The Shack
discussion
The Hitler button
Rod wrote: "Awesome Hazel. You said exactly what I wanted to hear from you...Hazel quote:
" I still wouldn't worship it, as the way its put in the bible means that I am a better person than.. well pretty muc..."
read it. Your move. Thats basically how you're operating here, isn't it. Rather than answering anything or addressing anything, you just say "go read the bible", well its read, it doesn't pass muster.
The bible is a collection of stories, many of which are stolen from earlier cultures, many of which include genocide, racism, sexism, murder and many other nasty things. Yes theres some good stuff in there, but we don't need the bible for that stuff, and the bad stuff pretty much outweighs it.
My experience of christians telling me to go read the bible is that it usually means they haven't, and that they've accepted what they've been told about it unquestioningly, and so are convinced that readng it will change peoples minds. Whether thats the case with you or not is neither here nor there, the bible is not a good book.
Why do you assume God has to do things YOUR way? There's a reason we have 4 Gospel accounts from different perspectives: It makes us think.It also shows us that the Bible hasn't been altered or FIXED to remove these discrepancies - they are still there 1900 years later.
These version do not contradict each other: They only show you how different cultures witnessed and prioritized these events.
Are the order of Jesus' last words important? Not really. But the phrases are. And God gave them to us. (Isn't HE nice!)
He didn't do anything the bible is man made. As to "my way" not my way, but consistently, believably, accurately without contradiction(surely not beyond an omnipotent, omniscient god who could forsee that his own book would divide people and knew exactly what to do about it). Either it happened that way or it didn't, you can't have all four be true and be accurate representations of the event.
The bible not altered or fixed, agreed it is definately not "fixed" but to claim it's not altered is the most laughable, demonstrably untrue and dishonest claim you've made yet.
If the events we have are veiwed through a cultural lens and weighted by a cultural bias then they are not accurate representation of the events they depict, it makes them untrustworthy. We are not talking about interpretation or perception of meaning we are talking about black and white events that either happened or the didn't. And as there are no corroborating contemporary accounts and they do all contradict each other, despite your insistance they don't, which one, if any, are right...
Your assertion that the purpose or reason it to make us think, is just that, an assertion without proof.
Semantics, words or phrases, don't be an ass. And which ones?
i am not going to push the button just to see a person suffer. i dont think i can do that even if he have done sooo much suffering before.and yes, i do believe in hell. but its always up to us if we will go straight to that path, instead of following the right way :)
I agree with you Hazel that the Bible is not a NICE book. It contains some nasty stuff. There's a reason for that nasty content: It shows us what God intended and what we choose as humans.I've been chatting with people long enough to know that throwing information at each other does not change anyone's understandings or beliefs. So its not always a useful investment of time. So here's what we'll do:
You enjoy your worldview and beliefs for awhile - i'll enjoy mine - and we'll see who is the happiest and most fulfillled. We'll also see quickly who's truth falls apart the fastest.
______________________________________________________
Shanna quote:
"surely not beyond an omnipotent, omniscient god who could forsee that his own book would divide people and knew exactly what to do about it..."
The Bible is supposed to divide people. Didn't you read it. That's the point of the whole story.
We won't see who is happiest and most fulfilled though, will we Rod, as we can't actually tally up and compare our lives. What an ultimately pointless and ridiculous thing for you to say. Why don't you say what you mean, which is that you think that you can't be truly happy and fulfilled without a belief in a god. Probably specifically the god you chose to worship, or to be even more specific your version of a particular god that you chose to worship. And that you think those without faith in go are somehow less happy, less fulfilled. The least you can do is be honest in what you're saying.And if its such a useless waste of time, why the fuck are you still here talking to people? Surely you have better things to do than waste time talking to us "heathens"?
I learn alot talking to heathens. It's very educational.Hazel quote:
" Why don't you say what you mean, which is that you think that you can't be truly happy and fulfilled without a belief in a god."
Actually I think that YOU can't be happy and fulfilled. Although happy is a dangerous word. Joy is a little better.
___________________________________________________
What I have been doing for many years is collecting thoughts and arguments from atheists and generally all people who disagree with the Bible. It's very difficult to challenge a religion from the inside: so I come to you folks so I can challenge it from a different perspective. Every single complaint people have with God and Christianity is a valid concern and worth investigating.
So after years of investigating and tearing apart my religion - I'm totally convinced of its truth. Especially after chatting with people who claim to be academic genius' in history, archaeology, science, theology, and philosophy. I just want the Truth - if it means atheism or hinduism then so be it.
But it hasn't. Not from what i've seen.
Rod wrote: "But it hasn't. Not from what i've seen."I don't think you're looking at it objectively, then. And your contention that you are only after the truth is disingenuous because anyone after the truth doesn't start out with a conclusion (e.g. the bible and christianity is true) and then seek to see if this can be disproven. I can go into any of those categories and pick one good set of evidence against the Bible that you would no doubt dismiss because you've already come to a conclusion. For instance, right from the beginning god creates light, THEN vegetation, THEN the sun, and it calls the sun the greater light and the moon the lesser light. Also, if the Earth is only a few thousand years old, how come there are stars millions of light years away that we can see? If god created the light "in transit," why would he trick us like that? I can go all day just in the category of science. By History we also know some accounts of the Bible are false, e.g. Harod's son did not issue a decree killing a bunch of babies, a census would not have forced Joseph and Marry to travel to Bethlehem (that one is particularly nonsensical). And a lot of these run in together, History, archaeology, and science tells us there was never a great flood and they tell thousands of jews did not wander around in the desert for 40 years. History tells us the Egyptians never held so many slaves, and the people who labored building their monuments were well fed and well payed. Etc.
There might be a god that exists, I can't prove a negative, but I do know without question that the god of the bible does not exist, at least not how he is described in the bible, in the same way that even though I've never been to every post office in the world, I know that there does not exist in any post office an envelope with a drawing of a circle square in it. It's a contradiction in the same way that omniscience and omnipotence are.
I also know, from the argument from nonbelief, that the god of the bible does not exist. For details on this one you can watch this video explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF_lK7...
Rod wrote: "Actually I think that YOU can't be happy and fulfilled"And your reasoning?
Will quote:"I don't think you're looking at it objectively..."
Everyone is biased Will (even scientists). The real challenge is to get beyond your biases to the truth. Just because you've listened to a bunch of people you agree with doesn't make you intelligent or open-minded - it makes you NORMAL.
I have a saying: "If you don't want there to be a God I can prove you are correct. If you DO want there to be a God I can prove you are correct."
We have so much information and data that is conflicting it's an endless puzzle.
Do you believe in fairness Will? Why? Does nature? What logic are you using to justify this?
Without God and the Bible technically we have NO rules at all. Now go read a newspaper and tell me whether people agree on morality. This is just the beginning of the discussion on truth.
Will quote:
"By History we also know some accounts of the Bible are false..."
You are assuming here Will. I have accounts by other historians that say there is a good chance they are TRUE. Why are your experts correct and mine are wrong?
Your genesis contradictions are interesting. Your complaints tell me that you've spent about 30 seconds trying to comprehend them. Go read the Bible again: slower this time.
Hazel quote:"And your reasoning?"
I bet you fear death. You are gambling on security or nothingness. Good luck with that.
You have no rationality for joy, or love, or trust, or honesty. Answer me why lies are wrong? Why is it wrong or right for one animal to devour or rape another - yet is it wrong for one human to do this to another? According to you our universe just IS: there are no rules. Yet I bet you love and depend on rules that others disagree with. Your preferences do not equal truth.
If I was not a Christian I would live my life according to the rules of the universe and nature. Those are nasty rules.
Actually, scientists are scoffed at if they are biased. The more critical of your own thesis you are as a scientists, the more respect you have. The scientific method is self-correcting. In order for a thesis to pass, it must undergo an array of scrutiny from other scientists who love nothing more than to advance their careers by showing it to be false. So, no. While scientist might hold biases, they do not factor into what scientists hold as true overall."Without God and the Bible technically we have NO rules at all."
This is nonsense and you can't even remotely come close to justifying it.
"Now go read a newspaper and tell me whether people agree on morality."
Did I say people agree on morality? I'm sorry, where have I said this?
"We have so much information and data that is conflicting it's an endless puzzle."
Which is why we have the scientific method, the best tool we have for separating truth from falsities.
"You are assuming here Will. I have accounts by other historians that say there is a good chance they are TRUE. Why are your experts correct and mine are wrong?"
No, I have facts. Show me these historians that say that Herod's son killed a whole bunch of babies and I will show you that not only does that person not have credentials, but is vastly outnumbered by those that say it didn't happen. Same with the Flood or anything else I listed. Burden of proof is on you.
"Your genesis contradictions are interesting. Your complaints tell me that you've spent about 30 seconds trying to comprehend them. Go read the Bible again: slower this time."
How very petty of you. Go read a science book: slower this time.
You see how easy that is? If creating light and vegetation BEFORE creating the sun isn't a scientific contradiction, please, enlighten me. And telling me to read the Bible is not an answer. It is backpedaling and really reveals the extent of how little sense your position makes.
Rod wrote: "Hazel quote:"And your reasoning?"
I bet you fear death. You are gambling on security or nothingness. Good luck with that.
You have no rationality for joy, or love, or trust, or honesty. Answer m..."
Thats a lot of assumptions right there, on what are you basing these statements?
What was the light and source of power in the very beginning of genesis Will? Read it carefully. I could just tell you the answer but that would be boring. :)Will quote:
" how come there are stars millions of light years away that we can see? If god created the light "in transit," why would he trick us like that? I can go all day just in the category of science."
Why is this tricking us? God does what he does whether we like it or not.
You are trying to make sense of the Bible but are ignoring it's contents. Bad logic.
Will quote:
"Did I say people agree on morality? I'm sorry, where have I said this?"
You didn't, but my guess is you didn't even think it either. You need to seriously consider the existence of morality. How it plays out in our world and how it is abused and assumed.
Will quote:
" Show me these historians that say that Herod's son killed a whole bunch of babies and I will show you that not only does that person not have credentials, but is vastly outnumbered by those that say it didn't happen"
Why do numbers matter to science? Why are credentials equal to truth? Because money and corporations matter to science. If one scientist disagrees with 10,000 I guess that makes him wrong? Scientists say what they want to say, and they find what they want to find. Everyone does this, especially in scientific areas that are not easily testable or reproducible.
Do you realize how many differing views there are in almost all areas of science? Do you actually think everyone agrees?
Science generally revolves around Money and Universities. Scientists aren't lying - they just aren't always allowed to upset the academic applecart.
Will quote:" Show me these historians that say that Herod's son killed a whole bunch of babies..."
I could go hunt down abunch of names for you...but why bother? I'd be wasting my time.
The point is: how come you assume because history outside of the Bible does not report this egotistical insanity you assume its not true? Why would a politician want (or allow?) public records of his blunders and murders?
The Bible counts as a historical document. You assume that Satan doesn't exist and yet the world is full of evil. If Satan does exist then his one job is to make the Bible and God look bad. So playing with historical equations is part of the challenge.
Just writing everything off is bad thinking. You must deal with the information at hand.
Not that you would. :D
Will quote:"Actually, scientists are scoffed at if they are biased..."
They are also scoffed at if they go against their peers. This has been happening for a couple thousand years. Nobody likes to be wrong and have to admit it.
"What was the light and source of power in the very beginning of genesis Will? Read it carefully. I could just tell you the answer but that would be boring.""God did it" is not an explanation. You said you've explored scientific reasons for why the bible might be invalidated, and I'm showing you how you are ignoring the evidences that go against your already assumed conclusions.
Creating vegetation before the Sun does not explain how this is possible. It makes NO sense scientifically. So, if instead, you want to say that you ignore all science that does not confirm your beliefs, and accept only that which does, then go ahead, but that's disingenuous.
"Why is this tricking us? God does what he does whether we like it or not."
Because that's the definition of trick. If he did something that makes it seem like something else, this is deceitful. I don't care if he did it just because he wanted to, that's beside the point.
"You are trying to make sense of the Bible but are ignoring it's contents. Bad logic."
No, there is no making sense of it without RESORTING to bad logic. BIG difference.
"You didn't, but my guess is you didn't even think it either. You need to seriously consider the existence of morality. How it plays out in our world and how it is abused and assumed."
Um, no. I've thought it through before. Morals exist (easily explained). Objective moral laws do not.
"Why do numbers matter to science?"
The truth matters. Credentials matter because you said you could present to me a historian who thinks these things did happen, and if they don't have the credentials to be a historian, well then you haven't shown me anything, have you?
"If one scientist disagrees with 10,000 I guess that makes him wrong?"
It does if the 10,000 present the evidence to show why.
"Scientists say what they want to say, and they find what they want to find."
Um, no. This is not how science works. Words mean nothing in science if there is no evidence to back them up.
"Science generally revolves around Money and Universities. Scientists aren't lying - they just aren't always allowed to upset the academic applecart."
This is false. It relies on disproving what other people think. In fact, if you can "upset the academic applecart," you'll likely have lots of awards and huge money grants lined up for you. It is encouraged and REWARDED.
"Do you realize how many differing views there are in almost all areas of science? Do you actually think everyone agrees?"
There are some areas with competing theories, sure, but those are the ones that are at the edge of our understanding and have no bearing on the discussion of the scientific contradictions I've pointed out. Those competing theories are at the heart of science, and the one with the evidence ALWAYS wins out.
"I could go hunt down abunch of names for you...but why bother?"
Sure...
"The point is: how come you assume because history outside of the Bible does not report this egotistical insanity you assume its not true?"
Because that is the logical thing to assume: no evidence that says it happened = perfectly reasonable to assume it most likely did not, with a slight possibility left open for more evidence to show this to be wrong.
"Why would a politician want (or allow?) public records of his blunders and murders?"
A politician has no say in the matter. Other people write it down, and while a lot of times the "winner" writes the history, there are ways (e.g. 3rd party documents and unbiased sources) that are used to attest to their validity. This is how it works.
"The Bible counts as a historical document."
Circular logic. Like I pointed out, there are lots of independent historical writings that can either attest to the things in the Bible, some of which are confirmed as fact, and many writings which show parts to be false. Your own document does it to itself. Matthew remarks that when Jesus dies, the graves opened up and the dead walked the streets. A noteworthy event by anyone's standards, yet Mark, which was written before Matthew, does not bother reporting this event. Hmmm
"You assume that Satan doesn't exist and yet the world is full of evil. If Satan does exist then his one job is to make the Bible and God look bad. So playing with historical equations is part of the challenge."
And it's not God's job to make sure that it is perceived as true?
1 Timothy 2:4
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Why is God losing this battle of wills?
The argument from nonbelief (expounded upon in the video I linked) deals a little with this.
"They are also scoffed at if they go against their peers. This has been happening for a couple thousand years. Nobody likes to be wrong and have to admit it."
No, but people LOVE proving other people wrong. This is what science does. The is rewarded in science.
You said you sought what science has to say on this topic, yet you don't understand how science operates?
It took me years to shake off the silliness of religion. This book reminded me of how hard people (must)work to keep their illogical beliefs alive. Why waste time on the unknowable? Be the best you can be while you are here. Life is all over quickly, and what will happen will happen - no matter what.
Rod Wrote: Shanna quote:"surely not beyond an omnipotent, omniscient god who could forsee that his own book would divide people and knew exactly what to do about it..."
The Bible is supposed to divide people. Didn't you
read it. That's the point of the whole story.
Really of all that I wrote this is what you address? Seriously?
Ok I'll bite, why is this division a good thing?
Hazel wrote: "Rod wrote: "Hazel quote:"And your reasoning?"
I bet you fear death. You are gambling on security or nothingness. Good luck with that.
You have no rationality for joy, or love, or trust, or hones..."
As someone who has worked with the elderly all my life ,I find that the ones that are the most afraid of dying are the ones that are the most religous , and I have sat and held hands with alot of people who have died. Just an observation.
That's true Ruth: religion won't save you from anything. Jesus spent most of his time arguing with the religious leaders that eventually put him to death. Now the Bible and Jesus - that's a whole different story.
Dear Will,
You probably don't realize I've spent 30 years questioning and investigating my religion. Everything you say i've heard hundreds of times before. Unlike people in some countries and families: I have nothing to lose if I drop out of Christianity - almost none of my friends are Christians. I've spent years reading books by people that hate Christianity.
I've had people from all sects of Christianity tell me to only follow their specific beliefs, as well as people from numerous world religions. So to me atheism and science are just another branch of beliefs to be investigated.
I hope you don't for a minute think you are going to tell me something I haven't already heard. My question is: how much time do you spend fully investigating atheism and science? Or do you just blindly assume they are correct?
Shanna: The Bible says this life is a sorting out process. If God really wanted everyone to believe in him he would just stick his head out of the clouds.
Luke 12:51
Jesus said, " Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three."
Gotta go to work, we can chat about other stuff later. Isn't this fun? :D
Shanna: The Bible says this life is a sorting out process. If God really wanted everyone to believe in him he would just stick his head out of the clouds. Luke 12:51
Jesus said, " Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three."
Why? (not meaing to sound like a petulant 4 year old)
Some of the seriously amoral things that Rod is saying are making me feel physically sick, as such, I'm not bothering with this conversation any more.
Agreed. And he still doesn't understand how science works, despite all of that research he's been doing.
1 Timothy 2:4 directly contradicts this notion that God doesn't want everyone to believe in Him.
I had to go back and re-read the original discussion. Would I push the button if the result was Hitler would burn forever?
No, but if he would just burn up, you bet I would push it.
What if it were a homosexual? I think any analogy comparing Hitler to Homosexuality is ludicrous.
These are just my thoughts.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Fun topic eh>I'll respond soon.
I'll add something here...for a book that so many couldn't "get through" it sure has sparked alot of dialogue about God and the meaning of life...so even if people didn't like it...I think it has had it's desired effect on "the people"... :D
Yeah, I enjoyed the book. It was a nice relationship look at the Trinity of Christianity. That's also the problem: The Bible isn't as nice. There's a spiritual war going on.
Will comment:"Agreed. And he still doesn't understand how science works, despite all of that research he's been doing."
Science is great Will, but it has its limitations. You should apply the science used in medicine and hospitals to the rest of scientific study. Indeed money, power, and resources as well as morality play a huge part in scientific progress. You assume science is simple and black and white. Look closer. We still don't fully comprehend the human body yet people claim to have fully understood the origins of man and the Universe? You should be just alittle skeptical.
Will quote:"1 Timothy 2:4 directly contradicts this notion that God doesn't want everyone to believe in Him."
Good point.
1 timothy 2:4
"who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
So God desires it -but the Bible is pretty clear that it ain't gonna happen. So yes God desires things - but he's willing to let people live a free life of sin and rebelliousness.
He's willing to put his desire aside and let people that would despise Heaven...go to hell. Isn't that nice of him?
So does God want everyone to believe in him? YES, but he's not willing to force them all. He's the King - he's allowed to chose his people.
Shanna asks why Jesus came to bring division?Tricky question: But i think the whole universe is running on the hearts of mankind. You can't logically find your way to God and Heaven. You can't obey all the rules and make it to heaven.
The entire Bible is a heart condition. The division is between those who love and accept Jesus as King - and those who refuse. Satan and others secretly desire to be their own KING.
Churches are full of people who are trying to fake it and earn their way in. Not gonna work - your mind has to follow your heart.
"So does God want everyone to believe in him? YES, but he's not willing to force them all."This makes no sense, but like every apologetic you bring up, none of it does. You simply ignore logic when it goes against your beliefs. Knowledge does NOT negate free choice. Your own doctrine teaches that the source of all evil itself comes from someone who fully knows of God's existence. Not to mention fallen angels, etc.
That's okay for you, though. I'm sure you'll just ignore this (yet another) logical inconsistency.
"Science is great Will, but it has its limitations. You should apply the science used in medicine and hospitals to the rest of scientific study. Indeed money, power, and resources as well as morality play a huge part in scientific progress. You assume science is simple and black and white. Look closer. We still don't fully comprehend the human body yet people claim to have fully understood the origins of man and the Universe? You should be just alittle skeptical."
I have skepticism, which is why I don't (and neither does science) claim to fully understand the origins of man or the universe. Please, if you can come away with anything from this conversation, learn how science works. It has skepticism BUILT into it.
I agree: science should have skepticism built into it. Yet it often makes truth claims that it really can't back up. I am not a scientist: are you Will? Maybe. But I am aware of how business and profits work. (no funding - no science.)
If my apologetic logic made perfect sense to you Will - then that would make the Bible wrong.
Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
Fun eh?
"Yet it often makes truth claims that it really can't back up."This is an assertion; back it up. Science does not claim truth for that which there is no evidence; that is called religion and faith. Science is proud of not knowing things. That's what keeps it running. It's gasoline is the yearning for truth, not the claiming of having it; it's engine is the scientific method; it's oil is evidence; and it's transmission is skepticism. Science DOES have skepticism built into it. That's how it works. That's why it's so effective and why we can enjoy conversing on a computer across vast distances, and why when we get sick, we have a much better chance of getting well again compared to even a hundred years ago.
I would love to hear these truth claims that science is making that it can't back up. Please name one.
"If my apologetic logic made perfect sense to you Will - then that would make the Bible wrong."
Not sure what you mean here, but it's not me that is incompatible with your arguments, it's logic itself. If God wants everyone to know the truth, and he has the ability to do this without compromising freedom of choice, why doesn't He?
I am endlessly thrown the truths of science in Evolution, astronomy, and biology: all things that are more guesses than applied theories. There are some facts in these areas. Just not as many as some would have us believe.The yearning for truth is wonderful. But everyone has biases - and not all science is testable. Just cause people perceive something does not make it truth.
Will quote:
" If God wants everyone to know the truth, and he has the ability to do this without compromising freedom of choice, why doesn't He?"
There are conditions to truth. If your heart is not right with God - then truth will not be revealed and comprehended.
2 Corinthians 4:4
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
"I am endlessly thrown the truths of science in Evolution, astronomy, and biology: all things that are more guesses than applied theories. There are some facts in these areas. Just not as many as some would have us believe."Um, no. These are not guesses. Guesses in science are called hypothesis (and are rarely random guesses but based on evidence) and in this state are not considered theories (explanations of facts) or science until they are proven. Evolution has been so rigorously tested that it is one of the more evidential scientific theories and is applied on a daily basis, especially in medicine and genetics, where it is confirmed over and over and over again. The person who can show evolution to be wrong (and it would be very easy to do so) is likely going to end up winning some very impressive awards in science (nobel prize a likely one).
"and not all science is testable."
Actually, it's not science unless it IS testable. That is one of the most important parts of science and the scientific method. Time and time again you show you have not actually looked into science as you show a very grave misunderstanding of even its most basic tenants. Individual biases do not come into play at these levels, as they are immediately revealed in any peer reviewed papers by their own colleagues.
"There are conditions to truth. If your heart is not right with God - then truth will not be revealed and comprehended."
This is irrelevant. Fallen angels aren't "right with God," nor is the devil, yet they have knowledge. The question is, why aren't we all born knowing full well that Yahweh is the one god and that Jesus is the savior? Again, this would not hinder freedom of choice, and yet this is what god desires. It would allow for more informed decisions, and gives everyone the same chance at getting it right.
As it stands, there are all sorts of religions that make all sorts of claims. How is one who is removed (not indoctrinated) from Christianity and the other religions supposed to select the right one?
The apprehension of this knowledge is incompatible with scripture.
Good stuff Will, sorry i've been very busy with work and family. I do enjoy our chats though.You have so much faith in science Will: very impressive. I'm guessing you are totally trusting in the works and accounts of others? Work you haven't seen or done yourself? Science is getting more religious all the time eh?
_________________________________________________-
Will quote:
" How is one who is removed...from Christianity and the other religions supposed to select the right one?"
How come more people don't ask great questions like that?
There's a very simple answer to that question. No-one seems to like it though. I'll get back to you.
Rod wrote: "You have so much faith in science Will"Again, either you are showing an ignorance in science, or you're equivocating faith with "trust" here (trust which is based on evidence) and religious faith (belief without evidence), or both.
If the former, then, yes, I trust science. Because I know how science works. Nothing is science without evidence, to which every scientific paper is required to provide. You can search online right now millions of scientific papers, all with references to evidence that you can check yourself. And guess what, if you find an error in a scientific paper, and you can prove it, you will be rewarded. Because that's the way it works. Go ahead, search a few: http://www.sciencemag.org/journals
I'm constantly astounded by this lack of education that America is providing to where most adults don't even understand how science works, and yet benefits from its productivity on a daily basis. You're doing it right now, Rod. As you attempt to negate the reliability of science, you do so on a computer, where you can instantly communicate with someone thousands of miles away. The exact same science that brought you this opportunity, and that's saving lives even as you read this, is the same exact science that gives us insights into the beginnings of life on this planet and the cosmos. They both follow the same rules. They are both the same self correcting process that is the best tool we have as humans to determining what is true about the universe and what is not. Only that which can provide evidence is that which is accepted in sciences. And even then, the door is always open for new evidence to expand our understanding. Science never claims to have all the answers, and never will, or else it would stop being science.
"There's a very simple answer to that question. No-one seems to like it though. I'll get back to you."
Let me guess, this "simple answer" is going to require paragraphs to illustrate. And it will include poor logic and the personal interpretation of scriptures that aren't evident (clear) in the first place. And will likely contradict other verses in scripture.
I love how you don't address any of my points. EVER. You simply reply to the parts you think you can muster up a poor answer for (and it's hardly ever an answer, usually it's just a condescending rhetorical question in return) and ignore the rest. And you dig a deeper and deeper hole as you demonstrate time and time again that you have no understanding of science or how it works, despite claiming that you have spent years looking into science to see what it has to say about the subject. Haha. It's kind of sad.
Will, when a religious person says "there's a very simple answer to that, I'll get back to you on it" instead of supplying that answer straight away if its so damn simple, it should be translated as "I don't have an answer right now, I'm going to go ask my pastor, and will be back later"
I just like to watch you guys flounder for a few minutes. :D
Okay, the minutes over...where were we?Hmmmm, I have yet to go to my Pastor with a question hazel. He's a great guy - but I spend more time on theology than he does. He's busy with the flock - i'm busy with theology and apologetics.
Will generally complaining:
" as you demonstrate time and time again that you have no understanding of science or how it works..."
I don't recall saying i'm a scientist or subscriber of Popular Science magazine. I just like the thoughts behind science. I'm here to discuss theology and religion - not science. I'll give you my very unprofessional opinion if you want it. But only a moron would trust it.
But just so you are clear (and i'm sure you won't be):
I value science and applaud it's professional efforts in almost all areas of progress and truth. I just question its biases and exaggerated claims at times. But you are free to blindly believe and faithfully trust any over-reaching facts they throw your way. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Will actually saying something wise:
" Science never claims to have all the answers, and never will, or else it would stop being science."
Anyway, on to the good stuff!
Will Question:" there are all sorts of religions that make all sorts of claims. How is one who is removed (not indoctrinated) from Christianity and the other religions supposed to select the right one?"
The truthful ONE - or the right one for that person? Most people don't want truth, they want their hearts desires. That is one reason we have so many religions. If your heart desires 70 replenishing virgins at your lusty disposal for all eternity: then Islam is the religion for you.
Doesn't mean that Islam is truthful or those virgins are actual, but it sure gives some people sexual hope. Weird eh?
IF people look around carefully and want hopeful loving TRUTH that fits God's reality - they will find it. Bibles aren't hard to get. It's all in there. \
If God wants you to have truth you will have it. He's pretty amazing that way. He can work through dreams, missionaries, media, or an honest heart.
Follow any of the World's religions to their core. You will soon see the truth of that belief system. An easy way to test a religion is:
Any religion that is insecure and afraid to allow inquests and challenges from serious questions is doomed to violence and oppression. So there goes Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.
AS a Christian I take great delight in challenging every claim of Christianity. I especially enjoy collecting concerns from people who have left Christianity and those who despise Christianity. If my beliefs prove themselves to be flawed (according to my own standards) then I will move on. Nobody has shown me anything better to move on to yet.
From a Catholic perspective, hell is basically the absence of God. If God is love, goodness, mercy, etc, for all eternity, then being in hell means an absence of that for all eternity. People are not "sent" to hell; they choose hell by not choosing God. For example, someone who doesn't love others in their earthly life, who lives only to satisfy themselves, hurting others in the process, etc,etc, is basically setting themselves up to say "no" to God at the end of their life. Through their earthly lousy choices, they are making it much more difficult to make the choice FOR God after life. That being said, none of us really knows who might be in hell. Certainly it would be harder for a person like Hitler to avoid hell, but who knows. Even a wicked person has the chance to repent at the end.I hope that makes sense!
Will wrote: "Is this like some sick fantasy for you? "Envisioning" hell and the afterlife, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever? It's really disturbing, but I suppose in a thousand years humans will just ..."Will, people of faith believe in God and an afterlife without proof. That is the point of faith. It isn't necessarily easy, but for me, I need to believe, because otherwise the thought that this earthly existence is it, whether it's for 1 year or 100, isn't enough. I want to live my earthly life as though there is something more to look forward to. Perhaps others, like yourself, don't need that.
Thanks for speaking your mind Nancy. Awesome!Will quote:
"Envisioning" hell and the afterlife, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever?"
There is evidence Will. Just not the kind you like. Is written word not a kind of evidence? Not official proof of course - but it counts for something. Put the pieces together based on information.
Or does it only count if you personally get to travel there and bring back a brochure? But then again: we would be reduced to trusting a piece of paper wouldn't we? :D
"But just so you are clear (and i'm sure you won't be):I value science and applaud it's professional efforts in almost all areas of progress and truth. I just question its biases and exaggerated claims at times. But you are free to blindly believe and faithfully trust any over-reaching facts they throw your way. Whatever helps you sleep at night."
Your opinion that science has biases and exaggerated claims is unfounded, and so is your accusation that I "blindly believe and faithfully trust any over-reaching [whatever that means; completely meaningless in science] facts." You should stick to theology, because you clearly have no desire for the truth, or else you would at least seek to understand how science works.
"Bibles aren't hard to get."
Not in America. Have you been out of the country? Try finding a Bible in North Korea, or India, or Pakistan, etc. Not as easy to find.
If the truth was so self-evident as you claim, we would see more Christians than there are, because a lot of people are honestly seeking the truth, and they are all coming to different conclusions as to what that truth is.
"An easy way to test a religion is:
Any religion that is insecure and afraid to allow inquests and challenges from serious questions is doomed to violence and oppression."
And that knocks Christianity right out. They don't even attempt to seek the truth. They reject Evolution without seeing it's vast amounts of evidence (making it one of the more successful scientific theories ever, right up there with quantum mechanics as far as predictability and experimental data in confirmation of it). They oppress homosexuals. They used to oppress women (and many still do; those that don't allow women to speak in church). Etc. Your religion is definitely better than Islam, but that' because Islam isn't evolving with the moral zeitgeist like Christianity is. It won't be but another 50 years and homosexuality will be accepted even among Christians (or else everyone else will and the religion will die out).
"If my beliefs prove themselves to be flawed (according to my own standards) then I will move on. Nobody has shown me anything better to move on to yet."
And that's the problem, because your own standards include only accepting the evidence which confirms your belief. Any evidence which does not you reject outright. You'll be mired in ignorance forever with that attitude towards seeking the truth.
"There is evidence Will."No, there isn't. The "evidence" that I don't like is not evidence. All of the evidence points to the fact that when you damage your brain a little, your entire personality, your entire person can change PERMANENTLY, and when you damage the whole thing, you die. That's the evidence. There is none for an afterlife.
"but for me, I need to believe, because otherwise the thought that this earthly existence is it, whether it's for 1 year or 100, isn't enough."That's really sad. I'm sorry to hear that. Personally, I wouldn't want to live forever without ceasing. I mean, it's hard enough (quite impossible) wrapping my brain around eternity, especially thinking about what I would do all of that time, forever and ever without ceasing, worshiping my "master" for all of time...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
It is a shocking book. Full of floating zoos, talking donkeys, children being mauled by bears, entire civilizations being destroyed, women, children and animals included.
The Jesus guy is pretty cool, but he kind of ruins the mood with the whole "worship me or else" bit, but for all we know that part was added later by men like so many other parts.