100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
TexasScoundrel wrote: This discussion isn't about you. The question is can evolution and the bible coexist? It is my opinion that they cannot. Let's stick to the point shall we? I'm in total agreement with you on this. I used to be a Christian so I have direct experience with this. When I was young I was both a devout Christian as well as a highschool student who was extremely interested in the sciences. After all, there's nothing wrong with a Christian studying science. It's a perfectly acceptable career to become a scientist. So anyway, I was taught about evolution in highschool. At first thought this didn't seem to confict with the Bible. So for the longest time I held the belief that both the Bible and evolution were true. I just accepted that God created man via evolution. It was easy, all I had to do was accept that many of the things in the Bible could simply be taken as metaphores. In other words, the 6 'days' of creation could have been 6 eons in God's time. I didn't need to take the 6-day creation literally. The idea that God created Adam from dirt didn't bother me either. Even if we evolved we're still basically created from dirt. So even that fit in with evolution. However, some years later. In fact, it was actually quite many years later, even after I had already dismissed the Bible for other reasons. I realized that evolution could not possibly be compatible with the Bible. Why? Because of the very fundamental story of the Bible. The basic story of the Bible claims that the world was perfect until man fell from grace. It was Adam and Eve's fall from grace that supposedly brought sin, evil, and even death into the world. Well, clearly that's not compatible with billions of years of animals being born, eating each other, getting diseases and dying long before man came onto the scene to fall from grace and bring all those thing into the world. So I finally realized many years later that my belief that the Biblical tale could be compatible with evolution was completely misplaced. There is no way that evolution could be compatible with the Biblical tale. Of course, I had already discovered that the Bible was false for many other reasons by the time I realized that it couldn't possibly be in harmony with evolution. But now I realize that even evolution would have been reason enough right there to realize that the Bible had to be false. I stand with Abra on this one - about the incompatabiity of the bible and evolution that is. And if I'm allowed to pile on, the account of creation in Genesis is in total contradiction to what evolutin claims. Mere examiniation of the order of what was created when in the scriptures is incompatable with the cronological events following the big bang in evolution. So - I stand with Abra on this one! (a rarety indeed) Do you find Gensis chapter 1 incompatible with Gensis chapter 2? I surely do! I find them to be complimentary - not contradictory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again... I edited this for brevity How could a fly without wings be an improvement? This is an example of the fly de-evolving. Else why did it develop wings in the first place. (an evolution-theory idea) Now - if, let's say - a dog developed wings, well, I'd call that "Evolving". Otherwise - to attempt to claim a fly losing it's wings as an example of it "evolving" is a purely subjective idea. And not one that's very convincing. Were it worth taking the time to even look at - I would wager a guess that information is lost in a fly's dna that no longer develop's wings. What would you say? I would say that in the example of flies in space, wings would be more of a handicap than a help....so flies w/o wings would be an improvement. It developed wings in the first place as a means of transportation in a gravity field. No gravity field, no wings. You could say the same thing about a bird - however, without it's wings, a hummingbird would die. So how can I extrapolate your logic to support evolution by a fly losing it's wings being an improvement? Sorry - I'm having a hard time buying this as evidence of anything. Please provide some documentation that supports this - because as far as I know, there's been no Nobel Prize awarded to the scientist who has discovered information being gained within a species from one generation into the next - or any firther generational mutations. Perhaps because it just hasn't happened yet. And don't think that every biologist on the planet isn't waiting for this to occur in one of their experiments. There's billions of dollars being pumped into this discovery - with no results, so don't just casually claim thee has. Provide the evidence to support your claim. Documentation? Go read a book. They don't normally award Nobels for discovering something that is already well known. I've said this so many times in the past - and you only prove my point. You have not named an example. Because you cannot. I could read every book ever written and I will not find one example of information being added to DNA. And in case you're wondering - "had this already been well known", there would certainly be a nobel prize awarded for it, and since you seem to be so on top of this, I want you to tell me who recieved it for this world changing discovery? Should be on the tip of your tongue. You know nothing of my understanding of scientific princiles - notr of my understanding of logic - of which I have a degree in. You should try to get your money back...lol...just kidding..  No need to. I value it highly. It keeps me from buying into the fairytales that get foisted on us by the scientific community with an agenda to propigate the evolution myth; thus keeping that grant money coming in and the universities giving out those 6 figure salaries for the nonsense they "teach". Beats getting a real job. And not only that - but they get you and me to pay for it all! Our tax dollars - hard at work. Or is it hardly working. I always get the two mixed up.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TexasScoundrel wrote: This discussion isn't about you. The question is can evolution and the bible coexist? It is my opinion that they cannot. Let's stick to the point shall we? I'm in total agreement with you on this. I used to be a Christian so I have direct experience with this. When I was young I was both a devout Christian as well as a highschool student who was extremely interested in the sciences. After all, there's nothing wrong with a Christian studying science. It's a perfectly acceptable career to become a scientist. So anyway, I was taught about evolution in highschool. At first thought this didn't seem to confict with the Bible. So for the longest time I held the belief that both the Bible and evolution were true. I just accepted that God created man via evolution. It was easy, all I had to do was accept that many of the things in the Bible could simply be taken as metaphores. In other words, the 6 'days' of creation could have been 6 eons in God's time. I didn't need to take the 6-day creation literally. The idea that God created Adam from dirt didn't bother me either. Even if we evolved we're still basically created from dirt. So even that fit in with evolution. However, some years later. In fact, it was actually quite many years later, even after I had already dismissed the Bible for other reasons. I realized that evolution could not possibly be compatible with the Bible. Why? Because of the very fundamental story of the Bible. The basic story of the Bible claims that the world was perfect until man fell from grace. It was Adam and Eve's fall from grace that supposedly brought sin, evil, and even death into the world. Well, clearly that's not compatible with billions of years of animals being born, eating each other, getting diseases and dying long before man came onto the scene to fall from grace and bring all those thing into the world. So I finally realized many years later that my belief that the Biblical tale could be compatible with evolution was completely misplaced. There is no way that evolution could be compatible with the Biblical tale. Of course, I had already discovered that the Bible was false for many other reasons by the time I realized that it couldn't possibly be in harmony with evolution. But now I realize that even evolution would have been reason enough right there to realize that the Bible had to be false. I stand with Abra on this one - about the incompatabiity of the bible and evolution that is. And if I'm allowed to pile on, the account of creation in Genesis is in total contradiction to what evolutin claims. Mere examiniation of the order of what was created when in the scriptures is incompatable with the cronological events following the big bang in evolution. So - I stand with Abra on this one! (a rarety indeed) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Scoundrel, I'm a follower of God, and I still have my own thoughts, opinions and preferences. Does this make me not a follower of God? I have a brain that God created me with, but I'm still being transformed and conformed to the image and mind of Christ. Does this make me have the right to judge others who don't think or believe like I do? No. But as everyone else, I'm a work in progress. This discussion isn't about you. The question is can evolution and the bible coexist? It is my opinion that they cannot. Let's stick to the point shall we? Yes - I'm not sure about everyone else on this thread, but I am in total agreement with you. The bible and Evolution are contradictory and mutually exclusive within their topic (UFO theorist not withstanding - since this idea is not part of the oroginal post) Either one is true and the other not and vice-versa... at least on the point of origins of the species. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sun 08/16/09 08:36 PM
|
|
And this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of. Please name just ONE thing for me that is not a subjective conclusion completely devoid of empirical evidence. This has been done MANY times, in COUNTLESS threads, each time it is presented to you, you come up with a new reason why you can't look at it. So please, tell us how this time will be any different.. Inkracer - name one example of any organism that has evolved from another where information in DNA has been "GAINED". umm..all of them... Since there hasn't been anything documented in all of the scientific journals since the discovery of DNA where this is empirically verifyable - I'm waiting with eager anticipation of the mere mention of just ONE example from you - rather than your claiming it has been stated over and over in past threads. It has NEVER BEEN STATED! Not by you - not by anyone on this site - not in a single one of your U-Tube references. Come on Ink - just name me one empirical example so I can submit your name for the Nobel prize. Just one - since there are so "many". dood, drink a little too much coffee before this post? Ink, doesn't have to name one example. He's probably pondering, as I am, how you could not know that all of them, that is, all life on the planet, is the result of information being gained and being changed in DNA. This is a bit like asking to name just one example of an air-breathing bi-pedal mammal on Earth. Well - since evolution claims that man is a distant decendent of the amoebia, it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to see that there's a "claim" of information being added into DNA to justify evolutionary theory. Again - where is the example of information being added to DNA to support the idea that one species has "evolved" into another. Or for that matter - just within a species. And not only does Ink not have to name an example - he will be UNABLE to, just as you have. I see you're quick to make the claim, but not so quick to site an example. Oh, I know why - because YOU CAN'T! If you could, there'd be a Nobel Prize with your name on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sun 08/16/09 08:29 PM
|
|
I edited this for brevity
What is "real" here is that a mutation has been observed where information has been lost. How exactly is that "evidence"? This is an example of de-evolving. How is a fly losing it's wings an example of something improving on the organism - or natural selection? Well....if the fly no longer needs wings, not having to expend the energy to make them would be an improvement, wouldn't it. An example of evolution. De-evolving would be going back to a simpler previous form, which they were not. In fact, nothing evolves backwards towards a previous form. How could a fly without wings be an improvement? This is an example of the fly de-evolving. Else why did it develop wings in the first place. (an evolution-theory idea) Now - if, let's say - a dog developed wings, well, I'd call that "Evolving". Otherwise - to attempt to claim a fly losing it's wings as an example of it "evolving" is a purely subjective idea. And not one that's very convincing. Were it worth taking the time to even look at - I would wager a guess that information is lost in a fly's dna that no longer develop's wings. What would you say? Evolution is also why we need a new flu shot each year. The virus keeps evolving. Actually - they are de-evolving. No information is being gained in any of the virus' that have been studied, or documented. This being the best argument against evolution - you're not going to find this alarmingly consistant fact documented much in scientific journals, and surely the media won't touch the subject. You won't find this fact documented in any text-book on evolution as well. I find that a bid odd. I wonder why that is? I also wonder why you don't wonder this. Perhaps because it's patently untrue. Information is gained and changed constantly in viruses. Else, we'd never need to develope new vaccines. Where in the world did you get these odd notions? Please provide some documentation that supports this - because as far as I know, there's been no Nobel Prize awarded to the scientist who has discovered information being gained within a species from one generation into the next - or any firther generational mutations. Perhaps because it just hasn't happened yet. And don't think that every biologist on the planet isn't waiting for this to occur in one of their experiments. There's billions of dollars being pumped into this discovery - with no results, so don't just casually claim thee has. Provide the evidence to support your claim. Richard Dawkins is a devout Atheist with a predetermined world view which shapes all of his opinions. His premises are subjective and without empirical support. I've yet to see any debate with him where he's demonstrated any of his claims with supportable fact - just his opinion, which he is in such high reguard of that he considers his opinion evidence enough to represent fact. "Good" in reference to the writings of Dawkins is debatable in and of itself. Actually, Richard Dawkins, having been devoutly religious (and gotten better) is quite qualified to debate the merits of science versus superstition. I've seen some of his debates and I've not noted any descrepencies(sp?...it's late) in either his logic or his use of science. Perhaps, and I'm just thinking out loud here, it is your own understanding of scientific principles that is lacking. You know nothing of my understanding of scientific princiles - notr of my understanding of logic - of which I have a degree in. Dawkin's premises are built around his Atheistic world view and though they may seem logical - they only are if you support his premise of Universalism - which even his own scientific field refutes. I don't find his arguments for not beliving in God due to the inability to support it with proof or evidence - belief in God is faith based. But if you examine his arguments - you'll find that the same is true for his claims about evolution. The very reasons he argue's against the existence of God hold true for the idea of evolution as an explination for the origins of life on the planet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of. Please name just ONE thing for me that is not a subjective conclusion completely devoid of empirical evidence. This has been done MANY times, in COUNTLESS threads, each time it is presented to you, you come up with a new reason why you can't look at it. So please, tell us how this time will be any different.. Inkracer - name one example of any organism that has evolved from another where information in DNA has been "GAINED". Since there hasn't been anything documented in all of the scientific journals since the discovery of DNA where this is empirically verifyable - I'm waiting with eager anticipation of the mere mention of just ONE example from you - rather than your claiming it has been stated over and over in past threads. It has NEVER BEEN STATED! Not by you - not by anyone on this site - not in a single one of your U-Tube references. Come on Ink - just name me one empirical example so I can submit your name for the Nobel prize. Just one - since there are so "many". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa there Cowboy. You are assuming quite a bit of non-sense that is not in evidence to support your argument. First of all - there's nothing demonstratable that needs 10 billion years to accomplish - and where did that number come from? Did you decide to use a nice big round number? Where are you getting the idea that God used evolution to do anything? Perhaps it is an issue of semantics. You say "Evolution is real", I say - had you said "De-evolution is real", we'd have a basis for agreement. Otherwise, you have stated no valid premises to support your conclusions. And this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of. Please name just ONE thing for me that is not a subjective conclusion completely devoid of empirical evidence. The suggestion that God used evolution is in the first post. That was the question. As for the overwheling evidence that evolution is real all you need to do is watch life forms with a very short life span. For example, flys taken into space lose their wings in only a few generations. They no longer need them in a zero the gravity enviroment. What is "real" here is that a mutation has been observed where information has been lost. How exactly is that "evidence"? This is an example of de-evolving. How is a fly losing it's wings an example of something improving on the organism - or natural selection? Evolution is also why we need a new flu shot each year. The virus keeps evolving. Actually - they are de-evolving. No information is being gained in any of the virus' that have been studied, or documented. This being the best argument against evolution - you're not going to find this alarmingly consistant fact documented much in scientific journals, and surely the media won't touch the subject. You won't find this fact documented in any text-book on evolution as well. I find that a bid odd. I wonder why that is? I also wonder why you don't wonder this. If you want more I suggest you read a few good books on the subject. "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins would be a good place to start. He lays it all out clearly and even goes into all the arguments that disagree with him. Wnat more? How about this debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins from TIME mag. Richard Dawkins is a devout Atheist with a predetermined world view which shapes all of his opinions. His premises are subjective and without empirical support. I've yet to see any debate with him where he's demonstrated any of his claims with supportable fact - just his opinion, which he is in such high reguard of that he considers his opinion evidence enough to represent fact. "Good" in reference to the writings of Dawkins is debatable in and of itself. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1555132,00.html And don't call me cowboy. Alright then - I won't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution is real. Even without the fossil record we would still have overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact. The concept of God is incompatible with evolution. This is because the odds that something like God could exist are longer than the odds that we exist. If God created everything he must be a very complex being indeed. Evolution teaches us that complex beings do not just pop into existence. They only come about through evolution. So, we must ask the question: Where does God come from? If God evolved from simpler life forms then evolution didn't need God to produce God. Following this logic, evolution doesn't need God to produce humans. But, if God does exist and he did create humans, why would he choose a system that took 10 billion years to do it? Why wouldn't he just snap his fingers? Whoa there Cowboy. You are assuming quite a bit of non-sense that is not in evidence to support your argument. First of all - there's nothing demonstratable that needs 10 billion years to accomplish - and where did that number come from? Did you decide to use a nice big round number? Where are you getting the idea that God used evolution to do anything? Perhaps it is an issue of semantics. You say "Evolution is real", I say - had you said "De-evolution is real", we'd have a basis for agreement. Otherwise, you have stated no valid premises to support your conclusions. And this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of. Please name just ONE thing for me that is not a subjective conclusion completely devoid of empirical evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
my reason for abondoning god
|
|
to be honest there are 3 good reasons that i went form pentecostal to agnostic. 1 i refuse to accept teh one world voice/one world choice of teh end times 2 i will never respect anyone who thinks george w bush was a decent president and tells me he did gods work. 3 churchs feed you there own man made dogma of endless crap and doctrine, in other words their way of tricking you outta every dime you get for some quick to dispose of ministy purpose. Sounds more like you have problems with people, rather than God. I don't see God having to do with any of your points. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Its all Gods fault
|
|
I find it hard to believe that God lived within either Hitler or Stalin - to name but a pair of apparent "Godless" individuals. Eljay, why do you think you know enough to judge who is a so-called "godless" individual? I have known people who have called me that and they don't know what they are talking about. Just because I don't go to there church? That is so wrong. You are asking me to answer a question according to your understanding of the term God. That isn't me passing judgement - it's you passing judgement. I don't need to clarify for you what "God" means to me - so your question is disingenuous. Why don't you explain to me how Stalin - a reknown Atheist - was Godly. Clear me up on this. I don't know why other's call you "Godless". I know I didn't. If their reasoning was because you didn't attend services in the same building they do - mistakening that as a definition of "the church" - then I agree with you. That's just wrong. It doesn't matter where one "goes to church" - it matters what one believes. Here is my opinion. People say that God is Love. I am going to take that statement literally if you don't mind. Okay, God IS LOVE. THAT IS WHAT GOD IS. God is not a deity. God is not Jesus. GOD IS LOVE. That is the premise. Now that being the premise, anyone who has any love or compassions at all for anyone cannot be GODLESS. I don't think you can know whether or not Stalin or Hitler did not have any love or compassion at all for anyone. You can assume they did not, but you cannot know. Well... this premise that people have about God being love is one that is derived from the biblical definition of God. Since the Pantheistic God makes no claim of this sort, (the one that is "in all"), you are mixing your claims. Besides - who are these "people" who claim that God is love? Not that I disagree with the claim, it's just I tend to wonder about the claims of "people" - especially those who fit the generic "everyone". If you believe and read the Bible, then you have read "God is Love." It is IN YOUR HOLY BOOK. It is a complete statement. If you take it literally, then that is what it means. If you believe the Bible you have to believe the statement. How more plain can I state that? One of the MANY attributes of God. It does not singularly define God - especially by man's standards, as man's idea of love is purely subjective. Who are these people you ask? Christians. Christians who claim that the Bible is the gospel truth. The Bible says that God is Love. I understand and accept that statement, by choice. It makes sense to me. I have a right to agree with that and accept that premise. The bible also says that God is just - how does that reconcile with your thinking? Or do you just chose to accept the idea of god that best fits your personal preferences. In which case - is this God simply unique to you? That does not obligate me, a non Christian, to believe everything else that Christians believe in their complicated God concepts and religions. You're not making any sense. Either you believe what the bible says about God - or you reject it. It isn't like going to a salad bar where you only accept the things you like. Hardly a representative of the God who existed long before you were born. There is no "Pantheistic Deity" that make claims of any sort. If you think there is, then you don't understand the meaning of pantheism. Neither do I worship any "Pantheistic Deity." Pantheism is simply someone's way of describing a type of concept of God or spirituality. I do not claim to be a pantheist or follow any kind of pantheist religion. I was labeled that by a person who feels they have to label everyone. who doesn't understand the Pantheistic God? God is in all - all is God. A rather simplistic view, but an accurate paraphrase. And I'm not claiming you to be a pantheist - just your idea of God being "in all" as more consistant with a pantheistic understanding, then a Judeo/Christain one. I am simply a person who feels that LOVE IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIGHT. And that GOD = LOVE.  Its not the least bit complicated. As a biblical tennet - it states that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light. That has been my point. If you are getting anything other than this from christains, I would question where they're getting their information from. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the past week and a half I have been dealing with a stray puppy about 12 weeks old, now 15 weeks old and covered in mange. Unfortunately I missed the early signs and exposed my indoor pets and am now treating 3 dogs, mine are not severe but the stray is. She scratches her self into a frenzy, mutilating her skin. It's horrible to watch. I curb the itching with 4 hour doses of Benadryl and am treating her with medication and dips. Why did I post this here? Because when I watch even an animal suffer like this, there can be no God who created all this suffering. For what? What has a 12 week old puppy to prove? What has a 5 year old child with cancer to prove? It makes no sense... So God created everything including horrible diseases and parasites to ravage helpless animals? What kind of God is this? If I don't care for this animal it will die. Some might say that her suffering is a test of my character, so therefore the reason god created such things.. I say Bulls#it!!!! Why not test me with something that doesn't cause the suffering of another living being... I could go and on with instances where it makes absolutely no sense that a God would create such a place where such things happen so regularly. Oh ya but when we die, we will go to heaven and it will be all better. Sounds sadistic to me... And please don't give me any bible verses unless they can cure this poor animal over night. NO, there is not bloody God. We must rely on eachother to make whatever sense of this world we can and do our best not to cause harm to eachother for the short time we live on this beautiful yet dangerous globe. What amazes me is the amount of time we waste with religion, while we ignore the daily opportunities to do something simple for those around us, and yet those that are most involved with religion over history have been the most violent and even today those indoctrinated with it are still violent and in many cases uncaring. Sorry for the Rant, argh!!! Interesting how you've never considered the possibility of some humans' sinful neglect of this poor animal, and the wisdom of God to direct it to your care. No - you assume the the care of this anmal was entrusted to God. What amazes me even more is your expectation that people follow your idiotic logic as though it somehow makes sense. I suppose I should blame God that you are incapable of using any of the common sense he gave you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Its all Gods fault
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sun 06/28/09 08:02 PM
|
|
I find it hard to believe that God lived within either Hitler or Stalin - to name but a pair of apparent "Godless" individuals. Eljay, why do you think you know enough to judge who is a so-called "godless" individual? I have known people who have called me that and they don't know what they are talking about. Just because I don't go to there church? That is so wrong. You are asking me to answer a question according to your understanding of the term God. That isn't me passing judgement - it's you passing judgement. I don't need to clarify for you what "God" means to me - so your question is disingenuous. Why don't you explain to me how Stalin - a reknown Atheist - was Godly. Clear me up on this. I don't know why other's call you "Godless". I know I didn't. If their reasoning was because you didn't attend services in the same building they do - mistakening that as a definition of "the church" - then I agree with you. That's just wrong. It doesn't matter where one "goes to church" - it matters what one believes. Here is my opinion. People say that God is Love. I am going to take that statement literally if you don't mind. Okay, God IS LOVE. THAT IS WHAT GOD IS. God is not a deity. God is not Jesus. GOD IS LOVE. That is the premise. Now that being the premise, anyone who has any love or compassions at all for anyone cannot be GODLESS. I don't think you can know whether or not Stalin or Hitler did not have any love or compassion at all for anyone. You can assume they did not, but you cannot know. Well... this premise that people have about God being love is one that is derived from the biblical definition of God. Since the Pantheistic God makes no claim of this sort, (the one that is "in all"), you are mixing your claims. Besides - who are these "people" who claim that God is love? Not that I disagree with the claim, it's just I tend to wonder about the claims of "people" - especially those who fit the generic "everyone". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Its all Gods fault
|
|
Oh really? How about a quiz then, where does g-d live? WITHIN! And what leads you to believe that? I find it hard to believe that God lived within either Hitler or Stalin - to name but a pair of apparent "Godless" individuals. So what justifies your belief that God lives within man - unless that individual choses it to be so? Because God lives everywhere and has ITS existence in everything. You see, my concept of God is different from yours. God is Love and life in expression. I'm sure you believe that there are two things, good and evil and that your God is only good. I see the dualistic nature of God. Only humans divide this nature into good and evil in their ignorance of balance and the nature of God. So, now that I'm in better understanding of "what" you believe, I still ask "why" you believe this. What justifies this belief that God lives in "everything"? What justifies the belief in the Bible? In God at all? In what you believe? Why does this need justification at all? It doesn't need a justification... it is the justification. It merely describes the way things are, and does so with amaizing accuracy - considering it was written thousands of years ago, it still adequately describes the character of man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Its all Gods fault
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sat 06/27/09 09:15 PM
|
|
I find it hard to believe that God lived within either Hitler or Stalin - to name but a pair of apparent "Godless" individuals. Eljay, why do you think you know enough to judge who is a so-called "godless" individual? I have known people who have called me that and they don't know what they are talking about. Just because I don't go to there church? That is so wrong. You are asking me to answer a question according to your understanding of the term God. That isn't me passing judgement - it's you passing judgement. I don't need to clarify for you what "God" means to me - so your question is disingenuous. Why don't you explain to me how Stalin - a reknown Atheist - was Godly. Clear me up on this. I don't know why other's call you "Godless". I know I didn't. If their reasoning was because you didn't attend services in the same building they do - mistakening that as a definition of "the church" - then I agree with you. That's just wrong. It doesn't matter where one "goes to church" - it matters what one believes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Its all Gods fault
|
|
Oh really? How about a quiz then, where does g-d live? WITHIN! And what leads you to believe that? I find it hard to believe that God lived within either Hitler or Stalin - to name but a pair of apparent "Godless" individuals. So what justifies your belief that God lives within man - unless that individual choses it to be so? Because God lives everywhere and has ITS existence in everything. You see, my concept of God is different from yours. God is Love and life in expression. I'm sure you believe that there are two things, good and evil and that your God is only good. I see the dualistic nature of God. Only humans divide this nature into good and evil in their ignorance of balance and the nature of God. So, now that I'm in better understanding of "what" you believe, I still ask "why" you believe this. What justifies this belief that God lives in "everything"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Its all Gods fault
|
|
Oh really? How about a quiz then, where does g-d live? WITHIN! And what leads you to believe that? I find it hard to believe that God lived within either Hitler or Stalin - to name but a pair of apparent "Godless" individuals. So what justifies your belief that God lives within man - unless that individual choses it to be so? Where does the Holy Spirit reside Eljay? Blessings...Miles The Holy spirit resides in man/woman - but not all men/woman. So to say that "God lives within" - is really not representing the whole truth, as you won't find this to be the case with a devout Atheist. (For example) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Its all Gods fault
|
|
Oh really? How about a quiz then, where does g-d live? WITHIN! And what leads you to believe that? I find it hard to believe that God lived within either Hitler or Stalin - to name but a pair of apparent "Godless" individuals. So what justifies your belief that God lives within man - unless that individual choses it to be so? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Its all Gods fault
|
|
And furthermore... The concept of original sin was started by St. Augustine, and not in the Bible, in Luke, Jesus clearly gives his message: the kingdom of g-d is within you... That is a rather simplistic view of what was really an admonition to the Pharasee's who were interrogating him about the kingdom in the hopes of tricking him. That statement of Jesus was said to an audience who were in fact - NOT part of the kingdom of God, and certainly did not - now would they not - have the kingdom within them (a reference to the Kingdom of God being spiritual as opposed to physical). The bottom line is that Jesus was not saying that everyone has the kingdom of God within them. There are numerous passages and parables following this stating that there are those who clearly fall short of becoming part of the kingdom of God. That is the them vs. us mentality that leads to wars. It makes one group feel superior to another group. I find it very wrong. Though all men are "equal" on this earth - that is, no one is more superior than another - there is a great difference between the choices they make, and the actions and consequences of those choices. That's where the "us" vs "them" comes into play. As long as morals and ethics remain subjective - and the world heads toward relativism, it's only going to get worse, or simply remain the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Its all Gods fault
|
|
If God is supposed to know everything, and is supposed to have created us, how is it he didnt know we would become sinners? Surely he must have created us to be sinners? If he made us what we are, then how is it possible that anything we do is a sin? We apparantly fell from grace with God from the get go. If God does exist and he did create us, then i blame him for anything we do wrong. Either that, or there is nothing that we can possibly do wrong in his eyes. Lucifer is only evil because his ACTIONS were evil - not because he was created evil. He was actually created as the most glorious of all the angels - but through his own choice - he became evil through his actions and choices. Try again. What was created evil? Considering that if there is a god, he created all good and all evil in the universe. It is technically his/her/it's fault. But I am not the type to lay blame so I will worry about how I affect my world and leave the blaming to those who feel more qualified. So what is it that God created that is evil on it's own? I can list pages of the actions of man that can be described as evil - can't think of a single thing that was created evil. God created Lucifer and by no cause from man he was evil and is by the bible the epitome of evil. God created evil and let it lose on man by the bible. God also is all seeing so he knew when he created Satan what he would be. So he knowingly created the epitome of evil and let him lose on man. God let evil lose on man. There is no argument against that. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
