How some creationists pushed me away from christianity

[Non sequitur]

And people like you to let go of the rational and give in to Love[not sex]
and light without questioning.

If you let go of the rational, and don't question, you could end up a Scientologist...

 

[Catherineanne]

i updated my post.

But you use the word Evidence is a funny way when evidence cant even show an existence of God. But the god your describing is not all powerful and all loving.

It is other people who use the term evidence in a misleading way, as if evidence is ever 100% convincing to everyone. Evidence is only convincing if we choose to accept it as such. There is plenty of evidence for God's existence, but as with any other evidence, you can choose to accept it, or choose to think it unconvincing.

That is not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Life itself is the evidence. Love is another. Altruism is another. The tendency for dying creatures to be swamped by a vast dose of endorphins at the point of death is another; evolution would suggest no reason why death should be made easy or even pleasurable; a dying creature has no impact on natural selection whatever, and yet there is evidence that nature has made it so. Why is this? Luck? Chance? Or a benign deity?

The evidence is there. The interpretation of that evidence is a matter of choice.

Its easy to love something that is obedient its hard to love something thats not. ether god cant save everyone or he wont. your choice.

That is not the choice. Salvation is freely offered to everyone, but will only be accepted by those who choose to accept it. Those who choose not to accept it will not be included.

This does not necessarily mean that they will end up in eternal torment; Anglicanism does not on the whole accept such a concept, and I certainly don't. But it does mean that those who choose not to accept the existence of God, or who choose to reject him, will live without him.

And by choice I mean choice. If a person does not or cannot believe something, then that is not making a choice.

 

[Catherineanne]

Most homosexuals are atheists.

Good grief!

This is certainly not necessarily the case. I know a lot of very devout, very holy men who happen to be gay, and are no less Christian because of it.

Where it is the case, I think Christians are far too often the cause. Make no mistake, if any Christian drives a gay brother away from our faith because of mistaken bigotry, it is not the gay person who will end up the wrong side of the pearly gates. All are welcome at the Feast of the Lamb.

THe fact that you have tried will be in your favour,but is not enough.

Twaddle. If heaven is only for those who have overcome all their sins, there will be nobody there but the Lord and his mother.

Fortunately for us all, this is not the case.

 

[underheaven]

If Satan believed that Christ was the Son of God he would be a Christian. Needless to say, he isn't.

Why would what satan believed be relevant to God ?
Of course satan knows that Christ is the Son of God,thats why he hates Him.
And no he would not be a Christian,since he was the one that
corrupted God's Creation in the first place.

 

[British Bulldog]

If Satan believed that Christ was the Son of God he would be a Christian. Needless to say, he isn't.

How do we know? It seems to me that Satan more than anyone would have good reason to believe that Jesus was the son of God. It's such an enormous oversight for someone who has personal proof of the rest of the story. How do you know Satan hasn't converted to Christianity sometime in the last 2000 years? Given his unparalleled knowledge of hell you'd think Satan would have done a bit of research in the interim and come to a few conclusions.

 

[underheaven]

Good grief!

This is certainly not the case. I know a lot of very devout, very holy men who happen to be gay, and are no less Christian because of it.

Most are .
Some may not be.

 

[Non sequitur]

There is plenty of evidence for God's existence, but as with any other evidence, you can choose to accept it, or choose to think it unconvincing.

Begging the question.

That is not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Life itself is the evidence. Love is another. Altruism is another. The tendency for dying creatures to be swamped by a vast dose of endorphins at the point of death is another; evolution would suggest no reason why death should be made easy or even pleasurable; a dying creature has no impact on natural selection whatever, and yet there is evidence that nature has made it so. Why is this? Luck? Chance? Or a benign deity?

All that is evidence that it exists and nothing more.

That is not the choice. Salvation is freely offered to everyone, but will only be accepted by those who choose to accept it. Those who choose not to accept it will not be included.

Begging the question.

And by choice I mean choice. If a person does not or cannot believe something, then that is not making a choice.

*rereads*

If I person does not believe something, then that is not making a choice...

*rereads again*

 

[Non sequitur]

Most are .
Some may not be.

Please, where are you getting this evidence that most people who are gay are atheists?

 

[Catherineanne]

Personally, I find myself a little leery about the gods who just randomly pass by.

It's something about their eyes, but I just can't put my finger on it...

Rolf Harris - The Court Of King Caractacus Lyrics

 

[underheaven]

If you let go of the rational, and don't question, you could end up a Scientologist...

Taking one sentence out of the whole.
Very mischievous.
I know that God exists,because I studied evidence,so rational
knowledge is good,just not enough.

 

[Catherineanne]

The parable in the old testament about Abraham and Isaac is about Faith in God Himself .

Actually, if you read Kings and Chronicles carefully you will find that the story of Abraham and Isaac is intended to persuade the ancient Israelites not to practice infanticide, by offering their first born babies to Molech.

And if you read Kings and Chronicles carefully, you will also find that a lot of them took no notice of this very good advice, and did indeed put their firstborn babies into a fire. The accounts are clearly heavily edited, but not enough that you can't find them if you know what to look for. Children 'passing through fire' are not passing anywhere.

In other words the story is not about faith, it is about preventing ritual child sacrifice in ancient Israel.

The sacrifice of a lamb or a dove later acted as a substitution for the sacrifice of the actual first born child, but God still says that the first born child of any animal or person belongs to him.

How lovely.

 

[Non sequitur]

Taking one sentence out of the whole.
Very mischievous.
I know that God exists,because I studied evidence,so rational
knowledge is good,just not enough.

Which Bible verse allows Christians to cherry-pick what parts to believe literally and what parts to believe are analogous, exactly?

I forget...

 

[Catherineanne]

When one has no eyes one cannot 'see' the world around them.

If you have never 'seen' God ,it is because you do not have the 'innereye',
which does not require 'physical eyes',but the eyes of the soul .

Wot?

 

[Catherineanne]

Of course satan knows that Christ is the Son of God,thats why he hates Him.

I don't know, Christians on the one hand, atheists on the other.

Here you are, dear. Satan does not believe that Christ is the Son of God, and tries to sow doubt in Christ's mind as well.

Fortunately he does not succeed.

Matthew 4:6

"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

I will let you check out the rest of the story for yourself. Satan does not believe in Christ, which is why he hates him so much. If he had believed in Christ as the Son of God he would not have dared to try to tempt him.

Satan has dominion over this world, and the people in it, and therefore assumes he has dominion over Christ. He hasn't.

 

[underheaven]

Please, where are you getting this evidence that most people who are gay are atheists?

Every where.
All the ones I know of, and more.
The militants have spear headed the anti- religion campaigns.
Of course there are many pagans who say that they are Christians,
who are priests,even.
And more evidence too, if you want it.
But WHY do you not know that ?

 

[Catherineanne]

How do we know? It seems to me that Satan more than anyone would have good reason to believe that Jesus was the son of God. It's such an enormous oversight for someone who has personal proof of the rest of the story. How do you know Satan hasn't converted to Christianity sometime in the last 2000 years? Given his unparalleled knowledge of hell you'd think Satan would have done a bit of research in the interim and come to a few conclusions.

'It seems to me' is not a sound basis for theology.

How do I know Satan hasn't converted to Christianity? You are kidding, of course.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Believing in human institutions is not about existence but credibility. A person can know full well that there is a monarchy in the UK, for example, without believing in it. Therefore the parallel with God really does not apply.

This is just wrong. How can you know something exists without believing it exists?



And why is god different?

The only relevent parallel in our faith that I can think of is in relation to Christ and Satan. Satan knows full well that Christ exists, but does not believe in him as the Son of God.

[/quote]
That's funny, because I don't believe in satan either. And it's funny how some people try to say that if I don't believe in god I'm doing satan's work. Does that mean if I don't believe in satan I'm doing god's work?

That is such a silly question. Of course there are independently verifiable reports, for those who accept them, but if you choose not to believe them, or the evidence they present, then what is the point of asking who they are?

Where are they? And I ask so that I can decide for myself whether they are credible or not.

You may just as well ask, is there anyone you can present to me, who I will believe. The answer is always going to be no, until you choose to make it yes.

Let's look at it in a different way. If you give me three or more contemporary, independent, otherwise reliable historians who also mention a specific incident, and who describe it in enough detail such that it definitively cannot be ascribable to any other known cause, then I will count that as evidence that entertains the possibility of god's existence.



Now: what will it take to make you believe that god doesn't exist?

When one has no eyes one cannot 'see' the world around them.

If you have never 'seen' God ,it is because you do not have the 'innereye',
which does not require 'physical eyes',but the eyes of the soul .

That's what psychics say...and mentalists...and magicians...and fortune-tellers...and all manner of other parapsychological and mythical con artists. Why are you different? Or are you special pleading?

It is other people who use the term evidence in a misleading way, as if evidence is ever 100% convincing to everyone. Evidence is only convincing if we choose to accept it as such. There is plenty of evidence for God's existence, but as with any other evidence, you can choose to accept it, or choose to think it unconvincing.

The evidence that the sun was still in existence 10 minutes ago is pretty strong. You are moving the goalpost.

That is not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Life itself is the evidence. Love is another. Altruism is another. The tendency for dying creatures to be swamped by a vast dose of endorphins at the point of death is another; evolution would suggest no reason why death should be made easy or even pleasurable; a dying creature has no impact on natural selection whatever, and yet there is evidence that nature has made it so. Why is this? Luck? Chance? Or a benign deity?

The evidence is there. The interpretation of that evidence is a matter of choice.

The things you mentioned do not count as good evidence, because there are natural explanations as to their origins.



As for death and endorphins, I can think of a very plausible explanation; it is released in other, similar situations, such as those of stress, anxiety, and pain. It could very well be simply an epiphenomenon...if this actually does occur. Because I can find no medical literature in my brief search that shows that endorphin release precedes death.

That is not the choice. Salvation is freely offered to everyone, but will only be accepted by those who choose to accept it. Those who choose not to accept it will not be included.

Why not? Does that mean that god's egocentrism is a stronger acting force than his supposed love for us?

This does not necessarily mean that they will end up in eternal torment; Anglicanism does not on the whole accept such a concept, and I certainly don't. But it does mean that those who choose not to accept the existence of God, or who choose to reject him, will live without him.

So then why do people say that we will burn in hell?

 

[Catherineanne]

Which Bible verse allows Christians to cherry-pick what parts to believe literally and what parts to believe are analogous, exactly?

I forget...

I know!!!

The one that says, if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and if thy right eye causeth thee to sin, pluck it out. Ditto foot elsewhere.

If you meet a 'Bible believing' Christian who has two hands, two feet and two eyes, then you have met a cherry picking Bible believer.

 

[underheaven]

Wot?

Please do not address me,I have nothing to say to you.

 

[Jazer]

Take a look. Even people who think the earth is only 6,000 years old would probably have a job believing that the earth, and the plants on it, predate the sun, moon and stars.

That is not what the Bible says. So you have just built a strawman arguement.