God Salts Reality With Miracles

[Split Rock]

..., there HAS to be a time when God is invoked somewhere along the chain of events, or science will win the debate hands down.

Obviously, as a Christian you would think that God was involved somewhere along the way. All well and good, but why insert him willy nilly anywhere you like? The big problem is that you guys see science as "the enemy" and will do anything to defeat "the enemy." If you were to learn that science is not your enemy, then the whole issue of who "wins the debate" would no longer be such a concern to you. This desire to "win the debate" is what causes you guys to lose the Big Picture.

 

[AV1611VET]

Obviously, as a Christian you would think that God was involved somewhere along the way. All well and good, but why insert him willy nilly anywhere you like?

That's easy to answer: the alternative is much worse.

To agree with you guys, for even a moment, would eventually snowball into the whole of Scripture being dismissed.

Jonah couldn't have lived in the whale's belly w/o God being involved somewhere along the way.

The Flood could not have occurred w/o God being involved somewhere along the way.

You get my point, I'm sure.

But to allow science -- even just one little teensie-weensie equation to slip in and pwn even a jot or tittle of the Bible, and it's over.

 

[Jade Margery]

That's easy to answer: the alternative is much worse.

To agree with you guys, for even a moment, would eventually snowball into the whole of Scripture being dismissed.

Jonah couldn't have lived in the whale's belly w/o God being involved somewhere along the way.

The Flood could not have occurred w/o God being involved somewhere along the way.

You get my point, I'm sure.

But to allow science -- even just one little teensie-weensie equation to slip in and pwn even a jot or tittle of the Bible, and it's over.

What you miss, AV, is that science has already pwned much of the Bible, and your stubborn insistence that it hasn't or can't is akin to a child sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming, because if he can't hear is mom then obviously she's not really talking right?

And I feel compelled to point out that although a man obviously could not actually live in the belly of a whale without some kind of intervention, you immediately assume that your god supplied such intervention. It could have been some other supernatural entity (if we are hypothetically allowing supernatural entities to exist) and then your god just stepped in and took the credit. After all, almost every culture in the world has created its own mythical beings, many of whom could have saved Jonah's waterlogged behind based on their descriptions.

As always, you start at the wrong end of an investigation. You begin by assuming you know the conclusion, then backing up and trying to find evidence to support it. When the evidence doesn't fit, you ignore it. Your method reveals no new knowledge, solves no problems, and makes no provable predictions.

The right way to pursue knowledge is to say, 'what does the evidence point to?', not 'Here's what's true, now let's go find something to back it up.'

To agree with you guys, for even a moment, would eventually snowball into the whole of Scripture being dismissed.

The amount of evidence and reality you have to flat out ignore, the logic you have to hide from yourself, and the mental gymnastics you have to do to prove your own unbased assumption in order to avoid the 'worse alternative' may indicate that the worse alternative is the true version.


I would like to know of you, why is the alternative worse? Why is living in a godless world such a terrible prospect to you? What would it change in your life?

Or for that matter, why is the alternative that the bible is a collection of stories and metaphors and not exact historical accounts such a terrible thing? Jesus taught in metaphors--why couldn't the OT have been god's teaching metaphors? Would knowing the bible isn't literal really change your faith or your life?

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't know me very well, do you?

You begin by assuming you know the conclusion, then backing up and trying to find evidence to support it.

No, I don't -- qv my profile.

I don't mess with evidence whatsoever.

But I'm sure you'll be glad to say I'm still wrong, won't you?

So either way: trying to back it up with evidence, or not messing with evidence; I'm wrong, aren't I?

 

[AV1611VET]

So basically, you admit to having a massive confirmation bias and self-imposed blind spot towards empirical evidence that undermines the Bible.

I have Boolean standards I go by.

It is more important to you to save face than determine what is true.

This isn't about saving face -- it's about faith.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's easy to answer: the alternative is much worse.

A world where people don't see you as wise -- how is that worse?

To agree with you guys, for even a moment, would eventually snowball into the whole of Scripture being dismissed.

Jonah couldn't have lived in the whale's belly w/o God being involved somewhere along the way.

The Flood could not have occurred w/o God being involved somewhere along the way.

You get my point, I'm sure.

So in order to prevent the Scriptures from being dismissed as absurdity, you need to worship and enshrine absurdity?

But to allow science -- even just one little teensie-weensie equation to slip in and pwn even a jot or tittle of the Bible, and it's over.

Not even close, AV -- you'd be over, but you, in the larger picture, are insignificant. You always have been.

You'd be forced to admit that how you've been reading, interpreting, and preaching the Bible all these years is erroneous and irrelevant -- and when people look to re-examine the Bible in a way which actually brings order, meaning, and guidance into their lives, they'd be looking to sources other than you.

They'd become, not "independent Baptists," for example, but independent Christians -- people who truly need nobody else's dogma (least of all yours, which has always been useless) to set the Bible's moral and theological lessons as the cornerstone of their lives.

They would have a moral compass without you and your ilk setting an embedded magnet next to it. Christianity would move on without the likes of you holding it back -- and you can't have that, can you?

Get over yourself, AV -- what you do isn't in the least bit important.

 

[Jazer]

The big problem is that you guys see science as "the enemy"

Science is not the enemy, Atheism is the enemy. If someone does not have enough evidence to believe that usually makes then agnostic. But atheists are anti christian and they are anti God. They claim to accept Science but they are willing to reject Science at the drop of a hat if in anyway Science were to support the Bible, even the Bible as a History Book.

In order to be an atheist you have to accept the so called evidence that there is no God. You have to reject the truth and the evidence for God. Even if you take into consideration that christians are not all they should be. Perhaps in their confusion they blame God for something a so called christian did or said somewhere along the way. But in the end it is all personal between them and God so that everyone has to work things out with their maker.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Science is not the enemy, Atheism is the enemy.

How so? Another person's athesim doesn't hurt you in the slightest.

 

[Jazer]

So in order to prevent the Scriptures from being dismissed as absurdity, you need to worship and enshrine absurdity?

In order to dismiss as absurdity people would have to reject the truth and accept a lie. They would be deceived and in a state of deception. We are not talking about rejection of people or the church or their interpretation or translation. We are talking about rejection of the Living Word of God. In effect rejecting the God that created you and the Universe. People has nothing to do with it, this is personal between you and Him.

It sort of reminds me of Dr Dino and his rejection of man and man's authority. He did not want to pay taxes. He did not want to get building permits. Do you think the judge that sentence Dr Dino cared what Dino though of him? Would that have had any effect on the judgement? Or was the judgement going to be the same regardless if Dr Dino believed he existed or not.

Funny thing is my experience with Atheists is they often live a better life then Christians. Sometimes they treat people better then Christians do. Maybe they want to cover their bases and make sure there is nothing they are guilty of and nothing they can be judged for.

 

[variant]

Funny thing is my experience with Atheists is they live a better life then Christians. Sometimes they treat people better then Christians do. Maybe they want to cover their bases and make sure there is nothing they are guilty of and nothing they can be judged for.

Pathetic.

People who are responcable for their own morality are free to do things because they feel it is what is right or what is best.

Perhapse Christians feel the need to invent an objective moral judge because you don't feel up to the task.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In order to dismiss as absurdity people would have to reject the truth and accept a lie. They would be deceived and in a state of deception. We are not talking about rejection of people or the church or their interpretation or translation. We are talking about rejection of the Living Word of God. In effect rejecting the God that created you and the Universe. People has nothing to do with it, this is personal between you and Him.

Now you're just blathering -- would it really be such an insurmountible blow to your ego if you were told you've been reading the "Living Word of God" wrong all these years?

Has your pride blinded you to the possibility that it's not God that's being rejected, but you?

Or do you not care to be reminded of the difference?

It sort of reminds me of Dr Dino and his rejection of man and man's authority. He did not want to pay taxes. He did not want to get building permits. Do you think the judge that sentence Dr Dino cared what Dino though of him? Would that have had any effect on the judgement? Or was the judgement going to be the same regardless if Dr Dino believed he existed or not.

Using the manipulations of a pious fraud to try to support your point -- how fitting.

Funny thing is my experience with Atheists is they often live a better life then Christians. Sometimes they treat people better then Christians do. Maybe they want to cover their bases and make sure there is nothing they are guilty of and nothing they can be judged for.

Or maybe they're just better cented, more compassionate, more moral people than Christians are. An Atheist who acts morally does so because it's the right thing to do, period. (See my sig)

A Christian does so in order to score brownie points with their God -- and if they honestly think their salvation is already a done deal, they would see no need to do that.

 

[Jazer]

Now you're just blathering -- would it really be such an insurmountible blow to your ego if you were told you've been reading the "Living Word of God" wrong all these years?

So your going to turn this into a personal attack on me. That is fine, because that is no reflection on the Bible.

Atheists are not only anti Christian they are anti God. They are against the God that created them and the Universe. They reject the truth and the evidence for God and accept the lie from Satan that there is no God.

That has nothing to do with Christianity or with my relationship with God. This is personal between you and God and you can not use me as an excuse for your lack of diligence. Nice try though to push the blame off yourself and onto me.

In fact do you know enough about the Bible to know who is the accuser of the saints? We can help you with that if your not familiar with the passage.

 

[Jazer]

People who are responcable for their own morality are free to do things because they feel it is what is right or what is best.

Interesting that we are talking about morality all of a sudden. Is that a cause for atheism also? They do not want to be held accountable for their actions so they try to deny there is a God?

 

[Nostromo]

Funny thing is my experience with Atheists is they often live a better life then Christians. Sometimes they treat people better then Christians do. Maybe they want to cover their bases and make sure there is nothing they are guilty of and nothing they can be judged for.

Why do so many people here have this strange idea that atheists secretly believe in God, but they just don't want to admit it?

 

[Jazer]

Why do so many people here have this strange idea that atheists secretly believe in God, but they just don't want to admit it?

Because atheism does not make any sense. An honest person would be agnostic and say I do not have enough evidence to convince me. To be an atheist you have to be deceived and believe a lie. You are making a public statement of faith that you believe there is evidence that there is no God. Even though that evidence does not exist. But I am sure a part of them wants to cover their bases so just in case there is a God they want to live a good life. Often atheists are secular humanists. Even communism understand that you can not be truly happy if you do not give of yourself to help others. They say Beijing is the eternal city and it could be. When there is a natural disaster they are always there to help the other cities to rebuild.

 

[variant]

Interesting that we are talking about morality all of a sudden.

You brought it up, why do you find it interesting that I responded to your accusations.

Is that a cause for atheism also? They do not want to be held accountable for their actions so they try to deny there is a God?

I can’t speak for everyone but no. I don't think there is a God, because there isn't any reason to.

 

[variant]

Because atheism does not make any sense. An honest person would be agnostic and say I do not have enough evidence to convince me. To be an atheist you have to be deceived and believe a lie. You are making a public statement of faith that you believe there is evidence that there is no God. Even though that evidence does not exist. But I am sure a part of them wants to cover their bases so just in case there is a God they want to live a good life. Often atheists are secular humanists. Even communism understand that you can not be truly happy if you do not give of yourself to help others. They say Beijing is the eternal city and it could be. When there is a natural disaster they are always there to help the other cities to rebuild.

An atheist is one that lacks a belief in god an agnostic dosen't know wether or not there is a god, so you can be both.

 

[AV1611VET]

A world where people don't see you as wise -- how is that worse?

Is that what I said?

Do you know the difference between someone claiming they are wise, and God pronouncing someone wise?

Let me give you an example:

God: The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise. (Proverbs 11:30)

Science: We're all 'wise men' -- whether we win souls or not.

And that's just one example of many.

 

[Nostromo]

Because atheism does not make any sense. An honest person would be agnostic and say I do not have enough evidence to convince me. To be an atheist you have to be deceived and believe a lie.
You are making a public statement of faith that you believe there is evidence that there is no God.

No, we're not. Atheist means "not a theist", just like achromatic means not coloured, and atypical means not typical.

One can be "not a theist" for a few reasons, agnosticism is one, as is evidence to the contrary.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, we're not. Atheist means "not a theist", just like achromatic means not coloured, and atypical means not typical.

One can be "not a theist" for a few reasons, agnosticism is one, as is evidence to the contrary.

I say stick to the Biblical definition and there won't be any ... er ... nevermind.