DO A GOOD DEED! If you can converrt me, DO IT PLEASE!

[DongTanks]

And to add on to why I am so cautious in my making my decision..... because I believe abiding to a religion is a full-tiome commitment, so I can't treat it lightly, can I?

 

[DO-er]

hey dongtanks, this is my 2 cents worth of opinion, but i hope it'd be of help to u.

just wondering, what is christianity to you? is it just a religion whereby if u believe in it, u'll get a ticket to heaven and therefore be spared from gonig to hell? answer yourself honestly before u read my on further.

christinity is more that what i've mentioned above. it is not a religion. a religion is more of a set of strongly-held beliefs that tells us what we must do and what we must abstain from but christianity is different. it tells us things we should do but whether we do it or not, it's our choice, our decision. we can always listen and choose to do as the Bible says or ignore it. chrisitinity is not a religion, it's a personal relationship with God. it's about knowing and learning more about God, His will and His ways.

the only way to know what's right or wrong is to test it. even the Bible says "taste and see that the Lord is good" and that if u "seek", u shall "find". since u say u are a seeker, go for it. start with prayers to a possible god. it may seem silly that u may feel like u're speaking to the wall, but it earns u ur salvation and ticket to heaven, why not give it try? try it, with an objective mind and see for yourself what keeps christians devoted to their God.

i disagree with some of your statements so dun mind me sharing abt them, aright?

"That is why I do not think that abiding to Christianity will make me a better person, for I already am a good person."

no matter how good we humans are, we're never perfect. when u read God's word more, u'll come to learn how to be a better person despite the imperfections. how? well, when u come to know God and love Him, u'll start to see ur flaws and He'll be the reason u try to change for the better, somehow.

"But people thinks that when you are a Christian, you are a better person, and so they often treat me as a bad person"

christians are taught to love their neighbours as themselves, meaning to see one another equal to themselves. if they see themselves being more superior, there's something wrong with their mindsets.

"I have one last question for you: Can we gain entrance into heaven even if I have no faith? I dare say, I am a good person, and sure thing He will not reject a good, but lost, soul a ticket to heaven? "

we definitely need faith to get this relationship going in the first place (even before u can love Him and receive salvation and then get into heaven) because God is not someone we can see visibly most of the times. without faith, it's not possible to believe that u're talking to a God that exists. and the more impt point is, God will not reject u! the ticket to heaven is to believe that Christ died for our sins and repent. take note that it's us that have to take action since Christ has already died on the cross for our sins thus, have already taken action for us so the qn rather is, will u reject Christ? and lose ur own ticket to heaven?

we dun go to heaven cos our own good deeds. our deeds, are like "filthy rags" in God eyes, no matter how good a person we may be. it's by God's grace that we can go into heaven cos Christ erased all our sins...



i hope this helps to clarify whatever doubts u have abt christianity

 

[salida]

Well, haha, I'm a biologist(that is my degree). The point was to all this is that things don't become more complex- more intelligent. Genetics doesn't do that at all.

 

[salida]

Well, mr. soul biscuit - I have heard all this before. I have a biology degree ha- so I would love to know what biologists your talking about - the athiest peer review type who want to read what they want and ignore evidence that exists?

God isn't made, He is infinite sir - unlike you. I will come back with more detailed answers. I suggest that if you have more questions that, you do your own research and homework. I'm here to help but I'm not anyones personal secretary or researcher.

Your sand argument - that is by gravity ha.

 

[salida]

Actually, I already stated that natural selection and the survival of the fittest isn't reality. Lions don't kill the weakest animal but hunt by opportunity. If you have a problem with this answer, then contact Wildlife Management Research. But I guess you know more than them? Again, I don't have to prove anything to you but I'm presenting data to you. If you don't believe it, its not my problem. Go to this website www.reasons.org - this will answer all of your questions about Noah's flood and Adam and Eve, etc. This information is from scientists.

 

[chilehed]

I am often in a dilema, of whether or not to adhere myself to Christianity. Scientific knowledge can usually destroy any religious claims surprisingly effectively, and the lack of intelligent inidviduals that can convince me of His existence is a major contriubtion to my state of dilema...

I've observed that folks who say this have in common a basic logical error which they seem unable to recognise: the error of "begging the question".

It's seen in attitudes that insist that any story of a miracle must not be true because "miracles are impossible". God, by definiton, is one who exists completely outside of space/time and who can nonetheless manipulate it at will - in other words, he can perform miracles. So you can see that the statement "miracles are impossible" is equivalent to "there is no God", which begs the question.

When evaluating the question "does God exist?" one must from the beginning admit the possibility that miracles can happen.

 

[emilylauren]

As per questions about Cain's wife or the flood, many people think that some of these stories are more "myth" (I hate to use that term, because by itself a myth is not automatically something that is not true but it has gotten that connotation over the years...) and stories passed down-- same thing with Johah or Job. Some people think it was just an allegorical story given to "prove a point" or, rather, teach about God and His works. So even if the event "didn't happen" the theological implications are still important.

But, if you like things to be literally true I did find this website. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/who-was-cains-wife Actually, I found it to be rather amusing myself because when I was younger I had always just assumed that Cain had married his sister or close relative. That it is a "taboo" subject now didn't prevent it from happening "back then" in my mind. hahaha Besides, Noah only took his sons and their wives on board-- clearly cousins would be marrying cousins in that respect.

 

[Markus6]

I am often in a dilema, of whether or not to adhere myself to Christianity. Scientific knowledge can usually destroy any religious claims surprisingly effectively, and the lack of intelligent inidviduals that can convince me of His existence is a major contriubtion to my state of dilema.

I am a seeker. If you can convince me of His existence, you will have done a good deed, for you will have saved me from damnation, and I will thank you.

You might want to take note that the benefits of adhering to the Christianity religion (as in spiritual release and such) is not relevant to this thread, as what I want to achieve aren't the benefits, buit the ability for me to make the CORRECT and SENSIBLE CHOICE of whther to abide to this religion.

Atheist are welcome to dissuade me the way of Christianity too. All that matters is that you can help me make the right choice.

Greetings!

I'm not sure I can convince you of God's existence, the task seems quite daunting, but I'm certainly willing to dialogue with you.

I hate to disrespect my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ but I would suggest you ignore all those who are trying to defend overly literal interpretations of certain passages of the bible (which really don't justify a literal interpretation) against the accuracy of modern science. You do not have to reject evolution, or the big bang to believe in God. Somebody claimed in this thread that DNA disproves Darwin. However, I'm sure you know that before the discovery of Mendelian inheritance, and then DNA, Darwin's theory was left without a mechanism. DNA is the single biggest support for the theory of evolution.

Someone who knows this better than most is Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project who managed to map the full human genome, and also a Christian. I would recommend his book The Language of God to you which I think does a good job of showing how a top scientist can still be a Christian. Another book worth reading is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis which was instrumental in Collins' discovery of Jesus from atheism. Actually I could probably recommend a library of books to you and a seminary full of preachers if you are interested.

If you'd rather just chat without me hiding behind the arguments of those more intelligent and more learned that myself feel free to ask me any questions. This thread is a little messy so my PM box is open.

 

[emilylauren]

I hate to disrespect my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ but I would suggest you ignore all those who are trying to defend overly literal interpretations of certain passages of the bible (which really don't justify a literal interpretation) against the accuracy of modern science.

No disrespect taken; the Bible was never meant to be taken literally in all instances anyway, so far as I understand it. It is not a history or science textbook, but one that is for God's people to understand their place in the world. Maybe the Bible is supposed to be literal, maybe it's not-- the point is that the stories are useful for theological purposes even if they aren't for historical or scientific ones. I just wanted to throw the literal view out there too, in case anyone cared.

 

[alexwylde]

I am often in a dilema, of whether or not to adhere myself to Christianity. Scientific knowledge can usually destroy any religious claims surprisingly effectively, and the lack of intelligent inidviduals that can convince me of His existence is a major contriubtion to my state of dilema.

I am a seeker. If you can convince me of His existence, you will have done a good deed, for you will have saved me from damnation, and I will thank you.

You might want to take note that the benefits of adhering to the Christianity religion (as in spiritual release and such) is not relevant to this thread, as what I want to achieve aren't the benefits, buit the ability for me to make the CORRECT and SENSIBLE CHOICE of whther to abide to this religion.

Atheist are welcome to dissuade me the way of Christianity too. All that matters is that you can help me make the right choice.

(I've posted this elsewhere, but I think it applies

I think you are struggling with (as am I) the conservative/fundamental/literalist influence on your understanding of Christianity. (I'm not saying that those viewpoints are wrong--just that they don't jive with me.) Evolution is a naturally occurring reality of this earth, and hence, I don't literally believe that Eve ate an apple that damned all man. I think the Adam-Eve story is meant to illustrate how inherently rebellious and sinful man/woman really is. I believe that we have this nature because we are also inherently ungodly in this universe. ... I guess this is my primitive understanding of my faith.

I think that before you search for a religion, you must first answer a question: Do you believe there is something more than this world? Something more than what you can see? Is there ANY glimpse of ANYTHING that is ethereal? If you do, then I think it is out of respect to yourself that you should try to find out what this extra "something" is. And do so humbly. Then when you do find what you think is right, you can say "Out of the information available to me, and after my own contemplation(/prayer?), I believe that X is the most correct and plausible religion." That way, you have essentially done all that you CAN do. And therefore you can feel shameless/honest/confident with yourself about where you are at. And if you haven't done all that you can do, then I believe that you are being dishonest to yourself.

I think that's the biggest thing with people like us (I'll go ahead and throw myself in the same boat, because I have similar struggles) is that we do all that we can do. It just makes it so you can rest peacefully at night. You can say, "I have honestly done my best God. If that's enough, then I truly am sorry."

 

[DongTanks]

To Do-er,

just wondering, what is christianity to you? is it just a religion whereby if u believe in it, u'll get a ticket to heaven and therefore be spared from gonig to hell? answer yourself honestly before u read my on further.

Can I just say I want to choose what is probably more right, and follow the right path?

the only way to know what's right or wrong is to test it.

If that is really the case, this thread wouldn't even exist, will it? Like I had said previously, I cannot treat my decision lightly, for abiding to Christianity, I know, is a full-time commitment. I cannot abide to it just for the sake of trying. I should be cautious in the way I make my decision, and make sure I will not be trying to receive god, but will be doing it.

christians are taught to love their neighbours as themselves, meaning to see one another equal to themselves. if they see themselves being more superior, there's something wrong with their mindsets.

Exactly. People around me are acting this way! Can I ask a question? Is it true that no matter how much you have sinned, like commiting murder or arson, as long as you have faith, you will be saved? I think this is what is wrong with their mindset, for they think the answer to that question of mine is a resounding yes - a only thing that stop them from committing such crimes isn't religion, but the law.

Thanks Do-er.

To Salida,

All I can suggest to you is to read soul_biscuit's posts. I am not some scientist, for I am more into mathematics. Soul_biscuit will answer your questions, and I will be reading what both of you can offer to me I will chip in when I'm needed.

Thanks Salida

To chilehed,

When evaluating the question "does God exist?" one must from the beginning admit the possibility that miracles can happen.

I've never seen any miracles happenning before, except in David Copperfield's performances..... would you mind stating some examples of miracles that you had experienced before as a Christian?

That is an important question.

Thanks chilehed.

To emilylauren,

But, if you like things to be literally true I did find this website.

That only provided explanation for one biblical event. What about the flood, for example?

And why can Adam lived a near thousand years, but we cannot? Hmmm.... could it be due to deformities of the offspring between two siblings? Interesting...

Thanks emilylauren

I'm not sure I can convince you of God's existence, the task seems quite daunting, but I'm certainly willing to dialogue with you.

I hate to disrespect my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ but I would suggest you ignore all those who are trying to defend overly literal interpretations of certain passages of the bible (which really don't justify a literal interpretation) against the accuracy of modern science. You do not have to reject evolution, or the big bang to believe in God. Somebody claimed in this thread that DNA disproves Darwin. However, I'm sure you know that before the discovery of Mendelian inheritance, and then DNA, Darwin's theory was left without a mechanism. DNA is the single biggest support for the theory of evolution.

Someone who knows this better than most is Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project who managed to map the full human genome, and also a Christian. I would recommend his book The Language of God to you which I think does a good job of showing how a top scientist can still be a Christian. Another book worth reading is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis which was instrumental in Collins' discovery of Jesus from atheism. Actually I could probably recommend a library of books to you and a seminary full of preachers if you are interested.

If you'd rather just chat without me hiding behind the arguments of those more intelligent and more learned that myself feel free to ask me any questions. This thread is a little messy so my PM box is open.

But...but....but..... (speaking nervously now) the Bible is the only evidence left of His existence, for it is meant to contain His words! If the Bible cannot be trusted, then there will be no more support for Christianity, is there?

Big thanks, I will check out the books you reccommend.

To soul_biscuit

I've never liked this advice. It leaves open too easy a cop-out.

"I sincerely asked God to reveal himself to me. He didn't."

"You weren't sincere enough."

This is what Christians had always tell me, and this is what I have always be telling them - as a joke.

Probably you haven't read the post about "God's holiness killing all of us in rays of light", which is why He cannot get close to us, and therefore, cannot reveal himself to us. Seriously, I am still waiting for the person who suggested this to show me how he had gotten this idea.

Those who deny evolution deny many of the facts plainly revealed by scientific inquiry. An excellent example is radiometric dating, which clearly shows that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and which creationists deny for no other reason than it contradicts their position.

Uhh...Salida, since you frequents this thread, I think it will be good for you to answer this question..... is what soul_biscuit said true of you theists?

This is a clearly example of having your cake and eating it too. You have argued that the universe must have a cause because every effect must have a cause, and then you have claimed in the same breath (figuratively speaking) that God is causeless. Come now. Either everything needs a cause, or there are some things that do not. If God can exist without a cause, why not the universe?

The thing about 'something must come from something' may be seen as the common sense, or the 'truth', in a world created by Him and in which we sense, but it may not be the truth in the outside world, in the world where He reigns......it could abide by a different set of laws different from which our world abides to.

If there is no reason to suppose that he is there, then why suppose that he is there? Is there any reason to suppose that there is an invisible dragon in your garage?

And I thought you know quantum mechanics? Quantum superpositions? An invisible dragon can be in my garage, or you can be bathing in my garage (probably the 'you' from a parallel universe?)

There is no way we can disprove his existence, but there is one thing that I know of which might prove his existence, and that is the Bible..... it is better than not having anything evidence at all, right, no matter if it serves as a good evidence or not? Since, at least, there is something that claim that God exists, and nothing to claim that God does not exist, why not just believe?

I cannot bring myself to believe in an unintelligible position. If I find God waiting for me when I die, and he asks me to defend my lack of beleif, my words will echo Bertrand Russell's: "Not enough evidence."

And God tells the dead soul_biscuit, "And so many people have believed, except you......I hope your mind is not as hollow as a biscuit's....wait...you ARE biscuit!"

 

[DongTanks]

To dewaddict84

Well OP, I'd have to tell you that god is not mutually exclusive with science. All you have to do is accept that it's a metaphorical thing. Or he exists beyond our ability to detect. Or that he's fantastically power with an odd sense of humor, which explains the platypus. I'd say it really doesn't make much sense, but plenty of religious folk think he's there. You just can't get bogged down with these nitpicky details, like the tectonic plates, eating ham, earth circling the sun, evolution, the age of the planet, fossils, prophesies, etc etc.

Greetings, fellow agnostic. I understand what you mean, but still, I search for an answer. You should follow me in my journey too..... we are on the same boat, I assume

To alexwylde

I think that before you search for a religion, you must first answer a question: Do you believe there is something more than this world? Something more than what you can see? Is there ANY glimpse of ANYTHING that is ethereal? If you do, then I think it is out of respect to yourself that you should try to find out what this extra "something" is.

That's why this thread exist, isn't it?

I think that's the biggest thing with people like us (I'll go ahead and throw myself in the same boat, because I have similar struggles) is that we do all that we can do. It just makes it so you can rest peacefully at night. You can say, "I have honestly done my best God. If that's enough, then I truly am sorry."

I will like to do my best, but I cannot treat this as lightly as "to 'try' in order to experience" - I have to 'do' by being sure of it. You see - religion is a full-time commitment (saying this for a third time), so I cannot treat it as something I 'try'. I have to be sure of it, and in order for me to come to a defninite help me, this thread exists!

 

[alexwylde]

To alexwylde



That's why this thread exist, isn't it?



I will like to do my best, but I cannot treat this as lightly as "to 'try' in order to experience" - I have to 'do' by being sure of it. You see - religion is a full-time commitment (saying this for a third time), so I cannot treat it as something I 'try'. I have to be sure of it, and in order for me to come to a defninite help me, this thread exists!

I certainly understand your caution. In fact, I wholeheartedly embrace it.

However, you confuse me with your vocabulary. Take this example. We'll consider the act of "Liking celery" the "doing" part of this example. (Let's say you've never had celery before.) To me, you are in a position where you are standing right in front of this piece of celery, and you really want to know if you like it or not. You really want to "do", i.e., like celery. But you are unwilling to try this celery on the basis that you don't KNOW that you will like it. Hence, you will never know if you like celery, simply because you didn't KNOW that you would like it. When all you had to do was "try" it and decide for yourself.

I understand that you truly just want to (entirely) commit yourself and to the absolute truth of this universe--whatever it may be. That is exactly where I found myself about a year ago. But I think you must first go out on a limb. Even if it's just a tiny one. I understand you think (that if God does exist) that the Bible is evidence for God. I guess my suggestion would be to read it. (Maybe you already do?)

Again, I emphasize -- don't be influenced by your exposure to fundamentalist Christianity. If I may suggest some reading for you (it's up to you to read it or not -- obviously) I would say look at the works of John Polkinghorne. I read you are not so much a scientist but more of a mathematician (I'm a math major--*high five*), so maybe some of his stuff is too science-y. But, he does have a unique and logical perspective that may help you in your search for truth.

I would again iterate that since you think there is SOMETHING out there, it is only out of respect for yourself that you don't stop searching until you decide 1) nothing is out there, 2) you can never know 3) you know (or are convinced enough to believe) what is out there is real. That's really all I can say. I really do appreciate your honesty with yourself and your humble search for absolute truth. Those are some of the most admirable qualities in a person in my book.

 

[DO-er]

If that is really the case, this thread wouldn't even exist, will it? Like I had said previously, I cannot treat my decision lightly, for abiding to Christianity, I know, is a full-time commitment. I cannot abide to it just for the sake of trying. I should be cautious in the way I make my decision, and make sure I will not be trying to receive god, but will be doing it.

actually since the Bible itself asked us to taste and see, it is asking us to test God and try Him. yes this is supposed to be a full time commitment but it all starts out with baby steps which u can cultivate by first trying it out. i really feel there's nth wrong in trying since there's nothing to lose for u if this whole thing does not work out for u.

Exactly. People around me are acting this way! Can I ask a question? Is it true that no matter how much you have sinned, like committing murder or arson, as long as you have faith, you will be saved? I think this is what is wrong with their mindset, for they think the answer to that question of mine is a resounding yes - a only thing that stop them from committing such crimes isn't religion, but the law.

the answer, as u have anticipated, is a yes. to be exact, it's not just faith that will save them but rather, faith in God that Christ has paid for their sins and thus they are saved.

i strongly disagree with the last sentence of yours. laws cannot stop people from sinning. day in and out, despite the laws that haven been set by the government, people are sentenced to jail. if u happen to refer to law in terms of those mention in the bible, (which generally refers to the 10 commandments) those are laws that are of God's standard which Man (all of us) can never meet up to. if we could satisfy all of them, we might as well be gods of our own then. so u see, law cant stop Man from sinning.

so what then stops Man from sinning? well, basically no matter how hard we all try, we still sin. but when u see someone changing from the better or stop a particular bad habit, it's either the Holy Spirit that prompts us to stop doing it, or their conscience that pricks them so hard that they are convicted to change for the better. yup.

 

[JohnDB]

JohnDB, your explanation regarding holiness killing us sinners in rays of light made me utterly speechless. Wow..... but how do you know these stuffs?



I find contradiction in your sentence, and I hope you won't mind me pointing it out. If we were really created to honor the creator, why should there be a choice in the first place? There will only be one option, that is to honor the creator, since we are created to do so - but that is simply not the case. Why I am not created this way, while you are?

I think that is a very important question I have just posted. Please enlighten me on that issue, and thanks for spending your time to lead me in my spiritual journey.

[/quote]

Let me see if I can explain your question in this fashion.
I can build a computer and then program the computer to tell me that it loves me. And where I may be fond of the computer that I built the messages of love coming out of it aren't really going to mean that much to me. If I have an adult son that tells me that he loves me...well...that is another thing altogether. My son telling me that he loves me and shows it by his actions is infinately much more meaningful to me...

My son is free as an adult to love me...or not to. He can listen to all kinds of wacked out psychologists that tell him he must be angry and upset over the insult of my less than perfect parenting skills perpetrated upon him when he was a child and in turn hate me...or he can understand that I did the very best that I could because I loved him...and love me in return the best way that he knows how. It is a free choice that each child chooses as an adult. And when a child does love his parents as an adult...it means everything to a parent.

I don't believe that God wants a bunch of robots running about telling him that they love him...it simply wouldn't mean anything to him.

 

[DongTanks]

To Alexwylde.

However, you confuse me with your vocabulary. Take this example. We'll consider the act of "Liking celery" the "doing" part of this example. (Let's say you've never had celery before.) To me, you are in a position where you are standing right in front of this piece of celery, and you really want to know if you like it or not. You really want to "do", i.e., like celery. But you are unwilling to try this celery on the basis that you don't KNOW that you will like it. Hence, you will never know if you like celery, simply because you didn't KNOW that you would like it. When all you had to do was "try" it and decide for yourself.

Your example did not illustrate the dilema fully. Let me expand on it: I TRIED celery, for I DID eat celery, and I KNOW I hate celery, and I regretted it, but my mum won't let me stop eating celery since I had already DID it.

She says to me, "Eat again, and eat it until you like it."

Thanks Alexwylde

To soul_biscuit

There is no reason to imagine that a God exists. Once you do so, however, you have to invent conditions that would make it plausible, such as this "other world" where laws are different and causality can be broken.

There is a reason, and the bible is the reason. They claimed that the bible is the words of God (though it might be false, we cannot straight away assume that it is false - in the spirit of skepticism and open-mindedness), and it says that He is omnipotent - so I didn't really invent any conditions, for I am just stating what is said in the bible - as He isomnipotent, the laws that govern his world is different from ours, if not, how can He be omnipotent?

And you might want to note that there is no reason to proof He does not exist, but there is a possible one that proof He exists!

The problem now is to determine if the Bible can be considered as 'a reason'. If what the Bible says is true, it is a reason. If not, it is not a reason.

Which moves us to the next topic (below).

The Bible cannot be taken both as a claim and as evidence for that claim. The only thing that can render the Bible as useful evidence is external verification. And since, as I've pointed out and as you have accepted, external verification of the existence of God is impossible, there is no way to render the Bible as evidence on that position. There is no reason to believe.

There is no reason for us not to believe either. The absence of external verification must not be present, for an external verification of the Bible will mean that we are forced to believe in God through logical reasonings and evidence, and so this will lead to the absence of free will - you accept the existence of God not because you want to, but you are forced to, which again, moves us to the next topic (they are all consecutive)....

I will discuss the topic on FREE WILL with you and JohnDB as the last topic on this post.

Don't go yet, soul_biscuit, it'll be your turn again.

To Do-er

actually since the Bible itself asked us to taste and see, it is asking us to test God and try Him. yes this is supposed to be a full time commitment but it all starts out with baby steps which u can cultivate by first trying it out. i really feel there's nth wrong in trying since there's nothing to lose for u if this whole thing does not work out for u.

This is answered as a reply to Alexwylde at the first part of this post.

so what then stops Man from sinning? well, basically no matter how hard we all try, we still sin. but when u see someone changing from the better or stop a particular bad habit, it's either the Holy Spirit that prompts us to stop doing it, or their conscience that pricks them so hard that they are convicted to change for the better. yup.

I am no theist, but why don't I crime? I don't think there is any Holy Spirit in me yet (is there), but still, I have a conscience that pricks no matter if I am theistic or not. How do you explain that?

Thanks Do-er.

Now, to both soul_biscuit and JohnDB,

This is quoted from JohnDB

I can build a computer and then program the computer to tell me that it loves me. And where I may be fond of the computer that I built the messages of love coming out of it aren't really going to mean that much to me. If I have an adult son that tells me that he loves me...well...that is another thing altogether. My son telling me that he loves me and shows it by his actions is infinately much more meaningful to me...

My son is free as an adult to love me...or not to. He can listen to all kinds of wacked out psychologists that tell him he must be angry and upset over the insult of my less than perfect parenting skills perpetrated upon him when he was a child and in turn hate me...or he can understand that I did the very best that I could because I loved him...and love me in return the best way that he knows how. It is a free choice that each child chooses as an adult. And when a child does love his parents as an adult...it means everything to a parent.

I don't believe that God wants a bunch of robots running about telling him that they love him...it simply wouldn't mean anything to him.

In another words - it's free will, isn't it?

I see, JohnDB, that you are thinking 'Matrix'. I personally love that show too

Let's say I am an engineer of a computer simulation. In another words, I am God. I created 10 characters - 5 of them Good, 5 of them Evil. The Good believe that I exist, and tries to convince the Evil of this fact, while at the same time tries to prevent themselves from being tempted to move away from the path of light ("Join me", Darth Vader's voice crackled). This two variables and their roles in this computer simulation is neccessary to set up the scenario of 'free will'.

Some atheist will regard this as a form of God's biasness. Why?

Let us present this idea in our world. Let us also assume that God exists, so that we can discuss if His actions are viable, if He exists. When people are born as theists from the very beginning, they got to enjoy the company of God since childhood. But this is not the case for the atheists, who are born with the absence of a religious background. Since childhood, he never experience God, and when he grows into adulthood, he figures that since he had survive without God, why even claim that God exists?

So, is God being biased? The atheist are made to have a disadvantage in their spiritual journey from the start. The absence of God in an atheist's childhood had developed a fixed mindset of 'God do not exist' and thus deprived him of the chance to accept God, and therefore, be saved later.

The answer to this 'Is God being biased?' question, which I had came up with, is a very big challenge to my theistic friends (who just scowled at me and say, "If you don't believe it, just don't influence us!" and walks off). Since the idea of free will have been brought up, I think this is the best time for me to pose this question.

I have, myself, thought long and hard at this question.

I found that without Theists, there will be no Atheists, for without a belief in God, there cannot exist any disbelief in God. Therefore, for both beliefs to exist, both must exist in the same environment, and that environment must be an environment that has a certain level of religious influence (without a belief in God, there cannot exist any disbelief in God, but without the existence of disbelievement in God, there can exist the belief in God, still).

No matter if a particular person comes from a religious family or not, in order for a person to be an atheist, he must have heard of theistic views before, but CHOSE not to believe (therefore the label of being an 'atheist').

As he has given the chance to choose, he was given Free Will.

But there is one thing which I cannot explain - psychology had stated that childhood experiences (though childhood years may consists only 1/4 of a human's entire life span) have huge impacts on one's mentality (and in the atheist's case, he will have developed a mindset that says God do not exist). The absence of religion in one's childhood really is a disadvantage to the atheists in his spiritual journey to Salvation. God is still being biased.

I hope sombody can provide an explanation for this.

Next, will be quoted from the post by soul_biscuit.

I take your point. God would rather have people love him who are free to hate him if they wish.

Except that if they don't love him, he will burn them forever in a lake of fire.

Not much of a choice, is it?

So, soul_biscuit, you have decided that we cannot choose, and so refuse the idea of Free Will. And to choose to refuse the idea of Free Will, you are given Free Will (you get what I mean?).

Let us call this the "Free Will Paradox".

The existence of any paradox offer us to have the chance to choose, and therefore, free will. But as the existence of free will is 'proven', we are forced to accept free will, which eliminates the idea of free will. And just as we choose not to believe in the existence of free will, and for us to choose such a decision, it proves that we have free will.....

This paradox sends us in a never ending cycle, and for this paradox to hold true, we should have free will, and again, we don't, and again, we have, and again, we don't.....and so on......

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I'm sorry I'm slow getting back to you, brother DT. Things are hectic around here.

Anyway, you make a strong point about me being more easily inclined toward Christianity than others might be. I remember being 7 years old, and I had just come home from going to church with my teengage aunt. My mother was talking to someone on the phone and said about me, "Yeah, she went to church with Donna. She really digs religion." (Early 70's, hence the word "dig.") The rest of my mother's side of the family never did go to church with any kind of regularity, despite my mother's grandfather having been a preacher. They profess belief, but they don't act like it matters very much, and it doesn't seem to affect their activities any. I don't know why I seem to have a predisposition to believing and embracing Christianity, as does my aunt and apparently my great-grandfather, but the rest of the family seems pretty much "meh."

However, it doesn't sound to me like you're such a difficult case. The fact that God's existence and Christ's gift of salvation are on your mind, shows that God is reaching out to you. All of your questions won't be answered at once, probably never will be until the next life. But you may have heard that saying about the longest journey beginning with one step. You don't have to know all there is to know about aviation and aerodynamics before you can fly an airplane, and you don't have to know all there is to know about God and the Bible before you can accept Christ.

By the way, I don't mean to be judgmental of my family. I was going to church by choice at age 7, just as my grandchildren (ages 8, 9, and 12) go voluntarily with us now. But until I asked Christ into my heart and gave Him my life, I don't think I was actually "saved." Going to church doesn't save us. Living by the Bible doesn't save us. Nothing we do saves us. Only accepting Christ's gift for us will do it.

And, might I add, I accepted that gift long before I understood how it worked. I still don't see all the logic in it, but I understand a little more as time goes by. One day, when I see Him, I can ask Him about what I still don't understand.

I've been praying for you.

 

[aiki]

Consequently, I would urge you to be sincerely asking God to reveal Himself to you at the same time as you ask us here to give you reason to believe.
​

I've never liked this advice. It leaves open too easy a cop-out.

"I sincerely asked God to reveal himself to me. He didn't."

"You weren't sincere enough."

Do you see the problem?

Well, if I had suggested that sincerity alone was the means by which one encountered God then, yes, it could be a problem. But, I didn't. Many people are quite insincere about their search for God and yet wonder why God remains distant and inscrutable.

Evidence for God is all around you. How you interpret that evidence is the real issue. It isn't like Christians use different scientific facts than the atheist; they simply begin with different presuppositions than those of the evolutionist, or naturalist, and/or atheist and so arrive at a different conclusion concerning what the facts indicate.

That is simply not true. Those who deny evolution deny many of the facts plainly revealed by scientific inquiry. An excellent example is radiometric dating, which clearly shows that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and which creationists deny for no other reason than it contradicts their position.

As I understand it, there isn't so much a denial of the facts (tho' in some cases this may well be) but a reluctance to accept that radiometric dating is perfectly reliable as a means of establishing age. In spite of the fact that radiometric dating has some critical problems (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove), atheistic evolutionists and the like still carry on as though radiometric dating is completely trustworthy - especially since it appears to reinforce an evolutionary/naturalistic point of view.

These are the presuppositions that creationists bring to the table:

- God exists, and He created everything, including humans in his own image.

That may not be universal to all creationists, but it's common enough to bear mentioning.

These are the presuppositions of scientists (atheist or not):

There exists an objective reality that obeys universal natural laws.

Only the creationist position presupposes the conclusion, and that is why they can never hope to judge the evidence objectively.

Not so. Naturalists/atheists presuppose a purely natural cause for the "objective reality" you mentioned. The conclusion they assume is that whatever they discover will not involve a supernatural Cause.

I should also like to point out that the situation you describe above isn't actually Christians against scientists. It is a false thing to suggest that there are only scientists on one side of this issue with a mound of unadulterated scientific facts at hand and Christians on the other with no science at all. In fact, there have been many Christians who have contributed greatly as scientists to what we know about the physical reality in which we exist. See:

http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

Only the creationist position presupposes the conclusion, and that is why they can never hope to judge the evidence objectively.

If you truly believe you or anyone else actually approaches anything with pure objectivity, you are profoundly deluded. Naturalists/atheists have their own filters and prejudices through which they process scientific fact. It is completely false to suggest otherwise.

Firstly, Soul Biscuit is confusing two disparate things here: God and the Universe. By definition, God is not what He has made. He is, by definition, outside the constraints of the laws of the Universe. In other words, He exists causeless while the Universe does not.

This is a clearly example of having your cake and eating it too. You have argued that the universe must have a cause because every effect must have a cause, and then you have claimed in the same breath (figuratively speaking) that God is causeless. Come now. Either everything needs a cause, or there are some things that do not. If God can exist without a cause, why not the universe?

Actually, I don't recall arguing in this thread that "the universe must have a cause because every effect must have a cause." My point in my quotation above was aimed at the question you ask here. Allow me to repeat myself:

A pot made by a Potter is bound by what it is. It cannot walk about, or speak, or think. But this doesn't mean that the Potter is identical in nature to the pot he has made. Far from it! It is the very fact that he is quite unlike the pot he has made that makes it possible for him to have created it. Likewise, for God to be the Creator of the Universe requires that He be far different in nature from what He has made.

The Bible is not a scientific text; its purpose isn't scientific but spiritual. However, where the Bible and science directly intersect, the Bible is perfectly accurate -- depending on your presuppositions.

So where observed fact disagrees with a text that was written thousands of years ago by people ignorant of science, we are to side with the text?

Where in the Bible is written genes, and cells, and quantum theory? I've seen it argued that the Bible agrees with scientific findings (rather a stretch in my opinion, but I won't belabor the point), but never has it been claimed that the Bible inspired a new scientific discovery. If the Bible is scientifically accurate, why must this position be shored up with ad hoc rationalizations?

What "ad hoc rationalizations" are you speaking of?

Peace to you.

And peace among us, despite our disagreements, I hope!

Ditto!

And again, peace to you.

 

[DongTanks]

If you don't mind, soul_biscuit, may you review your reply post that is directed at me? You are asking me a question, which I have answered on the next lines of words you quoted. Are you missing something?

There's no reason to accept as true the Bible's claim.

If you are an agnostic as you have claimed to be, why don't I see the level of open-mindedness nor skepticism neccessary in you?

There MIGHT be no reason - and whether if there is going to be a reason or not is something which we must discuss and, therefore, decide - not something you can claim just right away. THIS IS WHAT I WROTE!!! YOU MISSED IT! (Sorry, but I am afraid that you will miss my words again, soI hacve to cap it )

Omnipotence is not logically consistent. Can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? Can God create a language so difficult that he can't understand it? Can God create a piece of ice so large that he can't melt it? Then he is not omnipotent.

He works in incomprehensible ways - didn't I mention that before? I remembered previously, as response to that claim of mine, you said that since God works in incomprehensible ways, there is no need to assume His existence....don't bring this question up again, for I have already given you my answer for that.

Some God. You'd think he could make himself understood by everyone, being omnipotent and all.

The Theists (not me) claimed that we don't understand, for we believe.....blind faith, you may call it, but that is exactly what this is! Not everything have to be logical - God's ways are just incomprehensible.....but perhaps, we could make a better sense of it all, which is why this thread exists.

No one is forced to acknowledge evidence. If they were, there would be no creationists.

Do you understand what the creationists believe? They believe that the scientific evidence that disproof God must be present, in order for the people to be able to choose to believe, but not forced to accept...it is just like you.... you got evidence that disproves His evidence, that is why you do not believe in God, isn't it? What if you got evidence that proves His existence, then you will have to accept His existence, isn't it? There will be no Free Will, and to preserve free will, this misleading evidences, as the creationists have so called them (not me), must be present.

Do you get the logic?

Does there have to be such a person before the rest of us can disbelieve in them? Do you think Harry Potter is a real person?

I see you don't get the 'logic' in a lot of things. I suggest you try reading up this branch of philosophy call 'logic'. It will be helpful to you in terms of problems solving and trying to understand confusing lines of words as above.

There HAVE to be such a person before we can disbelief in it. If not, we cannot. I cannot explain further, because, I admit, I am not literal enough to be able to put my explanation into words. All I can suggest to you is to read up the topic on 'logic' - it makes use of sequential reasonings, something like mathematics....it should be easy to understand for a scientist like you.

Given by whom? And how do you know free will exists?

Seriously, can you find the answer that you require in my post? Honestly speaking (I am sorry but I have to be frank with you)....I am losing my patience XD XD XD You kept on missing my words, I can't help but wonder about your short attention span (haha! ). Come on, you miss words even when the answers are on the next lines! !!!

I'm afraid not. Nowhere have I "decided that we cannot choose."

WHAT!? Please elaborate the defination of 'decided'.

Just because evidence exists does not mean we are forced to accept it.

What? You claimed that you disbelief in God because there is evidence that disproves God's existence (do I have to quote what you said again?) - yet, you claimed that the presence of evidence does not make you accept it. Are you trying to play a joke on me or what? Seriosuly, I demand a more intelligent response form a scientist like you. I am not trying to be aggressive here, but I would want you to clear up whatever mess is in your mind now, and when you are done, reply to me in a more clear-headed manner.

[quote/It's not that different a paradox to escape.[/quote]

Define 'paradox'. Is it even something you can 'escape from'?

Your whole lot of arguement against the existence of Free Will means you do not believe in Free Will, and since you do not believe in it, do you agree that you must have been presented a choice, in order for you to NOT TO BELIEVE? When you are psented with such a choice, are you given Free Will?

THIS is the paradox I am talking about, and if you don't understand my point still....uhh.....let's just skip this subject...... I will try to speak about this topic to someone else.

The point is that even the fence-riding agnostics are atheists, because if they claim not to know whether there is a God, then by definition they do not believe in one. Simple as that.

Wrong. You claimed that there are two kinds of agnostics - agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. An agnostic theist cannot tell if God exist, but believe that He exist.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods. A theist is someone who believes in one or more gods. These are all-inclusive sets. You are either an atheist or a theist. You cannot be neither.

If you want to put things this way....fine......then I am a theist - an agnostic theist. I believe He exists, but has a lack of evidence to prove thereof, but I am a weak agnostic theist, for my belief in Him is not great enough for me to commit myself to a religion, and therefore, this thread exists.

Why did you even brought up this topic anyway?

Thanks soul_biscuit. I gladly appreciate your want to help, but may I remind you that you read my post carefully again before you post any questions that are already answered.

What you are missing in yourself as an agnostic is open-mindedness and skepticism. You are dead dogmatically absolute! Richard Dawkins' forums must have influenced this dogmaticsm to you. I suggest you start adopting some skepticism in things which an agnostic must have in order to be worthy fo being one.

I hope you won't misudnerstand my words as being 'insulting' or 'hostile' in any means - my words doesn't reflect the real tone of my voice. I truly wish that you will accept skepticism for your good - if, you know, you are an agnostic.

Peace to you, and between both of us.

 

[visionary]

I am often in a dilema, of whether or not to adhere myself to Christianity. Scientific knowledge can usually destroy any religious claims surprisingly effectively, and the lack of intelligent inidviduals that can convince me of His existence is a major contriubtion to my state of dilema.

I am a seeker. If you can convince me of His existence, you will have done a good deed, for you will have saved me from damnation, and I will thank you.

You might want to take note that the benefits of adhering to the Christianity religion (as in spiritual release and such) is not relevant to this thread, as what I want to achieve aren't the benefits, buit the ability for me to make the CORRECT and SENSIBLE CHOICE of whther to abide to this religion.

Atheist are welcome to dissuade me the way of Christianity too. All that matters is that you can help me make the right choice.

Be like thomas asking the LOrd to help your unbelief.. ask Him to give you the assurances that you need. Let's face it.. only He can satisfy your soul's needs.