Search Members

[Morningstar]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 21 2007,05:27)

Hi SOL, So satan is your God and our God is evil? Thanks. nuff said.

No my God is the Father of Christ not the angel who delivered the law and is the leader of the satans.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 20 2007,20:33)

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 20 2007,11:07) Quote (Son of Light @ Dec. 20 2007,11:03) Yes both Jews, Christians and even Muslims serving the God of this world and following his examples in the Old Testament do go around killing everyone. SOL. Evolutionists kill people. Think Adolph Hitler. Librarians kill people. Drunk drivers kill people. There will always be a percentage of people from all genders, races, languages, religions, classes, that kill people. I could make the same argument you do with Rich people kill, or poor people kill. People kill people, SOL. That proves nothing except that man is a sinner and anyone can sin. But christians have a book that commands them to kill people. Stuart

Yes, because they kept the old testament of Samael.

[Morningstar]

Quote (acertainchap @ Dec. 17 2007,23:51)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 17 2007,20:20) Quote (acertainchap @ Dec. 17 2007,11:55) No we are not animals t8. I disagree with you. The wisest man in the bible disagrees: Ecclesiastes 3 18 I said in my heart, “Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.” 19 For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust. 21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth? “Like” animals. Not animals.

A literal translation of that passage:

18I said in my heart concerning the matter of the sons of man that God might cleanse them, so as to see that they themselves [are] beasts.

19For an event [is to] the sons of man, and an event [is to] the beasts, even one event [is] to them; as the death of this, so [is] the death of that; and one spirit [is] to all, and the advantage of man above the beast is nothing, for the whole [is] vanity.

20The whole are going unto one place, the whole have been from the dust, and the whole are turning back unto the dust.

[Morningstar]

Quote (acertainchap @ Dec. 17 2007,11:55)

No we are not animals t8. I disagree with you.

The wisest man in the bible disagrees:

Ecclesiastes 3

18 I said in my heart, “Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.”

19 For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity.

20 All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust.

21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?

[Morningstar]

Quote (kenrch @ Dec. 16 2007,01:34)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 15 2007,11:12) Quote (david @ Dec. 14 2007,17:16) Quote Audiences know they are being deceived, and want the deception to have the cleverness of simplicity. Yes, they do want a clever simple answer, but when asked, they always think the answer is difficult.  If I'm watching a magic trick, I first watch it for the simple feeling of wonder it creates, as you speak of.  Then, I de-construct it, because I must know the answer.  Once you peel back the layers, you can never go back to that sence of mystery.  Yes, I know the motivation of those who watch magic shows.  But my point was that that while they WANT it to be a clever simple solution, they tend to believe it is not.  They cannot fathom being fooled by something so simple.  Their reaction is universally the same: “Oh, is that all it is.” Truthfully, the magic happens in their head.  People have this habit of seeing not what is there, but what they are told.  And many see what they want to see or even what they are told they must see. Either the world is suffering from a mass delusion that God exists or it is suffering from a mass delusion that evolution is true. But it is obvious from this that people and in fact the majority of them can be just plain wrong, deceived, taken in, fooled. I still can't get over the fact that 40% of scientists say they believe in God. Why is it said, “Evolution vs. God” Isn't it possible “both” are true? Is this a matter of the literalness of Genesis 1 & 2? Read these words carefully and open your mind to the possibility they both are true. Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature Let the earth bring forth the living creature Hum, did the water just get warmer?

I dont really understand what you mean, Kenrch.

My point is that there really is alot of evidence that implies evolution is real.

Do I personally know this “for sure”? No, I don't, but from my personal study of the subject it seems very much the case that evolution is most likely a fact.

It is only recently within the last few hundred years that “christians” have dogmatically insisted that the Genesis account is a linear and literal description of creation. Look into what past generations have believed about Genesis chapter 1.

Even before modern science came along past christians did NOT think Genesis was literal concerning HOW God made heaven and earth.

Read the early church fathers from Justin Martyr and Origen all the way through history up until Augustine and then even onward towards Martin Luther. MOST OF HISTORIES CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST NEVER BELIEVED GENESIS DESCRIBED LITERALLY HOW THINGS WERE MADE.

We are drawing a line that doesn't even need to exist!!!

The last 100 years of Christianity has created a strange backlash against science. Why? In my opinion, not because science is not compatable with Faith but because of the Fear of a “model” being introduced that could possibly exclude a need for a God whether in actuality or just perceived.

[Morningstar]

Quote (david @ Dec. 14 2007,17:16)

Quote Audiences know they are being deceived, and want the deception to have the cleverness of simplicity. Yes, they do want a clever simple answer, but when asked, they always think the answer is difficult.  If I'm watching a magic trick, I first watch it for the simple feeling of wonder it creates, as you speak of.  Then, I de-construct it, because I must know the answer.  Once you peel back the layers, you can never go back to that sence of mystery.  Yes, I know the motivation of those who watch magic shows.  But my point was that that while they WANT it to be a clever simple solution, they tend to believe it is not.  They cannot fathom being fooled by something so simple.  Their reaction is universally the same: “Oh, is that all it is.” Truthfully, the magic happens in their head.  People have this habit of seeing not what is there, but what they are told.  And many see what they want to see or even what they are told they must see. Either the world is suffering from a mass delusion that God exists or it is suffering from a mass delusion that evolution is true. But it is obvious from this that people and in fact the majority of them can be just plain wrong, deceived, taken in, fooled. I still can't get over the fact that 40% of scientists say they believe in God.

Why is it said, “Evolution vs. God”

Isn't it possible “both” are true?

Is this a matter of the literalness of Genesis 1 & 2?

Read these words carefully and open your mind to the possibility they both are true.

Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,

Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature

Let the earth bring forth the living creature

[Morningstar]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 12 2007,01:43)

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 11 2007,21:34) Could someone (including apes) explain to me how nothing became the cosmos. I am not interested in the matter vs antimatter war, or how matter came to be and clumped together to form bodies and systems. No I have heard all that before, and it proves naught that God created the cosmos. No what I want to know is how nothing actually became something. When I think of nothing, all I can think of is nothing resulting from it. In fact no result at all. Please explain how nothing turned into something, or how something came out of nothing. I really would like to know, because I could apply that knowledge to some inventive ideas I have, such as making 1 million dollars appear out of thin air. Thanks in advance and I will give away 10% of the 1 million dollars to your favourite charity, if I can make it appear from nothing at all based on your explanation of how something can come from nothing. t8, The way I understand it, scientist realize this conundrum.  I don't think any of them think everything came out of nothing.  I think they believe that at one point in time, the basic rudementary needed “things” existed before the creation of big bang / time.   These “things” must have existed eternally (hard to find words in a no time universe) in some form of a steady state until some reaction occured causing them to “start up” the creation process.

Thus they replace a sentient god with an inanimate god.

The great inanimate eternal, source of all.

May the Force be with you.

[Morningstar]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 11 2007,21:34)

Could someone (including apes) explain to me how nothing became the cosmos. I am not interested in the matter vs antimatter war, or how matter came to be and clumped together to form bodies and systems. No I have heard all that before, and it proves naught that God created the cosmos. No what I want to know is how nothing actually became something. When I think of nothing, all I can think of is nothing resulting from it. In fact no result at all. Please explain how nothing turned into something, or how something came out of nothing. I really would like to know, because I could apply that knowledge to some inventive ideas I have, such as making 1 million dollars appear out of thin air. Thanks in advance and I will give away 10% of the 1 million dollars to your favourite charity, if I can make it appear from nothing at all based on your explanation of how something can come from nothing.

t8,

The way I understand it, scientist realize this conundrum. I don't think any of them think everything came out of nothing. I think they believe that at one point in time, the basic rudementary needed “things” existed before the creation of big bang / time.

These “things” must have existed eternally (hard to find words in a no time universe) in some form of a steady state until some reaction occured causing them to “start up” the creation process.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2007,16:55)

Hi Morningstar Quote What Christianity really is (and I know all organizations claim their understandings that each conflict, but specificaly just using the teachings of Jesus) is to believe Christ and follow his example. His doctrine is for us to put love first. To God and to each other. This gets alot of lip service and little practical application by “churchianity”. Did Jesus say it or Paul invent it, the command to hate ones family in order to follow Jesus? Quote The things the world hates Christianity for are often things Jesus himself taught against; Christians are not to be involved in politics. We are not of this world. We have our own King and are just sojourners passing through. Have you come across this site before? (I don’t endorse it myself): http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/about.php Stuart

you say:

That is why christian fundamentalists cannot be trusted. Their loyalties do not reside with their fellow humans. To claim your own king is a kind of treason. I would add it is a delusion.

I would agree that fundamentalists cannot always be trusted because they do not understand the teachings of Christ and twist them to suit their needs on creating the version of the Kingdom of God on earth by their cultures, morals and their laws.

Jesus says the Kingdom is “within” you. The bible tells us a “literal” kingdom will come, but for now it is in man.

As for the treason charge, hey count me guilty. I render unto the law what is demanded of me. However, I have no loyality to a body of human goverment, but I DO have a strong moral loyality to my fellow man.

Seriously Stu, do you really believe in devout loyality to human goverments? That to me seems delusional. I suspect for this reason that is not what you meant. Instead I most likely, think you meant loyalty to humans.

Well, that is the entire message of Christ summed up. Love your neighbor like yourself EVEN YOUR ENEMIES.

Don't confuse the imposters with the real deal. I am not talking about doctrine I am talking about those who live as Christ taught. Mother Theresea comes to mind.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2007,16:55)

Hi Morningstar Quote What Christianity really is (and I know all organizations claim their understandings that each conflict, but specificaly just using the teachings of Jesus) is to believe Christ and follow his example. His doctrine is for us to put love first. To God and to each other. This gets alot of lip service and little practical application by “churchianity”. Did Jesus say it or Paul invent it, the command to hate ones family in order to follow Jesus? Quote The things the world hates Christianity for are often things Jesus himself taught against; Christians are not to be involved in politics. We are not of this world. We have our own King and are just sojourners passing through. That is why christian fundamentalists cannot be trusted.  Their loyalties do not reside with their fellow humans.  To claim your own king is a kind of treason.  I would add it is a delusion. Have you come across this site before? (I don’t endorse it myself): http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/about.php Stuart

hating ones family for Jesus.

If you honestly evaluated what that meant I don't think you would use it as fodder anymore against Jesus.

Jesus speaks of bringing not peace but a sword. Not a “literal” sword but a rebellion or revolution that “DIVIDES” people. Those to whom love the world and it's selfish and evil ways and those who follow Christ leaving that all behind.

This “Hate” this “Sword” if evaluated honestly, no matter how tempting it is for unbelievers to use it against Christ, is taking the subject matter completely out of context.

Jesus message of love is overwhelming obvious in scripture and is emphasized dramatically more often than another other world religion.

[Morningstar]

Quote (martian @ Dec. 08 2007,09:24)

I have been off this site (mostly) for some time. I am not surprised that the arguments are still the same. The so called “proofs” people use are the same and nothing is changed or accomplished. I think there is a good reason for this. It is primarily due to the fact that scriptural proof has never worked to determine teaching. Because no one can agree or stick to an honest method to interpret scripture, all that is accomplished is opinion that cannot be proven to the satisfaction of the other party. I think there is an answer to part of this dilemma, though I doubt many have the guts to lay their doctrines on the alter to be  truthfully tested. A secondary problem with the approach I am going to  outline is that it requires a common sense approach. Most doctrinal people are not open to common sense. A few points to consider —- 1. Character is the standard by which we gauge a persons motives and intentions toward God and man. 2. Scripture is not the standard by which we will be judged nor the standard by which our Godliness will be gauged. Christ is the standard and how much we become like Him is the measure of our Godliness. Not because Christ is God, but because Christ is our example and the pattern son. The pattern for us to follow.  He clearly demonstrated perfected humanity. Humanity with the character of God developed in Him. He demonstrated the correct motives and intentions toward both God and man. Simply put scriptural interpretation is subject, first and foremost, not to hermeneutical principles, preconceived ideas or opinions, but rather to the character and plan of God in Christ. When one formulates a teaching/doctrine, the every first test is that of functionality. How does it function or work to help me complete the plan of God in my life or demonstrate how to achieve the character of God in me. In other words, how does it help me be like Christ? If one is to understand the plan of God from scripture it must be understood that God’s goal is to grow up sons and daughters like Christ. There are many Christians that sell the plan of God short by assuming that we can never really be like Christ or that it will be achieved in heaven and not on Earth. Most Christians cannot see really being like Christ because they think that means we can never sin. Sin is literally translated as missing the mark. Like an archer missing a target. Most sin is not inherently evil. (there are sins that are evil) Most sin is wrongly categorized as not living up to the standard of Christ in our behavior. Our behavior is based on our motives and intentions. The struggle then become one of changing our motive and intentions. Like Christ said “clean the inside of the cup first and the outside will clean itself”. Two people miss the mark. One is remorseful and commits to doing better. The other offers excuses, blames others, and is arrogant. Both have missed the mark (sin). One shows respect for his father’s torah the other tramples it underfoot. One shows maturity in attitude and is forgiven, the other shows lack of respect for his father words is immature and not forgiven. That which separate us from God is not behavior, but rather the attitude, motive or intention behind the behavior. The very point of Christ death on the cross was to wipe out our sins. ALL OUR SINS PAST PRSENT AND FUTURE. Our sins are as far as the East from the west and are no longer the object of concern. Being free from sin allows us to concentrate on the more important task of becoming like Christ in our character. This is also confirmed by the correct understanding of the Torah. The Torah was a teaching tool with basic guidelines on how to behave. The word/Torah is a governor or tutor to bring us to Christ.  In other words a tool to help us to learn to be like Christ in character. When a child broke the father’s Torah he was not punished but taught and counseled how to do it better the next  time. Only when a child’s attitude was disrespectful was the child punished. When a child showed an attitude to learn and a Godly sorrow at failing to complete the Torah, he showed good character. His motives to please his father and intentions to continue to do so were pleasing to God. For as long as the child continues to show this character and attitude toward God, he is perfect. The more circumstances under which the child shows this “perfect” attitude the more wisdom he learns and the more mature he becomes. Unfortunately most Churches do not teach character development, but rather become sin police and ignor the motives and intentions that lie benieth. Quick to correct, they bully the body into their personal standard of “Godliness” and never deal with the inner man. This is easy to do because it requires little or no discernment or individual Godly judgment. It only requires authority given by man and a preconceived carnal standard of Godliness. Back to doctrines of Christ as human or God. Christ learned obedience by what he suffered. He grew in stature before God and man. Luke 2:52?And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. Hebrews 5:8?Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. We too go through this maturing process = Ephesians 4:13?until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 1 Peter 2:21?[ Christ Is Our Example ] For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 1 Peter 5:10?After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you. As the above verse in 1 Peter confirms, we are to follow in Christ steps. If Christ is in any part God, one must ask the question, did Christ make his steps by virtue of his humanity or his deity? If you say Christ did anything that we cannot do or if his accomplishments are in any way due to deity, then you have only a partial example. A partial example leaves the entire question open for debate as to which of Christ accomplishments we can duplicate. AND YET — We are told that we are to come to the stature of the fullness of Christ and not to the partial example of Christ. How about “Greater things shall Ye (us) do” Greater then a God? The entire question of Christ as our example combined with Christ being in any part God does not fit within the functional plan of God. If Christ is God or dual natured then we can never come to the fullness of the stature of Christ. Several questions a person should ask of a doctrine are these. Does the doctrine contradict the attributes of God? Example: Does the doctrine say that God can change from being a Spirit into something else? The one thing God cannot do is stop being God/Spirit. Does the doctrine contradict the Character of God? Example: Does the doctrine say or imply that God can sin? Does it conclude that Christ is fully God and fully man and can sin then God can sin? Does the doctrine claim that Christ is our example and then make Christ into a Creature or position that we can never attain?

this is where the study of textual criticism, history, the early church, dead sea scrolls, biblical language, archaelogy and other fields of research really help.

unfortunately, most Christians, I know, don't see much value here and are afraid to reference any material (for insight) outside of scripture.

however, the very nature of much of scripture, in particular the new testament, is written within t
he context that some information is a given or already known. Such as the epistles, which are answers to church questions, or further teaching on subjects that were first introduced through oral teaching face to face. We are not privy to these personal teachings and must reassemble them within there context.

Context is everything in interpretation.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2007,16:36)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 09 2007,15:25) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2007,14:51) Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 09 2007,12:48) I was mostly hoping you would see that evolution and science only gives data of processes. The final conclusions made in both camps are usually just philosophy. To the best of our knowledge, gravity force changes in proportion to the inverse square of the distance everywhere in the universe.  This is an established fact and it would be perverse to deny it.  The atomic theory of chemistry has the same status.  I don't think these truths are merely philosophy. Stuart I meant concerning the “first cause” of these things. OK, well I don't see how the video is particularly relevant to that.  He discusses your 'set in motion' idea but not the philosophical results of applying science to a question. Just to boringly repeat myself, a first cause is a hole that science fills with nothing and deism fills with a being.  If anything is a human invention it is the being. I think the laws of cricket apply just as well.  They state that if the umpires are in disagreement the state of things shall continue.  You must conclude that the state of things is 'nothing' in the face of no evidence to the contrary.  Thus the MCC has final say on this question: there is no deity. Stuart

did you listen to the whole thing? he discusses the philosopy of those who share Richard Dawkins view and how they interpret scientific evidence.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2007,14:51)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 09 2007,12:48) I was mostly hoping you would see that evolution and science only gives data of processes. The final conclusions made in both camps are usually just philosophy. To the best of our knowledge, gravity force changes in proportion to the inverse square of the distance everywhere in the universe.  This is an established fact and it would be perverse to deny it.  The atomic theory of chemistry has the same status.  I don't think these truths are merely philosophy. Stuart

I meant concerning the “first cause” of these things.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2007,02:20)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 09 2007,00:16) Stu, Would you please listen to the lecture on the link found on this webpage when you have a chance? http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2007/november/milleraudio.htm Hi Morningstar As you know, and is discussed in this programme, Kenneth Miller was instrumental in demonstrating intelligent design to be not worthy of teaching in science classes in Dover, Pennsylvania. In this he goes on to advocate a form of intelligent design of the deist kind you wrote about – the creation itself is completely preordained and would seem to have irreducible complexity contained in it for humans to be the final destination of evolution.  This directly contradicts the known mechanism of evolution and his own scientific testimony against IDiocy.  It assumes that evolution could not possibly take any other route, which is not supported by evidence and again is contradicted by how evolution is known to work.   Frankly his parading of a series of scientists who were also christian is cheap, demonstrating nothing about the actual truth of the claims of christianity and, it is not even the kind of thing Dawkins would do to promote atheism. He has glossed over a lot of details, for example he mentions but does not explain the apparent contradiction between the cruel and indifferent natural world and the special loving, purposeful concept of life he has.  He claims that the assertion that life is purposeful is equivalent to the case that it does not have a particular purpose specified from outside.  However the evidence mounts up very high on the 'no particular purpose' side of that. What do you make of it? Stuart

I was mostly hoping you would see that evolution and science only gives data of processes.

The final conclusions made in both camps are usually just philosophy.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2007,09:24)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 08 2007,19:26) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2007,16:25) Hi Morningstar Quote Perhaps, interventions have been detected but remain in the “not understood” category. Perhaps.  Regardless of whether they are understood or not, such events or phenomena cannot be attributed to a deity without reason.  You can just as validly say that no events of this kind have ever been caused by a deity, and you would not be wrong. Quote I fully acknowledge the veractiy of the scientific method. I fully acknowledge the “need” to seperate religious concepts from scientific studies.   At this stage of our knowledge, and for a potentially limitless extension of stages of human knowledge, science cannot be used to answer some of these questions. Only philosophy can address them. What worthwhile question do you think could not be addressed by the scientific method? Stuart Any question that can't be answered through observation and experimentation.   Or any question that observation and experimentation might not be able to be answered within ones lifespan. Can you think of an example of a question that cannot be in principle investigated by science?   Is lifespan is the limiting factor on suspending judgement?  Do we wait a certian length of time then switch from science to gut instinct?  Is there nothing that we can die wondering about?  Must we come to our own conclusion on everything about which we are curious?  Doesn't life have more edge if you learn to live with a little uncertainty?  Are fundamentalists educated out of being allowed to leave some things in the 'don't know' basket? Stuart

you can make your own choice, which obviously you do.

[Morningstar]

Stu,

Would you please listen to the lecture on the link found on this webpage when you have a chance?

http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2007/november/milleraudio.htm

[Morningstar]

Evidence from a personal nature, means my philosophy.

Why don't I use scientific method in all cases, because it can't be used to answer “certain” questions I want answered. I want these answer before death and don't have the time to wait on something that science might never be able to answer anyway.

Ask yourself what you think the First Cause is. Ok, now my philosophy says that is God. Now I just need to define God. It really isn't dogmatic it's logic. Scienctific method doesn't allow an effect without a cause.

How, is it a problem that science seeks to explain everything in the most parsimonious way? Sounds like I have something in common with science.

you can't have zeroth cause, that would actually be the first.

The First Cause is eternal regardless of time or lack of time.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2007,22:47)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 08 2007,05:33) Hi Stu, I agree that following Jesus is decidely illogical but how resilient is logic in the face of death? But I am old enough to cling to the light God sent in scripture that shines beyond human life. It is worth it. Hi Nick To be fair to you, if you set your worldview to the christian frame of reference, then following Jesus is actually quite logical.   However this is the flip side of Pascal's (ridiculous) Wager.  What if you are wrong?  What if the compromises you have made in your life, that have excluded possibilities because they are unscriptural, is all for nothing?  What if putting other people second for the sake of doctrine (as others here certainly do) has just resulted in damaged or ended or never-attempted relationships, and the 'promised' sequence that follows the often narrow life and death of a believer, does not exist?   For me, death means the end.  It means the atoms that make up my body and the biochemical pathways that constitute my thoughts and humanity will simply go back into circulation and the only part left of me as a whole will be a trace in others' memories.  To be at peace with that prospect is to have a certain future, and I suggest to you that in the total absence of any evidence or as you say logical argument to the contrary, that is what will happen to us all. Life is too short and valuable to waste on castles in the air. Stuart

I agree with everything you said Stu, about the consequences of being wrong. Except, the idea of putting people second for the idea of doctrine. I admit this is often what “actually” happens, this is what turns people away from Christianity as it is repulsive.

What Christianity really is (and I know all organizations claim their understandings that each conflict, but specificaly just using the teachings of Jesus) is to believe Christ and follow his example. His doctrine is for us to put love first. To God and to each other. This gets alot of lip service and little practical application by “churchianity”.

The things the world hates Christianity for are often things Jesus himself taught against;

Christians are not to be involved in politics. We are not of this world. We have our own King and are just sojourners passing through.

Christians are not to kill or make war.

Christians are to give to those in need even selling their own items to do so or giving the shirt off their back. Most Christians today are greedy engineers fueling the fire in the engine of capitalism.

The list goes on and on. However, this is exactly what Christ said would happen and that many would follow him and yet he will say he never knew them.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2007,16:25)

Hi Morningstar Quote Perhaps, interventions have been detected but remain in the “not understood” category. Perhaps.  Regardless of whether they are understood or not, such events or phenomena cannot be attributed to a deity without reason.  You can just as validly say that no events of this kind have ever been caused by a deity, and you would not be wrong. Quote I fully acknowledge the veractiy of the scientific method. I fully acknowledge the “need” to seperate religious concepts from scientific studies.   At this stage of our knowledge, and for a potentially limitless extension of stages of human knowledge, science cannot be used to answer some of these questions. Only philosophy can address them. What worthwhile question do you think could not be addressed by the scientific method? Stuart

Any question that can't be answered through observation and experimentation. Or any question that observation and experimentation might not be able to be answered within ones lifespan.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2007,07:57)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 08 2007,01:08) That was pretty robust Stu, but it didn't really answer the question.  It demonstrated some interpretations of scientific data on processes, but did not demonstrate anything beyond processes. The bible says God rested after creation.  To me this says he set in motion these processes that do not require him to directly intervene in order for them to operate smoothly according to his plan. He rested   Doesn't sound very omnipotent to me!   The robust part of the answer, of course, is the 'I don't know…'  We are talking about a worldview that sees the unexplained as material for investigation, not for getting on knees and giving thanks to non-existent supernatural (or to you, natural) beings.   Now if I have not answered your question, either there is no answer that will satisfy your question, or I don't know the answer.  Physicists are working on it.  Keep up your subscription to Nature and you will see progress.  Keep reading scripture and you will see none.   Science has answered why there is a large variety of species, and many fossils of extinct species that are less varied but more radically different than living things today the older and deeper you dig.  This goes hand-in-hand with the DNA comparison record.  Also explained is the nature of the event that created matter, as you say the process.  The events most difficult to describe each likely happened only once in the history of this universe -big bang and abiogenesis, so they are understandably open to more more speculation but the secrets of the Big Bang are unravelling.   I have not read anywhere here an attempt to give as much detail as I have about how the universe started.  Are fundamentalists full of bluster?  I think you and t8 might be asking 'why' questions where none are relevant, although you have not articulated them clearly.  That is the result of placing your own model of things on top of the event any trying to wedge a creator in there where none is needed or even can be made to fit what happened.  Certainly the Judeo-christian book of mythology is no help – it gives less of an explanation than an astrology chart.  Do you concede the possibility that there was no kind of deity involved at all in the start of the universe as we know it?  If not, then your version is the opposite of robust, it is coloured by prejudice, for which there is no room when really seeking truth. Stuart

of course I could be wrong.

I view this as a weighing of evidence, both from of an empircal and personal nature.

But I Know (meaning have no doubt) that there is a God by my previous definition concerning the First Cause.

Like I said it is for me a matter of Defining him.

I don't get a subscription to Nature but I do get a subscription from Discover.

I don't refute any scientific claims, for me science is not an enemy at all to belief in God.

[Author]

Posts