Can You Help Me Understand?

[GreenMunchkin]

I honestly wasn't making a big deal about it, compared to the other things in my posts. It was more to do with being curious with how people felt about it. I wouldn't let that get in the way of becoming a christian if I was inspired to be.

Fair enough.

Look at it this way: if God was man-made, do you not think we'd be able to explain - understand - everything?

 

[Confess]

Okay you guys got me ther even though I still don't fully understand why a loving god would create evil in the first place.

He didn't create evil.

The main point is why did God even create humanity and why did he create such things such as evil, pain, suffering, arrogance, hatred, sin, etc.

He created humanity as an expression of his love, he did not create pain, suffering etc. Those were things that came as a consiquence for rejecting him. You see, as long as we have full and complete fellowship with God, there is no pain or suffering.

The problem is that we do not have full fellowship with him. We are seperated from him by our sinful nature.

Analogy:
If you had a child and took care of him, always being there for him, he may never feel hungry or insecure. But if you care for him from afar, he may suffer hunger pains, feel insecure etc. That is similar to how our relationship is with God. (Mind you it is not completly accurate, but it gives a picture).

God breached that gap by sending Jesus so that when we die we will be back into full fellowship with him again.

Why are you convinced that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?

It wasn't my doing that I have faith in what I believe. When I was very small, my parents (who didn't own a Bible or go to church) never taught me anything about God, yet I wanted to know him. I stole bibles and would stare endlessly at pictures of Jesus. I was baptized as a baby. The Bible says that when we are baptized that the Holy Spirit will bless us with faith. I know that before I could read, I had faith. Later in life, I rejected that faith until I became an adult. If you look at history, there was a Pharaoh Akhenaten who threw away the Egyptian Gods and taught about a God that was amazingly similar to the True God. Only the True God could give knowledge of himself to one that was brought up as a pagan with no Christian influence. There are actually many stories like this. God's truth has continued for thousands of years with very minor changes (changes mainly done out of the change in language expressions)

God created everything and all of the creatures approx 6000 years ago. Yet facts shows

Facts? What facts? Scientific fact mean that you can recreate to prove the conclusion. None of that has ever happened. No one has proof that we evolved from anything. Sure we have proof of micro-evolution like when a dog gains extra fur during the winter time and looses it for the summer time, but we have no proof after hundreds of years of searching for the permanant change that an animal or human has gone through to prove evolution.

We have no solid proof that the universe has been around for billions of years. We have only theories.

So unless you can recreate the creation of the earth or the evolution of man then evolution is a factless theory.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Two books it'd be really great for you to read - they'd answer all of your questions: "Evidence in Need of a Verdict" by Josh McDowell (the one I recommended before) and The Heavenly Man by Brother Yun.

One will speak to you intellectually, and the other will give you examples of how people who have never heard of Jesus, still come to know Him personally.

 

[GuitarHero2]

Facts? What facts? Scientific fact mean that you can recreate to prove the conclusion. None of that has ever happened. No one has proof that we evolved from anything. Sure we have proof of micro-evolution like when a dog gains extra fur during the winter time and looses it for the summer time, but we have no proof after hundreds of years of searching for the permanant change that an animal or human has gone through to prove evolution.

We have no solid proof that the universe has been around for billions of years. We have only theories.

So unless you can recreate the creation of the earth or the evolution of man then evolution is a factless theory.

Not trying to be a jerk, but their is lots of proof and it's practically fact that the universe is billions of years old wether you're willing to except it or not. Yes their are lots of different theories about evolution, formation of the universe but they do have facts of some type of proof behind them while all bibical claims rely on is pretty much blind faith and or saying that it's some type of metaphor. Have your opinions, I'll respect them.

 

[GuitarHero2]

full fellowship with him again.


It wasn't my doing that I have faith in what I believe. When I was very small, my parents (who didn't own a Bible or go to church) never taught me anything about God, yet I wanted to know him. I stole bibles and would stare endlessly at pictures of Jesus. I was baptized as a baby. The Bible says that when we are baptized that the Holy Spirit will bless us with faith. I know that before I could read, I had faith. Later in life, I rejected that faith until I became an adult. If you look at history, there was a Pharaoh Akhenaten who threw away the Egyptian Gods and taught about a God that was amazingly similar to the True God. Only the True God could give knowledge of himself to one that was brought up as a pagan with no Christian influence. There are actually many stories like this. God's truth has continued for thousands of years with very minor changes (changes mainly done out of the change in language expressions)

Okay well it's nice to here your views.

 

[Confess]

Not trying to be a jerk, but their is lots of proof and it's practically fact that the universe is billions of years old wether you're willing to except it or not. Yes their are lots of different theories about evolution, formation of the universe but they do have facts of some type of proof behind them while all bibical claims rely on is pretty much blind faith and or saying that it's some type of metaphor. Have your opinions, I'll respect them.

You sound like my brother. LOL

 

[Confess]

ScottyL,
Did you not read where I said that I would question the faith of a person who would commit murder?

Our faith does change our works. To commit murder would be against our faith and an aparent rejection of the faith. Yet, I don't know the heart of this hypothetical person and cannot give a conclusive answer.

What I do know is this.
If a child grew up in a horrible home, became a serial murderer, went to jail and was given the gospel, then repented and believed - then he would be saved. If anyone would think that he doesn't deserve salvation after repenting and believing, then he doesn't believe that Jesus died for ALL, and only died for the few.

 

[GuitarHero2]

Two books it'd be really great for you to read - they'd answer all of your questions: "Evidence in Need of a Verdict" by Josh McDowell (the one I recommended before) and The Heavenly Man by Brother Yun.

One will speak to you intellectually, and the other will give you examples of how people who have never heard of Jesus, still come to know Him personally.

Ok I'll pick them up, I was going to go out after school to buy Richard Dawkin's new book anyways, and I have some extra money to check out the books you suggested as well. So Now I can read both athestic and christian philophsy.

 

[Confess]

Not trying to be a jerk, but their is lots of proof and it's practically fact that the universe is billions of years old wether you're willing to except it or not. Yes their are lots of different theories about evolution, formation of the universe but they do have facts of some type of proof behind them while all bibical claims rely on is pretty much blind faith and or saying that it's some type of metaphor. Have your opinions, I'll respect them.

I was pretty solidly into evolution. I was raised with it, went to school that taught it etc.

I know that it is poor science to call something a fact where it cannot be reproduced.

 

[GuitarHero2]

I was pretty solidly into evolution. I was raised with it, went to school that taught it etc.

I know that it is poor science to call something a fact where it cannot be reproduced.

I didn't call evolution a fact, I just made a point their is evidence and facts supporting the theory while the creationist point of view has nothing to prove it. Yet, religion and science are two completely different things.

 

[Confess]

I didn't call evolution a fact, I just made a point their is evidence and facts supporting the theory while the creationist point of view has nothing to prove it. Yet, religion and science are two completely different things.

I don't mean to argue the point but feel it important to note that there are scientific evidences that do support a young earth.

 

[GuitarHero2]

I don't mean to argue the point but feel it important to note that there are scientific evidences that do support a young earth.

Well than be free to indulge me on them.

 

[Confess]

Well than be free to indulge me on them.

Oh boy, like I have the time to gather the evidence and get them for you. Just google evidence for a young earth.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Ok I'll pick them up, I was going to go out after school to buy Richard Dawkin's new book anyways, and I have some extra money to check out the books you suggested as well. So Now I can read both athestic and christian philophsy.

Cool. I read the God Delusion, and I was struck by a couple of things. The thing about Dawkins is he's essentially regurgitating 1960's views on "existentialism". Existence precedes essence. He's saying in his own verbose, wordy way, that man exists, and by existing, we create our own essence - call it "God", or "meaning" or "Purpose" and there is actually no such thing that exists outside of our subjective creation of it. He's just repackaged that, and given it a "postmodernist" slant. Christianity was never threatened by existentialiam any more than it was threatened by Beckett's Waiting For Godot.

Equally, Dawkin's militant atheism is very much at odds with his supposition that there are hundreds of worlds - not a theory that can be tested, let alone proved. Even someone with expert knowledge of string theory and quantum mechanics is nowhere nearer to being able to give even a modicum of proof regarding the "multiverse" theory. And yet millions of Christians can attest to experiencing a living relationship with Jesus Christ - isn't that proof, of a fashion?

Yes, it's not proof you can measure and guage in a laboratory, but is any relationship? Scientists can't explain love or relationships beyond giving a very smudged "It's chemical reactions, electircal impulses..." That's what I was explaining in the other thread. There is a personal, living relationship with Jesus.

So I'd posit that there is, realistically, more proof for the existence of Christ, and thus by default if nothing else, God, than there is for much of what Dawkins says.

Further, dude, charging £20 per book is quite at odds with his "mission". If you care deeply about something, enough to write a tome of Dostoyevsky proportions, you disseminate relevant information freely to as many people as possible - much like Christianity does. His vocabulary and price indicate he's purely catering to the elitist "intelligentsia" - individuals who feel they're too intelligent to have any sort of faith. He's, forgive the term, preaching to the choir.

That's not to say you shouldn't read it. But as you're reading, keep in mind he's much like that vexen person, insofar as he also makes huge leaps of "faith" and presents it as evidence.

 

[Confess]

Try "Defeating Darwinism" by Phillip Johnson
And "The Flood" by Alfred Rewinkle

The Flood is amazing with facts.

 

[GuitarHero2]

Cool. I read the God Delusion, and I was struck by a couple of things. The thing about Dawkins is he's essentially regurgitating 1960's views on "existentialism". Existence precedes essence. He's saying in his own verbose, wordy way, that man exists, and by existing, we create our own essence - call it "God", or "meaning" or "Purpose" and there is actually no such thing that exists outside of our subjective creation of it. He's just repackaged that, and given it a "postmodernist" slant. Christianity was never threatened by existentialiam any more than it was threatened by Beckett's Waiting For Godot.

Equally, Dawkin's militant atheism is very much at odds with his supposition that there are hundreds of worlds - not a theory that can be tested, let alone proved. Even someone with expert knowledge of string theory and quantum mechanics is nowhere nearer to being able to give even a modicum of proof regarding the "multiverse" theory. And yet millions of Christians can attest to experiencing a living relationship with Jesus Christ - isn't that proof, of a fashion?

Yes, it's not proof you can measure and guage in a laboratory, but is any relationship? Scientists can't explain love or relationships beyond giving a very smudged "It's chemical reactions, electircal impulses..." That's what I was explaining in the other thread. There is a personal, living relationship with Jesus.

So I'd posit that there is, realistically, more proof for the existence of Christ, and thus by default if nothing else, God, than there is for much of what Dawkins says.

Further, dude, charging £20 per book is quite at odds with his "mission". If you care deeply about something, enough to write a tome of Dostoyevsky proportions, you disseminate relevant information freely to as many people as possible - much like Christianity does. His vocabulary and price indicate he's purely catering to the elitist "intelligentsia" - individuals who feel they're too intelligent to have any sort of faith. He's, forgive the term, preaching to the choir.

That's not to say you shouldn't read it. But as you're reading, keep in mind he's much like that vexen person, insofar as he also makes huge leaps of "faith" and presents it as evidence.

Well I understand you concerns and criticisms but I feel that I should hear all sides of the story, and hear what everybody has to say. It's only fair that I do that. I'll keep what you said in mind.

 

[MikeMcK]

..

 

[GuitarHero2]

Try "Defeating Darwinism" by Phillip Johnson
And "The Flood" by Alfred Rewinkle

The Flood is amazing with facts.

Well fair enough I'll give them a chance, but I was quite unimpressed with some of the attempted arguments I've heard against evolution by creationists so far, but it's my duty to see all sides of the story and give everything a chance, like I've mentioned before. Anyways I love reading so it won't be much of a chore for me.

 

[Confess]

Well fair enough I'll give them a chance, but I was quite unimpressed with some of the attempted arguments I've heard against evolution by creationists so far, but it's my duty to see all sides of the story and give everything a chance, like I've mentioned before. Anyways I love reading so it won't be much of a chore for me.

Well you are ahead of me there. I have little time to read. I post here as my way of relaxing.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Well I understand you concerns and criticisms but I feel that I should hear all sides of the story, and hear what everybody has to say. It's only fair that I do that. I'll keep what you said in mind.

Oh, hey, of course you should listen to all sides. People can't be forced into having faith. Gosh, not at all.

But you do want all sides, right? Reading The God Delusion by itself is only one man's perspective.

But, you've been given the names of books that will counter many of Dawkin's suppositions, so the rest is up to you