Is ID a bigger threat to Christianty the Sceinces

[TheKingOfImmortality]

You know I have a hard time seeing how evolution is more of threat to God then I.D. When I was Christian it was never a problem with me untill Creationist would not leave me alone on the subject. When I was finaly forced to pick between the two I chosed Evolution because there is so much evidances for it that its pretty much has bin porven. I.D. scinces on the other hand has nothing going for it. Every claim that has bin made has bin debunked and the big spokes men have bin busted for being dishonest. I started to have trobul with religon when I notice how Creationist chose to ingnore anything and everything that debunks there claims. I almost reject religon on whole because it made me qustion if was I doing the same thing in a sceince's freindly way. Then I started getting into eastern paths like Buddhism, Taosim and hindusim pluse I started learning about Unitarin churchs. I started to gain a new view on what religon should really be about. Still recovering I admit. Anyway my point is why would you defend this? Has it really help Christainty's image? Have you really bin able to convices anyone who allready had a full understanding of sceinces and evolution? All this is pushing people away from the religon. If you really want to help your relgion would it not make more sences to go agaisnt I.D sceinces and not against Evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

Every claim that has bin made has bin debunked and the big spokes men have bin busted for bing dishonest.

King, if I wanted to win some kind of popularity contest here, I would be an Atheistic Evolutionist; but I'm not in this for man's glory.

You say the spokesmen have been busted for being dishonest; well, no offense to my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I have to admit that I find establishments like AiG somewhat embarrassing.

On the other hand, I can say from experience that even if someone doesn't use science when upholding their faith - (like me) - he is still going to get accused of being dishonest, or (not by coincidence), a deceiver.

I say "not by coincidence" because Jesus was accused of being a deceiver, and I really believe that when Christians are called that, it is the devil speaking.

So, my point is, whether we use science, or don't use science, you can be assured that we'll be accused of being liars, deceivers, and frauds. If God chose to endow us with the 1st-Century gifts of miracles again so that we could go around healing people, we'd end up being burned at the stake, crucified upside down, or put in jail.

It's not what we say that they don't like, it's what we are.

 

[Psudopod]

You say the spokesmen have been busted for being dishonest; well, no offense to my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I have to admit that I find establishments like AiG somewhat embarrassing.

Heh, good for you.

On the other hand, I can say from experience that even if someone doesn't use science when upholding their faith - (like me) - he is still going to get accused of being dishonest, or (not by coincidence), a deceiver.

Is that right? I remember people commenting that if God created the earth 6000 years ago but embedded 4.6billion years of history in then God would be a deciever, but I don't think people consider you one. I don't at least.

So, my point is, whether we use science, or don't use science, you can be assured that we'll be accused of being liars, deceivers, and frauds. If God chose to endow us with the 1st-Century gifts of miracles again so that we could go around healing people, we'd end up being burned at the stake, crucified upside down, or put in jail.

Again, are you sure? There are people around today who claim to be performing miracles (whether they are or not is irrelevent), but they're not generally arrested unless they cause actual harm. They're certainly not burnt at the stake.

What makes you think that people would reject God and his powers if they had a genuine reason to believe in them. I know a lot of people who would love to have faith in an interventionist deity and an afterlife in heaven. They don't reject those concepts because they want to reject them, they just have no reason to accept them.

Groups like AIG get labelled deceptive because they repeatedly make deomonstratably false claims. And I think that's a fair lable.

 

[AV1611VET]

What makes you think that people would reject God and his powers if they had a genuine reason to believe in them.

Because history has a tendency to repeat itself.

The Bible shows that even when Jesus comes back and rules and reigns on the earth for 1000 years, at the end of those years, there is going to be one doosey of a battle against Him.

The Bible says that at Jesus' trial, He was mocked; and I believe that some of the things that were said at His mocking are right here on this very website.

 

[Psudopod]

Because history has a tendency to repeat itself.

The Bible shows that even when Jesus comes back and rules and reigns on the earth for 1000 years, at the end of those years, there is going to be one doosey of a battle against Him.

The Bible says that at Jesus' trial, He was mocked; and I believe that some of the things that were said at His mocking are right here on this very website.

From personal experience I disagree, but I guess only a second coming is going to show one way or the other

 

[Bombila]

King, if I wanted to win some kind of popularity contest here, I would be an Atheistic Evolutionist; but I'm not in this for man's glory.

You say the spokesmen have been busted for being dishonest; well, no offense to my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I have to admit that I find establishments like AiG somewhat embarrassing.

On the other hand, I can say from experience that even if someone doesn't use science when upholding their faith - (like me) - he is still going to get accused of being dishonest, or (not by coincidence), a deceiver.

I say "not by coincidence" because Jesus was accused of being a deceiver, and I really believe that when Christians are called that, it is the devil speaking.

So, my point is, whether we use science, or don't use science, you can be assured that we'll be accused of being liars, deceivers, and frauds. If God chose to endow us with the 1st-Century gifts of miracles again so that we could go around healing people, we'd end up being burned at the stake, crucified upside down, or put in jail.

It's not what we say that they don't like, it's what we are.

Wrong again, AV. When creationists don't use science, it just indicates they have beliefs contradictory to scientific evidence, and as long as they don't attempt to force those beliefs on others (as in trying to insert such into secular education of other people's children), then no harm except to their own intellects. When creationists try to use science to back up those beliefs, the only recourse they have is to twist, misinterpret, or lie about the actual science. Naturally people don't think this is ethical behaviour, and they get called on it.

You claim creationists are often insulted, yet in the same paragraph you go out of your way to insult everyone else, implying we are all bloodthirsty executioners who would persecute miracle workers to death. Real verifiable miracles in this day and age, when we don't believe in sorcery like the first century persecutors did, would have an entirely different response.

No. It really is what you say, not what you are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong again, AV. When creationists don't use science, it just indicates they have beliefs contradictory to scientific evidence, and as long as they don't attempt to force those beliefs on others (as in trying to insert such into secular education of other people's children), then no harm except to their own intellects. When creationists try to use science to back up those beliefs, the only recourse they have is to twist, misinterpret, or lie about the actual science. Naturally people don't think this is ethical behaviour, and they get called on it.

Isn't that just what I said --- whether we use science or not, we're toast?

You claim creationists are often insulted, yet in the same paragraph you go out of your way to insult everyone else, implying we are all bloodthirsty executioners who would persecute miracle workers to death.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Real verifiable miracles in this day and age, when we don't believe in sorcery like the first century persecutors did, would have an entirely different response.

No, they wouldn't. Look what you guys [still] call them today --- magic, sorcery, whatever.

Let me make this point again, because it is a very good one: Even after Jesus, Himself, comes back and rules and reigns on this earth for 1000 years, there's still going to be a doosey of a battle rage against Him.

Look at this verse ---

Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

And now, the reaction ---

The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

If that happened today, what would be any different?

 

[Cabal]

I was under the impression that it was the know-it-all religious types du jour who thought that they were totally in the right with God that did all the crucifying of the Messiah and burning of "heretics", not the scientists/atheists...

Just sayin'!

 

[Danyc]

Av, the world isn't like it was thousands of years ago. Personally I would be very glad to know for sure that God exists, if Jesus came again. Many would, and only a few people would want to go to hell. I mean, think about it: If you knew absolutely, definitively, for sure that Jesus was real, and he had come back, why would you want to choose any other route?

Sure, there might be a small number, but nobody in their right mind would choose the other when eternal happiness and eternal life is available to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Av, the world isn't like it was thousands of years ago.

Yes, I'm afraid it is --- there is absolutely no difference today than yesterday.

 

[paug]

Yes, I'm afraid it is --- there is absolutely no difference today than yesterday.

Is that all you found in his post to object to?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that all you found in his post to object to?

What else is there?

Do you realize also that when the Rapture occurs, just as prophesied, that many aren't going to believe it? Do you realize that when the events of Revelation start to unfold, in the very order that they are written, people still aren't going to believe it?

 

[Bombila]

Isn't that just what I said --- whether we use science or not, we're toast?There is nothing new under the sun.No, they wouldn't. Look what you guys [still] call them today --- magic, sorcery, whatever.

Let me make this point again, because it is a very good one: Even after Jesus, Himself, comes back and rules and reigns on this earth for 1000 years, there's still going to be a doosey of a battle rage against Him.

Look at this verse ---And now, the reaction ---If that happened today, what would be any different?

I don't actually call ancient miracles anything other than likely mythological. The people of the time, however, believed in the reality of miracles, sorcerers, necromancers, witches, magicians. They expected that such wonders were real. Jesus performing miracles would have seemed like a powerful example of such professionals, but not something entirely unimaginable or uncommon. He was as remarkable for what he said as well as his prowess in healing and turning water to wine, and although others were most likely considered miracle or magic workers at the time, their names are largely forgotten, unlike Jesus.

Today, none of the magic makers are likely to impress secular people. Unlike first century people, we expect such operators to be charlatans and tricksters, and they are easily found out. A worker of real miracles would stand out like an Orchid in a Skunk Cabbage patch.

As for this verse (good example!), true enough, but today? If it could not be shown that thunder was plausible in the weather conditions, then analytical types would have to consider other possibilities. OTOH, who is to say the people who hear only thunder, and not an angel speaking words, are not deafened by God as the Pharoah's heart was hardened? Your God is known to not play fair when it comes to human perceptions.

The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

 

[Matthewj1985]

What else is there?

Do you realize also that when the Rapture occurs, just as prophesied, that many aren't going to believe it? Do you realize that when the events of Revelation start to unfold, in the very order that they are written, people still aren't going to believe it?

That is blatenly false. If the entire ocean turns to blood (real blood, with DNA) just like the bible says there will be no more thinking atheist, they will all convert on the spot. On the other hand something tells me that if one small pond in southern India were to turn red because of a natural and explainable event, you would call that "prophesy being fulfilled." Again a lot more people would be willing to convert if science actually pointed to the stories in the bible and didn't require you to turn half your brain off to understand them.

Another fundamental difference is most all atheist would gladly convert if they say real proof of the validity of your religion. On the other hand I have never seen a creationist get backed into a corner and say "you know what guys, you are right and I am wrong", they just start talking about how everyone else is going to hell and walk off.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your God is known to not play fair when it comes to human perceptions.

Of course He doesn't ---

 

[AV1611VET]

Another fundamental difference is most all atheist would gladly convert if they say real proof of the validity of your religion.

Sadly --- I disagree.

 

[Bombila]

Of course He doesn't ---

You consider that a good thing?

I don't. It's one of those aspects of your set of deity-beliefs which make it sometimes difficult to tell who the bad guy really is in your Bible, especially considering you think the victor wrote it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's one of those aspects of your set of deity-beliefs which make it sometimes difficult to tell who the bad guy really is in your Bible...

Of course it's difficult --- you guys can't even agree on the difference between RIGHT and WRONG in the Bible, let alone identify someone as such.

 

[Bombila]

Of course it's difficult --- you guys can't even agree on the difference between RIGHT and WRONG in the Bible, let alone identify someone as such.

Not being 'you guys', I have no idea what you think I may be disagreeing with. I think manipulating people who are helpless in the face of your authority and (meta)physical power is shabby behaviour. I think manipulating people's beliefs by misrepresenting science is shabby behaviour. God-of-the-Bible does the first, IDists do the second.

I suspect, when it comes to the secular world, including science, you as a creationist are more honest than most, because you don't often pretend science (while hiking) says something it does not, instead inventing an astounding course of reasoning which accounts for scientific evidence as it stands while making God out to be quite the joker.

It comes down to my being convinced that I do know the difference between right and wrong, contrary to your accusation. The problem is that you seem to hold the belief that God as you perceive him to be can do no wrong, that there is no instance in scripture of God doing wrong, whereas I can find many instances of God doing wrong (like the hardening of Pharoah's heart, the killing of the firstborns, and so on). To excuse all these instances on the basis of humans 'not understanding God's ways/plans/understanding' is IMO a complete copout. Either God did not do those things or he did. They are wrong in the eyes of ordinary good humans, even most believers.

If I were to consider the existence of gods as real, and the Bible (1611 or otherwise) a narrative of the winningest/most powerful god of them all, I could easily infer, as have other heretics before me, that there is a lot missing from that narrative, and that in the little hints that remain of what is missing is where an actually benevolent deity may lie vanquished.

 

[TheKingOfImmortality]

You know, AV, your really proving my point. Just look at the comments being posted in respones to you. You dont seem to be winning that many people over to your religon. The more you fight evolution the more you push other away.