Thread For Christians Only.
- Thread starter Angelic Being
- Start date
Angelic Being
Registered Senior Member
bconn29 said:
It is not as simple as that - if you remain an atheist how can you expect to have something to look forward to?
You believe that life is now and that is it.
A Christian believes and knows that the promise of everlasting life is soon to Come - when the time allocated for Satan is over.
The Creator will then restore everything back to what it originally should have been as was the purpose for Eden.
I know that The Creator will show to us humans Science at a level that has never been seen before - that we will not be populating only this planet in the future.
in my past statements i argue that if our scientists today accept The Christ, then we will have knowledge that has never been imagined.
I have to admit however that sometimes I wonder if this is it - this is the best that our scientists can go. Why are we still stuck on this planet? Why havent we found a more conventional source of energy?
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?
Look around you. Another blasted storm is heading our way - why is it that we still dont have the technology to counter such forces of nature? a major report has just been released - showing that a significant percentage of plants in western europe are non longer absorbing carbon dioxide - what can our science do?
When will our scientists humble themselves? When will they admit that there is a CREATOR?Why cant we have more Newtons, Einsteins - people who did believe in a Creator.?
Angelic Being
Registered Senior Member
bconn29 said:
You sound like one.
B. How many scientists do you know for a fact are athiests?[/QUOTE]
The Important ones.
C. It sounds as if your faith is a bit shaken does your god not send us these horrific events as tests of faith?
Just curious[/QUOTE]
Your god - NOT MINE.
Thank You.
Angelic Being said:
The Important ones.
Like?
C. It sounds as if your faith is a bit shaken does your god not send us these horrific events as tests of faith?
Just curious[/QUOTE]
Your god - NOT MINE.
Just out of curiousity and I don't mean to sound disrespectful but what does your god do? I'm not really sure I understand your point of view.
Thank You.[/QUOTE]
This is of no relevance to what we were talking about. You made the statement that it's hard to imagine the pain that poor little goddy woddy endured. Now, he is either god - omnipotent, eternal etc etc, in which case a temporary 'death' does not mean anything at all, or he was just a human in which case his pain is not hard to imagine considering many people go through worse. Having said that, wanting people to feel sympathy for this person is daft.
You're living in a dreamworld.
Because that's what christians do.. They go round banging on people's doors, stopping them in the street etc, whether it is our problem or not. We don't seemingly have a choice in the matter.
That is certainly another opinion held by some christians, yes. I can see I'm going to have to start drawing pictures to aid this discussion..
A large amount of christians believe that jesus and god are one and the same. I agree with you that the whole trinity notion is polytheistic, because it denotes 3 separate entities, not one single entity - but these christians aren't very good at maths, and so consider jesus and god as the same.
But you are. Your very statement that "it's hard to imagine the pain jesus endured" is an appeal to others to feel some sympathy, to indeed give a shit.
I do, and always will. But this is completely irrelevant to discussion. I want you to support your statement that it's hard to imagine the 'pain' that god 2 suffered, or some ancient rabbi suffered. You can either take the stance that he is god - which makes temporary pain meaningless, or that he's a human - which means his pain is not hard to imagine considering many humans go through worse on a daily basis and are much more in need of sympathy than some ancient guy.
Stop avoiding the issue.
Last edited:
Angelic Being said:
That argument would be a fool's errand. Religion cares not about critical examination or objectivity. When it comes to truth, religion settles on faith -a science looks for that which can be tested.
Angelic Being said:
I'd like to hear some. Start with a scientific explanation of how the sun was stopped for a day.
Angelic Being said:
The explanation for mythological miracles is simple: mythology. The human imagination. The need to tell people what they want to hear in order get them to align themselves with a given cult. It isn't just Christianity... other cults do the same thing.
Angelic Being said:
Really? And so you have evidence that the physics of light behaved differently before this alleged flood? Moreover, there is no evidence that a flood of Noachian proportions ever existed. What there *is* evidence for is that the Noachian myth was adopted from older Mesopotamian stories. Stories that were *not* passed on as truth but as literature.
Angelic Being said:
It isn't a dilemma at all. It is only possible in the same manner that it was possible for a cyclops to exist for Odysseus to defeat in Homer's tale. It is possible in the same manner that it was possible for Ra to create the sun from an egg -or a flower- depending on which ancient Egyptian myth you read. But the biggest problem with your rainbow speculation is that there is no evidence for a flood nor for the rainbow poppycock.
Angelic Being said:
Better still, we can forget considering them as "miracles" at all and accept that these stories are consistent with human stories in other cultures in the world which make attempts to explain that which they are incapable of testing: they are mythology. Rather than read only ONE SET OF HUMAN MYTHS and just settle for the status quo of your cult, why not read and hear what other cults of the world have to say. Much of it is vastly different from the Christian nonsense. Some of it has similarities. The differences and similarities say much about human nature and our belief engines.
But to the cult believer, someone who has been indoctrinated and conditioned, anthropology, sociology and psychology become the "nonsense" and the untested beliefs become the "truth." That says more about the believer than it does science. It says that the believer is ignorant and chooses to remain so.
Angelic Being said:
Wrong. The purpose was clearly to reinforce and validate the hierarchies and the authorities of the religions. The individual cults developed these "miracles" as "proofs" of their doctrine. Believers look for these miracles in everyday patterns and occurances to justify their superstitions. There is much to support this as the purpose and nothing at all to support your wild claim of "duplication."
Angelic Being said:
More poppycock from the cults who want to paint science as a cult itself. I've got news for you, bub. Science isn't a thing or an entity. It certainly isn't a "religion." Science is a process. Either you follow it or you don't.
Angelic Being said:
Actually, I take you for a typical believer. Ignorant of science but for the basics. Ignorant of science to the point of claiming it for the purposes that suit you, ridiculing it when it doesn't. The hypocrisy is clear. Even you don't know what you truly believe in.
I ask again, but more clear this time: is the bible to be taken literally or symbolically?
your calling me the dunce, we go from this to this.Angelic Being said:
duh!jadon said:
and theres more.
duh!, so it was'nt destined, fated, determined, set, calculated, deliberate, predestined, foredestined, foreseen.jadon being said:
ok then I must be the dunce?
That's not horrible. You were a "slave" to your parents as well, in that you were expected to do as you were told, was that so horrible? It's only a matter of staying loyal even if the "authority" was not around. Cause then you are serving Christ and God who sees that which is hidden.kenworth said:
Sure there were terrible slavekeepers then, but there are also terrible parents around. When I think about it, it's not that much that has changed really. Sure it is a good thing that, nowadays, people get paid for their work, but maybe they couldn't do that in that time, the needs were different, and the people were used to it.
Can you expound upon this statement? What exactly do you mean by religious concepts in favour of sience?SkinWalker said:
In that there can be no error.
How do you justify such a statement? You forget the third option: it may be filled with fact and metaphorical myth - the difficult part is figuring out which is which and that is what Christians (should) do. That is we (should) apply objective and critical perspective as opposed to complete dismissal or naiive acceptance.
I think an informed Christian will not claim to "know something unbelievers cannot", but they may claim to know [Something] unbelievers do not or do not want to - God.
So it isn't very factual? What exactly does that mean?
Last edited:
But in fact we are all religious. Religion, in fact, may distinguish humanity from the rest of the earthly tree(s) of life - i.e. it is a part of what defines humanity.geeser said:
Every human has their "God void" - some fill it with: drugs to achieve some state of euphoria; belief in extraterrestrial "higher beings" watching over us; belief in science as the "holy grail" of achieving human destiny... Whatever "floats their boat."
Christians fill their void with God - perfect fit.
C
charles cure
Guest
Angelic Being said:
are you really telling someone else what they believe based on what you think you know about atheism?
atheism is just the nonbelief in god. it doesnt mean that you have nothing to look forward to, that you dont consider the issue open to debate or personal speculation.
as an atheist myself here is how i define it - i dont believe, i know.
i trust what i can know and dont try to believe in baseless or unproveable things. that being said i do feel free to think about a wide variety of subjects, i have an imagination, i frequently engage in ridiculous amounts of hope and speculation that theres a possibility of some transcendent human experience. but i dont have any reason to believe that i will find it because i dont or cant know about it at this point.
the kind of faith that i have is really just confidence in knowing that if something exists, humanity will eventually find a way to prove that it does, at which point religious belief will probably appear to be nothing more than a series of exploded fallacies.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry to but in again...
But science looks for that which can be tested upon some basic assumptions which cannot be tested. What are those assumptions accepted upon?SkinWalker said:
But science is based on human imagination and perspective - i.e. the ability to conceptualise that which may not be immediately apparent. You, of course, then test for it on the basis of your faithful assumptions.
But certainly a person with your knowledge will know of the evidence for an enormous flood that produced the Black Sea from glacial melt after the most recent ice age?
But did the bible state that there were no rainbows before the flood or did it state that it would be used as a sign after the flood? The version most immediately available to me (CEV) states nothing about existence of the rainbow.
But nothing of their truth.
But religion is also a "process"; you either follow it or you don't. What's the point?
But that may also be said of a typical atheist. Again, what's the point?
But why the or? Can it not be a compilation of both? That question appears rather strange to me.
C
charles cure
Guest
MarcAC said:
yeah, actually shockingly, the dictionary does it for us. as you see theres a clear cut difference.
belief -
1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
knowledge -
1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
5. Specific information about something.
6. Carnal knowledge
.2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
5. Specific information about something.
6. Carnal knowledge
A very crude way of describing our innate curiosity. Perhaps some drugs are actually a form of communication, not a void to be filled with whatever gives us satisfaction.