Oh, feel free to explain.

Explain how its a "cop out"? Sure. You said "But the Being who created the universe is not subject to the laws of that universe." and I replied "Maybe a Big Bang would not be subject to the "laws of the universe" either." to which you replied "God and the laws of the universe have been around a bit longer than I have." That was a cop-out because it has nothing to do with the fact that if a God does not have to follow these laws, then a Big-Bang might not either.

Are you sure that God does not exist?

As sure as you are that he does.

You know, I’ve read and reread my post and I can’t seem to find where I said that it was you who gave those detailed scenarios. Hmmm, maybe I’ll go back and read it again…nope I don’t see it. I do see where I put your words in quotes and bold faced them, and then I answered, but I just can’t see where I said that you gave the detailed scenarios. I’ll check again later, sorry about telling everyone that you did that. What I intended to do was to take your simple answers and then try to come up with a possible scenario, you know fill in the blanks. I just can’t believe I would be so inconsiderate as to say you came up with the details. Here, I’ll go and check again…No I can’t find it.

Are you intentionally being a dick or are you just dense? First, I find it strange that you "read and reread my post" then you went "back and read it again" and then claim you still didn't see it, but then you appologized for doing it anyway ("sorry about telling everyone that you did that"). In case you still can't find where you said it, let me post your quote..."So you’re saying that the bunch of them were hanging around smoking a joint when through the haze they thought they saw Jesus, they thought they talked with him, they thought they touched him, they thought they were fishing one day, saw Jesus on the beach, went in and ate fish with him, and they thought they saw him ascend into heaven with the promise that he would one day return. Wow, that’s some weed."

The other 2 times you implied it. Like when I said "Or they did it because they personally convinced themselves that they witnessed it.” You replied with this long scenario about how that might have happened, and then ended it by saying "This whole scenario just doesn’t work for me." as if that makes it impossible for my claim to be ture because your version of my claim is absurd.


I do, however, have a problem understanding something that is rather perplexing for me. How does my claiming that it was you who gave the detailed scenarios (which I’m sure I must have) explain how I take the stories in the bible and claim they are true? How does that work

It wasn't your claiming that it was me who gave the detailed scenarios that explains this, it was the fact that I gave some general scenarios and you spun them into these elaborate stories...you have quite an imagination.

Vilepagan, I had asked you if you really thought I didn’t think about the evidence and you replied:
“No....I'm suggesting that you are drawing erroneous conclusions from your "thinking" about the evidence.”

Okay, well I’m fine with that, but I would like to point out that only if your conclusions are correct are my conclusions erroneous. On the other hand if the Bible is correct my conclusions are not erroneous.
Next I had suggested that God is convinced that creationism is true and you said:
“I don't believe you are qualified to speak for God, or say what he is "convinced" of.”

Oh, you are absolutely correct, not only am I not qualified to speak for God, but am not worthy to speak for God. That’s why I read and study God’s Word, the Bible. I let Him speak for Himself, when he speaks of what happened during creation I believe it. When Jesus (God in the flesh) says that he is the only way to the Father, I believe it. What I’m doing here is not speaking for God, but hopefully revealing what God has already spoken.
Next you said:
“I stand corrected. I must now rethink my views vis-a-vis the scientific accuracy of the Bible. After all the Bible doesn't say the universe was created from "nothing", it says it was created from "invisible stuff".”

Do you agree that the universe is made up of “stuff” that we can’t see?
Next you said:
“Of course we all know that the Church invites debate and welcomes opposing viewpoints.

As far as I can see the Church does invite debate, and as for welcoming opposing viewpoints; if it contradicts the Word of God it would be morally wrong to treat it as if it was right?
Also, I wonder what would happen if a Born again, fundamentalist Christian, walked into an atheist club meeting and proclaimed the Gospel and the risen Savior? I bet there would be warm hugs all around.
Look at this forum, the atheists and unbelievers actually go out of their way to come here and attack those who oppose their beliefs, and why is that?
By the way I love the fact that atheists, agnostics, and anti-theists come in here to attack Christianity, it allows me to study the newest attacks against the Bible and Christians. The best part is that this is a religion forum and what better place for the atheistic, agnostic, and anti-theistic religions to hang out, but in here?
Next you said:
“At least science deals with "facts" that can be tested,…

I have no problem with science, it’s philosophy, theory, doctrine, and religion that disguises itself as science that I question.
Finally you said:

“…while religion simply wants people to believe their doctrine unquestioningly, no matter how absurd those beliefs might be.”

First, what doctrine, in the Christian faith, is absurd?

Second, you mention how religion wants people to believe their doctrine unquestioningly; really, What happens when an atheist becomes a believer and accepts Jesus as his Lord and savior. Can he walk into an atheists meeting raise his questions and be accepted lovingly for it?

Originally posted by stark
Okay, well I’m fine with that, but I would like to point out that only if your conclusions are correct are my conclusions erroneous. On the other hand if the Bible is correct my conclusions are not erroneous.

That would be true only if our respective ideas were mutually exclusive. I don't believe they are.

Oh, you are absolutely correct, not only am I not qualified to speak for God, but am not worthy to speak for God.

But you do so every time you expound on what you believe his wishes to be.

That’s why I read and study God’s Word, the Bible. I let Him speak for Himself, when he speaks of what happened during creation I believe it. When Jesus (God in the flesh) says that he is the only way to the Father, I believe it.

He isn't speaking for himself in the Bible. Men are speaking for him.

What I’m doing here is not speaking for God, but hopefully revealing what God has already spoken.

It wouldn't occur to me to assail your hope.

Do you agree that the universe is made up of “stuff” that we can’t see?

Undoubtedly true...we also don't understand half of what we do "see"...what's your point?

As far as I can see the Church does invite debate, and as for welcoming opposing viewpoints; if it contradicts the Word of God it would be morally wrong to treat it as if it was right?

It's rather pointless for you to say you are "inviting debate" about subjects whose truth you believe to be unassailable.

Also, I wonder what would happen if a Born again, fundamentalist Christian, walked into an atheist club meeting and proclaimed the Gospel and the risen Savior? I bet there would be warm hugs all around.

What an interesting, and yet completely irrelevant, flight of imagination.

Look at this forum, the atheists and unbelievers actually go out of their way to come here and attack those who oppose their beliefs, and why is that?

Well...I can only speak for myself...I enjoy the "debate". When I say "debate" I mean that I haven't come to any conclusions (unlike you) as to the existence or non-existence of God.

I have no problem with science, it’s philosophy, theory, doctrine, and religion that disguises itself as science that I question.

Hmm...you mean like the stories in Genesis masquerading as a factual account of the creation of the universe?

First, what doctrine, in the Christian faith, is absurd?

Immaculate conception. Transubstantiation. Original sin.

Second, you mention how religion wants people to believe their doctrine unquestioningly; really, What happens when an atheist becomes a believer and accepts Jesus as his Lord and savior. Can he walk into an atheists meeting raise his questions and be accepted lovingly for it?

I have no idea what might happen in your fantasy atheists meetings...

dnamertz, about your assertion that I had coped out, I had asked you how my answer was a cop out and you gave me this exchange:
“Explain how its a "cop out"? Sure. You said”
"But the Being who created the universe is not subject to the laws of that universe."
“and I replied "Maybe a Big Bang would not be subject to the "laws of the universe" either." to which you replied”
"God and the laws of the universe have been around a bit longer than I have."
“That was a cop-out because it has nothing to do with the fact that if a God does not have to follow these laws, then a Big-Bang might not either.’

Now dnamertz, to the casual reader this appears that I may have coped out, but to someone really reading what is said they would notice that in your exchange between us you forgot a small post of yours: here let me show you how the exchange really went. It started when you said:
“Any God, or any other being, would be subject to the same laws as the universe.”
And I said:
“Let me change that to; any god, or any other being, that is invented or created by man, would be subject to the same laws as the universe. But the Being who created the universe is not subject to the laws of that universe. He existed before those laws were in affect.”
It was in your next post that you quoted what I had just said, and then you wrote:
“You're just making up "rules" as you go.”
And it was after that when you wrote:
“Maybe a Big Bang would not be subject to the "laws of the universe" either.

See what happened? You forgot to put in the part where you stated: “You're just making up "rules" as you go.” See, I was answering your accusation, the rules of the universe where created by God, and those rules existed long before I did.
Next about the scenario “mystery” and my desperate search for where I had said that you had included all the details, you said:
“Are you intentionally being a dick or are you just dense?”

Geez, can’t there be another choice?
Next, you pointed out where you think I had suggested that you added all the details, and it was when I said:
So you’re saying

Well, no wonder I didn’t see it. Wow, dnamertz I can see that when I’m debating with you I’ll have to be very careful how I speak. What I did when I said “So you’re saying” was to take your claim and expound on what I considered was implied by your assertion. At the point you disagreed with my expansion of your idea you could have said, “no it wasn’t weed, it was crack, and it wasn’t Tom Cruise it was one of the girls from Charlie’s Angels", or some other disagreement. I’ll attempt to explain my actions better from now on.
Next you said:
“but then you appologized for doing it anyway…”

When I said, “sorry about telling everyone that you did that” I was just being a wise guy because no one reading your post and then reading the scenario I invented would have thought I was suggesting that you added the details. See I put the quotes of those I’m debating with in bold letters, and the scenario I wrote was not in bold letters.
Moving on…next I had asked:“How does my claiming that it was you who gave the detailed scenarios (which I’m sure I must have) explain how I take the stories in the bible and claim they are true? How does that work”? and you said:
“It wasn't your claiming that it was me who gave the detailed scenarios that explains this, it was the fact that I gave some general scenarios and you spun them into these elaborate stories...you have quite an imagination.”

So you’re saying that because I…
No scratch that. Let me just say my coming up with scenarios for a ridiculous claim, has nothing to do with my claiming the Bible is true.

Vilepagan, I had said, basically, that if your conclusion about the evidence is right, I’m wrong, and if my conclusion about the evidence is right you are wrong, and you replied:
“That would be true only if our respective ideas were mutually exclusive. I don't believe they are.”

Before I debate that point I’d like to be clear of your conclusions. So, if you wouldn’t mind; what are your conclusions on the existence of God, and the validity of evolution.
My conclusions are that God exists and can be known by nature and by the Bible. Evolution in the micro definition (small changes within species) is fine, I have a dog that’s a good example of it, but evolution in the macro definition (life starting in simple form and growing complex through time producing different, and very complex and intelligent species) never happened.
Next about my admission that I am not worthy to speak for God, you said:
“But you do so every time you expound on what you believe his wishes to be.”

No. God has made His will known in the Bible, Genesis through Revelations. I just “expound” on what the Bible says.
Next, about God’s will being known in the Bible you said:
“He isn't speaking for himself in the Bible. Men are speaking for him.”

Men wrote what God directly “breathed” to them to write.
Next, about the church inviting debate you said:
“It's rather pointless for you to say you are "inviting debate" about subjects whose truth you believe to be unassailable.”

Well, some say the Bible is the truth from God, and Jesus is the only way to salvation, some say that’s not true… that’s where the debate comes in.
Next, a couple of posts ago you had said:
“Of course we all know that the Church invites debate and welcomes opposing viewpoints. At least science deals with "facts" that can be tested, while religion simply wants people to believe their doctrine unquestioningly, no matter how absurd those beliefs might be.”
And I responded:
“Also, I wonder what would happen if a Born again, fundamentalist Christian, walked into an atheist club meeting and proclaimed the Gospel and the risen Savior? I bet there would be warm hugs all around.”
And you responded:
“What an interesting, and yet completely irrelevant, flight of imagination.”

You don’t see my point? Read it again, I suspect you’ll eventually get my meaning.
Next, you said:
“Well...I can only speak for myself...I enjoy the "debate". When I say "debate" I mean that I haven't come to any conclusions (unlike you) as to the existence or non-existence of God.”

Why is it you haven’t come to any conclusions about God? I suspect that you’ve come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to prove God exists or to prove that the Bible is the Word of God. I'll just wait for your answer before I come to a full conclusion.
Next you said:
“Hmm...you mean like the stories in Genesis masquerading as a factual account of the creation of the universe?”

Well, well, well, it appears as if you’ve come to the “conclusion” that the Genesis account of creation is not a true account of what happened in the beginning. So we can conclude that you do not believe that God created the universe in the way that the Bible says He created it, and that means you've at least come to the conclusion about an aspect of how God created or rather did not create the universe.

Next I had asked you what doctrines in Christianity you thought were absurd and you said:
“Immaculate conception. Transubstantiation. Original sin.”

Ah, good, more “conclusions”. It’s interesting you have not concluded whether God exists or does not exists, but have concluded that immaculate conception, and original sin is absurd. Isn’t it possible that if God does exist, (which you haven’t concluded is true) that He brought His one of a kind Son into the world through immaculate conception, and Himself speaks of original sin?
Next about what would happen to an Atheist turned Christian at an Atheist meeting, you said:
“I have no idea what might happen in your fantasy atheists meetings…”

No conclusions there, huh? Well, by the posts of the atheists on this forum, I suspect the meeting wouldn’t be warm and understanding.

See what happened? You forgot to put in the part where you stated: “You're just making up "rules" as you go.” See, I was answering your accusation, the rules of the universe where created by God, and those rules existed long before I did.

No, I included all the quotes necessary for any reader to understand my point. My point was that just because a set of rules are older than you does not mean you aren't making them up, and also that if these rules can be "broken" by your God, then they could also be broken by other things or aspects of the universe, no matter how old they are.

Geez, can’t there be another choice?

Sure, its up to you and how you behave but with the level of sarcasm in the post I was refering to, those were the 2 best choices.

At the point you disagreed with my expansion of your idea you could have said, “no it wasn’t weed, it was crack, and it wasn’t Tom Cruise it was one of the girls from Charlie’s Angels", or some other disagreement.

I think one problem is that you are expecting me to give you the exact details. Well, if it was the drug scenario, I don't know what kind of drug...and if they were fooled into thinking it was Jesus they saw, I don't know who it might have been that fooled them. You wanted possible scenarios and I gave some to you but as for actual details of what they really saw, I have as much accruate facts as you do.

Finally, sorry about accusing you of claiming that I gave those details.

Originally posted by stark
Before I debate that point I’d like to be clear of your conclusions. So, if you wouldn’t mind; what are your conclusions on the existence of God, and the validity of evolution.

My conclusion is that man does not, and maybe cannot know if God exists or not.

Science has proven that evolution has occurred. The amount of conclusive scientific evidence to support that idea is overwhelming. What scientists are still attempting to figure out are the exact mechanisms that work to produce evolution in various species.

Well, well, well, it appears as if you’ve come to the “conclusion” that the Genesis account of creation is not a true account of what happened in the beginning. So we can conclude that you do not believe that God created the universe in the way that the Bible says He created it, and that means you've at least come to the conclusion about an aspect of how God created or rather did not create the universe.

I have come to the conclusion that someone must suspend their disbelief in order to accept the creation story presented in Genesis as fact. I'm not prepared to abandon my sense of reason because a 2000 year-old book claims to be the word of God.

Ah, good, more “conclusions”. It’s interesting you have not concluded whether God exists or does not exists, but have concluded that immaculate conception, and original sin is absurd.

You forgot transubstantiation. :D

Isn’t it possible that if God does exist, (which you haven’t concluded is true) that He brought His one of a kind Son into the world through immaculate conception, and Himself speaks of original sin?

If God exists, anything is "possible"...your version of events just doesn't seem very likely.

No conclusions there, huh? Well, by the posts of the atheists on this forum, I suspect the meeting wouldn’t be warm and understanding.

And?

dnamertz, about the missing statement on your post, you said:
“No, I included all the quotes necessary for any reader to understand my point.”

I guess we’ll just have to allow the reader to decide for themselves.
Next you said:
“My point was that just because a set of rules are older than you does not mean you aren't making them up,…”

Well, actually it does. If the rules are older then I am, I couldn’t make them up because they were in existence before I was.
Next you said:
“…and also that if these rules can be "broken" by your God, then they could also be broken by other things or aspects of the universe, no matter how old they are.”

My point wasn’t that God broke the rules. My point was that God existed before the rules existed. Scientist believe that the universe had a beginning, and that even time had a beginning, what I’m trying to do is introduce you to He who began it all.
Next about how I am to be classified. You gave only two choices, I wanted to know if there may be another one and you said:
“Sure, its up to you and how you behave but with the level of sarcasm in the post I was refering to, those were the 2 best choices.”

I suspect that this is another case where the reader will have to decide.
Next you said:
“I think one problem is that you are expecting me to give you the exact details. Well, if it was the drug scenario, I don't know what kind of drug...and if they were fooled into thinking it was Jesus they saw, I don't know who it might have been that fooled them.”

No, I don’t really expect much detail about the scenarios you suggested, because with those types of scenarios the more the detail there is, the easier it is to blow holes in them.
Now, as for the biblical account of the resurrection of Jesus, the only hope that the unbeliever has of tearing it down is to say that the resurrection couldn’t have happened because there is no such thing as miracles. All other strikes against the resurrection fail quickly. Of course I leave room that you may have something I haven’t heard before.
Next you said:
“You wanted possible scenarios and I gave some to you but as for actual details of what they really saw, I have as much accruate facts as you do.

That suggests that the biblical account of the resurrection is not factual, and as I was saying it has stood the test of time.

Well, actually it does. If the rules are older then I am, I couldn’t make them up because they were in existence before I was.

You are correct, perhaps I phrased my statement poorly...let me rephrase. My point was that the set of rules you are claiming to be true (the set where God exists before the rules and they don't apply to him) are wrong, and wheter they were made up yesterday or "before time" doesn't change that. I can make up a story about how time began but just because the time of the story takes place before I was born does not mean I'm not making it up.

No, I don’t really expect much detail about the scenarios you suggested, because with those types of scenarios the more the detail there is, the easier it is to blow holes in them.

The same is true about your unbelievable stories.

i wrote something posted over at http://permabanned.net called "god's an idiot or stoned".

Borg you said:
“My conclusion is that man does not, and maybe cannot know if God exists or not.”

By saying that aren’t you coming to a conclusion about God, and that He’s unknowable?
Next you said:
“Science has proven that evolution has occurred. The amount of conclusive scientific evidence to support that idea is overwhelming.”

That is a statement of faith, what I’d like to look at is the evidence you have that “proves” evolution is true. And to save time, I’m talking about macro-evolution, not micro-evolution.
Next you said:
“I have come to the conclusion that someone must suspend their disbelief in order to accept the creation story presented in Genesis as fact. I'm not prepared to abandon my sense of reason because a 2000 year-old book claims to be the word of God.”

Here, you have given another statement of faith, show me the evidence that convinced you to conclude that the Biblical account of creation is not the proper account.
Next, you had said that you have concluded that the immaculate conception, original sin, and transubstantiation is absurd. I discussed immaculate conception and original sin, but didn’t mention transubstantiation, and you said:
“You forgot transubstantiation.”

I didn’t forget it, I just didn’t mention it because I don’t believe that the bread in communion is turned into the literal flesh of Christ. The doctrine of transubstantiation is not found in the Bible. Many of the Catholic doctrines aren’t supported Biblically. Such as Priests not being allowed to marry, praying to the dead, or to Angels, purgatory, praying people out of purgatory, and others I can’t think of now.
Now, how is it you can’t conclude whether God exists or not, but you can conclude that the Genesis account of creation, the immaculate conception, and original sin, is wrong? Each of these require the presence of God, the same God that you claim may or may not exist. So wouldn’t it only be reasonable to conclude that they may or may not be true?
Next you said:
“If God exists, anything is "possible"...your version of events just doesn't seem very likely.”

Doesn’t seem very likely, only in the context of the God of the Bible not being God.

Finally about an atheist turned Christian at an atheists meeting I had said that by the posts of the atheists on this forum, I suspect the meeting wouldn’t be warm and understanding.
You responded:
“And?”

No, I’m fine with that, I just wanted to know if you agreed.

Originally posted by stark
Borg you said:


Actually that's me you're quoting.

“My conclusion is that man does not, and maybe cannot know if God exists or not.”

By saying that aren’t you coming to a conclusion about God, and that He’s unknowable?

No, I'm coming to a conclusion about Man.

Next you said:
“Science has proven that evolution has occurred. The amount of conclusive scientific evidence to support that idea is overwhelming.”

That is a statement of faith,

Wrong again...it's a statement of scientific fact, backed up by reams of evidence.

what I’d like to look at is the evidence you have that “proves” evolution is true. And to save time, I’m talking about macro-evolution, not micro-evolution.

Try Here:

http://www.google.com/

Next you said:
“I have come to the conclusion that someone must suspend their disbelief in order to accept the creation story presented in Genesis as fact. I'm not prepared to abandon my sense of reason because a 2000 year-old book claims to be the word of God.”

Here, you have given another statement of faith,

Try reading it again Stark...it's not a statement of "faith" at all...it's an opinion that in order to believe the story of creation in Genesis, a person must "suspend their disbelief", and a statement that I'm not prepared to ignore what I've been taught, what I've observed and experienced, and what I can logically deduce, in order to accept the Genesis tale as true.

show me the evidence that convinced you to conclude that the Biblical account of creation is not the proper account.

Sorry...I can't figure out a way to enter everything I've been taught, have observed and experienced, and can logically deduce, into the keyboard.

Next, you had said that you have concluded that the immaculate conception, original sin, and transubstantiation is absurd. I discussed immaculate conception and original sin, but didn’t mention transubstantiation, and you said:
“You forgot transubstantiation.”

I didn’t forget it, I just didn’t mention it because I don’t believe that the bread in communion is turned into the literal flesh of Christ. The doctrine of transubstantiation is not found in the Bible. Many of the Catholic doctrines aren’t supported Biblically. Such as Priests not being allowed to marry, praying to the dead, or to Angels, purgatory, praying people out of purgatory, and others I can’t think of now.

Ok...so you must be right and all those poor misguided Catholics must be wrong :rolleyes:

Now, how is it you can’t conclude whether God exists or not, but you can conclude that the Genesis account of creation, the immaculate conception, and original sin, is wrong?

I'll try again. I can't conclude that God does, or does not exist, because logic, and experience, tell me that the God as presented in the Bible (i.e. an omnipotent, omnipresent being), would be beyond our ability to accurately comprehend. Yet according to you, we know what God is like, and what he wants us to do. Highly unlikely.

Or...I can dismiss them as erroneous ideas, just like you dismiss the Catholic rituals as erroneous.

Each of these require the presence of God, the same God that you claim may or may not exist. So wouldn’t it only be reasonable to conclude that they may or may not be true?

No, not neccessarily...These concepts rely on the existence of god, but God may exist without neccessitating the existence of "original sin", or "immaculate conception".

Next you said:
“If God exists, anything is "possible"...your version of events just doesn't seem very likely.”

Doesn’t seem very likely, only in the context of the God of the Bible not being God.

Huh?

Vilepagan sorry about calling you Borg, I have a few debates going and got turned around.
Next you said:
“No, I'm coming to a conclusion about Man.”

By coming to a conclusion that man cannot know God, you are coming to the conclusion that God has made Himself unknowable by man. This is coming to a conclusion about God.
Next about whether your belief in evolution is a statement of faith or fact you said:
“Wrong again...it's a statement of scientific fact, backed up by reams of evidence.”

And when I asked for some of this evidence you gave me google.com. So far as I’ve seen this “reams of evidence” is for the faithful unquestioning evolutionist. Take for example Stanley Miller’s experiment which “proves” spontaneous life; when a serious investigation is conducted it falls apart. Look at that list of links that connect reptiles to birds; investigate each link and you’ll see it requires a lot of faith. So the invitation is still there, show me some evidence.
Next, I had said that your statement concerning the creation account is a statement of faith, and you said:
“Try reading it again Stark...it's not a statement of "faith" at all...it's an opinion that in order to believe the story of creation in Genesis, a person must "suspend their disbelief", and a statement that I'm not prepared to ignore what I've been taught, what I've observed and experienced, and what I can logically deduce, in order to accept the Genesis tale as true.”

Your “opinion”, your “disbelief”, what you’ve been “taught”, what you’ve “observed”, “experienced”, and “logically deduce“, is contingent on your belief, or faith, that God is unknowable. I also, as a Christian, have a faith statement, and that is from all that I have observed, experienced and logically deduced, it is reasonable for me to say that there is a God, nature around us demonstrates His existence, His Word is the Bible, and Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, because he loves us, and he rose from the dead around two thousand years ago.
Next about some of the Catholic doctrines you said:
“Ok...so you must be right and all those poor misguided Catholics must be wrong”
And for good measure also I’ll throw in where you said:
“Or...I can dismiss them as erroneous ideas, just like you dismiss the Catholic rituals as erroneous.”

Those “misguided Catholics” are unbiblical in some of their doctrine, it’s not about me it’s about the Bible. Just for fun why don’t you go by your local Catholic Church and ask the Priest to support from the Bible, these doctrines, that I listed.
Next you said:
“I'll try again. I can't conclude that God does, or does not exist, because logic, and experience, tell me that the God as presented in the Bible (i.e. an omnipotent, omnipresent being), would be beyond our ability to accurately comprehend. Yet according to you, we know what God is like, and what he wants us to do. Highly unlikely.”

No, according to the Bible and nature we know what God is like, and what he wants us to do. It’s not about me, it’s never about me.
Next about immaculate conception and original sin requiring God, you said:
“No, not neccessarily...These concepts rely on the existence of god, but God may exist without neccessitating the existence of "original sin", or "immaculate conception".

Yes they do necessarily need God, however you are right when you say that God can exist without necessitating the existence of original sin, or immaculate conception. I guess in a nutshell, God can exist without them, but they can’t exist without God. That is true for all things.
Finally you had written:
“If God exists, anything is "possible"...your version of events just doesn't seem very likely.”
And I answered:
“Doesn’t seem very likely, only in the context of the God of the Bible not being God.”

Wow, I didn’t even know what I was saying at first, let me give it another shot:
The Bible’s version of events are unlikely, only if the God that is revealed in the Bible is not the true God of creation.

Originally posted by stark
Vilepagan, you said:
“Wrong again...it's a statement of scientific fact, backed up by reams of evidence.”

And when I asked for some of this evidence you gave me google.com.

So the invitation is still there, show me some evidence.



Seek, and ye shall find...ask and it shall be revealed...:D

I also, as a Christian, have a faith statement, and that is from all that I have observed, experienced and logically deduced, it is reasonable for me to say that there is a God, nature around us demonstrates His existence, His Word is the Bible, and Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, because he loves us, and he rose from the dead around two thousand years ago.

Prove it.


Those “misguided Catholics” are unbiblical in some of their doctrine, it’s not about me it’s about the Bible.

Of course. You just happen to have the "correct" interpretation.

Just for fun why don’t you go by your local Catholic Church and ask the Priest to support from the Bible, these doctrines, that I listed.

No offense...that doesn't sound like fun.

No, according to the Bible and nature we know what God is like, and what he wants us to do. It’s not about me, it’s never about me.

It's about you claiming that the Bible is the truth, and that your interpretation of nature is correct.

I guess in a nutshell, God can exist without them, but they can’t exist without God. That is true for all things.

So you say. :)

When we study English in high school, our teacher always tells us that a piece of literature can be interpreted in several ways, but it doesn't mean that we can just make things up. We can make claims as long as we can support it.
stark's faith, and mine, have support from the Bible in all points. Catholics on the other hand do not. We have the best interpretation, because we actually read the Bible and use it as a base for our faith.
It's not about us talking and "claiming that the Bible is the truth." I just accept the Bible and show that my faith is based on it. I suppose I can't prove that the Bible is true, but I can show that my faith is derived directly from it.

I can't spend time to read all posts, but I read the first one by jere. :) That person obviously didn't read the Bible.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
We can make claims as long as we can support it.
stark's faith, and mine, have support from the Bible in all points. Catholics on the other hand do not. We have the best interpretation, because we actually read the Bible and use it as a base for our faith.


If you wanted to justify slavery, you could use the Bible for that too.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
If you wanted to justify slavery, you could use the Bible for that too.


heh,heh, you can justify ANYTHING with the bible. the bible is for arrogant retards who can't think for themselves.
the only thing worth a crap in it is what jesus actually SAID. the rest is garbage.

No! No! Show me at least one verse that promotes slavery, at least one!
Ivan, you can justify anything with anything. (ex: I am a man, therefore I am right), but it doesn't mean it's true. Many people misused and mis-interpreted the Bible, doesn't mean you should believe them. Use your own common sense. You know what Jesus said, does that match up their statements?

Originally posted by STOpandthink
No! No! Show me at least one verse that promotes slavery, at least one!


Leviticus 25:44

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

:)

That doesn't promote slavery, it simply sets up rules for it. I suppose you can say that by not going agains it, God is for it. Well, look in old testament they did a lot of things that we don't do right now (like killing cows and all the fun stuff)
Let me be more specific, show me a quote from new testament that promotes slavery.

Stopandthink shut the f*ck up, Next youll be saying, "No no provide me a quote on the 218th page second side, 8th way down that promotes slavery", just to try and prove its not there regardless of the fact that it is.

Originally posted by STOpandthink
That doesn't promote slavery, it simply sets up rules for it.

The verse I quoted specifically gives permission to engage in slavery. The Bible goes on to give detailed instructions on the proper way to treat the slaves you buy from "the nations around you".

I suppose you can say that by not going agains it, God is for it.

I wouldn't say that, but many people have in the past.

Well, look in old testament they did a lot of things that we don't do right now (like killing cows and all the fun stuff)

That's just another way of saying that people did, and believed things, in the past that they no longer do, or believe.

Why is that? Did the rules change? Did God realize that slavery was wrong, or did man decide that for himself despite what it says in the Bible?

Let me be more specific, show me a quote from new testament that promotes slavery.

Why the NT? Isn't the OT valid anymore? Isn't it the divine word of God?

All right, all right! Let me make it clear. OT has as much of my faith as does NT, because NT is based on OT. I don't know why God didn't straight up tell the people slavery is bad, but I know that as the time progressed it became obvious that God is against it. I think Jesus makes it clear.
Why this "change"? Well, as St. Augustine points out--God is unchangeable. How is that? Only our perception of God changes as we see His actions and hear His words, He doesn't change.
Ex: I have a car covered with a blanket. I slowly let the blanket slide, so every second you see a new part of the car. First you might think it's Toyota, then Honda, then whatever else. Doesn't mean that car WAS Toyota, you simply thought it was because to you it appeared so.
So is God. He is revealing Himself to us and expects more of us than He did of the people before us. Why? I call it social evolution. Without our parents slaughtering each other and owning slaves, we would not understand as well why it is so bad.
Also, Lokideviluk, I think that answered your comment

Originally posted by STOpandthink
How is that? Only our perception of God changes as we see His actions and hear His words, He doesn't change.


So you're saying that our perception of what God is, and what God wants, is flawed. Doesn't that mean that your perceptions about God are flawed as well? When will we get it right?

Nobody knows the Father except the Son AND the one to whom the Son will to reveal Him.
When we are in heaven, then we will see the true Power and Glory of God.
Right now, as you correctly pointed out, our perception is flawed, but not in a sense that it is wrong, but in a sense that it is not complete.

kind of like the way george bush claims to be a christian (someone who follows the teachings of christ) but he goes digging around in the old testament to make his case for christians to go to war.
didn't jesus say, he who is without sin cast the first stone
judge not lest ye be judged
turn the other cheek
etc.?








Originally posted by STOpandthink
All right, all right! Let me make it clear. OT has as much of my faith as does NT, because NT is based on OT. I don't know why God didn't straight up tell the people slavery is bad, but I know that as the time progressed it became obvious that God is against it. I think Jesus makes it clear.
Why this "change"? Well, as St. Augustine points out--God is unchangeable. How is that? Only our perception of God changes as we see His actions and hear His words, He doesn't change.
Ex: I have a car covered with a blanket. I slowly let the blanket slide, so every second you see a new part of the car. First you might think it's Toyota, then Honda, then whatever else. Doesn't mean that car WAS Toyota, you simply thought it was because to you it appeared so.
So is God. He is revealing Himself to us and expects more of us than He did of the people before us. Why? I call it social evolution. Without our parents slaughtering each other and owning slaves, we would not understand as well why it is so bad.
Also, Lokideviluk, I think that answered your comment

Originally posted by STOpandthink
All right, all right! Let me make it clear. OT has as much of my faith as does NT, because NT is based on OT. I don't know why God didn't straight up tell the people slavery is bad, but I know that as the time progressed it became obvious that God is against it. I think Jesus makes it clear.
Why this "change"? Well, as St. Augustine points out--God is unchangeable. How is that? Only our perception of God changes as we see His actions and hear His words, He doesn't change.
Ex: I have a car covered with a blanket. I slowly let the blanket slide, so every second you see a new part of the car. First you might think it's Toyota, then Honda, then whatever else. Doesn't mean that car WAS Toyota, you simply thought it was because to you it appeared so.
So is God. He is revealing Himself to us and expects more of us than He did of the people before us. Why? I call it social evolution. Without our parents slaughtering each other and owning slaves, we would not understand as well why it is so bad.
Also, Lokideviluk, I think that answered your comment


Yeh that was actually the best thing you have said since being here. But by those very words it must be clear to you as well now that the Bible simply isnt good enough. The very best Christians simply adhere to a simple human kindness, helping those that need it and leading a good honest life. The Bible is flawed in that it promotes human suffering at one point and banishes those who commit such the next. Im not a Christian but im going to say, that its clear no human can wholly comprehend Gods message nor translate it on to paper. God gave us the ability to Love and thats the very clearest message of his intention i think we'll ever get.

I still dont believe he exists but that is the best answer ive come up with for those that do.

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Yeh that was actually the best thing you have said since being here. But by those very words it must be clear to you as well now that the Bible simply isnt good enough. The very best Christians simply adhere to a simple human kindness, helping those that need it and leading a good honest life. The Bible is flawed in that it promotes human suffering at one point and banishes those who commit such the next. Im not a Christian but im going to say, that its clear no human can wholly comprehend Gods message nor translate it on to paper. God gave us the ability to Love and thats the very clearest message of his intention i think we'll ever get.

I still dont believe he exists but that is the best answer ive come up with for those that do.

"And the greatest of these is love"

I'd say you've about covered it...

Vilepagan about my request for evidence of Creation you said:
“Seek, and ye shall find...ask and it shall be revealed…

Wow. I took you up on your offer and entered “evidence for evolution” on google.com and the stuff they were producing was exciting…well exciting for me. No wonder you wouldn’t give one.
Next, about my faith statement concerning God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ, you said:
“Prove it.”

Prove it. That’s funny, it sounds almost like I haven’t given you a lot of evidence to support my beliefs. You big kidder…
Next, I had mentioned the unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic faith, and you said:
“Of course. You just happen to have the "correct" interpretation.”

Coincidently, the Catholics use the same Bible as I do, they’ve just added doctrine to it. They’ve also added extra Books to it, but these books were never accepted by the early church, and contain doctrine that is contradictory to the Bible teachings.
Next, about going down to the local Priest about what I had said, you responded:
“No offense...that doesn't sound like fun.”

I don’t know that the Priests like people to dig very deep into the Word of God, but you’ll never know unless you ask.
Next, about it not being about me, you said:
“It's about you claiming that the Bible is the truth, and that your interpretation of nature is correct.”

Nope, it’s about God revealing His Truth in the Bible, and His existence being obvious in nature.
Next, about nothing being able to exist without God, you said:
“So you say.”

Actually the Bible says it, I’m just telling you what it says.

Ivan you said:
“heh,heh, you can justify ANYTHING with the bible. the bible is for arrogant retards who can't think for themselves.”

Unless the Bible is the Word of God, then the Bible is the way to find out God’s plan for our lives.
Next you said:
“…the only thing worth a crap in it is what jesus actually SAID. the rest is garbage.”

Really? Jesus said that he is the only way to heaven, he also said that God loves you so much that He sent Jesus to die for you, and he often referred to himself with the rights and names of God.
I do agree, the words of Jesus are worth a lot.

You are absolutely right, Ivan. Christ said all those things and Bush is going agains them. Tells you something about him, doesn't it?
Loki said:
The very best Christians simply adhere to a simple human kindness, helping those that need it and leading a good honest life. The Bible is flawed in that it promotes human suffering at one point and banishes those who commit such the next. Im not a Christian but im going to say, that its clear no human can wholly comprehend Gods message nor translate it on to paper. God gave us the ability to Love and thats the very clearest message of his intention i think we'll ever get.
You know, Christ made it so everything basically comes down to: love God and love your neighbour. Yeah, it's that simple now.
But where does the Bible promote suffering? It says that we need to endure it, but promote it?? Who does it banish? Please explain.
Nobody can fully understand God, as Paul said, right now we see God in a dark mirror, as through a dirty glass. We know that He wants us to have love and faith, but some things are pretty unclear, I agree with that. What He definitely wants us to do is to love Him and our fellow man. That is crystal clear.

Wow, stark, if I didn't know you wrote that, I would have swore I did.

Originally posted by stark
Wow. I took you up on your offer and entered “evidence for evolution” on google.com and the stuff they were producing was exciting…well exciting for me. No wonder you wouldn’t give one.

The point I was making Stark, was that there is so much evidence supporting evolution that it would be impossible for me to post even a small amount of it here without clotting up the forum. If you are truly interested in finding evidence that supports evolution, it is readily available on the internet, and at your local library. As to the websites you visited and your inference that those sites didn't support evolution, I have no idea which sites you perused, but I suspect you chose sites that only support the Christian outlook. I might suggest sites operated by universities (non-christian ones) and perhaps museums, or science organizations. If you refuse to look at evidence that contradicts your beliefs, you will never expose yourself to new ideas.

Prove it. That’s funny, it sounds almost like I haven’t given you a lot of evidence to support my beliefs. You big kidder…

That's me. :)

Coincidently, the Catholics use the same Bible as I do, they’ve just added doctrine to it. They’ve also added extra Books to it, but these books were never accepted by the early church, and contain doctrine that is contradictory to the Bible teachings.

You like to claim that the Bible is the word of God, yet here you say that certain parts weren't "accepted" by the early church...did the early church not agree with certain things God had to say, or were they the ones who decided what was or wasn't the "word of God"?

I don’t know that the Priests like people to dig very deep into the Word of God, but you’ll never know unless you ask.

Well, you don't agree with what the Catholics believe...it seems to me that you might disagree with what a priest might say about the Bible.

Nope, it’s about God revealing His Truth in the Bible, and His existence being obvious in nature.

The Bible you refer to as being the revealed truth of God is the same one that was edited and approved by the early church. How much of the truth is revealed?

As to the existence of God being "obvious" in nature...tell me one thing from nature that is "obviously" indicating his existence, and cannot possibly be interpreted any other way.

Actually the Bible says it, I’m just telling you what it says.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that the Bible contains only truth, and no innaccuracies. If this one premise is incorrect, your argument has little or no foundation.

Is there any basis for this argument except what's found in the Bible?

The problem is this: You predicate your entire belief that the Bible is true on the fact that the Bible claims to be the truth, not on any outside corroboration. There are many truthful things written in the Bible, but that in no way means that everything in the book is the truth.

Originally posted by STOpandthink

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
The very best Christians simply adhere to a simple human kindness, helping those that need it and leading a good honest life. The Bible is flawed in that it promotes human suffering at one point and banishes those who commit such the next. Im not a Christian but im going to say, that its clear no human can wholly comprehend Gods message nor translate it on to paper. God gave us the ability to Love and thats the very clearest message of his intention i think we'll ever get.


Wow, stark, if I didn't know you wrote that, I would have swore I did.

I posted that not stark?

Actually i wasn't refering to the quote when I said that. Sorry if I made myself unclear. I was refering to the stark's posts before mine own. I put a blank line to try and indicate my change or thought. I guess that wasn't good enough. My bad.