Left Behind
discussion
its funny how they call this christian fiction...
Will wrote: "You love him, but so help him if he doesn't accept, he gets to be tortured for eternity. So loving."You have chosen it so stop whining.
Funny how Dave opens his mouth and gets to breathe the air God created. start A post on that one on some forum to start confusion. warped in the head.
Karen wrote: "You have chosen it so stop whining."What have I chosen?
Karen wrote: "Dave wrote: "Karen wrote: "What exactly is your beef about on this Dave?"I simply do not believe the claims from evangelicals about Christian charity and compassion when the large majority of th..."
I take no such side but unlike you I also do not hold the STATE in any high regard unlike the Christian church that bows it's knee in a very un-Christlike reverence. Do yourself a favor and read Jacques Ellul and Lawrence Vance instead of mass-market tripe from Tim LaHaye or his script-monkey Jerry Jenkins.
Karen wrote: God told you these or a mere mortal the worms will feed on? Actually, that's true. They're not canon, of course, but even James alludes to other scriptures that we do not have in our Bible (James 4:5). And Paul talks of letters to other towns and specifically two other letters to Corinth, which would have most likely been added to the canon had they survived to 325 AD. There are other "gospels" such as Judas' and Philip's.
A good resource on this is Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make it Into The New Testament by Bart Ehrman. He quotes the lost "scriptures" (the bits and pieces we have of them), and gives a lot of historical information. It's a very interesting read. For some of the "scriptures," it's quite obvious why they were not included in the canon, others have some fairly good points to be considered (and should taken with the same grain of salt we give to more modern theologians such as Lewis, Yancy, etc.).
But, back on topic. Hated, despised even, the Left Behind series. Hated the 6th-grade-level writing, hated the unbelievable, two-dimensional characters, despised that I could read the whole 5,929,849-book series in an afternoon. (One should not be able to read that many pages in that short amount of time; but that's also the publishers fault.)
Patricia wrote: "GoodReads isn't a place where you try and lash out against people who like a certain book, it's a place where people who enjoy the same books can come and be friends and share their opinions and kn..."LIKE!!!
I read the series some time ago and I remember I enjoyed it immensely.I was raised a Roman Catholic and I since my late teens I've become vastly discouraged by the Church and Catholicism in general so maybe I even kind of flirted with the idea of protestantism - I've got some friends who are really good people - and they're protestant.
This series and my following research on reformed Christianity and creationism convinced me that this is definitely not a path for me. But I did like the books nonetheless.
Carly wrote: "Patricia wrote: "GoodReads isn't a place where you try and lash out against people who like a certain book, it's a place where people who enjoy the same books can come and be friends and share thei..."Rachel Strong wrote: "But, back on topic. Hated, despised even, the Left Behind series. Hated the 6th-grade-level writing, hated the unbelievable, two-dimensional characters, despised that I could read the whole 5,929,8..."
Like your Like!
I guess it's possible for different people to have different definition on what is really "Christian fiction", though I don't know for sure. Of course the beliefs & values promoted in it are against mine but given who these authors are it's kind of expected. What really irks me about this book is that I don't think the authors have done enough research on stuff other than the bible.
Oh for cryin' out loud. Please don't drag Christianity into the relativism movement, people! Christianity is about Jesus Christ's salvation as laid out in the Bible - not much to define other than that. These books promote salvation through Jesus Christ, so they're Christian. Now, whether they are good Christian fiction can be up for debate - that's simply opinion.
Carly wrote: "Oh for cryin' out loud. Please don't drag Christianity into the relativism movement, people! Christianity is about Jesus Christ's salvation as laid out in the Bible - not much to define other than..."Shows you what you know... Christianity has damn little to do with Jesus Christ. Case-in-point: Emperor Constantine choosing Sol Invictus Day (Roman sun deity), 25 December as the allaged day of birth for Jesus Christ and then mandating it along with Conversion-By-The-Sword.
Carly wrote: "Oh for cryin' out loud. Please don't drag Christianity into the relativism movement, people! Christianity is about Jesus Christ's salvation as laid out in the Bible - not much to define other than..."I think what you said makes sense. I said that only because I've seen Fred Clark, who is a Baptist and a seminary graduate, calling this series "evil, anti-Christian crap" on his blog. I don't think I know enough to tell if Mr. Clark is right for the "anti-Christian" bit.
Jenelle wrote: "I will be on my knee's praying for you that God will open your eyes and your mind and your heart to His Word through this reading."And I hope that you can free yourself from ancient myths.
Jenelle wrote: "Can you prove the Bible is not true, or is that just your opinion?"
Can you prove that the Quran isn't true? Can you prove that bigfoot doesn't exist? Can you prove that Zeus isn't real? I think you can see what I'm getting at here.
Dave wrote....Shows you what you know... Christianity has damn little to do with Jesus Christ. Case-in-point: Emperor Constantine choosing Sol Invictus Day (Roman sun deity), 25 December as the allaged day of birth for Jesus Christ and then mandating it along with Conversion-By-The-Sword.Dude. Are you for real? Or just very, very angry?
Carly wrote: "Oh for cryin' out loud. Please don't drag Christianity into the relativism movement, people! Christianity is about Jesus Christ's salvation as laid out in the Bible - not much to define other than..."Yes, yes, yes. Thank you!!!
Xdyj wrote: "I guess it's possible for different people to have different definition on what is really "Christian fiction", though I don't know for sure. Of course the beliefs & values promoted in it are agains..."But...the books are about the interpretation & fleshing out of prophecy FROM the Bible--simulating what they think it could look like. Only the Bible. Period. Take it or leave it, actually. Their writing style...yes you can discuss that to kingdom come...or the Rapture, which ever come first! (hee hee, a little Christian humor there...)
Xdyj wrote: I think what you said makes sense. I said that only because I've seen Fred Clark, who is a Baptist and a seminary graduate, calling this series "evil, anti-Christian crap" on his blog. I don't think I know enough to tell if Mr. Clark is right for the "anti-Christian" bit."Thank you for your rational consideration of my comments. Just for the record, they were directed at the entire discussion, not as an attack on your comment. :-)
That's curious that someone would call the books evil and anti-Christian - that's a first for me, but I haven't read the entire series - maybe there's some little tidbit somewhere he disagrees with (strongly, I would guess).
Dave wrote: "Shows you what you know... Christianity has damn little to do with Jesus Christ. Case-in-point: Emperor Constantine choosing Sol Invictus Day (Roman sun deity), 25 December as the allaged day of birth for Jesus Christ and then mandating it along with Conversion-By-The-Sword."Not sure what your point is here, Dave, except maybe to be rude and petty. This doesn't change Christ's salvation. One man's actions cannot redefine what God Himself laid out. But if you want to put that much faith in man, go for it.
Wow! This thread went into a very weird corner.
Seems anything in this vein evokes a lot of emotion from all corners, doesn't it?
As it should, especially when there's a side that's starts claiming someone else is possessed with a demon or that Jesus' divinity isn't even debatable.
Jenelle wrote: "December 25 was as good as any!"Realistically, it's not. If you look at history, especially of the Roman empire, you'll see how it came to be Dec 25th, originally during Pagan festivals where the worshiped the birth of the Sun, but Biblically speaking, it would make more sense if Jesus' birth was celebrated in the summer or spring since the Bible talks about their being sheep in the fields.
Will wrote: "Jenelle wrote: "December 25 was as good as any!"Realistically, it's not. If you look at history, especially of the Roman empire, you'll see how it came to be Dec 25th, originally during Pagan fes..."
and his birth being during a census, which were always carried out in summer... and that there wasn't one in the year they chose at the council of nicea to be the year of christs birth, but there was 7 years later. And that Herod died about 30 years before that year...
I love that good christians cling to ideas that were instituted by a roman emperor who was a pagan at the time, a worshipper of Sol Invictus (the victorious sun, if you wanted a translation) no less, at the council of nicea, 325 years after the date they chose at that same council for the birth of mister christ.
Jenelle wrote: "You are full of the Devil!"Jenelle, please read Luke 6:37. God said not to judge others this way. Share your opinion on the books or Jesus, but not on others' soul.
Hazel wrote: "I love that good christians cling to ideas that were instituted by a roman emperor ..."I cling to Christ's message of salvation. Period. It's all that's needed, not a special day to celebrate His birth, wrong date or right date. It doesn't change His sacrifice.
Carly wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I love that good christians cling to ideas that were instituted by a roman emperor ..."I cling to Christ's message of salvation. Period. It's all that's needed, not a special day ..."
you mean you don't even question the veracity of it? You don't wonder if what you're reading in the bible is true or not? You don't think to check that you're not being lied to?
And why is it his message of salvation you cling to? Why not his message of kindness to the needy? Or what about his message that you should hate your family if you wish to be his disciple? Or that if you have a naughty thought about someone elses partner, not only should you be punished according to the old testament, but that you should pluck out the eye that looked at that person?
He didn't make a sacrifice, if he raised from the dead on the third day, then he (and thus god) lost nothing. The definition of a sacrifice is losing something for someone else to gain, well, if we pretend for a moment that god existed, and that jesus was one person, not an amalgamation of stories cobbled together to control people, then neither god nor jesus lost anything, but gained one hell of a lot in mindless worshippers who do not question the veracity of these stories written by men to control other people.
sacrifice: noun
1. the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.
2. the person, animal, or thing so offered.
3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.
4. the thing so surrendered or devoted.
5. a loss incurred in selling something below its value.
A sacrifice requires that you stay sacrificed, instead jesus was raised up and rewarded, thats no sacrifice.
Vicki wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "I guess it's possible for different people to have different definition on what is really "Christian fiction", though I don't know for sure. Of course the beliefs & values promoted in ..."No it's set in our world and in the future so the authors were supposed to do enough research on how modern society works in order to write convincingly how real, normal people would react to these events.
This thread seems to be heading towards another atheists v.s. Christians debate :)
ComWa wrote: "Why comment with an attack?"
I agree.
I agree.
Just to clears things first - I am not an atheist.Jenelle wrote: "Do we poke your eyes out, or cut off your fingers or head in the name of a god??????"
Well, people who invaded my country some 70 years ago did a lot of much worse than that and they had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles and I am pretty sure they weren't Muslims or Buddhists or Jews.
Jenelle wrote: "The devil loves Dummies"
Oh my! I have to have this one engraved on my belt buckle!
Jenelle:1) practically every single war in the entirety of the last 2000yrs + has been religiously motivated. You don't see atheists killing people over their beliefs. So inanswer to your question of whther you behead people in the name of god, yes, thats exactly what christians have done for 100s of years.
2)Why are you so concerned about Christians beliefs and why is it so important to you to invalidate JESUS and his followers?
For my own part, I don't actively try to change anyones belief, if you want to believe it, go ahead, but the least anyone should do with something so important as a belief is to question it, they should look into the past of the matter, and not just through christian scholars, but through the work of secular scholars too. You should look at it in a reasonable and rational manner, and find proof for what you're being told, check the veracity of your ministers claims, check that what your parents tell you is true, even if they honestly believe it to be so. Question it, search for the truth of the matter, be skeptical of any claims you would, in the normal day to day life, be skeptical of. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", further, "any claim asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence". You claim that the bible is true, can you present any contemporary accounts that record the same events as set down in the bible? Can you provide real proof of the existence of a deity? Can you prove that its Yahweh, and not Zeus? You keep telling us that god is real, well if you make the claim, the onus lies with you to prove it, pleas do, it would be wonderful to believe there was an all loving god who will give me a place in paradise after death, but thus far, theres no evidence to suggest that thats the case, I'm not willing to place this life down as a bet against a vague possibilty of a better one after I die. I'll live this one to the full, in the knowledge that this is the only one I get. Wanting something to be so does not make it so. The real world does not present any evidence for the claims made by the religious, as such, the only rational thing to do is to reject those claims. And believe me, I've looked, and I've looked. if there were a god, and he wants me to find him, why is he hiding? Why doesn't he just say "hazel, here I am"? Why doesn't he make sure that everyone knows for certain that he's there? Why doesn't he appear before us all to finally put any doubt to rest? Why doesn't he appear and lay all obscurity and confusion to rest? Why doe he allow wars over different interpretations of his words? Why doesn't he ensure that there can be no "mistranslation"? Why is the world so full of suffering and evil, when surely, he is a more powerful being than the devil, and thus can stop the devil doing anything that god does not want it to do? Does this mean that god wants us to suffer? Does this mean that god wants people to die of hunger and exposure? does this mean that god doesn't actually care? Or does it mean he's not capable of making it better? If thats the case, then why call him god?
This is a god who in the bible creates laws that say a woman who has been raped must marry her rapist, that slavery is acceptable, he gives instructions on how to sell your own daughter into slavery. He says that a wayward child should be stoned to death. He says that women are not as good as men, that people who don't accept his rule are to be slaughtered, he actively encourages genocide, and also accepts child sacrifice. Why should we like this god? Why should worship it? If this god existed, I still wouldn't put my faith in such a bigoted, sexist, hateful being.
Religion doesn't kill people and atheism doesn't kill people. People kill people. Your beliefs define you you might say but I hate to tell you that there have been religious people who've killed and atheists who've killed. It's a fallacy to state that religion or atheism kills rather its people who killI agree, its people that kill, but the wars are religiously motivated. Also, religion provides an excuse, it removes the blame from the people doing the killing "god willed it", "god says it must be so in the Bible". It externalises all blame.
You say the real world doesn't present any evidence for the claims of the religious? Can you provide specific examples? I see around me in the moral fibre of human beings and in the beauty of nature a plan and a design to the world. I don't see the random workings of chance forging cells into better organisms until they reach a level of humanity. Human beings are far grander than that to me.
Examples can be found in embryology, where a developing human goes through the same stages of development as a fish, an amphibian and a reptile, as well as lower forms of mammals. The embryology of a reptile goes through the stages of a fish and an amphibian, and then a reptile, but goes no further than that, as it doesn't need to. Human embroyos have gills at one stage, and a tail at another. We have fur before we are born, which is shed. These all hark back to earlier forms of life in our ancestry.
There are multiple examples in physiology and in genetics. We have genes that no longer serve a purpose, but have been found in other animals, in which they do serve a purpose, showing that we at some point we similar to these other animals and have the gene, now in a junk form, to prove it.
I suggest reading Why Evolution Is True for a further, and better, explanation.
Humans to me are far grander than the god created us idea, we are the product of 4billion years of evolution, thats far more amazing and awe inspiring than some megalomaniacal father figure with a penchant for stoning anyone who disagrees with him creating us.
he doesn't tell anyone, because he isn't there. In the stories of the bible, god is always stomping around, telling people to worship him and to fear him (yes, thats right, fear him, sounds like a bully to me), and showing himself... interestingly, since there are ways of recording this properly it simply doesn't happen. Its because there's nothing there, and the bible is a story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZr...
As we learn more about the universe, and our planet, and life etc, god is receeding, god is gettign smaller and smaller, as we explain what was previously unexplainable. God is a convenient explanation for the things we can't explain. Let Carl Sagan put it in perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToq...
Giansar wrote "Well, people who invaded my country some 70 years ago did a lot of much worse than that and they had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles and I am pretty sure they weren't Muslims or Buddhists or Jews."Good heavens. I am sorry this was done in His name.
sorry, you're right, the bible isn't a story, its a collection of stories. Right now, i have to go collect my daughter from nursery, so I'll leave you hanging there for a bit. Go get a cup of coffee and something to eat.What I will say though, is you're still using the god of the gaps, you don't or won't understand, and we as a species yet don't understand, that doesn't mean we fill in the gaps with god. God is an even less plausible explanation, as it produces a logical failure. If an intelligent being is needed to create all things, and to create our intelligence and complexity, and intelligence and complexity cannot be evolved from simple origins, then in order to create that intelligence, the creator must be even more intelligent and complex than we are, as such, if intelligence is needed to create intelligence, and intelligence and complexity cannot come from simplicity, what created the complex, intelligent being that created us? Ad infinitum, backwards.
I find evolution a very succinct and easy to understand explanation. And its accepted as scientific fact. Evolution is fact, the theory of evolution by natural selection explains the way evolution works.
You're looking for reasons not to believe in a way. I'm not going to debate it. You're entitled to think what you want but I might as well defend myself and my ideas/belief which is what you've basically attacked.Sorry, thats bullshit, I'm not "looking for reasons not to believe", I'm giving the reasons that i don't. If you don't like what you read, thats your prerogative. And yes, i have basically attacked your beliefs, but I haven't attacked you, theres a difference. Faith and the person are not the same thing, faith is something thats additional to the person, not part of who they are, and if you can't distance yourself and observe them objectively, then you'll always be clouded by them. (bear in mind, I'm using the general "you", not the specific "you")
The bible is a cobbled together collection of stories, some of which may be based in historical truth, butt hat doesn't matter, because the contents of the bible are generally horrific, and as such, are not worthy of real consideration for any ethical or moral person. I am more moral than the abrahamic god, and no doubt, so are you.
Ashley wrote: "Wow, are you trying to make enemies on here or friends?Because insulting people, doesnt result in you making any friends...
But about the book, I havent read it myself yet, but everyone has..."
They weren't trying to scare people. They were telling what they believed was truth. So I agree with you
Hazel wrote: "you mean you don't even question the veracity of it? You don't wonder if what you're reading in the bible is true or not? You don't think to check that you're not being lied to?..."Umm. Not sure where you got that, but that's not what I said. Quit trying to put words in my mouth.
Hazel wrote: "what created the complex, intelligent being that created us? Ad infinitum, backwards..."No one created Him. It's called being infinite.
Hazel wrote: "I find evolution a very succinct and easy to understand explanation. And its accepted as scientific fact. Evolution is fact, the theory of evolution by natural selection explains the way evolution works."
This I've never understood. Natural selection is supposed to be about survival of the fittest, correct? The example I've always seen is the brown moths and the white moths - the white stands out in natural surroundings, so it gets eaten, and the brown survives. At the same time, evolution supposedly created all the variations of species... but natural selection, the basis of evolution, eliminates genes, doesn't ADD them. So logically, we should be losing species instead of gaining them like evolutionists claim we have been. OH WAIT! We ARE losing species!! Hmmm...
Also, please explain to me what started it all, what provided the material for the "Big Bang," if not a Higher Being? How could something come from nothing unless Someone put it there? And does the theory (yes *gasp* I dare to call it what it is: theory, not FACT) of evolution require any less faith than say, believing in a Higher Power?
I have no desire to have a heated or insulting debate over Creation/Evolution, Faith/Science, despite any sarcastic tones I may have let slip. These discussions are basically pointless, especially among strangers as this entire thread demonstrates - I am really just curious as to the answers.
you don't understand evolution if you think it eliminates genes. Thats not how it works. There are random gene mutations, meaning that either a nucleotide is changed, or that a new one is accidentally added, and as such it can produce a different protein when its read, produce a different characteristic's, etc. Sometimes the gene mutation is beneficial, sometimes it isn't. The beneficial mutations make the individual more successful, as such that individual is more likely to survive and produce more young, and as such, the beneficial gene spreads through the population in subsequent generations. Detrimental genes reduce an individuals fitness, thus meaning its less likely to survive and produce young, and as such, the detrimental gene mutation does not spread as readily and may even eventually dissappear from the genepool completely.Also, I'm a biologist, if you want answers about the big bang ask a physicist, and if you want to discuss abiogenesis ask a chemist.
Evolution is fact, it is widely accepted as fact, there is so much evidence to support it that it is fact. The fact of evolution is explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection. I think you misunderstood what theory means, let me explain. Evolution is a scientific theory, thus we must use the scientific definition of the word theory. A scientific theory is a set of rules, observations and hypotheses that are supported by a large amount of evidence and data which is then used to make further predictions about the hypotheses contained within it. It is not simply an idea, or a possibility, a theory is a set of confirmed data used to explain the observed facts and make further predictions, which if found to be correct further support and strengthen the theory, I bet you don't question the theory of gravity.
Evolution has 150 years of evidence, millions of fossils in the fossil record, including transitional species, it is backed up by embryology studies and by modern genetics. Geneticists can use the gene records to show when a species separated from an ancestor species, so we can see how long ago it was that humans split off from other apes, when our ancestral line split off from reptiles etc etc, and every prediction that has been made in relation to it has been found to support the theory of evolution, thus strengthening the theory, the theory is supported, and evolution is accepted as fact.
And yes, it does require less faith, it requires no faith at all, to know that evolution is true. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. There is no evidence for god, but so much evidence for evolution, I could fill two dozen museums without repeating any of it. The evidence shows its the truth, and as such, I don't need faith to believe it. Read Why Evolution Is True, try The Origin of Species as well, first, then read more recent books, like the first I mentioned, to see where we've got since then.
As for god being infinite, if something has no beginning, then it never began and does not exist. God is a construct of humans, not the other way round, and god is getting pushed further and further back as we learn and understand the world around us and the universe. The more we look for god, the more we notice its absence.
You have to be aware of the difference between evolution - which is a scientific fact, and theory of evolution - which is a scientific theory.This is exactly the point at which creationists get confused - they attack the theory without being aware that even abolishing it altogether will not change the scientific fact of evolution.
Jonathan, evolutionary theory does not explain the beginnings of life, it never claimed to explain the beginnings of life, it explains how one form changes into another. Instead, for the beginnings of life, you need to talk to chemists about abiogenesis, which by the way has been reproduced in the lab.Such things prove there is no need for a creator, and that there was not a creator, junk DNA, vestigial organs, and such like all point to earlier forms of life evolving into the current ones. And if there was a creator, why would he create humans to look like they evolved? Why would he fill them up with DNA that does nothing, but would do something in other forms of life, and organs, suchas the appendix, that no longer has a purpose, but has a purpose in other forms of life. If god is the designer, he's more like a cowboy contractor, doing a bodge job, and leaving it half finished.
If god is outside the bounds of morality, then he has no right to tell us how to behave. If his rules don't apply to him, then he cannot enforce them on us without being a hypocrite. Thats no better than "do as I say, not as I do", which is a poor form of parenting. And he does tell us what morals to live by, and the morals as taught in the bible by the abrahamic god mean that slavery is ok, rape is ok, genocide is good, and that we should stone, well, according to leviticus, practically everyone to death. If there is a god, and these are the rules he chooses for us, then he is an immoral being who I wish no truck with, as I am a better being than it is.
Jonathan wrote: "But I think I'll end it here as I've been involved in too many debates and know they simply go on forever at a deadlock no one convincing the other. You can have your beliefs I'll have mine and we can agree to disagree and find out later who's really correct."Yeesh, agree! I have better things to do with my time than continue an argument with someone unwilling to listen and consider both sides, and who enjoys attacking my intelligence. You're (most all) putting words in my mouth that you have most likely had issues with from other people, not me. I actually agree with natural selection - it makes sense. I do not believe in the Big Bang (outside of "God said it and BANG there it was") or any other vague theories of how life was created. I DO believe that God created the world and set in motion, putting rules (meaning He created the scientific rules that govern life) on the way it operates. We're the ones who have defiled it since then, degraded the gene pool of ourselves and all life. Hazel, you said that "Such things prove there is no need for a creator." But... you just said that evolutionary theory does not explain the beginnings of life? I hope you're not contradicting yourself and saying that evolution is the "such thing."
I am going to unfollow this discussion now, folks. I may check back if you'd like to respond to my comments above (I'm not petty enough to say something and not give the listener the right to respond), but I won't be replying. I'd rather have a conversation in person with someone who I respect and respects me. Then and only then can any discussion like this have any positive effects.
funny isn't it, that you fail to understand that I've listened to your side over and over for years, yet still someone is to provide any evidence for what they're saying. I do not contradict myself by saying that evolutioin does not explain the beginnings of life, and then saying that evolution shows no need for a creator. I've explained the things like junk DNA, and vestigial organs already. Further to this, there are mutations that are very visible, horrific malformations in babies that cause still birth or early death, how do these fit into us being created in gods image? And if we're designed, what sort of designer puts a recreation facility next to a sewage outlet? Why do we not have completely separate systems for inserting food into ourselves and breathing? Dolphins and whales do. Why do we only get 3/4 of the eye that a bird has? Or 1/2 the eye that an octopus has? Are these creatures more blessed for having greater accuracy in perceptive ability? The junk DNA and vestigial organs are evidence for evolution, and evidence that we were not created in our present form,and there is a whole plethora of evidence over and above this. The mistakes in DNA encoding that produce horrific detrimental effects in individuals is evidence that either god does not exist, or does not care, as you claim that he cares, then the god that you believe in must not exist, because any god that allows the uffering we see in the world does not care. Yet, I am still to see verifiable evidence that any god exists, and I don't just mean Yahweh, I mean any god. Its amazing that you think I'm ridiculous for rejecting the idea of Yahweh, yet you've done the same for Vishnu, for zeus, for thor and odin, for the thousands of other deities that have been, and still are worshipped by people. Why is your god any more believable than those ones?
As for respect, I have not been disrespectful to you as a person, I have not called you a fool, I have not been rude to you. I have questioned the validity of your beliefs, and I can do that without attacking you, or disrespecting you. As it is, I haven't really got much respect for anyone whose response to reasoned argument is to leave the debate. By leaving, I can assume that you forfeit, and that you cannot defend your position, thus your position is untenable.
Amanda wrote: "I completely agree. No one except for the Lord knows exactly what is going to happen when the world comes to an end. However the Left Behind series is just one interesting interpretation of the las..."I totally agree with Amanda. It is the Lord who knows what the end would be like. Although He has given us hints of how it would be. 1 Cor 1:27 says But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.....
Robinah, can you provide the irrefutable proof of a god existing?
Good question. The reason it's still a question is because no one can prove he doesn't. I read the book. And saw all the movies. Great entertainment either way.
Actually, no-one needs to prove that he doesn't exist, despite there being loads of evidence that argue against a creator, we don't need to prove it, as the onus of proof is on those making the claim. If you claim something as extraordinary as a god exists, then you must prove it. If you can find no proof the only rational thing to do is reject the claim. proof must come from something other then the bible, and anecdotal evidence is not proof.
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. Bertrand Russell, 1952.
Why all the effort in this feed? People will never agree. It's a book, you like it or you don't . It's fiction. I enjoy vampire stories or paranormal occasionally,does that mean they have to be true--no they are stories just like this one. Just because the author is a christian people think they need to debate it. No one here, in my opinion is wrong. It's what they believe,it's truth to them. Just don't try to make me believe what you do. I find it amusing that atheists say Christians push their beliefs on people when I see more of that from them. Please understand that I am really not some religious fanatic< I don' even attend church anymore. I just believe people should have a right to their beliefs without being put down.
Christine, truth is not subjective. If something is "true to them", fine, but its not objectively true, and as such, they cannot claim it as a universal truth, and they certainly cannot claim it as fact without providing reliable evidence. What is obbjectively true is based on facts. No-one is being put down for their beliefs, their beliefs are simply being questioned, and if people cannot stand up to their beliefs being questioned, then they need to ask themselves why that is. No atheist is trying to "push beliefs" on anyone, they are stating the facts (ie, showing evidence for things like evolution, stating there is no evidence for the existence of a god, that yahweh is simply one of many gods that are and have been worshipped), if someone with religious faith cannot cope with the reality fo the facts being set before them, then by all means, keep believing in something you cannot provide proof for. This is called credulity, and is something we should all grow out of as we grow up.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True (other topics)
In His Image (other topics)
Birth of an Age (other topics)
Acts of God (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power (other topics)The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True (other topics)
In His Image (other topics)
Birth of an Age (other topics)
Acts of God (other topics)
More...
I simply do not believe the claims from evangelicals about Christian charity and compassion when the large majority of them are raging..."
Oh I get it you side with the sicko that raped and dismembered and tortured the child? Better hope since you haven't a prayer it never happens to anyone you love. Be glad I am not God , I am not as merciful as him. I would let you have a taste of your loved on getting it. Better than you desrve for standing behind perverted sickos like those in Ohio that raped and burned that family. Monsters, they deserve worse than death. I have no patience for anyone that sides against victims. also sound like you want revenge you hypocrite by you post. I reject you and your blather.