Perhaps I am not labeling one's intentions or integrity...

I merely stated a completely valid notion...

"...just because the same beliefs are not held does not make anyone a non-believer!!! "

What I stated is true... without agenda... without judgement...

Eljay for you to suggest that I am, was, or will be "a tad disingenuous " merely proves that you know me not...

Christians will always be judgmental. It’s the hallmark of Christianity and why so many people find the religion to be repulsive and hypocritical.

I respectfully disagree. That's a fallacy of faulty generalization. Christianity is a nebulous term. You might have valid arguments against orthodox or 'fundamentalist' Christians on evidential and moral grounds, but you'll have to spell those out.

Personally, I'm repulsed when Christians push their agenda onto others, e.g. getting the ten commandments posted in the court houses, teaching intelligent design as science, advocating a return to OT law, and preventing their children from receiving proper medical care based on God belief.

Just my two cents. Hope you're doing well, Abra. Good point on the Cosmological Argument earlier.

And for those who say the universe needs a creator cause all creations need creators. Then who created God? Your argument falls apart in one question.

And for those who say the universe needs a creator cause all creations need creators. Then who created God? Your argument falls apart in one question.

And for those who say the universe needs a creator cause all creations need creators. Then who created God? Your argument falls apart in one question.

I will agree that “Christianity” has become a nebulous term, and in that sense my statement is a fallacy but then so is the religion, at least in the sense of being dogmatically correct. So when someone says they are a “Christian” it’s hard to know what they might mean.

I was referring to the original orthodox fundamental form of Christianity. Its very proclamation is that only those who believe in Christ are in good with God and everyone else is in need of help. That’s the bigoted attitude to which I was referring.

But in this day and age, all so-called “Christians” do not agree with this orthodox view. So you have a point.

rabbit:

You have stated:

" And for those who say the universe needs a creator cause all creations need creators. Then who created God? Your argument falls apart in one question. "


>>>>>>> This question, as you well know, has been a redundant topic of debate and/or thought for a very long time...

However, a belief in a creator does not at all 'fall apart in one question'... quite the opposite, actually...

Allow me to explain why I say this...

By using your own practical reasoning skills you, have arrived at a more unreasonable answer than one who holds a conclusion of creation having a creator...

My statement does not reflect the notion of 'a creator' being equal to an egotistical Godhead... or a 'personally involved' one...

Witnessing all of the parts of existence that make up the whole of mankind and sentient being(s), logical reasoning must conclude that a source must exist, at least a sum equal to or greater than all of it's parts...

for if there were no source there would be no existence... and if there were no existence there would be no source...<<<<<<<

It seems to me that all you are doing is changing the word “creator” to the word “source”.

You’re looking at it from the sense that everything must need a source. Which actually supports Rabbit’s suggestion to begin with. If everything needs a source, then what was the source of God?

It’s the same argument just using differnet wording.

Moreover, if God can exist without a “source” then why not the universe?

It’s the same problem no matter how you try to word it.



All Rabbit is saying is that if you are going to make this argument then you must also apply it to any concept of a god that you imagine as well (whether it's an egostistical godhead or not). To try to use the concept of a god to explain the source flies in the face of the very argument itself.

Oh my goodness. OK the reason Jesus said what he did was because it was a representation of how we feel here on earth. He was letting us know that he hears our cries out to him. God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one. If you look at it like they are a family then you will see this. God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the power they possess. It says in the Bible that Jesus was with him in the beginning. And so was the Holy Spirit. There are the holy trinity. But to get into heaven you have to believe that Jesus came down here on earth to die for you and your sins. Then you must ask HIM (Jesus) forgiveness for your sins. For he is the light and the truth and the key to the gate in heaven. Read your Bible more than just one verse and you will see all this ties together.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:6-9)

"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)

There you go buddy. They are one in the same. He never said they are the same consciousness but one of the same being.

Abra:

Indeed, I use the word source more and more frequently, as it assumes a more impersonal role...

I do not believe that 'it' meddles in human affairs...

It boils down to something and nothing James... the line between does not exist...

There is no clear answer... no 'proof' either way...

Although,...

It is quite easy to disprove the common notion of Christianity's meddling 'God', by simply showing countless unsound arguments throughout the teaching(s)...

The problem with this argument is, and always has been, that it supports nothing and it supports something... from either side.

It is a fallacy in and of itself... self-contained from both sides... and will never be anything other than what it is...

a line drawn where is none to be...

However, Abra - I don't see the comment as a definitive proof, about a creator, as much as an argument against the idea of "Evolution as an Origin of Species". It matters not if one thinks the Creation's creator was He, She, or the it of Greek Mythology. Believe what you will - the logic is that there was a creator, not that it was by chance.

It isn't a question of agenda or judgement - for, as I'm sure you know, I'm fully aware of most of the posters on the threads - for I witness most of the posts in all of the threads, and I'm fairly familiar with agenda's. But merely reading what you wrote - for what you wrote.... It is what it is. There was no indication that it was without agenda, as you called out Rapunzel - out of context, and with no indication of what she meant, even though I knew fully well that was not your intent. Your subsequent post clarified that. Which I think was more "in line" with your character. Had I not posted - would you have clarified yourself? I did this more so for the people who just "step into the thread for a moment" to not take the bare comment you wrote, and have you give a little more insight. More so in YOUR defense - than Repunzels.

However this statement calls into question the "time continuum". For someone to have "created God" would be to accept the Premise that time has always existed. Whereas what has generally been understood is that God existed, then created time. So your statement defies logic. Unless you are redefining God - and expecting everyone to agree with you.

The idea that evolution is a statement that things happened by chance is without a doubt the greatest misconception concerning evolution.

Moreover, the same argument applies to the supposed ‘creator’. Did it just happen by chance then? Or was their a controlling force behind it and so on.

The argument is a never ending one and the idea of a ‘creator’ does not solve it. This is very shallow thinking. All you’re doing is passing the buck. You saying, “Well, I can’t explain how evolution occurred, therefore there must be a God”.

But then the question remains,… Can you explain God? You’re answer would be, “I don’t need to, God needs no explanation, or God is beyond explanation”.

But again. All this is doing is saying that you can’t answer the first question, so you invent a question that you refuse to ponder.

It doesn’t solve a thing. It’s just a cop out.

You may as well accept that evolution happened by chance as to believe that a God happened by chance.

The buck has to stop somewhere. You're just moving it deeper into oblivion.

Eljay,

I took Abra's comment as pointing out that Cosmological Arguments, Arguments from Design, Arguments from Complexity, or whatever you want to call it, aren't 'intuitively obvious' or logical. They are non-sequiturs. The problems are:

1. The idea of the cosmos being 'infinitely old' isn't illogical.
2. There isn't complete evidence to definitively say everything that exists must have a cause.
3. If the universe is defined as space, matter and time, then discussing time prior to the start of the universe is nonsensical. There can be no time.
4. If you disagree with the above, the challenge remains, if the universe must have been caused by something, what caused that something? It's an infinite regress. How one arrive at the Christian God from that is the other challenge.

I might add too that Christian mythology hardly portrays the kind of God that creator this universe.

Christian mythology has God screwing up at every turn. First he creates a bunch of angels that aren’t happy with him. Then he allows those same angels to screw up his second creation of man. He allows things to progress to the point where they get so far out of hand he has to down all of his creation save for a handful of people in a boat.

If this was some kind of war with the Devil, God surely lost at that point in the game anyway.

Then things get out of hand so bad that he decided to come down to earth himself and have men nail him to a pole so he can pay for their sins. This is the most absurd story I can imagine at this point. And then he disappears without a trace for millennia leaving people to fight over a religion that he surely would have known would have seemed quite outrageous to any rational person.

It just doesn’t add up Eljay. The behavior of the Biblical God just doesn’t match up with the grandeur of the rest of the universe. And as Carl Sagan so wisely pointed out, the stage is far too vast for this petty human-centric play.

When this religion was first invented people thought that the earth was indeed the focus of creation. They had no clue how large the universe was. In fact, in the early going they thought that everything revolved around the earth and that the stars themselves were actually in heaven.

In fact, it was believed that everything beyond the earth was perfect, and that everything revolved around the earth (not only physically, but in every spiritual sense).

It wasn’t until much later that it become apparent that the earth is not only not the center of anything, but it’s not even close to being in any special position with respect to anything. It’s located in a the reaches of on of the arms of our own spiral galaxy. A very insignificant place.

And in very recent times historically speaking we’ve come to realize that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe.

The idea that humans are the focal point of anything other than their own imagination is extremely questionable. The whole story of a biblical God making all of creation for the sole purpose of creating mankind is utterly absurd in the face of what we now know to be the true nature of the universe.

Eljay:

Thank you for your clarification, and I do indeed appreciate your wording in the last post to me...

Rapunzel has not necessarily offended me... actually her statement did not offend me in the least, and I now realize that I should have claified this...

I thank you for allowing me to recognize this...

Broad generalizations, which most, if not all of us, make at times... are inherently problematic... and can lead to much confusion of intent... I should have asked her...

Purpose is always existant in the truest of senses... and as we have accepted, it is not always recognized for what is...

Thus is the problem of implied meaning... it is the receiver who translates the implication...

Thank you again...