Deconstructing from Fundamental Christianity

62,410 Views | 1255 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by TexasScientist
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
joseywales said:

Well I would say it is hard for most people to overcome a belief system. I just realized all man's religion was invented by man and had nothing to do with a higher power. If people could easily change their belief system religion would be gone because they would be able to accept the obvious facts that we know today.

And what of those who came to their faith in Christ later in life?
joseywales
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think they could more easily change their mind that those of us who were grounded in a religious belief system from an early age. My experience has been if you start to talk to someone about all the reasons their religion might not be true they immediately defend their positions with the propaganda they have been taught or learned later in life. People love to hear what they believe whether it is true or not. Our entire political ad campaigns and news feed off of that fact.

I don't try to change anyone's mind, it is useless I just try to share my experience why I went from a belief system way of looking at the world and went to seeing the world as it actually is.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
joseywales said:

Well I would say it is hard for most people to overcome a belief system. I just realized all man's religion was invented by man and had nothing to do with a higher power. If people could easily change their belief system religion would be gone because they would be able to accept the obvious facts that we know today.
There are many who look at these "obvious facts" and come to a very different conclusion than you did, and become believers in Christianity.

Looking at your previous long post, it's notable that it was edited SEVEN times, yet there are still many misspellings and grammatical errors. Might it be possible that, in likewise fashion, you went back and "edited" your original belief system to what it is now, yet it is still in error?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
joseywales said:

I think they could more easily change their mind that those of us who were grounded in a religious belief system from an early age. My experience has been if you start to talk to someone about all the reasons their religion might not be true they immediately defend their positions with the propaganda they have been taught or learned later in life. People love to hear what they believe whether it is true or not. Our entire political ad campaigns and news feed off of that fact.

I don't try to change anyone's mind, it is useless I just try to share my experience why I went from a belief system way of looking at the world and went to seeing the world as it actually is.

Isn't it possible, at least with regard to Christians, that their defense was correct, and your argument against their belief was faulty or false?

Your problem is your arrogance and certainty in your own conclusions about the "world as it actually is", which may be wrong. And not just certainty in the conclusions, but also certainty in your understanding of the "obvious facts we know today" upon which your conclusions are based.

Why don't we test this out? Give your BEST example of an "obvious fact we know today" that you believe falsifies Christianity.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
joseywales said:

Well I would say it is hard for most people to overcome a belief system. I just realized all man's religion was invented by man and had nothing to do with a higher power. If people could easily change their belief system religion would be gone because they would be able to accept the obvious facts that we know today.

If you are not in the "most", that makes you somewhat rare, almost exclusive then, does it not?
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:


Quote:

I'm referring to the several cosmological constants that appear to be fine-tuned. I would have assumed a scientist would have looked into this long ago.
I would assume you would have known that it is the cosmological constants that allow for the plausibility of a spontaneous universe.

The implausibility of the universe arising with the specific set of 26+ universal constants that are each exquisitely set to a unfathomably precise value that allows for life in our universe is SO, SO great, even virtually impossible, that it led some of the world's most eminent scientists to consider that a mind might be behind the universe.

These eminent scientists are far, far, far more intelligent and knowledgeable than you. You either don't know what you're talking about and are just blowing smoke just to save face, or you think you are smarter than these scientists, which is a complete joke.
Wouldn't it be surprising to find ourselves living in a universe impossible for life? That would be a miracle. Clearly this universe was not created or designed for the purpose of life. In spite of the hostility to carbon based life, there are a few places where carbon based life can exist. If you wanted to create a universe for the purpose of life, some of the constants could and would be 'fine tuned' to be even better suited for life than those we observe - yielding a universe even more conducive to carbon based life forms. Life has evolved or fine tuned itself to thrive in a temporary permissive yet overall hostile environment.

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views. Ken Ham's organizations are not made up of "eminent" scientists. There are a few "eminent" scientists seeking to capitalize on the gullible religious. Those truly eminent few, who want to believe in or allow for the possibility of a higher power, such as Francis Collins, actually believe in evolution, because they know it to be true. I'm not aware of any eminent scientists who are literal believers in the the creation stories. Those few who do allow for a higher power are not conceding that power to be the Canaanite god Yahweh, much less the reinvented Christian version. Rather, they simply allow for what they may believe to be a possibility. Rather, it is religious apologists who seek to boot strap and twist that allowance into their version of god, seeking to create scientific illusion by wrapping their primitive mythology in a pseudo scientific cloak.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

Mothra said:


.
You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.
Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?
Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?
When you make a dumb argument and lose, the answer is not to double down with another dumb argument. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.
And you think the idea of a man being made in the image of an imaginary god on the lore of primitive people is not dumb?
There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.
You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.
Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.
To borrow a phrase: the arc of scientific discovery (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) bends toward the knowledge of reality, and away from the primitive ignorance of "a god must have done it."
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Yes!
Very magnanimous of you to concede.
Agreeing is not conceding.
I was trying to let you be right for once. You screwed that up too.
Nice try, but concession would not make me right. I was trying to let us both agree on something. LOL
Concession is the only way you'd be right for once. All your arguments fail. Everything you post is full of one-dimensional, narrow-minded, logically fallacious, ridiculously biased, non sequitur and hateful thinking. You've been defeated over and over again, but you keep coming back with failed, recycled arguments. "Made in God's image" can ONLY mean we are comprised of the same molecules as God? This stupidity is intentional. What kind of dialogue can anyone really have with you? You are just a troll who doesn't care about embarrassing himself. And that's just sad. I am convinced you are not truly an atheist. You are just bitter towards God.
Quote:

Everything you post is full of one-dimensional, narrow-minded, logically fallacious, ridiculously biased, non sequitur and hateful thinking.
That is a very good definition of religious mythology (along with the rest of what you wrote).

The rest of your comments reveal who is posting the hateful remarks. Read what you are saying, if you think I'm one with whom it is difficult to dialogue.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:


Quote:

I'm referring to the several cosmological constants that appear to be fine-tuned. I would have assumed a scientist would have looked into this long ago.
I would assume you would have known that it is the cosmological constants that allow for the plausibility of a spontaneous universe.

The implausibility of the universe arising with the specific set of 26+ universal constants that are each exquisitely set to a unfathomably precise value that allows for life in our universe is SO, SO great, even virtually impossible, that it led some of the world's most eminent scientists to consider that a mind might be behind the universe.

These eminent scientists are far, far, far more intelligent and knowledgeable than you. You either don't know what you're talking about and are just blowing smoke just to save face, or you think you are smarter than these scientists, which is a complete joke.
Wouldn't it be surprising to find ourselves living in a universe impossible for life? That would be a miracle. Clearly this universe was not created or designed for the purpose of life. In spite of the hostility to carbon based life, there are a few places where carbon based life can exist. If you wanted to create a universe for the purpose of life, some of the constants could and would be 'fine tuned' to be even better suited for life than those we observe - yielding a universe even more conducive to carbon based life forms. Life has evolved or fine tuned itself to thrive in a temporary permissive yet overall hostile environment.

Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views. Ken Ham's organizations are not made up of "eminent" scientists. There are a few "eminent" scientists seeking to capitalize on the gullible religious. Those truly eminent few, who want to believe in or allow for the possibility of a higher power, such as Francis Collins, actually believe in evolution, because they know it to be true. I'm not aware of any eminent scientists who are literal believers in the the creation stories. Those few who do allow for a higher power are not conceding that power to be the Canaanite god Yahweh, much less the reinvented Christian version. Rather, they simply allow for what they may believe to be a possibility. Rather, it is religious apologists who seek to boot strap and twist that allowance into their version of god, seeking to create scientific illusion by wrapping their primitive mythology in a pseudo scientific cloak.
All points that have already been defeated....you are truly a broken record who is resistant to truth and understanding.

Shouldn't you be checking to see if the real RG III is made up of bronze, since the statue made in his image is made of bronze too?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

Mothra said:


.
You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.
Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?
Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?
When you make a dumb argument and lose, the answer is not to double down with another dumb argument. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.
And you think the idea of a man being made in the image of an imaginary god on the lore of primitive people is not dumb?
There is definitely a dumb here, and it ain't from those primitive peoples.
You can excuse them as a product ignorance. Today, not so much.
Today, we know so much more that points to God, so we have so much less of an excuse.
To borrow a phrase: the arc of scientific discovery (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) bends toward the knowledge of reality, and away from the primitive ignorance of "a god must have done it."
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Yes!
Very magnanimous of you to concede.
Agreeing is not conceding.
I was trying to let you be right for once. You screwed that up too.
Nice try, but concession would not make me right. I was trying to let us both agree on something. LOL
Concession is the only way you'd be right for once. All your arguments fail. Everything you post is full of one-dimensional, narrow-minded, logically fallacious, ridiculously biased, non sequitur and hateful thinking. You've been defeated over and over again, but you keep coming back with failed, recycled arguments. "Made in God's image" can ONLY mean we are comprised of the same molecules as God? This stupidity is intentional. What kind of dialogue can anyone really have with you? You are just a troll who doesn't care about embarrassing himself. And that's just sad. I am convinced you are not truly an atheist. You are just bitter towards God.
Quote:

Everything you post is full of one-dimensional, narrow-minded, logically fallacious, ridiculously biased, non sequitur and hateful thinking.
That is a very good definition of religious mythology (along with the rest of what you wrote).

The rest of your comments reveal who is posting the hateful remarks. Read what you are saying, if you think I'm one with whom it is difficult to dialogue.
I'm not the one who resorts to ridiculously stupid non sequitur to further my points.

If I'm being hateful, it's hate of dishonesty and intentional stupidity, the hallmarks of your comments.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

There were many who were present that did not see anything unusual. Nobody has shown that anything witnessed that day was a miracle.
I have not read any account that stated that people who were there did NOT witness the event. Newspaper records indicated that many non-believers did see something appear to happen to the sun.
TexasScientist said:

Assertions of miracles by the Catholic Church are not much different than Peter Popoff's and Benny Hinn's assertions. A miracle by definition is a supernatural event, inexplicable by natural or scientific laws. It has to be a product of supernatural agency. None of those meet that criteria. Why didn't Saint Padre Pio restore an amputated arm, or decapitated head?
Quite frankly, I don't know who Peter Popoff is. I've heard the name Benny Hinn, but I don't know anything about him. I can only assume that they evangelicals that are reported to perform some miracles. Irrespective, the miracles at Lourdes are well-documented by independent doctors, who are believers. Did Benny or Peter do this? I really don't know.

With respect to Padre Pio, no, he did not restore an amputated limb or heal a decapitated person. But let's say that he did. Wouldn't atheists just state that the account was "made up" or it was something that science hasn't figured out? Many atheists tend to move the goal post when discussing these issues.

TexasScientist said:

There is no such thing a science of the gaps is a creationist poorly considered rebuttal attempt. Rather, your idea of accepting what is unknown about the universe as a miracle is a god of the gaps concept. That gap has been shrinking by scientific discovery since religion began. Consider that your definition of nothing, may not exist in a quantum vacuum.
I don't consider the rebutted poorly considered. It is the exact same as the atheist's response. It's quite easy to dismiss another party's claims.

TexasScientist said:

It's not lack of humility or arrogance. Rather, it's facing and accepting the evidence of reality that changed my views, and will not allow me to entertain the possibility of any god, especially any god that was contrived by any human devised religion.
If you have honestly investigated ALL the substantial evidence - Aquinas' 5 Ways, Moral, Cosmological, Fine-Tuning, philosophical, and teleological arguments (from the ACTUAL sources, not just the Atheist's blog/website responses) and can't believe that a higher power created the universe and everything in it, then I applaud your efforts, appreciate you trying, and will continue to pray for you.

If you haven't researched these to there end, using their sources, then I find that disingenuous to your position.

I've read/watched/listened to the atheist's responses to the theist's claims on each of these arguments. Some make some valid points; however in the end, they all failed to grasp the complete concept to the theist's claims.

Research further and you'll find those who didn't witness anything.

I don't think so. If there were a god who could impart miraculous powers to people, why wouldn't he demonstrate that power in a conclusive, unquestionable manner? He certainly would have that power to demonstrate in a manner that, no matter how entrenched, atheists would have to acknowledge. I've said many times before, I would love to believe in a truly loving creator with a life hereafter. If there were one, he would have conclusively shown himself. There is a reason there are no restored limbs, or decapitated heads, and it is not because of recalcitrant atheists.

I've considered all of the religious arguments, my own former beliefs, religious and Christian origins and history, science, and what I have observed in my own scientific career. I even went through a period of trying rationalize and reconcile that which is irrational and irreconcilable, because I wanted to believe. However, if I am to be honest with myself, I can have no other conclusion.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Oldbear83 said:

Waco1947 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Waco1947 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Waco1947 said:

What is your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics?
God created it.

Rudolf Clausius discovered it.

You are confused by it.
Yes still confused Try again. How doe sit relate to theology?
It's not related to Theology. You brought up, so you confused yourself, Waco.


I did not bring the 2 nd law of thermodynamics? You did. What do you mean by it?
Wrong, I only answered your question about the Law. You bought it up, Waco following LIb's post, which you otherwise ignored.

Have you confused yourself that thoroughly, that you don't even recognize your own posts?
Let me guess, accusations are confessions?
It's more that Waco seems to be throwing out posts just to say something, with no real purpose or interest in definitions or logic.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
BaylorJacket
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BaylorJacket said:


If someone has diligently pursued the substantial evidence for God (from both reputable Christian and Secular sources) and even lives it out, yet remains unconvinced, what do you think about them? This is not supposed to be some gotcha btw lol, I am genuinely curious. They perhaps never fully believed? An intelligence issue? Not one of the elect?

This seems to be a pretty common crossroad that many find themselves facing. For example, I've lived an incredibly dedicated Christian life for 20+ years serving as a missionary, worship leader, small groups, Bible studies, etc. All things I'm sure you're very familiar with. I proudly knew Jesus Christ as my lord and savior and even felt as I had a personal relationship.

Yet, as I have critically thought about, researched and analyzed my beliefs, I realized (at least from my perspective) that my once held evangelical beliefs are not so clear and the deconstruction process was very difficult.
Quite frankly, I would first appreciate their (your) effort in trying to honestly trying to search for God.

Without digging too deeply, I would always encourage a person to live out Pascal's Wager. I'm sure that your aware, but essentially, he states that if one is on the fence or 50/50 about the existence of God, it's best to live life like He does exist, given the potential outcomes.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta went thru 50 years of spiritual darkness, "dark night of the soul" a period of spiritual doubt, despair and loneliness that many of the great mystics experienced. It was as if God wasn't there for her. She persevered in the end.

Finally, (I'm sure that your done this, but) I'd recommend that a person continue to ask God daily to (re)reveal Himself to them. It may take days, months, or even years.

I don't know why we are tested like this. I will add you to my daily prayer list.

If you ever what to discuss your journey offline, I'd be happy to LISTEN and learn.

Peace brother!

Appreciate the well thought out response and the prayers man. While I would consider myself a "hopeful agnostic", I'm open to Christianity if presented with sufficient evidence.

Regarding Pascal's wager, couldn't this logic be applied to essentially any religious belief? Even just focusing on Christianity, I can't bring myself to pursue a god out of fear of eternal hell (or likewise a desire of eternal Heaven).
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorJacket said:

Appreciate the well thought out response and the prayers man. While I would consider myself a "hopeful agnostic", I'm open to Christianity if presented with sufficient evidence.

Regarding Pascal's wager, couldn't this logic be applied to essentially any religious belief? Even just focusing on Christianity, I can't bring myself to pursue a god out of fear of eternal hell (or likewise a desire of eternal Heaven).

With respect to Pascal's Wager, I would assume it would work for any of the Abrahamic religions.

I would offer a paradigm shift in your process ... rather than focusing the pains of hell, focus on the gain, which is Heaven,

Finally, I would look into a book called, The Case for Jesus, The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Dr. Brant Pitre. It discusses the alternate resurrection and why they fail. It also discusses the various proofs for his resurrection.

I believe that the resurrection is the best evidence for the Christian God. If you aren't ready to go there, I'd look into Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, if you haven't done so, to speak to the "hopeful agnostic" in you.
BaylorJacket
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BaylorJacket said:

Appreciate the well thought out response and the prayers man. While I would consider myself a "hopeful agnostic", I'm open to Christianity if presented with sufficient evidence.

Regarding Pascal's wager, couldn't this logic be applied to essentially any religious belief? Even just focusing on Christianity, I can't bring myself to pursue a god out of fear of eternal hell (or likewise a desire of eternal Heaven).

With respect to Pascal's Wager, I would assume it would work for any of the Abrahamic religions.

I would offer a paradigm shift in your process ... rather than focusing the pains of hell, focus on the gain, which is Heaven,

Finally, I would look into a book called, The Case for Jesus, The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Dr. Brant Pitre. It discusses the alternate resurrection and why they fail. It also discusses the various proofs for his resurrection.

I believe that the resurrection is the best evidence for the Christian God. If you aren't ready to go there, I'd look into Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, if you haven't done so, to speak to the "hopeful agnostic" in you.

I have read the case for Jesus (as well as the Case for Christ and the Case for the resurrection lol). Which argument(s) did you personally find the most convincing?
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorJacket said:

I have read the case for Jesus (as well as the Case for Christ and the Case for the resurrection lol). Which argument(s) did you personally find the most convincing?
First, kudos to you for legitimately trying. Not many would go to that level of effort in their search.

I feel the best evidence of the faith is the fact that it started and spread despite attempts to crush it. It grew and flourished with nearly 300 years of (on-again and off-again) persecution.

Nearly all historians (Christians, Jewish, Muslim, and even atheists) will agree that a rabbi name Yeshua lived 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, had a great following and was executed for treason.

Having said that, when prophets preached in those times, after their death, their followers quickly abandoned their beliefs.

With Jesus crucifixion, his Way didn't end with him, it spread even though many of his followers were also tortured and executed. Christianity spread in the heart of the pagan Rome during the persecutions under Nero, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Diocletian, Constantius and others.

As Tertullian stated, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."

This was done with peace, not a sword (like Islam.)
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gospels were not written as history but rather as the good news of Jesus Christ the Son of God. The good news is "Repent and believe the good news of the kingdom for it is at hand."
The gospels may contain history but that history is not their purpose. The gospels are a unique form of writing called The Good News whose intent are to bring people to faith.
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Waco1947 said:

Gospels were not written as history but rather as the good news of Jesus Christ the Son of God. The good news is "Repent and believe the good news of the kingdom for it is at hand."
The gospels may contain history but that history is not their purpose. The gospels are a unique form of writing called The Good News whose intent are to bring people to faith.


Luke 1:1-4 and 1 John 1:1-4 make clear that they were in fact written as history.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Waco1947 said:

The good news is "Repent and believe the good news of the kingdom for it is at hand."
The good news is to believe the good news?

Isn't that nonsensical and circular?
joseywales
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So you use the questioned source to say it is a historical document? The gospel authors are unknown and written 40 to 100 years later that the so called historical events happen. The new testament was not officially cannonized untll 370 ad. 100 of years later after the events
The Bible is so obviously a book put together for a certain belief system by men who had an agenda to proliferate their beliefs on to other people
It is no different than other religious books for other belief systems. Written for religious purposes by men. If indeed there was a personal God who wanted to communicate with his creations, don't you think based on what we know about how complex life is and how amazing the 300 billions galaxies are, that he would have chosen a more intelligent way of communicating himself to mankind. Instead we have different cultures making up their own belief systems based on their experience and history.
joseywales
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When I say most remember that my opnion comes from my experience with other believers. Pretty much everyone I personally know believes the Christian faith and they all refuse to acknowledge objective facts when those facts would tear down the foundation of their faith. Maybe my experience is not rare on a lager scale but I can only share mine.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
joseywales said:

When I say most remember that my opnion comes from my experience with other believers. Pretty much everyone I personally know believes the Christian faith and they all refuse to acknowledge objective facts when those facts would tear down the foundation of their faith. Maybe my experience is not rare on a lager scale but I can only share mine.

your experience is far from rare. In fact, not opinion, your experience falls in with "most". As an example, 74% of college students deny their faith a short time after entering college. That makes you one of the crowd, totally average, anything but unique.

I wonder what other things you claim to be facts are actually opinions like "most" was shown to be. The canon might be a good place to start or perhaps authorship of specific books.
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
joseywales said:

So you use the questioned source to say it is a historical document? The gospel authors are unknown and written 40 to 100 years later that the so called historical events happen. The new testament was not officially cannonized untll 370 ad. 100 of years later after the events
The Bible is so obviously a book put together for a certain belief system by men who had an agenda to proliferate their beliefs on to other people
It is no different than other religious books for other belief systems. Written for religious purposes by men. If indeed there was a personal God who wanted to communicate with his creations, don't you think based on what we know about how complex life is and how amazing the 300 billions galaxies are, that he would have chosen a more intelligent way of communicating himself to mankind. Instead we have different cultures making up their own belief systems based on their experience and history.


No, I used the source to say that it was *intended as* history, contrary to Waco47's assertion that it was not.

The identity of the gospel authors is made clear in the earliest sources (see, e.g., Irenaeus). There are no competing claims to authorship anywhere in history. In addition, if the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the early church would have had no reason to ascribe their most important writings to - who? A hated tax collector, an obscure scribe, a Gentile, and a young teenager. If the early church were simply inventing authorship, they would have ascribed the Gospels to famous well-known disciples like Peter, who was head of the church at Rome, or even Jesus.

The suggestion that the Gospels were written "40 to 100 years later" is almost certainly too long (and, in the case of 100 years, absurd). The people who put together the Bible did so knowing that they were most likely dooming themselves to imprisonment, torture, and execution - and for what? What did they stand to gain from defying the Roman Empire? That by itself distinguishes Christianity from, say, Islam, whose holy book was written to facilitate conquest and served that purpose even during the life of Muhammed (see, e.g., the conquest of Mecca in AD 630).
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
joseywales said:

When I say most remember that my opnion comes from my experience with other believers. Pretty much everyone I personally know believes the Christian faith and they all refuse to acknowledge objective facts when those facts would tear down the foundation of their faith. Maybe my experience is not rare on a lager scale but I can only share mine.

Did you forget my challenge to you, just a few posts ago?
"Give your BEST example of an "obvious fact we know today" that you believe falsifies Christianity."

I've been waiting for it, but all you seem to want to do is repeat your assertion. So, again - what "objective facts" would "tear down the foundation of their faith"? Just give your BEST one.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Waco1947 said:

The good news is "Repent and believe the good news of the kingdom for it is at hand."
The good news is to believe the good news?

Isn't that nonsensical and circular?
Just like his theory that God and the Universe are co-eternal. His Process theology is completely illogical.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

Coke Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.
Do I recall you stating that both you and your son are vegetarians? Did you indoctrinate him?

Did you make your child brush his teeth, wash his face, go to bed at a reasonable hour, and eat his veggies?

Parents teach their kids the right things to do. If you want to label that as "indoctrination", more power to you. I do find it interesting that you use these types of loaded terms when discussing this issue.
You're trying to twist my words into something I didn't say or believe. I don't have a problem teaching a child right from wrong, or things that promote their general health and welfare, so long as they are taught to think critically for themselves, and to objectively evaluate and question all sources, including parental, cultural, political, institutional, and religious.

Not all parents teach their kids the right things to do. The courts are full of examples around the country, which only represent a small fraction of the total picture.
Do you think it's objective, critical thinking to insist that "made in God's image" must only mean that we are comprised of the same molecules as God?

Or does this sound like a bitter, biased person with an agenda?
No, it's pointing out the absurdity of making such a religious claim. What does it mean to be made in his image? It can mean anything you want it to mean. It is an example of another meaningless biblical claim. But if you put it in the context of the time it was written, and the primitive mind beliefs of those who first asserted such a claim, you'd have to consider that they literally believed what they said. They likely believed Yahweh had a physical body that he dwelled in somewhere up in the sky. It was pretty common for primitive people to believe such things about their gods. Surely, you have to recognize that such beliefs call into question all of what they believed. It's for that reason that the whole idea of apologetics has arisen, in order to explain away, rationalize, harmonize and reinterpret primitive beliefs in an effort to make them compatible with what we know is true about the universe, and the acceptable morals and culture of the present.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TS: " Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion"

No, I do not, and more I don't know any Christian in person who does.

Are you confusing Christians and Kardassians?
Are really saying no one's opinions, positions, or teachings have influenced your belief?
No more than some people have influenced you. And your question is different from the assertion I answered. You said I and other Christians 'base your faith upon popular consensus ', which implies I/we just follow the crowd, which is unreasonable and distinctly untrue.


Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.
Sir, I did think about it. In fact, like may Christians I went through a time where I doubted by parents' beliefs and set out explore on my own. I have studied Atheism, Buddhism, even Satanism and Paganism.

My present beliefs are the result of a rigorous set of tests and evaluations of evidence. You seem to constantly assume that Christians simply accept what they are told as Children, which not only ignores people who come to Christ from non-Christian cultures, but also ignores the life-long learning and experience which almost everyone applies when choosing their adult identity.

Further, at least in my case I have never been one to follow the crowd. My career is one most people would not choose, my sports 'career' was not as an athlete but as an official (take a quick survey of your friends to see how many would want to work as a referee or umpire), my choice in friends has been selective and frankly front to back I have gone from 'odd' to 'nerd' to 'nobody', in part because I have never really felt like I had to be what someone else told me I should be.

The short version is that you appear to be projecting, TS. And doing so despite repeated advice that you are missing important data.
Obviously not everyone embraces a religion as a child. There are many who become Christians, or Muslims as adults, either by conversion or initial belief. Most, however are raised in their beliefs, or grow up in the culture. What they all have in common is reinforcement, adult or child, through religious education and indoctrination. That almost always is through group persuasive teachings. How you interact with others as a referee is not the same as how you interact religiously. Religion is a cultural phenomenon, where members identify with the group.
You're still ducking the point, you know ...
No, just giving an answer you don't agree with.
Wrong, and I notice you are still repeating unsupported claims you have been challenged on before.

It's bad enough you duck valid points, but to repeat assumptions just makes you look intellectually lazy, TS.
You mean like unsupported religious claims?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Waco1947 said:

The good news is "Repent and believe the good news of the kingdom for it is at hand."
The good news is to believe the good news?

Isn't that nonsensical and circular?
Just like his theory that God and the Universe are co-eternal. His Process theology is completely illogical.
The nonsense of his theology has been repeatedly shown to him to no avail, at least ostensibly. Either he's just a troll, or he has a mental inability to process, or he's got so much internal theodical angst that he's developed a defense mechanism that involves creating a different reality which he can embrace, one that alleviates that angst - a pick-and-choose reality that combines logically, factually, and biblically incongruent ideas. In any case, he really is a marvel.

I'm still trying to figure out his latest assertion, that the gospels aren't based on actual history, yet it is "good news". How can anything be "good news" if it didn't actually happen? That'd be like a doctor saying, "Good news! A treatment that totally eradicates your cancer has been found!" You'd say, "Really?! That's fantastic!!" Then he replies, "Well, no, it didn't actually happen. It's just a story to give you hope."
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

Coke Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.
Do I recall you stating that both you and your son are vegetarians? Did you indoctrinate him?

Did you make your child brush his teeth, wash his face, go to bed at a reasonable hour, and eat his veggies?

Parents teach their kids the right things to do. If you want to label that as "indoctrination", more power to you. I do find it interesting that you use these types of loaded terms when discussing this issue.
You're trying to twist my words into something I didn't say or believe. I don't have a problem teaching a child right from wrong, or things that promote their general health and welfare, so long as they are taught to think critically for themselves, and to objectively evaluate and question all sources, including parental, cultural, political, institutional, and religious.

Not all parents teach their kids the right things to do. The courts are full of examples around the country, which only represent a small fraction of the total picture.
Do you think it's objective, critical thinking to insist that "made in God's image" must only mean that we are comprised of the same molecules as God?

Or does this sound like a bitter, biased person with an agenda?
SciGuy gets something in his head and refuses to let it go. He argued for days about 2 accounts of creation in Genesis even after he was repeatedly told 1 was poetry and the other was not.

He doesn't want to let go of what he thinks is a valid point even after the alleged validity is proven wrong.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Waco1947 said:

The good news is "Repent and believe the good news of the kingdom for it is at hand."
The good news is to believe the good news?

Isn't that nonsensical and circular?
Just like his theory that God and the Universe are co-eternal. His Process theology is completely illogical.
The nonsense of his theology has been repeatedly shown to him to no avail, at least ostensibly. Either he's just a troll, or he has a mental inability to process, or he's got so much internal theodical angst that he's developed a defense mechanism that involves creating a different reality which he can embrace, one that alleviates that angst - a pick-and-choose reality that combines logically, factually, and biblically incongruent ideas. In any case, he really is a marvel.

I'm still trying to figure out his latest assertion, that the gospels aren't based on actual history, yet it is "good news". How can anything be "good news" if it didn't actually happen? That'd be like a doctor saying, "Good news! A treatment that totally eradicates your cancer has been found!" You'd say, "Really?! That's fantastic!!" Then he replies, "Well, no, it didn't actually happen. It's just a story to give you hope."


Winner winner chicken dinner

"he's got so much internal theodical angst that he's developed a defense mechanism that involves creating a different reality which he can embrace, one that alleviates that angst - a pick-and-choose reality that combines logically, factually, and biblically incongruent ideas."
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TS: " Yet, you base your faith upon popular consensus and opinion"

No, I do not, and more I don't know any Christian in person who does.

Are you confusing Christians and Kardassians?
Are really saying no one's opinions, positions, or teachings have influenced your belief?
No more than some people have influenced you. And your question is different from the assertion I answered. You said I and other Christians 'base your faith upon popular consensus ', which implies I/we just follow the crowd, which is unreasonable and distinctly untrue.


Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.
Sir, I did think about it. In fact, like may Christians I went through a time where I doubted by parents' beliefs and set out explore on my own. I have studied Atheism, Buddhism, even Satanism and Paganism.

My present beliefs are the result of a rigorous set of tests and evaluations of evidence. You seem to constantly assume that Christians simply accept what they are told as Children, which not only ignores people who come to Christ from non-Christian cultures, but also ignores the life-long learning and experience which almost everyone applies when choosing their adult identity.

Further, at least in my case I have never been one to follow the crowd. My career is one most people would not choose, my sports 'career' was not as an athlete but as an official (take a quick survey of your friends to see how many would want to work as a referee or umpire), my choice in friends has been selective and frankly front to back I have gone from 'odd' to 'nerd' to 'nobody', in part because I have never really felt like I had to be what someone else told me I should be.

The short version is that you appear to be projecting, TS. And doing so despite repeated advice that you are missing important data.
Obviously not everyone embraces a religion as a child. There are many who become Christians, or Muslims as adults, either by conversion or initial belief. Most, however are raised in their beliefs, or grow up in the culture. What they all have in common is reinforcement, adult or child, through religious education and indoctrination. That almost always is through group persuasive teachings. How you interact with others as a referee is not the same as how you interact religiously. Religion is a cultural phenomenon, where members identify with the group.
You're still ducking the point, you know ...
No, just giving an answer you don't agree with.
Wrong, and I notice you are still repeating unsupported claims you have been challenged on before.

It's bad enough you duck valid points, but to repeat assumptions just makes you look intellectually lazy, TS.
You mean like unsupported religious claims?
Nice duck, Daffy
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

Coke Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.
Do I recall you stating that both you and your son are vegetarians? Did you indoctrinate him?

Did you make your child brush his teeth, wash his face, go to bed at a reasonable hour, and eat his veggies?

Parents teach their kids the right things to do. If you want to label that as "indoctrination", more power to you. I do find it interesting that you use these types of loaded terms when discussing this issue.
You're trying to twist my words into something I didn't say or believe. I don't have a problem teaching a child right from wrong, or things that promote their general health and welfare, so long as they are taught to think critically for themselves, and to objectively evaluate and question all sources, including parental, cultural, political, institutional, and religious.

Not all parents teach their kids the right things to do. The courts are full of examples around the country, which only represent a small fraction of the total picture.
Do you think it's objective, critical thinking to insist that "made in God's image" must only mean that we are comprised of the same molecules as God?

Or does this sound like a bitter, biased person with an agenda?
No, it's pointing out the absurdity of making such a religious claim. What does it mean to be made in his image? It can mean anything you want it to mean. It is an example of another meaningless biblical claim. But if you put it in the context of the time it was written, and the primitive mind beliefs of those who first asserted such a claim, you'd have to consider that they literally believed what they said. They likely believed Yahweh had a physical body that he dwelled in somewhere up in the sky. It was pretty common for primitive people to believe such things about their gods. Surely, you have to recognize that such beliefs call into question all of what they believed. It's for that reason that the whole idea of apologetics has arisen, in order to explain away, rationalize, harmonize and reinterpret primitive beliefs in an effort to make them compatible with what we know is true about the universe, and the acceptable morals and culture of the present.
False. The ancient Israelites believed Yahweh was spiritual, not physical, though He could take on physical form if He needed to. In fact, they were strictly forbidden to think of Yahweh as a physical being. Deuteronomy 4:12-18: "You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice....Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth."
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

Coke Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Really? Think about it. I'm sure you were raised in some sect of Christianity. Catholic as I seem to recall? There is a huge focus in Christian education upon child indoctrination. That process is all about authority reinforcing the teachings and beliefs they want to instill in children. The same with the adults. They have whole programs centered around and focused on that goal called 'Sunday School'. Regular church services for adults are essentially focused on the same purpose of reinforcing belief through peer support and persuasive pressure. A major purpose of church attendance and indoctrination is for consensus and creating uniform belief and opinion.
Do I recall you stating that both you and your son are vegetarians? Did you indoctrinate him?

Did you make your child brush his teeth, wash his face, go to bed at a reasonable hour, and eat his veggies?

Parents teach their kids the right things to do. If you want to label that as "indoctrination", more power to you. I do find it interesting that you use these types of loaded terms when discussing this issue.
You're trying to twist my words into something I didn't say or believe. I don't have a problem teaching a child right from wrong, or things that promote their general health and welfare, so long as they are taught to think critically for themselves, and to objectively evaluate and question all sources, including parental, cultural, political, institutional, and religious.

Not all parents teach their kids the right things to do. The courts are full of examples around the country, which only represent a small fraction of the total picture.
Do you think it's objective, critical thinking to insist that "made in God's image" must only mean that we are comprised of the same molecules as God?

Or does this sound like a bitter, biased person with an agenda?
No, it's pointing out the absurdity of making such a religious claim. What does it mean to be made in his image? It can mean anything you want it to mean. It is an example of another meaningless biblical claim. But if you put it in the context of the time it was written, and the primitive mind beliefs of those who first asserted such a claim, you'd have to consider that they literally believed what they said. They likely believed Yahweh had a physical body that he dwelled in somewhere up in the sky. It was pretty common for primitive people to believe such things about their gods. Surely, you have to recognize that such beliefs call into question all of what they believed. It's for that reason that the whole idea of apologetics has arisen, in order to explain away, rationalize, harmonize and reinterpret primitive beliefs in an effort to make them compatible with what we know is true about the universe, and the acceptable morals and culture of the present.
False. The ancient Israelites believed Yahweh was spiritual, not physical, though He could take on physical form if He needed to. In fact, they were strictly forbidden to think of Yahweh as a physical being. Deuteronomy 4:12-18: "You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice....Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth."

Triage team to TexasScientist, stat!
BearlySpeaking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:



Eminent scientists? Most scientists, especially eminent, don't share your views.
Boyle, Lavoisier, Euler, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Compton, Riemann, LeMaitre, Townes, Gibbs, Gauss, Walton, J J Thomson, Kelvin, Cantor, Babbage, Heisenberg, Davy, and others disagree with you. If you know anything at all about the history of science and mathematics, you will recognize those names. They range from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century.

You make it clear you think Christians are idiots, and that's fine; I've had atheists tell me that before when they found out I was a Christian and they are entitled to their opinion of me. But don't lie and say "especially eminent scientists" are not Christians when even a cursory glance at the history of science show your claim is false. I met numerous very intelligent professors and students at Baylor who were committed Christians, some who were not raised in the faith as children. While I have met a few thoughtful and intelligent atheists, I have also met a lot more village atheists whose only argument is to say the phrase "sky daddy" like it is a deep concept and think it is a slam dunk argument. Talked to one who actually denied that logic was a necessary part of philosophical arguments in order to preserve the status of his "sky daddy" stand-alone phrase as an 'argument.' There is nothing essentially inherent in being an atheist that entails rationality and logical thinking.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Waco1947 said:

TexasScientist said:

Coke Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

It depends upon your definition of fine tuned. We're a part of fine tuned carbon based life, albeit imperfectly, fine tuned to survive on this particular planet. Fine tuned through evolution. It would be a miracle and surprising to find carbon based life in a universe incapable of supporting carbon based life. If God really wanted to create a miracle, he could if put man on Jupiter.
I'm referring to the several cosmological constants that appear to be fine-tuned. I would have assumed a scientist would have looked into this long ago.

TexasScientist said:

October 13, 1917 is another Catholic attempt to persuade followers with the lore of miracles. There is no objective evidence of a miracle occurring there, or any tent revival. All of these pseudo miracles have explanations. In this particular case, not everyone observed the same thing, or anything miraculous. There are natural explanations for those that did claim to see differing things. A miracle has no natural explanation. Show me someone who was documented clinically dead, embalmed, and crawled out of their crypt and is walking around today. Show me documented objective proof of someone who regrew an amputated arm or leg. Those would be miracles. Show me documented objective proof of someone who was decapitated, and had their head restored and is alive walking around today.
With respect to Fatima, many non-believers and skeptics witnessed the events that day.

I could list young man that was brought back to life by Saint Don Bosco. I could list the young girl born with no pupils that got her sight at the age of 7 (who is still alive today) after she was healed by Saint Padre Pio. I could list the 70 miracles at healing waters of Lourdes, France that the Church has had verified by a panel of doctors and scientist who are not Catholic and some are atheists. You will not accept these miracles.

You will not even accept the UNIVERSE as a miracle. You've mentioned particles popping in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum. But that is NOT nothing. This is simply science of the gaps.

Unfortunately, your lack of humility, and dare I say, arrogance, will not allow you to truly entertain the possibility of God. That is not science. A scientist would truly test all possible proofs.


Quote:

I'm referring to the several cosmological constants that appear to be fine-tuned. I would have assumed a scientist would have looked into this long ago.
I would assume you would have known that it is the cosmological constants that allow for the plausibility of a spontaneous universe.
Quote:

With respect to Fatima, many non-believers and skeptics witnessed the events that day.

I could list young man that was brought back to life by Saint Don Bosco. I could list the young girl born with no pupils that got her sight at the age of 7 (who is still alive today) after she was healed by Saint Padre Pio. I could list the 70 miracles at healing waters of Lourdes, France that the Church has had verified by a panel of doctors and scientist who are not Catholic and some are atheists. You will not accept these miracles.

You will not even accept the UNIVERSE as a miracle. You've mentioned particles popping in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum. But that is NOT nothing. This is simply science of the gaps.

Unfortunately, your lack of humility, and dare I say, arrogance, will not allow you to truly entertain the possibility of God. That is not science. A scientist would truly test all possible proofs.
There were many who were present that did not see anything unusual. Nobody has shown that anything witnessed that day was a miracle.

Assertions of miracles by the Catholic Church are not much different than Peter Popoff's and Benny Hinn's assertions. A miracle by definition is a supernatural event, inexplicable by natural or scientific laws. It has to be a product of supernatural agency. None of those meet that criteria. Why didn't Saint Padre Pio restore an amputated arm, or decapitated head?

There is no such thing a science of the gaps is a creationist poorly considered rebuttal attempt. Rather, your idea of accepting what is unknown about the universe as a miracle is a god of the gaps concept. That gap has been shrinking by scientific discovery since religion began. Consider that your definition of nothing, may not exist in a quantum vacuum.

It's not lack of humility or arrogance. Rather, it's facing and accepting the evidence of reality that changed my views, and will not allow me to entertain the possibility of any god, especially any god that was contrived by any human devised religion.
John A.T. Robinson talks of the "God of Gaps" filling in where science has not caught. That gap keeps closing. and for most of secular people the gap is gone. I believe the overwhelming Biblical witness is "God is love."
I am not sure why but you never respond to my thoughts, I agree with of all of your understanding of science and God but can you respond to the spiritual (not super natural, the spiritual of a different order).
It depends upon your definition of spiritual. I don't believe in a spiritual component to the human, or any other animal in the context of something supernatural. I don't really have an objection of using the term 'spirit' or 'soul' as another way to refer to the mind, will and emotions, which are all physical processes of the human organism. I don't particularly like using the term in a secular context, because it can be confusing since those terms have an underlying historical religious undertone. I believe the mind, will, and emotions play a huge factor in the religious 'spiritual' experience. That same 'spiritual' or euphoric experience is not exclusive to religion, but can also be experienced in a humanist context, to the same degree and manner as in a religious context. From an altruistic, and humanist sense, I think embracing the idea of applying the 'Golden Rule' as a moral pillar in personal and cultural moral interactions can produce a rewarding 'spiritual' experience.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Waco1947 said:

Coke Bear said:

Waco1947 said:

Coke Bear said:

Waco1947 said:

Creation of the earth, parting a sea, feeding 5,000, healing the blind, lepers, deaf, raising the dead - these are all in contradiction od science.
That's why they are called miracles. They are well documented and miracles continue to occur in every generation.


That you call them miracles does make them historical reality but miracles for 1st century disciples' eyes and ears were real.
Serious questions:

Where is God? Look at any human being, loving relationship, just, loving act
How long has He existed? How old is the universe?

Waco: Look at any human being, loving relationship, just, loving act

I agree, consider a parent counseling their pregnant daughter not to kill her unborn child,

That is love, and love of Life pleases God.

But the woman who enters an abortion clinic turns her back on God, and on protecting Life.
I'm not pro abortion, but you can't say that about the God of the OT. That god is characterized as formulating a method for a disgruntled husband to entreat God to cause a miscarriage - Numbers 5. That's not a method for protecting life, not to mention all of the God sponsored attrocities against living women and children in the OT. The god of the OT is not pro-life.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.