Christian hate & insanity

[elman]

Yes, that is what I was trying to explain because it is misleading. The scientific definition of theory does not mean unproven, it means that it is an idea that has been scrutinised, tested and tried to be disproved. So the theory of fire is a very strong theory, it is hard to deny that fire does not exist. When something has not been tested to the point of being confirmed it is called a thesis, which is a probable explanation but has not been rigorously tested yet, if it passes the scrutiny it is a theory and if it fails it is still useful in narrowing down the truth. So evolution is as much proven fact as fire, so unless you also deny the existence of fire then you cannot question evolution because equal evidence exists for both. Do you also question the speed of light, the combustion engine etc? I ask because even in the face of evidence, there are some that will still say something like ‘fire is an illusion elves use to trick you’ and you cannot disprove it so they won’t ever change their mind.




On the contrary, I think it is the opposite of being open-minded to stubbornly say something is true (or false) without ever backing down in the face of proof. Have you ever read anything regarding quantum theory? Particles behave absolutely bizarrely at the quantum level to the point where some truly amazing hypotheses are required. One such suggests that nothing actually exists until it is viewed (google Schrodinger’s cat), which came about because particles behave differently when observed (double-slit experiment), which is very difficult to explain. You can actually build a quantum computer, that will stop working if you look inside it and I am nowhere near qualified to explain any such thing, but I do not deny that the phenomenon exists. So no, I do not accept I am suggesting that nothing can exist outside of the observable world. I am merely pointing out that you can say anything is true if you do supply the burden of proof. But something must lead you towards such an answer, as “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” so if you wish to claim reality is the dream of an elephant, fine I would go along with that as long as there is proof of such things.
Regarding the coincidences reoccurring. Well if that is really true and you can predict the results, you are no longer working in the realms of coincidence. If you can pray for rain at 12:00 that will last for precisely 4.5 mins then snow for 1 min etc and it actually happens, well that would be fantastic. However all such claims are found to be wishful thinking and utterly false, as you agreed about psychics and mediums. Statistically, extremely unlikely things are happening all the time, so I don’t understand how you are linking cause and effect to make the assumption that these things point towards a supreme being acting sneakily, who has an interest on what happens to you, occasionally.


[font=&quot]I am a Christian that follows parts of the bible, not all of the bible. I believe part of the bible is incorrect, but I believe part of the bible is true and contains divine wisdom. Peter said in Acts 10:34-35 that God is no respector of persons and accepts people from every nation who do what is right. I think that is true. When Jesus said the will of God was summed up in loving God and man, I think that is true. When Ezekiel says in chapter 18 the righteous shall live and not die, but the wicked shall die and not live--I think that is true. I find things I do not agree with in all religious books I have read, including of course, the Koran. But I also usually find things I do agree upon in all the religions I have studied.

But if you disagree with parts of the Bible, what makes you so confident the rest is divinely inspired? Doesn’t such inconsistency damage the reliability of the source, especially since the Bible was supposed to have been written by those in direct contact with God.

[/QUOTE] I have never been impressed with the idea that something does not exist until someone can view it or it does not make a sound until someone can hear it. That idea is not intellectually interesting to me. The existence of something does not depend on my being able to detect it. I think evolution has been shown to be partially true, but the details can still be disputed in some ways. I don't see that as being equal to the existence of fire. I just don't follow that statment. I accept parts of the bible as being divinely inspired by faith. I don't claim anything is true simply because it is in the bible. I have never claimed to know it absolutly, like I know fire exists because I have started fires and been burned by them. When I talk about things occuring that are statistically inprobable, I am also talking about the improbability of those things occuring at a particular time that has a particular effect on me, but as I said, I have been where you are, and was unwilling to accept the possibility of God being involved in this world. As long as you assume that is impossible there is no way for you to see what I am talking about.

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If a woman does not marry a rapist, from my understanding of OT law, it was not considered a sin; however, I believe the sin does fall on the rapist. You may want to ask a Jew about this, as they are more equiped to handle OT questions than the majority of Christians out there.

As for the sharia law versus western law, its hard to compare as I am not knowledgable in sharia law. I hazard a guess that some of sharia law is based upon some of the OT laws due to the fact that they are both, along with Christianity, Abrahamic religions. Most of today's laws for western civilization is based on German oral law (common/English law), civil law (Roman law), and Abrahamic law, as well as laws/customs from local origin (e.g. danish laws, etc). Basically western civilization is a shmorgasboard (buffet) of laws picked and choosen to be used by various western cultures.

Christianity, dependent upon the individual's views and the collective whole, is very dynamic yet retains specific core value based upon the original 10 commandments. The 10 commandments itself are actually basic principles to live by that can be found in just about any culture western/eastern; however, native american cultures didn't have a real concept of property as far as I know since they were/are more communal (ie - native american cultures are likely as close as one can get to true communism, just an observation/opinion not a fact). So with that in mind the laws we have for today are still founded up Christian/Jewish laws combined with the laws of each respective culture, plus through cultural diffusion. So in away you can't escape any religious law without losing some of the most important protections. As for sharia law, I believe it is legalism to the extreme, even Jewish law provides far more freedom than sharia law, as well as more protection for women; this is from my current understanding of how muslims treat their women. On top of that, I believe sharia law is the very reason why the lands of Islam had been held back in terms of technological advancement and Christianity allowed Europe to go into the Renassance era, thanks to the protestant reformation.[/FONT]

I have little comment on most of what you have said here. However although my historical knowledge is rather pathetic, I am surprised by your suggestion Christianity aided Europe become more advanced. It is common knowledge that the 1000 years between the fall of Rome and the renaissance are known as the dark ages. The initial cause of, and the reason the dark ages lasted so long was due to Christian fundamental rule, a time when any scientific discovery that contradicted the Bible was considered blasphemy and they received the death penalty. Surely you are aware that the Pope only very recently apologised for the treatment of Galileo? If not then it makes a perfect example, he was imprisoned for life because he claimed the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. Since fundamentalists believed God created the Earth as the centre of the universe, rather similar to creationists today denying evolution. Anyway, reason eventually prevailed and things got back on track, but it took hundreds of years to even match the standard the Romans had enjoyed. So whether under Sharia rule or Christian, things are not a good than when rational decision making is involved and scientific freedom is allowed to benefit us all.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As for your last statement, it is a fact that women sexually mature later in life now, because the aging process has slowed, at least in western civilizations. One observation by scientists and anthropologists is that women in your country (the UK, I believe) are actually remaining fertile into their late 40s and beyond. It has also been noted in other western countries as well, and is believed to be related to gradual changes in our life expectancies and advancements in technology.[/FONT]

Well maybe I made a false assumption, I do not understand the biology behind it. People certainly live longer and are fertile for longer, but I don’t understand why this would mean we would develop later. However if this is true then it explains why paedophilia is a modern crime and another reason to review out laws and ethics to ensure they are keeping up with the world, not stick to old rules.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I also believe that science and Christianity/Judism complement each other, but that requires one to have an open mind.[/FONT]

In what way? I personally see religion and science as entirely incompatible. They are the exact opposite ways to rationalise the world, as science is based on observation and testing whereas faith is believing something that people want to believe, with no physical evidence. A bias description, but factual I think. So I am willing to have an open mind to your suggestions of how science has benefited from irrational thinking. The only way I can think of an example would be the scrutiny many theories are submitted to by the faithful, so it makes it harder for any mistake to slip through. So perhaps we now know more about how some creatures evolved because evolution deniers have brought forward the ‘irreducible complexity’ argument for those creatures, although the argument has never held true. However when you then bring examples like Galileo in to the debate then this seems to greatly outweigh the potential benefits, or the poor standards of scientific education in America due to creationists. Or the constant religious arguments against stem cell research that has so much potential or other human-cell based research. So what do you say to a cynic like myself?

 

[technofox]

I have little comment on most of what you have said here. However although my historical knowledge is rather pathetic, I am surprised by your suggestion Christianity aided Europe become more advanced. It is common knowledge that the 1000 years between the fall of Rome and the renaissance are known as the dark ages. The initial cause of, and the reason the dark ages lasted so long was due to Christian fundamental rule, a time when any scientific discovery that contradicted the Bible was considered blasphemy and they received the death penalty. Surely you are aware that the Pope only very recently apologised for the treatment of Galileo? If not then it makes a perfect example, he was imprisoned for life because he claimed the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. Since fundamentalists believed God created the Earth as the centre of the universe, rather similar to creationists today denying evolution. Anyway, reason eventually prevailed and things got back on track, but it took hundreds of years to even match the standard the Romans had enjoyed. So whether under Sharia rule or Christian, things are not a good than when rational decision making is involved and scientific freedom is allowed to benefit us all.



Well maybe I made a false assumption, I do not understand the biology behind it. People certainly live longer and are fertile for longer, but I don’t understand why this would mean we would develop later. However if this is true then it explains why paedophilia is a modern crime and another reason to review out laws and ethics to ensure they are keeping up with the world, not stick to old rules.



In what way? I personally see religion and science as entirely incompatible. They are the exact opposite ways to rationalise the world, as science is based on observation and testing whereas faith is believing something that people want to believe, with no physical evidence. A bias description, but factual I think. So I am willing to have an open mind to your suggestions of how science has benefited from irrational thinking. The only way I can think of an example would be the scrutiny many theories are submitted to by the faithful, so it makes it harder for any mistake to slip through. So perhaps we now know more about how some creatures evolved because evolution deniers have brought forward the ‘irreducible complexity’ argument for those creatures, although the argument has never held true. However when you then bring examples like Galileo in to the debate then this seems to greatly outweigh the potential benefits, or the poor standards of scientific education in America due to creationists. Or the constant religious arguments against stem cell research that has so much potential or other human-cell based research. So what do you say to a cynic like myself?

I enjoy talking to you about history, since it is one of my passions. The dark ages were not truly dark, because there have been technological and other advancements between the fall of Rome and until the Renessaince era. However, you are correct that the fundamentalism did slow down scientific discoveries, but the advent of the printing press and the protestant reformation helped shed the fundamentalism of the church back then.

The change was in the perception of the fundamentalism of Christianity that allowed one to be a scientist and a follower of Christ at the same time. I view science as learning about how things work and how they came into being, it may mean to change my perception of scripture as science advances our understanding of the world and the universe. Instead of taking the bible literally, it may mean to look at the concepts with in scripture as metaphorically or symbolically; the point is that science does not change morals, values, and principles taught in the Bible. It doesn't even change the nature of what Christ did for us. So with that in mind, science and Christianity/Judism are still complementary as long as we are willing to change our perceptions, but not the message (e.g. principles and values to live by).

 

[Curious Atheist]

[quote/]I have never been impressed with the idea that something does not exist until someone can view it or it does not make a sound until someone can hear it. That idea is not intellectually interesting to me. The existence of something does not depend on my being able to detect it. I think evolution has been shown to be partially true, but the details can still be disputed in some ways. I don't see that as being equal to the existence of fire. I just don't follow that statment. I accept parts of the bible as being divinely inspired by faith. I don't claim anything is true simply because it is in the bible. I have never claimed to know it absolutly, like I know fire exists because I have started fires and been burned by them. When I talk about things occuring that are statistically inprobable, I am also talking about the improbability of those things occuring at a particular time that has a particular effect on me, but as I said, I have been where you are, and was unwilling to accept the possibility of God being involved in this world. As long as you assume that is impossible there is no way for you to see what I am talking about.[/quote]

I do not go along with the idea either, but that doesn't mean it might not hold water. But it is a thesis, that like many in the quantum/theoretical physics world cannot be tested or proven. Not yet at least, so I find it interesting but I would not argue it being true on my flimsy understanding. I don't really like silly theoretical questions like the falling tree either, it just comes down to 'are sound waves sound, or do our ears make it sound' and either way the answer seems redundant.
Your comment about evolution is partially true, in that the evolutionary path of individual species can be difficult to prove. A good example is the giraffe and why it has a long neck, where several very plausible theories have been put forward, yet often it is a combination of factors (in this case, fighting, feeding and seeing over long distances). However the principle of evolution, that the complexity of life developed over millions of years in small, beneficial adaptations cannot be denied. There is simply too much evidence, from observational, fossil, simulations, genetics and directly watching short-lived creatures evolve such as flies. The genetic evidence I feel is the strongest, as it shows we are all related and by mapping out how related all animals are, you create a giant family tree that shows where different species went down different routes. Please read a few books on the subject if you need any proof or convincing, because you are speaking out of ignorance of the topic at the moment (no offence intended). Or please do what I am doing, go to an atheist forum and put your best arguments forward for debate. But just because you don’t accept it the way you accept fire (although both can be observed if you had any interest) it does not mean the Bible somehow becomes a viable alternative.
I have said this many, many, times, but I am not saying anything is impossible because that would be ignorant. That is why I describe myself as 99.999% atheist as that leaves space for the incredibly unlikely scenario that we are actually plugged into the Matrix, or on the back of a turtle or only exist in the dreams of a giant. There are two ways to debate, on one hand you can argue that anything is possible so therefore what is the point in having a debate at all. Or you can debate what is the most likely solution to a question, so eg ‘how did complex life come to be’ and we can then discuss the evidence, which is stronger and what makes more sense. Then we can dismiss the lesser suggestions as failed science, because they don’t make sense. So I am sorry if we are going round in circles, but you still haven’t explained why you believe that the best answer to life’s questions is a creator. You have just made a statement ‘I believe parts of the Bible are divine’ but I just don’t understand the deeper reasons why. It really does confuse me and I admit I cannot understand, even after the hours spent on this forum asking questions.

 

[Curious Atheist]

I enjoy talking to you about history, since it is one of my passions. The dark ages were not truly dark, because there have been technological and other advancements between the fall of Rome and until the Renessaince era. However, you are correct that the fundamentalism did slow down scientific discoveries, but the advent of the printing press and the protestant reformation helped shed the fundamentalism of the church back then.

The change was in the perception of the fundamentalism of Christianity that allowed one to be a scientist and a follower of Christ at the same time. I view science as learning about how things work and how they came into being, it may mean to change my perception of scripture as science advances our understanding of the world and the universe. Instead of taking the bible literally, it may mean to look at the concepts with in scripture as metaphorically or symbolically; the point is that science does not change morals, values, and principles taught in the Bible. It doesn't even change the nature of what Christ did for us. So with that in mind, science and Christianity/Judism are still complementary as long as we are willing to change our perceptions, but not the message (e.g. principles and values to live by).

I enjoy it too, it is always good to hear opposing points of view on the same subject. Although history isn't really my strong point, but I can still learn as I go and change my mind. But even with my feeble grasp, I don't really agree that although there may be some advancements in the 'dark' ages, they would only be that which does not contradict the Bible whilst many others were banned, with books literally burned if they were seen as blasphemy. I can't help wondering where we might be today if our scientific understanding was as strong 1500 years ago, it does seem a shame. So with that said, I think it is a more than a little bit misleading to claim Christianity lead progress forward, when the protestant reformation you mention seemingly just alleviated the power of the church to prevent progress.

I think I had misunderstood your original statement about being complementary though, I thought you meant that science learned from the faithful and visa versa. When I see you actually mean that christianity is still compatible, if you re-interpret scripture in the light of new knowledge. I dunno though my friend, that sounds a bit fishy to me...It seems like an easy cop-out to explain why the Bible is wrong about many things. If I am wrong about something then I am wrong so I change my mind. If evolution is wrong, then I will be very surprised but I would accept a new idea without dragging my feet if the evidence was reasonable. So why do you feel the need to re-interpret the Bible instead of just accepting it probably isn't true, it is a story like any other religion (I started another thread a while ago regarding how unoriginal the story actually is btw).

 

[elman]

=Curious Atheist;60317473][quote/]I have never been impressed with the idea that something does not exist until someone can view it or it does not make a sound until someone can hear it. That idea is not intellectually interesting to me. The existence of something does not depend on my being able to detect it. I think evolution has been shown to be partially true, but the details can still be disputed in some ways. I don't see that as being equal to the existence of fire. I just don't follow that statment. I accept parts of the bible as being divinely inspired by faith. I don't claim anything is true simply because it is in the bible. I have never claimed to know it absolutly, like I know fire exists because I have started fires and been burned by them. When I talk about things occuring that are statistically inprobable, I am also talking about the improbability of those things occuring at a particular time that has a particular effect on me, but as I said, I have been where you are, and was unwilling to accept the possibility of God being involved in this world. As long as you assume that is impossible there is no way for you to see what I am talking about.[/quote]

I do not go along with the idea either, but that doesn't mean it might not hold water. But it is a thesis, that like many in the quantum/theoretical physics world cannot be tested or proven. Not yet at least, so I find it interesting but I would not argue it being true on my flimsy understanding. I don't really like silly theoretical questions like the falling tree either, it just comes down to 'are sound waves sound, or do our ears make it sound' and either way the answer seems redundant.

And to me the entire issue seems unrelevant.

Your comment about evolution is partially true, in that the evolutionary path of individual species can be difficult to prove. A good example is the giraffe and why it has a long neck, where several very plausible theories have been put forward, yet often it is a combination of factors (in this case, fighting, feeding and seeing over long distances). However the principle of evolution, that the complexity of life developed over millions of years in small, beneficial adaptations cannot be denied. There is simply too much evidence, from observational, fossil, simulations, genetics and directly watching short-lived creatures evolve such as flies. The genetic evidence I feel is the strongest, as it shows we are all related and by mapping out how related all animals are, you create a giant family tree that shows where different species went down different routes. Please read a few books on the subject if you need any proof or convincing, because you are speaking out of ignorance of the topic at the moment (no offence intended).

I did not deny the basic truth of evolution so there is no need to read any books to convince me of it being factual,

Or please do what I am doing, go to an atheist forum and put your best arguments forward for debate. But just because you don’t accept it the way you accept fire (although both can be observed if you had any interest) it does not mean the Bible somehow becomes a viable alternative.

I did not propose the Bible as a viable alternative and evolution cannot be observe as fire can. I can create fire or start one. I have difficulty doing that with evolution. Also Evolution is a big topic and can cover many different issues.

I have said this many, many, times, but I am not saying anything is impossible because that would be ignorant. That is why I describe myself as 99.999% atheist as that leaves space for the incredibly unlikely scenario that we are actually plugged into the Matrix, or on the back of a turtle or only exist in the dreams of a giant.

I have seen no evidence in my life of the Matrix or a large turtle or the dreams of a giant. I have seen some evidence of an intelligent force being involved in what happens to me.

There are two ways to debate, on one hand you can argue that anything is possible so therefore what is the point in having a debate at all. Or you can debate what is the most likely solution to a question, so eg ‘how did complex life come to be’ and we can then discuss the evidence, which is stronger and what makes more sense. Then we can dismiss the lesser suggestions as failed science, because they don’t make sense. So I am sorry if we are going round in circles, but you still haven’t explained why you believe that the best answer to life’s questions is a creator.

It seems more reasonable to me to assume an intelligence is behind my existence than to assume nothing is behind my existence. Being able to explain how life accidently or randomly evolved from non life does not remove the reasonableness of an intelligence behind it happening. I have done a lot of reading on the theories and science has not reasonably explained how life evolved from non life. If they do and when they do, God will still be reasonable.

You have just made a statement ‘I believe parts of the Bible are divine’ but I just don’t understand the deeper reasons why. It really does confuse me and I admit I cannot understand, even after the hours spent on this forum asking questions.

When Jesus said to the crowd in answer to the question how do I inherit eternal life--love God and your neighbor and then when He answered the second question of who is my neighbor with the parable of the Good Samaritan---none of this was new information for anyone standing there. Jesus was confirming and reminding them and us, of what we already knew as human beings. I don't believe this teaching is divine truth because it was said by Jesus or because it is in the bible. I believe this is divine truth becuse it is divine truth and it happens to be what Jesus said and what He said is in the Bible. When Ezekiel says the righteous shall live and not die but the wicked shall die and not live, I believe that is divine truth not because it is in the bible and not because Ezekiel said it, but because there is a reality to the value of righteousness and I find it more reasonable to assume this value will transcend our physical existence than to assume it will not.

 

[technofox]

I enjoy it too, it is always good to hear opposing points of view on the same subject. Although history isn't really my strong point, but I can still learn as I go and change my mind. But even with my feeble grasp, I don't really agree that although there may be some advancements in the 'dark' ages, they would only be that which does not contradict the Bible whilst many others were banned, with books literally burned if they were seen as blasphemy. I can't help wondering where we might be today if our scientific understanding was as strong 1500 years ago, it does seem a shame. So with that said, I think it is a more than a little bit misleading to claim Christianity lead progress forward, when the protestant reformation you mention seemingly just alleviated the power of the church to prevent progress.

I think I had misunderstood your original statement about being complementary though, I thought you meant that science learned from the faithful and visa versa. When I see you actually mean that christianity is still compatible, if you re-interpret scripture in the light of new knowledge. I dunno though my friend, that sounds a bit fishy to me...It seems like an easy cop-out to explain why the Bible is wrong about many things. If I am wrong about something then I am wrong so I change my mind. If evolution is wrong, then I will be very surprised but I would accept a new idea without dragging my feet if the evidence was reasonable. So why do you feel the need to re-interpret the Bible instead of just accepting it probably isn't true, it is a story like any other religion (I started another thread a while ago regarding how unoriginal the story actually is btw).

Its not really a cop-out, but to some it may be. I like talking with Jews, because they got a good handle on scripture than most Christian do. The reason why I say that is due to the fact that in light of any evidence that may show inaccuracy in scripture they would adapt their beliefs with that change; particularly from literal to metaphorical or story based upon morals and values to live by verses literal interpretation. Its not really a cop-out to change your perception in light of evidence that conflicts with the Bible, but unfortunately a lot of people go by Sola Scriptora over taking in the Bible as a book of stories that talks of faith, hope, and love along with war, deceit, and other acts that make the stories easier to relate to for the reader and bring them to faith and know that despite all of the bad stuff that happens, God is good and greater than anything else.

I know some believers will be upset over my comments, but in the end the message of the Bible is how to live a Godly life, love others, and provides hope to mankind. The message does not have to change because of evolution or any other scientific discovery, just our perceptions of how we percieve the stories have to be open to change.

A good book that you may want to read is Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It is a real eye opener, especially the fact he was an atheist that accepted Christ later in life and became widely known for his writings. I like how he balances the Bible with the reality of the world and how he shows that dogma may contradict the message of the Bible (e.g. Paraphrased - he asks which is more Godlier? A married couple that treats each other with disrespect and contempt for one another and remains married, because of dogma or an unwed couple having premarital sex and love each other and obeys God everywhere-else in their lives?

I hope you do read that book, because it will give you a clear understanding of where I am coming from. Basically the message never changes, just our perception of the stories involved.

 

[hedrick]

[FONT=&quot]Did my quote not come from Jesus’ mouth, in the NT? It seems pretty black and white to me, the punishment is death which seems to clearly be what Jesus wanted.

[/FONT]

Jesus said that the Law and the Prophets must be fulfilled. There are two reasons that this doesn't mean that he endorses all the OT punishments.

First, read how he actually applied the Law. Much of it is shortly after your quote. He seems to interpret it quite freely, by finding its intent. He also says that the whole Law can be summarized by loving God and neighbor, and uses interesting exegesis to justify what are literal violations, e.g. of the Sabbath law. That makes it dangerous to take passages from the OT and say Jesus must want to apply them as written.

Note that the word "fulfill" means "give the true meaning."

Jesus was killed as a law-breaker, after all. I assume he said he came to establish the true meaning of the Law rather than destroy it because he was being accused of opposing it.

 

[chilehed]

...1. The main topics that generally revolve around women, have a strong mysgyonistic attitude towards rape and the rights of rape victims.

"'it must have been God's will for her to be raped' and recommended that she attend church more frequently."" Quoted from a chaplain

2. Homosexuals seem to be classed as sub-human, immoral monsters that choose to be gay. If I remember correctly, the subject is actually forbidden on this forum, are you ashamed of what God wants? Can we please discuss this in a civil way?

"Say what you will but homosexuals are not even human. They are diseased, degenerate creatures who mock humans. The goal that they will freely admit to is to erase any trace of decency or humanity from the planet until we are all wallowing in filth and disease like them. If you are religous at all you recognize that this is the work of satan and that they have no souls, just lust for each other"

3. Atheists being thought of as having no morals is also a common theme

"Could atheists talk themselves into anything? The methodical erosion of ones values and morals can be so damaging, to the point that it's acceptable that"Atheists eat babies."

That's some pretty far out stuff. People are prone to say crazy stuff, but the fact that it might be a self-described Christian doesn't mean that it's compatible with legitimate Christian theology.

...An atheist may still be moral and say murder and rape are wrong: but when asked why, they will not have a final reason or authority to which they can appeal."

That's not hateful, it's just a logical conclusion from the idea that there is no god.

...Now to the insanity, how do you know if a Christian has crossed the line and are infact, crazy? If someone started speaking to me about demons I would question if they were playing with a full deck...

"Leviathon is a spirit I have battled as well. It was a hard battle but was won. It was about four months or more ago. My wife and I were in McDonalds and were having a conversation with an angel and Leviathon had come up. I told the angel that i wanted to fight this demon and he said I could. On the way back to the hotel I asked the angel if he could bring the demon to a predestinated place and he said yes. I figured that since Leviathon was from the depths of the sea he would be used to the cold water so I filled the tub up with scalding hot water and blessed the water. The angels (there were two now) brought Leviathon bound to the tub and fought with me. We all pulled our swords from our hips and began running this demon through with all my strength and everything I had. I would say it took atleast half an hour or more. We were all spent but the battle was won."

It appears that he needed to get back on his meds.

...My question is how can anyone be so hateful and still proclaim to be a loving Christian?Why are 'heathens' hated and not loved with conversion attempted?

We're nuts, that's how. It's part of the human condition. You don't think you're exempt, do you? Or do you really believe that you act wth loving charity to everyone at all times?

...Why do you care if one man is a homosexual, why can't they just be left to do what they want and why can't God handle this on his own? Why is it only Christians (or Muslims) that state that homosexuality is a choice, whilst everyone else agrees that it is not?

We understand that homosexual acts are bad for the people doing them, and it would be uncharitable to say otherwise. I'm not interested in snooping into someone's bedroom, but at the same time I have to resist the trend to have it considered to be no different than natural relations between a man and a woman because that idea is bad for society. And truth isn't determined by a majority decision, it's objective.

...It seems they are hated for being 'unnatural'...

Yes, too often we fail to act as Christians should. Guilty as charged.

...I mean no offence to any individual, but I am sick of people like the Pope preaching hatred, it does nothing to help the world.

You haven't ever actually studied anything the man's written, have you.

 

[Harry3142]

Curious Atheist-

The fact that we have copies of books which were originally written prior to 800 AD is to the credit of the church. Irish monks dutifully copied every book that they could get their hands on, and then kept those copies safe. Had they not done so, we would not have access to many of those books, since invading tribes and Vikings burned what they did not see as valuable, and this included libraries.

Even though Constantine permitted Christian worship in the roman empire circa 312 AD, most of Europe was still under pagan rule for centuries afterward. The saxons of northern Europe weren't converted until 800 AD, and three nations in Europe remained pagan until 1000 AD. England itself was under pagan rule for many years following the fall of the roman empire in the west.

 

[Sketcher]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Crikey, that must be a self-esteem killer. That must scare children half to death![/FONT]

Bad news is balanced by good news. Kids tend to get along fine.

[FONT=&quot]1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yes they are different, but prejudice is the same.[/FONT]

Prejudice is bad, but calling sinful behavior sinful isn't prejudice.

[FONT=&quot]2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Nor do we still see segregated black/white but prejudice remains[/FONT]

Which has nothing to do with homosexuality whatsoever.

[FONT=&quot]3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Well most people should reject such violence, but more Christians are violent and racist than the secular community. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I have read many articles regarding Texas in the news. I understand the states in the Bible belt are the ones who fight hardest to teach creationism in schools, with the highest percentage of fundamentalist Christians. The statistics show these areas are also the most racist, homophobic with a higher percentage of teenage pregnancy. In general, the least liberal and least tolerant states. Your last point is a bit silly when 90% of the US population is Christian, certainly when you look at the prison statistics.[/FONT]

I'm still not seeing data from you proving that this is even the case. Even if it were, according to those I know personally who have been to jail, people in jail try to pretty up their images as much as they can in hopes of getting an early release. This includes declaring a religion and going to AA regardless of whether you are religious or whether you are serious about giving up drinking.

[FONT=&quot]But do you not understand that if everyone is telling you that you are a sinner, that even subconsciously they are being rejected? Many Christians would think twice before socialising or allowing their children to socialise with homosexuals, so this prejudice shines through and can lead to depression, low self-esteem all due to something they cannot control. If you felt like an outcast, did that not make you unhappy and possibly resentful? Anyway I am not using specific examples, I am just asking regarding Christianity as a whole.[/FONT]

I've always been a sinner, at very least in one sense of the word, and I have been constantly reminded of it. That's not rejection. I know rejection better than most people should. And by and large, it wasn't the church that rejected me, it was the rest of the world.

In any case, if you are condemning Christians who don't wish to hang around homosexuals, or who don't want their kids to hang around homosexuals, you should drop your claim that Christian homosexuals leading lives of celibacy and serving as clergymen would put children at risk.

[FONT=&quot]You must be blind to not see that Gay rights are winning, slowly the church is being eroded with more and more legislation going against the prejudice the church wants. [/FONT]

If there's a law eroding the church, it's obviously time to claim the First Amendment and reverse this nonsense.

[FONT=&quot]Did my quote not come from Jesus’ mouth, in the NT? It seems pretty black and white to me, the punishment is death which seems to clearly be what Jesus wanted. I also was under the impression that NT laws do apply to every Christian, but the OT laws were for the jews only so I don’t really understand the ‘Laws of Noah’. It is extremely complicated to work out why people ignore parts of the Bible, which is what I am really struggling with the most.[/FONT]

Jesus agreed with the Law, but again, the Law finds its fulfillment in Jesus, who didn't go around executing people. His mission, and the mission of the church too, is a mission of rescue.

As far as the Laws of Noah are concerned, this is a Jewish teaching which predates Christianity. Jews believe there are universal laws for everybody (Laws of Noah) and they believe they have Torah (the OT Law), which includes these, and adds many others. So this doctrine didn't originate with Christians trying to get out of commands we didn't like, it is rather taught by Jews who have a stricter standard for themselves than those who are not Jews.

[FONT=&quot]So God is a hypocrite, flaunting his powers to prove he is better than his creations? [/FONT]

No, God is a King who has rights that people do not have.

[FONT=&quot]But take Jesus as an example then, you just said in the last paragraph that “Jesus didn't go around putting people to death. He went about preaching, healing, and showing kindness.” As if this showed he disapproved of the death penalty for sin. But Jesus IS God according to the Bible, so..so what if he did go around murdering babies surely he is allowed to, being the creator? This just doesn’t add up, I don’t understand.[/FONT]

What Jesus did and did not do does not reflect on his beliefs about the death penalty. Rather, it tells us his mission, which was a mission of mercy and rescue. He could have laid waste to the entire planet being God, but that wasn't the reason he came.

[FONT=&quot]That's what a Jew was wishing upon his oppressors. That's not a command for Christians to follow. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Why was it included in the Bible? Why were these following verses that I believe are supposed to be directly from God:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"...They shall fall by the sword: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]their infants shall be dashed in [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]pieces, and their women with child [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](pregnant) shall be ripped up!" [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]direct quote from YHWH -- Hosea 13:16 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
"Their children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes! There houses spoiled, and their wives raped...Dash the young men to pieces...have no pity on the fruit of the womb, the children shall not be spared" -- Isa 13:16-18 [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
“And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.” -- 2kings2:23-24 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”“And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee,...” -- Deuteronomy 28:53 [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The list goes on and on, where God has committed terrible crimes or forced others to do so. Just read the last quote, eating your own children? How do you suggest this is OK and God is loving?[/FONT]

God committed no crimes. Life belongs to him, he is free to take it and sentence that it be taken as he sees fit. He punished sin, as sin deserves punishment. People don't have the right to "play God" and take lives in such a way.

[FONT=&quot]I don’t have evidence that the Bible is more than firelighter, what a weird thing to ask me. I was making the point that the Bible misses out many rules that we now follow. We believe paedophilia is wrong, yet it is not mentioned in the Bible so therefore have the ability to decipher morals for ourselves. I don’t think you are refuting this point at all with your question. Also, does it not seem odd to you that something so important would just be ignored, considering how many other petty things are covered like wearing cotton or not eating pork etc.[/FONT]

If you're going to assert that pedophilia was a common and approved practice, you'll need evidence to back it up. You're making a statement, if you can't prove it you might as well drop it.

[FONT=&quot]How can you decide it is a hundred miles of it? How can you have any score-rating for morals if you are just learning ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ from what the Bible says.

Easy, I read it and Jesus never said or hinted that anything like that would be the right thing to do. Rather, his teachings are the opposite.

If Jesus did say to eat babies how would you have any idea if that was right or wrong? You just don’t seem to be able to accept that human beings have their own inherent morals.[/FONT]

Since he didn't, your question is irrelevant.

[FONT=&quot]So there is nothing inside you that would give you any hint that say, stoning your slave to death for disobeying you is wrong? You have no comprehension of empathy to understand slavery is immoral, stoning is cruel etc? If that is true then you are the definition of a psychopath, but I do not believe that.[/FONT]

Where are you getting stoning a slave to death for disobedience from?

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sorry but I am not familiar and when I searched there is an awful lot to read.

Then read it, and go back to the Jewish and Christian commentators for interpretation.

Because the only parts I know that directly refer to rape just say that a rape victim must marry her attacker or a man who rapes another man’s wife is to be put to death.[/FONT]

I don't have a problem with the latter, but you are mistaken about the former. Jews have this command, Gentiles do not. And for Jews, it's not required of the girl to marry her rapist - rather, the rapist is responsible to provide a decent life for the girl, and this is voidable on the father's option. In Jewish tradition, the father never gives his daughter in marriage without her consent. She can marry whoever she wants. But since in that day she could well wind up without any husband and therefore destitute because of what the rapist did, the rapist was obligated to provide her with a decent life should the girl want to be close enough to him to make that a reality. I would think that most Jewish fathers would love their daughters enough to take the money and block the marriage myself, especially these days. If you do not believe this to be the true interpretation, do what I did: go to askmoses.com and ask a rabbi about it.

[FONT=&quot]I was wrong I think, I confused that wives must submit to their husband, but it being OK to beat your slave:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ephesians[/FONT] 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
[FONT=&quot]Exodus[/FONT] 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Does it say anywhere in the bible that women are now equal by the way? Or should they still be subordinate to their husbands?[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Submission does not mean inequality in Christianity. Everyone in the church is to submit to each other, and to the needs of others (Ephesians 5:21, Philippians 2:1-11). Ephesians 5:22 just tells us what that looks like in the context of a wife loving her husband. And Ephesians 5:25-33 tells us what this same principle looks like in the context of a husband loving his wife. 1 Peter 3:7 also declares that wives are "partners and heirs," which refers to equality in the sight of God, and Galatians 3:28 also declares this equality.

[FONT=&quot]Ok, well look at the world as it is today. It may seem like a violent place, but we now have less war, genocide and barbarism than at other point in history. I see this as a good thing, don’t you? We have more equality for women, less racism and less starvation and poverty in the western world. So again, I believe that this is a GOOD thing and I don’t understand why this isn’t obvious to you. Do you not want equality, peace and love like you claim? Therefore, since I value these things in a way that they were not valued in biblical times I would say we have a higher moral standard than our ancestors, which I think is a good thing.[/FONT]

What is your basis for saying this is good, though? I would disagree that we have less war, genocide and barbarism, but when I say these things are bad, I at least have a basis for saying so in absolute truth. If you have one, please share it.

[FONT=&quot]I am just repeating myself now, but what gives anyone the right to choose a random proportion of society and say ‘you can never be in a loving relationship or ever have sex’. Why not just pick out random school kids and brand them with this burden, why only pick on one group because of an out of date book with no moral bearing on the modern world? It is insanity, evil and wrong.[/FONT]

I'm not choosing or branding anybody. You can't give me a basis for your morals, and you're calling what I believe in insane, evil, and wrong? What's more reasonable, beliefs with a basis, or beliefs with no basis?

 

[Sketcher]

[FONT=&quot]Science is the study of anything that can be measured. By definition if demons existed in our reality, they would be part of the natural world too so therefore not ‘supernatural’ so that makes no sense. If demons existed, they could be in some way be detected.

The flaw here is that you are assuming we can measure anything and everything that exists in reality.

As you already said sometimes it is definitely a demon not a mental illness and can tell the difference, whatever it is you use to tell the difference is surely in existence?[/FONT]

Demons are detected when they make themselves known. It happens sometimes.

[FONT=&quot]Well use that with the specific example of homosexuality. Two men or women love each other, they live together and live as any other married couple. Apparently this is a sin, but what is this actually leading to?[/FONT]

More sin, regardless of whether the relationship even lasts or not.

[FONT=&quot]Celibacy amongst priests is a factor for their crimes.[/font]

Prove it.

[FONT=&quot] However let’s just revert this back to my earlier question, why are you even suggesting paedophilia is wrong when we have already established it is not mentioned rightly or wrongly in the Bible? Are you really making up your own mind on this, or being influenced by society? [/FONT]

Scripture never said that sex was for children. Only for a man with a woman, who are married to each other.

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]I did not deny the basic truth of evolution so there is no need to read any books to convince me of it being factual,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I did not propose the Bible as a viable alternative and evolution cannot be observe as fire can. I can create fire or start one. I have difficulty doing that with evolution. Also Evolution is a big topic and can cover many different issues.[/FONT]

So you accept that we evolved and that complex life, yet still believe it more likely this is the work of a creator? Why would a creator use such a wasteful, inefficient system where 99.99% of all species have become extinct? What exactly was the point in the hundreds of millions of years of species before humans existed, did Jesus visit the dinosaurs? At what point in human evolution did we receive a soul? Why do we have over 5 million species, many such as the mosquito that have killed millions of innocent people? All of these questions make a lot of sense if you really accept evolution, but suggesting an intelligent creator thinks this is the best way to create life goes against all reason.
[FONT=&quot]You can observe animals evolve like I have already stated, you still deny this hence why I suggested reading a few books. Also, if someone denied fire existed in a debate with you, would you not find that confusing and question if they are capable of admitting they are wrong? Since it is infinitely more likely that fire does exist that a mass hallucination and coincidence we can be confident that it does, it is the same as evolution vs God, either accept the reasonable answer or believe whatever you want to believe regardless. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I have seen no evidence in my life of the Matrix or a large turtle or the dreams of a giant. I have seen some evidence of an intelligent force being involved in what happens to me.[/FONT]

There is no evidence, hence it is very reasonable to not believe it. But what if I said the ‘intelligent force’ you describe was a computer programme, you cannot prove it is not so does that make it true? Or are you just believing what you want to believe without any evidence?[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It seems more reasonable to me to assume an intelligence is behind my existence than to assume nothing is behind my existence. Being able to explain how life accidently or randomly evolved from non life does not remove the reasonableness of an intelligence behind it happening. I have done a lot of reading on the theories and science has not reasonably explained how life evolved from non life. If they do and when they do, God will still be reasonable.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You are again just making statements. WHY is it reasonable? Why do you jump to huge conclusions that there MUST be a reason for everything? Can you not see you are just making statements based on assumption that just don’t add up?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When Jesus said to the crowd in answer to the question how do I inherit eternal life--love God and your neighbor and then when He answered the second question of who is my neighbor with the parable of the Good Samaritan---none of this was new information for anyone standing there. Jesus was confirming and reminding them and us, of what we already knew as human beings. I don't believe this teaching is divine truth because it was said by Jesus or because it is in the bible. I believe this is divine truth becuse it is divine truth and it happens to be what Jesus said and what He said is in the Bible. When Ezekiel says the righteous shall live and not die but the wicked shall die and not live, I believe that is divine truth not because it is in the bible and not because Ezekiel said it, but because there is a reality to the value of righteousness and I find it more reasonable to assume this value will transcend our physical existence than to assume it will not.[/FONT]

I am sorry but I am going to have to give up. I have asked you why you believe it to be divine truth and you retort “[FONT=&quot]I believe this is divine truth becuse it is divine truth”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]…How can I reply to that in any reasonable way? You have faith and you aren’t able to explain why other than saying that things happen in your life that could be coincidence, but might not. So I don’t see how I can continue this discussion any longer since we have reached an impasse. I might as well just say ‘God does not exist, because God does not exist’ and just assume I am right, but that is a very unhealthy way of thinking that doesn’t really respect other people’s point of view. [/FONT]

 

[Curious Atheist]

Its not really a cop-out, but to some it may be. I like talking with Jews, because they got a good handle on scripture than most Christian do. The reason why I say that is due to the fact that in light of any evidence that may show inaccuracy in scripture they would adapt their beliefs with that change; particularly from literal to metaphorical or story based upon morals and values to live by verses literal interpretation. Its not really a cop-out to change your perception in light of evidence that conflicts with the Bible, but unfortunately a lot of people go by Sola Scriptora over taking in the Bible as a book of stories that talks of faith, hope, and love along with war, deceit, and other acts that make the stories easier to relate to for the reader and bring them to faith and know that despite all of the bad stuff that happens, God is good and greater than anything else.

I know some believers will be upset over my comments, but in the end the message of the Bible is how to live a Godly life, love others, and provides hope to mankind. The message does not have to change because of evolution or any other scientific discovery, just our perceptions of how we percieve the stories have to be open to change.

A good book that you may want to read is Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It is a real eye opener, especially the fact he was an atheist that accepted Christ later in life and became widely known for his writings. I like how he balances the Bible with the reality of the world and how he shows that dogma may contradict the message of the Bible (e.g. Paraphrased - he asks which is more Godlier? A married couple that treats each other with disrespect and contempt for one another and remains married, because of dogma or an unwed couple having premarital sex and love each other and obeys God everywhere-else in their lives?

I hope you do read that book, because it will give you a clear understanding of where I am coming from. Basically the message never changes, just our perception of the stories involved.

I do not deny there are some positive messages in the Bible, with good moral guidelines. But you also have to rationalise for yourself which parts not to follow, making the idea of the Bible being holy redundant indeed. So there are infinite examples where absolute morals do not apply like you have pointed out. The reason I call it a cop-out and still suggest so is because you are rationalising things backwards. How can you discover real truth if you start out with an assumption "the bible is true" then look for evidence to support it whilst ignoring the facts that contradict? If scientists did that we would indeed still be stuck in the dark ages, because truth and progress require leaving old ideas in the past if they cannot be improved. For example look at ancient medicine, would it really be beneficial if we didn’t completely disregard the benefits of the ridiculous remedies and instead merely re-interpreted the situation? Would it really make sense if someone decided that leeches aren’t removing bad blood, but instead are injecting antibiotics so must still be viable. The end result will still be the same but the methodology remains. (Leeches do have modern uses before you turn that on me, it is just an example). That is the problem when you don’t have good science, any idea can be followed as fact but I don’t see any benefit in this.

 

[technofox]

I do not deny there are some positive messages in the Bible, with good moral guidelines. But you also have to rationalise for yourself which parts not to follow, making the idea of the Bible being holy redundant indeed. So there are infinite examples where absolute morals do not apply like you have pointed out. The reason I call it a cop-out and still suggest so is because you are rationalising things backwards. How can you discover real truth if you start out with an assumption "the bible is true" then look for evidence to support it whilst ignoring the facts that contradict? If scientists did that we would indeed still be stuck in the dark ages, because truth and progress require leaving old ideas in the past if they cannot be improved. For example look at ancient medicine, would it really be beneficial if we didn’t completely disregard the benefits of the ridiculous remedies and instead merely re-interpreted the situation? Would it really make sense if someone decided that leeches aren’t removing bad blood, but instead are injecting antibiotics so must still be viable. The end result will still be the same but the methodology remains. (Leeches do have modern uses before you turn that on me, it is just an example). That is the problem when you don’t have good science, any idea can be followed as fact but I don’t see any benefit in this.

I don't see why you would think I would turn leeches around on you. They are great for mopping up blood during surgery, helping bruises heal faster, and many other benefits. What I am speaking of is that Christianity and science can mesh, assuming they are open minded and not Sola Scriptura. I am personally not sola scriptura, because I cannot blind myself to the realities of modern science, being a science and technology oriented person myself.

I cringe when I hear some Christians deny the possibility of the existence of dark matter (so far only indirect evidence supports the idea that it may exist) or other scientific possibilities of what holds the universe together. I enjoy reading about astronomy, quantum theory, and the various particles that exist.

The problem is whether the Christian has an open mind about the Bible and science.

For example: the big bang theory has many flaws, assuming our universe is an open universe, which under current observation that is the case. If there is nothing to cause the universe to collapse in on itself, then it is likely to completely die off (aka the big rip or heat death); hence the universe is finite. Even if we have a closed universe, we have other problems like Hawking radiation that would lead to the loss of matter over time period that neither one of us could fathom and causing each universe to be smaller than the last iteration until the last universe is not big enough to collapse in itself to form another big bang. The singularity that causes the big bang, is likely some super massive gravitational anomaly that would theoretically be no different in terms of a black hole, so with that in mind it would be susceptible to evaporation via hawking radiation. Assuming all of this is true according to the combined collective knowledge of people whom's IQ is far greater than mine, then it is likely the universe is finite and therefore would require a constant (i.e. God) to exist in order for something like the universe to exist.

The only salvation for the big bang theory in terms of secular beliefs is dark matter and dark energy, and a close universe or Boltzmann brain, or chaos theory. So far only indirect evidence has proven the possibility that dark matter may exist or a giant black hole is causing the lensing effects we see in space in certain pockets. In essence, so far science is still believing in things in cannot see, especially dark energy. Hopefully we will find out within our lifetime. So with that in mind a Christian with an open mind is no different than a scientist having an open mind about certain possibilities.

I hope this gives you a clearer picture of where I am coming from. I understand your perceptions quite well when I was an agnostic, so you and I can see each other from opposite sides of the same coin. I believe there is not a enough evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, you on the other hand believes that there is not enough evidence to believe a God exists. Same coin different perspectives (or at least that is how I look at it). You will find very few Christians that are like me, because very few choose this perception.

 

[Curious Atheist]

That's some pretty far out stuff. People are prone to say crazy stuff, but the fact that it might be a self-described Christian doesn't mean that it's compatible with legitimate Christian theology.

In my earlier replies I have answered this, I used extreme examples on purpose. I am not tarring all Christians with the same brush, I am pointing out this kind of behaviour is far more common in religious groups. The stronger the faith, the more crazy they get.

That's not hateful, it's just a logical conclusion from the idea that there is no god.

If you are close-minded enough to think only God provides morals then you could almost call it logical. But the fact is that human altruism and morals is far more rationally explained through evolution and is evident in every group, including atheists.
Or think about this, if you find out there is no God today, what would you do tomorrow? Run around raping and murdering because you lost your invisible parent in the sky, so you no longer know right and wrong?

It appears that he needed to get back on his meds.

How do you know it isn't true? Do you not also believe in angels and demons, Noah’s ark, talking snakes and an invisible being that always watches? What measure are you using to say your crazy is less crazy than other craziness? If something believes the impossible and they hear voices they are usually considered crazy.

We're nuts, that's how. It's part of the human condition. You don't think you're exempt, do you? Or do you really believe that you act wth loving charity to everyone at all times?

That is pretty funny and very true. I certainly don’t see myself as anything special or as a good role model for being what the Bible describes, I hate those who I think deserve it very readily. If someone were to harm someone I loved for no reason, I would not love them the way Jesus preaches. Although I do treat everyone as equal to the best of my knowledge and I am not scared of being ostracised for speaking what I believe to be true, but neither am I scared of being wrong. I am 24 years old btw, I consider this too young for me to proclaim I really understand what life is about or in the cliché way ‘know who I am’ or however you would put it, my character is still developing.

We understand that homosexual acts are bad for the people doing them, and it would be uncharitable to say otherwise. I'm not interested in snooping into someone's bedroom, but at the same time I have to resist the trend to have it considered to be no different than natural relations between a man and a woman because that idea is bad for society. And truth isn't determined by a majority decision, it's objective.

But why is it bad for those doing it? It seems the only negativity they receive is from outside of their relationships (and a higher risk of AIDs for the promiscuous). I don’t see how it harms society hence my population argument that no-one has cared to counter but I agree a majority decision doesn’t make it right. Hence why just because the majority believe in a God doesn’t make it true either, it is another flaw in the human condition to irrational, to fear death and to console oneself. It is fairly basic psychology that makes us so bias in what we remember, which is a good factor to how superstitions take hold of people.

Yes, too often we fail to act as Christians should. Guilty as charged.

No problem with that, but why is it higher within Christianity than the secular world? Which seems an important point considering the secular world does not claim to receive their morals from a higher being, we are just human.

You haven't ever actually studied anything the man's written, have you.

Not really no, I hear bits and pieces occasionally but I couldn’t say I have actually studied the man. I can’t imagine learning much from a superstitious old virgin in a dress, who seems to have very little grasp of reality. How can I take anything the man says seriously when he has a blooper reel of horrendous immoral preachings?

 

[elman]

Curious Atheist;60325956]So you accept that we evolved and that complex life, yet still believe it more likely this is the work of a creator? Why would a creator use such a wasteful, inefficient system where 99.99% of all species have become extinct? What exactly was the point in the hundreds of millions of years of species before humans existed, did Jesus visit the dinosaurs? At what point in human evolution did we receive a soul? Why do we have over 5 million species, many such as the mosquito that have killed millions of innocent people? All of these questions make a lot of sense if you really accept evolution, but suggesting an intelligent creator thinks this is the best way to create life goes against all reason.

I don't have an answer for everything but to say all this exist just by accident or randomness with no purpose to it or behind it goes against all reason.

[FONT=&quot]You can observe animals evolve like I have already stated, you still deny this hence why I suggested reading a few books.

I never denied it, hence no need to read anymore books.

Also, if someone denied fire existed in a debate with you, would you not find that confusing and question if they are capable of admitting they are wrong? Since it is infinitely more likely that fire does exist that a mass hallucination and coincidence we can be confident that it does, it is the same as evolution vs God, either accept the reasonable answer or believe whatever you want to believe regardless. [/FONT]

Read slowly. Maybe you will understand. I do not deny evolution. I do deny evolution proves there is no God.

There is no evidence, hence it is very reasonable to not believe it. But what if I said the ‘intelligent force’ you describe was a computer programme, you cannot prove it is not so does that make it true? Or are you just believing what you want to believe without any evidence?[

There is no objective evidence. Your refusal to observe what evidence there is, does not result in there being no evidence. There is just no evidence you are open to admit exists.FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are again just making statements. WHY is it reasonable? Why do you jump to huge conclusions that there MUST be a reason for everything? Can you not see you are just making statements based on assumption that just don’t add up?[/FONT]

No. Why do you jump to huge conclusions there is no reason for everything?

I am sorry but I am going to have to give up. I have asked you why you believe it to be divine truth and you retort “[FONT=&quot]I believe this is divine truth becuse it is divine truth”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]…How can I reply to that in any reasonable way? You have faith and you aren’t able to explain why other than saying that things happen in your life that could be coincidence, but might not. So I don’t see how I can continue this discussion any longer since we have reached an impasse.

Very early in our discussion and throughout the discussion I have said I would not be able to objectively prove the existence of God. Now you are frustrated because I cannot objectively prove the existence of God.

I might as well just say ‘God does not exist, because God does not exist’ and just assume I am right, but that is a very unhealthy way of thinking that doesn’t really respect other people’s point of view.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are saying God does not exist because God does not exist and you just assume you are right.

 

[Curious Atheist]

I don't see why you would think I would turn leeches around on you. They are great for mopping up blood during surgery, helping bruises heal faster, and many other benefits. What I am speaking of is that Christianity and science can mesh, assuming they are open minded and not Sola Scriptura. I am personally not sola scriptura, because I cannot blind myself to the realities of modern science, being a science and technology oriented person myself.

I cringe when I hear some Christians deny the possibility of the existence of dark matter (so far only indirect evidence supports the idea that it may exist) or other scientific possibilities of what holds the universe together. I enjoy reading about astronomy, quantum theory, and the various particles that exist.

The problem is whether the Christian has an open mind about the Bible and science.

For example: the big bang theory has many flaws, assuming our universe is an open universe, which under current observation that is the case. If there is nothing to cause the universe to collapse in on itself, then it is likely to completely die off (aka the big rip or heat death); hence the universe is finite. Even if we have a closed universe, we have other problems like Hawking radiation that would lead to the loss of matter over time period that neither one of us could fathom and causing each universe to be smaller than the last iteration until the last universe is not big enough to collapse in itself to form another big bang. The singularity that causes the big bang, is likely some super massive gravitational anomaly that would theoretically be no different in terms of a black hole, so with that in mind it would be susceptible to evaporation via hawking radiation. Assuming all of this is true according to the combined collective knowledge of people whom's IQ is far greater than mine, then it is likely the universe is finite and therefore would require a constant (i.e. God) to exist in order for something like the universe to exist.

The only salvation for the big bang theory in terms of secular beliefs is dark matter and dark energy, and a close universe or Boltzmann brain, or chaos theory. So far only indirect evidence has proven the possibility that dark matter may exist or a giant black hole is causing the lensing effects we see in space in certain pockets. In essence, so far science is still believing in things in cannot see, especially dark energy. Hopefully we will find out within our lifetime. So with that in mind a Christian with an open mind is no different than a scientist having an open mind about certain possibilities.

I hope this gives you a clearer picture of where I am coming from. I understand your perceptions quite well when I was an agnostic, so you and I can see each other from opposite sides of the same coin. I believe there is not a enough evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, you on the other hand believes that there is not enough evidence to believe a God exists. Same coin different perspectives (or at least that is how I look at it). You will find very few Christians that are like me, because very few choose this perception.

I do respect your viewpoint, so I will humbly agree to disagree on the evidence for and against. But I am now interested in what you think about alien life amongst other things for quite a good reason. Part of what makes me more confident that the Earth and humans were not the work of a creator, made solely for our benefit can be expressed in images such as this IIPMooViewer 2.0 :: IIPImage High Resolution HTML5 Ajax Image Streaming Viewer (please zoom in). It just blows my mind (not literally of course, but as close as I think possible) trying to really appreciate the size of this universe. Why would a God only interested in creating humans in his image create such a huge number of galaxies, stars and planets. There could be a billion other inhabitable planets such as ours, which makes us highly insignificant and not particular special.
I do think the Big Bang theroy is the most likely theory we have and you might find this article interesting Astrobiology Magazine although most of the physics and mathematics is beyond my current understanding. I do not trust everything science and scientists suggest to be true, such as string theory as it is purely theoretical and untestable. But I suppose I do put trust in professionals who have the intellect and understanding I lack, such as the trust I have in a doctor to treat me. Nearly all of my arguments are based upon the principle of occam's razor, the rest generally being from a moral standpoint. Sorry going against my first sentence suggesting I am going to be humble, can you honestly say your faith is based firmly on the most likely answer, since you have move on from being agnostic?

 

[elman]

Curious Atheist;60328568]I do respect your viewpoint, so I will humbly agree to disagree on the evidence for and against. But I am now interested in what you think about alien life amongst other things for quite a good reason. Part of what makes me more confident that the Earth and humans were not the work of a creator, made solely for our benefit can be expressed in images such as this IIPMooViewer 2.0 :: IIPImage High Resolution HTML5 Ajax Image Streaming Viewer (please zoom in). It just blows my mind (not literally of course, but as close as I think possible) trying to really appreciate the size of this universe. Why would a God only interested in creating humans in his image create such a huge number of galaxies, stars and planets. There could be a billion other inhabitable planets such as ours, which makes us highly insignificant and not particular special.

If one loving action between humans or Aliens for that matter, is more important-has more value-- than an entire dead planet, a rock with no life floating in space, regarless of the size of the rock, then what happens to your argument that size is the only factor that indicates significance?

 

[Curious Atheist]

I don't have an answer for everything but to say all this exist just by accident or randomness with no purpose to it or behind it goes against all reason.

I think this is the crux of your argument that I do not understand, which is what I am calling assumption. Why do you believe it be reasonable that there is a reason for everything? To be it seems a completely benign question to ask what is the reason a stone exists, what is the reason Pierre’s Morgan is such an intolerable person etc. I think it is just wishful thinking, you want there to be a reason so you choose to believe it and it has nothing to do with reason.

I never denied it, hence no need to read anymore books.

I thought you were denying you cannot observe evolution the same way as fire, which you can…sorry.

Read slowly. Maybe you will understand. I do not deny evolution. I do deny evolution proves there is no God.
There is no objective evidence. Your refusal to observe what evidence there is, does not result in there being no evidence. There is just no evidence you are open to admit exists.

I read it slowly. But, you might now have to read this part slowly as I have repeated it in several replies in this thread. I am not claiming to have 100% evidence that Gods do not exist, as that would be impossible. I am arguing that a God existing is infinitely less likely than what the proof suggests. I see religion as the first attempts to a scientific explanation for life, much like how the greatest scientists would once have been rather sure the world was flat and was the centre of the universe. However they did not have the technology to actually test and observe their assumptions, and since we now do I find it bizarre that you wouldn’t prefer the new evidence to the old guesses. It seemed impossible that such complex life could happen by accident or chance, which is obviously still an argument used today. However we can now prove that complex life was not the result of chance, but by the opposite which is explained in evolution as non-random natural selection which you say you acknowledge. So if we have an explanation for how we got here and there is no tangible evidence that there was any reason behind it apart from the result of the environment, to suggest a God guided the whole affair is ridiculous. No different to suggesting fire does not exist, it is the work of fairies and a mass hallucination…

No. Why do you jump to huge conclusions there is no reason for everything?

I see we cannot agree on this as I do not accept it is more likely for everything to have a reason, because there are too many examples of things with no purpose or reason if a God were behind it. What is the purpose for the whole universe, if only human life matters? What is the purpose behind the billions of extinct animals and all the pain and suffering involved if God could just think us in to existence full formed like the Bible suggests? Why do we contain so many dormant genes that don’t do anything? Why does God constantly intervene in the Bible but never since it could have been recorded? Why does the Bible state prayers WILL be answered and sin punished, then give most of the punishment to Africa? It just doesn’t make me conclude that there is a reason behind it all, no matter how nice that might be.

Very early in our discussion and throughout the discussion I have said I would not be able to objectively prove the existence of God. Now you are frustrated because I cannot objectively prove the existence of God.

I have not asked for proof of God, I asked the reason you believe that some of the Bible is divine. You then answered with circular logic, which would be frustrating to most people I would have thought.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are saying God does not exist because God does not exist and you just assume you are right.

No, I am saying it is infinitely less likely that a personal exists compared to superstition, wishful thinking, human psychology and modern science that disproves much of the Bible. I am using reason and logic to conclude what is more likely the same way you do with many things too. For example you have somehow rationalised that unicorns, mermaids and dragons do not exist despite them being heavily referenced in ancient (and fairly modern) books, including the Bible (unicorns, leviathans etc). I also would use the same method to say I do not believe in big foot or the loch ness monster, not because I think it is impossible but because there is no reason to believe it based on no evidence. So in case you still misunderstand, I am merely rejecting stories that cannot be proven and the burden of proof lies with the one making the statement. Everything I mention could very well exist, but I would be crazy to simply believe it for the sake of it no matter how much I would love a pet unicorn.