Let's talk about Ichneumonidae

[golgotha61]

Not a verse I'm afraid. I used to watch a lot of Christian TV. I can't remember who said it but the general idea was that after the fall of Adam and Eve all the animals were affected (so they ate each other) and apparently the world spun on its axis too. I know of a few Christians who believe this theory but I'm not sure how popular it is.

I'm just curious how Christians account for the state of nature as we find it currently. So far no one in this thread has given me a solid enough reply. Did God cause it at the point of creation? Was it the result of sin? Did it evolve this way slowly under God's direction?

The way I see it, if God created nature as it is currently, then he can hardly be called benevolent. I think this is why some of the people replying in this thread have been upset with me. They see their God as good and I don't. I am still not convinced by the so-called goodness of this God.

I don't necessarily ascribe to the idea that death in the animal kingdom was the result of sin. I am open to discourse since there doesn't seem to be a clear indication in the Bible one way or the other. Romans 5:12 12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" This verse tells us that death entered by sin and then was passed to all men.

The idea that some action is evil requires a standard to judge good and evil. One aspect that makes the murder of a human evil is because man is created in the image of God. He gave us the standard of murder of a human as evil but He did not give any indication of the death of animals at their own actions as a violation of any law. However, since man was the only creation made in God's image, I don't see an issue of evil in relation to an eagle killing and eating a rabbit, since man is the only creation with self awareness, conscience, intellect, emotion, and will.

So to my thinking , and I may be wrong, it appears God created the animal kingdom with death in the animal kingdom built in; this does not include humans, the scripture is clear that death in humans is a direct result of sin. I don't see the animal kingdom partaking of the tree of life in the garden and the curse was placed on the ground that made it more difficult for Adam to farm. Again, I may be in error but these are my initial thoughts.

 

[golgotha61]

What if God doesn't exist?

Or, from another angle; why would God give us the capacity to reason to the point that we could reason that God did not exist? Doesn't this refute the quote from 2 Timothy you gave? If God cannot deny himself then shouldn't it be impossible for someone to use their reason to conclude that God does not exist? Wouldn't this be God denying himself through human reason?

You seem to be under the impression that your own logical conclusion of the existence of God is, and should be, everyone else's logical conclusion. The fact that there are atheists who have logically concluded there is no God easily refutes this assumption. If you have reasoned that there is a God, I am happy for you. I have spent years trying to reason with the Bible and eventually concluded that there is no God. Let's take a little sidetrack and I will show you one thing that made me conclude, using my reasoning, that there is no God;

In Genesis 1:11 God created all the plants and vegetation on earth. This was the third day of creation. However, there is a problem with this. There is no sun to provide light for these plants to live. The sun isn't created until the next day. So the plants had to survive for a whole day without the sun's light. Now, I realise Christians will point to the "light" that God created on the first day of creation. But this light is unspecified. What is it? Where does it come from? It is not the light from the sun, which plants need to live (look up photosynthesis on wikipedia). The "light" on the first day is never mentioned again after the first day (as far as I know). The light was not from the person of God (or God would not have needed to have created it). It was clearly some kind of temporary light until God created the sun and moon and other stars.

From this rather bizarre story, and the creation story as a whole, I have to conclude that logically speaking, it didn't happen as described. I know, from studies in modern science, that plants need the sun in its current form to photosynthesise (Photosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Therefore the story in the Bible is not true. In order for it to be true the onus falls on Christians to invent theories as to what they believe might have happened.

This is just one example of how I came to reason away the existence of God. A further example would be such things as the talking snake in the Garden of Eden. Snakes don't talk. This snake was not the devil, because why would God punish a possessed snake (by making it crawl on its belly, which presumes the snake once had legs); it's just an animal. So therefore the story is explicitly suggesting that it was a literal talking snake that deceived Eve and not a spiritual being possessing the snake. Again, since talking snakes are not a regular occurrence I have to conclude that this story is therefore not true which leads me to doubt the integrity of the Bible as a whole.

Given these things I just don't see how one can conclude that reason is from God and therefore God must exist.[/quote

The law of non-contradiction as described in the example I gave involves both of the statements necessarily being true statements in order for the law to be unbroken. So if one accepts a false statement as true, then the logic is flawed.

I can get into the rest of your statement in the future but first of all, if you don't believe logic originates with God, where does logic originate?

 

[oi_antz]

Not a verse I'm afraid. I used to watch a lot of Christian TV.

Nothing worse than watching someone waffle on trying to fill his daily quota with whatever random thoughts come to mind. They've sacrificed integrity for industry.

I can't remember who said it but the general idea was that after the fall of Adam and Eve all the animals were affected (so they ate each other) and apparently the world spun on its axis too. I know of a few Christians who believe this theory but I'm not sure how popular it is.

Next time you get the opportunity, would you mind asking for biblical proof? Sounds very imaginative and I guess it is feasible, however that doesn't make it true nor representative of Christian theology. Who can tame the tongue? (It takes a strong will). James 3:1-12 NLT - Controlling the Tongue Dear brothers - Bible Gateway

I'm just curious how Christians account for the state of nature as we find it currently. So far no one in this thread has given me a solid enough reply. Did God cause it at the point of creation? Was it the result of sin? Did it evolve this way slowly under God's direction?

I haven't read it in the bible so I can't give you a solid reply. I understand that nature behaves this way because life requires death, that is the nature of the food chain.

The way I see it, if God created nature as it is currently, then he can hardly be called benevolent. I think this is why some of the people replying in this thread have been upset with me. They see their God as good and I don't. I am still not convinced by the so-called goodness of this God.

It's not really that so much, it is your attitude that upsets us. If you were less grumpy then you would be more pleasant to speak to and you would be met with a more pleasant tone of voice. Whenever you think of God you project a mental image of Him in your mind. That image is not the same as the image a Christian projects in his/her mind. So long as that is happening we will not be able to agree.

 

[Hakan101]

What if God doesn't exist?

Or, from another angle; why would God give us the capacity to reason to the point that we could reason that God did not exist? Doesn't this refute the quote from 2 Timothy you gave? If God cannot deny himself then shouldn't it be impossible for someone to use their reason to conclude that God does not exist? Wouldn't this be God denying himself through human reason?

You seem to be under the impression that your own logical conclusion of the existence of God is, and should be, everyone else's logical conclusion. The fact that there are atheists who have logically concluded there is no God easily refutes this assumption. If you have reasoned that there is a God, I am happy for you. I have spent years trying to reason with the Bible and eventually concluded that there is no God. Let's take a little sidetrack and I will show you one thing that made me conclude, using my reasoning, that there is no God;

In Genesis 1:11 God created all the plants and vegetation on earth. This was the third day of creation. However, there is a problem with this. There is no sun to provide light for these plants to live. The sun isn't created until the next day. So the plants had to survive for a whole day without the sun's light. Now, I realise Christians will point to the "light" that God created on the first day of creation. But this light is unspecified. What is it? Where does it come from? It is not the light from the sun, which plants need to live (look up photosynthesis on wikipedia). The "light" on the first day is never mentioned again after the first day (as far as I know). The light was not from the person of God (or God would not have needed to have created it). It was clearly some kind of temporary light until God created the sun and moon and other stars.

From this rather bizarre story, and the creation story as a whole, I have to conclude that logically speaking, it didn't happen as described. I know, from studies in modern science, that plants need the sun in its current form to photosynthesise (Photosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Therefore the story in the Bible is not true. In order for it to be true the onus falls on Christians to invent theories as to what they believe might have happened.

This is just one example of how I came to reason away the existence of God. A further example would be such things as the talking snake in the Garden of Eden. Snakes don't talk. This snake was not the devil, because why would God punish a possessed snake (by making it crawl on its belly, which presumes the snake once had legs); it's just an animal. So therefore the story is explicitly suggesting that it was a literal talking snake that deceived Eve and not a spiritual being possessing the snake. Again, since talking snakes are not a regular occurrence I have to conclude that this story is therefore not true which leads me to doubt the integrity of the Bible as a whole.

Given these things I just don't see how one can conclude that reason is from God and therefore God must exist.

Are you listening to yourself? You would go so far as to tempt the idea of a supernatural God, but talking snakes? Preposterous! Talking donkeys? Unheard of! There's just no way an almighty God could make plants that once lived without the sun! What's next, is he going to make a bush that is on fire but doesn't burn? It's just not reasonable...

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Are you listening to yourself? You would go so far as to tempt the idea of a supernatural God, but talking snakes? Preposterous! Talking donkeys? Unheard of! There's just no way an almighty God could make plants that once lived without the sun! What's next, is he going to make a bush that is on fire but doesn't burn? It's just not reasonable...

And this is why trying to reason with Christians who believe in such silly supernatural things can be a problem. Show me a snake that talks please.

 

[steve_bakr]

What if God doesn't exist?

Or, from another angle; why would God give us the capacity to reason to the point that we could reason that God did not exist? Doesn't this refute the quote from 2 Timothy you gave? If God cannot deny himself then shouldn't it be impossible for someone to use their reason to conclude that God does not exist? Wouldn't this be God denying himself through human reason?

You seem to be under the impression that your own logical conclusion of the existence of God is, and should be, everyone else's logical conclusion. The fact that there are atheists who have logically concluded there is no God easily refutes this assumption. If you have reasoned that there is a God, I am happy for you. I have spent years trying to reason with the Bible and eventually concluded that there is no God. Let's take a little sidetrack and I will show you one thing that made me conclude, using my reasoning, that there is no God;

In Genesis 1:11 God created all the plants and vegetation on earth. This was the third day of creation. However, there is a problem with this. There is no sun to provide light for these plants to live. The sun isn't created until the next day. So the plants had to survive for a whole day without the sun's light. Now, I realise Christians will point to the "light" that God created on the first day of creation. But this light is unspecified. What is it? Where does it come from? It is not the light from the sun, which plants need to live (look up photosynthesis on wikipedia). The "light" on the first day is never mentioned again after the first day (as far as I know). The light was not from the person of God (or God would not have needed to have created it). It was clearly some kind of temporary light until God created the sun and moon and other stars.

From this rather bizarre story, and the creation story as a whole, I have to conclude that logically speaking, it didn't happen as described. I know, from studies in modern science, that plants need the sun in its current form to photosynthesise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis). Therefore the story in the Bible is not true. In order for it to be true the onus falls on Christians to invent theories as to what they believe might have happened.

This is just one example of how I came to reason away the existence of God. A further example would be such things as the talking snake in the Garden of Eden. Snakes don't talk. This snake was not the devil, because why would God punish a possessed snake (by making it crawl on its belly, which presumes the snake once had legs); it's just an animal. So therefore the story is explicitly suggesting that it was a literal talking snake that deceived Eve and not a spiritual being possessing the snake. Again, since talking snakes are not a regular occurrence I have to conclude that this story is therefore not true which leads me to doubt the integrity of the Bible as a whole.

Given these things I just don't see how one can conclude that reason is from God and therefore God must exist.

Why do you read Genesis literally? I take it as an allegory that contains spiritual truth.

Some atheists claim that belief in God is the result of disordered thinking, but I rather suspect the opposite. Any observer of this wonderful creation who does not conclude that there is a God is not paying enough attention to it.

I don't like to admit it, but I went through a period of atheism, and I feel sorry for where you're at. It is neither a good nor a happy place to be.

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Why do you read Genesis literally? I take it as an allegory that contains spiritual truth.

Hakan101 would like a word with you.

How exactly do you read the creation story spiritually? Jesus and Paul took the Old Testament literally.

I don't like to admit it, but I went through a period of atheism, and I feel sorry for where you're at. It is neither a good nor a happy place to be.

That's actually a rather insulting and narcissistic thing to say. I don't need your pity. I'm actually happier as an atheist now than I ever was as a Christian. The world is not so confusing to me because science answers more questions than my old Bible ever could. I no longer feel weighed down with the guilt of sin for simply being human; and I no longer feel that I am something repulsive to God and worthy of nothing but punishment. And, most of all, I am no longer afraid of hell. Atheism is quite liberating. The only reason I'm here on these forums is to try and fill in the gaps that Christianity never quite answered for me such as the question in my OP.

 

[Hakan101]

And this is why trying to reason with Christians who believe in such silly supernatural things can be a problem. Show me a snake that talks please.

Knowing that snake, he would probably just keep his trap shut until you walked away. I would have shown him to you, and yet you would not believe me. And it would be exactly what he wanted.

I hope you at least realized my point. It is absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical that you would even contemplate a supernatural God, yet call him unreasonable when he does supernatural things.

You say God couldn't have made plants that live without the sun, that plants need photosynthesis...this shows a disastrous misunderstanding of who God is. Don't tell me what God can and can't do. Tell me he doesn't exist. If you're even going to suppose he exists, then he is the almighty God who can do anything. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[steve_bakr]

Hakan101 would like a word with you.

How exactly do you read the creation story spiritually? Jesus and Paul took the Old Testament literally.

I'm referring to the creation stories. Even many of the ECF took them to be allegorical. It is the story that affirms that God created the universe. It is also the story of the fall of man--ie., everyman--about man's relation to God and the need for redemption--ie., the restoration of that relationship.

Off topic,.sometimes I think of this as the Christian Insomniac Forum.

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

 

[razeontherock]

How exactly do you read the creation story spiritually?

This is not difficult at all! Long though ...

Jesus and Paul took the Old Testament literally.

Are you sure about that? Please read my tag line. You do know both Jesus and Paul were Rabbis, right?

I'm actually happier as an atheist now than I ever was as a Christian. The world is not so confusing to me because science answers more questions than my old Bible ever could.

Your juxtaposition of Christianity vs science tells me you are not comparing the two. They simply don't speak on the same plane to create any such conflict. Rather you are purging out falsehood you no longer need, and the only problem is you confuse that with Christianity. Time to look deeper.

I no longer feel weighed down with the guilt of sin for simply being human; and I no longer feel that I am something repulsive to God and worthy of nothing but punishment. And, most of all, I am no longer afraid of hell.

These are good example of non-Christian ideas you don't need. You probably never did need them, but in any case you certainly don't now. And in a nutshell, this is a major reason why I hold Calvinism to be false. (The other being it slanders God's nature)

Nothing about this points to atheism! It is not God who is false, it is man's perception of Him. And you formerly fell victim to a few of those. Congratulations on your freedom from that!

The only reason I'm here on these forums is to try and fill in the gaps that Christianity never quite answered for me such as the question in my OP.

Make no mistake, whatever flavor of christianity you were exposed to, quite a mess was made out of things, and it left more than "gaps."

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

One week you're ready to become a Jew, the next you completely embrace Calvinism, and this weeek you hate God and shake your fist at him.

I don't recall ever wanting to convert to Judaism. I suspect you're exaggerating because of something I said that upset you. Secondly, I may have addressed a certain issue from a Calvinistic stance, but I am no Calvinist. Thirdly, I don't hate God. I cannot hate what I don't believe in. I confess that I dislike the God I read about in the Old Testament, hence the tone in some of my questions which you may have picked up on. But I say this once again - I do not hate God, because I do not believe he exists, not as he is described in the Bible anyway.

It's ok to not have a made up mind, but that's the wrong time to dismiss sound points.

Then start presenting some sound points instead of insulting me all the time. Maybe then our discussions will go better and I won't have to hit the report button every time I see one of your posts in my threads.

Despite what you believe, I am actually here to learn. Sadly, so far I've learned that Christians are divided on almost every issue I throw at them. They claim to know God and to hear from him, and yet there are dozens of different responses. One would think that the creator of the Universe would be able to speak clearly to his believers so those curious of him would have solid answers. How am I supposed to believe in this God when his own followers don't even know what he's saying?

 

[Hakan101]

I don't recall ever wanting to convert to Judaism. I suspect you're exaggerating because of something I said that upset you. Secondly, I may have addressed a certain issue from a Calvinistic stance, but I am no Calvinist. Thirdly, I don't hate God. I cannot hate what I don't believe in. I confess that I dislike the God I read about in the Old Testament, hence the tone in some of my questions which you may have picked up on. But I say this once again - I do not hate God, because I do not believe he exists, not as he is described in the Bible anyway.

Then start presenting some sound points instead of insulting me all the time. Maybe then our discussions will go better and I won't have to hit the report button every time I see one of your posts in my threads.

Despite what you believe, I am actually here to learn. Sadly, so far I've learned that Christians are divided on almost every issue I throw at them. They claim to know God and to hear from him, and yet there are dozens of different responses. One would think that the creator of the Universe would be able to speak clearly to his believers so those curious of him would have solid answers. How am I supposed to believe in this God when his own followers don't even know what he's saying?

Dozens of different responses, yet do they all contradict each other? Are they all given by people who've studied the scripture? Are all the answers grounded in Scripture? These questions need to be asked before dismissing dozens of different responses as evidence of a false faith.

You said in an earlier post that you *want* to believe in God, but your own desire for reason prevents you from doing so. But now you say you're only here to "fill in the gaps", that you're happier with Atheism. I asked you before why you wanted to believe in God, but you never answered me.

So I'll ask again, if you're still sticking with that position. Why do you want to believe in God if you think he's so illogical?

 

[steve_bakr]

This is not difficult at all! Long though ...

Are you sure about that? Please read my tag line. You do know both Jesus and Paul were Rabbis, right?

Your juxtaposition of Christianity vs science tells me you are not comparing the two. They simply don't speak on the same plane to create any such conflict. Rather you are purging out falsehood you no longer need, and the only problem is you confuse that with Christianity. Time to look deeper.

These are good example of non-Christian ideas you don't need. You probably never did need them, but in any case you certainly don't now. And in a nutshell, this is a major reason why I hold Calvinism to be false. (The other being it slanders God's nature)

Nothing about this points to atheism! It is not God who is false, it is man's perception of Him. And you formerly fell victim to a few of those. Congratulations on your freedom from that!

Make no mistake, whatever flavor of christianity you were exposed to, quite a mess was made out of things, and it left more than "gaps."

Yes, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

 

[steve_bakr]

I don't recall ever wanting to convert to Judaism. I suspect you're exaggerating because of something I said that upset you. Secondly, I may have addressed a certain issue from a Calvinistic stance, but I am no Calvinist. Thirdly, I don't hate God. I cannot hate what I don't believe in. I confess that I dislike the God I read about in the Old Testament, hence the tone in some of my questions which you may have picked up on. But I say this once again - I do not hate God, because I do not believe he exists, not as he is described in the Bible anyway.

Then start presenting some sound points instead of insulting me all the time. Maybe then our discussions will go better and I won't have to hit the report button every time I see one of your posts in my threads.

Despite what you believe, I am actually here to learn. Sadly, so far I've learned that Christians are divided on almost every issue I throw at them. They claim to know God and to hear from him, and yet there are dozens of different responses. One would think that the creator of the Universe would be able to speak clearly to his believers so those curious of him would have solid answers. How am I supposed to believe in this God when his own followers don't even know what he's saying?

Ahh, we see as through a glass though darkly.

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

 

[oi_antz]

Despite what you believe, I am actually here to learn. Sadly, so far I've learned that Christians are divided on almost every issue I throw at them. They claim to know God and to hear from him, and yet there are dozens of different responses. One would think that the creator of the Universe would be able to speak clearly to his believers so those curious of him would have solid answers. How am I supposed to believe in this God when his own followers don't even know what he's saying?

This deserves addressing. We are each showing you our own perspective of the great picture, but what you are asking for is to see the whole picture for yourself. That is not something that we have authority to give, it is something you will need to ask for from God. According to Christianity, that means you are going to need to accept what God is telling you when you read the bible. If you hate something about the bible and you prefer to disobey, then you will need to concede and hand the matter to Jesus, because He is able to pay your forgiveness and lift you out of sin. That's a bridge that every Christian has crossed. It does mean sacrifice.

Anyhow, the closest you've had to getting your answer was what razeontherock posted to you back in post #52:

The Living Bible
Romans 11:22
Notice how God is both kind and severe. He is very hard on those who disobey, but very good to you if you continue to love and trust him. But if you don't you too will be cut off.

I have quoted from my personal bible here as I think it's an easier interpretation to understand. You must read it within context to understand it, and then if you don't understand it, ask for clarification.

You seem to just dismiss things when you don't like them, that will not be helpful to your quest of learning. If on the other hand, you really want to know the truth, you will need to think accordingly. You've shown us that whatever we serve on a silver platter is not satisfactory, that means you really need that one-on-one relationship with God, who is able to satisfy your every need:

7 A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.” 8 For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.
9 Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.
10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11 The woman said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? 12 Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?”
13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

You are thirsty for living water, why not ask Jesus for it? Can't you see that it is a good thing?

 

[golgotha61]

I don't recall ever wanting to convert to Judaism. I suspect you're exaggerating because of something I said that upset you. Secondly, I may have addressed a certain issue from a Calvinistic stance, but I am no Calvinist. Thirdly, I don't hate God. I cannot hate what I don't believe in. I confess that I dislike the God I read about in the Old Testament, hence the tone in some of my questions which you may have picked up on. But I say this once again - I do not hate God, because I do not believe he exists, not as he is described in the Bible anyway.



Then start presenting some sound points instead of insulting me all the time. Maybe then our discussions will go better and I won't have to hit the report button every time I see one of your posts in my threads.

Despite what you believe, I am actually here to learn. Sadly, so far I've learned that Christians are divided on almost every issue I throw at them. They claim to know God and to hear from him, and yet there are dozens of different responses. One would think that the creator of the Universe would be able to speak clearly to his believers so those curious of him would have solid answers. How am I supposed to believe in this God when his own followers don't even know what he's saying?

The Bible is a book of the progressive revelation of God and not a book of explanations of how He works or how He thinks in every detail. There is no way for our finite minds to understand every detailed thought of God. You have no responsibility to understand the details of creation and God did not give such information in the Bible because it is not of an eternal value. The understanding you are responsible for and does carry the eternal value is Christ's death and resurrection and how His sacrifice settled the sin account between you and God. And on this basic description of soteriology you will find much more agreement among Christians.

I would like to get back to the issue of logic and the law of non-contradiction that has gotten lost here. In an earlier post you alluded to not accepting logic originating with God and so I ask you again: where does logic originate?

I stated for you, that in order for the law of non-contradiction to remain unbroken is for the statements in the process of reasoning to be true statements, that is the main premiss of the law. If one of the statements is false, then the logic is flawed.

The atheist's world view is one of naturalism and he refuses to recognize that there is a supernatural and non-material world that does exist. This is why the logic of the atheist is flawed and his world view is irrational and this is why the need for you to examine the law of non-contradiction is important.

Basically, the atheist cannot have laws of logic because logic is part of the non-material non-physical world and the atheist does not believe in anything that is not material or physical. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things
(laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

I see complaints all the time from atheists that God did not include their world view of naturalism in His word. First of all, it is imperative to realize that the OT ,for example, was written to a supernatural world view and that there was no naturalistic worldview to appeal to, there were no atheists in these cultures. Secondly, He did appeal to the mind that only will process and accept what is physical and that was accomplished in Christ. He is physical and material (satisfying the demand for what can be touched,seen, and heard) and also supernatural (satisfying the second world view of supernaturalism), so now the atheist is without excuse. God has satisfied both world views and His work of revelation is done, now the unbeliever has the rest of the responsibility and that is simply the choice of acceptance or rejection of the Christ.

If you are going to let the inability to understand the wisdom and purpose of the life of the Ichneumonidae wasp stand between you and God, I consider this an irrational and illogical decision.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Dozens of different responses, yet do they all contradict each other? Are they all given by people who've studied the scripture? Are all the answers grounded in Scripture? These questions need to be asked before dismissing dozens of different responses as evidence of a false faith.

You said in an earlier post that you *want* to believe in God, but your own desire for reason prevents you from doing so. But now you say you're only here to "fill in the gaps", that you're happier with Atheism. I asked you before why you wanted to believe in God, but you never answered me.

So I'll ask again, if you're still sticking with that position. Why do you want to believe in God if you think he's so illogical?

The idea of a personal God is compelling, I won't deny that. And I suppose that is what draws me to Christianity. However, I find little reason to accept the Christian faith because it just doesn't "add up". I respect the fact that it clearly makes sense to you, and every other Christian here. But for me, it doesn't. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For example, let's just go back to the question in my OP - why would God create nature to be like it is when he claims to be a compassionate, benevolent God. I've heard Christians say many times that the glory of God can be observed in nature; I don't think these Christians realise just how violent and bloody the animal kingdom is. I keep getting bashed in this thread for not seeing things the way Christians would like me to see it.

 

[Hakan101]

The idea of a personal God is compelling, I won't deny that. And I suppose that is what draws me to Christianity. However, I find little reason to accept the Christian faith because it just doesn't "add up". I respect the fact that it clearly makes sense to you, and every other Christian here. But for me, it doesn't. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For example, let's just go back to the question in my OP - why would God create nature to be like it is when he claims to be a compassionate, benevolent God. I've heard Christians say many times that the glory of God can be observed in nature; I don't think these Christians realise just how violent and bloody the animal kingdom is. I keep getting bashed in this thread for not seeing things the way Christians would like me to see it.

But I don't think it clearly makes sense. You don't think I have my own questions? I just turned 20, I have a lifetime for things to "add up." I learned enough to believe, anything else I learn affirms my faith.

I watch the Animal Channel all the time, I'm well-acquainted with animals killing other animals. I've seen piranhas tear fish apart, lions kill antelope, cicadas chased down and eaten by sparrows, etc. I'm not going to bash you, but I would ask, how do you expect these animals to survive? Should God endlessly pour down manna upon them all? In that case, since man is far greater than animals, God would be doing this for us too. But God cursed man when Adam sinned, and said he will work to survive.

I may be jumping the gun here, but it seems you are concerned for the animal's quality of life? Or maybe you think that when animals kill other animals it is evil/wrong? Is this why you think a loving God would not make it so?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

The atheist's world view is one of naturalism and he refuses to recognize that there is a supernatural and non-material world that does exist. This is why the logic of the atheist is flawed and his world view is irrational and this is why the need for you to examine the law of non-contradiction is important.

Why can't the supernatural be tested scientifically in lab conditions? If the supernatural exists it should be self-evident, like gravity, DNA, the speed of light, etc. Also, which supernatural elements are true? For example, we now know that walking under ladders does not give a person 7 years bad luck. Neither does breaking a mirror. We know these things to be superstitions. However, people once believed these things.

You see why atheists discount the supernatural? You can't test it, you can't make assumptions from it, you cannot make accurate predictions based on it. If I were to ask a Christian to show me something supernatural they would tell me not to test God, and yet God invites us to test him through prayer. Jesus himself tells us that if we have faith as small as a mustard seed, we can move mountains. Why has no one ever moved a mountain? Jesus said it was possible. Oh wait... he was speaking figuratively wasn't he?

 

[golgotha61]

Why can't the supernatural be tested scientifically in lab conditions? If the supernatural exists it should be self-evident, like gravity, DNA, the speed of light, etc. Also, which supernatural elements are true? For example, we now know that walking under ladders does not give a person 7 years bad luck. Neither does breaking a mirror. We know these things to be superstitions. However, people once believed these things.

You see why atheists discount the supernatural? You can't test it, you can't make assumptions from it, you cannot make accurate predictions based on it. If I were to ask a Christian to show me something supernatural they would tell me not to test God, and yet God invites us to test him through prayer. Jesus himself tells us that if we have faith as small as a mustard seed, we can move mountains. Why has no one ever moved a mountain? Jesus said it was possible. Oh wait... he was speaking figuratively wasn't he?

It is more than just the supernatural, it is whatever is non-material that the atheist cannot process. That is why I pose to you the question of where logic originates. I already posted that Christ as the man satisfies the material demand of the naturalistic mind. God also gave us the example of Thomas and his own desire to touch what he saw to make sure it was not just a vision but a real person, the risen Christ. So the Bible gave the example that would satisfy the mind of an atheist. Thomas tested what he saw. Again, I ask you to explore what you cannot see, where does logic originate?