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?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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".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...
Greetings!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 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.
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.
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.
the only way to know what's right or wrong is to test 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.
When evaluating the question "does God exist?" one must from the beginning admit the possibility that miracles can happen.
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!"
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.
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.
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."
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.Only the creationist position presupposes the conclusion, and that is why they can never hope to judge the evidence objectively.
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: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?
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.
What "ad hoc rationalizations" are you speaking of?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?
Ditto!Peace to you.
And peace among us, despite our disagreements, I hope!
There's no reason to accept as true the Bible's claim.
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.
Some God. You'd think he could make himself understood by everyone, being omnipotent and all.
No one is forced to acknowledge evidence. If they were, there would be no creationists.
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?
Given by whom? And how do you know free will exists?
I'm afraid not. Nowhere have I "decided that we cannot choose."
Just because evidence exists does not mean we are forced to accept it.
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.
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?