ARE YOU 100% SURE THAT IF YOU DIED TODAY THAT YOU WOULD GO TO HEAVEN?

There are some things that you should know:

1. Realize that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior:

Ro 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Ro 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

This all began with the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. God created them perfect. There was no death or sorrow. God told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed God and as a result, sin entered into the world. The pain which this world sees is the result of sin.

2. Because of our sins, we die both spiritually and physically, but God sent His Son to die so that you can have a chance not to have to go to hell by accepting what He did on the cross for you:

Ro 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Ro 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. for us."

Every person who has ever lived is a sinner and is not righteous because we do bad things. A sin is a crime against God, just as if you steal something at the store, it is punishable by going to jail. It's the same thing with sin. Even if we lie one time, the punishment is hell, which is a prison for those who commit crimes against God. That�s because you must be perfect in order to get to heaven. No matter how well you live your life from then on, you have already committed a sin which will be punished if you are not pardoned. If you commit a crime, and then live as a good citizen you still will go to jail for the crime you committed, Right? Just as the President can pardon a crime so you won't go to jail, Jesus can pardon your sins so that you do not go to hell, and can go to heaven when you die.

3. If you will Admit to Jesus Christ that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior, Believe in your heart that He died on the cross and rose from the dead and Accept Him as your Lord and Savior and you will be forgiven and taken to heaven to be with Him when you die.

Joh 1:12 �But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name�

Ro 10:9,10 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.."

You cannot get to heaven by being a good person, going to church, baptism or any other way other than by turning to Jesus and asking Him to forgive you for your sins and save you. While these are good things to do, some people believe that they will get to heaven if they do these things, but the bible says that there is only one way to heaven and that is through receiving what Jesus Christ did on the cross for you.

Will you do that today? If you will, you can be 100% sure that you will go to heaven when you die.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED ON THE CROSS AND ROSE FROM THE DEAD FOR YOUR SINS?

ARE YOU WILLING TO TURN TO JESUS CHRIST FOR SALVATION?

4. If you believe God with all of your Heart, then place your Faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, Believing that He died on the Cross and Rose from the Dead for your sins, the Bible says that you are Saved. Are you willing to do that today?

Pray this to God from your heart:

"Dear Lord Jesus, I believe that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead for my sins. I ask you to come into my heart and forgive me for my sins, save me, take me to be with You when I die. I now receive You as my Lord and Savior. Thank You for saving me. In Jesus holy name, Amen."


If you�ve just placed your Faith in Jesus Christ to save you, then you are a Saved Christian. As a saved Christian, you should be Baptized and attend a Bible Believing Church. The Baptism as an act of Obedience to Christ and the Church will help you grow in your faith in Christ.

Being an atheist, I would have to say no.

I voted for mexican.

I vote we learn how to be immortal and then create our own haven on earth.

We don't need god. He's a retard. We can do everything better, just give us some time.

I vote we learn how to be immortal and then create our own haven on earth.

We don't need god. He's a retard. We can do everything better, just give us some time.

Unfortunately, humans are not like that. We will find more ways to destroy ourselves before we can think of creating a heaven. It's sad really. Religion has a lot to do with that.

I do believe we go somewhere , but definitely not in a place framed by men through so many centuries of religious ideas.
Heaven is too religiously connotated..
But Afterlife is undeniable, the fact there is nothing is illogical.

Unfortunately, humans are not like that. We will find more ways to destroy ourselves before we can think of creating a heaven. It's sad really. Religion has a lot to do with that.

That's why immortality is first.

That's why immortality is first.

I don't know about immortality is possible, but I think we can extend the duration of life on earth a lot.

I only give praise to the immortal God Emperor.

What if God doesn't exist and all the other religions do exist?

The Bible VS the Vedas of India or the I-Ching of China.
The Bible is the newest of the books.

A Christian will say the others are just different incantations of the Bible.
While the others will say differently. Completely differently.

And most Christians I've talked to always bring up the violent parts of Hinduism or Buddhism.
And only the violent parts.
To the average, or even educated, Christian, violence is the only factor to consider in other religions.

Which is fucking stupid if you ask me.

Humans are violent in nature.
The end.

Every country, race and religion has had their wars and brutalities.
Christianity had the Christian Inquisition which ran on for centuries.
Largely made notorious when the Spanish Inquisition started in the 15th century.

No one's going to Heaven.
Heaven is just a mobile dangling above our heads as we lie here on Earth reaching upward with undying need to touch something that will forever be out of grasp.

Let Hell by my home,
and, my home be open to all.

Burn the witches!! err..ok, ok

Burn the heathens....ummm...ok, ok

"Christians" have a long bloody history themselves. Even against other forms of Christianity...

That Said, I am a believer, and am certain of my heavenly reward....:angel:

I vote we learn how to be immortal and then create our own haven on earth.

We don't need god. He's a retard. We can do everything better, just give us some time.

Its hard to believe there is no greater power when there are so many good things in this world my cat who passed away recently taught me that.

Its hard to believe there is no greater power when there are so many good things in this world my cat who passed away recently taught me that.

Yes well you also said your cat talked to you. No offence meant.

Sorry I don't know what you mean...

It doesn't matter anything I say on that subject will just upset you and I'm not here to upset people.

Just because the world sucks and full of evil doesn't mean my cat can't talk and be close to me in his afterlife. What's the point of living if those things don't exists? I know they do that's why I continue on.

Dunno bout cats, but my dog certainly communicates with me very well. And anyone who thinks they are not self-aware is just crazy. Sorry for your loss, melonofwater. I lost one dog not too awful long ago.

im planning on going straight to hell

Thank you so much Amanda and I'm deeply sorry for your loss as well the pain is sometimes too much but knowing other people are going through the same thing helps tremendously... Animals can be just as close as any human being you can love. Communication and feeling the energy of those who have past on is well known in many cultures also when someone passes on it is celebrated in many cultures.

---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------


im planning on going straight to hell

why is that?

I voted yes. Because I really believe that.

I'm only posting anything because I'm almost at 10,000 posts.

I voted yes. Because I really believe that.

I'm only posting anything because I'm almost at 10,000 posts.

Hmmm....

Heh. My God is a girl...her name is Belldandy. And she clearly explains right & wrong, good & evil and how to live my life in 2 seasons of OVAs, 100 TV episodes, 1 movie and 48 volumes of manga. So, yes, I believe I will be going to heaven :)

Heh. My God is a girl...her name is Belldandy. And she clearly explains right & wrong, good & evil and how to live my life in 2 seasons of OVAs, 100 TV episodes, 1 movie and 48 volumes of manga. So, yes, I believe I will be going to heaven :)

Jesus said:

Joh 14:6 .... "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

That sounds very dictatorial. Just sayin'

Jesus is King of the Universe. He is the supreme ruler. Only He is worthy to rule in such a manner because He is the creator of the Universe, He is the Savior of the Universe and He is All powerful and all knowing and perfect in Love. Who is better qualified to rule then He?

:roflheston:

It's not a Troll thread. This is a real, genuine discussion.

Seems more of a one sided "I'm right, and if you don't believe me, then you are wrong" kind of thread to me xfrodobagginsx...

Accept the fact that others may or may not share your opinion/view and move on.

I see that Jehovah's Witnesses have found a new way to annoy people than just making rounds from door to door...

^This thread taught me that they actually do know how to use computers now.

I see that Jehovah's Witnesses have found a new way to annoy people than just making rounds from door to door...

I'm not a Jehovah's witness. That religion is a cult because they deny the deity of Christ.

I feel like if there is a God worth believing in, it wouldn't want people who buy into all the religious nonsense. Stay skeptical and keep learning, and who knows? Maybe there is a heaven and it's a cool place. Or maybe God's an asshole and you end up in hell with all the cool people - win-win if you ask me. Though personally I'd prefer achieving methuselarity through science - I find it hard to imagine a world beyond this one that could be more interesting (especially based on religious scripture).

The Bible is our source for God. It's God's word written down for us.

Even Saint Thomas had to see to believe.

When faced with adversity, never let the tides of opposition get you down. Just take life by the horns, kick it in the balls and beat its ass. There's never been a more promising way to take a dreary situation and lift your spirits up. For that's how champions do it, the same as any of those in history who've never backed down. Anyway, be at ease to know I speak from experience, like anyone else who's ever slipped up from time to time. The authority may extend its reach to shackle you, but remind them you don't give a fuck.

Even Saint Thomas had to see to believe.

Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

If God's a girl, does She have periods too?

I vote Cthulhu.

after all...why settle for the lesser evil ?

The Bible is our source for God. It's God's word written down for us.

Yes. **Except**...except they had to have a council meeting. There are many books not accepted as canon to the bible. They (men, humans) decided on which books THEY felt should be included or not, and that is how our modern scripture is presented. It is mis-translated like crazy in many parts. We know the monks were amending the scripture to suit their particular beliefs, scribbling the notes into the margins. It IS the word of God, but filtered through human eyes and censored by human leaders who always always have a further agenda, often political. I do accept the Bible as Word, but I believe also that it has been severely altered and tinkered with.

And before you ask, contrary to what one might assume based on my behavior, I am deeply religious, and a born again Christian. I was baptized as Catholic as a baby, but I now favor a more general, non denominational approach.

Jesus is King of the Universe. He is the supreme ruler. Only He is worthy to rule in such a manner because He is the creator of the Universe, He is the Savior of the Universe and He is All powerful and all knowing and perfect in Love. Who is better qualified to rule then He?

I agree with this :)

Jesus is also a true friend

i definetly vote "other".
(As for Jesus, no)

i believe that the ability to believe in something is important.
Of course that does not need to be Jesus (as the thread title focusses on that)

i definetly vote "other".
(As for Jesus, no)

i believe that the ability to believe in something is important.
Of course that does not need to be Jesus (as the thread title focusses on that)

I agree, belief is very important. As for Jesus, Jesus Himself said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." If Jesus really was who He said He was (God in human form), then He is the only way to Heaven.

Someone once said "All roads lead to God." That's true. But the real question is what are you going to say to Him when you get there?

@James

(comment is noit meant disrespectful)

well I was not there, when supposedly having lived Jesus supposedly that said.
(actually, none of us have: it is a question of believing whether he actually existed and whether he said that)
And I respect belief.
I do not have to share it to do so.

Maybe "he" is the only way to that specific (Jesus/god-)heaven.

as humankind is said to have been created in "his/her/whatever" image, I'd think about a friendly "hey, buddie, you ok?" <"Next time you create stuff in your image, would you please take my image instead?" when I see "him/her/whatever". :D

i usually have a problem with sentences like that:

No one comes to the Father except through Me.
I do not know, is that meant to be a promise, a threat?

usually there always is more than one way.
Like you said:

Someone once said "All roads lead to God."

but then again, i always had difficulties with the god-concept anyway.
I do appreciate the sentiment though, as i guess it is meant in a positive, constructive way.

"i usually have a problem with sentences like that:
No one comes to the Father except through Me.
I do not know, is that meant to be a promise, a threat?"
an invitation and the warning - two in one

---------- Post added at 11:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 AM ----------


i definetly vote "other".
(As for Jesus, no)

i believe that the ability to believe in something is important.
Of course that does not need to be Jesus (as the thread title focusses on that)

He said "I'm the Word of God"
a) Jesus said the truth
b) Jesus was a liar
tertium non datur

@James

(comment is noit meant disrespectful)

well I was not there, when supposedly having lived Jesus supposedly that said.
(actually, none of us have: it is a question of believing whether he actually existed and whether he said that)
And I respect belief.
I do not have to share it to do so.

Maybe "he" is the only way to that specific (Jesus/god-)heaven.

as humankind is said to have been created in "his/her/whatever" image, I'd think about a friendly "hey, buddie, you ok?" <"Next time you create stuff in your image, would you please take my image instead?" when I see "him/her/whatever". :D

i usually have a problem with sentences like that:

I do not know, is that meant to be a promise, a threat?

usually there always is more than one way.
Like you said:


but then again, i always had difficulties with the god-concept anyway.
I do appreciate the sentiment though, as i guess it is meant in a positive, constructive way.

It's a common misunderstanding. "In God's image" simply means that we are like God in that we have souls, as opposed to animals who just have spirits and not souls. We are made in God's image in that we have a different consciousness to the animals. Obviously we don't actually physically look like God! Likewise, God doesn't look like a bloke. :P

If Jesus is who He said He is, then I'm very glad He told us that He is the only way. Otherwise we would never know, and we'd all end up in hell. So it is a warning. And as Dicey said, it's also an invitation. He could have said it differently I suppose (For example: "I am the only Way, the real Truth, and the true Life. My substitutionary death is the only way mankind can be forgiven and redeemed."), but the way He said it is still very clear. And concise.

To me, the evidence for God is all around. Irreducible complexity, our ability to comprehend and appreciate concepts like beauty, eternity, life after death, etc. Our very consciousness proves that there is a Master Designer to me. I read an article a couple of days ago about how we aren't really that close to producing artificial intelligence, as the human brain is so infinitely more complex than any man could replicate. And if we, with all our intelligence, cannot create anything even remotely close to the human brain, how insane is it to believe that the human brain came about with no intelligence at all?! I've written an essay on this topic, and read numerous books. It just makes the most sense to me. No other idea/philosophy/religion makes sense.

It's nice to be able to talk about these things in a relaxed environment without any arguments. :)

@James

first: I am sorry I was not able to resist the image-joke.


To me, the evidence for God is all around.
I am happy about thaT: I am always happy if people find "their" belief, something that feels right for them.
It seems to be getting harder to manage that nowadays.

I find it hard to distinguish between "original" religious or spiritual ideas and then, time given, what is made of those eventually by institutions or fundamentalists.
Of course, almost every religion claims to be the only one that leads to truth, salvation or whatever ;)

Which automatically is a claim that makes me suspicious.
BUT that is just my personal thing.

In the end I hope, that during death or after dying, people will see and experience things in images that make them comfortable.
Like in a universal translator, that those beliefs will be accomodated.

As far as I am concerned, let them all be "right".

This God-Idea is not for me, I mostly have kind of different thoughts about that that make sense to me.

(what now makes sense is going to bed....for me)

Militant Athiest here - but I think probably the one thing that we can all agree on is that, regardless of whether or not it gets you into Heaven (or anything similar) the best thing we can do with our lives is to simply be good people, respect nature, and respect the incredible good fortune that caused us to exist. Religious folk think it's God - I think it's a mixture of luck and coincidence, but the end result is the same. :)

This God-Idea is not for me, I mostly have kind of different thoughts about that that make sense to me.

(what now makes sense is going to bed....for me)

I might reply in more detail tomorrow... but right now, we both have the same beliefs regarding bed. Night! :)

I'm not a Jehovah's witness. That religion is a cult because they deny the deity of Christ.

every religion is a cult by definition. mainly because nearly every religion is an offshoot of an other one. Jehovah Witness are an offshoot of the Christian religion (albeit a weird one), just as protestantism or catholicism or orthodoxy. just like islam is basically an offshoot of middle eastern traditions and christianism (believe it or not, but Jesus is mentionned in the Quran). Christianism itself being an offshoot of judaism (with bits and pieces of the ancient cult of Mithra injected in it). judaism being also another offshoot of an other, older religion. in other words, and concerning "monotheist" religions of middle eastern origins, they're all cults compared to something else.

I hate thinking of true Christianity as a religion. A religion is a man-made effort to reach God. True Christianity is not about reaching God. It is about allowing God to reach us, individually. Instead of the word 'religion', I like to use a different 'r' word - relationship.

Because of our wrong-doing, the spiritual bond we were supposed to have with God is broken. There is no way we can fix that bond ourselves. Only if we are perfect (never sin) can we still have that spiritual bond with God. God knows that none of us is perfect, and that without His help we are headed towards an eternity without Him in hell. Therefore, because He made us and loves us, He made a way for us to be forgiven of our sin and so fix the broken spiritual bond.

That's where Jesus comes in.

God came to Earth in the form of a man (Jesus) to live the perfect life that we could never live. He then died the death that we deserve, knowing that He had the power over death to rise again. Jesus' death was a substitution. He took the blame for all our sin upon Himself so that we could have the opportunity to be forgiven. But it's a choice. We all have to choose whether or not to receive this free gift of forgiveness and salvation. It's very simple to receive - just honestly, genuinely ask Him to forgive you of your sin.

It's all well and good to live a good life, as Tangotreats suggested, but there is more to life than just that. Yes, we should live good lives, but what about the sin in your life? We can never deal with that ourselves, but Jesus can.

And Tangotreats, I'd seriously recommend you have a look into the scientific argument for intelligent design. The evidence is tremendously compelling if you come at it with an open mind. :)

@James

I appreciate the effort. And once more, I am happy this relationship works for you.

Yet. I do not want to have to start an individual relationship by having to ask for forgiveness (for whatever).
I do not believe in "original sin", I do not believe in anyone having wronged someone that I doubt exists in that described way.

Allow me to say, without disrespect, IF "God" indeed believes in the original sin him or herself, and that he or she was wronged (millennia ago), at the moment i would call that kind of behaviour very amazingly unforgiving in the tradition of for example greek or roman goods.

Anyway, if it is a relationship, i can decline and say, i do not want one, and if that decision then again dooms me in the sense of: either believe in me or go to hell (not metaphorically speaking), then that speaks for itself.
What is simple and good for you, represents a violation for me.
Please, let us not mix science with belief systems.


...I'd seriously recommend ... look into the scientific argument for intelligent design.
i do not even doubt an intelligent design, just maybe, we will all be surprised at some point in time, as to who (or what) it was that designed.

....as, just for example:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (or: god-like powers)
(one of Clarkes 3 laws of prediction)



YET
I do not wish at all to appear hostile or disrespectfull, neither to you (or anyone who believes), nor to the system you believe in.

As someone not being in this ....group or relationship, i find the metaphor of an actual relationship - for those who want it - a constructive one.
I can imagine it helps to make a sometimes maybe abstract belief more personal, something you can maybe grasp more.

James, this works for you and many other people. Great. It obviously can give you a balance, a peace, that helps you deal with life and with life struggles.
I admire some people abilty to actually have faith, feel faithfull and in that, balanced. :)

Other people can find other solutions, and maybe even without your relationship they will go to their own heaven ;)

"they will go to their own heaven"
tailor-made heaven or personalized hell = wishful thinking
btw sorei
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

@James

I appreciate the effort. And once more, I am happy this relationship works for you.

Yet. I do not want to have to start an individual relationship by having to ask for forgiveness (for whatever).
I do not believe in "original sin", I do not believe in anyone having wronged someone that I doubt exists in that described way.

Allow me to say, without disrespect, IF "God" indeed believes in the original sin him or herself, and that he or she was wronged (millennia ago), at the moment i would call that kind of behaviour very amazingly unforgiving in the tradition of for example greek or roman goods.

I can see how perhaps it might come across like God is The Incredible Sulk, but really He's not! Think of it this way:

Imagine a criminal in a courtroom who has been convicted of major theft and murder. The criminal says to the judge "I don't believe what I did was wrong". (Believe it or not there are people out there who would say that!) What will the judge do? He should judge the criminal by the law, regardless of whether the criminal thinks it was right or not, and sentence him to a suitable punishment. The fact that the criminal doesn't believe he's done anything wrong doesn't mean he's innocent.

If the criminal says to the judge "You're a good judge, why can't you just forgive me and let me go?" What will the judge do? If he is really is a good judge, he won't let the criminal go. Wrong-doing deserves punishment. We need a standard of right and wrong, or society descends into anarchy. Our law system is based on what our consciences tell us is right and wrong, which is universally the same. That's because God has set the rules for the universe. But we have the freedom to brake those laws at our own peril. God doesn't force us to do right, but He does warn us of the consequences. So when we choose to do wrong, He has to administer justice. That means punishment. That doesn't mean God is unforgiving - it just means he's a good judge! And I'm so glad He is. Imagine a God who didn't punish sin! Heaven would not be Heaven anymore.

God is incredibly, amazingly forgiving! He is willing to forgive anybody and everybody who comes to Him and asks, no matter what they've done wrong. He is so forgiving that He did the one thing that could make forgiveness possible, whilst still 'satisfying' justice. Let's go back to the courtroom for a minute. Whilst the following scenario might not happen exactly as depicted here in an earthly courtroom, pay attention to the principles.

The judge has passed sentence on the criminal - a �1,000,000 fine or a life jail sentence. The criminal cannot pay the fine, and he is about to be escorted to jail for life. Suddenly the courtroom door opens and a man walks in. He says to the judge "I want to pay this man's fine so that he can go free". The judge says to this man "Are you sure? It's �1,000,000." The man says he is sure. The judge then turns to the criminal and asks him "What do you choose? Are you going to accept this man's offer?" What will the criminal do? It is humiliating to accept the offer, but it means his life is saved.

That's exactly what it's like with God - the Bible says that we have all sinned, but God is willing to forgive us on the fact that Jesus has paid our fine (which is eternity in hell) by dying on the cross. It's humiliating to have to admit that you've done wrong, but we all know we have deep down. Our consciences tell us when we do wrong and we feel guilty.

Perhaps the most famous verse in the Bible (John 3:16) will make more sense now:

"For God so loved the world that He gave up His only Son (Son is figurative speech for God in human form) that whoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life."

And also in Romans chapter 5 verse 8:

"God demonstrates His love toward us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."


Anyway, if it is a relationship, i can decline and say, i do not want one, and if that decision then again dooms me in the sense of: either believe in me or go to hell (not metaphorically speaking), then that speaks for itself.

I say again, God doesn't force us to do right and similarly He doesn't force us back into a relationship with Him. There are people out there who do not want to become friends with God because they know that by so doing they will have to ask for forgiveness, which is difficult. So God never forces people, but He does warn people of the consequences. Basically, it's like He's saying: "You can choose to live without Me and pay the consequences of your sin yourself, or you can come to Me and let me take the consequences for you and be forgiven." To me, it's a no-brainer! God loves me so much that He came to Earth, lived a human life and died for me so that I could be forgiven. If I choose to ignore what He did for me, then I take the consequences on myself. He has done His best, but at the end of the day He will never force people to come to Him.


I do not wish at all to appear hostile or disrespectfull, neither to you (or anyone who believes), nor to the system you believe in.
As someone not being in this ....group or relationship, i find the metaphor of an actual relationship - for those who want it - a constructive one.
I can imagine it helps to make a sometimes maybe abstract belief more personal, something you can maybe grasp more.
James, this works for you and many other people. Great. It obviously can give you a balance, a peace, that helps you deal with life and with life struggles.
I admire some people abilty to actually have faith, feel faithfull and in that, balanced. :)
Other people can find other solutions, and maybe even without your relationship they will go to their own heaven ;)

I really appreciate your respect and honesty. It's good to talk about these things in a civilised manner. Thanks for sharing your opinions. :)

@james


I do understand,your god is very forgiving, all i need to do is ask.
i am no criminal, and god is not my judge.
Humanity is not criminal just because the bible says so (or: god said so)

For the sake of argument:
It is a question to be discussed, what makes a crime. we have many different laws here one earth, one way of acting in some countries is a crimne, in others it is not, or, if it is a crime, it is a different crime in different countries.
Some countries might sentence you to go toi jail, others might not find you guilty, or you get some sentence on a suspended sentence for example.
In anyway, usually jurisdiction and being convicted means that at some point the sentence is done.
Humanity does not get that benefit from god.
As a human i need to ask for forgiveness, every generation in all eternity.
Trying to take your example:
imagine the judge saying: from now on, every descendant of you will have to come to me and ask for forgiveness for what you did. If they do not, they will go to hell.
If they do, they will be allowed to heaven.

you take for granted, as axiom, that original sin is a fact.
for you, it is a fact: ok. i can respect that.
for me, that concept alone is enough for me to feel insulted, i reject that concept. it contradicts everything i believe in, in terms of responsibility.

I understand that on the basis of original sin being a fact, your arguments make sense. On that basis, the forgiving gos is a relief. If I believed in the concept, it would make me happy.
In your belief systemn, you will have eternal life, and I will not have that.
God gives me every chance to come to him, and I will not.

Please understand, that for me it sounds terribly wrong when you say, god does not force me to do right.
Right would be to as god sees fit.

Some parents do that.
Do as i tell you, and i will love you. Disrespect my wishes, and i will not love you (punish you, ignore you, whatever)
Behaviour like that can badly traumatize a child, depending on the extend of that very behaviour and the strictness of the rules.
(I am not saying that parents do not need a set of rules.)


God doesn't force us to do right, but He does warn us of the consequences. So when we choose to do wrong, He has to administer justice. That means punishment. That doesn't mean God is unforgiving - it just means he's a good judge! And I'm so glad He is. Imagine a God who didn't punish sin! Heaven would not be Heaven anymore.
i understand that makes sense to you.
it gives a clear structure, it can give safety, puts things in perspective.
Just not my perspective.

yes, even a god needs regulations and systems to make a group he leads, working. Function.
No problem.

It IS a matter of believing. And I do not believe in that system.
A system that is based on the axiom that humans are sinners will never be my home.
Starting with the fact that your gods "right" is not mine.his rules do not make sense enough to me, albeit the "not killing"-thing seems reasonable. ;-)
Like love the others like you love yourself: I am not saying none of this makes any sense, some does, just not enough, not nearly enough for me to feel at home there.
I will not even start to get into the additional rules that were formed and created by the institution that claims to represent god, that has several rules that clearly do not make sense to me.
On the other hand there are many people who find their(christian) belief independend from any church/institution. Which i think is a good thing, too.


I believe in meeting on eye level. I believe in me being responsible for my actions, and in the end, in me judging myself (MAYBE harsher than your god would).
Actually I think I am the only person who really will be able to judge fairly, what I did. I know it might sound strange.

I do not believe in heaven or hell, although I do believe in some form of reincarnation.
In the end you might say, i think we are all gods, meeting on eye level.
collecting experiences and knowledge, living different forms of life.
During my time of being a bodily bound being (like now) I do not remember former lifes (or the ones to be, as time is not linear), which gives me certain freedom of choice, and hence, responsibility.
It is difficult to put it in a nutshell, I tried and most likely wasn't good at it.
I just wanted to add that, in peace :-)

I fear that if I participate in this thread any further, the end result will be somebody getting offended or me getting banned.

I will therefore give my best wishes (both in general and for the New Year) to everybody herein and gracefully withdraw.

:)

Hey! I'll say it and don't care if anyone is offended, or tries to offend me, cause I don't worry about what others don't understand about the facts I was presented with and a wide range of evidence from matter itself to micro biology, fossil records and misinterpretation of the Book of Prophecy of which everyone or most don't understand, the odds of everything being in existence as in the first law "Nothing Exists Without Purpose". I believe in God without a doubt and not Alah whom is the opposite of the one I believe in. AND I believe Jesus IS THE Messiah full filling over 240 prophecies from birth, the odds are more than all the particles in the Universe to one. I could go on and on with science and geology, timetables of man's existence, Evolution. And there's so many that will listen and as many that won't. So what! Everyone's gotta find their own path. :)

---------- Post added at 01:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 AM ----------

Sorry but I am not one that believes Christians killed other Christians. I do believe history that the Jesuit order committed atrocities through other groups and denied any involvement. There's a lot more to what's going on and I'm seeing millions of people whom haven't got a clue how high and corrupt the government powers and up to the Pope and the Jesuit order. I do not think of Catholicism as Christianity, they believe in so many things that's contrary to the received text! If some can't see or even want to look in-depth of everything that our Age has to present that's out there now. If you give up you're gonna miss something that goes beyond this existence!

@spectre

I believe, everybody is most welcome to believe whatever feels right for them. :)
and indeed, everyone has got to find their path.

Hey! I'll say it and don't care if anyone is offended, or tries to offend me, cause I don't worry about what others don't understand about the facts I was presented with and a wide range of evidence from matter itself to micro biology, fossil records and misinterpretation of the Book of Prophecy of which everyone or most don't understand, the odds of everything being in existence as in the first law "Nothing Exists Without Purpose". I believe in God without a doubt and not Alah whom is the opposite of the one I believe in. AND I believe Jesus IS THE Messiah full filling over 240 prophecies from birth, the odds are more than all the particles in the Universe to one. I could go on and on with science and geology, timetables of man's existence, Evolution. And there's so many that will listen and as many that won't. So what! Everyone's gotta find their own path. :)

---------- Post added at 01:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 AM ----------

Sorry but I am not one that believes Christians killed other Christians. I do believe history that the Jesuit order committed atrocities through other groups and denied any involvement. There's a lot more to what's going on and I'm seeing millions of people whom haven't got a clue how high and corrupt the government powers and up to the Pope and the Jesuit order. I do not think of Catholicism as Christianity, they believe in so many things that's contrary to the received text! If some can't see or even want to look in-depth of everything that our Age has to present that's out there now. If you give up you're gonna miss something that goes beyond this existence!

I'm...

I think I'm going to follow Tango's idea. Happy new year folks, and I'm out of here because otherwise, posts like this will have the historian in me go fragging bonkers.

Pro-tip though: Allah is technically exactly the same thing as God, just as Yahveh. Don't let the bullshit of muslim extremists cloud what islam truly is. because what's happening these days in Irak, Pakistan or in Mali (to name a few countries) is not islam. it's its exact, complete opposite.

I'm...

I think I'm going to follow Tango's idea. Happy new year folks, and I'm out of here because otherwise, posts like this will have the historian in me go fragging bonkers.

Pro-tip though: Allah is technically exactly the same thing as God, just as Yahveh. Don't let the bullshit of muslim extremists cloud what islam truly is. because what's happening these days in Irak, Pakistan or in Mali (to name a few countries) is not islam. it's its exact, complete opposite.

:)
i so agree here, but again, personal and subjective opinions are a matter of belief and maybe sources of info.
fundamentalists (in general, not referring to anyone here) of ALL colours and religions and philosophies and politics are always always dangerous, but if they are good, you maybe will not recognize them until it is too late.
what they say, can sound comforting (depending on ones own belief system) enough...

@james


I do understand,your god is very forgiving, all i need to do is ask.
i am no criminal, and god is not my judge.
Humanity is not criminal just because the bible says so (or: god said so)

Mmm, I'm not saying that either you or humanity is "criminal" in that sense (like I'm sure you haven't murdered anyone!). But the Bible tells us that because of the first man Adam's sin, which resulted in separation from a holy God, all subsequent humans have been born into that same separation, if that makes sense? Even so, we might not all be criminals (murderers, rapists, etc), but we are all sinners. Nobody is perfect, and we've all done wrong things (lying, stealing, etc).


For the sake of argument:
It is a question to be discussed, what makes a crime. we have many different laws here one earth, one way of acting in some countries is a crimne, in others it is not, or, if it is a crime, it is a different crime in different countries.
Some countries might sentence you to go toi jail, others might not find you guilty, or you get some sentence on a suspended sentence for example.

I agree - it's sometimes difficult distinguishing what is and isn't a crime. But when you get down the basics there is always a right and wrong.

Regarding different cultures having different laws; I think that is because over the last few thousand years humanity has perverted and warped their own sense of right and wrong. Because of that there are some things in some countries that are perfectly legal but which would be totally illegal over here. That doesn't mean morals are relative, it just means that mankind is fallible in deciding what is right and wrong, and has a propensity to veer towards the wrong for selfish ambition and personal gain.


In anyway, usually jurisdiction and being convicted means that at some point the sentence is done.
Humanity does not get that benefit from god.

That's because, much though they do have similarities, our justice system is different to God's in that ours operates in this life, which has an end, whereas God's operates in eternity. He gives us this life in which to come to him. And as Abraham said in Genesis, "Will not the judge of all the earth do right?". In other words, you and I have had many opportunities to think about, and come to conclusions about, God. Therefore, God will judge us on what we did with our knowledge. If we chose to reject Him even with that knowledge, that is when we are separated from Him for eternity. That is why God is so hesitant to bring judgement, because He is giving us as much time as possible to come to Him. But for those who have not had the opportunity yet to fully consider and comprehend God (and those who are not mentally capable, incl. babies and young children), God will not judge them for their sin.


As a human i need to ask for forgiveness, every generation in all eternity.
Trying to take your example:
imagine the judge saying: from now on, every descendant of you will have to come to me and ask for forgiveness for what you did. If they do not, they will go to hell.
If they do, they will be allowed to heaven.

It's not quite like that. We are not expected to ask for forgiveness for Adam's sin. Not at all! We need to ask forgiveness for our own sin!


you take for granted, as axiom, that original sin is a fact.
for you, it is a fact: ok. i can respect that.
for me, that concept alone is enough for me to feel insulted, i reject that concept. it contradicts everything i believe in, in terms of responsibility.

If you don't believe in 'original sin', what do you believe in terms of morals? How does it contradict responsibility?


I understand that on the basis of original sin being a fact, your arguments make sense. On that basis, the forgiving gos is a relief. If I believed in the concept, it would make me happy.
In your belief systemn, you will have eternal life, and I will not have that.
God gives me every chance to come to him, and I will not.

It is a relief to have a forgiving God, believe me! ;) I'm glad you can see where I'm coming from, and that assuming original sin is true it makes sense.

At the end of the day, you and I have to find out the truth for ourselves. I believe I have found it in Jesus Christ. I'd really recommend maybe having a read of John's Gospel and praying to God as you do. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He promises that He will, so that alone should be an indication as to whether or not it's the truth. Take Him at His Word and test it. :)

Mmm, I'm not saying that either you or humanity is "criminal" in that sense (like I'm sure you haven't murdered anyone!). But the Bible tells us that because of the first man Adam's sin, which resulted in separation from a holy God, all subsequent humans have been born into that same separation, if that makes sense? Even so, we might not all be criminals (murderers, rapists, etc), but we are all sinners. Nobody is perfect, and we've all done wrong things (lying, stealing, etc).

yes, I used 'criminal' metaphorically here.
Nobody is perfect, we agree on that one :)
Me not being perfect does make me imperfect. which is ok. imperfect does not equal sinner for me. And perfect is difficult if it ex-cludes some stuff (like sin), i guess.

For me, your belief in first man Adam's sin is one of your axioms, I am not following that one, but I respect you do.




I agree - it's sometimes difficult distinguishing what is and isn't a crime. But when you get down the basics there is always a right and wrong.


ok, here we go: i believe it is very difficult to always tell right from wrong, actually i think there are several ways to be right, never only one, there is no singular "right" and all others are "wrong".
Even down to the basics it might be difficult. Even if we THINK we agree, we most likely agree on labels, on an abstract basis.
There always is the truth that I cannot see.
And the Truth you cannot see.
And the truth we both cannot see.



That doesn't mean morals are relative, it just means that mankind is fallible in deciding what is right and wrong, and has a propensity to veer towards the wrong for selfish ambition and personal gain.

but it is. in my opinion. moral codes have always changes, depending on the given situation, time in history, depending on culture, knowledge, and yes of course, depending on personal gain too.
Moral is nothing constant, but in my opinion you can see an awful lot when you look at the do's and don'ts of a society.
I wonder what a universal moral would be like (if there is such a thing), but somehow I am sure we would all be surprised, as we can only make one up in our own narrow and limited way of thinking.



That is why God is so hesitant to bring judgement, because He is giving us as much time as possible to come to Him. But for those who have not had the opportunity yet to fully consider and comprehend God (and those who are not mentally capable, incl. babies and young children), God will not judge them for their sin.

eternity is relative too, maybe. but anyway: i repeat myself here, so it seems a sin not to come to him: this is just not my way.



It's not quite like that. We are not expected to ask for forgiveness for Adam's sin. Not at all! We need to ask forgiveness for our own sin!

for the sake of argument:
yes. but as far as i understand, I am sinful BECAUSE of stupid Adam and Eve (me more because of Eve I guess) so indirectly i have to ask forgiveness for them too, because i am only sinful because of them. If they had not sinned, I would not be sinful, correct?



If you don't believe in 'original sin', what do you believe in terms of morals? How does it contradict responsibility?

I am responsible for my actions. Not for Adams or Eves. If they existed. Hence I refuse to accept I am sinful. If your god exists I can accept he wants to believe I am, as long as I do not turn to him.
Could you specify your question maybe? or put it differently? I might have a stupid moment, sounds like a good question, but it eludes me. "what do you believe in terms of moral"?



It is a relief to have a forgiving God, believe me! ;) I'm glad you can see where I'm coming from, and that assuming original sin is true it makes sense.
At the end of the day, you and I have to find out the truth for ourselves. I believe I have found it in Jesus Christ.

Of course. My assumption will always be you would not do it, if it did not make sense to you, so I owe it you, out of respect, to try to have a look through your glasses (metaphor), no matter if those suit me. I hope you will not loose that, James.

We need a standard of right and wrong, or society descends into anarchy. Our law system is based on what our consciences tell us is right and wrong, which is universally the same. That's because God has set the rules for the universe.

Let me try to clarify about the conscience. Not everyone's conscience (moral judgement) tells them the same thing. For an easy example, is it ever okay to kill? Some would say "no, a non-lethal solution must always be found," while another might say "if it's to save a life (or enough lives), it's okay." Is one of them ignoring their conscience? No.

Still, that's not to say there isn't an answer to the question. The truth about this, or any other moral question, is accessible to the reason provided that we examine the facts closely and overcome our biases. You can see this pretty easily if you look at the broad similarities between different moral codes. To cite the most obvious example: nearly all major civilizations have had some version of the Golden Rule.

But suppose that someone was born into a society that believes in the opposite of the Golden Rule -- how can they be held responsible for anything they do? Because everyone, even the most deceived or deluded, has what is called synderesis: an instinctual grasp of the very basics of right and wrong. By combining synderesis with their own experience, anyone can begin to figure out what's right.

Even if this is true, in practice, different people/societies come up with different and incompatible answers. And when they do agree, how do we know they are right?

This is the reason why the Bible contains moral teachings. People won't always come up with the right answers, so we need someone to give them to us, whose character and wisdom we can trust. And who better than the One who invented human good in the first place?

To critique my own argument for a moment: if this is so, then why were God's divine teachings revealed only to Israel, and why only between 2 and 3 millennia ago? Why not at the beginning of the human species, and why not to everyone? In fact, why even use books in the first place? Books can be doubted -- He could have written it on the Moon! And ignoring all of that, why do Christians have such a variety of ideas about morality?

That last one, at least, I can answer. A lot of Christians are stubborn and prideful, and even if God came to them as a thunderous voice, and told them to change their hearts and lives or face hellfire, they wouldn't do it. Granted, that's basically humanity as a whole I just described.


As a human i need to ask for forgiveness, every generation in all eternity.
Trying to take your example:
imagine the judge saying: from now on, every descendant of you will have to come to me and ask for forgiveness for what you did. If they do not, they will go to hell.
If they do, they will be allowed to heaven.

Original sin... How to tackle this one. It's difficult because the idea is based off of interpretations of the Bible, and not the Bible itself, and so there are several different ideas that are called Original Sin. But here goes.

Original sin is not the idea that because Eve and Adam ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and we are their descendents, therefore we are responsible for what they did. (That is one interpretation, though.) Everyone is responsible for their own sin, but human nature is made so that people tend to care, first and foremost, for their own good, and not the Good. Because of this, people tend to ignore God and other people when it suits their own ends. When this happens, people break the two most important laws of morality: to love God, and to love their fellow humans.

But human nature is not only selfish, and God didn't create people only to sin. We have not only greed, hatred, and violence in us, but forgiveness, friendship, and faith. Is this enough for us to keep from sinning altogether? In theory, maybe; in practice, no. Not one person (except Jesus) ever lived their lives without making a mistake here or there. I doubt anyone has gone a day without doing so! This is how I understand original sin -- the idea that everyone makes mistakes, and therefore everyone is guilty of at least something. But while people are inherently sinful, they are also inherently godly.

there are 2 ideas here that i really like.

a) different appoaches to original sin (I always like different approaches, things are just never that one-sided or one-dimensioned):


Original sin... How to tackle this one. It's difficult because the idea is based off of interpretations of the Bible, and not the Bible itself, and so there are several different ideas that are called Original Sin.

b)
But while people are inherently sinful, they are also inherently godly.
which in some sense makes them perfect for me, as in: everything is potentially there.
Actually for god to be able to understand sin and temptation, he/she would need to (at the very LEAST potentially) be sinful to (in my opinion, of course)
as always, just my thoughts, no offense intended.

you joined november 14, infamousstar? never too late to say welcome. :)

The Koran is nothing like the Bible. Islam isn't Christian, and the groups or history you're told is a deception. Islam was created to control the Christians spreading in the middle east by an order connected to the top power on this planet. You believe what you want but you have to be informed totally or you will stumble or be lost. I hate to see that, only because people are following a deception. When 2016 is coming to a close, keep an eye out!

The Koran is nothing like the Bible. Islam isn't Christian, and the groups or history you're told is a deception. Islam was created to control the Christians spreading in the middle east by an order connected to the top power on this planet. You believe what you want but you have to be informed totally or you will stumble or be lost. I hate to see that, only because people are following a deception. When 2016 is coming to a close, keep an eye out!

:facepalm:

ARE YOU 100% SURE THAT IF YOU DIED TODAY THAT YOU WOULD GO TO HEAVEN?

There are some things that you should know:

1. Realize that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior:

Ro 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Ro 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

This all began with the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. God created them perfect. There was no death or sorrow. God told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed God and as a result, sin entered into the world. The pain which this world sees is the result of sin.

2. Because of our sins, we die both spiritually and physically, but God sent His Son to die so that you can have a chance not to have to go to hell by accepting what He did on the cross for you:

Ro 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Ro 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. for us."

Every person who has ever lived is a sinner and is not righteous because we do bad things. A sin is a crime against God, just as if you steal something at the store, it is punishable by going to jail. It's the same thing with sin. Even if we lie one time, the punishment is hell, which is a prison for those who commit crimes against God. That�s because you must be perfect in order to get to heaven. No matter how well you live your life from then on, you have already committed a sin which will be punished if you are not pardoned. If you commit a crime, and then live as a good citizen you still will go to jail for the crime you committed, Right? Just as the President can pardon a crime so you won't go to jail, Jesus can pardon your sins so that you do not go to hell, and can go to heaven when you die.

3. If you will Admit to Jesus Christ that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior, Believe in your heart that He died on the cross and rose from the dead and Accept Him as your Lord and Savior and you will be forgiven and taken to heaven to be with Him when you die.

Joh 1:12 �But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name�

Ro 10:9,10 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.."

You cannot get to heaven by being a good person, going to church, baptism or any other way other than by turning to Jesus and asking Him to forgive you for your sins and save you. While these are good things to do, some people believe that they will get to heaven if they do these things, but the bible says that there is only one way to heaven and that is through receiving what Jesus Christ did on the cross for you.

Will you do that today? If you will, you can be 100% sure that you will go to heaven when you die.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED ON THE CROSS AND ROSE FROM THE DEAD FOR YOUR SINS?

ARE YOU WILLING TO TURN TO JESUS CHRIST FOR SALVATION?

4. If you believe God with all of your Heart, then place your Faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, Believing that He died on the Cross and Rose from the Dead for your sins, the Bible says that you are Saved. Are you willing to do that today?

Pray this to God from your heart:

"Dear Lord Jesus, I believe that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead for my sins. I ask you to come into my heart and forgive me for my sins, save me, take me to be with You when I die. I now receive You as my Lord and Savior. Thank You for saving me. In Jesus holy name, Amen."


If you�ve just placed your Faith in Jesus Christ to save you, then you are a Saved Christian. As a saved Christian, you should be Baptized and attend a Bible Believing Church. The Baptism as an act of Obedience to Christ and the Church will help you grow in your faith in Christ.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, question is not if I am ready to meet my maker, the question rather, is my maker ready to meet me? Because brother, as deities go, Yahweh is about as sharp as ten pounds of raw liver and he's got some 'plaining to do.

Actually for god to be able to understand sin and temptation, he/she would need to (at the very LEAST potentially) be sinful to (in my opinion, of course)

Yeah, which is kind of the point of the temptation of Christ (the beginning of chapter 4 in the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke). Jesus was human, and so he understood what it was like to be tempted and could have sinned. But because he was God, he never actually indulged those temptations.

But at the same time, the technical definition of sin is something like "to act against God's will." It would be a bit paradoxical for God to sin by that definition.


you joined november 14, infamousstar? never too late to say welcome. :)

Thanks.

Yeah it kinda like bashing your head against concrete. Had my say...could give a 26 hour debunking tour, but no-one cares anymore for truth, only paradigms. I'm getting coffee and I'm off.

Yeah it kinda like bashing your head against concrete. Had my say...could give a 26 hour debunking tour, but no-one cares anymore for truth, only paradigms. I'm getting coffee and I'm off.


When does the tour start?

Well well to be honest, discussion in this thread seems to be far from over. And it will never stop! :D

I do want to say something though. I encourage you all to contemplate the world from a deeper perspective and to use our most precious thing we hold between our shoulders, the human brain :)

It is not that I want to fully debunk the importance of some spiritual aspects to us as humans. It is important too, without believing in spirituality (whether religious or not) we will be dead zombies. And remember sticking to the radical is not so good.

Always try to stick to some moderate approaches and be open to discussing others believes :)

Again and again use your head, mostly the brain and I am sure that each one has a story that has inspired him to take a certain path. Read, read and travel and try to see the world more. Add new knowledge to yourself almost everyday. And always try to have that calm deep discussions with yourself first. Nothing wrong with this as long as it makes us happy and keep working for the good of your family, friends and society :)

Apologize for the lecture. Wish you all a good happy thinking :)

I agree with this :)

Jesus is also a true friend

Well everyone's your friend until the check arrives. And remember, blood is thicker than water but money is always thicker than blood.

Just ask Judas.

God is real.

It is simple: you simply need to accept Jesus Christ as your Personal Lord and Savior, believe He shed His precious blood on the cross to pay the penalty for your sins, and repent of your own sins to be granted eternal life.

And not, other faiths do not lead to Heaven. Jesus is explicitly clear that only He can bring the faitful to the Father:


Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Tell you what: like St. (Doubting) Thomas, you bring me the wounds of Christ and let me stick my hands into them and then we'll talk faith. I like Thomas's attitude, see the evidence firsthand before reaching a conclusion. The scientific method. (Well, there is reproducibility of the results but that would require re-nailing Christ to the cross and re-resurrections and would get old quickly. Become almost a theme park attraction: pay your two shekels and see Christ arise from the dead. One show nightly with matinees on the weekends.)

Tell you what: like St. (Doubting) Thomas, you bring me the wounds of Christ and let me stick my hands into them and then we'll talk faith. I like Thomas's attitude, see the evidence firsthand before reaching a conclusion. The scientific method. (Well, there is reproducibility of the results but that would require re-nailing Christ to the cross and re-resurrections and would get old quickly. Become almost a theme park attraction: pay your two shekels and see Christ arise from the dead. One show nightly with matinees on the weekends.)

Then [Jesus] said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Then [Jesus] said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Count me among the unblessed. I say it loud and proud, it is my flag and I will fly it high. I'd rather have a crumb of a fact than a mountain of faith.

Count me among the unblessed. I say it loud and proud, it is my flag and I will fly it high. I'd rather have a crumb of a fact than a mountain of faith.

But once you take that initial 'step' of faith, you begin to realise just how many facts there are.

What facts? Post some facts.

What facts? Post some facts.

I do understand where you're coming from, so I'll do my best to post a couple of thought-provoking facts for you to consider. But right now I'm getting ready for bed, so I'll post something tomorrow. :)

Count me as a somewhat believer. I do believe there is a god. I also like to think of him as relatively similar in hs behaviour as Uatu the Watcher from marvel, with a twist.

He's somewhere. watching us. and he wonders where he fucked up that bad for us to be so belligerent, so intolerant and so short sighted we can't even understand that just because the guy next to us give another name to Him and uses other rites doesn't make him "wrong". or that we can't even accept that some don't believe, whether they have reasons to (yes, I know some people who refuse to believe in god for pretty solid reasons, the main one being often: if god exists, why does he allow _insert random shitty event here_ to happen ?) or just think that there is no plausible, scientific possibility that an all powerful being with godlike power exist.

Wait! What? Atheists vs. Believers! No way to act anything by this, they will never get each other.

(yes, I know some people who refuse to believe in god for pretty solid reasons, the main one being often: if god exists, why does he allow _insert random shitty event here_ to happen ?) or just think that there is no plausible, scientific possibility that an all powerful being with godlike power exist.

to be totally honest, I NEVER understood that way of arguing. It implies - of course - a certain image of how that "God" has to be (in order to be an acceptable God), but for me, it is no "reason" why "God" cannot exist (which needs no "reason" of course)


as for facts, i somehow doubt that all of a sudden there can be facts in matters of belief. And I seriously would not like mixing the 2.
Being able to believe as an ability has effects though, on healing times for example, stuff like that can be proven.
"Proof" has limits though, just as "belief systems" have.
So called "hard facts" (numbers, experiments, scientific proofs) for some have become substitute religions.




For me, that is eye-level with the mentioned arguments we have had before here (in terms of: what is needed to get in gods good graces), in this thread. (leads nowhere, both ways)

If I say maybe God is possible for the sake of argument, then in my opinion shit happening is no proof that god does not exist.

But hey.
:-)

God has His own reasons to allow evil things to happen. Sometimes when someone dies a tragic death or goes a terrible trial, either He is saving the person from something, or it is so His glory is subsequently made manifest. Remember, the only reason we are on earth is in order to glorify Him.


The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

If you keep living in unrepentant sin, you are destined to Hell. It is doubly important to accept Jesus Christ now because you simply don't know when disaster will strike. God will not let sin enter into Heaven.

Wait! What? Atheists vs. Believers! No way to act anything by this, they will never get each other.

Of course we won't. This discussion is the very definition of pointless: I won't change James's mind and he sure as hell won't change mine. But the discussion will be a lot of fun. I do enjoy talking religion, sex and politics, all those third rails of polite conversation.

And if I am really, really, really lucky I'll be discussing religion and politics whilst having sex.

Wait! What? Atheists vs. Believers! No way to act anything by this, they will never get each other.

Err... Goback, is that you?

Err... Goback, is that you?

Goback terminated. lol

@some chicken
enjoy your belief.
i do prefer james' way of communication in this matter though, no offense.
you have every right to present your way of believing the way you want, it just is not as inviting for a friendly discussion.
Not to me, at least.

@killgrave: i agree (with the none is going to change anyones mind) but i too like the experience of a friendly discussion from time to time, knowing everyone will respectfully disagree ;)
so, shall i wish you luck now? :D

God has His own reasons to allow evil things to happen. Sometimes when someone dies a tragic death or goes a terrible trial, either He is saving the person from something, or it is so His glory is subsequently made manifest. Remember, the only reason we are on earth is in order to glorify Him.



If you keep living in unrepentant sin, you are destined to Hell. It is doubly important to accept Jesus Christ now because you simply don't know when disaster will strike. God will not let sin enter into Heaven.

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

I eat sin for breakfast and reek of awesomeness afterward.

:finger::sigh:

I eat sin for breakfast and reek of awesomeness afterward.

That's something to be proud of, huh? ;)

---------- Post added at 07:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 AM ----------

Ok folks, you asked for this. Here's an interesting little fact for you to consider.

The Bible is the basis of my faith. I believe it is the inspired Word of God. But faith aside, as a rational person, I would like some proof of its authenticity. Those of you who enjoy maths might find this intriguing...


As a quick (simplified) background:

God's purpose for Old Testament Israel was for her to be an example to the rest of the nations around of a nation that worshipped the One True God. The other nations would see that their own gods and idols were nothing but creations of their own imagination. Israel's job, as it were, was to point the world to God.

But instead of being that example, Israel consistently disobeyed God and decided to follow the gods of the other nations. Even after everything God had done for them, they purposefully turned their backs on Him. Because of this, God allowed other nations to invade Israel and take her captive. This is recorded time and time again in the Old Testament. Each time, Israel would then realise their mistake and repent, asking God's forgiveness, and God would then return them to their land by various means.


Having read that, now consider this:

The job of the prophets that God sent to Israel was to warn them of their impending punishment (or judgment). The prophet Ezekiel was used by God in very unique, very visual ways. In chapter 4 of the book of Ezekiel, this is what God told Ezekiel to do:

“Lie on your left side, and place the punishment of the house of Israel upon it. For the number of the days that you lie on it, you shall bear their punishment. For I assign to you a number of days, 390 days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment. So long shall you bear the punishment of the house of Israel. And when you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side, and bear the punishment of the house of Judah. Forty days I assign you, a day for each year."

If you do the maths, 390 + 40 = 430.

God told Ezekiel that each day represented a year, so what Ezekiel was saying to Israel was that, if they didn't repent, they were going to be judged for a total of 430 years. Still with me?

But there's a problem with this - it doesn't seem to fit anything in history. Only the Israelites' 70-year captivity in Babylon is accounted for. Where are the remaining 360 years?

Previously, in the book of Leviticus, chapter 26, God had repeatedly told Israel the following:

"And after all this, if you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins."

Did Israel consistently obey God after the first Babylonian siege? Nope. So, let's multiply the remaining 360 years by seven and see what happens.

360 x 7 = 2,520

What can we do with 2,520 years?

Using the 360-day year calendar, as the Israelites would have used back then, let's see what happens when you count forward exactly 2,520 years from a couple of key dates...

After Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians, King Cyrus II (the then-king of the Medo-Persian Empire) issued a decree that the Jews could return to their homeland. This was the end of the 70-year captivity. Keep in mind that Israel as a nation had ceased to exist at the end of Nebuchadnezzar's third siege. On July 23, 537 B.C. the first group of Jews left Babylon to return home. If you count forward exactly 2,520 years from that date you end up at May 14, 1948. What's the significance of that date? It is the exact date of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Let's count forward from another date, shall we?

At the end of the third siege, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. The destruction was formally completed on August 16, 518 B.C. Counting forward exactly 2,520 years from that date, we arrive at June 7, 1967. What's the significance? That just happens to be the exact date on which Israel captured the old city of Jerusalem (the site of the old temple) at the end of the Six Day War. Even though Israel was permitted to declare statehood under a plan by the United Nations in 1948, it didn’t hold Jerusalem. It was only on this date that Jerusalem was fully again under the control of Israel – the first time this was the case since the original fall of the city to Nebuchadnezzar. Coincidence?

The probability of the first date being a coincidence is already astronomically small. But two dates??

Make of all that what you will, but I see the incredible hand of God in His plan of world history. This, along with other amazing fulfilled prophecies, proves to me the authenticity of the Bible as the very Word of God. If you're interested, check out this site (http://yeshua.org/bible/the-bibles-most-amazing-prophecies/) for a much more detailed explanation of the above.

Why are the 360 years remaining after the end of the Bablylonian Exile multiplied by 7, but not the 70 years of the exile itself? And why are the 390 + 40 years counted as one lump sum, instead of separately?

Why are the 360 years remaining after the end of the Bablylonian Exile multiplied by 7, but not the 70 years of the exile itself?

Because it was a warning - "If, after this judgment, you do not repent, your remaining judgment will be multiplied by 7." Look back at the Leviticus reference.


And why are the 390 + 40 years counted as one lump sum, instead of separately?

Because that's the sum total of the judgments of Israel as a whole nation - including both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (the north and south kingdoms of the nation of Israel).

@james
nice number-plays. Generally speaking, interestingly enough they all make the most sense backwards.
anyway that might or might not mean something.
an instrument of interpretation.
:)

it means something to you, which is good.

@james
nice number-plays. Generally speaking, interestingly enough they all make the most sense backwards.
anyway that might or might not mean something.
an instrument of interpretation.
:)

it means something to you, which is good.

How do you mean backwards? There's no way Ezekiel could have written the prophecies after the events or he'd still be alive today (which would actually be pretty cool). ;)

@james:

looking back in time from today and interpreting those numbers.
:)

there are lot sof people convinced of numerology, for example.
and several writings, like those of nostradamus too (just as example) have always been interesting to interprete, in the here and now, looking backwards and trying to sort of decode what is supposed to be a code.

and who knows, maybe they are right.

and yes, i agree, it would be cool if that guy existed and would still be alive, count me in for a dinner invitation, that would be quite something. I promise i will behave.

@james:

looking back in time from today and interpreting those numbers.
:)

there are lot sof people coninced of numerology, for example.
and several writings, like those of nostradamus too (just as example) have always been interesting to interprete, in the here and now, looking backwards and trying to sort of decode what is supposed to be a code.

and who knows, maybe they are right.

and yes, i agree, it would be cool if that guy existed and would still be alive, count me in for a dinner invitation, that would be wuiote something. I promise i will behave.

I agree - but the chances of these exact prophecies/dates being just a coincidence are astronomically small, if not impossible.

I'll book a table for three at the Old Testament Diner tomorrow night. ;)

@james:

looking back in time from today and interpreting those numbers.
:)

there are lot sof people coninced of numerology, for example.
and several writings, like those of nostradamus too (just as example) have always been interesting to interprete, in the here and now, looking backwards and trying to sort of decode what is supposed to be a code.

and who knows, maybe they are right.

and yes, i agree, it would be cool if that guy existed and would still be alive, count me in for a dinner invitation, that would be wuiote something. I promise i will behave.

small parenthese about Nostradamus, and that's the historian talking here.

What are often misinterpreted as "prophecie" by Michel de Nostre Dame, AKA Nostradamus, appear, based on a recent study by french historian Roger Pr�vost, to be in fact a chronicle of past events. See, Nostradamus thought that history followed "cycles" and that it was doomed to repeat itself. So he went and took the historical and mythological past of Provence (his birth region), France and Europe and put the whole thing into rhymes, at the future tense. What Pr�vost did was take the most frequently interpreted "prophecies" and then break out the old history book. and bam. it was pretty easy to prove that when Nostradams goes cryptic, he's actually talking about a past event, and when he gives an exact date, he's totally wrong.

DOn't know if the book was ever translated, it's called "NOSTRADAMUS, LE MYTHE ET LA R�ALIT� - UN HISTORIEN AU TEMPS DES ASTROLOGUES"

wasn't screaming, just copy pasting and the publishers website is in cruise control for cool mode.

alternatively, get this:

http://www.amazon.com/Nostradamus-Bibliomancer-Man-Myth-Truth/dp/1601631324/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1420743376&sr=8-15&keywords=Roger+Pr%C3%A9vost

small parenthese about Nostradamus, and that's the historian talking here.

What are often misinterpreted as "prophecie" by Michel de Nostre Dame, AKA Nostradamus, appear, based on a recent study by french historian Roger Pr�vost, to be in fact a chronicle of past events. See, Nostradamus thought that history followed "cycles" and that it was doomed to repeat itself. So he went and took the historical and mythological past of Provence (his birth region), France and Europe and put the whole thing into rhymes, at the future tense. What Pr�vost did was take the most frequently interpreted "prophecies" and then break out the old history book. and bam. it was pretty easy to prove that when Nostradams goes cryptic, he's actually talking about a past event, and when he gives an exact date, he's totally wrong.

DOn't know if the book was ever translated, it's called "NOSTRADAMUS, LE MYTHE ET LA R�ALIT� - UN HISTORIEN AU TEMPS DES ASTROLOGUES"

wasn't screaming, just copy pasting and the publishers website is in cruise control for cool mode.

That's very interesting, thanks for clearing that up. I'm jolly glad God knows what He's writing about!

:awsm:

and as final note, while his prophecies aren't worth much, Nostradamus wrote a fantastic book about preserves.

Agnostic, It's fun to believe in some sort of whimsical magic!

Agnostic, It's fun to believe in some sort of whimsical magic!

Like in evolution.

@docrate:
thanks, interesting :)


Nostradamus thought that history followed "cycles" and that it was doomed to repeat itself.

which is not wrong, when you consider that we have repetetive patterns, if we do not manage to learn from mistakes.

@docrate:
thanks, interesting :)



which is not wrong, when you consider that we have repetetive patterns, if we do not manage to learn from mistakes.

indeed. where he is wrong is when he thought that said cycles repeated themselves exactly, just as if it was a disc played on a loop. While some events tend to repeat themselves if the correct factors are united, the complete repetition of a whole portion of history is impossible.

If I gave facts that are out there you would just scoff at it, but you know there is not one verifiable fact supporting evolution, and Darwin doubted his hypothesis. Huxley who was a Socialist Globalist in the so called hidden enlightened ones had to push the idea with ulterior motives. The powers of Satan work to deceive the masses. Some fact that have supported creation since the day of Darwin, which whom thought the cell was a simple blob of material, is that the cell is so complex with so many mechanisms like enzymes smaller than DNA, which is unexplained in itself as to how do they work and repair the cell, reading and checking the DNA using a 4 bit code of information, which is unexplainable to where it came from all to form and repair a cell, creating all life. Deviation or mutation of which is harmful to life, and this is to be believed just happened randomly. Another thing which is a catch 22, is that you cannot have proteins form in an environment that has water due to oxidation of the protein. Also one thing that the scientists won't admit and has also been proven is that there are layers on mud laid down over the whole planet which explains a global flood, and not just mud but sedimentary layers from fine to rough, layers proving a flood. Trees sheared off and buried upside down, and in patterns of water flow, all over the planet, in a global layer. Lots of other facts in science and laws of thermo dynamics that disprove that planets and solar systems and galaxies formed naturally, planets that should be spinning one way but aren't. Gasses or dust forming into a mass, which can't happen. Also there's not been one fact to prove evolution in the Fossil Record, it in fact shows life exploded during the Cambrian age that included all life, not a tree of in between versions of anything, and complex life, all the phylum all the phenom, all at once. Here's another example of which shows only variation of a theme in all life, all dogs and wolves all have the same exact genes, only expressed in differing lengths of the same genetic code. And this has been proven by breeding animals into what was once extinct. Anyway if you are to believe that the odds of some of what has been observed by modern times as being coincidental, and the odds ARE way beyond what is considered possible, if you believe in evolution you have to have way more faith than one who believes in creation. There a lot more then what I've mentioned, but if you're comfortable with what you know, and can show me some facts, and I don't mean Carl Sagan pounding on a desk yelling "Evolution is a fact" because so far the other side of the coin is proving them wrong every day. If you are comfortable with what you know, then you should be able to prove it here and now, and I haven't seen anyone do that here yet. Just some facts as you all say you want, we want some facts too, anything.

There are more immediate places I need to reach before heaven.

If I gave facts that are out there you would just scoff at it, but you know there is not one verifiable fact supporting evolution... etc, etc.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Spectre. :)

I actually wrote a short essay on this very subject last summer. I can post a link to it if anyone's interested?

---------- Post added at 03:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 AM ----------


There are more immediate places I need to reach before heaven.

But are they as important? Just think of it... eternity. That's a very long time to contemplate a wrong decision...

There are more immediate places I need to reach before heaven.
I completely agree! I need to be right with my Lord in this life before I worry about what I'll do in the next. Though, that's... probably not what you meant.


I actually wrote a short essay on this very subject last summer. I can post a link to it if anyone's interested?
*raises hand* I'd be very interested in reading that, being someone of the opposite persuasion.

If I gave facts that are out there you would just scoff at it, but you know there is not one verifiable fact supporting evolution, and Darwin doubted his hypothesis. Huxley who was a Socialist Globalist in the so called hidden enlightened ones had to push the idea with ulterior motives. The powers of Satan work to deceive the masses. Some fact that have supported creation since the day of Darwin, which whom thought the cell was a simple blob of material, is that the cell is so complex with so many mechanisms like enzymes smaller than DNA, which is unexplained in itself as to how do they work and repair the cell, reading and checking the DNA using a 4 bit code of information, which is unexplainable to where it came from all to form and repair a cell, creating all life. Deviation or mutation of which is harmful to life, and this is to be believed just happened randomly. Another thing which is a catch 22, is that you cannot have proteins form in an environment that has water due to oxidation of the protein. Also one thing that the scientists won't admit and has also been proven is that there are layers on mud laid down over the whole planet which explains a global flood, and not just mud but sedimentary layers from fine to rough, layers proving a flood. Trees sheared off and buried upside down, and in patterns of water flow, all over the planet, in a global layer. Lots of other facts in science and laws of thermo dynamics that disprove that planets and solar systems and galaxies formed naturally, planets that should be spinning one way but aren't. Gasses or dust forming into a mass, which can't happen. Also there's not been one fact to prove evolution in the Fossil Record, it in fact shows life exploded during the Cambrian age that included all life, not a tree of in between versions of anything, and complex life, all the phylum all the phenom, all at once. Here's another example of which shows only variation of a theme in all life, all dogs and wolves all have the same exact genes, only expressed in differing lengths of the same genetic code. And this has been proven by breeding animals into what was once extinct. Anyway if you are to believe that the odds of some of what has been observed by modern times as being coincidental, and the odds ARE way beyond what is considered possible, if you believe in evolution you have to have way more faith than one who believes in creation. There a lot more then what I've mentioned, but if you're comfortable with what you know, and can show me some facts, and I don't mean Carl Sagan pounding on a desk yelling "Evolution is a fact" because so far the other side of the coin is proving them wrong every day. If you are comfortable with what you know, then you should be able to prove it here and now, and I haven't seen anyone do that here yet. Just some facts as you all say you want, we want some facts too, anything.

http://i.imgur.com/k9JKaSy.gif
http://i.imgur.com/Oxhlylr.gif
http://i.imgur.com/T8oNSgS.gif
http://i.imgur.com/BpBcRws.gif

@InfamousStar and anyone else interested:

Here's my recent essay on the topic...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzV3IQPpJH2iZUN5QUphZG9yQWM/view?usp=sharing

"Evolution? Works for me.
Where's that clotted cream? I can't take off without it!"

Now if we had a dog in space we'd have some adversarial conflict. Always seems to come to that. It's the Mice Planet's fault!

I am eating gay shrimp, omnomnomnomnom.


Take that, Joshua!

How to get to heaven, i don't know. But when the homo above me will die heaven will have a 7/11.

How to get to heaven, i don't know. But when the homo above me will die heaven will have a 7/11.


Doesn't mean shit coming from someone with a fuckboy in their avatar.

This was a decent, civilised conversation. Please don't lower it to arguments and throwing insults.

@Morbidcrab - that was a silly, unnecessary comment about shrimp, but whatever. You have the freedom to state your opinion.

@LastRemnant - if Morbidcrab's comment offended you, as it did me, just ignore it. Don't go throwing unnecessary insults and so start a war.

Please people, let's keep this polite.

You're so cool and collected, you probably have what it takes to be the peacekeeper or something, no joke.

Anyway, yeah it was silly, I'm sorry- I really do appreciate how you still support the free speech, even if you don't approve of what I say or how I say it, I like that an awful lot.


Anyway, arguments and blatant hate can be found on 8chan.org/pol/ and 4chan.org/pol/


This isn't the place for that, apparently this guy got desensitized by what I said and is trying his hardest to the point of making himself look worse. Don't care much really, it is the internet after all- we are all anonymous.

All this talk of shrimp is making me hungry for some Hibachi Shrimp and Steak! Mmmm!

All this talk of shrimp is making me hungry for some Hibachi Shrimp and Steak! Mmmm!

I never understood why god hated shrimp exactly, maybe the cholesterol is bad for you...?

Other than that, I agree with the paragraph you typed, you have to be open minded to the two ends- when technology mixes with religion, it makes magic, I'm not into Scientology though...but still, you have to just wonder about certain things that science nor religion can explain, it gives me goosebumps just thinking about it, damn- I'm getting all giddy now.

God forbade the Israelites from eating sea food because sea creatures like shrimp are seabed scavengers and contain a whole lot of nasty stuff. It was for their own protection. Just imagine how much more polluted they must be now, a few thousand years later...

That being said, those laws are not in place now and God is not bothered what we eat. The Bible says as much. And I do happen to love shrimp/prawns, etc. Squid is incredibly delicious.

Are we digressing from the topic at all here?

Are we digressing from the topic at all here?


Nope, I just wanted to know the do's and don'ts, it's just- there are so many different religions, which one has the reason?


It's like a buffet, better yet-

It's like smash bros but with religions, you main one guy and the other guy is a hardcore spammer, then of course there are the fanboys that only lock themselves to one character, and that chill dude who just plays because he likes it- then that other guy who doesn't know what he's doing.

Wow, I guess there's a master hand and crazy hand out there somewhere in the Universe.


That's just it, you have to pick the ones that speak to your soul, I believe there are different types of heavens for different people, in a way you filter out the stuff you dislike, I've been open minded and tolerant, I've never hurt a fly, so I have pretty fair chance of getting to some kind of heaven.

Also, that's really interesting, I've never read the bible myself, and to my disdain I've never read anything religious to completion, I feel so uncultured!

Errr... Not quite sure I got all that.

Yes, after Jesus the Ritual laws were done away with. They were Prophetic Laws. They were nailed to the cross, not the Moral Law. So you can eat Shrimp. Heck anything we eat in the U.S. is disgusting GMO anyway. At least the Japanese raise decent beef. Pass the Shrimp Sauce please!

Indeed, evolution makes no sense.

Watch the video series from Kent Hovind on YouTube, he completely tears it apart. Much of what we take for granted on the matter has been haphazardly put together by secularist agenda-driven scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM

Heck anything we eat in the U.S. is disgusting GMO anyway. At least the Japanese raise decent beef. Pass the Shrimp Sauce please!

I haven't compared, so I wouldn't know- oh man what I must be missing out on, I only want to go to japan for the food, it just looks great!



Errr... Not quite sure I got all that.


Spammers are Bible thumpers, fanboys are like the westboro people- nobody likes them except themselves, chill dude is someone like you, he's easy-going, comfortable to be around and makes you ease up nearly instantly, the last one is probably me- I just take a bit of each character and play!


Crazy hand and master hand are unknown, nobody knows, nobody will. not even the gods themselves, spoooky!

Let's say every god is real, how would they get along? Apparently Jesus and Buddha are total bros

At least, that's how I see it.


Indeed, evolution makes no sense.

Watch the video series from Kent Hovind on YouTube, he completely tears it apart. Much of what we take for granted on the matter has been haphazardly put together by secularist agenda-driven scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM

Not gonna take sides, one side is fedora tipping reddit lurking jerkwads who always think they're right, the other is crazy religion anchored stubborn jackals who apparently don't know facts from fiction


I'm in the middle, anything goes, just- open your mind.

Let's say every god is real, how would they get along? Apparently Jesus and Buddha are total bros

At least, that's how I see it.

Haha, fun idea, but realistically there can only really be one truth, one reality. After all, The Man Himself said: "I Am The Way, The Truth, and The Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Jesus wasn't being a stuck-up so-and-so here - He was stating a clear fact.


Not gonna take sides, one side is fedora tipping reddit lurking jerkwads who always think they're right, the other is crazy religion anchored stubborn jackals who apparently don't know facts from fiction. I'm in the middle, anything goes, just- open your mind...

...and watch the video! Seriously, check out Creation Science. To my mind it makes WAY more sense of the actual evidence than does evolution.

Haha, fun idea, but realistically there can only really be one truth, one reality. After all, The Man Himself said: "I Am The Way, The Truth, and The Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Jesus wasn't being a stuck-up so-and-so here - He was stating a clear fact.

Not gonna lie to you friend, that gave me chills for about a minute, that sounds extremely powerful.




...and watch the video! Seriously, check out Creation Science. To my mind it makes WAY more sense of the actual evidence than does evolution.

Of course, I'll keep an open mind about it as some things are not yet explained by science and it makes feel uplifted in a cryptic way.

the video was made by people who have experience in selling something.

In general, if someone wants me to listen to someone, it usually does not help if they keep repeating that something is stupid. Which is no argument, but kind of villainising. If I keep repeating something is stupid, that does not make it stupid.

If I want to sell something, i need enough common ground, i relate to "common" knowledge (OR prejudices) and I can make it mix of half-truths, elements of theories, enough for people to recognize, and then bind it with my own "truths".

If I do that entertainingly enough, people will listen to me, if I give them enough plausibel things, i will be the bringer of truth.
That said, I think the video speaks for itself.

Going back lots of years, people were not able to explain the effects of antibiotics. The structure, the system was not known. Which does not mean it did not exist. Anything that works, that we have not yet been able to understand in structure, is - for now - indistiguishable from magic (or miracle, call it whatever you like)


Thanks for the discussion so far, I am out now.
I wish all of you fun continuing.

the video was made by people who have experience in selling something.

In general, if someone wants me to listen to someone, it usually does not help if they keep repeating that something is stupid. Which is no argument, but kind of villainising. If I keep repeating something is stupid, does not make it stupid.

If I want to sell something, i need enough common ground, i relate to "common" knowledge (OR prejudices) and I can make it mix of half-truths, elements of theories, enough for people to recognize, and then bind it with my own "truths".

If I do that entertainingly enough, people will listen to me, if I give them enough plausibel things, i will be the bringer of truth.
That said, I think the video speaks for itself.

Going back lots of years, people were not able to explain the effects of antibiotics. The structure, the system was not known. Which does not mean it did not exist. Anything that works, that we have not yet been able to understand in structure, is - for now - indistiguishable from magic (or miracle, call it whatever you like)


Thanks for the discussion so far, I am out now.
I wish all of you fun continuing.

I agree - The way Mr Hovind says things can sometimes be a little insulting to those who don't agree with him. But if you really pay attention to what he is saying you will realise that evolution really is stupid. And there are so many more reasons than just antibiotics. Did you read my essay? The whole theory is just so illogical and unscientific. Technically, neither Creation nor evolution are even 'theories' according to the official definition...

But anyway, thanks for your contributions to this conversation. It's been very interesting hearing your thoughts and views. :)

I wish you all the best in your personal search for the truth, and will keep you in my prayers. God bless.

Right. I am not reading all these pages. BUT, I do not personally see Creation and evolution as mutually exclusive. My personal view is that God created the universe. The Big Bang and evolution are just the mechanics of how He did it. I see no conflict at all.

This is one of the most agreeable threads on this board that DOESN'T become a circlejerk, it's been such a long time since I've seen this- people having different views and actually respecting each other, beautiful.

Right. I am not reading all these pages. BUT, I do not personally see Creation and evolution as mutually exclusive. My personal view is that God created the universe. The Big Bang and evolution are just the mechanics of how He did it. I see no conflict at all.

Oooo, I have to disagree with you there, Amanda. ;)

Survival of the fittest and natural selection are the essential bedrock of evolution, am I right? If God used survival of the fittest and natural selection to create life, then death was around before Adam and Eve sinned. Millions of years before they even existed. So either death is not the consequence of sin (which makes God a liar and the Bible a bunch of lies) or it is, but God introduced it millions of years before the first sin on the assumption that man would sin (which makes God unbelievably unfair)...

Also, during the evolution of man, at what point exactly did the creature cease being an ape-like creature and become a human, made distinctly in the image of God? IT doesn't really add up to what the Bible says...

Just a couple of thoughts...

I wonder, in million of years later. Will homestuck be seen as a type of bible?

I used to believe that evolution was part of his creation too, but I was presented with other information based in fact that says otherwise. And as I mentioned earlier there's not been any proof of evolution yet other than pounding tables making statements based on debunked theories. And I don't like Kent Hoven either, he's not where I got my information, he uses info that was researched by others before he came along. He's fine if you like his presentation. Try watching the Creation Series by Walter J. Veith, whom is a Professor and a scientist who was another Atheist who couldn't deal with the baseless theories when confronted with facts. There are other courses too, but I found him very thorough and concise.

Indeed so. Not one shred of actual evidence. Creation fits the observable evidence way better. :)

Evolution is clear in numbers of fossil specimens and is well documented, though not as well understood. Just because I believe species evolve does not mean I believe modern humans are evolved from more primitive species. The crucial missing evidence is..err...missing. Besides, God created man in his image does not, for me, rule out God generated this or that and molded this and these to achieve this. I am not trying to convince anyone, I merely pointed out what my personal belief system is, and stated it as my personal thought. I did not imply that your view or system was right or wrong.

Evolution is clear in numbers of fossil specimens and is well documented, though not as well understood. Just because I believe species evolve does not mean I believe modern humans are evolved from more primitive species. The crucial missing evidence is..err...missing. Besides, God created man in his image does not, for me, rule out God generated this or that and molded this and these to achieve this. I am not trying to convince anyone, I merely pointed out what my personal belief system is, and stated it as my personal thought. I did not imply that your view or system was right or wrong.

And you are most entitled to your opinion. Thanks for sharing it. :)

You're right about fossils being misunderstood - in my opinion, the fossils actually disprove evolution completely, for many reasons. And you're certainly right about that missing evidence...

But what do you think of my point about death? It really doesn't make any sense to me that God could have used evolution for that reason alone. How could everything be 'very good' if it had come into being from millions of years of death, pain, and suffering??

Very Good is a bit vague. It could simply mean all is as He intended it to be. Carnivores existed in the Garden. I do not believe lions ate grass and such. Not personally. Death in the natural kingdom is a part of the grand design. But what God applied to the rest of nature and what He applies to us are two very different things.

---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

Fossil evidence gives a clear picture of humanoid evolution all the way up to..almost..modern humans. But that last critical bridge has never been found. Now of course the fossil record is fragmented and far from complete. I mean how many millions of dinosaurs must have lived here, yet we have only a fraction of those documented and for many species only 1 specimen, or fragments. It will never be able to be a clear unequivical guide for what was or was not happening. More of a ...suggestion. Still, I find it amazing that as our ability to understand out universe grows, the complexity and mystery of the world around us grows. It was all designed for us. He anticipated out curiosity. And as He allows us some insight into His methods even more mysterious methods are revealed, and always will be. Personally how I see it.

Survival of the fittest and natural selection are the essential bedrock of evolution, am I right? If God used survival of the fittest and natural selection to create life, then death was around before Adam and Eve sinned. Millions of years before they even existed.
Which explains the existence of pre-human fossils, which couldn't have been made without some creature dying.


So either death is not the consequence of sin (which makes God a liar and the Bible a bunch of lies)
In Genesis 3:22-3, God forces Adam and Eve out of Eden so that they can't eat from the Tree of Life, which would have made them immortal. But this implies they were mortal before the Fall, since otherwise the tree would have been useless, and God creates nothing without purpose.

Further, living creatures of all sorts are mortal by their natures, due to the need for nutrition, aging, and the fragility of their bodies. All of this is fundamental to life in this world, and it is difficult to imagine how it could have been different. From God's command for Adam to eat of the trees in the garden, we can infer Adam at least needed to eat.

Yet we are left with Romans 5:12: "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people". And we don't have the luxury of doubting the authority of this verse. Unlike 3 Corinthians we can't dismiss it as non-canonical, and unlike some of Paul's other canonical epistles (1 & 2 Timothy come to mind), Romans is universally considered genuine.

But look at that last part: "death came to all people". That is, to all humans. Look at the part right after that: "because all sinned". Can non-human organisms sin? No, the lion doesn't sin when it eats the gazelle, because it's a carnivore, and it's a carnivore by God's will. But they do die. Moreover, the curse of Adam ("you are dust, and to dust you shall return") is thought to be passed on by descent, and, needless to say, the other lifeforms aren't descendants of humanity.

Thus, the deaths of non-humans are not due to sin. Why do they die? Presumably because their souls (if indeed they have souls) don't have the same kind of value as a human soul -- human souls are immortal and others are not, or some similar distinction.

There's still one thread left hanging, which is how death came to humans through sin if humans were naturally mortal prior to the Fall. I don't know, read Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 97 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1097.htm). Thomas Aquinas was a much better theologian than I am.


Also, during the evolution of man, at what point exactly did the creature cease being an ape-like creature and become a human, made distinctly in the image of God? IT doesn't really add up to what the Bible says...
I wasn't there for any of this, so consider what I'm about to say as speculation, but I would assume it was around the time of the supposed Great Leap Forward 40 or 50 millennia ago. Prior to this, there were already anatomically modern humans across Africa, Europe, and southern Asia, and possibly into Australia, but these humans lacked the sort of complex tools and other artifacts we would suppose are universal to creatures as smart as us. For example, the oldest cave paintings date from just over 40,000 years ago. The idea is that human cognitive ability suddenly exploded around this time, and that older humans just weren't capable of symbolic thinking. By the way, I'm kind of assuming that by "image of God" you're referring to humanity's ability to imagine, create, and understand the world around it.

Interesting thoughts. So are you saying that animals suffered disease and died whilst humans didn't (until they sinned)? I'm not so sure I like the idea that death was part of God's original grand design. It doesn't sound quite right...

I agree - it's all about the glasses we look at the fossils through. It's quite a mess. But the sudden appearance of fully complex creatures? And the fact that we can even identify all these fossils that are supposedly billions of years old is proof in and of itself that they clearly haven't evolved much if at all, or we wouldn't recognise them. Surely we'd be finding creatures all the time that are utterly unidentifiable. More and more fossils are being found where scientists are saying "Wow! This <insert animal name here> hasn't changed in 10 million years!" Kinda makes me suspicious...

Fossil evidence gives a clear picture of humanoid evolution all the way up to..almost..modern humans. But that last critical bridge has never been found. Now of course the fossil record is fragmented and far from complete. I mean how many millions of dinosaurs must have lived here, yet we have only a fraction of those documented and for many species only 1 specimen, or fragments. It will never be able to be a clear unequivical guide for what was or was not happening. More of a ...suggestion. Still, I find it amazing that as our ability to understand out universe grows, the complexity and mystery of the world around us grows. It was all designed for us. He anticipated out curiosity. And as He allows us some insight into His methods even more mysterious methods are revealed, and always will be. Personally how I see it.

I find it amazing that as our ability to understand out universe grows, the complexity and mystery of the world around us grows. It was all designed for us. He anticipated out curiosity. And as He allows us some insight into His methods even more mysterious methods are revealed, and always will be. Personally how I see it.

That was beautiful. I honestly couldn't have said it better myself. We definitely agree on something. :)

Sully, all of the natural world is solidly based on the cycle of life, death, decay and rebirth. Even plant life has this cycle built in. Look, a lion's teeth are of no use for plant eating. None. It's digestion and systems cannot support it either. So either this cycle is part of the Design, or God completely and totally remade everything after he Fall. As far as all things dying, Humans were not intended to. After the Fall, our life spans began to shorten generation by generation. Men like Noah were downright ancient compared to now...

Wow, some very interesting stuff being said here! I'm not going to have time to respond to everything with all the work I have at the moment, but it's really interesting reading what your opinions are. Making me think too...

For now, I'm hitting the sack. Night all!

Very Good is a bit vague. It could simply mean all is as He intended it to be. Carnivores existed in the Garden. I do not believe lions ate grass and such. Not personally. Death in the natural kingdom is a part of the grand design. But what God applied to the rest of nature and what He applies to us are two very different things.

---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

Fossil evidence gives a clear picture of humanoid evolution all the way up to..almost..modern humans. But that last critical bridge has never been found. Now of course the fossil record is fragmented and far from complete. I mean how many millions of dinosaurs must have lived here, yet we have only a fraction of those documented and for many species only 1 specimen, or fragments. It will never be able to be a clear unequivical guide for what was or was not happening. More of a ...suggestion. Still, I find it amazing that as our ability to understand out universe grows, the complexity and mystery of the world around us grows. It was all designed for us. He anticipated out curiosity. And as He allows us some insight into His methods even more mysterious methods are revealed, and always will be. Personally how I see it.

I've not seen any evidence of humans evolving in the fossil record. To which finds are you referring to Amanda? Most scientists admit it's not in the fossil record, but the ones paid to say so. When you ask Them for the evidence they then fall back every time with nothing but hope to soon. I hope you're not referring to school books.

I said humanoids, not modern humans.

---------- Post added at 09:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 PM ----------

Frankly I am a pre-human girl. I am more into dinos than the later eras.

eh hehe

I've not seen any evidence of humans evolving in the fossil record. To which finds are you referring to Amanda? Most scientists admit it's not in the fossil record, but the ones paid to say so. When you ask Them for the evidence they then fall back every time with nothing but hope to soon. I hope you're not referring to school books.

Very true.

........

You want to resurrect this thread? All right, here's something I've been thinking about: How are you supposed to sell the idea of Heaven to a non-Christian?

Heaven is great, right? (1) You get to live forever. An obvious plus, since you never have to lose someone you love again, and presumably, there's no such thing as pain or boredom there. I can't think that very many people, Christian, Hindu, atheist, or Muslim, would turn this down. (2) You get to spend this eternity with everyone who has ever loved God. Which is great if you're a theist -- you have something in common with everyone. If not, you might feel a bit alienated. (3) You're always in close contact with God. Which is good for Christians, since they seek God above all else, but no matter where you go or what you do, He's always there, watching. On Earth, God is invisible, and it's easy to pretend He doesn't see you whenever it's inconvenient. But on the New Earth, He's standing right there. Even if you could close your eyes, you'd see Him burned into your retinas! On the bright side, at least you'll never feel the shame of being seen disobeying Him, because (4) everyone, including you, has been perfected -- made just like Him. You never have to worry about what God would think of your actions or thoughts or emotions again, because they've all been perfectly conformed to God's will. Not only that, but you never have to worry about your body, either, because it's long gone. That's not to say you're a disembodied soul. No, it's been remade; every crude, material organ replaced by a spiritual counterpart. To a Christian, all of this is amazing -- we would give anything to have freedom from sin, and to have a body which can (as has been said) see face to face. To anyone else though, this is brainwashing, and such a horror to the body, that by looking down you wouldn't recognize yourself.

There's no real problem here, since God promises this fate only to those who are already willing to receive it, but how is anyone supposed to pitch Christianity like this? It's like asking someone, "How would you like to live in a combination of 1984 and The Shadow Over Innsmouth? All you have to do is devote your entire life to this being from beyond space and time, and if necessary, be tortured to death."

You want to resurrect this thread? All right, here's something I've been thinking about: How are you supposed to sell the idea of Heaven to a non-Christian?

Heaven is great, right? (1) You get to live forever. An obvious plus, since you never have to lose someone you love again, and presumably, there's no such thing as pain or boredom there. I can't think that very many people, Christian, Hindu, atheist, or Muslim, would turn this down. (2) You get to spend this eternity with everyone who has ever loved God. Which is great if you're a theist -- you have something in common with everyone. If not, you might feel a bit alienated. (3) You're always in close contact with God. Which is good for Christians, since they seek God above all else, but no matter where you go or what you do, He's always there, watching. On Earth, God is invisible, and it's easy to pretend He doesn't see you whenever it's inconvenient. But on the New Earth, He's standing right there. Even if you could close your eyes, you'd see Him burned into your retinas! On the bright side, at least you'll never feel the shame of being seen disobeying Him, because (4) everyone, including you, has been perfected -- made just like Him. You never have to worry about what God would think of your actions or thoughts or emotions again, because they've all been perfectly conformed to God's will. Not only that, but you never have to worry about your body, either, because it's long gone. That's not to say you're a disembodied soul. No, it's been remade; every crude, material organ replaced by a spiritual counterpart. To a Christian, all of this is amazing -- we would give anything to have freedom from sin, and to have a body which can (as has been said) see face to face. To anyone else though, this is brainwashing, and such a horror to the body, that by looking down you wouldn't recognize yourself.

There's no real problem here, since God promises this fate only to those who are already willing to receive it, but how is anyone supposed to pitch Christianity like this? It's like asking someone, "How would you like to live in a combination of 1984 and The Shadow Over Innsmouth? All you have to do is devote your entire life to this being from beyond space and time, and if necessary, be tortured to death."

By golly there is so much wrong with this ^. I don't know that I have the time to go through it all. Maybe I'll try to find the time though, as you seem to be seriously misguided about who God is, what it really means to be a Christian, what Heaven is like, etc. Wow, I can't even begin to describe how wrong what you wrote is. lol

God is a God of Freedom. It's satan who is controlling. It is true that God does change our heart when we are saved, He allows us to see things the way that He does. It's only natural at that point to agree with Him.

God is a God of Freedom. It's satan who is controlling. It is true that God does change our heart when we are saved, He allows us to see things the way that He does. It's only natural at that point to agree with Him.

Exactly: The Lord is the God of freedom. In truth, the Lord is the only Way to true freedom. Jesus suffered and died, while you and I were slaves to sin, just to give us this freedom. When I commented before, I in no way meant to offend any Christian, and really didn't want to offend God. I apologize for doing so. But I apologize only for the wording. I can't recant my position, because I don't know where I was wrong.

Let me summarize point 4 again, and hopefully I'll at least be less offensive, if no more correct. Humans, as they are in our universe, couldn't exist in Heaven. All humans sin, and no human can see God face-to-face, much less comprehend what they are seeing, without dying. Yet in Heaven, and later in the World to Come, there can be no sin, and God is in plain sight. But we have faith that countless saints arrive in Heaven every day. Therefore, the saints that have come before must have undergone radical changes. I want to make very clear: no one arrives in heaven, who does not accept and trust God of their own volition. But if these changes did occur on an unwilling participant, they would be called brainwashing, which is all I meant in my previous post.

But non-Christians don't want (or at least, don't know they want) this freedom. They are aware of what we would call their sin, and they're rather attached to it, since in their eyes, it's an essential part of their character. Most people (including Christians) consider some of their sins as virtue, and take pride in them. Thus, to a non-Christian, Heaven is only a place they can go if they give up who they are -- and not just their flaws, but the parts of themselves they actually like, too. That is, unless you turn it into just fluffy clouds and pearly gates.

Exactly: The Lord is the God of freedom. In truth, the Lord is the only Way to true freedom. Jesus suffered and died, while you and I were slaves to sin, just to give us this freedom. When I commented before, I in no way meant to offend any Christian, and really didn't want to offend God. I apologize for doing so. But I apologize only for the wording. I can't recant my position, because I don't know where I was wrong.

Let me summarize point 4 again, and hopefully I'll at least be less offensive, if no less correct. Humans, as they are in our universe, couldn't exist in Heaven. All humans sin, and no human can see God face-to-face, much less comprehend what they are seeing, without dying. Yet in Heaven, and later in the World to Come, there can be no sin, and God is in plain sight. But we have faith that countless saints arrive in Heaven every day. Therefore, the saints that have come before must have undergone radical changes. I want to make very clear: no one arrives in heaven, who does not accept and trust God of their own volition. But if these changes did occur on an unwilling participant, they would be called brainwashing, which is all I meant in my previous post.

But non-Christians don't want (or at least, don't know they want) this freedom. They are aware of what we would call their sin, and they're rather attached to it, since in their eyes, it's an essential part of their character. Most people (including Christians) consider some of their sins as virtue, and take pride in them. Thus, to a non-Christian, Heaven is only a place they can go if they give up who they are -- and not just their flaws, but the parts of themselves they actually like, too. That is, unless you turn it into just fluffy clouds and pearly gates.

Unlike your last post, I completely agree with you here. :)

Unlike your last post, I completely agree with you here. :)
Oh, good. :) I didn't think I was saying anything all that unusual or anti-Christian at the time. I guess I just tripped over myself in the rhetoric a bunch of times.

I was just thinking, if I weren't a Christian, and someone asked me "ARE YOU 100% SURE THAT IF YOU DIED TODAY THAT YOU WOULD GO TO HEAVEN?", first off I'd say "no". Then I'd say "Even if I thought such a place existed, I wouldn't want to go." The reasons I would give would be:


"Eternal life would be boring." I would never misrepresent Heaven this way, even if I weren't Christian. I don't even believe earthly immortality is necessarily boring, and from all the descriptions of it, boredom isn't even conceivable in heavenly immortality.
"I wouldn't want to spend it with people whose favorite thing in all existence is a God I don't believe in." I'm sure most of the saints have other interests, too. Maybe I'm making too much of this objection.
"I wouldn't want to spend it with God either." This character I'm pretending to be wouldn't like God, if they knew He existed (see 4), so the reasons for this objection are too obvious and many to mention here.
"Unlike God, I like the "sinful" parts of myself, and if I lost them, it would be losing a piece of myself." I explained this one in my last post.

Shows what little people know about the word and prophecy. I'm 100% sure for one thing because of a range of facts that I as a Christian asked God to show me and he did, even scientifically. 2 We will not be in Heaven the rest of our lives, only one day, which is 1 thousand years on Earth. After that the New Jerusalem will be placed on the New Sanctified Earth with Evil wiped out. Then we will all have our own land and dwelling on the Earth and gather once a month to feast and praise God at the New City. Heaven and Earth will be one. Our abilities will be beyond what our pea brains can imagine, and the original plan that God had for us will be restored. I know the Bible is hard to understand, especially prophecy, but there is much more out there to learn than most realize! And all has been answered! You just need to get it from the right source.

Shows what little people know about the word and prophecy. I'm 100% sure for one thing because of a range of facts that I as a Christian asked God to show me and he did, even scientifically. 2 We will not be in Heaven the rest of our lives, only one day, which is 1 thousand years on Earth. After that the New Jerusalem will be placed on the New Sanctified Earth with Evil wiped out. Then we will all have our own land and dwelling on the Earth and gather once a month to feast and praise God at the New City. Heaven and Earth will be one. Our abilities will be beyond what our pea brains can imagine, and the original plan that God had for us will be restored. I know the Bible is hard to understand, especially prophecy, but there is much more out there to learn than most realize! And all has been answered! You just need to get it from the right source.

:D

It's so encouraging to hear someone who actually knows their Bible prophecy for once!! It's such a rare thing these days.

With Sunday Laws being passed around the World and eventually here in the U.S. is the final trigger in Bible Prophecy near final end events, be ready people. The Sabbath Law is the end time main trigger as was in Egypt during the Israelites captivity! That's when the crap hits the fan! That's when the Israelites (CHRISTIANS IN MODERN TIME) were delivered from captivity! In The Bible Jesus points to Daniel for signs of end events. I and others have put together Daniel's Timeline for Man's time on Earth to the last Event's. Man's time as stated in Genesis is 120 year, these are Jubilees according to prophecy. A Jubilee is 50 years, thus Man's time is 6000 years. Contrary to what you've been taught event's in the Bible are confirmed to the Day. I've attached below a chart of event's showing Man's time and the end time days. The Bible says we won't know the Day or Hour, so it could happen near the end of 2016 to early 2017. Also remember that a day in Heaven is a thousand years on earth and that the last Day, the 7th Day is God's Rest, pointing out that the 7th Day, the last day, is still the Sabbath.

(https://mega.co.nz/#!t59GlSDC!e5Uc0o8RQbPqi8_CE1me-0LUSrrRwdmzZBthhJz76VI)
(https://mega.co.nz/#!YscEwJLB!KzA-Ex_Bg-aj4dtGz5L6rzKeM10NnQqIyt86vc_Cy98)

My main point to this is when the Sabbath (Saturday is changed to Sunday (First day of the week) by Law, IS the END TIME EVENTS Trigger!

Please take the time to read this first post and vote in the poll.

Pardon the question -- I've never been much into eschatology -- but why would you want to know when the world is going to end?

Can I just clarify - you are confident the world will end within the next few years? (No judgement, no disrespect, just a question?)

Pardon the question -- I've never been much into eschatology -- but why would you want to know when the world is going to end?

It's not so much knowing when the world is going to end, but more knowing about the events that are predicted about in the Bible, particularly the events leading up to the second coming of Christ. The first main one in modern history was the restoration of the nation of Israel in 1948.

At the moment, things all seem to be coming together exactly as the Bible said they would - the rising unrest in the Middle East (always surrounding Israel) which will likely lead to war, the rising trend towards a single global religion (all religions coming together), the lean towards a one-world government and currency, the technology that will enable people to buy and sell with an implanted chip in their skin (back of the hand and forehead), an increase in wars, famines, natural disasters, etc. The Bible predicted it all. These things were predicted to happen before the seven years of 'tribulation', after all the true believers have been taken out of this world. Then, after the seven years, Christ will return with the true believers just as Israel is about to be utterly destroyed and rescue them. After that, He will set up His kingdom here and clear up the mess that the world has made.

Does that help? :)

What I'm saying is Prophecy actually has been fulfilled contrary to what they (Local Churches) are teaching, except for the Sunday Law. The Catholic Order will make a Law that Sunday will be the Sabbath rather then Saturday as it is in the Bible. The Sabbath has not changed in the Bible as far as God or Christ is concerned, contrary to contemporary teaching. The Anti-Christ or instead of Christ will seek to change Laws and Times. The Jesuits or past Popes have done that already. Just as in Egypt when the Pharaoh would not let the Israelites have the Sabbath off to worship God, so it will be in the end. The difference is 7 plagues not 10. Christians need to remember that God said to keep the Law in your foreheads (Think It) and in your Hands (Practice It). That includes the Sabbath, it's a Law. "Keep the Sabbath, and keep it Holy". Lucifer says He doesn't care as long as you think it OR practice It, there's a difference! If a Christian takes a Chip won't be the Issue, the issue will be if you deny Christ. If you don't deny Him your currency be cut off. No buying food or anything else. They will even kill Christians if they don't accept the New System. Anyway when the Sunday Law is passed, you better watch, because the end is near! The Anti-Christ won't be some guy elected for political position, He's already been fingered in the Bible. It's The Papacy! It's the only one on the planet that claims God's throne. I've seen their writings, they actually believe that the Pope's power exceeds God's! The Holy Roman Empire!

Can I just clarify - you are confident the world will end within the next few years? (No judgement, no disrespect, just a question?)

Taking everything into account, I think it's very likely that we are living in what the Bible refers to as the End Times. According to Bible prophecy, there is now nothing that needs to happen before the rapture of the true believers takes place. After that, at some point, the seven years of tribulation will occur, at the end of which Jesus will return with the believers that were raptured to save Israel from annihilation and set up His kingdom on Earth for the next 1,000 years. After that, Satan will finally be deafeated in a final battle and the old Heavens and Earth will be destroyed. A new Heaven and Earth will be created where believers will live with Christ for eternity.

Does that help? :)

I respectfully disagree. When an Anti-Sabbath Law is past IT (His Return) could be any moment. You're referring to Prophecies that have been interpreted incorrectly. The three and a half (42 Months) 1260 year Prophecy has already happened. The Anti-Christ is already here and has been since 538 A.D. The Reformers knew this a long time ago. Taking these Years out of the Bible as literal years is not correct.

According to Bible prophecy, there is now nothing that needs to happen before the rapture of the true believers takes place. After that, at some point, the seven years of tribulation will occur

One thing, though: why do you think that the rapture will occur before the tribulation and not after.

Spectre8750, apart from the dates you provide, you aren't providing any evidence for your claims. What makes you think that the Pope is the Antichrist? What documents are you referring to that claim the Pope is more powerful than the Almighty? You must understand: I would prefer to trust everyone (as we know love trusts all things). And that therefore I can't, in good conscience, believe the Pope is a blasphemer, as you say, without very good reason. Besides that, why do you think, apart from your interpretation of prophesy, that the passage of a Sunday Law is immanent? We live in a very secular age; even if the Sunday Law is passed, why wouldn't it be rendered ineffectual by public outcry?

The Papacy has declared itself with Papal Infallibility, and that whatever He or the Jesuits declare God has to accept it. Thus it exalts itself above God. In their own writings. The Catholics will try to claim that that is a misunderstanding, but it's plain and straight forward. The Papacy also is the only entity on Earth that sits at the throne of God. It claims the Church is the Mother Church over all others. Revelation states that the Anti-Christ will seek to change Times and Laws, the Papacy has done that. They changed the Calender and they changed the Ten Commandments from the original received Text. They changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. They make that claim as the Churches Authority! It's in their own Statements. I will post a couple pics with references showing it. Give me a bit to get them. As far as outcry, No, no one disputes Sunday as a Day of Worship now. Saturday IS the Day of Worship (Sabbath), few know or even understand this. There's a War going on between the Catholic Order's beliefs and the Protestant belief of Saturday Worship! Almost all churches have been worshiping on Sunday for hundreds of years, not all but most. Martin Luther and others during the 1500's fought the Catholic Church (The Reformation) for changing the Word of God and were murdered for it! In fact during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church Band the Bible! Remember there's a difference between the Bible (Received Text and the Catholic Douay Bible). The Catholic order says the Bible is Wrong. The Catholic Church IS NOT CHRISTIAN! You've been duped into thinking it is, when the Bible states what They do IS WRONG! I don't expect people unfamiliar with the different Bibles and Texts to even know what I'm talking about, but it IS History AND Prophecy. BTW, if you are reading a Bible and you've replaced the King James Version with another version, you are not getting the whole story!

OK, I can't really post everything you need for what your questions need, so here is a link to a multi-part Lecture that answers everything you need.
Start with Number "210 - The Beast from the Bottomless Pit" These are free to watch. IF you are intrigued, keep watching the other Episodes, they will
answer everything you need to know, not only from the Bible, but Secret Societies, Governments and anything related to Prophecy in the Bible. It makes it
simple to understand and your hair will stand on end as you keep watching these Lectures!
210 - The Beast from the Bottomless Pit (http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/122/210-the-beast-from-the-bottomless-pit/)

Please watch these through at least 17 "The Crime Of All Ages"
Please everyone, these Lectures are I guarantee unlike any others you may have seen!
Also these are presented by A scientist, not a Preacher!

Since we're on mythology and folklore, what about other fictional afterlifes?

Right, say whatever you want, and don't give it a chance, it's your choice. I wasn't aware you thought of Secret Societies and the Jesuits as mythology and folklore, they exist. And they affect your lives. That's what these lectures are about. But while we're talking mythology Sparktank, could you post here for us the irrefutable evidence of Evolution please? Anyone else?

I wasn't referring to your post.
Just all religion in general.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:00 PM ----------

All this shit's been around for centuries.
They have time to develop a fanbase.

Star Wars and Star Trek and others have only been around for a fraction of the time.

Well science has been around for centuries, they should have the answer right?
Also these are presented by A scientist, not a Preacher!
210 - The Beast from the Bottomless Pit (http://forums.ffshrine.org/f2/how-get-heaven-when-you-die-121633/7.html#post2929175)

The Papacy has declared itself with Papal Infallibility, and that whatever He or the Jesuits declare God has to accept it. Thus it exalts itself above God. In their own writings. The Catholics will try to claim that that is a misunderstanding, but it's plain and straight forward.
I did a bit of research on papal infallibility, and found the writing which defines it. From Pastor aeternus, 4.9 (https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm):


...when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
But the plain meaning of this is that God promised Peter and his successors (the Papacy) that He would not let them err from the Truth, and that this promise applies when, and only when, they address the Church in the full solemnity of being God's emissary (i.e. apostle) here on earth. This is nothing like what you claimed, since the Jesuits don't enter into this at all, the Pope is only claimed to possess infallibility on certain rare occasions (as far as I can tell, the last six popes haven't spoken ex cathedra, at all), and since whatever God declares, the pope and the Jesuits have to accept; not the other way around. In addition, this claim was made by an ecumenical council, not the pope (though you may still claim that the council was coerced by the pope, in some way).

Whether or not the pope is actually infallible on these occasions is another issue (I don't believe it), but if he isn't, that is a very different type of sin from blasphemously claiming to force God to do something.


Revelation states that the Anti-Christ will seek to change Times and Laws
Small error here: I think you're actually thinking of Daniel 7:25. It might be in Revelation, too, but I'm not sure where.


In fact during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church Band the Bible! Remember there's a difference between the Bible (Received Text and the Catholic Douay Bible)... BTW, if you are reading a Bible and you've replaced the King James Version with another version, you are not getting the whole story!
From what I know of history (admittedly, little), this is either very unlikely or impossible. If by Bible, you're referring to the Received Text, which is how I'm reading you, then the Catholic Church couldn't have banned it in the Middle Ages, since the Received Text wasn't compiled until the 16th century. If instead, you are referring to the banning of translations of the Bible into different vernaculars, historical record suggests such things were the exception, rather than the rule, showing bans at specific times of specific translations. Granted, their motivation was always to prevent the spread of heresies.

As for the Received Text vs. the Vulgate, neither one is unerringly faithful to the original text nor is either meaningfully different. It stands to reason that neither one can be considered the best translation, since both were made from what was available at the time, which is much less than we have today.

Of the King James and Douay-Rheims translations, King James is clearly the superior, if only because it was translated directly from Greek and Hebrew instead of through Latin. One notable issue with the King James version is Revelation 22:16-21, which, like the rest of the New Testament, was translated from the Received Text. The problem is that the Greek of this passage was, in turn, translated from the Vulgate, which was taken from the original Greek. But the main problem with either version is that it's not in our language, it's in Early-modern English. A contemporary reader of either one is prone to many mistakes -- many more, I'm sure, than either translation has from the original texts.

But all this is invalidated if the Received Text or the later King James Version is infallible in itself, apart from the sources from which they're taken. But, to my mind, this is the same as claiming papal infallibility. The only difference being that instead of placing unquestioning faith in an office established and protected by the Son of God, it's placing that faith in a particular translation of the Bible, whose integrity was ensured by the Holy Spirit. But the translators of the King James Version, and Erasmus, who compiled the Received Text, never claimed this kind of infallibility, so I can't help but doubt it. Especially in light of later translations, from earlier sources, which seem to have just as much, if not more claim to the same thing.

It seems to me, rather, that one ought to read, and compare, a wide variety of different translations from different sources, if one wants to understand what the actual, original text of the Bible says. Moreover, if one wants to understand the Truth, that is, God's Word (I'm sure you'll agree many have read the Bible through, and never picked up a hint of the Word) that path involves fervent and constant prayer, and humility before God, since in our pride we, all of us, close ourselves off to the influence of the Holy Spirit, which is the only thing that can keep us from error.

One thing, though: why do you think that the rapture will occur before the tribulation and not after?

I believe the rapture will occur before the tribulation because...

a) In Matthew 24 Jesus warns us that we will not know the day nor the hour:


36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

We know from Scripture that the seven years of tribulation will begin when the Antichrist signs a peace treaty with Israel. We also know that he will break the treaty after 3.5 years - exactly half-way through the tribulation. So, logically, if the rapture occurs at the end of the tribulation (or even in the middle, as others suppose) we will know exactly when to expect it, which is directly contrary to the words of Christ.


b) I don't believe our Heavenly Father would allow us to go through the tribulation. Many, many times in the Bible, the church (all true believers) are referred to as "The Bride of Christ". Jesus Himself used marriage as a parallel to the relationship between God and the church. We know that God loves us more than we can ever comprehend, and if we really are like a bride to Christ, I don't believe He would have us first got through the worst period of human history and Christian persecution before the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Continuing with the physical illustration of a marriage - would you, as the groom, allow your bride to go through something like that right before your marriage feast? I don't think so.

I'm reminded:

You can always buy your way into heaven.
Churches love %10 of your pay checks, if you are willing.

Forget all that other nonsense.

a) In Matthew 24 Jesus warns us that we will not know the day nor the hour:

We know from Scripture that the seven years of tribulation will begin when the Antichrist signs a peace treaty with Israel. We also know that he will break the treaty after 3.5 years - exactly half-way through the tribulation. So, logically, if the rapture occurs at the end of the tribulation (or even in the middle, as others suppose) we will know exactly when to expect it, which is directly contrary to the words of Christ.
I haven't heard this argument before. It's pretty good. But while we won't know the day or the hour, Jesus also says, in Luke 21, that we will know the season:


When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that its destruction is close at hand... These are the days of punishment, when everything written will find its fulfillment... Then they will see the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and great splendor. Now when these things begin to happen, stand up straight and raise your heads, because your redemption is near...

Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see these things happening, you know that God�s kingdom is near.

And a bit earlier in the chapter:

These things must happen first, but the end won�t happen immediately.

But I don't know, perhaps these things are supposed to happen after the rapture.



b) I don't believe our Heavenly Father would allow us to go through the tribulation. Many, many times in the Bible, the church (all true believers) are referred to as "The Bride of Christ". Jesus Himself used marriage as a parallel to the relationship between God and the church. We know that God loves us more than we can ever comprehend, and if we really are like a bride to Christ, I don't believe He would have us first got through the worst period of human history and Christian persecution before the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Continuing with the physical illustration of a marriage - would you, as the groom, allow your bride to go through something like that right before your marriage feast? I don't think so.
The Church has suffered throughout its history. Even now, Christ watches and consoles His betrothed as her members (in e.g. Iraq) are harassed and sometimes killed. The engagement is painful, yes, and it will only become more painful as the date approaches, but would you have Him consummate the marriage before the wedding night? That's only my view.



You can always buy your way into heaven.
Churches love %10 of your pay checks, if you are willing..
That's... not how that works. Let me just quote the relevant verse, since I couldn't be half as eloquent as the Teacher. Matthew 23:23:

How terrible it will be for you legal experts and Pharisees! Hypocrites! You give to God a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, but you forget about the more important matters of the Law: justice, peace, and faith. You ought to give a tenth but without forgetting about those more important matters.

I wasn't talking about quotes from the book.

I know people who go to Narcotics Anonymous who ACTUALLY, LITERALLY sign 10% of their checks to church.
At least, he did when he was foreman of a construction company.
Stress and life became too much so he no longer donates.

He was talked into it by other NA members who also donated 10% of pay checks to church.

I haven't heard this argument before. It's pretty good. But while we won't know the day or the hour, Jesus also says, in Luke 21, that we will know the season: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies..."

I believe in that passage (Luke 21:20-24) Jesus is talking directly about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. He ends by saying
And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.He then goes on to talk about the tribulation and His Second Coming, which both occur at the end of the "times of the Gentiles".

As for the fig tree illustration, I believe that is referring to the present time we are in right now. Earlier in Matthew 24, Jesus said
Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, �I am the Christ,� and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name�s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

All this^^ is happening right now.



And a bit earlier in the chapter [Jesus says]: "These things must happen first, but the end won�t happen immediately."

Exactly! In context:
Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, �I am He,� and, �The time has drawn near.� Therefore do not go after them. 9 But when you hear of wars and commotions, do not be terrified; [B]for these things must come to pass first, but the end will not come immediately. 10 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven. 12 But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name�s sake. - This is the parallel passage to the passage from Matthew 24 I quoted above. In other words, the things that are happening right now must come to pass, but the end is not yet.



The Church has suffered throughout its history. Even now, Christ watches and consoles His betrothed as her members (in e.g. Iraq) are harassed and sometimes killed. The engagement is painful, yes, and it will only become more painful as the date approaches, but would you have Him consummate the marriage before the wedding night? That's only my view.

As Jesus said:
For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect�s sake those days will be shortened.

The church's suffering right now is nothing compared to what the world will go through during the tribulation. The time of the tribulation will be unlike anything ever witnessed on Earth before. It is the specific time of God's judgement on this unbelieving, wicked world. Which is another strong reason why I believe the rapture occurs before it. God will not let His bride go through this judgement specifically for the wicked. Yes, there will be the tribulation saints (those who repent and receive salvation during the seven years), but at the moment of the rapture, which I believe will take place before the tribulation, every true believer will be taken from the Earth. The presence of the Holy Spirit on Earth will disappear, which is why sin will begin to abound like never before during the time of the tribulation.

I like to think of the Global Flood as a good illustration. Noah and his family were not left to die in the judgement on the wicked world. God took them out of the judgement using the Ark. After the Flood, Noah and his family 'came back' to repopulate the Earth and start fresh. In the same way, I believe God will take us out of the judgement on the world during the tribulation and we will return afterwards to set things straight.

I believe that the Christians who are taken in the rapture will go to be with Christ at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. I don't think that's 'consummating the marriage before the wedding night'. Then we will return to Earth with Christ at His second coming.

One more thing: If the rapture takes place at the end of the tribulation, is it simultaneous to the Second Coming? If so, that doesn't really make any sense. Why would Christ meet us in the air and take us to Heaven, only to come straight back with us for the Second Coming? The Bible is very clear that the rapture and the Second Coming are two separate events. If they happen one straight after the other, it doesn't really make sense.

We're living in the End Times right now. America is being destroyed from the inside. The globalist and the filthy rich bankers own all corporations, religious, media, food, water, and etc. The UN is the headquarters for One World Government. I'm actually glad to see this discussion because an important topic to talk about. The rich bankers have infiltrated America since the Revolutionary War. 2015 is a BIG year of MASSIVE events unfolding.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" !!

Personally, I don't have any religious beleifs. In the sense of Christianity's Heaven, I cannot answer, but, as for my own beleifs, there is no heaven, only, the transcendance of the soul into a new body.

I wasn't talking about quotes from the book.

I know people who go to Narcotics Anonymous who ACTUALLY, LITERALLY sign 10% of their checks to church.
At least, he did when he was foreman of a construction company.
Stress and life became too much so he no longer donates.

He was talked into it by other NA members who also donated 10% of pay checks to church.
Naturally, I'm aware people do this.

--begin boring explanation--
The practice is an adaptation of the tax system of ancient Israel, where citizens gave 10% of the produce from their farms to the tribe of Levi, who served as civil servants and priests. Catholics adapted the practice, so that they would receive the money, since they saw themselves as the successors of Levi. For the longest time this was an official tax within Catholicism, and unless they've changed in the last few decades, it's still expected to be followed as law. But in most denominations, the church is funded by voluntary donation and 10% is seen as the gold standard of giving to the church.
--end boring explanation--

Honestly, churches are generally some of the best places for a Christian to put their money. Most of it goes to church administration, which someone who goes to church has a vested interest in. Groups like NA often meet in church-owned buildings, so they too have an interest in keeping them in good shape (though I can't say anything about your friend's particular group). But even better, most any church that can afford it has a sizable chunk of their income going to charity.

But my point in quoting Jesus earlier was that paying 10% is the least important of a Christian's duties to God. A Christian ought to give money to their church, yes, but to give out of a sense of obligation, or the impression that one can buy favor with God, is the same as giving nothing. A Christian's responsibility is to be generous, and to foster generosity in others, since we believe it to be a gift from God.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. For whatever it's worth (and I'm sure the desires of a stranger on the Internet aren't worth much) I wish him a life free of stress and addiction.

paying 10% is the least important of a Christian's duties to God

Anonymous groups aren't Christian and don't care.
They abused alcohol and/or drugs so much they just want to buy out their conscience.

Christianity is the perfect conduit for them to grind down their own guilt.

Hmmm....

Hmmm....

Stick to this forum. It's free game here.
Other forums won't tolerate you.

It's funny how people think they can shit on Christians and figure one of two things, either the Christian will leave them alone because they're christian, or they will look like a hypocrite if they get nasty defending themselves. I believe turning the cheek sometimes is warranted, sometimes not. But it's the ones picking on the Christian that appears the animal with no understanding what they're doing. It doesn't bother us in that it's hurting us, and we Christians all understand why. Make fun or attack all you want, we'll pray that the light that covers us will find it's way to you soon!

It's funny how people think they can shit on Christians and figure one of two things, either the Christian will leave them alone because they're christian, or they will look like a hypocrite if they get nasty defending themselves. I believe turning the cheek sometimes is warranted, sometimes not. But it's the ones picking on the Christian that appears the animal with no understanding what they're doing. It doesn't bother us in that it's hurting us, and we Christians all understand why. Make fun or attack all you want, we'll pray that the light that covers us will find it's way to you soon!

That's kinda how I see it when democrats attack republicans

When you show me proof that Jesus (if he actually existed) was more than just some random guy living in the desert in the middle of nowhere in the 1st Century, and somehow he had access to knowledge that even modern scientists don't have access to, then I'll believe. Extraordinary claims (like life after death) require extraordinary evidence, and there hasn't been any in the last 2,000 years since Christianity was created. How Christianity is still a thing after all these years with no proof and plenty of advances in science and other fields that flat-out disprove many significant claims from the Bible baffles me.

---------- Post added at 09:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 AM ----------


It's a common misunderstanding. "In God's image" simply means that we are like God in that we have souls, as opposed to animals who just have spirits and not souls. We are made in God's image in that we have a different consciousness to the animals. Obviously we don't actually physically look like God! Likewise, God doesn't look like a bloke. :P

If Jesus is who He said He is, then I'm very glad He told us that He is the only way. Otherwise we would never know, and we'd all end up in hell. So it is a warning. And as Dicey said, it's also an invitation. He could have said it differently I suppose (For example: "I am the only Way, the real Truth, and the true Life. My substitutionary death is the only way mankind can be forgiven and redeemed."), but the way He said it is still very clear. And concise.

To me, the evidence for God is all around. Irreducible complexity, our ability to comprehend and appreciate concepts like beauty, eternity, life after death, etc. Our very consciousness proves that there is a Master Designer to me. I read an article a couple of days ago about how we aren't really that close to producing artificial intelligence, as the human brain is so infinitely more complex than any man could replicate. And if we, with all our intelligence, cannot create anything even remotely close to the human brain, how insane is it to believe that the human brain came about with no intelligence at all?! I've written an essay on this topic, and read numerous books. It just makes the most sense to me. No other idea/philosophy/religion makes sense.

It's nice to be able to talk about these things in a relaxed environment without any arguments. :)

I don't want to be rude and I certainly don't want to start an argument, but I just thought I'd point out this video to you about irreducible complexity. It always irks me when I hear this phrase used to defend creationism or God in general, when the key component of that concept is a misconception of what evolution is in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0VGXgwqsI8

If you watch the video and want to discuss, I'm all ears. A nice, relaxed conversation about our different viewpoints would be welcome.

---------- Post added at 09:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 AM ----------


I'm...

I think I'm going to follow Tango's idea. Happy new year folks, and I'm out of here because otherwise, posts like this will have the historian in me go fragging bonkers.

Pro-tip though: Allah is technically exactly the same thing as God, just as Yahveh. Don't let the bullshit of muslim extremists cloud what islam truly is. because what's happening these days in Irak, Pakistan or in Mali (to name a few countries) is not islam. it's its exact, complete opposite.

I'm not sure it is wise for me to take part in this discussion, either. I don't personally label myself, but if I had to pick a word that defined my thoughts on religion it would be nonbeliever. In my day-to-day life I'm not constantly thinking about how God does not exist, I'm not trying to disprove anything about religion, I simply don't think about it at all. If I don't encounter something or someone that brings up religion then I don't consider it at all. However, when I do encounter religion or a religious person, then you could call me an anti-theist. I think religion/faith is one of the worst ideas humanity has ever come up with and will always be a source of suffering and division so long as it exists.

As for what is or is not Islam, I would argue that these so-called Islamist extremists are not extremists at all. Suicide bombing may be a new phenomenon, but jihad is not, and is a perfectly legitimate view of the Koran and the hadith. To say that the killing of infidels and apostates is not stated in the Koran and is a misinterpretation is either false or naive. It is also a mainstream view held by at least 20% of Muslims worldwide.

---------- Post added at 09:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------


Oooo, I have to disagree with you there, Amanda. ;)

Survival of the fittest and natural selection are the essential bedrock of evolution, am I right? If God used survival of the fittest and natural selection to create life, then death was around before Adam and Eve sinned. Millions of years before they even existed. So either death is not the consequence of sin (which makes God a liar and the Bible a bunch of lies) or it is, but God introduced it millions of years before the first sin on the assumption that man would sin (which makes God unbelievably unfair)...

Also, during the evolution of man, at what point exactly did the creature cease being an ape-like creature and become a human, made distinctly in the image of God? IT doesn't really add up to what the Bible says...

Just a couple of thoughts...

Exactly. Either the Bible is the literal, word of God, and every single thing it says is true... or it's not. You can't cherry pick. Evolution & creationism are mutually-exclusive and incompatible. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.


Also, here's some info for those of you who believe that evolution doesn't have enough evidence to support it, or that it has missing links, here's a video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sztt70n6geE

---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 AM ----------


Shows what little people know about the word and prophecy. I'm 100% sure for one thing because of a range of facts that I as a Christian asked God to show me and he did, even scientifically. 2 We will not be in Heaven the rest of our lives, only one day, which is 1 thousand years on Earth. After that the New Jerusalem will be placed on the New Sanctified Earth with Evil wiped out. Then we will all have our own land and dwelling on the Earth and gather once a month to feast and praise God at the New City. Heaven and Earth will be one. Our abilities will be beyond what our pea brains can imagine, and the original plan that God had for us will be restored. I know the Bible is hard to understand, especially prophecy, but there is much more out there to learn than most realize! And all has been answered! You just need to get it from the right source.

I'm sorry, but if I'm not mistaking you, did you just claim that you have spoken directly to God? That you have had an actual back-and-forth dialogue?

Well, the same can be said about evolution and the Big Bang. Show me physical evidence that they're not just theories made up by a few scientists.

Well, the same can be said about evolution and the Big Bang. Show me physical evidence that they're not just theories made up by a few scientists.

Here are a few videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oZWacjmYm8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0XFFVEEP-A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcds5Ob59Dg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo


and here are some text sites:

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/
http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

GreyEdwards

Those are what you base Evolution as being a fact on??? LOLOLOLOL! Ask Sheldon how only left handed amino acids formed proteins in an oxygen environment?
The Cells? where did DNA come from? Where did THE INFORMATION COME FROM??? They don't answer these and zillion more Top of The List Questions!!!

GreyEdwards

Those are what you base Evolution as being a fact on??? LOLOLOLOL! Ask Sheldon how only left handed amino acids formed proteins in an oxygen environment?
The Cells? where did DNA come from? Where did THE INFORMATION COME FROM??? They don't answer these and zillion more Top of The List Questions!!!

Exactly. Thank you. :)

GreyEdwards

Those are what you base Evolution as being a fact on??? LOLOLOLOL! Ask Sheldon how only left handed amino acids formed proteins in an oxygen environment?
The Cells? where did DNA come from? Where did THE INFORMATION COME FROM??? They don't answer these and zillion more Top of The List Questions!!!

Does the Bible tell us where DNA comes from? I'm not an expert on evolution or DNA. We may know where it originates from, we may not. But it is incorrect to assume that just because science does not have all of the answers at this point in time that it has nothing of relevance to say on the subject. Unlike religion, which is unchanging, the whole point of science is that if new evidence is discovered that better explains the natural world, it can be tested and experimented on. If it proves to be correct in repeatable exercises, than that will become the new theory on that subject. There is nothing wrong with changing your viewpoint if it is proven to be wrong.

Whereas the Bible gives no evidence whatsoever to support its claims. The Bible can in fact make no claims on the world of science because it was written before there even was the modern scientific method. The only purpose of religion was the explain the world and why things happened in the first place. It was a poor attempt using the very limited knowledge of that era to explain floods and plagues and the night sky or what happens when we die. Since then, humans have devised a new and much more improved way to explain the cosmos, and that is scientific knowledge. While it hasn't answered all of the universe's questions, and most likely never will, it offers a much more complete and provable viewpoint than any religion man has come up with since the dawn of humanity.

Here are a few more links on DNA:

Where does DNA come from and how is it formed? | Ask.com (http://www.ask.com/science/dna-come-formed-8586cf7e99eaf270)
https://richarddawkins.net/2012/08/dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself/
Richard Dawkins: Universal DNA Code Is 'Knockdown' Evidence of Evolution | UVA Today (http://news.virginia.edu/content/richard-dawkins-universal-dna-code-knockdown-evidence-evolution)


You still didn't address most of the points I quoted. Where is the proof that anything the Bible says is true? Even if Jesus existed, where is the proof that he was the Son of God and not just a regular human being making unsubstantiated claims about the laws of the universe? How is irreducible complexity a logical argument against evolution? Are Islamic extremists really extremist at all, or are their beliefs held by the mainstream of believers? Is the entire Bible the literal word of God, or just the parts that don't contradict secular, modern beliefs (like slavery & genocide are bad, homosexuality & adultery are not crimes and should not be punishable bu death, nonbelievers that won't convert should be killed, etc.)? Have any of you (but I'm calling on Spectre specifically) personally spoken to God and had a conversation?

This thread is still going? Damn...

Apologies James P.Sullivan for digging so far back for the following quote, but as GrayEdwards referred to it earlier, I choose to comment on one part of it:


If Jesus is who He said He is, then I'm very glad He told us that He is the only way.

I'm sorry, but someone says that there is only one way, or imply it as such... and then it's taken as a belief... I disagree. There are always multiple paths one can take to their destination. Stating that there's only way to do anything, is a totalitarian outlook and can lead to something else entirely different.


We will not be in Heaven the rest of our lives, only one day, which is 1 thousand years on Earth. After that the New Jerusalem will be placed on the New Sanctified Earth with Evil wiped out.

Evil can not be completely wiped out. There has to be a balance between both Good and Evil, Light and Dark. Saying that Evil will be wiped out completely on the sanctified Earth... Well, I'm sorry but I disagree respectfully. Life is all about balance, and when the pendulum swings to far one way, that's when problems happen. It's all fair to say that in the Bible, God will destroy Evil completely... but without it's counterbalance, Good will stagnate and not grow. Then, the balance will realign and Evil will return in whatever form it so chooses. Good and Evil are primal forces, one can not exist without the other

Yes it does, and so does science. He is revealed in his creation.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard (Ps. 19:1-3).

Just because you don't understand the Bible teachings and Prophecy doesn't
mean that it's not true. And you're skirting the issue that science hasn't proved
evolution, and won't because what you think it will prove has already been debunked
and that crowd is still holding their hands over their ears and eyes to the Truth.
What you're being taught by paid hacks is twisted reality and lies.

I see what's going on now...

Everyone is trolling.
:rofldata: Good one, guys.

Must be. I'm trying to have a serious conversation about this stuff, and no one is actually discussing what they think to me. Scripture is not evidence in and of itself.

I honestly don't have the time to go through and read and watch everything that's been posted here over the last couple of days. But I will say to Mr Edwards that there is tremendous evidence for the authenticity of the Bible as the complete infallible word of God.

As for where DNA comes from - evolutionists don't have an answer. They never will. As simple as that. If someone is so blind to the comprehension of design that they willingly believe that mankind (in all his mind-bendingly incredible complexity) was the result of random, natural, destructive forces then they will never accept the answer of design.

At least we have an answer. And a very credible one at that. It is SO undeniably obvious that we have a designer. And that designer is the only logical explanation, not just of our bodies, minds, DNA, etc, but of the universe itself.

The other thing evolutionists will never have an answer to is the origin of matter. They will never have an answer. Where did energy come from? They will never find an answer outside of eternity. Either they have to believe that matter/energy has always existed for eternity or they have to believe that it spontaneously appeared out of nothing.

I personally find it much more logical to believe in an eternal Creator. I can't think of a more rational explanation.

But at least Mr Edwards and I agree on something. You cannot pick and choose from the Bible. Evolution and the Bible are not (and never will be) compatible. Also, I do believe that the ENTIRE Bible is the word of God. Not just the bits that sound nice. Lots of the Bible is taken out of context and hugely misinterpreted.

Also, to refute the claim that the Bible has nothing scientific in it, how come it managed to predict that the earth was a sphere, not flat, and that it hangs in space and is not resting on anything? That was thousands of years before man discovered that fact. There are many other examples besides. There is also convincing evidence (for those who are not willingly blind) for the existence of Jesus and who He is.

If you are genuinely interested, Mr Edwards and anyone else here, I can direct you to some fantastic material to read and watch.

One last thing - Mr Edwards, we have never 'had a conversation' with God as you are imagining it. But we can communicate with Him through His word, the Bible. We talk to Him in prayer and the Holy Spirit leads and directs us. When we read the Bible, the Holy Spirit opens our mind's eyes to what we are reading so that we understand what God is saying to us through it. I understand this might sound utterly insane to someone like you, but it's the truth. You will never understand it unless you have first come to find faith in what Christ did for you on the cross when He sacrificed His life in place of yours so that you could have the opportunity of forgiveness.

I hope you can see how honest I'm being here. I'm not trolling, and I'm trying to have a serious conversation just like you. I appreciate your desire to have an honest discussion and I hope you'll respect my opinions and not just shout them down. :)

How can the Bible say that the earth is round if it also states that there are four corners, or that there is a place where the earth ends, or that there is a high enough mountain where you can see the entire surface of the earth? At the same time the Bible claims that the earth is a circle, but never that it is round or spherical. Even if it claimed that the earth was a sphere, it still gives no evidence as to how it knows that or proof as to how large it is. The Bible also states that in the end times the stars will fall out of the sky and land on earth. Can you explain to me how that is not a ridiculous statement?

There may very well be evidence that Jesus lived or that the people that compiled the Bible believed that its contents were genuine. But where is the objective proof, beyond opinion, that what the Bible SAYS is true, or that Jesus was nothing more than an ordinary man (that did NOT rise from the dead) that made exaggerated claims about who or what he was to gullible, uneducated people. If someone were to walk up to you, say he was the son of God and give you a book talking about a supernatural being that created the universe, would you believe him? Why is Christianity correct, but not Islam or Mormonism or Scientology? Beyond a person "feeling" that you may have that it feels "right", what proof does Christianity have that those other religions don't?

Or if you were to give, say, a Harry Potter book to someone that was completely uneducated about life or the rules of the universe (and they just happened to be able to read), wouldn't they believe that its contents were true? The point I'm trying to make is that there is no proof outside of the Bible itself or the people that have read it and believe what it says that any claims it makes are genuine.

I'm also not sure that you really read what I said about evolution or science, or watched the videos or gone to the links I have supplied. The people that created them are not lay people that have no business talking about the subject. They are evolutionary biologists that are well versed in the matter and have been doing researched for many decades. When you discount evolution, or claim that it is not supported by fact, where are you getting your information? Are you making these judgments yourself or have you been told this by someone else? If you are saying this, what schooling do you have to have the necessary knowledge to make a statement like that? Have you gone to a college and majored in this subject by someone whose career is based around evolutionary biology? If you learned your information by someone else, were they a well learned scientist on the subject?

Like I said before, even if science does not have the answers now (or, they could be the wrong answers for all we know), the whole point of science is that it is ever the changing. The more we learn, the more we discover, the better our understanding. Science evolves, religion does not.

What I don't like is when people are dishonest about their believes (and they're usually dishonest to themselves, not other people). You cannot be, say, a Christian if there is even one line in the Bible that you think is wrong. If you believe homosexuality is okay, or the genocide of nonbelievers is a bad thing, then you are not a Christian. You are a Christian atheist. All atheism means is the "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". You can be an admirer of Christianity, even follow some of its principles, but to reject even a single line of the Bible is to reject the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent. If the Bible is incorrect about even one solitary fact, that how is it the perfect word of God?

Real Christians are like the Westboro Baptists. If you don't share their beliefs, then you can't be a real Christian.

Moderate Christians (or moderates of any faith) do more harm than good, especially to themselves.

To quote Sam Harris: "Moderates in every faith are obliged to loosely interpret (or simply ignore) much of their canons in the interests of living in the modern world."

I have had conversations on religion before with other believers, friends even, and to my shame I have been disrespectful at times. Name calling has no place in a conversation like this and I will not do so now.

I've already mentioned in earlier sections about a little bit of the science evidence. here is actually more evidence from science pointing towards a creator and none towards evolution. The information is out there, look. If you're happy with what your teachers and the TV has taught you then fine with me. I don't like being made out as someone who believes in fairy tales when I found all the science to back up the Bible and creation. I used to believe in evolution but couldn't find any evidence proving it. I know Scientists whom were Evolutionists that came to the same conclusions. Physics, Microbiology, among others including the evidence of flat mud layers covering the whole planet backing The Flood. Proteins unable to form in water or oxygen, dating of rocks showing millions of years when they had just been formed from a volcano. The scientists came to the conclusion 20 years ago that there is no evidence in the Fossil records of any species turning into another, no links whatsoever. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out you are still being fed the same old concepts that have been proven wrong. You believe whatever makes you feel good, just don't push these outdated debunked Ideas that are absolutely laughable by today's REAL SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE! I WILL NOT BELIEVE WHAT SOME GOVERNMENT PAID HACK IS TRYING TO PUSH ON PEOPLE THAT THE EVOLUTION CROWD EXPECTS ME TO SWALLOW. I CHECKED IT OUT FOR MYSELF, I"M NOT AN IDIOT! I could go on and on about what Quantum Entanglement, Zero Point Energy, the weights and charges of Sub-particles and there true nature, the impossibilities in Micro-biology that can't happen in the conditions that support life that destroys or hampers it from beginning. DNA and the 4 byte coding information that can't happen from random chance. I'm tired of having to explain why you have to have MORE FAITH to believe in Evolution than Creation! So I ask, WHERE'S YOU'RE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION????????????????

It depends on what you mean when you say teachers. More and more new evangelists are trying (and sometimes exceeding) in pushing creationism to be taught in the classroom, and sometimes excluding evolution, especially in places like Texas. So depending on who you are talking to, they may or may not have had a correct education.

How old do you think humans are? Or the Earth? Or even the universe itself? Where did you get your information on this subject? I'm sorry, but there is no real science that backs up anything in the Bible that counters modern knowledge. Even Catholics know that the Bible is not a place you look to for scientific answers. It is full of contradictions about the will and intentions of the creator, but moreover was written in a time when people still died of old age in their 30s because they didn't know enough to wash their hand after they used the bathroom before they ate.

I'm not sure if I want to continue discussing this with you because you are not listening to what I am saying. Or you just don't want to. The point is, there is a disconnect between you and reality. Conspiracy theorists are just like religious people (or sometimes they happen to be one and the same) and choose to take their "information" based on faith and not fact. It would be like arguing the merits of the spherical nature of the world with someone who believed it to be flat. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they'd continue to argue the point like they had a legitimate base to stand on. Or for another example, arguing with a holocaust denier. You simply cannot have a rational discourse with someone who has an opinion like that.

This is why we need to discuss our beliefs in everyday conversation. It should not be a taboo subject. Excluding religion from daily discussion allows it to fester and grow into what we have to deal with today. There is no rational reason why a technologically advanced society that can put people on the moon still has a majority of it population that beliefs that were disproven and relegated to history centuries ago. Why is it not only still acceptable, but mainstream and desired that people share these beliefs? How is faith ("complete trust or confidence in someone or something without proof") a good thing? How is it that ordinarily sane and very intelligent people (scientists, neurosurgeons, etc.) can hold these beliefs and not see the conflict with the work they do every day? This is not a good thing.

Just take a look at the results of a poll done last year:



Believers need to be challenged in daily conversation about their faith. Religion is unacceptable. Yes, this country was founded on freedom of religion. I do not want to change that. People are free to believe what they want so long as they do not harm others or force their religion on others. In reality, though, your private beliefs affect you public actions. If you hold public office, you very well hold beliefs that conflict with secular laws. How is it that a president cannot get elected if they do not invoke God at the end of every speech they make? Don't people remember the separation of church and state that I just talked about? Nonbelievers are attacked all of the time because they want to talk about faith, they want to stop the influence of religion in places where it does not belong (the class, government). The United States was created to be an atheistic government. All that means is that it does not acknowledge the existence or nonexistence of any god(s). It just doesn't have any place in our government. It's the religious right that wants to change this, even though they tout all the time how they are the only "real" Americans and that they want to bring back the values of our Founding Fathers. Well, guess what? Most of them were not in fact Christians but deists, meaning they believed in a God behind the scenes, that did not interact or contact mankind at all. A non-interventionist god.

...a technologically advanced society that can put people on the moon...

I believe it was a brilliant piece of propaganda, that the Soviets bankrupted themselves pouring resources into rockets and other useless machines.

Fucking hell. You don't think humans have ever set foot on the moon? I can't even dignify that with a response. I think that's my cue to exit this conversation.

Fucking hell. You don't think humans have ever set foot on the moon? I can't even dignify that with a response. I think that's my cue to exit this conversation.

Ah, the rage of those who have yet to see Interstellar.

Seriously, Mr Edwards, it was a movie quote. Get over it. :p

Sorry. Must have missed that. I have seen Interstellar (and loved it), but only once and I had forgotten about that scene.

It's hard to read humor when you're only going on text. Moreover, I wasn't expecting humor when I assumed we were trying to have a serious discussion.

All the same, I think I'll just stop here. I don't think our discussion was going anywhere.

This is why we need to discuss our beliefs in everyday conversation. It should not be a taboo subject. Excluding religion from daily discussion allows it to fester and grow into what we have to deal with today. There is no rational reason why a technologically advanced society that can put people on the moon still has a majority of it population that beliefs that were disproven and relegated to history centuries ago.
You keep saying these things, and I really want to agree with you, and then...

Real Christians are like the Westboro Baptists. If you don't share their beliefs, then you can't be a real Christian.
...no? Like, I'm not sure whether this is a "strawman" or a "no true Scotsman" argument, but it's probably both. I don't mean to insult you, but I'm not going to lie to you either: it's pretty bad. And what's worse, it commits you to saying I'm not a real Christian, and that I'm actually an atheist who happens to think some of Jesus' ideas were nice.

I'm perfectly willing to have a rational discussion with you; I've been trying to come up with something to post since yesterday afternoon. It's just that I'm still trying to read all your posts and really understand what you're saying. I think you're right about beliefs needing to be challenged in everyday conversation, because intellectual (and indeed, spiritual) growth arises from open-minded and reasoned discussion. But these discussions require people to oppose each other, and in the wrong minds opposition leads to polarization. When people are polarized against each other they become more and more extreme, and not only do they fail to agree, but they become unable to even understand each other's position. Unless both sides are very determined to know what the other is thinking, real debate can't take place. And that's what I think has been happening here. You've said a couple of times that it baffles you how people can believe what Christians, and especially six-day creationists believe... Actually, I think I've just explained how.

Anyway, about that argument. There seem to be three strands to it:

The Bible states things that have been scientifically disproven, therefore anyone who believes the modern theories isn't a Christian.
The Bible condones things which go against modern, liberal ethics, therefore anyone who has a liberal moral code isn't a Christian.
The Bible is internally inconsistent, therefore, anyone who has logically consistent beliefs isn't a Christian.


I don't have the space or patience to come up with exhaustive responses to all three right now, but I'll try to summarize my basic thoughts:

To the first objection: The Bible does state things that have been disproven. If you read the beginning of Genesis carefully... well I don't want to spoil it for you, but look up the firmament. You'll see. The thing is that no one believes in that kind of universe anymore, yet it's still in there. It's just regarded as a metaphor, rather than a statement of fact, never mind that people thought it was true before the Earth was proven round. Apparently, the revelation that the Earth was actually a sphere wasn't much of a shocker to the ancient Jews.

One other, specific point. The mountain from which the whole world is visible was always metaphorical, and I can prove it. If the world were flat, and there were a such a mountain, what would be the obvious implication? You could see the peak from any point on the earth. But there is no such mountain, and if there was, it would be named in the Bible, therefore either everyone back then was an idiot, or it was a metaphor. We'll disregard any theories like that it appeared and disappeared in a day.

To the second objection: I'll bring up two examples: the genocide of the Canaanites, and the willy-nilly death penalty in the Torah.

All I can say to the first is that the archaeological record shows no evidence of a large-scale slaughter. Also, if it did happen like that, don't go drawing any conclusions about Jews and Christians being required to kill all heathens. The Bible makes it very clear that this was a one time deal, because (1) God promised Abraham the land, and (2) the Canaanites were very bad people. Not that this is a justification, I'm just saying.

The death penalty, though. The death penalty in ancient Israel and Judah was a very grave thing, and the burden of proof was very, very strict. It required two, upstanding, impartial Jews to catch the criminal in the act, and warn them that their crime was a capital offence. And perjury was also a capital offence. Actual executions were incredibly rare. The New Testament, iirc, records 3 convictions, which, statistically speaking, is likely all of them (one was overturned by Jesus saying "let he who is without sin", and another was carried out by the Romans). (edit: I mean all of them during the stories of the Gospels and Acts.) The fact that these crimes had the death penalty was more of a way to show they were serious.

To the third objection: I can't really answer this one without specific examples. All I can say is that the common response is, "it's an error in translation," or "you're taking it out of context."

The underlying problem with all three arguments, though, is just that you seem to be assuming that the strictest possible interpretation of scripture is the only valid one. Specifically that God felt the need, while the various Israelites were writing the Bible, to make them completely infallible about everything: dates, cosmology, the value of pi. And this is easy to knock down, because the Bible claims pi is exactly 3 (that's a joke). Not only that, but also that everything has to be taken literally and according to an interpretation where God is a vengeful, schizophrenic dictator.

And this almost makes sense, too, if you assume that Christians don't actually know God, and that what they really worship is the book they claim is His perfect word. Which is a no-brainer if you're an anti-theist. But Christians can't see it this way, because they've seen (or believe they've seen) God in their lives many times, and they actually know what He's like. Because of this they already know that God is Love, and that the message of the Bible is one of hope and unconditional love for all creation. You're going to see that as delusional, and I can see why you do, but I can't see it that way, and I hope you can understand why.

You... actually left the thread, didn't you. You're not coming back, are you? Great, I just wrote another essay into the void.

All I'm saying is the proof is out there and God placed His work for you to find and understand. If you're having trouble with the physical evidence, then ask a question. Sometimes I don't see what the real question is because most of what people here comment on or ask has been dismissed a long time ago. I've noticed people making statements of proof using Television as a reference, when it's widely known that it is nothing but a Propaganda machine to feed the "Naive" concepts that a select group wants you to believe. People are brainwashed starting at a young age in this world, and the conversations involved to relay the actual facts are going to be coming from different opinions and view points, so I will step out of the way and let the "experts" handle it.

You keep saying these things, and I really want to agree with you, and then...

...no? Like, I'm not sure whether this is a "strawman" or a "no true Scotsman" argument, but it's probably both. I don't mean to insult you, but I'm not going to lie to you either: it's pretty bad. And what's worse, it commits you to saying I'm not a real Christian, and that I'm actually an atheist who happens to think some of Jesus' ideas were nice.

I'm perfectly willing to have a rational discussion with you; I've been trying to come up with something to post since yesterday afternoon. It's just that I'm still trying to read all your posts and really understand what you're saying. I think you're right about beliefs needing to be challenged in everyday conversation, because intellectual (and indeed, spiritual) growth arises from open-minded and reasoned discussion. But these discussions require people to oppose each other, and in the wrong minds opposition leads to polarization. When people are polarized against each other they become more and more extreme, and not only do they fail to agree, but they become unable to even understand each other's position. Unless both sides are very determined to know what the other is thinking, real debate can't take place. And that's what I think has been happening here. You've said a couple of times that it baffles you how people can believe what Christians, and especially six-day creationists believe... Actually, I think I've just explained how.

Anyway, about that argument. There seem to be three strands to it:

The Bible states things that have been scientifically disproven, therefore anyone who believes the modern theories isn't a Christian.
The Bible condones things which go against modern, liberal ethics, therefore anyone who has a liberal moral code isn't a Christian.
The Bible is internally inconsistent, therefore, anyone who has logically consistent beliefs isn't a Christian.


I don't have the space or patience to come up with exhaustive responses to all three right now, but I'll try to summarize my basic thoughts:

To the first objection: The Bible does state things that have been disproven. If you read the beginning of Genesis carefully... well I don't want to spoil it for you, but look up the firmament. You'll see. The thing is that no one believes in that kind of universe anymore, yet it's still in there. It's just regarded as a metaphor, rather than a statement of fact, never mind that people thought it was true before the Earth was proven round. Apparently, the revelation that the Earth was actually a sphere wasn't much of a shocker to the ancient Jews.

One other, specific point. The mountain from which the whole world is visible was always metaphorical, and I can prove it. If the world were flat, and there were a such a mountain, what would be the obvious implication? You could see the peak from any point on the earth. But there is no such mountain, and if there was, it would be named in the Bible, therefore either everyone back then was an idiot, or it was a metaphor. We'll disregard any theories like that it appeared and disappeared in a day.

To the second objection: I'll bring up two examples: the genocide of the Canaanites, and the willy-nilly death penalty in the Torah.

All I can say to the first is that the archaeological record shows no evidence of a large-scale slaughter. Also, if it did happen like that, don't go drawing any conclusions about Jews and Christians being required to kill all heathens. The Bible makes it very clear that this was a one time deal, because (1) God promised Abraham the land, and (2) the Canaanites were very bad people. Not that this is a justification, I'm just saying.

The death penalty, though. The death penalty in ancient Israel and Judah was a very grave thing, and the burden of proof was very, very strict. It required two, upstanding, impartial Jews to catch the criminal in the act, and warn them that their crime was a capital offence. And perjury was also a capital offence. Actual executions were incredibly rare. The New Testament, iirc, records 3 convictions, which, statistically speaking, is likely all of them (one was overturned by Jesus saying "let he who is without sin", and another was carried out by the Romans). The fact that these crimes had the death penalty was more of a way to show they were serious.

To the third objection: I can't really answer this one without specific examples. All I can say is that the common response is, "it's an error in translation," or "you're taking it out of context."

The underlying problem with all three arguments, though, is just that you seem to be assuming that the strictest possible interpretation of scripture is the only valid one. Specifically that God felt the need, while the various Israelites were writing the Bible, to make them completely infallible about everything: dates, cosmology, the value of pi. And this is easy to knock down, because the Bible claims pi is exactly 3 (that's a joke). Not only that, but also that everything has to be taken literally and according to an interpretation where God is a vengeful, schizophrenic dictator.

And this almost makes sense, too, if you assume that Christians don't actually know God, and that what they really worship is the book they claim is His perfect word. Which is a no-brainer if you're an anti-theist. But Christians can't see it this way, because they've seen (or believe they've seen) God in their lives many times, and they actually know what He's like. Because of this they already know that God is Love, and that the message of the Bible is one of hope and unconditional love for all creation. You're going to see that as delusional, and I can see why you do, but I can't see it that way, and I hope you can understand why.

You... actually left the thread, didn't you. You're not coming back, are you? Great, I just wrote another essay into the void.

The problem that all religions share is that we are not in contact with the gods the holy books talk about. So how much of a particular faith is purportedly the word of god, and how much is human interpretation? How can you decide what parts of the Bible are supposed to be taken literally and those parts that are only metaphor? Where does idea of a god of love come from? It certainly isn't from the Bible. And if you agree that it is not from the Bible, then how can a claim like that be true? I guess I'll just flat out say that I don't believe in prayer or that an afterlife is possible without evidence to support it, so if that is what you are talking about I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

With the moderation of religion, with passage after passage that conflicts with modern day knowledge about the universe being seen more as a metaphor than actually, literal truth, how much longer will these books be relevant? To me, if you taken a nonliteral view of the Bible or any holy book, then the deity you are describing can only be a "god of the gaps", whose sole role in life is to explain the as of yet unexplained.

To me, there is just something inherently limp-wristed and cowardly about a moderate believer. A Christian is clearly an atheist toward all other religions of history, even Judaism and Islam. So what makes Christianity the "right" path? I don't deny the possible benefits or even the possibility of a spiritual experience. What I have a problem with is when it gets associated with religion. There is no secular option today to explore spiritual experiences without the trappings of thousand year old texts have outgrown their usefulness. Debating whether these spiritual experience are actually genuine/holy and not just an hallucination is another matter entirely; for now I would just be happy to get away from always lumping these transformative experiences in nonsense.

Most likely the biggest evil of religion, though, is the fact that people are taught to think this way before they have the tools to properly assess information and judge whether it is true or false. If an adult with a proper education opts into religion, that is one thing, but to teach children that what the Bible says is true is child abuse. Being taught misinformation in one's formative years is one of the cruelest things I can imagine. It alters the very base from where all your thoughts lie. Any thought, any idea that person will ever have will come from the foundation of what they learned from the Bible, and it simply is not correct. This inheritance, this legacy of bad information passed done from parent to child is the reason why religion has survived, and it must stop.

I only left the thread because I felt like the conversation was going nowhere. Literalist readers of the Bible always rely on scripture as their main source of evidence, but the Bible is not evidence at all. Discussion is impossible in a situation like that.

The problem that all religions share is that we are not in contact with the gods the holy books talk about. So how much of a particular faith is purportedly the word of god, and how much is human interpretation? How can you decide what parts of the Bible are supposed to be taken literally and those parts that are only metaphor?
And this is precisely the chink in my armor. I don't know how to interpret scripture, I don't know which parts are meant to be taken literally or how the metaphors should be interpreted, and I don't know which manuscripts are the best. My best guess is that the path to understanding involves a lot of research, but also a lot of prayer. Since you said you won't believe in prayer without evidence, and since that evidence can only be given after belief, I doubt you'll like that much.


To me, if you taken a nonliteral view of the Bible or any holy book, then the deity you are describing can only be a "god of the gaps", whose sole role in life is to explain the as of yet unexplained.
I can see that, but this seems to imply that religion is essentially a proto-science, like natural philosophy before physics, alchemy before chemistry, or astrology before astronomy. And if so, it's not a very good one, since at least other proto-sciences gave good arguments. To me, religion gives a different kind of knowledge from science. Science, of all kinds, is about description and prediction: what things are, what they're made of, how they came to be, and what they do. And because of this, science inherits the limitations of description. These limitations are fulfilled by philosophy and religion. One is that it can't talk about things too basic to be described, such as the subjects of epistemology and ontology. Science can study knowledge, in its own way, but that study tacitly depends on its own results. Another limitation of description is that it isn't prescription. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that a scientific ethics is impossible. Positive psychology is no exception. I love PosPsy, and as a guide for how to be happy or what causes humans to seek happiness, it's irresponsible to ignore it. But positive psychologists are unashamed to admit that their pro-happiness agenda is philosophical rather than scientific. Thus, morality must either come from philosophy or religion.

The typical response I get when I explain this idea is that these kinds of questions are meaningless. And no, they can't be described in scientific terms, but I've yet to get an explanation for why they shouldn't still be pursued.


I don't deny the possible benefits or even the possibility of a spiritual experience. What I have a problem with is when it gets associated with religion. There is no secular option today to explore spiritual experiences without the trappings of thousand year old texts have outgrown their usefulness. Debating whether these spiritual experience are actually genuine/holy and not just an hallucination is another matter entirely; for now I would just be happy to get away from always lumping these transformative experiences in nonsense.
Actually, there is a secular option for exploring spirituality, it's just that SBNR is a terrible name.


Most likely the biggest evil of religion, though, is the fact that people are taught to think this way before they have the tools to properly assess information and judge whether it is true or false. If an adult with a proper education opts into religion, that is one thing, but to teach children that what the Bible says is true is child abuse. Being taught misinformation in one's formative years is one of the cruelest things I can imagine. It alters the very base from where all your thoughts lie. Any thought, any idea that person will ever have will come from the foundation of what they learned from the Bible, and it simply is not correct. This inheritance, this legacy of bad information passed done from parent to child is the reason why religion has survived, and it must stop.
Three things: First, it's not as bad as you think. A 2012 survey (http://issi.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/docs/Hout%20et%20al_No%20Relig%20Pref%202012_Release%20 Mar%202013.pdf) found that "while 20 percent of (American) adults currently have no religious preference, only 8 percent were raised without one." Second, everything alters the base of people's thoughts. Children's preconceptions about the world are formed from every shred of mass media, every schoolyard friend, every teacher, and every parent. Suppose that someone has a Christian parent, but that parent doesn't try to raise their child into it. The parent's religion will still shape the child. Maybe even more than if they were raised to be religious, since this way they don't have the experience of being forced to go to church every Sunday. Third, if an adult with a proper education opts into religion, they will likely view it as actually true, and not just as their opinion. Otherwise, why would they have converted in the first place? But it's common sense that children ought to be taught the truth, so unless religion is thought of as a very special not-really-true kind of truth, it doesn't make much sense not to teach it to children.


Literalist readers of the Bible always rely on scripture as their main source of evidence, but the Bible is not evidence at all.
When arguing about scientific matters, I quite agree with you. But there is one case where the Bible is a really good source of evidence ;):

Where does idea of a god of love come from? It certainly isn't from the Bible.
John 3:16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son."
Literally every verse of Psalm 136: "God’s faithful love lasts forever!"
1 John 4:8: "The person who doesn’t love does not know God, because God is love."

And this is precisely the chink in my armor. I don't know how to interpret scripture, I don't know which parts are meant to be taken literally or how the metaphors should be interpreted, and I don't know which manuscripts are the best. My best guess is that the path to understanding involves a lot of research, but also a lot of prayer. Since you said you won't believe in prayer without evidence, and since that evidence can only be given after belief, I doubt you'll like that much.


I can see that, but this seems to imply that religion is essentially a proto-science, like natural philosophy before physics, alchemy before chemistry, or astrology before astronomy. And if so, it's not a very good one, since at least other proto-sciences gave good arguments. To me, religion gives a different kind of knowledge from science. Science, of all kinds, is about description and prediction: what things are, what they're made of, how they came to be, and what they do. And because of this, science inherits the limitations of description. These limitations are fulfilled by philosophy and religion. One is that it can't talk about things too basic to be described, such as the subjects of epistemology and ontology. Science can study knowledge, in its own way, but that study tacitly depends on its own results. Another limitation of description is that it isn't prescription. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that a scientific ethics is impossible. Positive psychology is no exception. I love PosPsy, and as a guide for how to be happy or what causes humans to seek happiness, it's irresponsible to ignore it. But positive psychologists are unashamed to admit that their pro-happiness agenda is philosophical rather than scientific. Thus, morality must either come from philosophy or religion.

The typical response I get when I explain this idea is that these kinds of questions are meaningless. And no, they can't be described in scientific terms, but I've yet to get an explanation for why they shouldn't still be pursued.


Actually, there is a secular option for exploring spirituality, it's just that SBNR is a terrible name.


Three things: First, it's not as bad as you think. A 2012 survey (http://issi.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/docs/Hout%20et%20al_No%20Relig%20Pref%202012_Release%20 Mar%202013.pdf) found that "while 20 percent of (American) adults currently have no religious preference, only 8 percent were raised without one." Second, everything alters the base of people's thoughts. Children's preconceptions about the world are formed from every shred of mass media, every schoolyard friend, every teacher, and every parent. Suppose that someone has a Christian parent, but that parent doesn't try to raise their child into it. The parent's religion will still shape the child. Maybe even more than if they were raised to be religious, since this way they don't have the experience of being forced to go to church every Sunday. Third, if an adult with a proper education opts into religion, they will likely view it as actually true, and not just as their opinion. Otherwise, why would they have converted in the first place? But it's common sense that children ought to be taught the truth, so unless religion is thought of as a very special not-really-true kind of truth, it doesn't make much sense not to teach it to children.


When arguing about scientific matters, I quite agree with you. But there is one case where the Bible is a really good source of evidence ;):

John 3:16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son."
Literally every verse of Psalm 136: "God’s faithful love lasts forever!"
1 John 4:8: "The person who doesn’t love does not know God, because God is love."

So I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about the interpretation of the Bible. I still think any interpretation other than a literal one is intellectually dishonest, and that prayer is only personal mediation on a topic, not any sort of communication with a higher power, but again I don’t think we agree on that.

I think I’m one of the few nonbelievers that actually makes the claim that science can tell us about morality. Sam Harris has written a couple of books on the subject. Science might not know the definitive ins and outs of morals yet, what constitutes good and bad to a certainty, but that doesn’t mean it never will; there just hasn’t been much research put into the subject. We already know some definitive answers, as in regards to health and whether it is right to harm another person. Here are a couple quotes from him to clarify what I mean. If you want to know more, you could try checking out his books or just look on youtube for some of the talks he’s given on the subject.


Much of the skepticism I encounter when speaking about these issues comes from people who think "happiness" is a superficial state of mind and that there are far more important things in life than "being happy." Some readers may think that concepts like "well-being" and "flourishing" are similarly effete. However, I don't know of any better terms with which to signify the most positive states of being to which we can aspire. One of the virtues of thinking about a moral landscape, the heights of which remain to be discovered, is that it frees us from these semantic difficulties. Generally speaking, we need only worry about what it will mean to move "up" as opposed to "down".

Asked: Let's say scientists do end up discovering moral truths. How are they supposed to enforce their findings? Would they become something like policemen or priests?" Harris writes "They wouldn’t necessarily enforce them any more than they enforce their knowledge about human health. What are scientists doing with the knowledge that smoking causes cancer or obesity is bad for your health, or that the common cold is spread by not washing your hands? We’re not living in some Orwellian world where we have scientists in lab coats at every door. Imagine we discovered that there is a best way to teach your children to be compassionate, or to defer short-term gratification in the service of a long-term goal. What if it turns out to be true that calcium intake in the first two years of life has a significant effect on a child’s emotional life? If we learn that, what parent wouldn’t want that knowledge? The fear of a "Brave New World" component to this argument is unfounded."

Here’s also a quote from Leonard Carmichael:


We do not turn aside from what we know about astronomy at any time because there is still a great deal we do not know, or because so much of what we once thought we knew is no longer recognized as true. May not the same argument be accepted in our thinking about ethical and esthetic judgements?

I think you missed my point about having religious parents, though. Yes, 12% of freethinking adults may have come from religious backgrounds, but close to 80% were also raised that way and chose to keep their faith. That’s the problem I am talking about. And to raise another point I made earlier, it is a myth that you can separate personal and public opinions. So if a parent who believed tried to raise their child without obvious religious influence, the parent’s faith would most certainly still influence the child from subconscious everyday attitudes that stem from a religious background. But, there has also been a downward trend in belief for the last few years. More and more young people are not subscribing to any kind of religion. So perhaps all we need to do is to keep spreading knowledge and religion will slowly reduce in size until it is only a minority view.

I don’t think there is much truth to any religion. There may be certain platitudes like “the good samaritan” or things of that nature, but it is nothing special or intrinsic to religion that you cannot get elsewhere. However, there is quite a lot of harm that being taught lies, especially the promise of an afterlife when there is no proof there actually is one, can do to people who believe in it. There was a challenge that Christopher Hitchens would give to any person of faith he debated against: “Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer. The second challenge. Can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?” I think that statement speaks for itself.

Yes, you can find certain verses where God talks about how much he loves the world or the people he created. But there are also many other lines where he preaches violence and intolerance. There’s also the key point that anyone that doesn’t accept Jesus as their savior doesn’t go to heaven. Does that sound like a god of love to you? This is why the Bible is called schizophrenic, and justifiably so.

So I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about the interpretation of the Bible.

I suppose we will. It just seems to me like there's more to take into consideration about an interpretation of the Bible (or any other book for that matter) than whether it's literal or not, before deciding whether it's done in bad faith.


I think I’m one of the few nonbelievers that actually makes the claim that science can tell us about morality. Sam Harris has written a couple of books on the subject. Science might not know the definitive ins and outs of morals yet, what constitutes good and bad to a certainty, but that doesn’t mean it never will; there just hasn’t been much research put into the subject. We already know some definitive answers, as in regards to health and whether it is right to harm another person. Here are a couple quotes from him to clarify what I mean. If you want to know more, you could try checking out his books or just look on youtube for some of the talks he’s given on the subject.

I've been meaning to read some of Sam Harris' stuff. I agree with the quotes you provided, but I don't feel like they solve the fundamental problem with a scientific morality. Harris mentions that science might discover the "best way to teach your children to be compassionate," and I think that's very likely. This is a scientific prediction: children will tend to become compassionate if their parents do such and such. All scientific predictions are in this form: X will tend to Y if Z. And this kind of prediction is very useful if I want X to Y. But if I don't want X to Y, there's no scientific way to say I ought to. One could survey people to discover their underlying ethical principles, which is what descriptive ethics does, but even if every other human on the planet believes it's good for Xs to Y, this can't have any bearing on me if I disagree. Alternatively, one could say that making X Y is desirable because it leads to W, but this only shifts the problem to proving I should want W. Another possibility, and this is the one I'm really afraid of, is that people will just assume that something is good, and never question it. For example, a lot of people nowadays think accumulating wealth is good, and because they don't question that, they shut themselves off from better things. I'm sure you'd be more than eager to substitute religion for wealth, and I would still agree. One can't really appreciate God while their belief is still an invisible background.


Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

Just a bit of forewarning: You can't dismiss the examples I'm about to give just because they aren't part of your morality. After all, you're a non-believer, and the challenge was to come up with statements you wouldn't make. Now that that's out of the way:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength."
"Do not use the Lord your God’s name as if it were of no significance."
"Go and make disciples of all nations."
"Pray without ceasing."


Can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?

I can only assume Hitchens used to ask this question just to get applause out of the atheist members of his audience, and not as a serious argument. I mean, let's compare it with another kind of belief with a similarly massive role in human culture, like politics. If we compare the number of evil deeds associated with each, it's almost ludicrous how much more vile politics is. But a lot of political actions throughout history have tried to use religion as a pretense (e.g. the Crusades). For the sake of argument, let's put those aside as too ambiguous. It's still not a contest! In fact, consider any group with a similar size to religious people -- I guarantee they say and do at least as many evil things. The problem here is with human nature -- religion is just being used as a scapegoat.


Yes, you can find certain verses where God talks about how much he loves the world or the people he created. But there are also many other lines where he preaches violence and intolerance.

Maybe... There are a few places where God seems to go to far, mostly in the first few books of the Bible, but I can't think of anything like preaching. I assume by preaching you mean God is laying something out as a law or a moral principle or something.


There’s also the key point that anyone that doesn’t accept Jesus as their savior doesn’t go to heaven. Does that sound like a god of love to you?

It kind of does, actually. None of us did anything to deserve life, much less eternal life in heaven. And yet God gave us the first, and offers the second, free of charge. It seems kind of ungrateful to complain just because he won't give it to everyone. Besides, I don't think you would want to spend eternity with God, anyway.

Oh boy. So much has gone on here! I do apologise for being absent, but I seriously don't have time to go through all the previous posts in-depth. I did skim-read them, though, and here's what I have to say (for what it's worth):

Regarding Objection 1: I actually do believe that the Bible is infallible. That means that there is nothing in the Bible that has been 'disproven'. What InfamousStar mentioned about the firmament can easily be explained: The firmament was a thick layer of water vapour that surrounded the earth at the time of creation all the way up to the Flood. It filtered out the harmful radiation from space and the sun, and produced a greenhouse effect all over the planet, making consistent temperatures everywhere. It also prevented air-mass accumulations and the resulting rainfall. This is why, in Genesis chapter 2, verse 6, it says: "...a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." There was no need for rain. When the Flood took place, the Bible says the "windows of Heaven" were opened along with the "fountains of the deep", the former being the layer of water vapour above the earth and the latter being great reserves of water under the earth's crust. After the Flood, the environment had changed incredibly dramatically with the firmament gone. This resulted in the subsequent ice age and the extinction of many animals, including the dinosaurs. No comet/asteroid from space was needed. This was also why we don't all live to 900 years old anymore. Man's age decreased rapidly after the flood (we can tell from the genealogies provided in Genesis) due to a lot of the protection we had from radiation disappearing with the destruction of the firmament.

Regarding Objection 2 (the death of the Canaanites, etc.): This is taken out of context so very badly so much of the time. When read in context, you will discover that these nations were abominably wicked. Their practices were abhorrent to God. They included such things as infant sacrifices at times of crisis for personal prosperity, and 'religious prostitution' through public, immoral sex-acts performed by the priests and priestesses, supposedly thought to encourage their gods Baal and Asherah to join together. In order for these practices to be wiped out, God ordered the nations to be wiped out completely. Every person.

This may sound unfair on all those who were may have been 'innocent' of such practices (if such people existed), but take a moment to think. 1) According to Scripture, death is not the end. 2) Later in Genesis, Abraham says "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" in regard to the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. In that instance, God said he would spare the cities from destruction even if there were only ten righteous people in them. Taking these two points, we can rightly conclude that any of the Canaanites who may have been righteous/innocent of the evil practices of their nation were not sent to eternal separation from God after they died. However, these drastic measures were necessary to prevent the evil practices from being passed on to the Israelites, who were meant to be an example to the world of a nation ruled and lead by the one true God.

What InfamousStar said about the death penalty was sufficient. It was placed there to show just how serious those specific sins were to God. Don't forget - God is holy. He cannot stand sin in any way, shape, or form. We as the human race are so very blessed that we have not all been wiped out by His righteous anger by now. God is indeed merciful and patient towards us. In 1 Peter 3:9, we read that God "...is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

Regarding Objection 3 (internal inconsistencies, etc.): I believe there are none. As the infallible Word of God, there cannot be any. I believe that the Bible was written by men, yes, but that they were inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:21 tells us this: "...for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Remember, prophecy can be defined as "something that is declared by a prophet, especially a divinely inspired prediction, instruction, or exhortation." Therefore, the word prophecy here refers to the whole of Scripture, not just predictions about future events.

If you are aware of any inconsistencies, do let me know and I'll try to answer them for you. :)

Ok, time for breakfast.

Looks like some good discussion going on.

Nice... being accused of trolling when all I was offering was another view. Guess I'll be accused of trolling for this:


I actually do believe that the Bible is infallible; the infallible Word of God

True... while the word of God is infallible... Man's interpretation isn't.

I should've stuck with my instincts earlier. The conversation is going in circles. The only topic worth talking about is the authenticity of the Bible and whether it is enough to act as the foundation for a religion. I think there is no proof to back up the claims that the Bible (which is only a book) makes, while you guys obviously disagree. Arguing minutiae about certain passages in said book doesn't accomplish anything. There's a chasm between our viewpoints that is simply not crossable.

Been nice chatting with you, though.

So by that statement you could also question if the Quran is enough to act as a foundation for a religion

*waits for an onslaught / attack from Muslims*

I should've stuck with my instincts earlier. The conversation is going in circles. The only topic worth talking about is the authenticity of the Bible and whether it is enough to act as the foundation for a religion. I think there is no proof to back up the claims that the Bible (which is only a book) makes, while you guys obviously disagree. Arguing minutiae about certain passages in said book doesn't accomplish anything. There's a chasm between our viewpoints that is simply not crossable.

Been nice chatting with you, though.

---------- Post added at 09:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 AM ----------

I should've stuck with my instincts earlier. The conversation is going in circles. The only topic worth talking about is the authenticity of the Bible and whether it is enough to act as the foundation for a religion. I think there is no proof to back up the claims that the Bible (which is only a book) makes, while you guys obviously disagree. Arguing minutiae about certain passages in said book doesn't accomplish anything. There's a chasm between our viewpoints that is simply not crossable.

Been nice chatting with you, though.

There is tons of evidence to back up the Bible. What about the Bible do you believe isn't true? The Historicity of Jesus is well Documented by the Historians of His day.

There is tons of evidence to back up the Bible. What about the Bible do you believe isn't true? .

for me, it is not a question of "the bible" being black and white, either true or false.
For me, a relevant spiritual document contains truths as well as tools (expressions) of power structure and belief systems based on that time, or the periods of time they were developed/written, things that were thought to be needed, interpreted and changed, for books/papers/papyrus usually are written by humans, and humans are part of a society structure, a family, a system.

For me, personally, no offense to any other belief, there is no religion (most likely in the universe) that can claim to be the only true religion. It can well be the only true religion for an individual being, in the sense of that religion being the only one making sense for that being.

In other words:
the bible (as in: christianity maybe) is as true or false as any other of the basic religions.
They all have a right of existence.
They all make sense in their own way.

Sorry, I could not resist getting involved once more.

for me, it is not a question of "the bible" being black and white, either true or false.
For me, a relevant spiritual document contains truths as well as tools (expressions) of power structure and belief systems based on that time, or the periods of time they were developed/written, things that were thought to be needed, interpreted and changed, for books/papers/papyrus usually are written by humans, and humans are part of a society structure, a family, a system.

For me, personally, no offense to any other belief, there is no religion (most likely in the universe) that can claim to be the only true religion. It can well be the only true religion for an individual being, in the sense of that religion being the only one making sense for that being.

In other words:
the bible (as in: christianity maybe) is as true or false as any other of the basic religions.
They all have a right of existence.
They all make sense in their own way.

I see where you're coming from... but surely there can only be one truth? For example, true Islam and true Christianity (as opposed to watered-down versions of both for politically correct 'reasons') cannot both be true. They are so radically different.

---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 AM ----------


Sorry, I could not resist getting involved once more.

:awsm:

I see where you're coming from... but surely there can only be one truth? For example, true Islam and true Christianity (as opposed to watered-down versions of both for politically correct 'reasons') cannot both be true. They are so radically different

why not?
just because for our perception they are too radically different?

Imagine truth being an elephant.
Christianity catches a part of the truth, say, one leg, and describes what they see is the truth.
Other religions grab another part of the truth (another body part of the elephant, radically different for example: the tail) and describe theirs.
They are both right.

remember the asian saying:
there are always at least 3 dimensions of truth.
The one dimension I do not see, the one you do not see, the one we both do not see.

Again, I see your point of view, but I don't think it works like that. Example: Christians believe Jesus was God in human form and that He died and rose again from the dead. Muslims believe that Jesus was just a man and that He did not die or rise from the dead. The two opinions are completely opposed to each other. Other people don't believe Jesus even existed. You can't lump these vastly different opinions together as different dimensions of truth. Either Jesus existed or He didn't. If He existed, He was either God Himself or just an ordinary man (who lied about who He was). If He existed, He either died or He didn't. If He died, He either rose from the dead or He didn't. See what I mean?

@James

I see what you mean, it is just, I do not think like that.
But I know well lots of people tend to think in either-or-dimensions.

:)
that is ok for me. I will withdraw again.

@James

I see what you mean, it is just, I do not think like that.
But I know well lots of people tend to think in either-or-dimensions.

:)
that is ok for me. I will withdraw again.

Ok... :)

Again, I see your point of view, but I don't think it works like that. Example: Christians believe Jesus was God in human form and that He died and rose again from the dead. Muslims believe that Jesus was just a man and that He did not die or rise from the dead. The two opinions are completely opposed to each other. Other people don't believe Jesus even existed. You can't lump these vastly different opinions together as different dimensions of truth. Either Jesus existed or He didn't. If He existed, He was either God Himself or just an ordinary man (who lied about who He was). If He existed, He either died or He didn't. If He died, He either rose from the dead or He didn't. See what I mean?

100% True! Well put!

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet and vote in the poll.

Nice... being accused of trolling when all I was offering was another view. Guess I'll be accused of trolling for this:



True... while the word of God is infallible... Man's interpretation isn't.

True

---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

Please take the time to read this first post and vote in the poll if you haven't yet.

Rather than let this thread become an endless series of bumps, I want to bring up a couple of unresolved questions I had about an earlier post.


There are always multiple paths one can take to their destination. Stating that there's only way to do anything, is a totalitarian outlook and can lead to something else entirely different.
Indeed, there are always multiple paths to one's destination. The king of a castle says, "we are safe from invaders, since the only way into this fortress is the gate." But an enemy general may send in troops by ascending the walls or knocking them down or tunneling under them. But I view the Way to the Father as less like getting to a destination, and more like running a race. It might be possible to get to the finish line without following the track, but that isn't the same as finishing the race.


Evil can not be completely wiped out. There has to be a balance between both Good and Evil, Light and Dark. Saying that Evil will be wiped out completely on the sanctified Earth... Well, I'm sorry but I disagree respectfully. Life is all about balance, and when the pendulum swings to far one way, that's when problems happen. It's all fair to say that in the Bible, God will destroy Evil completely... but without it's counterbalance, Good will stagnate and not grow. Then, the balance will realign and Evil will return in whatever form it so chooses. Good and Evil are primal forces, one can not exist without the other
This is an interesting idea, but it confuses me. What are Good and Evil, according to you?

...i fall for it again.

I so agree with Darth.

You cannot have light without shadow, you can only understand "warm" when you have a concept (and experience with) of "cold".
if i try to forget the name of it (good and evil being morally judged good and bad) and just see two different concepts that have the ability to complement each other.

if "evil" COULD be deleted, good would loose its meaning as well, with time, in my opinion (and you are free to disagree)
Just like constantly/eternally being "happy" is not possible without "happy" experiencing an inflation downwards.

We never learn because of our goodness or happyness. We learn because of the other sides. So in the long run being eternally good would mean losing my ability to learn, my curiosity, because there seems to be no need to learn and be curious, because all is well, and everybody is good. we do not need think, to learn, to change. Not my kind of paradise. Sorry.
I need my inner evils, my sorrows, my fears.
Actually I think humanity does.
Evil is just the other side of good. You cannot delete one without the other.
We perceive input and try to define it with the help of the opposite. Our brain does. If I say "black" one of the next words (not automatically THE next) people think of is "white", in order to process the input "black".
But as I said, you are free to disagree.

... not having followed this thread:

What is the only thing that allows us to learn from our mistakes - Time. If we instantly knew the consequences of every choice we made, we would always chose the best option. And not learn a thing... (then there is the matter of WHAT the best option is, not the same for everyone)

Of course we have good AND evil within ourselves (to a varying degree). It's what we make of it that matters. We always have a choice in that matter, but we always have to face the consequences as well.

And for that matter (speaking of heaven and hell), Heaven is only Heaven for those that want to get there, just as Hell is only Hell for those that don't want to get there. The interesting question following that then is - Where do you stand? ;)

True

---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

Please take the time to read this first post and vote in the poll if you haven't yet.

... I already have read, but not voted. I choose not to vote.


Rather than let this thread become an endless series of bumps, I want to bring up a couple of unresolved questions I had about an earlier post.

So far, you're only one of a couple of people here InfamousStar, who has decided to address that post of mine and not label it as 'trollish'. Hence, you have my undivided attention.


Indeed, there are always multiple paths to one's destination. The king of a castle says, "we are safe from invaders, since the only way into this fortress is the gate." But an enemy general may send in troops by ascending the walls or knocking them down or tunneling under them. But I view the Way to the Father as less like getting to a destination, and more like running a race. It might be possible to get to the finish line without following the track, but that isn't the same as finishing the race.

Life is all about journey, no matter the outcome. People seem to be so caught up on the destination, that they ignore the journey itself. Yes the 'Way to the Father' is a ultimate goal for some, but they ignore everything else to get there. There are ALWAYS other avenues to be taken to reach the same destination, just don't be blinded into following one set path. If you believe, truly believe, in your Heart... that's all that matters, yes?


This is an interesting idea, but it confuses me. What are Good and Evil, according to you?

I can ask you, 'What are Good and Evil to you?' We all have different aspects of these forces and they differ from one to the other. True, there are some which are set in stone (murder etc), but then there's lesser goods and evils... the ones which fall into the murky 'grey areas'. These are just as important and quite often overlooked by others. There will be times where one may have to perform an act of necessary evil to achieve a greater outcome of 'good'. Ends justify the means, in other words. However, to say that the Father will wipe out ALL Evil... what's left? Nothing. As I said before, Good and Evil, Light and Dark, are two opposing primal forces and have been in existence since time immemorial. One can not exist without the other, as neither can grow without a counter balance.

Good and Evil, ultimately, are up to each individual to decide and believe. Some may say that there are set categories for each... but for one person's act of ultimate evil, can also be seen by the opposing as vice versa.


...i fall for it again.

I so agree with Darth.

You cannot have light without shadow, you can only understand "warm" when you have a concept (and experience with) of "cold".
if i try to forget the name of it (good and evil being morally judged good and bad) and just see two different concepts that have the ability to complement each other.

if "evil" COULD be deleted, good would loose its meaning as well, with time, in my opinion (and you are free to disagree)
Just like constantly/eternally being "happy" is not possible without "happy" experiencing an inflation downwards.

We never learn because of our goodness or happyness. We learn because of the other sides. So in the long run being eternally good would mean losing my ability to learn, my curiosity, because there seems to be no need to learn and be curious, because all is well, and everybody is good. we do not need think, to learn, to change. Not my kind of paradise. Sorry.
I need my inner evils, my sorrows, my fears.
Actually I think humanity does.
Evil is just the other side of good. You cannot delete one without the other.
We perceive input and try to define it with the help of the opposite. Our brain does. If I say "black" one of the next words (not automatically THE next) people think of is "white", in order to process the input "black".
But as I said, you are free to disagree.

Heh heh, we seem to think alike more and more sorei...

...i fall for it again.
I know, I keep doing that too.


We never learn because of our goodness or happyness. We learn because of the other sides. So in the long run being eternally good would mean losing my ability to learn, my curiosity, because there seems to be no need to learn and be curious, because all is well, and everybody is good. we do not need think, to learn, to change. Not my kind of paradise. Sorry.
I need my inner evils, my sorrows, my fears.
Actually I think humanity does.
I understand that feeling. I imagine God before the universe began: like an infinite expanse of light, or a face of pure bliss. There's nothing for God to improve, no reason for him to do anything, yet he creates the universe. Then I think of humanity. Surely God knew from the beginning that we would sin against him, that both we and he would end up suffering and dying. I wonder why he would make things the way they are. He must be getting something out of it, since in the beginning, there was no one else to be concerned about. And we must be getting something out of it, since it's well known that God loves humanity.

As to what God gets out of it, I can't even guess, other than to say that he's inherently creative. As with all other true statements about God, this isn't really saying anything. In the Christian perspective, goodness is measured by its similarity to God. But whatever God is, he isn't stagnant, so I suppose good can't be either.

As to what we get: why not simply shortcut us to Heaven? Why bother giving us mortal lives at all? Perhaps because we must choose to follow him of our own free will. But that can't be all. That explains why we are able to sin -- to rebel against God's will -- but not why we have such a propensity for it, or why our sin causes other people to suffer. I can only suppose that we are benefited by our sins and sufferings, and that God allows them for this purpose.

To those who haven't yet, please take the time to read this first post and vote in the poll.

I have listed verses if you would have read you would have seen them. Here they are again. I didn't say that I was so smart, I just can't stand legalism. I was abused by people like that for years and now, I WILL expose the truth to people. They deserve to know.

First of all, no where in the bible does it say that it is a SIN to drink in moderation. That's proof enough, but here are some other verses:

Pr 31:6 (NKJV) Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to those who are bitter of heart.

If it were a sin, why would God tell them to give strong drink to the dying and wine to the bitter?

1Ti 5:23 (NKJV) No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities.

It was prescribed as a medicine to Timothy.

Eph 5:18 (MKJV) And do not be drunk with wine, in which is excess, but be filled with the Spirit,

Basically it's saying not to be drunk, because it's excess. It is a warning against drunkeness.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; {of good...: or, modest} Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

A pastor shouldn't drink at all.

1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

Deacons can drink wine, but not in excess...not a drunkard as a deacon. If it's grape juice as some baptists claim, why would He care how much they drank? Grape juice doesn't get people drunk.

Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; {holiness: or, holy women} {false...: or, one who foments strife}
(KJV)

The aged women are permitted to drink in moderation as well. Only a pastor, or an elder is forbidden.


Mt 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

John the baptist didn't drink alcohol because he was a nazarite. They were forbidden to do certain things that were not necessarily sins. If it was a sin to drink alcohol, why would God command John, as a special vow, not to drink it? If that were the case, then it would already be expected.

Mt 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Jesus drank wine. They called Him a winebibber. They couldn't call Him a winebibber (lush) if He didn't drink wine with alcohol in it.

They offered wine unto the Lord for a drink offering in the old testiment:

Ex 29:40 And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering



Nu 6:20 And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine. This is the law of the Nazarite who hath vowed, and of his offering unto the LORD for his separation, beside that that his hand shall get: according to the vow which he vowed, so he must do after the law of his separation.


Here are some more verses that show that there were wine offerings under the law:

Nu 15:10 And thou shalt bring for a drink offering half an hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

Nu 28:7 And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.

Nu 28:14 And their drink offerings shall be half an hin of wine unto a bullock, and the third part of an hin unto a ram, and a fourth part of an hin unto a lamb: this is the burnt offering of every month throughout the months of the year.


Anyways, I could keep going but I think I have proven my point to you. Now show me where it actually says not to drink.

Annnnd burn

Darth Revan, I'm sorry I didn't reply to your post earlier, but somehow I didn't notice there was a 10th page to this thread. Unfortunately, your post didn't clear up my confusion about your views. Let me try to explain what I'm uncertain about:

Life is all about balance, and when the pendulum swings to far one way, that's when problems happen.

without it's counterbalance, Good will stagnate and not grow.
or as sorei said,

We never learn because of our goodness or happyness. We learn because of the other sides. So in the long run being eternally good would mean losing my ability to learn, my curiosity, because there seems to be no need to learn and be curious, because all is well, and everybody is good. we do not need think, to learn, to change.
It seems to me that to call something 'good' is essentially the same as saying it 'should be'. But you and sorei keep saying that good should be balanced. To me, that implies that either balance itself is a good or that it leads to something good (e.g. avoiding problems, growing, learning). That's why I asked what Good and Evil are -- I think you're using a different definition.

Of course, your point works. Without challenges, we are incapable of personal growth. We (at least the mature among us) cherish our sorrows as well as our joys, recognizing that they made us what we are. I like to quote James, the brother of Jesus, on this, "My brothers and sisters, think of the various tests you encounter as occasions for joy. After all, you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance. Let this endurance complete its work so that you may be fully mature, complete, and lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4, CEB) But I maintain that evil is only justified insofar as it brings about a greater good. You give a similar statement:


There will be times where one may have to perform an act of necessary evil to achieve a greater outcome of 'good'. Ends justify the means, in other words.

This is a bit of a detour, I realize, but I believe that we can mean two different things by 'necessary evil'. The evil may have weak necessity, and most evils we're forced to commit in our lives are necessary in this way. Suppose you must either kill one person or allow a hundred to die. This is the so-called trolley problem in ethics. But when this problem is explained, listeners are quick to point out solutions that allow everyone to survive, and the teller has to point out that for the sake of the problem, we have to pretend there is no third option. Life isn't this way. Whatever we choose, we can never be sure that there isn't something we could have done better, and so even if we achieve the greater good, we've still committed a lesser evil.

But there is also strong necessity. It's difficult to come up with examples of necessary evils like this. Perhaps an example would be those sorrows that build us up. Sorrow ought to be avoided, all else being equal, so it must be an evil. But we prefer sorrow when it leads to wisdom, thus wisdom is a greater good. But the connection is more than just causation. We can imagine ourselves with the same wisdom gained through less painful means, but we can each truthfully say, "That person is not me."


Life is all about journey, no matter the outcome. People seem to be so caught up on the destination, that they ignore the journey itself. Yes the 'Way to the Father' is a ultimate goal for some, but they ignore everything else to get there. There are ALWAYS other avenues to be taken to reach the same destination, just don't be blinded into following one set path. If you believe, truly believe, in your Heart... that's all that matters, yes?

Some people get way too caught up in the destination to get anything useful done on the path there. I feel it's also a mistake to get too distracted by the sights to have a clear idea where one is going. A journey consists of the trip itself (this is what a journey is), but it aims toward a destination, which is what distinguishes it from wandering. It's kind of a sad life which has no particular goal, but just wavers between this and that, don't you think?

I think of our lives as being strongly necessary to reach Heaven, which is what I meant by the race analogy. In this sense, Heaven is more like a state of being, than a destination. This also means that, strictly speaking, there is only one way for each of us to reach Heaven, which is (or if the future isn't set, will have been) our own life. That said, I must admit absolute ignorance as to which lives end in sainthood, and which don't. From my vantage point, it's quite possible both that everyone is saved, and that no one is. I don't even want to find out before the judgement day, because the judgement is in the hands of God, in whom I trust. All I can say is that I want my own life to follow the Way.

The Way to the Father isn't in Heaven, but in this life. It's not only a good for the sake of its destination, but for its own sake. Some would think it sad, the poor monk who turned their back on the things of this world, if it happened that they never reached Heaven. But I disagree: that monk found solace in their God, and spent their life pleasing the one whom they loved. Even if there were no God, they would still surely have lived the most blessed of lives.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Thanking God for this beautiful day....

...and all our other many, many blessings besides. :)

For sure!

Jesus Christ IS God

There are some religions out there that believe and teach that Jesus Christ is not God. Some teach that He is a god, but not thee God. I am going to demonstrate through the word of God that He is God and created all things.

Jesus’s name “Immanuel” LITERALLY means “God with us”

Mt 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."

Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

He always existed (from everlasting):

Mic 5:2 (NKJV) "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, [Though] you are little among the thousands of Judah, [Yet] out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth [are] from of old, From everlasting."

This prophecy is of Christ's first comming. His Goings forth have been from everlasting because Christ Jesus is God.

Jesus Christ is one with the Father. He is God.

Joh 14:8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one God:

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Jesus declares Himself to be the great I AM of the Old Testiment. I AM is God's Name

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

I am IS God. There is only one God. That God has three parts.

Ex 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

His Disciple/Apostle Peter Admits that Jesus knows “All things” (Only God knows all things)

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.

In Him Dwells all of the fullness of the Godhead Bodily:

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. {rudiments: or, elements} {make a prey: or, seduce you, or, lead you astray} For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: {his...: Gr. the Son of his love}
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. {in...: or, among all} 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;


God's plurality is found in Genesis

Ge 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

His Disciple/Apostle Thomas Confessed Him to be God and Jesus did NOT rebuke Him for it:

Joh 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

This verse demonstrates how God has multiple aspects. He said Let “US” make man in “OUR” image. He didn’t say, let me make man in My image, He said let US make man is OUR image.

His Apostle/Disciple John declares Christ Jesus to be God:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

His Apostle/Disciple John declares that the world was made by Him (Jesus Christ)

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

All things were made by Him and He was in the beginning with God (Father)

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

There are MANY places where He is worshipped and Jesus NEVER tells them not to worship Him, NOT once. Only God is to be worshipped, because Jesus IS God, Jesus IS worshipped:

Mt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. {presented: or, offered}
Mt 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
Mt 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
Mt 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Mt 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Mt 18:26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. {worshipped him: or, besought him}
Mt 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Mt 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Mr 5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
Mr 15:19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
Lu 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
Joh 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
Ac 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Re 5:14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

Scripture refers to Him as the Lord, Jesus Christ. The phrase "The Lord" is unique only to God:

Here are a few mentioning "The Lord Your God"

De 5:6 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. {bondage: Heb. servants}

De 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

De 5:11 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

De 5:12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.


Here are many calling Him Jesus Christ, The Lord.

Ac 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

Ac 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Ac 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Ac 28:31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Ro 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ro 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Ro 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me;

1Co 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

2Co 1:2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. <<The second [epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.]>>

Eph 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Php 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: {conversation...: or, we live or conduct ourselves as citizens of heaven, or, for obtaining heaven}

Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


Conclusion: Jesus Christ is God. Not a God but the God of the bible. God has three parts. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All are equal, yet the Son is submissive to the Father and the Holy Spirit is submissive to the Son. Jesus Christ was an EXAMPLE for us. He died on the cross for our sins so that we could go to heaven and be forgiven of our sins. He shed His blood for us.

Are you getting paid by the word? Or in this case, The Word?

Wow, that was long!! But I agree completely. :)

I'm bribing my past the pearlies. Saint Peter is a sucker for a good Jesus and Moses joke.

Are you getting paid by the word? Or in this case, The Word?

It is my ministry to spread the gospel to the masses.

It is my ministry to spread the gospel to the masses.

That religion is the opiate of.

Jesus fucking Christ, this thread....

Jesus fucking Christ, this thread....

Is still going on. Can't understand why. or how.

"Some like it hot, and some not"

is that an appropriate joke?

And actually there is no Hell as many think. Hell is actually the grave. So if you're expecting a big party in hell? good luck with that one, would get crowded real fast.

Well, you go the Heaven for comfort, Hell for good conversation.

Hell is most definitely not the grave, and it is certainly not a place for good conversation. Jesus spoke more about hell than he did about heaven. It is a very real place, and is repeatedly referred to as a lake of fire. If hell didn't exist, why would Jesus have spoken so much about it, and why is it given such descriptions? The Bible warns us of hell and tells us of the wonderful way that we can escape that inevitable fate.

Well, you go the Heaven for comfort, Hell for good conversation.

and let's not forget the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That's right. Because good intentions will never do any good for us ultimately. We can never be good enough to escape hell, which is why God Himself stepped in and became one of us to live a substitutional perfect life in place of our failed lives. And because He took on Himself the punishment we all deserve, we can now be forgiven on account of what He has done for us. :)