7 days or 7 billion years?

RHRN

Jakkass wrote: »

Just curious I stumbled across this a few weeks ago and I just wanted to see peoples thoughts on it:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_for_Darwinism

RHRN

Twin-go wrote: »

ok, an example: 2 people are "sinners" the first stole a bag of crisps from his local shop. The second has killed several people. (Both have broke 1 of the 10 comandments)

The killer repents and seeks forgiveness from God and enters into the kingdom of Heaven.

The guy that stole the bag of crisps dosn't thinks it that big a deal and refused to repent and spends all eternity in "Hell"?

Really??

As my understanding of Christianity goes (correct me if I'm wrong) the number of commandments broken doesn't matter anyway and that if the killer is truly repentant (which god will know, being omniscient and all) he is granted access. The crisp stealing man didn't repent his sins and, as such, goes to hell.

But if the killer isn't truly sorry and just BSing, then down to hell he goes also.

Makes sense to me, if one is truly sorry for his sins (because anyone can just say I'm sorry, God knows who means it) then they should be forgiven.

P.S. I'm not Christian, so I could be wrong.

Twin-go

RHRN wrote: »

As my understanding of Christianity goes (correct me if I'm wrong) the number of commandments broken doesn't matter anyway and that if the killer is truly repentant (which god will know, being omniscient and all) he is granted access. The crisp stealing man didn't repent his sins and, as such, goes to hell.

But if the killer isn't sorry, then down to hell he goes also.

Was not saying number of Commandments matters.

My point is:

Would beleivers rather share heaven with a repentent killer or a crisp stealer who is not so sorry?

Just trying to show how aspects of Christian Beliefs are flawed. they are flawed because they were created by Man, Not an Omnipresent God.

Sam Vimes

Twin-go wrote: »

ok, an example: 2 people are "sinners" the first stole a bag of crisps from his local shop. The second has killed several people. (Both have broke 1 of the 10 comandments)

The killer repents and seeks forgiveness from God and enters into the kingdom of Heaven.

The guy that stole the bag of crisps dosn't thinks it that big a deal and refused to repent and spends all eternity in "Hell"?

Really??

Even worse, the guy who ran an orphanage for his whole life and never broke any of the commandments or harmed another soul but who was unfortunate enough to be born in India to Hindu parents goes to hell while the resentent killer is standing there next to you at the pearly gates

RHRN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Even worse, the guy who ran an orphanage for his whole life and never broke any of the commandments or harmed another soul but who was unfortunate enough to be born in India to Hindu parents goes to hell while the resentent killer is standing there next to you at the pearly gates

I thought I heard on the Christian forum once that since our hypothetical Indian never came into contact with Christianity (unless this Indian was, not sure) he never had the chance to accept God, and thus, didn't reject him. So he escapes hell.

Sam Vimes

RHRN wrote: »

I thought I heard on the Christian forum once that since our hypothetical Indian never came into contact with Christianity (unless this Indian was, not sure) he never had the chance to accept God, and thus, didn't reject him. So he escapes hell.

The only way to be saved is to accept the cosmic zombie as your saviour and lack of rejection is not the same as acceptance. And anyway, our hypothetical indian knows that christians exist and had the opportunity to convert. The only people who didn't are those who've never heard of Jebus.

But I wouldn't be surprised if you heard otherwise on the christianity fortun. Convincing themselves the bible says something other than it does when what it says is bad is a big part of christianity

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think I mentioned that everything that God does is good in this argument so far.

However, I do believe it and you are right to bring it in. However, if we cannot agree on what is good, or on what is evil then the terms are just arbitrary and of little use aren't they?

Firstly, I don't know where you got the idea that we cannot agree on what is good or evil, I would have thought in most cases it was very obvious, eg saving a life=good, killing someone=bad. There are shades of grey but the vast majority of things are unambiguously good or bad

Now, you said this:

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd agree with the Genesis account philosophically. Although evil may be intended it can often turn out for the good.

5. Yes, God has the power. However if this evil has an ultimate purpose why would God want to stop it?

This makes the assumption that god is good and that apparent evil has an unknown good purpose. I responded by saying that it would be just as valid to say that all apparent good might just as easily have an unknown evil purpose and now you're saying that you don't want to discuss it because we can't define what's good and evil apparently

It is bad debating practice to make a point and then say you don't want to discuss it. If you don't want to discuss it, you shouldn't bring it up in the first place. So I'll either ask you to discuss it or retract the point, my preference being for the latter.

philologos

Twin-go wrote: »

Are they? I must admit I have never heard of them refered to as such.

In philosophy of religion they are I should have said.

Twin-go wrote: »

I too agree with Dawkins on the fact that nature is indifferent to man.

We agree thus far

Twin-go wrote: »

If somthing is good its Gods doing. If it is evil it is because of the free will of Man. Religion eliminates some of peoples free choice. If you beleive in God it puts conditions on how you live your life. It limits you choices. It gives you Rules you have to live by to reach Heaven.

It depends on what standard you determine what is good or what is bad. I personally would deem something good if God would deem it good given my understanding of God, and I would deem something bad if God would deem it bad given my understanding of God.

I don't buy into the idea that good is whatever you want good to be. I.E I don't believe that there is such thing as relative morality.

Twin-go wrote: »

So God is Vengefull? God punished and killed people because they did not live as he wished them to. He gave them free will to live how they wished and then lead other people to kill them because of the way the chose to live, nice....

God punished people because they didn't adhere to the commandments that He gave to them so as to protect them, and to ensure that they lived the best possible way that they could.

Twin-go wrote: »

So the free will is out the window. You must follow to Covenant. You have free will but if you make what God considers the wrong choice you must repent or suffer the consiquences.

Free will is there but you are liable to the consequences. Solomon's writing in Ecclesiastes puts this rather nicely.

Ecclesiastes 11:9 wrote:

Rejoice, young man, while you are young, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Follow the inclination of your heart and the desire of your eyes, but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgement.

Twin-go wrote: »

ok, an example: 2 people are "sinners" the first stole a bag of crisps from his local shop. The second has killed several people. (Both have broke 1 of the 10 comandments)

Who says the 10 commandments are the only rules in Christianity? I am starting to suspect that you do not really understand Christianity at all. The 10 commandments are merely a tiny fraction of what God has advised us.

Twin-go wrote: »

The killer repents and seeks forgiveness from God and enters into the kingdom of Heaven.

If this man is truly sorry and isn't just saying it for the sake of his salvation he will receive the kingdom of heaven because he doesn't live according to his own selfish and arrogant ways. He was humble enough to accept he had screwed up. I respect this guy more than the guy who doesn't accept he has done anything wrong and is making efforts to change his ways. What he has done (murder) has been done, what will happen afterwards is his choice.

Twin-go wrote: »

The guy that stole the bag of crisps dosn't thinks it that big a deal and refused to repent and spends all eternity in "Hell"?

See above. This guy is arrogant he doesn't realise that he has done wrong before God.

Really??

Twin-go wrote: »

1. No he didn't - there is no proof beside a 2000 year old book.

The reasonable answer would be to say that you don't know. However, you are being obtuse since I have explained the role of indication previously. There is a lot that suggests to me that Christianity is true. I have also referenced and cited authors that you can read if you are open minded enough.

Twin-go wrote: »

2. No he's not - He is however Narcissistic charactor.

Is he? Interestingly, because you say so? Do you consider the State or the judges to be narcissistic because they rule based on the law? I don't consider God narcissistic for giving us laws to protect us because He loves us and wants us to enter into a meaningful relationship with you. I thank God for this personally.

Twin-go wrote: »

3. Therefore he knows there is suffering everywhere, in war torn countries, areas in the grips of famine and many incureable deaseases and people with physical and mental disabilities. Nice world.

I don't believe this world is intended to be perfection.

Twin-go wrote: »

4. Rules to eliminate free will.

So, you'd want to follow God automatically instead of deciding for yourself? Interesting.

Twin-go wrote: »

5. Including Cloning? or has he taken his eye off the ball?

I think if humans make clones they will be subject to God also.

Twin-go wrote: »

6. Refer back to my previous point on how flawed that ideal is.

It's about as flawed as the "authority" of the courts over you. They will still have judgement over you if you commit a crime. People don't want to realise for one second that somebody else might have it wrong and they have it wrong. I'm humble enough to accept that God is more likely correct than I am by a long shot.

Twin-go wrote: »

No, But i did attend Mass weekly for the first 18 years of my live. Have had 4 hours a week of religios education throughout my school years. Have been baptised, made my first Communion, My Confirmation and was married in a church (My wife is practicing Chathlic). I've gone to retreat weekends, I have done community work with the church in my parish, I have relitives that have entered the Preist hood. That is a lot of time and contact with the church without any answers to my questions and without any proof of God.

Right. Isn't it a bit stupid to try and make a review of an ideology before you truly know what it is about? If you want to criticise Christianity or to judge me for my beliefs it might be good to learn what the Bible actually says about God first.

As for being baptized, having your first communion, and confirmation. These things are worthless if you don't have a true relationship with God. Likewise with your marriage (in relation to understanding God or understanding religion, not that the marriage is worthless). This is merely idle religion. Anyone can do that IMO. There is a difference between doing something without questioning and actually knowing what the significance is behind it. If you don't know the significance behind baptism, marriage or any other religious rite they are nothing.

Why argue about the Bible or God if you don't know what it says about Him?

Twin-go wrote: »

If I were to commit as much of my time to Sience I have no doubt I would have several Phds to my name.

People commit their time to both religion and science. I know plenty of Christians at university studying science degrees, and some go as far as saying that studying science helps to assess the wonder of God's creation. I can't help but feel happy for them that they haven't bought into the ridiculous lie that Christianity and science are opposed.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly, I don't know where you got the idea that we cannot agree on what is good or evil, I would have thought in most cases it was very obvious, eg saving a life=good, killing someone=bad. There are shades of grey but the vast majority of things are unambiguously good or bad

I disagree with you on the source of good and evil. Therefore I will disagree with you on whether or not God is good or evil. That's the entire point. I don't buy into the notion that what is good or evil is contrived or made up by humanity.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This makes the assumption that god is good and that apparent evil has an unknown good purpose. I responded by saying that it would be just as valid to say that all apparent good might just as easily have an unknown evil purpose and now you're saying that you don't want to discuss it because we can't define what's good and evil apparently

Sam, would you mind dealing with the actual debate instead of nitpicking about what I said. I said in my last post that I believe that God is good, rather I believe that God is the standard for what is good or evil, so we don't need to have this pedantic discussion. Why is it that every discussion of ours has to deal with the phrasing or wording of posts rather than dealing with the actual debate. Spare us this time, please!

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, would you mind dealing with the actual debate instead of nitpicking about what I said. I said in my last post that I believe that God is good, rather I believe that God is the standard for what is good or evil, so we don't need to have this pedantic discussion. Why is it that every discussion of ours has to deal with the phrasing or wording of posts rather than dealing with the actual debate. Spare us this time, please!

This discussion is not dealing with phrasing of words, it's dealing with the fact that you made a claim, then said I couldn't make an equivalent claim unless I comprehensively proved what you were simply assuming, then said it was impossible to make the claim without first defining what good and evil are (but you could still make your claim), then denied making the claim, then said you didn't want to discuss it which confuses me since you brought it up.

But whatever floats your boat

Twin-go

Lets deal in the Facts as I see them to prove there propably is no God:

1. There are dozens of religions in the world. What make one more right than any of the others?

2.The Bible

• Old Testament: Written originaly in Hebrew by men not a God, then translated into Greek (used by the early Christians). Is was not until 400 A.D that it was translated into Latin by Jerome. Maybe somethings were lost in translation and/or changed to fit into Christian believes.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome "When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint in about 400 AD, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew text that was then available. He came to believe that the Hebrew text better testified to Christ than the Septuagint. He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew rather than Greek. His choice was severely criticized by Augustine , his contemporary, and others who regarded Jerome as a forger. But with the passage of time, acceptance of Jerome's version gradually increased in the West until it displaced the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint."

• New Testament:
• Most secular scholars beleive the the Gospels were written at the earliest 65 years after Jesus death. Again this leaves scope for the bending of the truth of Jesus's life, the miricals, the matching to the Old testament scriptures and his death and story of his resurection.
• Virgin Birth: Jesus concived by the Holy Spirit yet, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are One. It's a fairy story, nothing more. As a side note the Virgin Birth only became part of doctrine until 200 A.D.
• There is also the evidence for the missing Gospels that may have been closer to the true story of Jesus than suited the early church.

3. The lack of an appearence or communication from God in 2000 years since Jesus.
Even the most absentee landlord will show up once in a while. Why has he not show himself?
4. Bad things happening to good people.
5. Christian Religion and in particular Roman Catholism is the only social structure that has not grown and evolved in hundreds of years. We know no more about God than we did 2000 years ago. In every other field Man has advanced his understanding. Biology, Technology, Geography, Astronomy the list goes on.
6. I have not seen or heard reports of what heaven is like.


My final thought is that Man Created God to fill in the blanks in his knowledge of his world at the time. God did not create man.

I think it was mentioned elsewhere on this tread, "Mans God has gone from the Mountains, to the Sky, to the Universe, to outside the universe", over time, soon he will be so pushed so far away he will exist for no-one.

kumate_champ07

when the intelligent designer was designing sh1t,
did he have to make it so smelly?

philologos

Twin-go wrote: »

Lets deal in the Facts as I see them to prove there propably is no God:

They don't prove anything. If you conclude with "probably":
1. Your hypothesis is not based on things which are universally considered as facts.
2. You are considering indications to be facts. These things suggest to you that God probably doesn't exist, but they do not prove it. The best we can do in religious debate is use indication.

Twin-go wrote: »

1. There are dozens of religions in the world. What make one more right than any of the others?

Indications, and validity of source texts are often two rules of thumb. The New Testament has an unfair advantage in this respect. We have 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament alone which means that we are able to check the manuscripts for consistency and come up with a consistent translation. The nearest comparable example by authenticity is Homers Illyad with 600 manuscripts. The New Testament also has the nearest gap between the avaliable manuscripts and the time it was written than any other ancient text has. There are also numerous copies of the Old Testament thanks to Christian and Jewish tradition. I have yet to see such a strong case in respect to authenticity from any other major world religion.

Twin-go wrote: »

Old Testament: Written originaly in Hebrew by men not a God, then translated into Greek (used by the early Christians). Is was not until 400 A.D that it was translated into Latin by Jerome. Maybe somethings were lost in translation and/or changed to fit into Christian believes.

Considering all English translations have been translated directly from Biblical Hebrew since the King James version in the 17th century, we don't have to worry about this at all. We also translate the New Testament from Koine Greek. Latin is no longer used in any translation.

Twin-go wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome "When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint in about 400 AD, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew text that was then available. He came to believe that the Hebrew text better testified to Christ than the Septuagint. He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew rather than Greek. His choice was severely criticized by Augustine , his contemporary, and others who regarded Jerome as a forger. But with the passage of time, acceptance of Jerome's version gradually increased in the West until it displaced the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint."

Read above. Modern Biblical scholarship doesn't use Latin, it deals with Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek.

Twin-go wrote: »

New Testament:

• Most secular scholars beleive the the Gospels were written at the earliest 65 years after Jesus death. Again this leaves scope for the bending of the truth of Jesus's life, the miricals, the matching to the Old testament scriptures and his death and story of his resurection.

Interesting. The first account of the Resurrection was written 15 years after Christ's Resurrection. Theologians of varying beliefs recognise that this period is generally too soon for such an event to be altered. Also if this was written down 15 years after Christ's Resurrection it would have had to spread orally prior.

Your point about embellishment doesn't really hold up either:

The second fact is that on the Sunday after the Crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. This is substantiated by Paul's early report to the Corinthians, which implies the empty tomb and by Mark's very old source material. So again we have early, independent attestation.
And we have a lot more. For instance the empty-tomb story lacks signs of legendary embellishment, and the earliest known Jewish response to the proclaimation of Jesus' resurrection presupposes that his tomb was empty. In addition, it's reported that women discovered the tomb empty. Now, the tetimony of women was considered so unreliable that they couldn't testify in Jewish courts. The only reason to include the highly embarrassing detail that women discovered the empty tomb is that the gospel writers were faithfully recording what really happened.

pg 82 - Lee Strobel - The Case for Faith

Twin-go wrote: »

• Virgin Birth: Jesus concived by the Holy Spirit yet, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are One. It's a fairy story, nothing more. As a side note the Virgin Birth only became part of doctrine until 200 A.D.

Absolutely nonsense. The Virgin Birth was in both Matthew and Luke which far predate the second century.

You conclude that it is a fairy story on lies. Christians believed that Jesus was born of a virgin from the get go.

Twin-go wrote: »

There is also the evidence for the missing Gospels that may have been closer to the true story of Jesus than suited the early church.

You just ridicule the Virgin birth for being contrived in the third century when there is no reason to believe this given the theological consensus on the dating of Matthew and Luke, then you go on to say that documents written in the fourth century are more valid than those written in the first?

Generally when assessing crimes we don't use statements that date 300 years after the event do we? (All the Gnostic Gospels are written from the 3rd - 4th century onwards. One (the Gospel of Barnabas) was written in 1600AD. These weren't included in the New Testament because these weren't used consistently from the 1st century onwards. The texts of the New Testaments were and we have historical evidence to prove that they were from the mere fact that the Church Fathers from the 1st to the 3rd centuries quoted all the New Testament texts.

Twin-go wrote: »

3. The lack of an appearence or communication from God in 2000 years since Jesus.
Even the most absentee landlord will show up once in a while. Why has he not show himself?

Many people including myself will attest to a spiritual connection with God. This isn't a fact. You say boldly at the start that we are looking at facts but you have made several theological errors, and now you continue to make assumptions. What kind of facts are these?

Twin-go wrote: »

4. Bad things happening to good people.

See our discussion on evil in the previous few pages.

Twin-go wrote: »

5. Christian Religion and in particular Roman Catholism is the only social structure that has not grown and evolved in hundreds of years. We know no more about God than we did 2000 years ago. In every other field Man has advanced his understanding. Biology, Technology, Geography, Astronomy the list goes on.

Surely if something is true, it is true for all time irrespective of it's date?

Twin-go wrote: »

6. I have not seen or heard reports of what heaven is like.

Really? I've read reports of what heaven is like. I certainly haven't seen what heaven is like because I haven't departed this world yet.

Twin-go wrote: »

My final thought is that Man Created God to fill in the blanks in his knowledge of his world at the time. God did not create man.

At least you call this a thought rather than a "fact".

Twin-go wrote: »

I think it was mentioned elsewhere on this tread, "Mans God has gone from the Mountains, to the Sky, to the Universe, to outside the universe", over time, soon he will be so pushed so far away he will exist for no-one.

I have yet to see anything of substance that removes God from any of these locations. Christians generally don't believe that God is a physical being, or that He is corporeal. Jews didn't either

pts

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

when the intelligent designer was designing sh1t,
did he have to make it so smelly?

As our friends in Bord Gáis keep reminding us; "for safety it's got a smell"

kumate_champ07

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't help but feel happy for them that they haven't bought into the ridiculous lie that Christianity and science are opposed.

so theres scientific proof that god exists and jesus christ existed?
any scientific proof how mary had a baby without sex?
or are all your answers written in a big book of storys by eye witnesses of eye witnesses a hundred years later after the events written about supposedly took place?

Twin-go

@Jakkass Tell my somthing without mentioning the Bible that is probable proof God exits.

ScumLord

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

any scientific proof how mary had a baby without sex?

There's evidence to support she lied, or the people that wrote the book about her lied to turn Jesus into superman.

Twin-go

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

so theres scientific proof that god exists and jesus christ existed?
any scientific proof how mary had a baby without sex?
or are all your answers written in a big book of storys by eye witnesses of eye witnesses a hundred years later after the events written about supposedly took place?

In fareness Jesus probably existed.

philologos

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

so theres scientific proof that god exists and jesus christ existed?
any scientific proof how mary had a baby without sex?
or are all your answers written in a big book of storys by eye witnesses of eye witnesses a hundred years later after the events written about supposedly took place?

Whether or not Jesus Christ existed is already sorted by historical sources from Tactius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud. They all confirm Jesus' existence.

As for proof of God existing, there isn't proof for taking the position that He doesn't exist either. The best we can do in an argument about religion is deal with what suggests to us that God exists or that God doesn't exist. The fact that we are even discussing this issue the way we are is a sign that there isn't any clear proof that God exists or does not exist. If there were there would be a lot less division on the issue.

As for scientific proof on whether or not the Virgin Birth happened or not. Science does not deal with miracles. Miracles are by their nature infrequent and extremely rare. Science analyses what is frequently observable, or what can be deduced from what we know about the frequently observable.

The question or not as to whether or not it is rational to believe in miracles depends on whether or not you believe in God in the first place:

"Does a person have to suspend their critical judgement in order to believe in something as improbable as miracles?"
Craig sat upright in his chair and raised his index finger as if to punctuate his point. "Only if you believe that God does not exist!" he stressed. "Then I would agree - the miraculous would be absurd. But if there is a Creator who designed and brought the universe into being who sustains its existence moment by moment, who is responsible for the very natural laws that govern the physical world, then certainly it is very rational to believe that miracles are possible"
pg 61 - Lee Strobel - The Case for Faith

We need to discern if God is behind creation before we can deal with how probable miracles are. If you don't believe in God or a Creator it is not rational to believe in miracles, if you do it certainly is.

Twin-go wrote: »

@Jakkass Tell my somthing without mentioning the Bible that is probable proof God exits.

See above.

I'm highly dissapointed that I wrote such a long post in response to the mistruths you posted about Christianity, and not have so much as a thought in return

Twin-go

@Jakkass. I am collecting my thoughts. I am trying to also trying to resest attacking you after you called my marrage meaningless just because I don't think God Exists.

kumate_champ07

Jakkass wrote: »

As for scientific proof on whether or not the Virgin Birth happened or not. Science does not deal with miracles.

hmmmm..

My name is URL

Twin-go wrote: »

@Jakkass. I am collecting my thoughts. I am trying to also trying to resest attacking you after you called my marrage meaningless just because I don't think God Exists.

I'm sure he meant meaningless in the eyes of 'God' and since you don't believe in 'God' then surely his statement is meaningless to you..?

Twin-go

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

hmmmm..

It's magic!!!

kumate_champ07

"so john, this story seems a little far fetched, like how will it be believable without any scientific evidence?
that wont be a problem peter, sure we'll call it a miracle.
a miracle, i like the sound of that word!"

philologos

Twin-go wrote: »

@Jakkass. I am collecting my thoughts. I am trying to also trying to resest attacking you after you called my marrage meaningless just because I don't think God Exists.

I didn't call your marriage meaningless. I merely argued that it has no religious significance if you are going to go to church for x amount of years, being baptized etc is of no significance in showing how much you know about a certain religion. I edited my post, I should have phrased that better and I am truly sorry for that. I never intended it in that way.

I'm sure and I hope that your marriage to your wife is meaningful and I hope that it endures for many years to come. I think marriage whether under religious or atheist / agnostic pretext is something to celebrate. I apologise for the misunderstanding and my bad phrasing

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm sure he meant meaningless in the eyes of 'God' and since you don't believe in 'God' then surely his statement is meaningless to you..?

I didn't mean it meaningless in the eyes of God. I am sure that God would consider any marriage to be a good thing. I don't think that anyones marriage is invalid because they do it outside of a church. My phrasing was extremely bad, and I never intended it in that way.

I was saying that people can carry out religious acts all their lives without believing in the core message.

Twin-go

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm sure he meant meaningless in the eyes of 'God' and since you don't believe in 'God' then surely his statement is meaningless to you..?

Jakkass wrote:

As for being baptized, having your first communion, and confirmation. These things are worthless if you don't have a true relationship with God. Likewise with your marriage.

I miss quoted, My marriage is "Worthless" if I don't have a relationship with God. A bit harsh.

My Marriage means more to me than any God. I worship my wife and my life with her. She has brought more meaning to me than God ever could.

philologos

I never intended it in that context, and I truly apologise to you for my bad phrasing.

Twin-go

Jakkass wrote: »

I never intended it in that context, and I truly apologise to you for my bad phrasing.

thanks for clearing up

Twin-go

@Jakkass:

Ok, I did a bit of looking around the web to see if anybody has anything that is proof of God. Many interesting and wacky ideas out there but I can't say I've found anything to show that there probably is a God.

You have referenced the Bible heavily as proof of Gods existance.

Can you answer me some questions?

Is the bible truely the word of God?

Should we take everything that is in the bible as Gods will/direction on how we should live or lives?

philologos

Twin-go wrote: »

Ok, I did a bit of looking around the web to see if anybody has anything that is proof of God. Many interesting and wacky ideas out there but I can't say I've found anything to show that there probably is a God.

There is no proof. I believe that God most likely exists due to indication. I've recommended some books and I've even quoted from one if you actually want to investigate the case for faith or the case for belief in God.

Twin-go wrote: »

You have referenced the Bible heavily as proof of Gods existance.

I haven't referenced it as proof of God's existence. The Bible isn't proof, it's a hypothesis to be proven or to be indicated for. You cannot substantiate the Bible with the Bible. I quoted it when people were discussing about God's nature. To discuss God's nature one has to assume that God exists. During the problem of evil that is why I used the text.

Twin-go wrote: »

Can you answer me some questions?

Of course.

Twin-go wrote: »

Is the bible truely the word of God?

The Bible is divinely inspired in Christian belief. It does include some passages with dialogue between God and man. However by and large the Bible is a book about God, and about how God has impacted peoples lives. The Bible was written by prophets but inspired by God would be the short hand answer.

Twin-go wrote: »

Should we take everything that is in the bible as Gods will/direction on how we should live or lives?

I am to follow the commandments as best as I can. However nobody is saved by God by making sure to follow every last commandment. It isn't possible, and we can mess up a lot. I would view the moral commandments of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Jewish prophets to be a standard that we should aim to reach not that anyone can fully 100% reach that standard.

Nobody is "good" because of following all the commandments. People are good because their sins have been wiped clean by Jesus Christ in God's eyes. We are made righteous by faith and through God's grace rather than our own works.

ThePlough

:pac::pac::pac::pac:


I am laughing my head off at this thread.

The boardsies believe in evolution!!!!!!

Given how base most posters are, I would hate to have seen the earlier models.

Madness.