambition--often with no regard to those who will be hurt by it. The Bible is for freedom for people. Not just from physical slavery, but spiritual slavery to sin and Satan.
>I know that Jesus preached different and better rules. But how do you square that with >the old testament? They can't both be correct.
The old testament was God speaking to people prior to presenting His solution--Jesus. He wanted to demonstrate to them how sinful they really were-so He gave them the law to show His standard. They found they didn't measure up. He gave them all sorts of ceremonies that symbolized what Jesus would accomplish. This was the Old Covenant.
When Jesus came He brought a new and better covenant. He said you can't poor old wine into new wine skins. That means you can't try to make the New Testament fit your old ideas from the Old Testament. God did a new thing in Jesus. Jesus--God in the Flesh--lived as a man without sin, took our sins on Himself, died in our place taking all of the wrath of Father God that was due us and then to prove it all rose from the dead. He offers us eternal life, not because God swept our sins under the rug, but God judged them "eye for an eye", but He, in the person of Jesus, took the punishment in our place. For that reason, with our sins already dealt with we can enjoy a relationship with Him.
>"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was >round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an >hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26
>That tells us that pi (the mathematical constant) is equal to 3. Do you reckon that's >correct, or is the bible only approximately correct?
Well for one thing, no one knows the exact measurement of a cubit in this day. For another I could say something is round and not mean, a perfect circle.
Ultimately if a person doesn't want to believe they want and will find all sorts of reasons for it. However, a person who comes humbly before God and says, "If you are really real God and if the Bible is true, the show me, speak to me through it," and with an open heart begins to read in Matthew and goes through the new testament, God will speak to that person and reveal Himself to them.
You know we are talking about eternity here. If I'm speaking the truth, then it would be a prudent thing for you guys to do. If not, it sure wouldn't hurt you any to read. The New Testament is a short read. You will only hear from Him if you are seeking in sincerity.
May you be blessed and may you seek and find the LORD. He said that if anyone comes to Him he would in no manner cast them away. That means all who really seek Him will be found by Him.
"eye for an eye" was an old testament thing. It was showing the people that every sin would receive a just recompense. This is true. God never forgets sin. The only way ours can be forgiven is because Jesus came and took them all upon Himself and took the just recompense--punishment for them so that we wouldn't have to. So in the new testament--the time of grace--because God's wrath for sin was redirected to another instead of us, we no longer have the "eye for an eye" law.
As to slavery...God has never been for slavery or for sin. However Adam and Eve made a bad choice and until the time of restoration comes the results of those choices (sin) will be that people will be self-loving, and do things for the love of money and selfish ambition--often with no regard to those who will be hurt by it. The Bible is for freedom for people. Not just from physical slavery, but spiritual slavery to sin and Satan.
>I know that Jesus preached different and better rules. But how do you square that with >the old testament? They can't both be correct.
The old testament was God speaking to people prior to presenting His solution--Jesus. He wanted to demonstrate to them how sinful they really were-so He gave them the law to show His standard. They found they didn't measure up. He gave them all sorts of ceremonies that symbolized what Jesus would accomplish. This was the Old Covenant.
When Jesus came He brought a new and better covenant. He said you can't poor old wine into new wine skins. That means you can't try to make the New Testament fit your old ideas from the Old Testament. God did a new thing in Jesus. Jesus--God in the Flesh--lived as a man without sin, took our sins on Himself, died in our place taking all of the wrath of Father God that was due us and then to prove it all rose from the dead. He offers us eternal life, not because God swept our sins under the rug, but God judged them "eye for an eye", but He, in the person of Jesus, took the punishment in our place. For that reason, with our sins already dealt with we can enjoy a relationship with Him.
>"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was >round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an >hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26
>That tells us that pi (the mathematical constant) is equal to 3. Do you reckon that's >correct, or is the bible only approximately correct?
Well for one thing, no one knows the exact measurement of a cubit in this day. For another I could say something is round and not mean, a perfect circle.
Ultimately if a person doesn't want to believe they want and will find all sorts of reasons for it. However, a person who comes humbly before God and says, "If you are really real God and if the Bible is true, the show me, speak to me through it," and with an open heart begins to read in Matthew and goes through the new testament, God will speak to that person and reveal Himself to them.
You know we are talking about eternity here. If I'm speaking the truth, then it would be a prudent thing for you guys to do. If not, it sure wouldn't hurt you any to read. The New Testament is a short read. You will only hear from Him if you are seeking in sincerity.
May you be blessed and may you seek and find the LORD. He said that if anyone comes to Him he would in no manner cast them away. That means all who really seek Him will be found by Him.
What is the problem if both are not correct?No problem to me, but it might be to true believers.
Well for one thing, no one knows the exact measurement of a cubit in this day.But 30 divided by 10 is always 3, regardless of the units.
For another I could say something is round and not mean, a perfect circle.So you're saying the bible is not he literal truth?
God has never been for slavery or for sin.Read Exodus 21:7-11 among others.
I'm sure there was plenty of religion. However none of this has anything to do with the Bible. Jesus never wanted us to worship so called saints.There was plenty of faith too. Youre arguments against Catholicism could equally apply to the Christian Church and it's New Testement, because Jesus had nothing to with either. The basis of the doctrine adopted and developed by early Christianity (Athananius et al) was the writings of John and Paul (the latter of whom never even met Jesus). We don't really know who John was either.
I think this discussion is not getting us anywhere towards answering the question "is the bible a lie ?"
As far as I can see there are 2 possible answers:
1. The bible is a book of myths and stories. In that case, it is not a lie, nor is it literal truth; it's somewhere in between. It's not as much of a "lie" as a novel, but more so than a history book (which is also never completely correct).
2. We accept the bible is true, the universe is 6000 years old, and all our modern technology must be discarded, as it is all based on scientific theories that cannot possibly be correct since they claim the universe is more than 2 million times older (13.7Gy).
I've stated which answer I pick. In case someone's forgotten, it's number 1. Can the ones on the other side please state their preference?
Alternatively, please supply another answer that answers the question instead of going on about what Jesus or god might want us to do.
As far as I can see there are 2 possible answers:
1. The bible is a book of myths and stories. In that case, it is not a lie, nor is it literal truth; it's somewhere in between. It's not as much of a "lie" as a novel, but more so than a history book (which is also never completely correct).
2. We accept the bible is true, the universe is 6000 years old, and all our modern technology must be discarded, as it is all based on scientific theories that cannot possibly be correct since they claim the universe is more than 2 million times older (13.7Gy).
I've stated which answer I pick. In case someone's forgotten, it's number 1. Can the ones on the other side please state their preference?
Alternatively, please supply another answer that answers the question instead of going on about what Jesus or god might want us to do.
I forgot that there is a third alternative:
3. The universe was creatyed 6000 years ago but, being a practical joker, god created it so that all the evidence points to it being 13.7Gy old.
3. The universe was creatyed 6000 years ago but, being a practical joker, god created it so that all the evidence points to it being 13.7Gy old.
@hdhondt
I think the question Is the bible a lie?" was answered adequately long ago, by all those who contibute to P&R. The only reason we continue here, in this second thread, is because some posters in P&R refuse to ask new questions, but rather use this TA as a blog or something. Or perhaps they just don't see that they cannot convert us into Christians, and somehow believe that the question is not answered until we agree with them. Thank you, Viki, SStory et al, but I'm not in the habit of putting osbtacles in my mind, which is what religion is.
This thread is already too long for my iPhone to cope with.
My response to the question was similar to your first alternative, although your explanation that it is all myths and stories doesn't cover it, although it depends on what we mean by a myth. Then there is the question, what is a myth? Nearly every myth in the classical sense of the word contains some universal truth.
The New Testament is largely about Jesus, who evidently was an enlighted individual who attempted to convey his experience and way of being to the masses, using the language of the time. Even in today's language, it is impossible for a Buddhist to describe his enlightened state -- his language ends up sounding quasi-psychological. But 2000 years ago, they didn't even have a notion of pyschology. Today we can speak of the sub-conscious, archetypes, instincts, the subjective and the objective, but back then those concepts did not even exist. Since he was using the crude, concrete concepts of the time, it's not hard to imagine how both his disciples and later followers could intrepret his sayings in a number of differnt ways. The Gnostics perhaps had the best approach, but they were quickly stamped out by early Christian church.
However, some of these text survived, including the first one -- the Gospel of Thomas. Many scholars set the date of the Thomas text as early as 60AD, which would make it earlier than most of the canonical gospels. The latest date given is 150AD. Because it is a sayings-gospel, it's hard to date more precisiely because it contains no narrative references to external contemporary events with known dates. They can only go on the language and style.
Interestingly, in one of the sayings from Thomas someone asks Jesus where heaven is, and Jesus's reply is "It's right in front of your face". Here we have direct words from Jesus, from an early gospel, that have been repressed by the Christian church. Thomas only appeared towards the end of the 19th century, when fragments of it were found in a desert. Since then, another more complete copy was found in a urn.
There are many sayings in Thomas that you don't find anywhere else, and which have this mystical, enigmatic meaning, that really upset the Early Church fathers (who came along much later). Clearly, the decisions and authority of the early Christian church, and its desired canon, and adopted doctrines, is viewed, by Christians, and by the current Church, as more important than the words of Jesus.
I think the question Is the bible a lie?" was answered adequately long ago, by all those who contibute to P&R. The only reason we continue here, in this second thread, is because some posters in P&R refuse to ask new questions, but rather use this TA as a blog or something. Or perhaps they just don't see that they cannot convert us into Christians, and somehow believe that the question is not answered until we agree with them. Thank you, Viki, SStory et al, but I'm not in the habit of putting osbtacles in my mind, which is what religion is.
This thread is already too long for my iPhone to cope with.
My response to the question was similar to your first alternative, although your explanation that it is all myths and stories doesn't cover it, although it depends on what we mean by a myth. Then there is the question, what is a myth? Nearly every myth in the classical sense of the word contains some universal truth.
The New Testament is largely about Jesus, who evidently was an enlighted individual who attempted to convey his experience and way of being to the masses, using the language of the time. Even in today's language, it is impossible for a Buddhist to describe his enlightened state -- his language ends up sounding quasi-psychological. But 2000 years ago, they didn't even have a notion of pyschology. Today we can speak of the sub-conscious, archetypes, instincts, the subjective and the objective, but back then those concepts did not even exist. Since he was using the crude, concrete concepts of the time, it's not hard to imagine how both his disciples and later followers could intrepret his sayings in a number of differnt ways. The Gnostics perhaps had the best approach, but they were quickly stamped out by early Christian church.
However, some of these text survived, including the first one -- the Gospel of Thomas. Many scholars set the date of the Thomas text as early as 60AD, which would make it earlier than most of the canonical gospels. The latest date given is 150AD. Because it is a sayings-gospel, it's hard to date more precisiely because it contains no narrative references to external contemporary events with known dates. They can only go on the language and style.
Interestingly, in one of the sayings from Thomas someone asks Jesus where heaven is, and Jesus's reply is "It's right in front of your face". Here we have direct words from Jesus, from an early gospel, that have been repressed by the Christian church. Thomas only appeared towards the end of the 19th century, when fragments of it were found in a desert. Since then, another more complete copy was found in a urn.
There are many sayings in Thomas that you don't find anywhere else, and which have this mystical, enigmatic meaning, that really upset the Early Church fathers (who came along much later). Clearly, the decisions and authority of the early Christian church, and its desired canon, and adopted doctrines, is viewed, by Christians, and by the current Church, as more important than the words of Jesus.
ASKER
@hdhondt
“So where exactly is your god hiding? We have not yet found anything that requires him as an explanation.”
We should remember few things:
- The entire Bible says that God is holy. If you want to see God or to get a sign for your conviction then be holy. And who ever feels holy make a step forward. No man can see God glory and live.
- Moses wanted also to see God. Exodus 33: “21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.””
- The questions which are posed here and in other topics are not new and were under debate since thousands of years. Thousands, not hundreds. Even the Bible tells the stories of similar question. Is amazing that are never enough intellectual arguments to make somebody convinced that God exists. One interesting proof is Jesus disciples. Someone may think that if they would have lived there on Jesus time, near Him, then would have more chances to become believer. Well, the New Testament tells us about disciples being in the same state with multitude of questions and doubts. After they lived a while near Jesus they asked Jesus to show them the “Father”, meaning God. I think you know the answer.
“So where exactly is your god hiding? We have not yet found anything that requires him as an explanation.”
We should remember few things:
- The entire Bible says that God is holy. If you want to see God or to get a sign for your conviction then be holy. And who ever feels holy make a step forward. No man can see God glory and live.
- Moses wanted also to see God. Exodus 33: “21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.””
- The questions which are posed here and in other topics are not new and were under debate since thousands of years. Thousands, not hundreds. Even the Bible tells the stories of similar question. Is amazing that are never enough intellectual arguments to make somebody convinced that God exists. One interesting proof is Jesus disciples. Someone may think that if they would have lived there on Jesus time, near Him, then would have more chances to become believer. Well, the New Testament tells us about disciples being in the same state with multitude of questions and doubts. After they lived a while near Jesus they asked Jesus to show them the “Father”, meaning God. I think you know the answer.
The entire Bible says that God is holy...You're using the bible to prove the bible.
The questions which are posed here and in other topics are not new and were under debate since thousands of years.Indeed, and science is finally getting to close in on the answers. We don't know whether we'll ever get the full answer, but we're closing in.
they asked Jesus to show them the “Father”, meaning GodI keep asking questions, but I never get any answers from you. For example, when you said that all christians believe in the same basic truths, I mentioned that some believe Jesus is god, others don't.
What do you consider a "basic christian truth"? I don't expect to get anything but more quotes (interpretations) of the bible. Prove me wrong.
ASKER
Believers never try to prove each Bible word. There is just acceptance things.
There are things in life, especially of spiritual nature which are accepted by heart, not only by mind.
There are things which we think that we understand, but we are wrong.
Never accepting God seems a spiritual blindness. Of course the atheists may say about believers opposite: that they believe things which are not real.
I ask myself what makes the difference. It is difficultly to say. But is not always the logic.
We look at the same things and we use different references. That’s all I guess – the initial axioms – which you take for good without any proof. The science does the same.
For a small period of time, some generations – it does not matter how many – there are some laws of the present universe. Then they pass, they change when the present universe does not exists anymore. And all the “truths” known and used as a magnifier glass and a barrier will disappear too.
And here comes the difference:
- People of faith look at the past and gain strength for what they believe they are, and then they look forward optimistic at the future for the spiritual world in which the consciousness is considered will continue to exist.
- Atheists look at the past and find them coming from nothing and going in future towards another nothing.
Our languages and symbols in interpretation of the reality limit us to interpretations, but more essential than that is understanding that not all the truths are rational. What about the realities for which we do not have a representation in our 3D world? Easy to say that they do not exists, but that is the easy way. The spiritual world is of such nature.
Since some good years people start to say that everything is relative.
Even Socrates had such debate and his argument was this: if somebody considers that there is no absolute truth then that applies also to the present sentence – making it not true.
There is a truth about “I know” without proves – just intuition. There are many situations when people of science use the intuition. They just know it. The proof may come later and sometimes is never needed.
I see you stuck in try to prove things which maybe we will never be able to prove during our lifetime. The problem is what you lose by stumbling on small things. You lose the end purpose, the overall picture.
We ask questions and give answers. Many times the answers seem not good enough because they do not satisfy our expectations. The same is here. The same is with God.
To accept God you need to have a correct image about God. And most of us forget or don’t know about God.
It is not only about the logical mental things, because we as human beings are not only brain. We have feelings. Together our mind, our feelings and the consciousness are part of the soul.
The Bible is the quest for our soul. Because the souls is what defines us more than all our scientifically accumulative knowledge.
Did you ever notice that Jesus speaks about our heart (spiritual heart) more than our brain? Where your heart is there your treasure is. And the “For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” He did not say from your mind or brain.
You ask here to prove Bible without Bible, without quoting from Bible. I have few answers for that:
- There are some historical proofs – good enough for believers, but of course not for skeptics. It is easy to be censorious.
- The Word of Bible is enough. The truths written there are enough to be recognized as true when you read them. We may not understand all of them, but the essence is clear for all Christians. It is a resonance given by opening to the truth.
- The same problem had Jesus with Jews on His earthly time. They said they need a proof, not only what He says about Himself. And we know also from His parables (which are true) that even if somebody from deads will come back the skeptics will not listen. And these are happening because people “love human praise more than praise from God.”
Serious atheists look for proofs of God, but never trying to look in the right directions. Is not something that you take and put in the lab.
When you want to meet the president, you prepare yourself in a certain way asked by those circumstances, you go where is needed and do what is needed.
The same is with God. He let Himself discovered to the people in various ways. But if you want something to see, hear, touch – a miracle, whatever – remember: all the encounters enumerated in the Bible between man and God or Angel of God were”WOW”. The people were usually considered by us now holy, believers and still when the angel appeared they were at the ground, scared of death. The human body cannot resist at the light and glory of the angels. And most of the time the angel said “peace be with you, don’t be scared” and helped that person to come back in his senses. Be careful what you ask. Is not a joke and is not for everybody, even if you try to be holy.
There are things in life, especially of spiritual nature which are accepted by heart, not only by mind.
There are things which we think that we understand, but we are wrong.
Never accepting God seems a spiritual blindness. Of course the atheists may say about believers opposite: that they believe things which are not real.
I ask myself what makes the difference. It is difficultly to say. But is not always the logic.
We look at the same things and we use different references. That’s all I guess – the initial axioms – which you take for good without any proof. The science does the same.
For a small period of time, some generations – it does not matter how many – there are some laws of the present universe. Then they pass, they change when the present universe does not exists anymore. And all the “truths” known and used as a magnifier glass and a barrier will disappear too.
And here comes the difference:
- People of faith look at the past and gain strength for what they believe they are, and then they look forward optimistic at the future for the spiritual world in which the consciousness is considered will continue to exist.
- Atheists look at the past and find them coming from nothing and going in future towards another nothing.
Our languages and symbols in interpretation of the reality limit us to interpretations, but more essential than that is understanding that not all the truths are rational. What about the realities for which we do not have a representation in our 3D world? Easy to say that they do not exists, but that is the easy way. The spiritual world is of such nature.
Since some good years people start to say that everything is relative.
Even Socrates had such debate and his argument was this: if somebody considers that there is no absolute truth then that applies also to the present sentence – making it not true.
There is a truth about “I know” without proves – just intuition. There are many situations when people of science use the intuition. They just know it. The proof may come later and sometimes is never needed.
I see you stuck in try to prove things which maybe we will never be able to prove during our lifetime. The problem is what you lose by stumbling on small things. You lose the end purpose, the overall picture.
We ask questions and give answers. Many times the answers seem not good enough because they do not satisfy our expectations. The same is here. The same is with God.
To accept God you need to have a correct image about God. And most of us forget or don’t know about God.
It is not only about the logical mental things, because we as human beings are not only brain. We have feelings. Together our mind, our feelings and the consciousness are part of the soul.
The Bible is the quest for our soul. Because the souls is what defines us more than all our scientifically accumulative knowledge.
Did you ever notice that Jesus speaks about our heart (spiritual heart) more than our brain? Where your heart is there your treasure is. And the “For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” He did not say from your mind or brain.
You ask here to prove Bible without Bible, without quoting from Bible. I have few answers for that:
- There are some historical proofs – good enough for believers, but of course not for skeptics. It is easy to be censorious.
- The Word of Bible is enough. The truths written there are enough to be recognized as true when you read them. We may not understand all of them, but the essence is clear for all Christians. It is a resonance given by opening to the truth.
- The same problem had Jesus with Jews on His earthly time. They said they need a proof, not only what He says about Himself. And we know also from His parables (which are true) that even if somebody from deads will come back the skeptics will not listen. And these are happening because people “love human praise more than praise from God.”
Serious atheists look for proofs of God, but never trying to look in the right directions. Is not something that you take and put in the lab.
When you want to meet the president, you prepare yourself in a certain way asked by those circumstances, you go where is needed and do what is needed.
The same is with God. He let Himself discovered to the people in various ways. But if you want something to see, hear, touch – a miracle, whatever – remember: all the encounters enumerated in the Bible between man and God or Angel of God were”WOW”. The people were usually considered by us now holy, believers and still when the angel appeared they were at the ground, scared of death. The human body cannot resist at the light and glory of the angels. And most of the time the angel said “peace be with you, don’t be scared” and helped that person to come back in his senses. Be careful what you ask. Is not a joke and is not for everybody, even if you try to be holy.
The Bible, speaking of God, in Romans 1 (ESV) says,
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
I am fine if we close this topic. I don't mind discussing it. The bottom line is that hdhondt and Jason210 believe in science and that there is no God. vicki2000 and I believe that there is a God and He is Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Ghost, and that His inspired word is the Bible and answers the basic questions of life.
The Bible starts with "In the beginning God..." It waste no effort trying to convince a person that there is a God. That is a given. Each must choose. There is an eternal consequence. Be it hence known both now and forever more that I choose Jesus Christ and His word. Choose as you will.
Archaeologists seem to keep discovering things--even things they thought were fabled cities and such, that prove the Bible to be true. However a person who doesn't want to believe, won't believe even in the face of proof.
God is not bothered by those who don't believe in Him, because He knows their end and that one day they will have no doubts--in the end--unfortunately it will then be too late.
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
I am fine if we close this topic. I don't mind discussing it. The bottom line is that hdhondt and Jason210 believe in science and that there is no God. vicki2000 and I believe that there is a God and He is Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Ghost, and that His inspired word is the Bible and answers the basic questions of life.
The Bible starts with "In the beginning God..." It waste no effort trying to convince a person that there is a God. That is a given. Each must choose. There is an eternal consequence. Be it hence known both now and forever more that I choose Jesus Christ and His word. Choose as you will.
Archaeologists seem to keep discovering things--even things they thought were fabled cities and such, that prove the Bible to be true. However a person who doesn't want to believe, won't believe even in the face of proof.
God is not bothered by those who don't believe in Him, because He knows their end and that one day they will have no doubts--in the end--unfortunately it will then be too late.
I am fine if we close this topic. I don't mind discussing it. The bottom line is that hdhondt and Jason210 believe in science and that there is no GodNo. the bottom line is this: that you have your beliefs and I have mine. I have never said I don't believe in God. My position is an agnostic one on that matter. The only thing I've said is that I don't accept the Christian doctrines, especially as being the final word on how we should think of Jesus and God.
Also, if there were a personal God watching our actions, then I think it would be far more preferable to Him to see people being true to themselves, and living a life based on their true beliefs, rather than following a script. I'm sure you are being true to yourself - but if I were to follow your advice, my life would be a lie. When it comes to judgement, yes, one day our conscience will catch up with us. But whether you follow the Bible or not has little to do with the outcome. There is nothing bad about living a life admitting that you "don't know" so long as you do the best way you can. Far more important is how you treat people, and the love you feel for them (or don't feel). If there is a God like you say, then His grace will find you; if not, then you've lived a good life anyway, that hs benifitted the world.
Sometimes, when I read your posts, and other Christian posts, you all seem to be very conscious of the rewards you will get for living your pious lives. This is exemplified by your little threat at the end of you last post. It's quite childish really. Kind of like, if I be a good boy I'll get some sweets at the end, and you won't.
Well at least you're all harmless, which is more than I can say for the some other religons. Harmless is a good thing. Imagine how many of the worlds problems would disappear of all religions were harmless. It's a good thing about Christianity, and it was something that Jesus taught.
And I do appreicate being able to discuss with you with death threats being issued :-)
Viki, you seem to bre rambling a bit. Atheists aren't trying to prove things all the time. They just have a common sense approach to life and don't believe in things that they have no reason to.
At the end of the day, you might believe in the Bible, while another might believe in the QUr'an, while yet another might be an atheist. But the truth of the matter is, we just don't know who or what we are, or where we came from. All we know is that life comes and goes. Personalities grow and die. At least seem to. Therefore we should value this life and the life of others.
At the end of the day, you might believe in the Bible, while another might believe in the QUr'an, while yet another might be an atheist. But the truth of the matter is, we just don't know who or what we are, or where we came from. All we know is that life comes and goes. Personalities grow and die. At least seem to. Therefore we should value this life and the life of others.
Now if you want, start another thread, but let us have a new title. I can post it if you want. You guys can just suggest a new one here.
ASKER
I decided to close the question and assign the points to IanTh because he offered the possibility of the discussions first (so is not because I would agree with all his answers).
Jason, you may ask a question about God for instance: if God really exists then how is God and what does that imply for us?
Just a suggestion.
Jason, you may ask a question about God for instance: if God really exists then how is God and what does that imply for us?
Just a suggestion.
I have no problem with closing this thread.
I also have no problem with people who believe in a god, as long as they respect the evidence. Many Christians have accept a universe as explained by science. To them, god started the universe 13.7Gy ago, with the laws and rules that enabled it to evolve stars, planets and, eventually, intelligence.
I respect the philosophy of the Dalai Lama. During an interview he was asked what he would do if scientific evidence overturned one of his beliefs. His reply was that he would change his belief. When pressed about what he would do if a core belief like reincarnation was proven wrong he said that he would, even then, change his belief. But he cannily added " I'd like to see you prove that wrong. Having a good understanding of science and logic he knew full well that it is not possible to prove such a belief wrong. It's equally impossible to prove the existence of a god wrong - or, for that matter, the existence of fairies in my garden.
What I do object to is the intellectual dishonesty of a belief system that accepts science and technology, but if they conflict with the book (bible, quran, vedas, etc) it rejects the science but keeps the technology.
I also have no problem with people who believe in a god, as long as they respect the evidence. Many Christians have accept a universe as explained by science. To them, god started the universe 13.7Gy ago, with the laws and rules that enabled it to evolve stars, planets and, eventually, intelligence.
I respect the philosophy of the Dalai Lama. During an interview he was asked what he would do if scientific evidence overturned one of his beliefs. His reply was that he would change his belief. When pressed about what he would do if a core belief like reincarnation was proven wrong he said that he would, even then, change his belief. But he cannily added " I'd like to see you prove that wrong. Having a good understanding of science and logic he knew full well that it is not possible to prove such a belief wrong. It's equally impossible to prove the existence of a god wrong - or, for that matter, the existence of fairies in my garden.
What I do object to is the intellectual dishonesty of a belief system that accepts science and technology, but if they conflict with the book (bible, quran, vedas, etc) it rejects the science but keeps the technology.
ASKER
"What I do object to is the intellectual dishonesty of a belief system that accepts science and technology, but if they conflict with the book (bible, quran, vedas, etc) it rejects the science but keeps the technology. "
I like how you formulate it, but could you give some examples?
I like how you formulate it, but could you give some examples?
I'll start with the ones I have mentioned several times before: PCs, mobile phones and GMS.
You believe they work, and use them as if they do, but the science behind them, which solidly indicates an old universe, is ignored in favour of a 6000 year old one. That's what I mean by intellectual dishonesty.
At least the vedas talk about a universe that is billions of years old, so Hindus don't have this particular problem.
You believe they work, and use them as if they do, but the science behind them, which solidly indicates an old universe, is ignored in favour of a 6000 year old one. That's what I mean by intellectual dishonesty.
At least the vedas talk about a universe that is billions of years old, so Hindus don't have this particular problem.
My post above should read "without death threats" of course :-)
@vicki2000
I'll also repeat, once again, I question I have now asked before:
Maybe you can start a new question on this.
I'll also repeat, once again, I question I have now asked before:
I keep asking questions, but I never get any answers from you. For example, when you said that all christians believe in the same basic truths, I mentioned that some believe Jesus is god, others don't.
What do you consider a "basic christian truth"? I don't expect to get anything but more quotes (interpretations) of the bible. Prove me wrong.
Maybe you can start a new question on this.
ASKER
Could please tell me what Christians do not believe:
- That Jesus is the Son of God?
- That He, the Father and Holy Ghost are One (Trinity)?
Would be interesting (at least for me) to know:
- which are them?
- how many such groups are compared with the rest of Christians groups?
- That Jesus is the Son of God?
- That He, the Father and Holy Ghost are One (Trinity)?
Would be interesting (at least for me) to know:
- which are them?
- how many such groups are compared with the rest of Christians groups?
I mentioned some in an earlier port. They include Arianism, which was Newton's version of Christianity. The others I mentioned are Nontrinitarianism and Unitarianism. You can look them up on Wikipedia.
The trinity is something the early catholic church dreamt up to overcome the discrepancy between 1 god (as per the Old Testament) and 3 gods (as the New Testament is interpreted)
The trinity is something the early catholic church dreamt up to overcome the discrepancy between 1 god (as per the Old Testament) and 3 gods (as the New Testament is interpreted)
ASKER
I looked over some links:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/34124/Arianism
http://www.theopedia.com/Arianism
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Arianism
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm
Now I understand what do you mean.
The answer to these deserve its own topic.
I can give the answers only quoting from Bible. Then you can judge by yourself.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/34124/Arianism
http://www.theopedia.com/Arianism
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Arianism
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm
Now I understand what do you mean.
The answer to these deserve its own topic.
I can give the answers only quoting from Bible. Then you can judge by yourself.
You mean that you'll prove the bible (or at least, your interpretation of it) by quoting the bible?
Don't you see that those different versions of christianity use the very same bible for their beliefs? And they arrive at completely different answers. Proving your beliefs by quoting the bible is like proving the story of Moby Dick by quoting passages from Moby Dick.
Don't you see that those different versions of christianity use the very same bible for their beliefs? And they arrive at completely different answers. Proving your beliefs by quoting the bible is like proving the story of Moby Dick by quoting passages from Moby Dick.
ASKER
I never seen it like that, for the simple reason that in many situations of different Christian groups the difference does not come from interpretation only, but by adding or subtracting information to/from Bible.
That means are people opinions, traditions of the "church".
I can definitely say that not all our questions are answered in Bible - and from here the man influence with various groups - but the main information is present in almost all important Christan groups, or maybe better said: in most of the Bible translations, because the info from the Book is important, and not what people wanted to believe where no clear explanations are given.
The main problem that I see with these situations is the fact that we people want desperate to constrain the image of God to something that our mind can interpret, digest.
That means are people opinions, traditions of the "church".
I can definitely say that not all our questions are answered in Bible - and from here the man influence with various groups - but the main information is present in almost all important Christan groups, or maybe better said: in most of the Bible translations, because the info from the Book is important, and not what people wanted to believe where no clear explanations are given.
The main problem that I see with these situations is the fact that we people want desperate to constrain the image of God to something that our mind can interpret, digest.
The main problem that I see with these situations is the fact that we people want desperate to constrain the image of God to something that our mind can interpret, digest.
Exactly. We created god in our image, because we needed some explanation for things beyond our control. Things like the lightning, eclipses, the stars, where babies came from, why we are here, etc, etc. We kept those beliefs for thousands of years, but in the last few hundred years we have finally started to understand the real reasons behind those things. Unfortunately, religion is so deeply engrained in us that we have trouble of letting go and using our brains instead. There are still things we don't understand( and we may never find the answer for some) but to ignore all the evidence in favour of just one book is like children who close your eyes and hope the bad news will go away.
As I said before, I can accept it if you believe in a god who created the universe 13.7 Gy ago, with all its laws, and then sat back to watch it evolve. He has some septillion stars to watch though.
ASKER
Remember: the God from Bible gave us among the 4 primary commands to not make any image as god about the things that we see (in the heaven above, or in the earth beneath).
hdhondt
Although I agree with much of what you say, I do not agree with this. An early attempt to explain the phenomena you describe would be an attempt at emprical science. This is not the objective of scripture and spiritual texts. While scripture may mention, and appear to attempt, a description of the Universe in empirical terms, the objective of a spiritual text was to document someone's experience of God - which would be an entirely subjective experience.
Viki and SStory, on the other hand, appear to think that these claims of miracles and indeed the other events that oppose our scientific understanding are importatnt to what Jesus was trying to teach us. They are not. They only way we can understand what Jesus was saying is to discover God for ourselves - within ourselves; or rather, to discover That which he called God. And that's not going to happen by believing in something, reading books, or the the Bible or by following a religion. It's not going to happen by going to India and dressing up as a Bhuddist monk either.
All religions are flawed - not just Christianity. We see what is happening with Islam in the world today. If there were a perfect religion, then there would be only one religion. Similarly, all men are flawed. If we were all perfect there would be only one of us.
Religion is flawed because man is flawed, and if you strive for perfection, then at some point religion is going to become an obstacle in that path because while we are evolving, religion is not.
Exactly. We created god in our image, because we needed some explanation for things beyond our control. Things like the lightning, eclipses, the stars, where babies came from, why we are here, etc, etc. We kept those beliefs for thousands of years, but in the last few hundred years we have finally started to understand the real reasons behind those things. Unfortunately, religion is so deeply engrained in us that we have trouble of letting go and using our brains instead. There are still things we don't understand( and we may never find the answer for some) but to ignore all the evidence in favour of just one book is like children who close your eyes and hope the bad news will go away.
Although I agree with much of what you say, I do not agree with this. An early attempt to explain the phenomena you describe would be an attempt at emprical science. This is not the objective of scripture and spiritual texts. While scripture may mention, and appear to attempt, a description of the Universe in empirical terms, the objective of a spiritual text was to document someone's experience of God - which would be an entirely subjective experience.
Viki and SStory, on the other hand, appear to think that these claims of miracles and indeed the other events that oppose our scientific understanding are importatnt to what Jesus was trying to teach us. They are not. They only way we can understand what Jesus was saying is to discover God for ourselves - within ourselves; or rather, to discover That which he called God. And that's not going to happen by believing in something, reading books, or the the Bible or by following a religion. It's not going to happen by going to India and dressing up as a Bhuddist monk either.
All religions are flawed - not just Christianity. We see what is happening with Islam in the world today. If there were a perfect religion, then there would be only one religion. Similarly, all men are flawed. If we were all perfect there would be only one of us.
Religion is flawed because man is flawed, and if you strive for perfection, then at some point religion is going to become an obstacle in that path because while we are evolving, religion is not.
ASKER
And here you miss the point: we are all flawed and have no chance to go out of it alone (true) - that is what Gospel teaches also. You need a Savior, a Person who will be intermediary between God and you. Christians believe that is Jesus.
The people are flawed since Adam and Eve sinned.
The people are flawed since Adam and Eve sinned.
1.
You don't know who can "go it alone" or not. Your refusal to accept this possibility comes down to your Christian doctrines and beliefs.2.
Jesus may well have been an intermediary - and therefore worth reading, among many others. We have a lot of spiritual knowledge at our disposal in 2012. So actually, we never go it alone because we are all educated and learnign all the time from those who went before. Your refusal to accept this possibility comes down to your Christian doctrines and beliefs.3.
I don't believe in Adam and Eve. I think they are allegorical. Your refusal to accept this possibility comes down to your Christian doctrines and beliefs.I'm not missing any points. I know your points. I've heard them over and over again.There are no supernatural beings. We are all the same - including Jesus. Jesus was a man. Nothing will convince me otherwise. Only his knowledge made him different.
The Bible was put together by people, long after Jesus died. The doctrines were determined by people who never met Jesus.
People come and go. Personalities grow and die, like everything else.
ASKER
1 You don't know who can "go it alone" or not (I know based on Jesus message). Your refusal to accept this possibility comes down to your Christian doctrines and beliefs.(You are right)
2 Jesus may well have been an intermediary - and therefore worth reading, among many others. We have a lot of spiritual knowledge at our disposal in 2012. So actually, we never go it alone because we are all educated and learning all the time from those who went before. Your refusal to accept this possibility comes down to your Christian doctrines and beliefs. (If Jesus would be “only” an intermediary, or “just” another prophet; the He would be still “the best” among others – thinking only at His human character. Try to put all the other prophets/messengers in line and compare them. Where would you put Jesus? For me is on top.)
3 I don't believe in Adam and Eve. I think they are allegorical. Your refusal to accept this possibility comes down to your Christian doctrines and beliefs. (You are right)
I'm not missing any points. I know your points. I've heard them over and over again. (OK)
There are no supernatural beings. We are all the same - including Jesus. Jesus was a man. Nothing will convince me otherwise. Only his knowledge made him different.(How do you conclude that Jesus is only a man. What readings? I read the Bible and what is written there is impossible to be done by a simple man – starting with birth. Who do you think was His Father? I believe was God)
The Bible was put together by people, long after Jesus died.(The Bible was put together by people, long after Jesus arose and went to Heavens) The doctrines were determined by people who never met Jesus.(The doctrine is one thing and the New Testament is different.)
People come and go. Personalities grow and die, like everything else.(Indeed, lucky Christians they do not believe in personalities. They believe in the Son of God.)
2 Jesus may well have been an intermediary - and therefore worth reading, among many others. We have a lot of spiritual knowledge at our disposal in 2012. So actually, we never go it alone because we are all educated and learning all the time from those who went before. Your refusal to accept this possibility comes down to your Christian doctrines and beliefs. (If Jesus would be “only” an intermediary, or “just” another prophet; the He would be still “the best” among others – thinking only at His human character. Try to put all the other prophets/messengers in line and compare them. Where would you put Jesus? For me is on top.)
3 I don't believe in Adam and Eve. I think they are allegorical. Your refusal to accept this possibility comes down to your Christian doctrines and beliefs. (You are right)
I'm not missing any points. I know your points. I've heard them over and over again. (OK)
There are no supernatural beings. We are all the same - including Jesus. Jesus was a man. Nothing will convince me otherwise. Only his knowledge made him different.(How do you conclude that Jesus is only a man. What readings? I read the Bible and what is written there is impossible to be done by a simple man – starting with birth. Who do you think was His Father? I believe was God)
The Bible was put together by people, long after Jesus died.(The Bible was put together by people, long after Jesus arose and went to Heavens) The doctrines were determined by people who never met Jesus.(The doctrine is one thing and the New Testament is different.)
People come and go. Personalities grow and die, like everything else.(Indeed, lucky Christians they do not believe in personalities. They believe in the Son of God.)
ASKER
I realize that speaking here about God we may have different conceptions about God or maybe no conception at all.
When I refer at God, I may express some of His characteristics revealed to us.
As a philosopher said: the truth is not if is not revealed.
I refer here to the God from Bible.
Along the entire Bible, God presents Himself to us as a God of relation.
He had a relation with His creatures from beginning and everything what was done after that had as purpose the same thing: re-establish the initial relation.
Maybe some of us expect to find an evidence of God trough a miraculous things, something out of natural, out of the day by day routine. And that make sense. But what are we ready to do for that? How far are we willing to go? With what price?
There is a book in Old Testament in which God presents Himself to the Jews trough the prophet Hosea in a way totally unexpected – but again as God of relation.
God wants us to understand Him, to understand why He gave us the first 4 commandments.
Did you ever read the book of Hosea?
God put Hosea (a prophet, saint) to marry a prostitute. And the prostitute cheated Hosea after marriage. God put Hosea to search in the brothel and to bring her home and love her again and to make everything in his power to have a normal happy family.
There is a lot told around that “strange” relation and Hosea was crushed in his feelings, he did not understand why he has to do it, but he submitted to God’s will.
In the end God tells us trough Hosea about what spiritual relation had Jewish people with Him.
And we, the other nations, are the same.
It also a “holography” of the things presented later in New Testament: Jesus as groom, Church as bride; we and God in a relation after we cheated and betrayed Him.
I told you briefly about Hosea to understand that relation of respect is more important then all the other aspects and questions that we have.
We have the best chances to find an individual proof about the existence of God in our lives when we start to develop a relation with God, even if you do not see or hear Him.
Any religion on Earth does that trough prayer. Alone, in your room, in nature, wherever, just between you and God.
Remember: is not as you want, as you expect. It is how it is, even if you do not agree, you do not like it or seems childish, stupid. It is trough prayer, speaking with God, alone. Even if you do not believe that He exists. You may tell Him that. It is the start.
Do it serious, daily for a while, few weeks, few months and then you will see who is wrong.
When I refer at God, I may express some of His characteristics revealed to us.
As a philosopher said: the truth is not if is not revealed.
I refer here to the God from Bible.
Along the entire Bible, God presents Himself to us as a God of relation.
He had a relation with His creatures from beginning and everything what was done after that had as purpose the same thing: re-establish the initial relation.
Maybe some of us expect to find an evidence of God trough a miraculous things, something out of natural, out of the day by day routine. And that make sense. But what are we ready to do for that? How far are we willing to go? With what price?
There is a book in Old Testament in which God presents Himself to the Jews trough the prophet Hosea in a way totally unexpected – but again as God of relation.
God wants us to understand Him, to understand why He gave us the first 4 commandments.
Did you ever read the book of Hosea?
God put Hosea (a prophet, saint) to marry a prostitute. And the prostitute cheated Hosea after marriage. God put Hosea to search in the brothel and to bring her home and love her again and to make everything in his power to have a normal happy family.
There is a lot told around that “strange” relation and Hosea was crushed in his feelings, he did not understand why he has to do it, but he submitted to God’s will.
In the end God tells us trough Hosea about what spiritual relation had Jewish people with Him.
And we, the other nations, are the same.
It also a “holography” of the things presented later in New Testament: Jesus as groom, Church as bride; we and God in a relation after we cheated and betrayed Him.
I told you briefly about Hosea to understand that relation of respect is more important then all the other aspects and questions that we have.
We have the best chances to find an individual proof about the existence of God in our lives when we start to develop a relation with God, even if you do not see or hear Him.
Any religion on Earth does that trough prayer. Alone, in your room, in nature, wherever, just between you and God.
Remember: is not as you want, as you expect. It is how it is, even if you do not agree, you do not like it or seems childish, stupid. It is trough prayer, speaking with God, alone. Even if you do not believe that He exists. You may tell Him that. It is the start.
Do it serious, daily for a while, few weeks, few months and then you will see who is wrong.
How do you know I don't already have a "relation with God"?
Do you think the only people who have "relation with God" are those who believe in the bible as the source of all truth and knowledge?
Do you think the only people who have "relation with God" are those who believe in the bible as the source of all truth and knowledge?
ASKER
I refer mainly to people who do not believe that God exists.
If you have a relation with God then remain only the test of Elijah.
If you have a relation with God then remain only the test of Elijah.
What is that?
>How do you know I don't already have a "relation with God"?
>Do you think the only people who have "relation with God" are those who believe in the >bible as the source of all truth and knowledge?
Yes! You CAN NOT have a personal relationship with God or be accepted by Him apart from JESUS CHRIST. He said, "I am THE WAY..." (capitalization mine). He is not A WAY among WAYS.
In Genesis, Cain's offering was rejected while Able's was accepted. Why? God told them what was acceptable, but Cain, like many "religious" people decided they'd come to God on their own terms. It was unsuccessful and led Cain's inner anger and jealousy to commit the first murder. You can't just come to God any way you please. Jesus , lived, did miracles, proved who He was, died for our sins, was raised to life and seen by hundreds of eye witnesses and He said "No one comes to the Father, but by me." That sounds pretty exclusive and clear to me.
>Do you think the only people who have "relation with God" are those who believe in the >bible as the source of all truth and knowledge?
Yes! You CAN NOT have a personal relationship with God or be accepted by Him apart from JESUS CHRIST. He said, "I am THE WAY..." (capitalization mine). He is not A WAY among WAYS.
In Genesis, Cain's offering was rejected while Able's was accepted. Why? God told them what was acceptable, but Cain, like many "religious" people decided they'd come to God on their own terms. It was unsuccessful and led Cain's inner anger and jealousy to commit the first murder. You can't just come to God any way you please. Jesus , lived, did miracles, proved who He was, died for our sins, was raised to life and seen by hundreds of eye witnesses and He said "No one comes to the Father, but by me." That sounds pretty exclusive and clear to me.
>My position is an agnostic one on that matter.
I can respect that more than an atheist. You are just saying you don't know. That's an honest answer.
>The only thing I've said is that I don't accept the Christian doctrines, especially as being >the final word on how we should think of Jesus and God.
That's definitely your choice. There are only three choices for Jesus:
1.) LIAR 2.) LUNATIC 3.) LORD
If number 3, then everything in the word is His--inspired by Him and defended by Him and we are responsible for what it tells us. Each must decide to believe or not.
>Also, if there were a personal God watching our actions, then I think it would be far >more preferable to Him to see people being true to themselves, and living a life based >on their true beliefs, rather than following a script.
The Bible teaches us that man is totally depraved in his heart due to falling from the first sin (look around Romans 3:10). This sin nature taints all of our thoughts and motives. The Bibles says the heart is wicked and who can know it. So we are by nature self deceived. Th at is why Jesus came to rescue us and show us the truth. So if you remain true to yourself as you say then you will be remaining true to that sinful nature that will deceive you. The Bible says "the wages of sin is death." God's gift is eternal life in Jesus.
The truth is, that it doesn't really matter if we think God would or feel God should, but rather that we know what God said.
>I'm sure you are being true to yourself - but if I were to follow your advice, my life >would be a lie.
You are partly right in this. Your life would be a lie because you have an old nature. You need a new one. Jesus told a religious leader of the day unless he was born again he couldn't enter the kingdom of heaven. What did that mean? He needed to receive Jesus in his life and in so doing the Holy Spirit would return to live inside of Him--as was the case with Adam and Eve-- and he'd have a new nature--one that loves God, seeks God, etc.
The Bible says that if any man is in Christ he's a new creation. So if you asked Christ into your heart as your Savior and Lord, He'd come in and change your nature so that you wouldn't have a life that was a lie. He'd change your desires, thoughts, etc. So you are right in that if you faked it and acted like you were a Christian your life would be a lie, but what you don't realize is that God can save you and transform you and make you see things totally different and have a new nature so that you can live life they way He wants you too and not be living a lie.
>When it comes to judgement, yes, one day our conscience will catch up with us. But
Conscience will forever condemn the sinner when he is separated from God. It will say, "guilty, guilty, guilty, you deserve this...you scorned such love and so great a salvation..."
>whether you follow the Bible or not has little to do with the outcome.
The Bible is not just a set a rules and regulations and rituals. It is about a real person, Jesus Christ, the Creator of all things who loved us enough to take the punishment for our treasonous crimes against the government of the universe and the only true King, so that we could accept Him as our substitute and receive His life in the exchange along with full pardon and the right to live with Him forever in sheer delight and pleasure.
>There is nothing bad about living a life admitting that you "don't know" so long as you do >the best way you can. Far more important is how you treat people, and the love you feel >for them (or don't feel).
Well, admitting that you don't know is definitely a good and honest start. I may not know several subjects very well, but if one claimed to concern my eternal destination forever, and whether I went to perfect peace or absolute torment, it would behoove me to do all that I could to search it out to see if it be so or not.
I will tell you that "8) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV) This says it's not about your works, but about the works of Jesus--He's the only one who did it perfect and only perfection is acceptable. God created a perfect man and woman and that's what He expects. They chose to become imperfect so only a perfect person dying in their place could offer them hope of redemption.
>If there is a God like you say, then His grace will find you; if not, then you've lived a >good life anyway, that hs benifitted the world.
I'm sure that your life may be benefiting the world. The problem is that it's not about you, the world or even me. It's all about Him. It's His world, His Kingdom, His Rule, and we must know Him or perish.
>Sometimes, when I read your posts, and other Christian posts, you all seem to be very >conscious of the rewards you will get for living your pious lives. This is exemplified by >your little threat at the end of you last post. It's quite childish really. Kind of like, if I be >a good boy I'll get some sweets at the end, and you won't.
I'm sorry if it came across like that. Again it is not about my "pious" life. I'm a person just like you. I make mistakes and sometimes blow it big time. What I'm trying to tell you is that it isn't about my works. Since God doesn't accept any works apart from those done through Christ, all of my works (by myself without Christ--those done before I knew Him), are worth zero. In fact they aren't just a 0, they have penalties. Negatives. So don't think of me of some super pious, righteous person in terms of what I do and such. The Bible teaches of the great substitution.
I thought my account was like this:
Good Bad
1 10
2 5
3 7
1
1
And I was hoping the good would outweigh the bad--like you are thinking.
The truth is that God would have rejected all of my "good" because it was done in the flesh outside of Christ and was like Cain bringing his own works before God in his way.
So the truth was close to this
Good Bad
0 (infinitely)
I hadn't just done bad things (sinned), I had no goodness that God would accept. He says all our righteousness is as filthy rags. And I was a rebellious sinner--a criminal against Heaven by so doing. So I had an enormous debt due to my crimes, a.k.a sins, that I could not possibly pay. So God in love came into the world in the person of Jesus Christ, having a human mother, but being placed in her in a supernatural way so that he was fully God and fully man. In so doing He lived life perfectly for 33 years, took all of our sins, our crimes upon Himself, and died in our place. Then was resurrected from the dead.
As a result God the Father has exalted Him to the highest place that AT THE NAME OF JESUS EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE CONFESS THAT HE IS LORD.
So if you see me as anything, please consider me as just one beggar, telling another beggar where he can find bread, or a former criminal of the Kingdom of God telling another criminal of the same where and how he can find pardon and new life.
>And I do appreciate being able to discuss with you with death threats being issued :-)
Jason, I'm glad we can have this discussion and I'm glad you are at least open to it. I'm sorry if you were inundated with a religious form of Christianity, but never shown that it isn't about that, but about a relationship that is real and personal and a peace that passes all understanding, a God who really loves you and wants to fellowship with you forever and a Savior who gave it all in order to be able to show you forgiveness. He poured it all out upon Jesus so that He could not pour it all out on us. But to get in on that we must (Romans 10:9). Confess that Jesus is LORD and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead. Basically tell Jesus we believe in Him, we want Him to save us, forgive us, and live in our hearts, and that we are sorry for our sins and choose, with His help turn from them. He said that no one who comes to Him will be turned away.
So that is why it is called the gospel. Gospel means "good news." It is good news to mankind. The bad part is we are born in trouble with His law, but can be born again in Christ to full pardon and a new life.
May the KING of all things, Jesus, bless you today and give you grace and light, and life so that you may see what I am telling you!
I am nobody! He is everything! I hope that you will one day know Him while still on this Earth.
I can respect that more than an atheist. You are just saying you don't know. That's an honest answer.
>The only thing I've said is that I don't accept the Christian doctrines, especially as being >the final word on how we should think of Jesus and God.
That's definitely your choice. There are only three choices for Jesus:
1.) LIAR 2.) LUNATIC 3.) LORD
If number 3, then everything in the word is His--inspired by Him and defended by Him and we are responsible for what it tells us. Each must decide to believe or not.
>Also, if there were a personal God watching our actions, then I think it would be far >more preferable to Him to see people being true to themselves, and living a life based >on their true beliefs, rather than following a script.
The Bible teaches us that man is totally depraved in his heart due to falling from the first sin (look around Romans 3:10). This sin nature taints all of our thoughts and motives. The Bibles says the heart is wicked and who can know it. So we are by nature self deceived. Th at is why Jesus came to rescue us and show us the truth. So if you remain true to yourself as you say then you will be remaining true to that sinful nature that will deceive you. The Bible says "the wages of sin is death." God's gift is eternal life in Jesus.
The truth is, that it doesn't really matter if we think God would or feel God should, but rather that we know what God said.
>I'm sure you are being true to yourself - but if I were to follow your advice, my life >would be a lie.
You are partly right in this. Your life would be a lie because you have an old nature. You need a new one. Jesus told a religious leader of the day unless he was born again he couldn't enter the kingdom of heaven. What did that mean? He needed to receive Jesus in his life and in so doing the Holy Spirit would return to live inside of Him--as was the case with Adam and Eve-- and he'd have a new nature--one that loves God, seeks God, etc.
The Bible says that if any man is in Christ he's a new creation. So if you asked Christ into your heart as your Savior and Lord, He'd come in and change your nature so that you wouldn't have a life that was a lie. He'd change your desires, thoughts, etc. So you are right in that if you faked it and acted like you were a Christian your life would be a lie, but what you don't realize is that God can save you and transform you and make you see things totally different and have a new nature so that you can live life they way He wants you too and not be living a lie.
>When it comes to judgement, yes, one day our conscience will catch up with us. But
Conscience will forever condemn the sinner when he is separated from God. It will say, "guilty, guilty, guilty, you deserve this...you scorned such love and so great a salvation..."
>whether you follow the Bible or not has little to do with the outcome.
The Bible is not just a set a rules and regulations and rituals. It is about a real person, Jesus Christ, the Creator of all things who loved us enough to take the punishment for our treasonous crimes against the government of the universe and the only true King, so that we could accept Him as our substitute and receive His life in the exchange along with full pardon and the right to live with Him forever in sheer delight and pleasure.
>There is nothing bad about living a life admitting that you "don't know" so long as you do >the best way you can. Far more important is how you treat people, and the love you feel >for them (or don't feel).
Well, admitting that you don't know is definitely a good and honest start. I may not know several subjects very well, but if one claimed to concern my eternal destination forever, and whether I went to perfect peace or absolute torment, it would behoove me to do all that I could to search it out to see if it be so or not.
I will tell you that "8) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV) This says it's not about your works, but about the works of Jesus--He's the only one who did it perfect and only perfection is acceptable. God created a perfect man and woman and that's what He expects. They chose to become imperfect so only a perfect person dying in their place could offer them hope of redemption.
>If there is a God like you say, then His grace will find you; if not, then you've lived a >good life anyway, that hs benifitted the world.
I'm sure that your life may be benefiting the world. The problem is that it's not about you, the world or even me. It's all about Him. It's His world, His Kingdom, His Rule, and we must know Him or perish.
>Sometimes, when I read your posts, and other Christian posts, you all seem to be very >conscious of the rewards you will get for living your pious lives. This is exemplified by >your little threat at the end of you last post. It's quite childish really. Kind of like, if I be >a good boy I'll get some sweets at the end, and you won't.
I'm sorry if it came across like that. Again it is not about my "pious" life. I'm a person just like you. I make mistakes and sometimes blow it big time. What I'm trying to tell you is that it isn't about my works. Since God doesn't accept any works apart from those done through Christ, all of my works (by myself without Christ--those done before I knew Him), are worth zero. In fact they aren't just a 0, they have penalties. Negatives. So don't think of me of some super pious, righteous person in terms of what I do and such. The Bible teaches of the great substitution.
I thought my account was like this:
Good Bad
1 10
2 5
3 7
1
1
And I was hoping the good would outweigh the bad--like you are thinking.
The truth is that God would have rejected all of my "good" because it was done in the flesh outside of Christ and was like Cain bringing his own works before God in his way.
So the truth was close to this
Good Bad
0 (infinitely)
I hadn't just done bad things (sinned), I had no goodness that God would accept. He says all our righteousness is as filthy rags. And I was a rebellious sinner--a criminal against Heaven by so doing. So I had an enormous debt due to my crimes, a.k.a sins, that I could not possibly pay. So God in love came into the world in the person of Jesus Christ, having a human mother, but being placed in her in a supernatural way so that he was fully God and fully man. In so doing He lived life perfectly for 33 years, took all of our sins, our crimes upon Himself, and died in our place. Then was resurrected from the dead.
As a result God the Father has exalted Him to the highest place that AT THE NAME OF JESUS EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE CONFESS THAT HE IS LORD.
So if you see me as anything, please consider me as just one beggar, telling another beggar where he can find bread, or a former criminal of the Kingdom of God telling another criminal of the same where and how he can find pardon and new life.
>And I do appreciate being able to discuss with you with death threats being issued :-)
Jason, I'm glad we can have this discussion and I'm glad you are at least open to it. I'm sorry if you were inundated with a religious form of Christianity, but never shown that it isn't about that, but about a relationship that is real and personal and a peace that passes all understanding, a God who really loves you and wants to fellowship with you forever and a Savior who gave it all in order to be able to show you forgiveness. He poured it all out upon Jesus so that He could not pour it all out on us. But to get in on that we must (Romans 10:9). Confess that Jesus is LORD and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead. Basically tell Jesus we believe in Him, we want Him to save us, forgive us, and live in our hearts, and that we are sorry for our sins and choose, with His help turn from them. He said that no one who comes to Him will be turned away.
So that is why it is called the gospel. Gospel means "good news." It is good news to mankind. The bad part is we are born in trouble with His law, but can be born again in Christ to full pardon and a new life.
May the KING of all things, Jesus, bless you today and give you grace and light, and life so that you may see what I am telling you!
I am nobody! He is everything! I hope that you will one day know Him while still on this Earth.
ASKER
What did I want to say with Elijiah test?
In fact is what hdhondt, or general speaking skeptics, ask and want as proof that God exists.
The fact is that we canot force, determine God to do anything for us unless He wants that to be done. Maximum what we can do is to try to convince Him trough our prayers if we have a good relation with Him.
Sometimes the fact that He is doing what we ask it is a proof of our good relation. But always is important what you ask. What is the benefit of that. Most of our requests are not listen only due to our selfish requests.
As you probably know Elijah is one of the few persons mentioned in Bible as a great God’s prophet who did not dye.
He was taken up to heavens by God during his earthly life.
Bible presents him as a normal man as we are with all our problems, including doubts, fear of death – on one side. Then on the other side he is also courageous and making miracles when he believes and obeys the God’s words.
On his time was Ahab king and his wife was Jezebel. Jezebel was the daughter of Tyre king, another land (Phoenician empire). She worshiped another god named Ball. She was with big influence. Ahab was week. He let her to come with her priests and put to death all other servants of Jews God.
Only some of them escaped. Among them was Elijah. He spoke against Ball as being not real all his life.
There are many miracles made by God trough Elijah: no rain for 3 years and rained when he said that will rain, persons came back from death, multiplying the food….and many other things.
Elijah was a runner, because was considered a trouble maker for Israel – due to his word was no rain in the land. He ran for his life, in desert .The birds fed him to not starve. He heard the voice of God and he did what was told even if he was scared sometimes.
He has a very interesting and unusual story.
That only a briefly introduction. What I wanted to say was this:
- It came a time when the men of the king searched him to kill him and when God told him to go and met them. It was the time of test when God shown them His power. The test had the purpose to show if Baal or God of Jews is for real.
- It was the time of “no more talking”.
- There were 450 priest of Baal and Elijah was alone. A test was done. You better read it for yourself:
1 Kings 18:
“
Elijah on Mount Carmel
16 So Obadiah went to meet Ahab and told him, and Ahab went to meet Elijah. 17 When he saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is that you, you troubler of Israel?”
18 “I have not made trouble for Israel,” Elijah replied. “But you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned the LORD’s commands and have followed the Baals. 19 Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”
20 So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. 21 Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”
But the people said nothing.
22 Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the LORD’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”
Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”
25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which had been torn down. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs[a] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”
34 “Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.
“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”
38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The LORD—he is God! The LORD—he is God!”
”
In fact is what hdhondt, or general speaking skeptics, ask and want as proof that God exists.
The fact is that we canot force, determine God to do anything for us unless He wants that to be done. Maximum what we can do is to try to convince Him trough our prayers if we have a good relation with Him.
Sometimes the fact that He is doing what we ask it is a proof of our good relation. But always is important what you ask. What is the benefit of that. Most of our requests are not listen only due to our selfish requests.
As you probably know Elijah is one of the few persons mentioned in Bible as a great God’s prophet who did not dye.
He was taken up to heavens by God during his earthly life.
Bible presents him as a normal man as we are with all our problems, including doubts, fear of death – on one side. Then on the other side he is also courageous and making miracles when he believes and obeys the God’s words.
On his time was Ahab king and his wife was Jezebel. Jezebel was the daughter of Tyre king, another land (Phoenician empire). She worshiped another god named Ball. She was with big influence. Ahab was week. He let her to come with her priests and put to death all other servants of Jews God.
Only some of them escaped. Among them was Elijah. He spoke against Ball as being not real all his life.
There are many miracles made by God trough Elijah: no rain for 3 years and rained when he said that will rain, persons came back from death, multiplying the food….and many other things.
Elijah was a runner, because was considered a trouble maker for Israel – due to his word was no rain in the land. He ran for his life, in desert .The birds fed him to not starve. He heard the voice of God and he did what was told even if he was scared sometimes.
He has a very interesting and unusual story.
That only a briefly introduction. What I wanted to say was this:
- It came a time when the men of the king searched him to kill him and when God told him to go and met them. It was the time of test when God shown them His power. The test had the purpose to show if Baal or God of Jews is for real.
- It was the time of “no more talking”.
- There were 450 priest of Baal and Elijah was alone. A test was done. You better read it for yourself:
1 Kings 18:
“
Elijah on Mount Carmel
16 So Obadiah went to meet Ahab and told him, and Ahab went to meet Elijah. 17 When he saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is that you, you troubler of Israel?”
18 “I have not made trouble for Israel,” Elijah replied. “But you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned the LORD’s commands and have followed the Baals. 19 Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”
20 So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. 21 Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”
But the people said nothing.
22 Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the LORD’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”
Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”
25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which had been torn down. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs[a] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”
34 “Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.
“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”
38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The LORD—he is God! The LORD—he is God!”
”
SStory
Thanks for the long post and your efforts. At the very least I find it interesting that you are so convinced of your beliefs, and and that you are prepared to spend so much effort on me!
You know, this is probably going to fall on deaf ears, but you said in your post that "there are only three choices for Jesus:
1.) LIAR 2.) LUNATIC 3.) LORD
It's not clear what is meant by LORD in that statement, although I'm sure you are referring to the orthordox Christian view of Jesus.
While these three alternatives may seem obvious in meaning for you, for me only the first two were obvious to define and agree on, but the last one isn't. You could easily have used the word GOD at the end there. The question then arises - what do you mean by that? And depending on how you define it, there are a number of possible answers. A Christian like yourself would only have one answer; but those who are open to other religions and other forms of spirituality and have very different ideas on what that last word means.
Therefore, I won't say that your three alternatives are not enough to cover all possibilities. But I will say that concept behind the third option you offer is far more complex than the other two; and that there may be other ways of experiencing God other than the way offered by Christianity, or by religions in general.
Thanks for the long post and your efforts. At the very least I find it interesting that you are so convinced of your beliefs, and and that you are prepared to spend so much effort on me!
You know, this is probably going to fall on deaf ears, but you said in your post that "there are only three choices for Jesus:
1.) LIAR 2.) LUNATIC 3.) LORD
It's not clear what is meant by LORD in that statement, although I'm sure you are referring to the orthordox Christian view of Jesus.
While these three alternatives may seem obvious in meaning for you, for me only the first two were obvious to define and agree on, but the last one isn't. You could easily have used the word GOD at the end there. The question then arises - what do you mean by that? And depending on how you define it, there are a number of possible answers. A Christian like yourself would only have one answer; but those who are open to other religions and other forms of spirituality and have very different ideas on what that last word means.
Therefore, I won't say that your three alternatives are not enough to cover all possibilities. But I will say that concept behind the third option you offer is far more complex than the other two; and that there may be other ways of experiencing God other than the way offered by Christianity, or by religions in general.
Viki
Thanks for explaining - I wasn't familiar with the story, so it was nice to read about it. But it's actually quite simple. God does a miracle, Baal doesn't.
Not being familiar with this one, I have yet to form an interpretation of it, but I automatically reject the literal, emprical interpretation of it, simply because those kind of things don't happen. Things do not set on fire by themselves at such convenient moments. Had this been a real situation, Elijah would have needed to resort to some kind of theatrical trick (which would have been a smart thing to do), or, nothing would have happened and they 450 prophets would have eaten him.
If there is a meaning to this, it needs to have an application in today's world. Give me an example how we might perform Elijah's test today.
Thanks for explaining - I wasn't familiar with the story, so it was nice to read about it. But it's actually quite simple. God does a miracle, Baal doesn't.
Not being familiar with this one, I have yet to form an interpretation of it, but I automatically reject the literal, emprical interpretation of it, simply because those kind of things don't happen. Things do not set on fire by themselves at such convenient moments. Had this been a real situation, Elijah would have needed to resort to some kind of theatrical trick (which would have been a smart thing to do), or, nothing would have happened and they 450 prophets would have eaten him.
If there is a meaning to this, it needs to have an application in today's world. Give me an example how we might perform Elijah's test today.
ASKER
I told you the story of Elijah because you asked:
"How do you know I don't already have a "relation with God"? "
You do not have a relation with God if you are agnostic - as you say you are.
"How do you know I don't already have a "relation with God"? "
You do not have a relation with God if you are agnostic - as you say you are.
Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, as you can see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism
Again, it all depends on what we mean by "God". God as popularly imagined, as a some kind of personality, more or less as portrayed by Christianity, produces the repsonse of agnostic atheism in me. I don't believe it, but I never go so far to say as that it does not exist. This has always been my argument, as long as I have been participating in these discussions.
However, God as a some kind of Universal intelligence, that permeates the Universe and makes all things possible, produces more the kind of apathetic or pragmatic agnostic response. I can also see a little of the spiritual agnostic in me with this view also.
There is definitely more to the this life than consciousness arising out of unconscious matter, as most atheists believe. It seems to me that consciousness was always there, that everything is conscious. There was a saying by Meister Eckhart,. which goes:
This comes closest perhaps, to where I am. I do not know what God is, or whether God is a personality, or whether it's just a fanciful personification; but I do believe I know where its coming from, and that source in itself is just as amazing. I don't know whether this "constitutes a relation with God".
As a footnote, many people have a relation with their conscience. That can also be deemed to be a relation with God, of sorts. No belief system is necessary.
One thing that I find interesting. When I was 15 I was quite a good artist at school, and my teacher gave the class an assignment. We'd been studying renaissance painting, and discussed the concept of a figure in the landscape, and looked at many examples, and our assigment was to create our own. So I painted this rennaisance landscape, and then I need a figure, so I looked through some art books until I found one that I thought were suitable. I never looked at the name, nor bothered really very much about the identity of the it. In fact I believed at the time that it was just an unknown person. It was many years later that I realised that the figure I had painted was Meister Eckhart.
It's just a coincidence, but...I like such coincidences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism
Again, it all depends on what we mean by "God". God as popularly imagined, as a some kind of personality, more or less as portrayed by Christianity, produces the repsonse of agnostic atheism in me. I don't believe it, but I never go so far to say as that it does not exist. This has always been my argument, as long as I have been participating in these discussions.
However, God as a some kind of Universal intelligence, that permeates the Universe and makes all things possible, produces more the kind of apathetic or pragmatic agnostic response. I can also see a little of the spiritual agnostic in me with this view also.
There is definitely more to the this life than consciousness arising out of unconscious matter, as most atheists believe. It seems to me that consciousness was always there, that everything is conscious. There was a saying by Meister Eckhart,. which goes:
The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7169-the-eye-through-which-i-see-god-is-the-same
This comes closest perhaps, to where I am. I do not know what God is, or whether God is a personality, or whether it's just a fanciful personification; but I do believe I know where its coming from, and that source in itself is just as amazing. I don't know whether this "constitutes a relation with God".
As a footnote, many people have a relation with their conscience. That can also be deemed to be a relation with God, of sorts. No belief system is necessary.
One thing that I find interesting. When I was 15 I was quite a good artist at school, and my teacher gave the class an assignment. We'd been studying renaissance painting, and discussed the concept of a figure in the landscape, and looked at many examples, and our assigment was to create our own. So I painted this rennaisance landscape, and then I need a figure, so I looked through some art books until I found one that I thought were suitable. I never looked at the name, nor bothered really very much about the identity of the it. In fact I believed at the time that it was just an unknown person. It was many years later that I realised that the figure I had painted was Meister Eckhart.
It's just a coincidence, but...I like such coincidences.
@SStory
1.) LIAR 2.) LUNATIC 3.) LORD
How about some other choices like:
1. Jesus was an ordinary man, but the apostles embellished his life
2. Jesus never existed, and the apostles made it all up
3. etc
My favourite is 1. I think he existed, but the gospels are full of inconsistencies. And that's if we ignore the additional gospels that the catholic church decided should be ignored. In favour of 2 is that there is no contemporary evidence for him - and the Romans were pretty good record keepers.
1.) LIAR 2.) LUNATIC 3.) LORD
How about some other choices like:
1. Jesus was an ordinary man, but the apostles embellished his life
2. Jesus never existed, and the apostles made it all up
3. etc
My favourite is 1. I think he existed, but the gospels are full of inconsistencies. And that's if we ignore the additional gospels that the catholic church decided should be ignored. In favour of 2 is that there is no contemporary evidence for him - and the Romans were pretty good record keepers.
ASKER
Jason, that sounds more like:
“I think I have a relation (sort of) with a women named „my wife“, but I am not so sure if she really exists…”
God presented in the Bible is very…personal.
“I think I have a relation (sort of) with a women named „my wife“, but I am not so sure if she really exists…”
God presented in the Bible is very…personal.
I am sure my wife exists and I would never make a declaration of uncertainty about something I were so sure of.
God on the other hand, appears to be quite undefineable. Just for a moment, I'm going to write as if I believe that God exists (italics).
God on the other hand, appears to be quite undefineable. Just for a moment, I'm going to write as if I believe that God exists (italics).
God is everywhere, and everything. He is manifest in many different forms. All forms in fact.
He is therefore in a flower, and in stone, and in this DVD that is on my desk. He is these things, but of course these things do not possess a high degree of consciousness and are unable to see anything. So God in these forms is not aware of his own existence.
God must also be in us humans. Since we possess a high degree of consciousness, we can be thought of as God starting to become aware of himself - as a human. So this would be where your personality comes from, although that personality is going to vary a little in accordance with race and culture.
So even with this little game, where I allow the possibility of God, God can be personal, but that would not be God's "ultimate" form. Just one form amongst an infinite multitude.
He is therefore in a flower, and in stone, and in this DVD that is on my desk. He is these things, but of course these things do not possess a high degree of consciousness and are unable to see anything. So God in these forms is not aware of his own existence.
God must also be in us humans. Since we possess a high degree of consciousness, we can be thought of as God starting to become aware of himself - as a human. So this would be where your personality comes from, although that personality is going to vary a little in accordance with race and culture.
ASKER
@Jason210
"If there is a meaning to this, it needs to have an application in today's world. Give me an example how we might perform Elijah's test today. "
Here it is:
John 14:22-31
22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, 31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
“Come now; let us leave.
"If there is a meaning to this, it needs to have an application in today's world. Give me an example how we might perform Elijah's test today. "
Here it is:
John 14:22-31
22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, 31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
“Come now; let us leave.
@Sstory
In this post you say you believe in micro-evolution, but not in macro-evolution. Have a look at the attached image and see what you think. I got it from http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2929/does-the-theory-of-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics . It gives a clear analogy of the way evolution works, why there is no such thing as a "missing link" and why there was no "first human".
evolution.JPG
In this post you say you believe in micro-evolution, but not in macro-evolution. Have a look at the attached image and see what you think. I got it from http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2929/does-the-theory-of-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics . It gives a clear analogy of the way evolution works, why there is no such thing as a "missing link" and why there was no "first human".
evolution.JPG
Sorry guys, but there is way too much evidence proving the existence of Jesus.
Jason210,
>1.) LIAR 2.) LUNATIC 3.) LORD
Jesus said, "I AM" and when He did, he was claiming to be God. That is why the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Him. If He claimed to be God and wasn't it would be blasphemy. However He is God and it was not. He didn't come in the way they expected and they rejected Him. If you reject the Bible as God's inerrant, infallible word, then you are left to your own musings and ponderings and eventually demise, in what would appear to be intellect but in the end is only foolishness. Again Romans 1 speaks of all of this.
"Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools." (Romans 1:22 NIV) Only with openness and humility, coming before God and being willing to accept His truth, will He reveal it to you, but if one is self assured in his intellect and reasoning abilities, in some way, making them an idol, God often leaves such a person to his folly and final destination. I only suggest openness and humility when praying to God to just ask Him if He is real and that you really want to know Him. If you come humbly, and open to whatever He says, even if He says "the Bible is my word and Jesus really is my Son," then He will not turn you or anyone else away.
>Thanks for the long post and your efforts. At the very least I find it interesting that you >are so convinced of your beliefs, and and that you are prepared to spend so much effort >on me!
I am prepared to spend much effort on you and anyone else that I can to present God's good news to you. He does love you and everyone on this site. He does desire more than religion with each of us. We like to try to "keep the rules," and feel superior and such to those who don't "keep the rules." That is religion. God wants a real relationship with us. You and I have a relationship right now. It might not be very close and is a virtual one and you may even consider me an enemy or idiot or whatever, but we do have a relationship in that we've been talking for a long time and gotten to know a little about each other. God wants a much more intimate and deep relationship with each of us. The problem is our stinking sins (acts of rebellion, and treason, by disobedience to the law of the universe and the government (i.e. reign) of God) make it impossible for Him to do so. To that end He punished all of those in the person of His Son Jesus (God in the flesh) so that justice would be serve and the holiness of God's righteous name and reputation as being fair and just would be upheld. By doing so, any who accept God's substitute, Jesus, as their Saviour, are imputed with His righteousness, and their sins are already justly dealt with in the person of Jesus and thus God can have a relationship with that person. Prayer is talking to God and listening to the still small voice of His Holy Spirit speaking. He speaks in many ways and though it is quite it can be as though a loud voice in that it is one that is inescapable and hard to ignore. He did all of that for each of us and wants that relationship with each of us and I am only telling that good news to everyone here.
May the LORD God, Father, Jesus(Son) and Holy Ghost, one God in three persons, bless you this very night with understanding and His presence and if you or any are truly seeking Him, may you hear from Him tonight!
Be blessed!
Jason210,
>1.) LIAR 2.) LUNATIC 3.) LORD
Jesus said, "I AM" and when He did, he was claiming to be God. That is why the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Him. If He claimed to be God and wasn't it would be blasphemy. However He is God and it was not. He didn't come in the way they expected and they rejected Him. If you reject the Bible as God's inerrant, infallible word, then you are left to your own musings and ponderings and eventually demise, in what would appear to be intellect but in the end is only foolishness. Again Romans 1 speaks of all of this.
"Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools." (Romans 1:22 NIV) Only with openness and humility, coming before God and being willing to accept His truth, will He reveal it to you, but if one is self assured in his intellect and reasoning abilities, in some way, making them an idol, God often leaves such a person to his folly and final destination. I only suggest openness and humility when praying to God to just ask Him if He is real and that you really want to know Him. If you come humbly, and open to whatever He says, even if He says "the Bible is my word and Jesus really is my Son," then He will not turn you or anyone else away.
>Thanks for the long post and your efforts. At the very least I find it interesting that you >are so convinced of your beliefs, and and that you are prepared to spend so much effort >on me!
I am prepared to spend much effort on you and anyone else that I can to present God's good news to you. He does love you and everyone on this site. He does desire more than religion with each of us. We like to try to "keep the rules," and feel superior and such to those who don't "keep the rules." That is religion. God wants a real relationship with us. You and I have a relationship right now. It might not be very close and is a virtual one and you may even consider me an enemy or idiot or whatever, but we do have a relationship in that we've been talking for a long time and gotten to know a little about each other. God wants a much more intimate and deep relationship with each of us. The problem is our stinking sins (acts of rebellion, and treason, by disobedience to the law of the universe and the government (i.e. reign) of God) make it impossible for Him to do so. To that end He punished all of those in the person of His Son Jesus (God in the flesh) so that justice would be serve and the holiness of God's righteous name and reputation as being fair and just would be upheld. By doing so, any who accept God's substitute, Jesus, as their Saviour, are imputed with His righteousness, and their sins are already justly dealt with in the person of Jesus and thus God can have a relationship with that person. Prayer is talking to God and listening to the still small voice of His Holy Spirit speaking. He speaks in many ways and though it is quite it can be as though a loud voice in that it is one that is inescapable and hard to ignore. He did all of that for each of us and wants that relationship with each of us and I am only telling that good news to everyone here.
May the LORD God, Father, Jesus(Son) and Holy Ghost, one God in three persons, bless you this very night with understanding and His presence and if you or any are truly seeking Him, may you hear from Him tonight!
Be blessed!
there is way too much evidence proving the existence of Jesus.And the evidence is... THE BIBLE! (loud trumpet blasts)
I have stated before that I accept he probably existed. However, that does not mean that the New Testament (written by people decades or centuries after his death) is factual.
I also note that you finish the post with the (Catholic) church's mind-numbing approach to reconciling the Old Testament (1 god) with the New (3 of them): we just have to declare that 1=3.
hdhondt,
If you look into Genesis you will see God saying, "Let us make...." again and again.
Why? Yes He is one God in the OT and the NT, but He reveals Himself as one God in three persons. I don't claim to understand it and it is deep, but that's what He says and there are many OT scriptures which elude to this. John 1 says "the Word" In Spanish, "The Verb" Jesus apparently the action part of God... It says that by Him(Jesus) and through Him and for Him were all things made. So God decided to create and through Jesus He carried it out. I can't begin to understand it but do see it in old and new testaments.
I am married and even though a fallen, but redeemed man, I still have this fleshly body that is imperfect. Yet there are many ways in which I and my wife as one. As we live together longer we become more one. If were were not fallen we'd be one. Two distinct persons, but fully united in purpose and thought, etc. That is the closest thing we have on Earth to imagine what 1 God in 3 persons, the Trinity might be like.
>God on the other hand, appears to be quite undefinable. Just for a moment, I'm going >to write as if I believe that God exists (italics).
I was responding to this that Jason said where he inferred that God might not exist.
The evidence is the whole world was transformed by His teaching. Even the calendar BC and AD centered him as the center of history. What other self-proclaimed God or prophet can claim these things. Many came and claimed, but their followers disbanded and it came to nothing. There are many forms of evidence, but one who wishes not to believe will not.
If you look into Genesis you will see God saying, "Let us make...." again and again.
Why? Yes He is one God in the OT and the NT, but He reveals Himself as one God in three persons. I don't claim to understand it and it is deep, but that's what He says and there are many OT scriptures which elude to this. John 1 says "the Word" In Spanish, "The Verb" Jesus apparently the action part of God... It says that by Him(Jesus) and through Him and for Him were all things made. So God decided to create and through Jesus He carried it out. I can't begin to understand it but do see it in old and new testaments.
I am married and even though a fallen, but redeemed man, I still have this fleshly body that is imperfect. Yet there are many ways in which I and my wife as one. As we live together longer we become more one. If were were not fallen we'd be one. Two distinct persons, but fully united in purpose and thought, etc. That is the closest thing we have on Earth to imagine what 1 God in 3 persons, the Trinity might be like.
>God on the other hand, appears to be quite undefinable. Just for a moment, I'm going >to write as if I believe that God exists (italics).
I was responding to this that Jason said where he inferred that God might not exist.
The evidence is the whole world was transformed by His teaching. Even the calendar BC and AD centered him as the center of history. What other self-proclaimed God or prophet can claim these things. Many came and claimed, but their followers disbanded and it came to nothing. There are many forms of evidence, but one who wishes not to believe will not.
@hdhondt, concerning ID: 38524108,
I'd say that what we call laws are simply constants that God put in place in the order of His creation. He being the Creator is not bound by such laws and so as the Creator of the first man, no observation of what we call Laws which are just God's determined limits, and such on this creation can be used to say that the Creator couldn't create a man and woman as Genesis stated.
What law can you find that says it is possible to create something out of nothing? None.
God created everything from nothing just by His will. (If you had another point, I must have missed it.)
In answering Jason210 on God in the flower, there is a degree of truth in that the God of the universe holds all things together by His power, but that does not make me or the flower a god. That is pantheism.
I'd say that what we call laws are simply constants that God put in place in the order of His creation. He being the Creator is not bound by such laws and so as the Creator of the first man, no observation of what we call Laws which are just God's determined limits, and such on this creation can be used to say that the Creator couldn't create a man and woman as Genesis stated.
What law can you find that says it is possible to create something out of nothing? None.
God created everything from nothing just by His will. (If you had another point, I must have missed it.)
In answering Jason210 on God in the flower, there is a degree of truth in that the God of the universe holds all things together by His power, but that does not make me or the flower a god. That is pantheism.
God saying, "Let us make...."Do you mean that, when Queen Elizabeth says "We are not amused..." she means all 3 of her?
the whole world was transformed by His teaching.So you mean Christians are right and Muslims are wrong in their teachings? What about Hindus or Jews? And, the Muslim calendar starts in (AD)622, when Mohammad left Mecca. A fair number of people use it I believe...
I'd say that what we call laws are simply constants that God put in place in the order of His creation.At least I can't refute that. If God created the universe with all the laws that allow it to produce people after 13.7 Gy then I can only accept it. At present there is no way of refuting that.
Until science find a way to probe before the Big Bang, in which case God will have to hide even further in the past. And, with science there is never a point at which you can stop asking questions; you can always ask "and what caused that?". Which is quite different with religion where you are told to stop asking questions, no matter how often the evidence proves you wrong. Especially when the Bible (or Koran, etc) proves itself wrong.
Or, have you come up with a scientific theory that permits lasers and GMSs, yet still allows a 6000 year old universe? If you have, scientists around the world would like to hear about it.
SStory - Just to clarify...
Those were your words, not mine.
Jason210,
>1.) LIAR 2.) LUNATIC 3.) LORD
Those were your words, not mine.
ASKER
Random life does not have a purpose.