Religious debate - No flaming here...

Well hello once again:

Man it's been fun, and from the other lengthy posts I posted, I'll try to keep this one short and sweet. Now mihai, I've read your post and I'd like to comment on that first part about, "…christians say Jesus is the son of God - muslims say Allah had no son - somebody's got to be wrong right?" Take a look at all the religions in the world…in the world I say. And tell me this. Which one of them all claims to have a mediator between God and man? All of the religions will tell you, "Well this is the way, here are my thoughts and let's see if we get there." But Jesus said, "Look fellas, I am the way, the truth and the life, no man can come to the Father except he comes through me" (John 14:6 and I'm paraphrasing for ease of understanding).

Now about the Rock theory…praise God! That is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard, God's inability of picking up a rock larger than Himself makes him non-almighty. Apparently in the rush to try to prove a point you guys have missed one little itty bitty detail. God ain't human. You want the very essence of life in spirit, to come into the natural physical realm and pick up some damn rock to prove He's almighty. What school did you guys come out of? Who are your instructors in such thoughts, they should be hanged for teaching such faulty concepts not predicated upon truth.

But here's one for you. I have a huge thought in my head right now…so huge my head is starting to hurt. Now can any of you 2 rock guys come and pick this thought up off of my head? Of course not, you can't even see a thought. How then can you determine it's weight. You can't take a thought and say, "Look, like the color of this thought while holding out your empty hand." So then, if in our physical nature we deal with things that aren't visible, why don't we sit around and say, "Hey, I can't see what you're thinking, so you must not think." That's like what I wrote in an earlier post. "Well I can't see oxygen so I choose not to breath." Ha! Rediculous. And here we got scholars saying that if spirit can't pick up physical, then apparently he ain't strong enough. You don't know the properties that govern the spiritual realm, or the unseen. I don't know that myself, and we have a little knowledge in the physical properties of matter, label ourselves smart and say, "God didn't do it my way, so He must be fake."

Then some of you say that if God is almighty He can make us think the way we should and there wouldn't be any evil. Now I'm not big on freethinking, I doubt any of us ever made up our own mind without influences of any kind. So let's say for a moment there is not God (only to defeat this argument). Our own environment would influence us to think a certain way, or those around us would continue to influence our opinion. But because there is a God we have a mind and we can allow Him to influence us. He did create us as loving peaceful creatures. But the issue is not the absence of evil, or war, or chaos. The issue is about love. And I'm not talking about storgaie or philio or eros love, I'm talking about agape love…pure unadulterated love without biases and prejudice. It's about loving God and establishing a relationship. See our own concepts are proving us wrong. When we say that He can make us think a certain way, we're only stating that we are in a mess and there aren't any solutions. Then we look at the mess and say, "There must not be a God." But the issue again is, how can God tolerate such stupidity from His own creation?

Then we say, "Well if God wants me so bad why does He make believing in Him so impossible? It seems that an all powerful God could do a much better job of convincing people of His existence than anyone else ever does, why doesn't He just write it in the sky, nice and big with letters saying, 'Here's your proof pal, believe Me, Sincerely the Almighty.'"

The truth is He has done that. Psalms 19:1 says, "The heaves are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork." In fact it's written across the heavens so vividly that more and more scientists who search the stars are turning to God. The great cosmologist Allan Sandage, who won astronomy's version of the Nobel Prize, concluded that God is the explanation for the miracle of existence. Sir Fred Hoyle, who devised the steady state theory of the universe to avoid the existence of God, eventually became a believer in an Intelligent Designer of the universe. The astrophysicist Hugh Ross, who got his doctorate in astronomy from the University of Toronto and did research on quasars and galaxies, said scientific and historical evidence deeply rooted his confidence in the veracity of the bible. Robert Jastrow, a confessed agnostic and director of the Mount Wilson Observatory and founder of the Goddard Space Institute, concluded that the Big Bang Theory points toward God.

( I would recommend you read my earlier posts to see my background in science. You can do so by looking up zerimar3).

So apparently a little rock theory is not going to void out the existence of an ALMIGHTY GOD that has created the universe while leaving scientists to this day to still try to figure out His calculus. It's not God that's hiding, it's our concepts that are blinding us to see Him. We're so easily motivated to incline to our base nature and carnal reasoning that we can't grasp a spiritual mindset. And when I say spiritual I don't mean things flying around, or ghosts, or ridiculous fairytale. I'm talking about a true understanding of the area of life that continues to breed passion and purpose to continue to live. I'm referring to an understanding the material came out of the immaterial, that the invisible gave life to the visible, that we in the physical are the offspring of the spiritual. Folks, there is a God and He doesn't need my help to prove that, He is God all by Himself and next to Him there is no other.

Cheers,

Zerimar3
"Team Preacher"

God ain't human. You want the very essence of life in spirit, to come into the natural physical realm and pick up some damn rock to prove He's almighty.

Zerimar- man - I do not want God to do anything. But since you mentioned it - from reading Genesis we find out that God has the ability to impose his will on the physical realm... - I mean "he created the mountains, the rivers...." Also you misunderstood me -I'm not trying to prove anything. I gave that paradox as an explanation of why I am unable to believe not as irrefutable proof of God's non-existance. I am kinda dissapointed in you man - I thought given your "background in science" that you would try to make a fool out of me with the help of science - let me disproove myself the "rock" argument-

If the stone (rock) in question would be created a lot larger than say the Himalayans, and it would be created on the surface of Earth it would crumble due to the weight of said rock. If it would be created as a celestial body - there would be no meaning in "lifting" it since it would only have mass and acceleration not weight...It would then have to be "moved" and you can argue that planetismal motion - or even galaxy rotation is the will of God.
But all that is irrelevant since my point was only academical - it was addressed to Homo Sapiens not to Homo Faber... - I am not addressing my question to God directly since I am unable to fully believe in his existance... It's not about a rock - come on - don't you get it - I's the idea itself - (and I am talking here to snivlem too) - I am able to create (at least in my mind) something bigger than myself - a problem - an issue - I don't believe that I am surpassing my nature btw...
Also zerimar - I beg to differ on another point - this has little to do with God - you said

He did create us as loving peaceful creatures.

- Even if we were created by God - that is not my point - we were most certainly not created as peaceful creatures... - look around you man - wake up! - when were we ever peaceful? every human activity - even children's games - involves competition - not a very "peaceful" concept - starting with the tribal wars - and ending with our civilized times - HA! - peaceful - that is not true! - even small children are encouraged to play sports (another war re-enactment)look at the stock market - war. Look at the TV shows that attract most audience - competition! - War! - look at the real wars - at least 2 going on in the world at no matter what point in time. Look at PS tennis - is that peaceful? - NO! - It's competition -a lesser form of war - the opposite of peace - we are not peaceful creatures - look at what happened to the hippy movement! - I am not saying this is a bad thing - competition breeds quality - but you just don't see things truly....heck if we were created peaceful the very notion of "peace" would have no meaning since it would be the only state we ever knew....

I mean no disrespect - everyone is free to believe what he wants but when you say

What school did you guys come out of? Who are your instructors in such thoughts, they should be hanged for teaching such faulty concepts not predicated upon truth.

- you're failing your own theories - I mean if you're so peaceful a creature why do you say that my instructors should hang? - Is it just a "form of speach"? - Is this the kind of speach I am to expect from a peace-loving, God fearing man?

First of...I agree with mihai's response to your post.

Zerimar- man - I do not want God to do anything. But since you mentioned it - from reading Genesis we find out that God has the ability to impose his will on the physical realm... - I mean "he created the mountains, the rivers...." Also you misunderstood me -I'm not trying to prove anything. I gave that paradox as an explanation of why I am unable to believe not as irrefutable proof of God's non-existance.

zerimar3

Hehe, Aaaamen ;)

I won't even try and respond to that, 'coz I will admit that my intelligence isn't sufficient enough :D

But I will tell you this. You can state the existence of God as much as you want, but for me the proof of his existence that you claim isn't enough. And I havn't enough background in science to prove anybody wrong in anyway, but have to rely on my own thinking (wich in your eye's might not be sufficent, but it is me...). I do not say I'm right, and I do not say I won't someday believe, but I do say that right now with the proof I got I do not believe in a supreme spiritual being period. And there isn't any overwelming usage of words or naming scientists that have begun to believe that will convince me.

Would be fun to discuss this over a cupla beers, eh ? ;)

One other fact that I think is important here is that a huge majority of all wars in the history of mankind has been related to religion in one way or another, wich leads my li'l poor brain to think that if we didn't have religion or just one religion then the world would be a different place. Now somone replies:
"Then it would be something else that was the cause of them wars." How true that is, I do agree. But how much war would it be, how many, and would it in fact be that way...We hav no possible way of knowing, do we...

Mihai:

Good to hear from you. Patteman: It's a good time for a cupla beers.

Now on to something here quite briefly.

"If it would be created as a celestial body - there would be no meaning in "lifting" it since it would only have mass and acceleration not weight..."

Very interesting, I had no idea this is the way celestial things were, or that this is how they were created. Very enlightening. But since there would be no "meaning in lifting" then, what's the point about whether or not God is Almighty? Just looking for clarification.

Another question for Mihai and just to clarify. Since you are so familiar with the book of Genesis, I wanted to ask you the following: When man was formed and the breath of life was breathed into him, was he or not a peaceable creature? If not, then yeah, I'm very wrong in my statement, I have no problem with being wrong. However, if the answer is yes, what went wrong to make us competitive to the point of wars?

You say that:

"but you just don't see things truly".

Well, I'm not an ignorant bloke here. Because if your answer is yes that man was FIRST created as a peaceable loving creature, the principle of the offspring would be that we also inherited that trait. But something went wrong between there and here that messed things up. But issues such as war has not come about because of God having created us to be violent. So from the creation of man to his fall, was he peaceful and loving?

"What school did you guys come out of? Who are your instructors in such thoughts, they should be hanged for teaching such faulty concepts not predicated upon truth."

Mihai, yes it is a form of speech. Let me restate that in a non offensive way so that no one gets offended. "Oh where did you precious individuals acquire such intelligence? Who were your school masters that perhaps lacked knowledge fused with understanding of the things written in Holy Writ? Perhaps they too would consider studying anew and afresh some information they may have overlooked to better understand their teaching for future students".

Is that godfearing enough for ya?

Of course I'm not a peaceful creature man! I go into cardiac arrest just waiting in line at the Post Office. But my point was (and thanks for missing it) that man originally was created as a peaceful creature and lost that nature in his fall. But that was Old Testament, and now there's a new testament. And according to 1 Corinthians 15:22 & 45 it states that from Adam's fall death reigned, but through the life of Jesus (who was the mediator between God and man, as the atonement) all would be made alive.

So then are we peaceable creatures? No! We are looking to convert and be restored to what was lost in the fall of Adam the first man, who was originally created a peaceful and loving creature. Now herein is a war of itself, the nature of our fallen state and the fight to strive unto what God is looking to restore, and it's literally taking years for us to get the point.

Patteman:
I'm still up of for a cupla beers mate. And I did not provide a list of scientists to say, "Look everyone, even scientists are believing" It was simply added to help conclude my post. Heck I'm not convinced on certain things just because I hear certain preachers preach certain things, and I don't expect you to believe on the statistics of how many scientists believe. That would be ridiculous, and that makes you a very intelligent individual.

Well friends, I'm off. So much to do and so little time to do it in. But I'll be back to check any posts later on today.

Cheers,

Zerimar3

zerimar3 - you are being defensive and sarcastic - I noticed that as soon as people loose their arguments they become violent in gesture or in word.

You also took only what you believed suited your purposes from what I said and disregarded the other stuff...

How do you know that when man was formed and the breath of life was breathed into him he was a peaceable creature? - How do you know that? - Were you there? If you're telling me that you know so because it's written in the Bible then you're accepting at face value a book that says Adam gave name to all creatures in existance. - Did Adam gave name to intestinal worms? Did he made them come out of his behind and said - Oh hello there - I name thee - Taenia Solium! Even priests are forced to accept that the Bible is more of a spiritual guide than a factual book...
You cannot know for sure - and if you cannot know for sure then you cannot use it as a proof.

Very interesting, I had no idea this is the way celestial things were, or that this is how they were created. Very enlightening. But since there would be no "meaning in lifting" then, what's the point about whether or not God is Almighty? Just looking for clarification.

If you read a little further - you will see that I said that it doesn't matter- it's not about stones - it's the question itself...
as for the "form of speech" thing - it's more offensive the second time over because you presume I am unable to discern between sarcasm and sincere appologies and that offends my intelligence...why do you do that? - Is it because you could not find arguments that would stand to close scrutiny and you wish to demean my argument by cheap irony? - I think I was respectful ... - whilst I do not go into cardiac arrest waiting in line at some red tape dispenser I do get angry at some stuff - like the kind you pointed towards me. But I wish to surpass my inherent (in my oppinion) beligerant condition and I choose to refrain from harsh words on a thread that has "no flaming" posted on the title...

Perhaps this is getting too "warm" and we should stop - I do not wish to offend any of the powers that be on this site because my interest here is of a more laic nature - I wish most of all to sharpen my PS skills not my smart mouthing abilities.

Mihai:

I'm not being defensive or sarcastic because, as you state, I'm losing an argument. I really don't care to argue or to prove anything via an online forum, really, kind of ridiculous if you ask me. I too am here to learn about PS and enhancing my skills and the post office I go to is packed with people when I have shipments that take an hour to process, so it's not really a red tape dispenser.

The reason for the sarcasm is because I tend to find it humorous when individuals can't handle a little verbal edge thrown at them. We're all grown ups here, I'm sure we can handle some of the jargon right? When I'm speaking here online, it's like when I'm speaking at the local pub or my dirty mechanics garage. It's where I can lose the professionalism and "hang out". I did not say disrespect, I said hang out. You know, like the fellas on Friday night out on the town. That's what it is to me. So my sincere apologies for lack of clarity, I never thought anyone on an online forum would be a little ticked for rude speech. So I hope, should this conversation continue, we don't get too offended at tones or words, that's all they are, mere words. I'm not accustomed to using any foul language, or what I consider foul anyway. I respect the rules of the forum and its moderators as well.

Now I can tell you that Adam was created peacefully. And you will, as you have, counter that statement with "Were you there?". No I wasn't, but there isn't any proof that he wasn't created without being peaceful either. So neither you nor I were there to say whatever we're saying. For then we would have to look at improbabilities and probabilities to really analyze what is going on. For instance, we can say that because we're all violent, Adam was as well. Not true.

We can say that because no one resurrects from the dead, that Jesus could not have resurrected from the dead. Still not true. In other words we can't base ourselves on what happens today to say, that something in history could not have happened. So as improbable as the Resurrection might seem to skeptics, this has to be weighed against how improbable it would be to have all of the various historical evidence for its occurrence if it never actually took place.

It's like the natural laws that have implicit conditions; known as ceteris paribus. Which is latin for "all other things being equal". Look at the law of nature that oxygen and potassium combust when combined. But I have oxygen and potassium in my body and I'm not on fire. So are we violating the laws of nature? Nope, cuz the law merely states what happens under idealized conditions, assuming no other factors are interfering. But in our case, there are other factors interfering with the combustion, and so it doesn't take place.

Take gravity for instance, which says if you drop an object it falls to the earth. But if an orange falls off of a tree and you stick your hand out to catch it before it hits the ground, you're not violating or negating the law of gravity, you're just intervening that's all. So that's the point with ceteris paribus conditions. The law of gravity states what will happen under idealized conditions with no natural or supernatural factors intervening. So catching the orange doesn't overturn the law of gravity nor does it require that we develop a new law, it's just mere intervention of someone with free will who overrides the natural causes.

Now I've said all of that to simply make this statement, and I'm not trying to win any arguments here…just a point. If we are to say that Jesus never resurrected we'd have to find evidence against it as though it had never happened according to probability, but since it did, what are the chances that God intervened in His death to raise Him from the tomb alive? Those chances are great. Very great.

So then to say that we don't know that Adam was created peaceful, we'd have to find evidence against that. But since we don't have any, that can be discarded (and I'm not being rude here…just a point). Now if we say that Adam was created peaceful, we'd need evidence for that as well. However, because we have a historical book called the bible which shows dates and times in spans of hundreds of years to be accurate from event to event, we can say it holds some accountability. Therefore, since it does, what are the chances that God would not have created Adam, originally, as a peaceful being? Slim. Very slim, because he would've intervened and created Adam to be peaceful. But Adam fell into sin, and the circumstances of that were costly. However, we see again another intervention in the flow of humanity's mess. The life of Jesus Christ, intervening the natural laws and overriding them via a virgin birth.

Well I could go on and on, but we're always going to read into things and more things and misinterpret what he said, she said, they spoke out, you offended me stuff. (Now I'm being kind here…really).

So anyone can look and say, "Zerimar you're getting defensive and your losing an argument" and that's fine (and I'm not aiming at you mihai, but since you mentioned it I figured I'd clarify). But maybe I said what I said to redirect the conversation and break up the flow to get you guys to look into another direction. See what I mean, we can all misread and speak and say what we think about what someone else said.

But like SlimJimer said, debating about God and deciding is the biggest decision you can ever make in your life.

So guys, take care and let's be men about how we share around here and let the women be women and realize we're just guys up in here. Take care and I look forward to more conversations.

Cheers,

Zerimar3

Most satisfactory - I completely concurr with everything you said except for the religiously oriented stuff and one other thing - I actually do believe there's girls here too - but that's just to satisfy my childish competitive urges :D
Oh and one thing more - I do believe that you speak in a "hang out" manner with the people at the garage after you got to know them at least a bit...
some people don't appreciate fine humor - they may be haunted by their frustrations and various complexes and see bad stuff where there's no bad stuff... - I concede a small point ha! - now that we know each other a bit we can talk like the garage boys...
so - yeah - you may be onto something there in that we can neither validate or forfeit an unknown based solely on lack of proof for any thereof. But from there on - we split in theories - I say it's waay easier (no - easier is not the correct choice) - it's waay more likely - statistically if you will to attach value to something that we have an analog for... - we know that we are now beligerant and dirty and sinful - isn't it likely that maybe we were designed flawed? - look at the way we are built - our lungs are not made for vertical movement - they function 25% better when we're down on all fours and our ribcage doesn't press on them.... - look at the "miracle" of birth - it takes a whole lot of sperm to fecundate just one egg - that looks like a lot of waste to me - or if you wish to view the issue from a different angle - it's a fierce competition - the fastest and most able sperm wins the prize - it looks as if competition - war is built into our very fabric - we are born out of it - you're not going to tell me that adam and eve used just one sperm and one egg per birth and after they fell from heavens the sperm got stupid....

However, because we have a historical book called the bible which shows dates and times in spans of hundreds of years to be accurate from event to event, we can say it holds some accountability.

I am sorry but I don't believe that for a moment - I mean as a spiritual guide - the Bible may be the bestseller of all times but for factual accountability - please - it teaches us that you can beat the crap out of an army with a donkey's jaw.
you don't burn up even though you have potrassium and hydrogen in your body because they are stable compounds in various combinations not free agents - all other things are not equal in this matter. It's the same as this: - why does water put out fire? - Water is made from oxygen and hydrogen - both very volatile - one is a combustible - the other is a supporting agent....
but what happens when something evaporates? - cold.... -
Oh and you actually do "burn up" in a manner of speaking - at a celular level - that's how the cells produce energy....
And if you stop an orange or an apple from falling you do not override gravity - the apple or the orange keep pushing against your hand with the weight that the gravitational force is imposing upon it. By analogy your point (Jesus overriding the natural laws) is mote...
one good thing came out of this - I am no longer upset with you-
Peace!

"Now that we know each other a bit".

Not hardly bub, this is an online forum, I have no clue what you look like, where you're located, or what you work in, etc. But oh well.

The bible doesn't teach us you can beat the crap out of an army with an ass' jaw (donkey). It teaches that with God on your side, the impossible is possible, so unless you've read the scriptures and have thoroughly searched them out, I'd think about that one. And of course our body doesn't burn up due to various combinations, which is what I stated in an earlier post with my point on ceteris paribus. That the laws function under certain conditions, which is why I brought up the orange falling from a tree. I know gravitational force keeps pushing it against your hand…but that wasn't my point, thanks for missing it.

A historical book as the bible does have it's accountability and is factual. The writings of the prophet Isaiah declared more insight into the messianicship of Christ than any other prophet ever. Then thousands of years later Christ shows up…perhaps a huge guess ay?

Not to mention that the minor prophet Hosea spoke of the salvation outside of Jewish heritage, only for Christ to show up thousands of years later to bring Grace to the Gentiles, another huge guess perhaps?

Well where did these guys all meet when one died thousands of years earlier to make sure the guy who showed up thousands of years later would do exactly what was written thousands of years prior. And of course that's prophecy; history in advance and accurate.

So let me ask you this. What's your take on the Apostle Paul who was born of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised the 8th day after his birth according the covenant of Abraham, concerning the law a Pharisee, in regard to his equals he was above them and then persecuted the early church in the book of Acts after having studied at the feet of Gamaliel? Tell me, what you think of his conversion from killing those who preached Christ to becoming the one who wrote over half of the New Testament and lifted up churches to which the Pauline epistles are written?

Answer if you will how from the lineage of Adam to Abraham, on to King David of Israel came the man Jesus Christ of this same lineage thousands of years later to preserve the kingly throne, and call Israel to repentance, only to have been rejected and turn to a people who were not His own which now fulifilled the writings of Hosea and Jeremiah who had prophesied of this thousands of years earlier?

So let's abandom areas kinetic energy and quantum mechanics and science and all that good jazz, to which I've answered. Now let's get into the bible where you all can answer.

This post is for everyone now. Not just mihai

I highly doubt the bible was about a bunch of guys getting together and writing stuff that has been discovered. I'd also doubt that the present day nation of Israel can cause world wide chaos for no reason at all, since its entire country is smaller than my backyard.

So I conclude: The unbelieving mind would not be convinced by any proof, and the worshiping heart needs none.

Shalom,

Zerimar3

Originally posted by mihai
we know that we are now beligerant and dirty and sinful - isn't it likely that maybe we were designed flawed?

you have to understand that this is about man's free will. Christians believe that man was created 'peacefull' or 'perfect' but God gave him free will. Man was deceptively presented with the choice to 'become like God' and he freely chose to become like God, thus disobeying God by eating the 'fruit'.

Thus man was corrupted by his choice. All man, not just the first. Man is now born into the world knowing both evil and good. ANd if they chose to, they do evil.

That's where Christians are coming from.

And is it possible that if there is a God and he did create the world and the universe, that he could (if he wanted) make sure that the Bible is being factual and that it's writings are the same as they were when they were written? that's also why Christians believe in the Bible(besides that they researched it and compared it to ancient writings).

You might never believe the bible is what Christians say it is because of the fact that you can't believe in God as you said. If you don't believe in God then people trying to convince you to believe that the bible is factual is going to be pretty tough. Like slimjim said, A guy went out and researched this topic. He held your position. He was a skeptic. The book is called A Case for Christ. If you see it and are interested, I reccomend it. It's interesting.

just an observation in some of the comments made. a lot has been said about an individual not knowing something or some detail, which is in fact true, whatever on might believe or not believe from the bible there will certainly be things that you don't know or can't prove. there's things that i read in the bible, even tho i'm a christian, that i have a hard time believing or disagree with.

the thing is, whether or not adam named tapeworms or dinosaurs are mentioned really doesn't have a lot to do with my salvation or relationship with God. sure, they're interesting things to debate, but in the big picture they don't really have much effect on my day to day life one way or the other. my faith is based on a relationship, and the things in the bible that describe and discuss that relationship ARE dead-on accurate and that's enough for me.

for all those throwing around pseudo-scientific arguments for not believing, realize that the folks you're explaining these things to more than likely sat in very similar shoes to yours at one time. and just like He has for some here, God can and will reveal Himself in a way that will reach you at just the right time if you seek it out. and sometimes even if you don't

chris