Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[OldWiseGuy]

So if an atheist changes their behaviour, which one of these is it? If I change, is it spirit led (which I doubt, since I don't believe that spirits exist), or is it because I am doing it for my own benefit, not caring for the benefit of others?

It is natural to do good, just as it is natural to do evil. Didn't our earliest parents eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Romans 2:14-15

14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

 

[joshua 1 9]

God has all the answers and solutions. You have God. Now you have all the answers and solutions. Yes or no?

Yes of course there is a connection. Like I said God does things His way not my way. So we need to yield ourselves to Him. Perhaps more atheists would believe in God if He were more like a Genie in a bottle to give them what they want. This is one way we know He is God and we are not, because He does things His way and not our way or man's way. Also you need to realize that God give us free will. I have prayed for people to get saved and you would think that is what God wants for them. Still people have free will and freedom of choice so all the praying in the world is not going to get God to take that away from them. We learn lots about God along the way as Christians. Jesus teaches us to pray: Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will be Done. His promise to us is that He will cause all things to work out for the best. So we have nothing to worry about. Of course we wonder if the end justifies the means and with God the end result is always worth what we have to go through to get there. Like masterful surgery we do not always want to go through the procedure but the end result makes the surgery worth what we have to go through to get the results we are wanting.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Many things in life require faith, including science. Human beings do not have all the answers about anything, there are always things we don't know for sure, and there are many things science simply cannot answer at all.

Indeed, science is only a tool, and like any tool, it's best used for the job it was intended to be used for. One doesn't perform open heart surgery with a hammer and one doesn't build a house with a scalpel.

The right tool for the right job, I always say...

The Bible is not a compilation of human knowledge and discoveries, like a science textbook is. It is the very word of God, written by people, yes, but inspired by God. (2 Timothy3:16-17)

I suspect that the irony claiming that the Bible is not a compilation of human works, by quoting one of those very works (in this case, a man's correspondence) is lost here.

Of course, this is what I've been saying. I respect earthly knowledge, discoveries, and technological advancements as they pertain to my life here, but I do not put my faith in these temporary things as I do in my Saviour. Because, no matter how smart we think we are, or how many advancements we make, we do not live forever on this earth. Each and every one of us will die physically, unless Jesus returns before we die. Science cannot stop this, and it cannot save our souls. Therefore I do not place my faith in it, I place my faith in Jesus who has saved me.

And can respect that position.. I only wish it was reciprocated. The Church has a long and often embarrassing history of taking (and enforcing) positions on matters of this world when it really should have known better... science often being the primary target.

 

[amariselle]

Indeed, science is only a tool, and like any tool, it's best used for the job it was intended to be used for. One doesn't perform open heart surgery with a hammer and one doesn't build a house with a scalpel.

The right tool for the right job, I always say...

Agreed. As such science has no ultimate bearing on my faith or my salvation. What it does do for me, is point me even more clearly to a Creator. This world is just far too complex and intricate to have just "happened."

I suspect that the irony claiming that the Bible is not a compilation of human works, by quoting one of those very works (in this case, a man's correspondence) is lost here.

When Paul wrote those words in Timothy, he was at the time referring to what is the OT Scripture in the Bible. He was not referring to his own letters. Of course now Paul's letters are part of NT Scripture, and as such they are included in the inspired word of God, so yes, they also are "God-breathed and useful for teaching."

And can respect that position.. I only wish it was reciprocated. The Church has a long and often embarrassing history of taking (and enforcing) positions on matters of this world when it really should have known better... science often being the primary target.

I know the church has made many mistakes, being made up of sinful human beings as it is, and imperfect human beings will never do everything perfectly. And science has not always been the "target" it may now seem to be. Actually, for many, even today, science is simply a study of God's creation, and in a lot of ways this was how the field of science started out. In more recent times however, and with the claim of Darwinian evolution (claiming we are descendants of apes, not God's creation at all), of course Christianity is going to be at odds with that. This form of science seeks to eliminate God altogether, how can it be expected that Christians will agree with this?

And there some definite positions Christians should be taking in matters of this world. Can we force another to believe? No. But we can and should take a stand in this life. Remaining silent is not what we are called to do.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indeed, science is only a tool, and like any tool, it's best used for the job it was intended to be used for. One doesn't perform open heart surgery with a hammer and one doesn't build a house with a scalpel.

The right tool for the right job, I always say...

Science silently accepts the general belief that it can solve basic problems using sophisticated techniques. For example, whereas God instructs us to simply remove the rotten apple from the barrel quickly in order to save the good apples science strives to find a way to leave the rotten apple in the barrel, regardless of the many barrels of apples that will be lost because of it.

Science is like a football team that depends on trick plays rather than sound fundamentals in order to win games. The world doesn't suffer from a lack of PhD's, but from the lack of a sound attitude toward and practice of fundamental knowledge and common sense.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Agreed. As such science has no ultimate bearing on my faith or my salvation. What it does do for me, is point me even more clearly to a Creator. This world is just far too complex and intricate to have just "happened."

And that is your opinion and you are most certainly entitled to it.

Alas, there are far too many Christians -- then and now -- who believe that one's acceptance of certain scientific matters of this world do indeed have bearing on one's salvation... heliocentricism and evolution being the most obvious examples.

When Paul wrote those words in Timothy, he was at the time referring to what is the OT Scripture in the Bible. He was not referring to his own letters.

Of course.

Of course now Paul's letters are part of NT Scripture, and as such they are included in the inspired word of God, so yes, they also are "God-breathed and useful for teaching."

Just so we're clear -- God did not breathe anything into Paul's letters when he wrote them, but instead did so many years after the fact, when the Church decided to include them in the Bible?

I know the church has made many mistakes, being made up of sinful human beings as it is, and imperfect human beings will never do everything perfectly.

Does that include the Bible?

And science has not always been the "target" it may now seem to be. Actually, for many, even today, science is simply a study of God's creation, and in a lot of ways this was how the field of science started out. In more recent times however, and with the claim of Darwinian evolution (claiming we are descendants of apes, not God's creation at all), of course Christianity is going to be at odds with that.

Sounds an awful like Christianity approves of science only as long as it confirms what they already believe.

And that's the problem -- science is, or at least should be, the search for the truth about this world, regardless of where that truth may lead.

This form of science seeks to eliminate God altogether, how can it be expected that Christians will agree with this?

Whoever told you this has lied to you, and you don't help yourself, God, or Christianity one bit by repeating their lies.

And there some definite positions Christians should be taking in matters of this world.

And if they don't?

Can we force another to believe? No.

And yet, too many have tried -- through either force of law or just plain force.

But we can and should take a stand in this life. Remaining silent is not what we are called to do.

And yet, too many confuse failure with silence.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Science silently accepts the general belief that it can solve basic problems using sophisticated techniques. For example, whereas God instructs us to simply remove the rotten apple from the barrel quickly in order to save the good apples science strives to find a way to leave the rotten apple in the barrel, regardless of the many barrels of apples that will be lost because of it.

Once the Christians decided that scientists, heathens, non-believers, and, generally speaking, people such as myself were the rotten apples, surprisingly, we didn't react well to attempts to "remove" us from the barrel.

What, did you think we would?

Science is like a football team that depends on trick plays rather than sound fundamentals in order to win games. The world doesn't suffer from a lack of PhD's, but from the lack of a sound attitude toward and practice of fundamental knowledge and common sense.

And does religion provide common sense? That's a bold statement.

 

[rjs330]

Really? You think the Bible is the same as a rational argument pointing out the logical fallacies that exist in Pascal's Wager?



So you DO put your faith in science.

Except it isn't really faith, because we actually understand how medicines produce the effects that they do.

But you turn to science to help you when you said you don't put your faith in it. So there's that...



Unlike the mountain climber that has faith that the harness he uses to stop from falling to his death isn't going to break, or that the medical treatment you take to save your life is actually going to work...



If it has no effect on the real world, how do you know it exists?



No one has said that science has all the answers. But science has proven itself to be the best answer finding technique around.

Can you give me a single example of something that once had a scientific explanation, but now the best answer is non-scientific?

And you will,note that in creation God provides all these things,for,man to discover in science and uniquely gave man of all the creation the intellect and desire to discover such things. That why creation shows that God is the creator because none of this could have happened by accident.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Larniavc]

LOL

Can't remember now.

It's slipped my mind.

Old age, I guess!

I think I remember reading that it is good for migraines: as long as one is not pregnant it's fine.

But I could be completely misremembering.

 

[Robert Palase]

How do you know this life is all there is?

Read my post again because you obviously didn't understand it the first time you read it, if indeed you did read it.
This is the relevant part:
This life is the only life you are going to get no matter how much you wish it wasn't, how do I know? please tell me this?
what else in your life has or will happen simply because you want it to?

 

[amariselle]

Read my post again because you obviously didn't understand it the first time you read it, if indeed you did read it.
This is the relevant part:
This life is the only life you are going to get no matter how much you wish it wasn't, how do I know? please tell me this?
what else in your life has or will happen simply because you want it to?

So, if I understand you correctly, you think the Christian belief in eternal life is all just wishful thinking?

And in regards to THIS life, lots can happen because you "want it to." People get up each and every day and work toward things, they persevere through many hardships and refuse to give up, because they have goals and they work towards them.

However, we are talking about eternal life here, not this life. You cannot use the finite things of this existence and our limitations here to argue that there is not a life after this one.

And actually, true Atheistic belief is very new. For pretty much all of history, across all continents and in all cultures, mankind has believed in some kind of life after death. The idea that we just cease to exist after death is a very recent idea.

 

[Robert Palase]

This world is just far too complex and intricate to have just "happened."

But your God is not far too complex and intricate to have just "happened" and for some unknown reason you are happy to say that your God has always been there, perhaps you think that your God was far too complex and intricate to have needed a designer? everything needs a designer except the thing you claim is the designer, I wonder if that's one of the things normal people just don't understand.

There's a watch lying in the sand on a beach, the watch was designed by man and the sand was designed by God, how would you be able to decide which was which when they where both designed?

 

[Robert Palase]

error

 

[Robert Palase]

So, if I understand you correctly, you think the Christian belief in eternal life is all just wishful thinking?

Do you have any evidence showing you that it's not? [other than a feeling that is]

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Once the Christians decided that scientists, heathens, non-believers, and, generally speaking, people such as myself were the rotten apples, surprisingly, we didn't react well to attempts to "remove" us from the barrel.

What, did you think we would?

I meant evildoers, not scientists. We refuse to take our evildoers out of society, leaving them to continue to corrupt everything. Political and social sciences are complicit in this.

And does religion provide common sense? That's a bold statement.

Read the Proverbs.

 

[amariselle]

Do you have any evidence showing you that it's not? [other than a feeling that is]

Sure I do, the word of God. Problem is, you think it's nothing. So you will go no further.

 

[Hoghead1]

I've never met a science denier.
There are many of us who do not believe certain wrong and improvable theories of science, but that is no more a rejection of science than the disbelief in the claims of alchemists. Galileo rejected the established theories of science. As it turned out, he was right. Science, you see, is a field of study focusing on the physical world around us. It can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural. Scientists are people; no more infallible than other people. If they spend 20 years being taught that man evolved by professors they respect they will tend to believe that man evolved. If these same people were raised to be experts in the Scripture and had given their lives to the Lord, they would understand that man was created by God.

It's easy to see that if fruit flies eradiated for 50,000 generations did not evolve than evolution is not a universal driving force of nature. It's easy to see that if adaptation is a selection of specific traits over other less advantageous traits that adaptation is then a conservative process. These truths are readily provable and yet many practitioners of science deny them. Who, then, is the science denier? By the way. I also denied in the late 60's that we were 10 years away from another ice age. Who was smarter then; those who believed or those who did not?

The practitioners of science deny them largely because they know better than you think you do.

 

[Hoghead1]

Agreed. As such science has no ultimate bearing on my faith or my salvation. What it does do for me, is point me even more clearly to a Creator. This world is just far too complex and intricate to have just "happened."



When Paul wrote those words in Timothy, he was at the time referring to what is the OT Scripture in the Bible. He was not referring to his own letters. Of course now Paul's letters are part of NT Scripture, and as such they are included in the inspired word of God, so yes, they also are "God-breathed and useful for teaching."



I know the church has made many mistakes, being made up of sinful human beings as it is, and imperfect human beings will never do everything perfectly. And science has not always been the "target" it may now seem to be. Actually, for many, even today, science is simply a study of God's creation, and in a lot of ways this was how the field of science started out. In more recent times however, and with the claim of Darwinian evolution (claiming we are descendants of apes, not God's creation at all), of course Christianity is going to be at odds with that. This form of science seeks to eliminate God altogether, how can it be expected that Christians will agree with this?

And there some definite positions Christians should be taking in matters of this world. Can we force another to believe? No. But we can and should take a stand in this life. Remaining silent is not what we are called to do.

Evolution does not claim that we are all descended from apes. That is a very common misconception among laity. Evolution claims we are descended from an ancestor common to both apes and ourselves. Also, many Christians have no trouble accepting evolution. I don't think evolution would be possible without God, for example. The question of God was never a scientific question. Hence, science is neutral on whether there is or is not a God. Its purpose is neither to deny nor affirm God. That is the j9ob of theology and philosophy.

 

[amariselle]

I was speaking of Darwinian evolution.

Actually, I see no problem with evolution in general. What I do have a problem with is evolution that says we are not created by God but instead the product of however many years of evolutionary processes, starting with single celled organisms.

 

[rjs330]

Evolution does not claim that we are all descended from apes. That is a very common misconception among laity. Evolution claims we are descended from an ancestor common to both apes and ourselves. Also, many Christians have no trouble accepting evolution. I don't think evolution would be possible without God, for example. The question of God was never a scientific question. Hence, science is neutral on whether there is or is not a God. Its purpose is neither to deny nor affirm God. That is the j9ob of theology and philosophy.

Evolution itself has evolved because it can't prove its premis. It used to say we came from apes that apes were our ancestor. But it has evolved in its presentation and took away that part. Now it's a common ancestor even though they can't say or show what that common ancestor was. If you follow their logic far enough every living thing including plants and animals, cells viruses esentially everything came from a common ancestor. That takes as much faith to believe as it does to believe that God just created it. Cause there is no proof of any of it.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk