Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Ouroboros]

What Antlerman doesn't know is that the skull was Adam's. We're looking at a rendition of the guy who brought us all down. The first sinner. The guy who screwed us over by eating the fruit and giving us the inheritable sin...

 

When I was a Christian, I actually puzzled over at what point in evolution The Fall happened (I was never a creationist). Unsurprisingly, I couldn't come up with a satisfactory answer, so I swept the whole problem under the carpet - as is often necessary when trying to cling to a set of beliefs that doesn't make much sense.

Here's one interpretation:

 

The fall happened in Sumeria. When philosophy, formalized astrology, math, science, and recorded history began. Knowledge, that's the fruit of good and evil. And that's why Jesus supposedly says that it's better to be a child, and Paul criticize the wise of this world. Ignorance is bliss. It's Eden. Knowledge, science, philosophy, medicine, etc brings good and bad things. Be stupid, be happy.

[Ouroboros]

Bottom line, is the science you know so well all true, just like you believe. Does it really stack up?

I know that was directed to Antlerman, but I'd like to point something out, or rather, inform you about something.

 

As a Christian, I believe evolution was wrong, and my knowledge about it was limited.

 

I lost my faith, and I started to learn (on my own) about evolution, and I started to believe that it was most likely true. I had many questions, but it seemed to have a lot of things that made sense.

 

Now, I have taken classes in it and read books about it. I can't say I just believe in it anymore, but rather, I know it is true. Evolution is much more than a guess. It is well established through extremely well thought out reasons and experiments.

 

The scientists have made many, yes, many guesses in the past about evolution, guesses that were proven to be wrong. How did that happen? Well, they made guesses about certain things, but no one could prove either or. Then one day, someone managed to prove something that was thought about in evolution to be false. But the funny thing is, what has been proven right and true is the basic fact that we have evolved from lower species. There's no doubt about that part. It's not a guess anymore. Evolution has even been observed plenty of times, both in the wild and in laboratory. It's no guesswork when you actually see it happening.

 

The problem is really all about trust. You don't trust science. You don't trust scientists. You don't trust hundreds of years of thousands of scientists bringing one proof after another about evolution. But on the other hand, you trust some anonymous writers from 2,000 years ago without even blinking. And you do it with no evidence. You do it only by a feeling.

 

When evidence, facts, and reason takes you away from God, you reject it. When emotions brings you closer to your imaginary God, you accept it.

 

In the end, it's all about emotions vs reason. As long as you follow emotions, you will never be able to be completely honest to yourself or to others.

 

The first step, you have to allow yourself to start doubting what you believe is true. You have to be able to do it before you even can understand the facts of reality.

[★ Citsonga ★]

The problem is really all about trust. You don't trust science. You don't trust scientists. You don't trust hundreds of years of thousands of scientists bringing one proof after another about evolution. But on the other hand, you trust some anonymous writers from 2,000 years ago without even blinking. And you do it with no evidence. You do it only by a feeling.

 

When evidence, facts, and reason takes you away from God, you reject it. When emotions brings you closer to your imaginary God, you accept it.

 

In the end, it's all about emotions vs reason. As long as you follow emotions, you will never be able to be completely honest to yourself or to others.

 

Very, very well put.

[the stranger]

I am going to back track a drop as to at least hit the high points of some of the post I have yet to be able to respond to due to time. I will start a while back, because I forgot to address the second part of a pst.

 

Why is it so hard for you to admit that the Bible and the faith make certain promises -- promises of protection, favor, sonship, encouragement, enlightenment, vindication, justice, prosperity and so forth -- that these promises are often unambiguously stated as applying to this life -- and that, for these promises to have any meaning, they have to result in actual fulfillment and benefit in this life at some point? Why can't you admit that you actually sell these benefits as reasons to embrace the faith? You know, "Jesus is the answer". The lost and hurting are supposed to find what they have always longed for in Jesus, otherwise how could you possibly say that the world "needs" him? Why would you blame them if they ultimately do not find these promises fulfilled in some meaningful way? It sounds to me like those who deal in reality are being blamed for it.

 

Desert Bob, we often see reality as what we can touch, smell, and see and hear. What if you were deaf? blind? unable to move? What then would be reality? It is hard for me to comprehend. Have you ever notices the ones who have little in terms of our abilities often are gifted, or enhanced with, other abilities.

 

What is reality? Is reality just us here on this earth? Are there spirits out there? Have you heard of all the people who have had near death experiences. Was it just their imagination though they were clinically dead? Is there no reality after this life despite so many testimonies? Many believe in "ghost" and demons and most religions believe in an after life. Do you? If so, would not the after life be more of a reality than what we see and touch and feel here? Would not eternity be more of a reality than 40 to 80 years on this planet. Many believe in UFO's. Angels. And all sorts of Gods. Do you believe all religions are crap or unrealistic? Even the indians were more in touch with the spiritual world than many Americans. In fact, I am sure you know most countries are more intact with this sort of thing than Americans.

 

Is reality only what we can see and touch and feel? I would say if you believe this, you are certainly in the minority!

 

The bible makes promises to us for this life and eternity. In the spiritual side of things, those who put their hope in God never die. Making all promises for eternity purposes. In saying that, the promises that do apply to us on this earth are fulfilled. If God is in full control, and the only things that are allowed to happen to you is also in Gods control, would that not also mean that God protects us, and saves us, and blesses us in this life as we are all under His control? Your boss is in control of your work life, and if he sends you out on a hard job, versing an easy job, is he still not in control? When it is time to go home, he will let you know. If he wants you to stay late, you will know this too. And at the end of the week you get paid.

 

Your boss rewards you with your paychecks, and sends you home or to a hospital if and when you are real sick, and will only allow you to do jobs you are capacle of doing. You still have troubles and have to work. You still get sick and still get hurt, but your boss is in control.

 

Trust me when I say that God has protected me, blessed me, and saved me more times than I can count. From my past life with out divine intervention I should have been dead many many times.

 

Now, it's true that some people are more resilient, flexible, optimistic and persistent than others. But it has always struck me as the ultimate irony that a bunch of people who don't believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection like to make faith a matter of "the survival of the fittest". Or as one charismatic pastor I once met admitted, "the church is the only army that shoots its own wounded".

 

First, I hardly think the church is the only army who shoots their wounded. I know their are plenty of hurt and bad apples, but I have been around long enough to know the wounded are helped more by the church than any others.

 

Second, if it was about the survival of the fittest I would have lost the race long ago! Any faith given is given by God, and the Christian life that is lived can only be lived through and by the Holy Spirit. I do however, know what you are saying. If I were to tell you all Christians see things alike, I would be fooling myself. I have many debates with my own brothers (in love of course) as I see things quite different from many, but God has made us all different. It is not about the differences but about the Father we all share.

 

Mind you, I am not suggesting that Christians do not admit to realities such as trials, persecutions and other sorts of difficulties. I am not suggesting that evangelical dogma includes the idea that prayer is a cosmic candy machine that always gets the sorts of responses envisioned. I am not suggesting that hard work, discipline, and patience are not expected. But on the other hand, YOU are suggesting that people who are disappointed in what Christianity delivers vs what it promises haven't worked hard enough, been disciplined enough or been patient enough. Just how hard working, disciplined, and patient are they SUPPOSED to be, hm? Even the Bible says, "hope deferred makes the heart sick".

 

The only extent that I would agree with this is that we "Christians" often have our own ideas what blessings are (ever hear of blessings in disguise) and of what His promises are. We often act as though we have God wrapped around our little finger or have God all figured out. We have to just let God be God and us be His servants. I think the trouble starts when we tell God what we expect, even with out meaning to. I think often we have a false perception of the truth. We get hurt and say, "God, you did not protect me." or become broke and say, "where are my promised blessings?" We have a false idea of what we should be getting. We have a false idea of what the promises of God are. I am sure Job struggled with this just a drop, as we all do.

 

I am not trying to point the finger at anybody, as I have gone through the same sort of things. He never answered me in the way I wanted or expected, NEVER. But I did hear shallow whispers saying "I am still here, don't run away" Maybe I was just lucky.

 

 

Here is the thing that I would like to figure out. You can call me all sorts of names for telling others that they gave up, for whatever reason, but we still have this problem. I kept the faith not of my own doing but because of the whispers of God, or I would have deserted Him long ago. Why is it God speaks to me and not some of you? I ain't nobody special! What is dividing us as it relates to believing or not believing at the times of testing. Did you guys hear nothing at all? Did you read the word, seek counsel? I am ot pointing fingers, but just trying to figure out what made one of us go one way and the other the other way. Does God pick who to talk to? Does not the word of God say the Holy Spirit calls all? I am just at a loss and really trying to figure it out. What made the key difference and walking away and drawing closer?

 

As someone who has witnessed many lives in which Herculean acts of diligence, persistence and patience have NOT been rewarded, but on the contrary have met with utter failure and dissolution, as someone who has been willing to allow for the short term prosperity of the wicked and bide my time to see their ultimate comeuppance, only to see the comeuppance go to the righteous -- let me say to you, HORSESHIT.

 

There is a funny but true saying. It goes "No good deed goes unpunished". I wish I had more answers for you. Do keep in mind in all the bible stories that we both know, often God took favor to the righteous and punished the wicked only after generations have gone by. We see this over and over, the cycle repeating itself. If one hopes to see the ultimate outcome of the wicked in this life time, one will most likely be very disappointed. That is what I am talking about. Our own thoughts on what God should do and in what time frame are always way off the mark from Gods time frame. Solomon writes some great stuff on this. If I had all the answers, I would let you know, friend.

 

The truth is that there is no organizing principle to all this other than a weak self-organizing principle. You win a few, you lose a few. Some people win more than they lose, some lose more than they win. It's that simple, and the sooner you accept it, the more at peace you will be. The more you resist it, the more you will either be discouraged and despondent on the one hand, or an arrogant ass on the other. Life is too short for either.

 

On terms of wealth and health, I agree with the exception of believing that God is in control. Growing up, and even now, I know about being poor and sick. If I were to tell you the biggest reason I believe in Jesus is based on my own inner peace, I would not be lying. I look back at how I was and what God brought me through and it scares me. Every time I ever tempted to leave God, as I did for years and years, I was always left with an empty hole, that nothing else could feel. Call it hollow, call it shallow, call it what you will, but I never want to feel incomplete, and unsure of the end of life (or this life) again.

[the stranger]

On a scale of 1 to 100 as the highest for depth of thought, I give it a 3. I was hoping for some actual meat. I got wood chips instead.

 

Antlerman, wood chips make playgrounds safe! LOL I will give you some steak and potatoes real soon.

 

And here's the bit they don't want to hear. I could say yes I prayed that, and I could answer that God was in fact revealed. It's just that it meant I had to put away childish ideas such as our friend espouses in order to see what is there.

 

Other than maps, sometimes I get lost kind of easy. Can you explain this, as to what you are saying a little more?

 

That's right Hans. We are all too familiar with the reason behind these questions christians ask. It's not asked innocently, and never with an ear that is ready to listen to the response. In their minds are thoughts like: "If you were a "True ChristianTM", you would have been serious and honest with God. You would have stayed with Him no matter what happened in your life. You rejected Him because you rebelled against Him and thought your way was better. Now you are free to be your selfish and evil self."

 

I know that these are natural Christian thoughts. I wish I could tell you that you are wrong. One of the reasons I am here is to find out what I am missing. (the missing link to understanding)

 

I've noticed when abroad, that christians in muslim, hindu, or buddhist influenced countries constantly try to counter these religions

 

I do not dispute this fact, but is it not great that we do not behead those who do not believe? LOL One of those religions are quite well known for this.

 

It makes it easier to believe most people deserve hell, while believers selfishly grab that "free" ticket to Zombieland.

 

Let me ask just one simple question. Do you feel that you deserve to go to heaven? If so, on what grounds? Does your good out weigh your bad, and who can truly judge this? And even if it did, could you possibly stand up before a Holy God? I couldn't.

 

Ouroboris, I will get to the DNA and age of the earth thing shortly.

 

I can't just decide that Santa Claus has a shop at the north pole.

 

Then you just might not be getting any Christmas presents this year! LOL

 

I expect a miracle.

 

My life is actually great now. My family is doing fine. Except there is just one thing that would really, totally convince me that God is real. Just one thing. If God exists, he would know what it is. You pray for a miracle. If it happens, I promise you, I will believe. Until then, your God is unproven.

 

I am glad that your family and you are doing good.

 

I will pray, Ouroboris, harder than I have ever prayed before. Often though, it is not the waters parting and the dead being raised to life that God uses, but He can and does, thus I will pray for that same thing. If God talks to me in any way about this matter, you will be the first to know.

 

Yeah. I just don't get it. Are they hoping that cooked spaghetti works well as wallpaper? They seem to throw a lot of it to see if sticks.

 

OH, I did not realize that wasn't the wallpaper. I guess I better clean up, LOL

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Because of time restraints, I am going to play this out a bit different. Deva, I will respond. I just have not had the time as of yet. You will be next on the responses list.

 

Next up, some meat, then some more responses. I truly wish I had time for more right now.

 

PS Thank you Antlerman for the explanation on your avatar. Quitr interesting, though probably not Adam. (Atleast I hope not) LOL

[Ouroboros]

PS Thank you Antlerman for the explanation on your avatar. Quitr interesting, though probably not Adam. (Atleast I hope not) LOL

Uh-uh. Don't tell me it's Eve!

 

 

[the stranger]

First, not all scientist believe this way, as this is a list of some of the popular ones who do not.

 

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

 

* Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry

* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist

* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics

* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist

* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist

* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist

* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist

* Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist

* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics

* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist

* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology

* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology

* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology

* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry

* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer

* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics

* Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology

* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology

* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics

* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics

* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering

* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering

* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist

* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education

* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering

* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist

* Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist

* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM

* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist

* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist

* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics

* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering

* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist

* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging

* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist

* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany

* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics

* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry

* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education

* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience

* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div

* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist

* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research

* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research

* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist

* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist

* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics

* Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology

* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy

* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology

* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry

* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology

* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science

* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research

* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist

* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist

* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist

* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon

* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry

* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History

* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist

* Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV

* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist

* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher

* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics

* Dr. John Hartnett, Physics

* Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)

* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist

* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist

* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer

* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy

* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist

* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy

* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service

* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist

* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science

* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry

* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany

* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist

* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology

* Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics

* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy

* George T. Javor, Biochemistry

* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology

* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology

* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon

* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist

* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology

* Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering

* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics

* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist

* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology

* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry

* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry

* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry

* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science

* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry

* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering

* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science

* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering

* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist

* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology

* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology

* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry

* Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology

* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics

* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology

* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist

* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist

* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist

* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:

* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist

* Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry

* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher

* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist

* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist

* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics

* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist

* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist

* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist

* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist

* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography

* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician

* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator

* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist

* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist

* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist

* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist

* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist

* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology

* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering

* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering

* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher

* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher

* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics

* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology

* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner

* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist

* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)

* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon

* Prof. Richard Porter

* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics

* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist

* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.

* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics

* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology

* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist

* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology

* Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry

* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:

* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator

* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist

* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry

* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science

* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics

* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology

* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer

* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist

* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist

* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist

* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science

* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology

* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education

* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer

* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry

* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics

* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering

* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics

* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics

* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry

* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:

* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science

* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist

* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist

* Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering

* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon

* Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering

* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer

* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist

* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)

* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics

* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist

* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery

* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist

* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist

* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)

* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics

* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering

* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics

* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology

* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist

* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

 

My link

 

 

Click on the link to see many more famous scientist that believed in creation through out the ages. It is believed that 80% are old age and 20% new.

 

In looking at more research, it is quite clear that the testing used is questionable at best.

 

Antlerman, you are right, I do not know science. I failed two times in a row. But friend, I do know how to read. What I am finding is that from the early stages of the belief of the "old earth" there has been guesses as to 75,000 to the now 4.5 billion years old mark. Beyond this, no one agrees with each other. Not just it changes in time through more research, but that there are billions of years of differences among the guesses.

 

It has been proven that the testing used is not reliable even for rocks of know age, let alone the rest.

 

My link

 

What is never taken into consideration it seems as how fast rock formations can happen. According to the way rock ages are tested, if correct, the flood could of never happened.

 

 

 

WOW, there is so so much great information out here. It is not simple to understand or to be able to take it all in at one time.

 

I am going to read and respond to the earlier postings, and hopefully in that I will get some idea as to what precise direction to take my research. It is to vast of an area of research just to spit it all out. Breaking it down is a must. I have much to learn in this area, so it should be very fun. I am glad the internet is out here or I would have little to debate with ya all in this regard.

 

God bless and I will hopefully be back a little later tonight to make full responses and a hope to get an idea of exactly where to take this study.

[Antlerman]

First, not all scientist believe this way, as this is a list of some of the popular ones who do not.

 

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

My link

I'm well familiar with this list. It is disingenous with a large percentage of the names on it, listing half-truth in a manner that looks like these people support the Answers in Genesis nut cases. In essence, it is dishonest. But even so, even if these were all AiG clones, that's how many names out of the thousands and thousands who say otherwise, who solidly stand by the hard evidence we have? 20, versus 20,000. Hmmmmmm.....

 

This has all been debunked 10,000 times over, and again I am not going to expend the powers of my mind on this which has been thoughoughly debunked before me. I will let others who are interested in directing you to the responses. I on the other hand am planning to hold your feet to the fire on the questions that are far more critical than whether the AiG group are a bunch of charlatans.

 

To be honest, I am sensing you steering this towards get wrapped up in arguing on this simpler level, than the more frightening question of why you feel it is necessary to make science wrong in order for you to deal with a potential crisis of faith? If you had real faith, you would be willing to explore all information in the interest of knowing God, rather than this which I see you doing - attempting to deny any challenges to your ideas. That's what I'm expecting in discussion with you. Others can offer from their knowledge the rebuttals of all this other stuff you're presenting which has be dealt with thousands of times before. None of us are unaware of any of this.

 

For my part, go familiarize yourself with the solid, respectable responses to these Science Deniers that are well laid out here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

 

In looking at more research, it is quite clear that the testing used is questionable at best.

Why are you so hopeful that that is the case? Weak faith?

 

Antlerman, you are right, I do not know science. I failed two times in a row. But friend, I do know how to read. What I am finding is that from the early stages of the belief of the "old earth" there has been guesses as to 75,000 to the now 4.5 billion years old mark. Beyond this, no one agrees with each other. Not just it changes in time through more research, but that there are billions of years of differences among the guesses.

Nonsense. Why is this so important for you to have your understanding of Genesis match your religious traditions? Isn't it possible those can be wrong? I mean what's more important, your beliefs, or God? Secondly, do you recognize any difference between the two?

 

It has been proven that the testing used is not reliable even for rocks of know age, let alone the rest.

Nonsense. Other's will address this for you. Or just go read the link I provided.

 

What is never taken into consideration it seems as how fast rock formations can happen. According to the way rock ages are tested, if correct, the flood could of never happened.

Again, nonsense. Go read the link I provided - for one of many.

 

WOW, there is so so much great information out here. It is not simple to understand or to be able to take it all in at one time.

Take however much effort you've just expended and multiply that by a factor of 20,000 times at least for me, then an additional 200,000,000 or so combined for everyone else of us here. We have never taken any of this lightly, or leapt nearly so quickly to denial in order to preserve a cherished, pet belief - like the ridiculously young age of the earth that the AiG folks are incredibly desperate to believe.

 

One thing you'll have a hard time with with me, is that I'm not denying God in my acceptance of the myriad and multiple confirmations of science to these things, not just from one group of scientisits in one field, but virtually every single field, all independent of each other! I am not motivated in accepting this by wishing to deny God. In fact, I believe in God. It's just not some belief that denies reality in order to support outdated ideas. You are facing a crisis of faith it seems. Deny truth, you deny God at the same time. And to answer your earlier question, sometimes to find God, you have to be saved from the religion that claims to know it.

 

Now you consider that in your studies.

 

I am going to read and respond to the earlier postings, and hopefully in that I will get some idea as to what precise direction to take my research.

Go read the link to talk origins I offered for a real education. But then let your focus be about the crisis of your faith you seem to be confronted with that leads you to run to the Evolution Deniers to tell you everything is just as it ever was.

 

It is to vast of an area of research just to spit it all out. Breaking it down is a must. I have much to learn in this area, so it should be very fun. I am glad the internet is out here or I would have little to debate with ya all in this regard.

Other's will happily challenge these twits from AiG for you, as I'm not going to expend my energies on what I've covered a thousand times before. But I'll be sure to keep you on tap with the real question for you about why your faith needs to bury its head in the sand, and not accept mountains of evidence, or even need to question it at all for that matter, and not let you distract yourself arguing this AiG nut versus real scientists. The real question is far deeper than even that, as important as it is to be grounded in facts.

 

God bless and I will hopefully be back a little later tonight to make full responses and a hope to get an idea of exactly where to take this study.

Well, now you know.

[Ouroboros]

First, not all scientist believe this way, as this is a list of some of the popular ones who do not.

 

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

...

Project Steve: http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

[Ouroboros]

Antlerman, you are right, I do not know science. I failed two times in a row. But friend, I do know how to read. What I am finding is that from the early stages of the belief of the "old earth" there has been guesses as to 75,000 to the now 4.5 billion years old mark. Beyond this, no one agrees with each other. Not just it changes in time through more research, but that there are billions of years of differences among the guesses.

 

It has been proven that the testing used is not reliable even for rocks of know age, let alone the rest.

 

My link

Read the first footnote on the page: "Not all young-earth creationists agree on this age. Some believe that there may be small gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, and put the maximum age of the earth at about 10,000—12,000 years."

 

So, if I understand that argument right, because scientists (before radiometric dating was invented) couldn't agree on their guesses of the age of the planet (because they didn't have radiometric dating) it must be it is all wrong.

 

But if creationists disagree on the age of Earth, then it is still true?

 

Why the double standard?

 

(A list of counter argument links to Answer in Genesis: http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/12/counter-creationism-resources.html)

[Antlerman]

First, not all scientist believe this way, as this is a list of some of the popular ones who do not.

 

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

...

Project Steve: http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

This made me think of this from some years back that I have always loved so much. A small except from the Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution:

 

What would the creationist paradigm have done? No telling. Perhaps nothing, because observing three wheat species specially created to feed humans would not have generated any questions that needed answering. No predictions are made, so there is no reason or direction for seeking further knowledge.

This demonstrates the

scientific uselessness

of creationism. While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation.

Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology

. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life.

In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.

 

Is it fair or good science education to teach about an unsuccessful, scientifically useless explanation just because it pleases people with a particular religious belief? Is it unfair to ignore scientifically useless explanations, particularly if they have played no role in the development of modern scientific concepts? Science education is about teaching valid concepts and those that led to the development of new explanations.

 

[Emphasis mine]. Boy, that really says it all for me! What the hell has the AiG group done to advance any understanding anywhere outside their stroking their pet beliefs to tell themselves as in the Talking Heads song, "Same as it ever was, same as it ever was". Nothing. No advances. No value add to the world. Nothing.

 

Everyone should read that whole statement I linked to and bookmark it for themselves. "Scientific uselessness". Very well stated.

[the stranger]

Dear Deva

 

It is honestly hard to believe that any person of even average intelligence and education would take the Adam and Eve story as anything but a metaphor. Are you serious? You really think there was a time when animals did not eat other animals? Death came as a result of sin when during the course of roughly a billion years of the history of life on earth there has been nothing but evidence of death? Fossils? It it lives, it must die. That is a fact and has always been a fact.

 

You believe in "science" though it was not long ago they believed the earth was flat. I believe the word of God that has stood the test of time. If one takes the bible as fact, the statements I made are true, and if not, then what we are left with is an ever changing set of believes.

 

Quote us chapter and verse where God give man "free will". Those words "free will" do not appear in Genesis. In fact, if you take the Bible as a whole, there are many passages that state that God specifically does interfere with our decision making process. Any interference by a supreme being would no longer be our own will, much less "free will". Did the pharaoh of Egypt have free will when God hardened his heart?

 

I could hunt the bible down for the exact words and maybe even come to the same conclusion, but I believe that Ezekiel 18 sums things up well. It is true that God can and sometimes does play a role in the hardening of hearts if one takes it to mean as it reads in the KJV. However, even with this, read how many times He made that choice, and not God. He made the choice much more frequently. If I remember correctly, It is stated that God hardened Pharaoh's heart three times only. Another way one could understand this is if we reject God, then one could say that God is the cause of our hardening of heart. In other words, we make the choice, but we make that choice because of God, thus it could be understood that God (or because of God) their hearts were hardened.

 

Nonsense. Where did sin come from? How is it that it could suddenly appear in one of God's perfect creations? Answer - God is responsible for that as for everything else. Yet you would let him off the hook with this "God cannot..." Meaning God is not a perfect being, but weak and ineffectual.

 

Sin was not a creation. Sin was the result of wrong selfish decisions in the freedom of free will. You can deny free will exist, but are you not using it right now?

 

I submit that it IS God's fault as presented. Since he knew from the beginning how things would work out. What a colossal failure of a plan since most of the human race that ever existed is in hell. Fortunately for myself, I don't beleive anything in the above paragraph is true.

 

I am not willing to make the call what percentage is or will be in hell. I and God would prefer every one went to heaven to be with Him. It is true that God knows the beginning to the end and He also knows every decision that everyone will make. Does this hold God accountable? You could say, "why did not God create everyone to go to heaven?" He did. If only they would listen to that small still voice. As I stated, hell was never meant for humans. You may know that your neighbors dog will sooner or later bite someone, but is it your fault when that happens?

 

Typical Christian persecution complex. You are also proud of it.

 

Are you denying Christians are being killed for their faith across the world and persicuted by some Governments? Do you believe this is a myth?

 

So dying painfully in various ways is "God's Plan." I have seen Christians do so. No thanks, don't want that plan. Fix me up with something else. You are in no way protected, you live and die like everyone else.

 

How many stories have you heard where a person says "I should have been dead, It must have been an act of God" though they never confess Christianity? This thing you call chance seems to be quite something in of what and when it chooses to strike and to not strike. To each his own, but I believe God does have it all in His hands. I know many Christians suffer painful deaths. We suffer like anyone else in this sinful body. Is it Gods fault we brought death and sin to ourselves? Besides, God has reason for everything, even if we do not see it in this life time.

 

In this body, we all live and die, but in the spirit, we also live or die, but that choice is ours to make. If this life was what it was all about, then maybe it would all be in vain.

 

That is what you are here for. You want to stir things up and get a lot of attention for yourself.

 

You can believe what you want, but actually I prefer isolation most. Most of the prevois sites I was on had very few people on them. At the same time however, this site just, well, I could not leave it alone. I am still trying to understand.

[the stranger]

Desert Bob, thank you for your thoughtful and well thought post.

 

That is a fair question. It is a common human impulse to want control (not necessarily for ourselves -- in the case of Christians it would be to know that someone trustworthy is in control) and to "leave nothing to chance" is considered to be due diligence.

 

Christian conversion testimonies often center around the idea that the testifier's life was rudderless and purposeless and that god gave them purpose (another way of saying that the problem was life being random, without reason or purpose, hence the solution). Or that they felt "lost" and god "found" them -- another way of saying they were alone and now belong to something larger than themselves, which at bottom, is another way of saying they've found meaning.

 

The human condition, for virtually everyone, includes a search for meaning and purpose. The question is, where does one find it? Is it "out there" someplace, prefabricated and given and awaiting discovery? Is it at least in general terms the same for everyone? Or is it something one makes for oneself -- is it unique to each individual?

 

Could it be that the central task of human sentience is to make meaning and purpose for oneself? Is it even possible?

 

Most of this part I agree with, and cannot not and have no reason to debate it. The last part, though? Just speaking for myself, I do not have what it takes in me apart from Christ to live the life I do. ust as you stated, I felt I had no purpose, and thus certainly had no real reason or desire to change. Of myself, there was no desire to change, only to not get killed!

 

Many possible answers exist apart from Christianity. You seem to suggest that Nihlism or some form of existential despair is the only alternative. But there are others. There are vibrant, optimistic, ethical people outside of Christianity. Many within the faith operate under the illusion that people of faith have a monopoly on these things. I'd urge you to look at the superb role models that exist in the world who do not profess faith. And even among those who do -- how many of them are in one of the vastly different faith traditions from yours or manage to talk about their ideals without bringing their particular beliefs into it?

 

I use to work with an atheist that was always so darn happy and giggly, I loved that guy. Had a family and all the usual. I don't have an end to that story. Some people just seem by nature to be happier than others. I watch that guy on the food channel, going all over the world and eating with different cultures and having lots of stories to share. By culture many seem generally more happy and content. Probably similar to the way things were in the US some time ago. In saying that, we still all make decisions that effect every one around us, and often the wrong ones. I will say this however, no matter how you view Christianity, the stories of people who came to Christ generally always has some of the same similarities. Lost, empty, nothing to go on. These stories are always the same, many times coming from other religions. I however, can only state with fact the accounts of my own life.

 

One thing I myself cannot do is talk about my views with out bringing Jesus into it. He is my life, my everything, and I cannot be separate from Him.

 

Life is full of paradox. One of the great paradoxes, I think, is that when you let go of all your "ought to's" and just let life be what it is (or, at least, what we can know with any certainty about it), it can become a beautiful thing. If we are mortal, rather than immortal, then life becomes all the more precious, our time and energies all the more focused. If our loved ones can be taken from us at any time, for any reason or for no reason, then we will be much less likely to take them for granted. If there is not an anthropomorphic, omnibenevolent paternal sky god watching over us, we will be all the more responsible and careful and look out all the more for each other. If there is no universal right or wrong, we will take all the more care to do well in the context of each situation we find ourselves in and less likely to fear "the other" -- more likely to respect them and have compassion on them. Maybe, even, more likely to see our unity with them and with all that is.

 

When I let go of all my ough to's it was a scary thing. Not trying to be too personal here but from some of my own child hood past I believe it has much effected some of my lustful and other desires. To do as I please (or what my flesh wants) as I have partly done in the past, I just hurt all around me and cause pain that will never completely go away. By others in my family making this same call, I have been stuch with responsibilities for, well, all of my life thus far. It is all in Gods hands, but our own decisions have great impacts on the future of others.

 

And the whole mortal versing immortal thing, if this life is all we have, why not go all out, hurt every one else, and enjoy our own lives? Why take responsibility for anything? If we are not to be held responsible for any decisions we make, why care what ever we do or who we hurt?

 

I know your thinking, because we still care and want to do the right thing. I don't doubt this, but if there is nothing after this life, why be faithful to your wife, why spend time with your kids, and why put up with the stress of a family when the stress gets too much? My point is, if I did not have an eternity view, I believe I would be much much more reckless in my decisions.

 

Your last part of the post, you must be the exception, friend. I believe I would care less, and be much more angery knowing that anything at any time can be taken away from me and I can do nothing about it. In saying that, I am glad that you are different.

 

One of the great fallacies of Christianity is that it has a corner on the market when it comes to meaning, purpose, and morality, and that without it, society would descend into primal chaos. One of the great delights of my deconversion was the realization that the sky did not fall, I did not suddenly succumb to an urge to become a moral degenerate, that my ethics and morality were not only intact, but strengthened, because, guess what? I was now doing the right things out of love, without a patina of fear sprinkled over it -- fear of displeasing god. Why do the right things for the wrong reasons -- because I should, or must, or ought to, rather than because I WANT to? Yes, I have a shadow, as do you and as does everyone -- but I also am a good person, capable of love, and that love is within me, I am not a mere reflector of some external source of love.

 

I can respect that. Part of the trouble with my early Christianity was feeling the need to be perfect or burn. Guess what? I never became perfect. If we serve God out of fear, it will never ever work. I believe you in everything you are telling me, but I am afraid (and in fact know for sure) that my outcome would not be the same.

 

Although I am honest enough to admit there are things about my life and about life in general that don't please me -- and I've sometimes discussed them in this space -- I had these issues when I was a Christian and being a Christian didn't help them, only numbed them and wounded me with broken promises. I am now obliged to deal with them and to deal in reality, and at times that's hard. But I am making progress -- something I couldn't say was true while I was in the faith.

 

I can relate. Unfortuntly we are taught to count our sins and weep. We all struggle, Christian and none. I found in my personel relationship with Jesus that it was a matter of a few things. First, I had to put my feet on stable ground. Second, I had to focus on my victories instead of my downfalls. Thirdly, I had to understand that many of these battles were going to be for life.

 

I believe we can both relate to these truths.

 

This has been a pleasant conversation. Thank you.

[Dagan]

You're not here to understand. You're here to stroke your own ego and feed your own superiority complex.

 

There is no evidence of God. None. Nada. Nothing. You bring nothing new to the table. Bring us photographic evidence or video of someone coming back from the dead, or having a limb regrown. And if you can do this, bring convincing, independently verified evidence of a real miracle, I will eat my snow boots. And James Randi will give you $1 million.

 

"Greater than these will you do in my name," Jesus said, didn't he? Shouldn't be that hard. Unless Jesus was just making it up.

 

And please leave all circular arguments from the bible at the door. We've all read it, probably more times than you. So if you really want to understand, listen to people's stories and quit trying to tell us all how we're wrong.

[Ouroboros]

That is a very good point.

 

Creation science is an oxymoron. There's no science to work on when it comes to discussion about miracles.

 

It's like having some Virgin Birth Science. If it happened, it's too late to do anything or research anything. Nothing is there to work on.

 

Creation science can't prove God created something in the past. What is left to prove it? Nothing. And seriously, no scientists, archeologist, geologist, or anyone else have found anything that proves it.

 

So what is Creation Science? It's a method of complaining and attacking other sciences the Christians don't agree with. That's all what it is. A whiny club.

[the stranger]

Give me sometime to check out the websites that you both have supplied. I know my knowledge is that of a 1st grader in this field with relating to you guys. I will study both more on my side AND on your side.

 

Antlerman, you said you believe in God, but also science. Just a curiosity question for you, who is God to you and what does He mean to you.

 

Ouroborus, It is a double standard to a small degree, but based on 10,000 years versing 6,000 when compared to 75,000 years versing 6 billion years seems like a bit more of a stretch. Small differences in calcalations are one thing, but these numbers are huge.

 

Antlerman, I was kind of going to take the approach you described. Because of you reading my mind, I will try to open my mind a little more. (No more mind reading)

 

My next response may be a bit delayed as I would rather have something real to talk about after I have gained a bit more knowledge.

 

In the mean time, I will address your other questions shortly, Antlerman, but right now my brain feels a little fried LOL.

[Ouroboros]

Ouroborus, It is a double standard to a small degree, but based on 10,000 years versing 6,000 when compared to 75,000 years versing 6 billion years seems like a bit more of a stretch. Small differences in calcalations are one thing, but these numbers are huge.

Let's see, when was the 75,000 years estimated done and with what kind of scientific knowledge?

 

And when was the billions of years estimate done and with what kind of methods?

 

You have to look at those things to understand. Your criticism is unfounded, but you won't understand why unless you try to figure out more things, like when, who, and how.

 

I will try to give a better answer tomorrow. Hopefully I will have a calmer house. Right now, I'm getting interrupted every two seconds.

 

--edit--

 

It's a bit calmer now.

 

So, here's a question, why is the Creationist date now set to 10,000 years? It's not Biblical. The date according to the Bible is 4000 years BC, so what changed the mind of all the "scientific" Creationists to think it's 10,000 years now?

 

And a second question is, why is Bodie Hodge some kind of guru and specialist in geology, paleontology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy? He's a friggin' mechanical engineer. Don't take Bodie's word as the truth.

 

So what about the 75,000 years compared to 4.5 billion years?

 

Comte de Buffon estimated the age of Earth to be 75,000 years old, in the 18th century, 200 years ago. He didn't know about isotopes. He didn't know about radiation. He didn't have the equipment we have today. He didn't know about relativity, quantum mechanics, and many other things. He didn't even know there are billions of galaxies out there in space. No one knew there were more than one galaxy. Everyone thought there were only one, ours. So do we know more now than they did then? Yes. We know more. We have more facts, tools, and technologies at hand to help us in science.

 

So where does this 4.5 billion years come from? From several different methods of dating, but foremost from radiometric dating which didn't exist before first half of 20th century. Radiometric dating started to be used in the 40s or 50s. Only 60-70 years ago. Before that, we had no good way of dating rocks.

 

So why has it changed so much? Because we have learned more about how things work in nature (through science). The better tools and knowledge we get, the more exact we know the age of Earth and the Universe.

 

But back to the Bible. If the Bible claims the Earth is only 6,000 years old, why do Creationists deny the Bible by claiming it's 10,000 years old? I really want to know. If the Bible must be obeyed in every detail, then why not in this case? If if this case is okay to disagree with the Bible on, then what is the issue of denying what science proves? It's yet another example of double standard.

 

Why don't you read Wiki's page about dating Earth instead? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

 

And here's a very good video explaining different kinds of dating:

[LFAuthenticity]

1. "Now I know the problem! LOL Just kidding. I am proud of you. I never had the chance (or brains) to go further than my high school education. I hope it pays off for you, LFA."

 

 

2. "This brings us to another fun question, just like Pilot asked, "What is truth?". Is there such a thing as truth? If so, is it anybodies truth? Did Hitler have truth? I reason that because of these things there has to reside a TRUTH far beyond ourselves, yet somehow, in ourselves." (Gen. created in the image of God)

 

3."LFA, can there be more than one truth? Whatever works? I knew of men justifying rape of their own sons! It is impossible to have more than one truth, because that would make all truths nothing more than ones thoughts. Anything and everything goes because there is no absalute.

It is not a matter of the same truth created for me is the same as the truth created for you. It is a matter of the one and only truth, created for all. What we do with it is up to us!"

 

1. I didn't mention education to play the I'm smarter than you game, I was just trying to give a picture of one of the many reasons I think the way I do. To be honest with you I am a concerned that someone with your thinking or train of thought DOES think that my secular education IS a problem and that your LOL's and "Just kidding's" are passive aggressive.

 

2. Why does there HAVE to be a truth beyond humanity? You are talking about an absolute or ultimate truth versus subjective truths, all of which I don't think could be discounted as truths in so far as they are truths to the person who believes them. So you hit the nail on the head, for me your truth is nothing more than your thoughts.

 

3.If you do know men who rape their sons I hope you notified the authorities.

 

---

Quotuing isn't working for me and it is driving me nuts.

[Ouroboros]

Quotuing isn't working for me and it is driving me nuts.

Click on reply, then edit the post.

[★ Citsonga ★]

First, not all scientist believe this way, as this is a list of some of the popular ones who do not.

 

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

My link

I'm well familiar with this list. It is disingenous with a large percentage of the names on it, listing half-truth in a manner that looks like these people support the Answers in Genesis nut cases. In essence, it is dishonest. But even so, even if these were all AiG clones, that's how many names out of the thousands and thousands who say otherwise, who solidly stand by the hard evidence we have? 20, versus 20,000. Hmmmmmm.....

 

It's also interesting to note that the list includes dentists and mathematicians, as if those fields have any bearing on the issue. It only goes to show that they were not very selective in what they chose to put on the list, they just wanted as many names as possible in order to make it look impressive. And how many of the others listed have real, genuine degrees instead of fake creationist degrees?

[Deva]

You believe in "science" though it was not long ago they believed the earth was flat. I believe the word of God that has stood the test of time. If one takes the bible as fact, the statements I made are true, and if not, then what we are left with is an ever changing set of believes.

 

I see no reason not to believe in the established findings of science - they have brought many accomplishments to the human race. It is ever changing - that's true, as more discoveries are being made. I don't believe for one second that accepting the findings of science means a person cannot also have a spiritual life. You find this mutually exclusive because you believe the Bible litreally. I hope you read Antlerman's and Ourobouros's posts on the science subject. They have more patience than I do.

 

I think free will is an illusion. Our brains take in only a small amount of information and it is subject to conditioning. I think that it cannot be considered completely free.

 

You can deny free will exist, but are you not using it right now?

 

I would say no.

 

I am not willing to make the call what percentage is or will be in hell. I and God would prefer every one went to heaven to be with Him. It is true that God knows the beginning to the end and He also knows every decision that everyone will make. Does this hold God accountable? You could say, "why did not God create everyone to go to heaven?" He did. If only they would listen to that small still voice. As I stated, hell was never meant for humans. You may know that your neighbors dog will sooner or later bite someone, but is it your fault when that happens?

 

Listening to a small still voice, or having to believe in what the Bible says? These are not the same things. In any event, these are requirements so therefore salvation is not and cannot be free and God requires belief and worship. The neighbor and the dog example do not jibe. I did not create the dog. I did not set up the scenario.

 

Are you denying Christians are being killed for their faith across the world and persicuted by some Governments? Do you believe this is a myth?

 

I can't say it doesn't happen somewhere on the earth, but I maintain Christians are proud of this and it is another example of the elevation of suffering they are so fond of. In the U.S. where they far outnumber any other religion, they feel relentless persecution because they can't have public prayer in school.

 

Is it Gods fault we brought death and sin to ourselves? Besides, God has reason for everything, even if we do not see it in this life time.

 

For me, yes, God exists, but I don't believe in the kind of God depicted in the Bible. There is in absolute reality where there is no death and there is certainly no sin. I think the early Catholic church took almost all the good parts out of the Bible and out of the organization when Christianity was institutionalized. I am glad that I am beyond thinking about "fault", and beating up on myself because I am a "sinner." As for the next life, no one really knows, but I favor the theory of reincarnation.

 

I am still trying to understand.

 

I hope that is true. We will see.

[DesertBob]

Why is it God speaks to me and not some of you? I ain't nobody special! What is dividing us as it relates to believing or not believing at the times of testing. Did you guys hear nothing at all? Did you read the word, seek counsel? I am not pointing fingers, but just trying to figure out what made one of us go one way and the other the other way. Does God pick who to talk to? Does not the word of God say the Holy Spirit calls all? I am just at a loss and really trying to figure it out. What made the key difference and walking away and drawing closer?

This is a question that has occupied theologians for at least since the days of Luther and Calvin. You and I are not going to settle the endless debates about free will vs predestination -- not, that is, unless you are willing to accept an answer that doesn't agree with orthodoxy. The debate exists only because it's impossible to reconcile the conflicting statements in scripture that you're citing and it's only in rejecting the dogma that the tension goes away.

 

If the Bible makes conflicting or illogical statements then it's either evidence of some ineffable divine paradox that we won't understand in this life, or, ahem, it's evidence that the Bible is illogical.

 

I think most here would agree with me that ultimately the "key difference" is right there -- we're willing to follow evidence where it leads us, and you aren't. The reason you aren't willing to follow evidence where it leads you, by your own confession, is because you live in terror of your shadow overwhelming you, were you to abandon the faith structures that support you. I would not counsel you to leave the faith without finding alternative ways of coping with these self control and self discipline issues you seem to be alluding to -- what you would no doubt think of as your "besetting sins". Unlike some here, I would not want to deprive the world of religion all at once because the world as a whole probably isn't ready for that. It is evolving slowly towards it, but too many people simply can't function on their own.

 

I'm not saying this is weak and defective. It just is what it is. My oldest brother for example, as a youth (late 1950s) was given to strong drink and coming home and upchucking on the steps and passing out and the like. His need for external guidance and group belonging was so strong that he accepted the influence of his Navy drinking buddies, his personal posse of "lost boys". When he connected with the church and "found Jesus" he connected with a group that gave him structure and rationale and encouragement and support for living more responsibly. The practical outcome was positive in the sense that he was able to be gainfully employed, marry a good woman, function well in society and end his self destructive behaviors. It was neutral in the sense that the anesthetization of the bottle was replaced with the anesthetization of religious belief and ritual, and he never really expanded his awareness. What a shock it was to him, to be rapidly consumed by bone cancer and to die so horrifically. I will never forget the look of hurt on his face -- the look of a puppy dog suddenly viciously kicked by its master. What did I do wrong, he wondered. This is the problem with appeasing a non-existent paternalistic sky-god. Sooner or later the rationalizations for that god's silence and unreliability run out.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, you said you believe in God, but also science. Just a curiosity question for you, who is God to you and what does He mean to you.

The first thing to clarify I've never said I "believe" in science. I accept science as a valid tool of information and knowledge. Science for me is not some belief system. This does not mean for others it can't be held religiously, just like some political system can become a religion for them as well, and those would be valid challenges to make to those individuals. But for me, science is a valid tool of knowledge which I respect and embrace, as well as other tools of knowledge I respect and embrace.

 

As for as "who is God to you and what does He mean to you", that's two questions: Who or what is God to me; What does it (or He as you put it) mean to me.

 

First one: What is God to me. That can't be answered simply without unraveling understandings first and then opening them into a different light. This will sound vague and nebulous I'm sure, but to my mind it is not. It is absolute clarity, of mind, heart, matter. The singular All, the One. It is timeless, infinite, Now. It is the "God" behind the masks of God. The transcendent formless infinite. Of course those are just descriptions, not definitions, and it is beyond all descriptions and definitions.

 

Now as to what it "means" to me, it's far less about suggested meaning to me (as that would suggest it as some symbolic metaphysic which serves as inspiration as it is about active presence of being. It is the present potential in all which is matter of pulling back the curtain so to speak to reveal, and then subsequently to grow into within fuller realization. What it "means" is really better stated as what is "Realized". It's not about imparted meaning, but direct knowledge of a fullness within and without.

 

Now, I can easily deconstruct the elements of your religious views, and any religious views for that matter to show that in its esoteric elements (it's internal, experiential pursuits) it is towards this Goal, and that the forms and representations it takes are always culturally and historically shaped. And secondly, I can show that the exoteric elements of these religions (the external forms, rituals, doctrines, practices), are largely adhered to as substitutes to the escoteric elements, wherein for the masses it is about defining their experience of God as the experience of their religion - exoterically.

 

It is this exoteric experience of their religion as God that leads to the pathologies of war against other's gods. The substitute God is held to tenaciously at the end of a sword, grasping at an illusion of reality and clinging to it out of fear. There is no inner transformation of spirit, as in that, hate does not exist, and God transcends all forms and practices.

 

Within the esoteric elements, there is commonality throughout the world in all ages. God behind God. The infinite All. Love, Light, Truth, in Infinite Power.

 

As I said, this would be something that will leave you a bit challenged, or maybe not which would be a pleasant surprise.

 

Antlerman, I was kind of going to take the approach you described. Because of you reading my mind, I will try to open my mind a little more. (No more mind reading)

You're actually pretty easy to read.

 

My next response may be a bit delayed as I would rather have something real to talk about after I have gained a bit more knowledge.

I suggest the best approach is to not just run to find those who will try to "debunk" views letting them do your thinking for you, but that you explore the possibilities of what is being offered and suggested from others points of view and consider them and discuss your considerations, either for or against, and your reasons for it. You will be amazed at how much more depth and meaningful discussion happens for yourself.

 

I'm challenging a little as I'd like to see what you might find for yourself here. I'm an opponent of ignorance and misinformation, but not of you. And BTW, since you seemed curious about my beliefs about "God", I would answer in a word that what I was seeking to find within the Christian system, that beginning of understanding and fulfillment, is what I am finding now beyond it. That's for me, and for some, they still need those structures. My problem was God for me was already beyond those structures, and it was a matter of finding understandings that allowed it to speak to my rational and spiritual mind in ways that supported and not violated. So when you drag out the AiG folks, that is precisely the sort of violation of mind that violated spirit. You can't hold Truth and denial at the same time.

[DesertBob]

...if there is nothing after this life, why be faithful to your wife, why spend time with your kids, and why put up with the stress of a family when the stress gets too much? My point is, if I did not have an eternity view, I believe I would be much much more reckless in my decisions.

In your personal effort vs reward calculation, you are displacing reward into a hoped-for afterlife because you see no way to balance the equation in this one. This is a philosophy of despair if ever I've seen one.

 

If a resource is finite -- time in this case -- there are two possible responses. If you believe that something meaningful can be done with that time then you will not waste it, you'll go for it. If you believe that what's important will take more than your allotted time, then sure, what's the point. Unless you can mentally extend your life out into eternity. Alas, it's a false hope.

 

And it's actually a false need. All you really need is the present. You always have that.

Your last part of the post, you must be the exception, friend. I believe I would care less, and be much more angry knowing that anything at any time can be taken away from me and I can do nothing about it. In saying that, I am glad that you are different.

No, I'm not an exception at all. Many are like me. Many things in life turn on relatively minor shifts in perception. We are generally stuck because of ephemeral thought-structures in between our ears.

 

I've used the example before of infants -- they think others are just departments of themselves, that there is no distinction between themselves and Mother or other people for that matter; they see themselves as the center of the universe. It is by figuring out this belief is untrue and abandoning it for more accurate thinking that they are able to move on into toddler-hood and beyond. It is scary and uncomfortable and distressing to leave the womb, then to recognize that you are separate, and so forth, but it's necessary in order to become an adult and function as one. So it is with personal growth throughout life. I consider dispensing with religion as such a growth step.

 

I was fortunate not to have particular personal issues, I've always been able to behave responsibly and haven't had any particular urges to act out or rebel or what have you. I am sensitive to the extra layer of struggle many have to deal with in that area. You have to do what you have to do. If religion is necessary for you right now, then have at it. But perhaps you can recognize it as a crutch and quit taking it quite so seriously. That could be a first step in eventually growing beyond faith.

[the stranger]

Though I have much to look into, I want to at least finish the responses on this thread, starting form latest to earliest.

 

DesertBob, thank you for your responses.

 

I've used the example before of infants -- they think others are just departments of themselves, that there is no distinction between themselves and Mother or other people for that matter; they see themselves as the center of the universe. It is by figuring out this belief is untrue and abandoning it for more accurate thinking that they are able to move on into toddler-hood and beyond. It is scary and uncomfortable and distressing to leave the womb, then to recognize that you are separate, and so forth, but it's necessary in order to become an adult and function as one. So it is with personal growth throughout life. I consider dispensing with religion as such a growth step.

 

Though we may draw different lessons and conclusions for this, I like it. I have never heard something quite like it before. I find in myself, however, to always lean toward self indulgence instead of giving a helping hand. For me, going beyond self only believe is to realize that someone created us and that one of our purposes is to help others and not live life for ourselves. However we differ, I liked that.

 

I was fortunate not to have particular personal issues, I've always been able to behave responsibly and haven't had any particular urges to act out or rebel or what have you. I am sensitive to the extra layer of struggle many have to deal with in that area. You have to do what you have to do. If religion is necessary for you right now, then have at it. But perhaps you can recognize it as a crutch and quit taking it quite so seriously. That could be a first step in eventually growing beyond faith.

 

I really do appreciate your advise. Truthfully though, I find myself with more self confidence and acts of being brave more now than I ever could in the past. You can call God my crutch, and that is OK, but for me, He is my life, and I cannot separate what means everything to me. I know how I use to live, and I believe it is still only God that holds me back from destroying myself and others. I was never violent per say, but certainly leaned toward trouble.

 

I appreciate your words. If I ever change my mind I will let you know, but friend, would you do the same for me? Thanks.

 

First one: What is God to me. That can't be answered simply without unraveling understandings first and then opening them into a different light. This will sound vague and nebulous I'm sure, but to my mind it is not. It is absolute clarity, of mind, heart, matter. The singular All, the One. It is timeless, infinite, Now. It is the "God" behind the masks of God. The transcendent formless infinite. Of course those are just descriptions, not definitions, and it is beyond all descriptions and definitions.

 

Now as to what it "means" to me, it's far less about suggested meaning to me (as that would suggest it as some symbolic metaphysic which serves as inspiration as it is about active presence of being. It is the present potential in all which is matter of pulling back the curtain so to speak to reveal, and then subsequently to grow into within fuller realization. What it "means" is really better stated as what is "Realized". It's not about imparted meaning, but direct knowledge of a fullness within and without.

 

You are very deep, Antlerman. I can see birdies flying over my head. I kind of get what you are trying to say, and you can correct me if I misunderstood, but you recognize God as an over all system of greatness and spender, a sense of majesty in the idea way of thinking that the creation is, in a sense, a kind of God. In other words, not a personal God, but God as everything we see, hear, touch, and everything that we cannot. In other words, the creation as kind of a God unto itself. Now I could be wrong, and if so, please correct me.

 

Now, I can easily deconstruct the elements of your religious views, and any religious views for that matter to show that in its esoteric elements (it's internal, experiential pursuits) it is towards this Goal, and that the forms and representations it takes are always culturally and historically shaped. And secondly, I can show that the exoteric elements of these religions (the external forms, rituals, doctrines, practices), are largely adhered to as substitutes to the escoteric elements, wherein for the masses it is about defining their experience of God as the experience of their religion - exoterically.

 

I can kind of see where you are going. Like the sun God, or rain God, or the God within our selves. Animal Gods, star Gods, and Gods that were human at one time, as well as gods that no one can place their finger on. In this mind set, your thoughts were be quite accurate.

 

I am going to ask you a question however, if you except. I would like to show you that no other God can compare in any way shape or form to the one and only true God. I would like to show you, if all Gods are placed on the same scale, none can even come close to the Great I Am.

 

Within the esoteric elements, there is commonality throughout the world in all ages. God behind God. The infinite All. Love, Light, Truth, in Infinite Power.

 

As I said, this would be something that will leave you a bit challenged, or maybe not which would be a pleasant surprise.

 

I think I know where you are coming from, and there is some truth to that statement. However, just for starters, do you know of any other religion or God that is based on only grace and belief other than rituals and traditions? (Not that Christians do not make their own often, but I preach against this often (to my crowd of 2), as it is not founded in the bible) Despite being a Christian, I am not the average "holy roller" as some place all believers and I have many disagreements with many of the most popular denominations. I guess though, that is the freedom that God gave us all, the freedom to freely think for ourselves and to be our own on how we take the truth.

 

View Postthe stranger, on 28 November 2010 - 11:44 PM, said:

Antlerman, I was kind of going to take the approach you described. Because of you reading my mind, I will try to open my mind a little more. (No more mind reading)

 

You're actually pretty easy to read.

 

View Postthe stranger, on 28 November 2010 - 11:44 PM, said:

My next response may be a bit delayed as I would rather have something real to talk about after I have gained a bit more knowledge.

 

I suggest the best approach is to not just run to find those who will try to "debunk" views letting them do your thinking for you, but that you explore the possibilities of what is being offered and suggested from others points of view and consider them and discuss your considerations, either for or against, and your reasons for it. You will be amazed at how much more depth and meaningful discussion happens for yourself.

 

Antlerhead, did I not ask you to stop! Your doing it again. You got me. I will truly take your advise with this. It is a funny thing, because I often as a very independent thinker and like going directly to the source, but I guess in this case, I felt I had to go to debunking sites because I am just not knowledgeable in this area. Thank you for setting me straight on this. You win. I will do as suggested.

 

I'm challenging a little as I'd like to see what you might find for yourself here. I'm an opponent of ignorance and misinformation, but not of you. And BTW, since you seemed curious about my beliefs about "God", I would answer in a word that what I was seeking to find within the Christian system, that beginning of understanding and fulfillment, is what I am finding now beyond it. That's for me, and for some, they still need those structures. My problem was God for me was already beyond those structures, and it was a matter of finding understandings that allowed it to speak to my rational and spiritual mind in ways that supported and not violated. So when you drag out the AiG folks, that is precisely the sort of violation of mind that violated spirit. You can't hold Truth and denial at the same time.

 

Thank you for a little history behind what you believe. Though some may not believe this, as it is true I have my own believes, I really am curious about these things as it relates to personal history and the reasons why we both choose to believe something differently. Thank you for not being an opponent of me. I would have to have a big shield!