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.
God told Abramham to go forth and be fruitful. Meaning to go out and spread the word of Christ.
How is this twisted?? God wants us to help others. To teach... not just to go out and have as many childern as we want...BibleMadeMeDoIt said:This is a prime example of why I'm no longer and never will become a Christian again. Its just amazing how people will twist the text to mean what ever they want it to say.
Telephone said:A belief, in the religious context (faith), is not based on experiance (sic) but based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Regardless my point still stands with regard to a diety, resurrection, virgin birth and so on.
'empirical'
Evolution ?, immortality ?, the soul ?, a diety ?, virgin birth ?, resurrection, a 6000 year old earth ?, miracles ? etc etc etc...
None of these are in contradiction with science ?
I understand that you trust the teachings and warnings of the historical Jesus of Nazareth to be true, but you still have not said why you trust these more than any other religion ?
Lets see could it have something to do with the fact Abraham had NOTHING to do with Jesus when he was told be be fruitful. If you read anywhere in the O.T. dealing with being "fruitful" in relationship to people, is specifically talking about one issue and that is about having children and enlarging the tribe. Go to biblegateway.com and type in the word and read the scriptures that come up.ChristianM0Mof2 said:How is this twisted?? God wants us to help others. To teach... not just to go out and have as many childern as we want...
How do you read this context then?
okay ~ I have my teaching and you have yours..But, thier is only one GOD...BibleMadeMeDoIt said:Lets see could it have something to do with the fact Abraham had NOTHING to do with Jesus when he was told be be fruitful. If you read anywhere in the O.T. dealing with being "fruitful" in relationship to people, is specifically talking about one issue and that is about having children and enlarging the tribe. Go to biblegateway.com and type in the word and read the scriptures that come up.
Smith87 said:Alright, I see your point. But that didn't really address the question.
Telephone said:'empirical'
Evolution ?, immortality ?, the soul ?, a diety ?, virgin birth ?, resurrection, a 6000 year old earth ?, miracles ? etc etc etc...
None of these are in contradiction with science ?
Smith87 said:I'd say faith is a big part of religion, but your context on the term "proof" is quite a general one.
Smith87 said:Given modern scientific reseach, a belief in an omnipotent diety is not at all unreasonable. Such explanations for the big bang, the spontanous generation of life, and the philosophical wonder of "why something rather nothing"; are mysteries which are quite compatable with the omnipotent Christian God.
Smith87 said:As for the miricles of Jesus...
I'll say it's ultimatly a matter of faith when all comes down to it.
Smith87 said:However, given the Gospel accounts, the authors make it clear that Jesus is no ordinary man (as different in other mythological fabels such as Beowulf), but in fact, the son of God. Thus, if Jesus was the Son of God, I see no real surpraises given his claimed capabilites. The historical Jesus leaves us no doubt that his early disciples believed in the miraculous events they have seen.
Smith87 said:But again, it comes down to faith. We can't be positive if these miraculous events which dramically changed the hearts of countless lives are true or false. All we can possiably have are witness accounts .
Smith87 said:We'll it would be more practial to just discuss one specfic matter at a time than dealing with a check list.
Smith87 said:Does science say that we go into an eternal void or have eternal life? It say neither, because such wonders as the afterlife can certainly not be measured or studied.
Smith87 said:Science is simply the study of observation. It certainly does not declare the existance or nonexistance of God.
Smith87 said:The whole book of Genesis is a vision of Moses, and the "days" of creation just represents the order of which God created time/space/existance,ect.
Smith87 said:Obviously I can't rebut every single non-Christian belief, but after reasearching several other religions, worldviews, and alternate philosophies (not to mention, attending classes taught by Dr. William Lane Craig), and lastly, through personal experiance; I see Christianity as the most reasonable theological belief system.
Edx said:Im confused as to why you put evolution in that list
Telephone said:Whoops, my mistake!
Meant to put creationism!
Smith87 said:I am curious to what causes doubt among unbelievers. Thanks for the input!
Telephone said:Faith is essential to religion, faith negates reason. If one were to believe in a diety through reasonable thought, logic or even evidence, there would be little need for faith.
I am sure all these things are equally compatible with all omnipotent gods from all religions, they are also compatible with any or all omnipotent creatures I can dream up in my imagination in the next half an hour or so.
Your point is that if the Christian god exists and if he is omnipotent then he would be capable of these things, as would be anything you could ascribe omnipotence to, but this does not equate to a compatibility with scientific research.
The idea that modern science finds the idea of an omnipotent diety reasonable is nonsense.
What miracles ? These miracles are not in front of you, they are not on the news or on display in a temple in Rome or Paris for you to observe, they are not recorded on film or video, they are ink in a translation of some stories written when men believed the earth was flat.
You have been taught these as true, you have been convinced, you have been indoctrinated, and you will teach your children these miracles as fact, you will indoctrinate them with your beliefs, and they will teach their children the bible as the inerrant word of god and so on and so on, everyone at every stage in this chain is wanting to believe in an after life and being convinced that believing without evidence (faith) is a virture.
This is a big leap from a story to an absolute truth.
And these witnesses accounts may also not be true, and not only might the witnesses stories not be true but the witnesses may never have existed.
Of course the 'afterlife' can not be studied, nor can the magical powers of karma or reincarnation or rebirth or resurrection or such wonders as the magical kingom of peace and joy you live in during the eternity before you are born, because they are simply man made notions with no footing in reality.
Science to me goes something like this:
In a room full of people, we hear a loud banging noise coming from somewhere outside, some people in the room claim the noise they hear is the souls of the dead trying to enter the room, some claim these noises are their gods angry at them for drinking wine, and some claim that these noises are demons looking for people to tempt into 'sin' and eventually 'hell' , in this room of people whos views are held with the utmost authority (and they all have their holy books to 'prove' they are 100% right) these people argue and fight over who is right about the noise and why the other peolples views are not only wrong but 'evil'. in this room 'science' is the little fellow in the corner who decides to simply go over and open the door and have a look to see where the noise is coming from, if it is any of the things these people claim it is, he will report this back as observed evidence, if none of these things were observed he will also say so (much to the dismay and denial of those with vested interests in certain beliefs)
This is an interpretation of a fable with no evidence to make it in any way credible.
No 'faith' is reasonable, if it were reasonable it would negate faith, if it were reasonable there would be very few atheists, if it were reasonable people would come to it naturally and there would be no reason for our children to be indoctrinated from a very young age.
Smith87 said:Atheists would like to say that the universe has always been, but such circular philosophies have been disproven by modern science.
JGL53 said:If a god caused the big bang, then what caused god?
Eudaimonist said:Science has done no such thing. This is a speculative conclusion one could draw from some scientific ideas, but it's not something actually proven by science.
It´s a bit more than a doubt. BibleGod seems absurd to me, His existence doesn´t make any sense, plus He is so very obviously anthropomorph. I have no questions that the existence of BibleGod would answer. Not that I consider these valid arguments against BibleGod´s existence, but that´s basically why I personally see no reason to believe in it any more than in the existence of other mythological characters.Smith87 said:I am curious to what causes doubt among unbelievers. Thanks for the input
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?