God (the one and only(for Christians)) [Archive] - Werewolf.com Discussion Boards

J.L.R.

03-20-2004, 08:26 PM

As the resident Christian, and thorn in many a side, I will say this...

I KNOW God exists, as I know I exist. My faith in God, stems from the fact that He made promises in the Bible to those who trust and follow Him, and he's kept everyone. In truth some my argue coincodence, but after hundreds and hundreds of times, one has to start thinking.

That is why my faith isn't blind. My faith has assurance. God has kept His promises, and He will continue to do so. It is like putting faith in a chair you always sit in. When you first saw the chair, you were a little questionable about comfort and its ability to hold you. Once you sat down in it, you realize that it will hold you. After enough times, you don't even think about it anymore. You have faith that that chair will hold you, because you have the assurance that you KNOW it will hold you. The same goes with God.

When you first become a TRUE Christian, it is hard to rely on God, because after all most people have been brainwashed into believing that He doesn't exist, and that we are all some biological disaster that happened billions of years ago. You don't trust God, because you don't know Him enough too trust Him, however, the longer you are a Christian and the more you KNOW about Him, the more trust you put in Him, until, if you are willing, you can completely rely on Him. If God kept all of His promises in the past, wouldn't that mean He would keep them in the future?

Because God KNOWS you, He knows how much you can handle. God said, He will never tempt you greater than you can carry. Why trust in something that has limits, when you can trust in the One who is limitless. The One who is boundless, borderless, and everywhere, and anywhere...?

Then again, if you don't believe in God... then you don't. Unless you are willing to, you won't ever...end point.

I know what I believe, and I know why I believe.

As for testing God. You must realize the Bible is full of people who tested and tried God. Many of them had the same problem believing in God, even after He did all of those miracles, and the Old Testement is full of them. My goodness the Isaelites were gripping just hours after they crossed the red sea. In fact they complained through out the entire Exodus, even though God took care of them. Some of the greatest leaders in the Bible, like Gidean, tested God. (His remarkable story can be found in The Book of Judges)

God has never failed a test.

Oh well.....

In truth, we were all probably created by giant alien Chickens from venus as a practical joke to the turkeys on Uranus. I'm sleepy so I better stop before my mental capabilities dwindle down to that of a sea slug... :p

J.L.R.

03-20-2004, 08:33 PM

I just felt like adding one thing...

I don't blame Dark Wolf or anyone who doesn't believe in God, or any god, for thinking that Christians are crazy or stupid, because in all logical (in the humanitarian since of the word) ways, it sounds crazy. So I don't expect them to truly understand the why of the matter, because they can't. Even the Bible makes this statement, that it is foolish to those who don't believe. (Paraphrased of course)

My point is...

Don't knock, until you've lived it. :p

DarkWolf

03-20-2004, 08:33 PM

I better stop before my mental capabilities dwindle down to that of a sea slug...
Too late! :p :buttrock: :D (I'm joking)

But serious, I doubt you've seen God face to face... you don't know he's there, you've had no sensory input of his existence. You are merely assuming, and believing that assumption. Nothing really wrong with belief. If you follow your belief: more power to ya. I'll just rely on the faith in myself, because that is just like putting my trust in the chair I already know - why bother moving seats when you're already in a sturdy and comfortable seat?

J.L.R.

03-20-2004, 09:33 PM

Assumptions eh? Mwahahaha

Where you here at the beginning of time? Did you see the process of creation, whether accidental, or purposeful(?) (gee I think I created a word) happen? NO

However, you assume it happened because, well you are hear aren't you. You are typing on your computer and BEATING me to the post...har har, but none the less, the proof of creation lies in the fact that you are alive and well...or as close to well as you can be.

In other words, you believe, what you believe, because the evidence (or perceptions of evidence) is right in front of you.

Of course this perception all revolves around our foundations of belief.

I believe God created the Earth.

You believe in Evolution.

While fundementally they are different, they both are equal in one aspect. They are preceptions of evidence.

So while I can't see God, I can see His handywork.

You can't see macroevolution, but yet you say you can see its handywork. (Aka the geological collumn)

THis is where it gets fun... Hold on to your seat belts because we are going for a ride!!!)

You can not prove that macroevolution occured, but you have faith it did, because, as I've mentioned before, you see us today, so it had to happen...did it. I mean they teach this HAPPENED across the globe, it is ingrained in every school, college, and university. It is in our kids cartoons, and Evolution has been declared a constant FACT! It is a fact....or is it....?
The problem though occures in the fact that you can not truthfully prove that it actually occured, physically, that is.
Let us look at the geological collumn. We see several different layers of rock, stacked on top of each other, with several different species on each layer. After Carbon Dating the rock, it is plausable to assume that each layer contains life from different eras of time, and that through natural selection, the weaker died out, got fozzilied, and the better species survived and evolved, as we see today. Right...

Well wrong...

The problem with this thinking is the fact that the physical resemblence is the only thing taken into consideration, as well as the date of the supposed rock layer. This is the same mentality of a police agency that arrest, try, and convict people, just because they resemble a criminal. There are other factors involved. One key factor are witnesses. None there.
Two Genetic similarities...
er None there...

Lastly the animals themselves...
None there as well...

Fossils are poor pictures of creatures that once lived, and the only thing that I've seen evolve from them, are the artists renditions of them. Look at the dromeosorids or Raptors (Thank you Jurassic Park for ruining my big names!!!! :) ) Velociraptor, Deinonychus, Utah Raptor, Mega Raptor, Dromeosaurus, and the alike. If you look at the bone structure of the animal, and the artist rendition, you are going to see a dramatic difference. The artists reduce the forelimbs to useless wings, give them feathers, and beaky faces, of which completely contradict the fossil shapes! It is perposterous. There is not one evidence of proof that these creatures have any relation to birds. They may appear to be bird like, but what about the monotrems, the appear to be mammals, but they have bird like qualities. I think our logic is being pegion-holed here.

Another problem is fossilization in general. This process is extremely rare, and need special conditions in order to occure, such as lots of rock and PRESSURE. SO please toss out those dinosaur dying, getting covered by some dirt, and MILLIONS of years later we have dinosaurs, because scientifically that is impossible. The rate of decay would destroy both tissue and bone before fossilization would occure under normal conditions. Yeah we have mummies, but a mummy a few thousand years old, is completely different than a fossil supposedly millions of years old. That is another thing, the dino deaths. Most science text books still teach the Alverez theory of Asteriod impact, even though the evidence against his theory is unbelievable. I find that funny. Even if it did happen, that only explains the Creatacious disaster. It doesn't explain the Jurassic, Triassic, or Pre-Cambrian fallout.

However, if you would gladly open your Bible, and go to chapter 7, we learn about a global flood. We learn that during this flood, that underground resevoures erupted, and that the water layer surrounding the Earth (of which created a greenhouse of perfect lush vegitation) fell, and basically the entire land was ripped apart. As the debris settled, the animals at the bottom of the sea would be first (pre-cambrian) the animals that lived nearer the beaches (triassic) would be next and so on and so forth, with a few species in between. Since the water covered the entire planet, the pressure at the bottom would be tremedous enough to create fossils, fossil fuels, and all that good stuff. Since the Global Greenhouse is gone, it would give rise to the existance of Ice caps, of which appear to be historical reminants of this event, as well as the varied climates, that we have.

Well carbon dating proves the latter... Does it?

I'm sorry but from my last deep study of the process, I read that scientists have also tested rocks that were historically dated to be only a few hundred years old, and would still test millions of years old... interesting though.

Or what about Ernest Haeckel's evolutionary embryo tests, in which the embryo goes through the various evolutionary stages before it reaches its final form, aka the baby creature. This guy blantanly admitted to being a fraud, and that he had manipulated the material to fit his thinking, and yet there are still schools and such that hold to his beliefs. Even our dear Kat considered a human embryo a parasite during certain stages of developement. For pete's sake he's a fraud! No matter what the creature may appear to be, it is still genetically that creature and has the ability to be that creature!

Now to be fare, and I want to be.

I can not prove that God exists, because I am still interpreting the facts as I see them, so in that since, I am like the evolutionist.

Just one more note, the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate to a most amazing detail, scientifically as well. Just an interesting note...

Aquilan

03-20-2004, 10:37 PM

The battle rages on. *puts on his J.L.R. cap* Nothing I can say.

Startraveler

03-20-2004, 11:03 PM

Just one more note, the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate to a most amazing detail, scientifically as well.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotate dbible.com/) has a special icon for each scientific absurdity in the bible. Worth taking a look at.

blueeyes

03-21-2004, 12:10 AM

JLR, you realize a flood wouldn't have caused any fossil formation, never mind the part that any such formation would have been all on one level.

Also, there are currently multiple fossils of dinosaurs with scales and feathers.

I thought they found a five mile wide asteriod crater somewhere. Dated to about 700 million years ago.

Anyway, I won't dispute that a good deal of the Bible is pretty accurate. But that might just be because the seven people who wrote it in the 700s wanted it to be close to history. But that doesn't make it real; a few minor details, compared to, say seeing someone get resurrected.

Fuzzy

03-21-2004, 12:45 AM

I'm not going to lie J.L.R., you seem like a very intelligent person, definately more so than myself. However, you seem to be clouding your judgement with mommy's wishes or the desire to be more than just another piece of shit carbon life form. By the way, they have proven (yes proven) that a meteor hit earth at what is now called the gulf of mexico. That crater, keeping erosion in mind, is just about the right size to cause plate shifts and increased volcanic activity. Keeping that in mind, realize that the other half of this meter hit near india shortly after. Proven, YES, proven fact. Did this cause the death of the dinasaurs, that i couldn't tell you.
P.S. Christians do just as much, if not more, brain washing than evolutionists.

LV426

03-21-2004, 01:04 AM

While I was not there at the beginning of creation I have to note that there was no one present at the time of creation and so Christians can not prove that there was not a big bang which cause the universe to gain some sense of order and the begining of life as we know it. There is no way to say how the universe began but it is more believable to think that forces and elements came together in the right way rather than believe in some all knowing being clapping his hands and creating the universe and everything in it.

Now I would like to address JLR's claims that dinosaurs are not related to birds. Scientists when they first discovered the bones of dinosaurs envisioned giant lumbering lizards that ruled the earth. T-Rex is one of those whos name means Terrible Lizard King. And T-Rex wasn't even that large compared to later dinosaurs. Quite a few journals and documentations were published stating that these large extinct creatures were in fact reptilian and it wasn't until recently that people began to view dinosaurs in a different light. For instance, Brachiosaurus and Brontosaurus were portrayed as great swamp dwellers that needed water to support their body weight. Now we know that they rarely went near swampy areas as it would hinder their movements and that they were capable of more than just sitting in a lake of water.

It wasn't until Thomas Huxley was eating quail one evening while ruminating on a palaeontological puzzle poised by a strange bone back in the lab. He knew it was the lower leg bone (tibia) of a meat-eating dinosaur but smeared across the bottom of it was an unidentified extra bone. He happened to suck the flesh off the bottom of the quail leg and there, smeared across the bottom of the quail tibia, was the same enigmatic bone. Dealing with a more complete bird leg, Huxley realised that the osseous stranger was the anklebone (astragalus). More importantly, Huxley concluded that the form of the astragalus in both the dinosaur and the bird were so similar that they must be closely related. http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/story.htm

This was refuted by others but then, in the late 1960's, John Ostrom from Yale University noted 22 features in the skeletons of meat-eating dinosaurs that were also found in birds and nowhere else. This reset the thinking on bird ancestry. Subsequent work has found up to 85 characters that tie theropods and birds together. Although some of these characters may be of dubious significance, so many characteristics shared between theropods and birds is a pretty convincing argument in favour of the relationship.

Now you can say that dinosaurs were nothing like birds but many share similar characteristics such as hollow bone structures, the positioning of the pelvic bone, the ankle bone as stated above, and the presence of feathers in certain species. (http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/23/feathered.dinosaur/)

One of the biggest links from dinosaurs to birds is Archaeopteryx. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html)Recovered from limestone quarries in southern Germany, Archaeopteryx is a 145 million-year-old, crow-sized skeleton covered in feathers. There is no disputing that Archaeopteryx had feathers, they are clearly preserved along with two of the seven known specimens, and feathers are a distinctly birdie feature. But the skeleton of Archaeopteryx is distinctly non-bird-like with a long bony tail, teeth instead of a beak and claws on the wings.

The Birds-Are-Dinosaurs group contend that, if feathers had not been found with Archaeopteryx, it would have been identified as a small dinosaur (in fact the five specimens without feathers had previously been identified as the small dinosaur Compsognathus). The skeleton does have some bird-like features such as a wishbone (furcula) and bird-like feet that suggest to the Birds-Are-Not-Dinosaurs camp that Archaeopteryx is too bird-like to be considered a dinosaur.

China (http://www.nationalgeograph ic.com/society/ngo/events/98/dinosaurs/index.html) has given its name to what may be a feathered dinosaur. Sinosauropteryx comes from rocks thought to be around 130 million years old in northeast China. It's the skeleton of a dinosaur but it's surrounded by a halo of fuzz. No one's quite sure what the fuzz is. It appears to be hair-like structures that could have helped insulate the beast and some authorities think that these are proto-feathers. Whatever the fuzz turns out to be, it's significant that at least one member of the group of dinosaurs thought to be ancestral to the birds was experimenting with a body covering more complicated than bog-standard reptilian scales. Further, the fact that this body covering consists of stiff rods projecting away from the body is at least part of the way to creating a structure something like feathers.

An exceptionally preserved baby theropod happens to also be the only dinosaur ever found in Italy. Details of preservation of Scipionyx include the intestines, liver and chest musculature. And, nestled at the top of the chest is a beautifully preserved furcula. While not the first theropod furcula, it does underline the fact that this bird-bone was close to the heart of meat-eating dinosaurs.

There are other dinosaurs with bird-like features. Unenlagia, from 88 million year old beds of Patagonia folded its arms in the same way that birds do. Oviraptor from Mongolia, once thought to be an egg thief, is now known from several specimens crouching over nests of their own eggs in exactly the same pose as brooding emus. And a reassessment of other theropods reveals such bird-like features as hollow bones and a foot with three functional toes, bird-like features that appeared over 50 million years before the first feeble flying flaps flung Archaeopteryx into the air.

So structurally, the fossils are offering a pretty consistent picture that the Birds-Are-Dinosaurs hypothesis is correct. But there's a hitch. The closest dinosaurian relatives to the birds occur in the fossil record after Archaeopteryx. Unless Velociraptor and kin perfected time travel, there's no way they can be the ancestors of a bird that lived sixty million years earlier. Some recent finds suggest that bird-like dinosaurs did exist earlier than previously thought, but the fossils are scrappy and inconclusive. Given the improbability of fossilisation, it's quite possible that pre-Archaeopteryx dino-birds were simply not preserved.

Rahonavis is a primitive bird from 80 million-year-old rocks of Madagascar. Despite being more bird-like than Archaeopteryx, raven-sized Rahonavis retains some very distinctive theropod features including the distinctive slashing claw used to murderous effect by Velociraptor in the film Jurassic Park. Velociraptor is thought to be about as close as a dinosaur gets to being a bird without actually being one.

A host of small primitive birds have been found elsewhere around the world. (http://www.nationalgeograph ic.com/events/97/novas/index.html) From Mongolia comes a large flightless bird, Mononykus, with wings replaced by a lethal-looking pair of single-digit hands that stuck out in front like a pair of combat chop sticks. Another flightless bird from Patagonia confirms that not all early birds thought the sky was a great place to be. Other primitive birds lived along side Rahonavis in Madagascar. A sparrow-sized bird from Spain had a more modern shoulder joint than Archaeopteryx and a perching foot but it still had teeth. The first known beak adorned a Chinese bird 130 million years ago, along with the oldest pygostyle (the "parsons-nose" in birds that is all that remains of the reptilian tail). 110 million-year-old feathers and bird bones have even been recovered from Victoria and Queensland. It would appear that once true birds had evolved they didn't waste much time in spreading around the world!

As for further proof of evolution we can look just a little further back from here but not as far as the dinosaur. I shall give you The giant Cave Bear, the cave lion, the cave hyena, the Megaceros, and even the aurochs,bison, and mammoths of approximately 20,000 to 30,000 years ago. All of these creatures have evolved counterparts that resemble them and shares some genetic similarities.

There goes YOUR evolution theory.

Now as for your little flood. While flood myths are common to practically every culture on the planet, most of them are significantly different in detail. There are nearly a hundred flood myths originating from cultures all over the globe which you can look at HERE (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html).

Some creationist presentations include claims about "polystrate fossils". The term, which is not a geological term, is used by creationists to describe fossils that intersect several rock beds, usually in sedimentary rocks. However, "polystrate" tree fossils were not problematic for conventional geologists of the 19th century, nor are they a problem for 20th century geologists. You can read more on this HERE (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html).

Another reason that there seems to have been no major flood is that there have been dinosaur prints found in Coal. Care to study? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html)

I could go on and on about the various scientific facts that actually dispute the flood and support evolution and not creationism. But the thing is that when and where the Bible was written is the key to the contents therein. And while I don't believe that there is a god up there creating, destroying, and judging, I also believe that for those who do believe in god, denying evolution no matter what because it doesn't follow with their beliefs is rather like an ostrich sticking his head in the sand when the rhinos are stampeding.

J.L.R.

03-21-2004, 06:17 AM

What about human footprints found along dinosaur footprints at Puluxy River Bed, in Texas?

I've heard evolutionists refute this as a geological accident, but I'm sorry a but the fossil prints of it are rather striking. Thank you Dr. Carl Bough! :) He talks about it in his book, Dinosaur.

You still can not, PROVE that these creatures were descendents of birds, or were birds at all.

Look, I am not trying to prove that Creation happened, because as I said earlier, I wasn't there, but neiter were you.

As for Biblically scientific errors. I guess it would contain errors since it doesn't apply to the evolution religion standerds.

Macro-evolution has never been witnessed, and in fact it can not ever be witnessed.

Also the Global flood has been proven scientifically, by people, who are by all accounts not Christians. I saw this on the News not too long ago.

You are still referring to the Alverez Theory. There are several craters on the Earth's surface. We have one in Arizona. There is one up in Canana (I think Canada). As well as what appears to be a crater, off the coast of Mexico, near the Yucatan (if I have my geography right), of which is the debate of the Alverez theory. Alverez stated that because of the over abundant amount of Iridium in this location, since Iridium is rarely found on the Earth's surface, but has been found in Meteorite deposits, that the only plausible reason for this was a massive asteriod collision. Once dated, it appeared he was right.

However, while Iridium is rare on the Earth's surface, it is not rare in the mantel, and further scientific studies found similar iridium patters near areas of high volcanic activity. In fact Alverez's area of iridium, was closer to matching that of volcanic activity, than it was of meteorite deposits.

Also the fossil record shows an immediate catastrophy, not a slow painful meteorite winter, as suggested by theoriests. Look at the evidence at hand. In Mongolia Velociraptor and Protoceratops locked in a death struggle. In Montana, a pack of Deinonychus are tangling with an iguanadon (yeah, I'm a dinosaur nut, but hey). The fossils show that whatever happened to them, happened immediately. It couldn't have been caused by a meteorite, sinc the heat generated by such a cataclysim would have vaporized anything within its reach.

Of course, after following LycanthropicHowls example of further study, I will go to the library and gather information, before I enter Phase Two...

J.L.R.

03-21-2004, 06:20 AM

Oh I forgot to add this....

Your avatar is cool Lycan! Where did you get it?

blueeyes

03-21-2004, 07:33 AM

You still can not, PROVE that these creatures were descendents of birds, or were birds at all.
And you can't prove that it didn't. She, on the other hand, gave some very elegant information. So can we stop asking for iron-cast evidence and recognize that she spouted more info than any of us really need to believe something might be accurate. Unless you can disprove it or at least provide some facts to support your theory, beyond the part where artist's interpretations don't seem to look like the fossils because the drawings aren't flat. I suppose that some time-travel could have decided to go and stomp around near a fossil while trying to pin feathers and some fuzz on a different animal before it fell into tar, but that's not very likely, is it.
Look, I am not trying to prove that Creation happened, because as I said earlier, I wasn't there, but neiter were you.
Yes you are. You are attempting to remove all other options from being considered as false, then comparing them to your viewpoint and avoiding any deconstructive analysis of it.
As for Biblically scientific errors. I guess it would contain errors since it doesn't apply to the evolution religion standerds.
Check again. I'm willing to wager you can find a few physics problems that aren't considered miracles, a good deal of anomolies from what we know of the past, et al.
Macro-evolution has never been witnessed, and in fact it can not ever be witnessed.
Also the Global flood has been proven scientifically, by people, who are by all accounts not Christians. I saw this on the News not too long ago.
JRL, look at the fossils. Even if you don't believe that they were all seperated by such a degree of time, you'd see a distinct path from one group to the next. You can witness its results.
However, you can't prove a global flood. For a few reasons, mostly the ones you've used so far. Also, I'd like you to dowse some land in sea water for 40 days or so and then try to grow something in it. Likewise, unless a god decided to eradicate a few billion tons of water, there wouldn't be enough pressure on the land to create the fossils.
You are still referring to the Alverez Theory...
Let's ignore the Iridium, which could have not been right in this situation, as well as the other craters. We both recognize that there is a giant crater, right? Good. Saying that a meteor didn't hit, and it was just... I dunno, the hand of God deciding he really didn't like some place. The Chicxulub crater, Yucatan is 180 km wide. The undersea Shiva crater is supposed to be 600 km wide.
Let's assume that God decided to vaporize the entire thing, since that seems the most entertaining to watch. So we drop equations: 180 kilometer radius in a half sphere would be 1/2 (4/3) Pi * r^ 3. If we're so kind as to approximate pi as 3.14, we get 12,208,320 cubic kilometers of dirt. Then we find the surface area of the Earth. Looking online to see the radius, we find about 6,350 km. Drop in (4) Pi r^2, we have a surface area of about 506 million. Saying that the dirt spreads out evenly, we've got a layer of dirt in the air equivalent to 24.11 meters. Suffice it to say that I think that would make more than a foot note if it landed during the 7000 years or so the bible says the world's existed during.
In Mongolia Velociraptor and Protoceratops locked in a death struggle. In Montana, a pack of Deinonychus are tangling with an iguanadon (yeah, I'm a dinosaur nut, but hey). The fossils show that whatever happened to them, happened immediately. It couldn't have been caused by a meteorite, sinc the heat generated by such a cataclysim would have vaporized anything within its reach.
Well, if you were such an expert, you'd know that the Deinonychus happened to be running around in the Ablian age at the latest. That's 90 million years ago, 30 million years before the crater. Iguanadon, on the other hand, viewed through the late Jurassic to the early Cretacous. That's about 140 million years ago, + or - 10 million.
Protoceratops and Velociraptor were at least around at the same time and place, which helps a bit, but they also died out 6 million years before the end of the Mesozoic.

You might want to look around a resource first... try this one, for example : http://dinosauricon.com/main/index.html . I just had to teach this stuff, bud, so it's time to check yourself.

J.L.R.

03-21-2004, 08:18 AM

Well Blue Eyes, it doesn't matter how close they resemble each other in a fossil layer, you still can't genetically prove that they are related. All you still have is a picture, a poor one at that, of what the animal looked like.

Now you assume they have relation, but that is still assuming...

Just recently two Russian Physicists proved that the dividing of the Red Sea is physically plausable, as I'm sure many of the other miracles, if studied carefully could have been.

The problem I always find with skeptics of the Bible, is the fact that they didn't nor wouldn't believe the Bible in the first place. Where as many of the resources that I gather my information from, are from Evolutionisnts who became Christians, and are now Creationists, such as Percival Davis "A Case for Creation."

Ultimately, as what my point has been all along, is there is assumption on both parts, both sides.

You assume that macro-evolution occured because the creatures in the layers of rock, suggest such a change.

However, I can take the same data, and totally interpret it as something else, the problem with that being, the Creationist, interpretation is simply not regarded, purposely over looked, and in some cases, ignored.
As one famous Evolutionist once said, "I don't care if they could prove every page of Genesis, I still won't believe God created this world."

However, as for right now, I must stop this arguement, for I am not completely prepaired at the moment, and I do not want to do my side an injustice, by not backing facts. I want to be as scientific as possible. So please excuse me for this. I do apologyize, but I would like to continue. For this is enjoyable.

When I am ready, I will create a proper thread for it.

Thanks for the time!

blueeyes

03-21-2004, 11:28 AM

You know, you don't really need to prove that the miracles are possible. That kind of defeats the purpose. What you need to do is make a case for us to see religion as any more viable than evolution. Saying that your opponents evidence isn't perfect doesn't help much if you can't support your own arguement.

Hellcat

03-21-2004, 12:02 PM

Sorry to jump in so late in the debate, but I feel I should correct JLR regarding his facts about radiocarbon dating. You can't use this method to apply a date to a rock, it only applies to organic matter.

J.L.R.

03-21-2004, 01:23 PM

How are rocks dated now?

I also agree Blue Eyes, that is why I am going to go back into my studies. In fact I have been gathering resources for a couple of weeks now, but because I am not truthfully analytical by nature, it is hard for me to remember everything that I've read.

I am a jack of all trades, master of none, people. I wish I could master a trade, but alas, my brain doesn't allow it. I get too deep into study, and it shuts down, but anyway, I have several hundred things going on in my mind right now, so it isn't the best time for me to debate anything, and I don't want to be a Christian, who can just fumble around and say, "Because God said so." I really want to give a good arguement, so I must ready my mind for such an arguement, and I mean an arguement in the nice, peaceful, deductive way, and not in the name calling, strangling, flame filled. I want critical thinking, not sinceless babble.

Oh well, just thinking about it right now has me getting cloudy. :) Darn blond brain!!! :)

LV426

03-21-2004, 02:56 PM

To date geological layers and rock they used a method called Radiometric Dating.

To date fossils and organisms that have died they use the Carbon 14 method.

Both methods do have some margin for error but they have accurately tested materials of recent and confirmed dates and the dating systems have indeed correlated with the dating techniques and the known time period.

While a Velociraptor and a Protoceratops were locked in a mortal combat at the time of death, this is not an uncommon occurance when animals are fighting. Whether they are food animals or simply scavengers, animals have been known even today to fight and be so wounded that both of them die while locked in their struggle for survival.

There is no way to determine why they died but the injuries to the fossil animals suggest that they died fighting. If as you say a flood had killed these animals instantaneously, then the rapidly rising waters and the current that would accompany such a massive deluge, would most likely wash the animals apart and into another area. Something else to consider is that usually animals that are faced with rising waters tend to panic and run to higher ground, not stand and face an enemy until they drown.

Another problem with your mass extinction is that the Protoceratops and the Velociraptor died about 75 million years ago, while the Iguanodon and the Deinonychus died about 105 million years ago. So much for the mass flood leading to mass extinction.

While there is some evidence of a number of animals dying at one time that can be explained by the extreme force with with a meteor of a great size would hit the earth. And in some cases scientists believe that there were several meteors that may have hit the earth, varying in size which could cause mini-explosions across the planet, triggering geologic disasters such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. All of this could happen very rapidly and lead to mass deaths across the planet. Those that survived the intial destruction would then have died later in the meteoric winter that followed from the amounts of gas, ash, and dust in the air. There is evidence that there was life that survived, you can see quite clearly that we still have some remaining dinosaurs that live among us. Crocodiles and Alligators being the most notable.

Firesong

03-21-2004, 07:45 PM

Here's a good book that both sides might find interesting

"The Life of God, as told by himself" By Franco Ferucci
http://www.sfsite.com/05a/life32.htm

read...enjoy....it was a brilliant book...

Ves

03-21-2004, 11:16 PM

Umm two things.
Firstly, the Deluge. There's no evidence at all in the Geological record for a complete global flood such as that described in the Bible. I'm no geologist, but even I know that such an event would leave quite a noticeable footprint had it happened. It is also estimated that there isn't, nor has there ever been, enough water on Earth to completely cover the surface with liquid water, even if the icecaps completely melted, so where did the surplus go? (actually I know the answer to that, it falls on my head when I walk home from work) Also it is estimated that to gather 2 of every creature in one place and get them on the Ark would have taken somewhere in the region of 350 years if memory serves. Finally the boatbuilding technology of the time simply wasn't up to building a craft of sufficient size to house all those animals. However there are other historical stories that do back the story of a great flood which would have caused widespread destruction. In Babylonian history, possibly even in the Epic of Gilgamesh I can't remember, there is a story very similar to that of Noah, only instead of ending up at Mount Ararat, it ended up on an island somewhere.

Secondly, the Chicxulub crater has since been shown to have possibly have existed up to 10 million years before the C-T boundary, and therefore may possibly not be responsible for the death of the Dinosaurs. Same goes for the Shiva crater. Leaving of course the question if that didn't kill them... what did. My vote is on aliens from the planet Xnak who wanted to seed the planet with their new race they'd made out of monkeys.

zodiac

03-22-2004, 12:36 AM

How did J.L.R. become the resident christian? I don't remember voting for that. any way bud I too am christian and I agree that God's there and I agree that he did alot of the stuff they talk about in the bible but the creation story I'm not so sure about.wouldn't there be a garden of eden somewhere on earth still? and as I recall all humanity was kicked out so there would be this region where people just couldn't go... I'm sure I would have heard about that. and as for never seeing evolution happen you see that happen When a dog breader creates a new breed of dog (such as the dobermain) that would be evolution would it not.lets call that cross breeding and say I'm a fool...but when a breeder breeds dogs of the same type (lets say we're breeding greyhounds) and he only breeds the fastest dogs. The offspring will progressively become faster and faster.whereas if he had bred them for strength they would have been stronger.You basically force evolution to go the way you want it to. Thats not a real good example but it's late and I'll be back. I hope I at least somewhat got my point across.

DarkWolf

03-22-2004, 07:09 AM

garden of eden somewhere on earth still
When the fruit of knowledge was tasted, Eden (Earth) became corrupted to grow into what it is now. The Garden of Eden bit was partly describing that God made a perfect world. Of course I could be wrong, I despise "religions" like these and find Christianity one of the worst. But that is just me. I may look at a fellow man and see them as weak, but I do know that in truth we're still equal. A harmless choice doesn't change that.

Cephas

03-22-2004, 12:10 PM

When the fruit of knowledge was tasted, Eden (Earth) became corrupted to grow into what it is now.
Not only that, but he placed an enchanted flaming sword to protect it from any good explorers who do actually find it. I don't think Eden itself was corrupted though, just the the rest of the Earth.
So it could be out there, so always pack your extinguishers and homicidle maniacs in kilts if you're looking for it.
And don't touch the fruit.... Aw no, not again...

Aquilan

03-22-2004, 06:50 PM

When the fruit of knowledge was tasted, Eden (Earth) became corrupted to grow into what it is now. The Garden of Eden bit was partly describing that God made a perfect world. Of course I could be wrong, I despise "religions" like these and find Christianity one of the worst. But that is just me. I may look at a fellow man and see them as weak, but I do know that in truth we're still equal. A harmless choice doesn't change that.

It was a choice, true, but not a harmless one. We, instead of living in ignorant bliss, now knew the differances between right and wrong, and therefore unprotected from them. Think about it: If you grew up in a sociaty with no need for sin, why would you want to steal, or rape, or kill? If everyone had no idea what "Bad" was, do you think that we would purposefully do it? Since everyone had everything, and since there would be no need to kill, or lie, or cheat, or steal, or whatever, there couldn't be sin. There wasn't such a thing. And now that we know, there is temptation, which is why we are here today, fighting wars, having bank robberies and midnight beatings. Ta-da, one little choice eradicated a peaceful future.

LV426

03-22-2004, 07:58 PM

While it is nice to think that one little piece of fruit is the reason that there are bad things in the world it is rather ridiculous to believe such a thing. Observing animals in nature you see all the behavior that humans exhibit. Murder, thievery, sex , including homosexual behavior :), all this occurs naturally in animals and since humans are animals that rather explains why humans behave the way they do. But animals operate on a much more primitive scale and the reasons for their actions is the instinct to survive which drives them to most of these "Sins".

Humans have evolved a higher consciousness and so are no capable of separating out the acceptable behavior from the inacceptable behavior. Unfortunately many people like to revert to a more primitive state, especially when they want something. Humans started out as pack groups and so they worked together for the common good and survival of the species. Now we no longer need to rely upon each other for survival and it has become every beast for him/her self.

blueeyes

03-22-2004, 08:42 PM

I've heard the arguement that people seem capable of things far more destructive than animals. They say that since they don't know about evil, they don't have the capability of higher destruction; the worst animals have is greed, and that's not bad on a survival level. Humans are intelligent enough to create more complex evil, the type that requires more stupidity than self-centeredness. I will certainly say that it isn't the reversion to a primitive state that makes some of the sicker demons; it's the extra time and energy you've got to devote to it.

Wolffy13

03-24-2004, 12:40 PM

I hate it when my internet goes down for a couple of weeks :mad:

Anywho, looks like it the old God does/God does not exist debate. Well, have those of you that don't currently have faith in Him ever bothered to ask Him if He existed? The worst you would get is no answer (which I doubt you would get, unless your question was insincere).

OK, I've been in the Mormon church since I was 5 and was baptized on my eighth birthday, so I pretty much have that perfect love and perfect trust that you occasionally hear wiccans refer to. My church has always told us that if you aren't certain of something, ask God and ask away! I have always known if I had any doubts, I could ask, but God hasn't given me many doubts and ever since I began teching nursury in church, my blessings have doubled, which I'll share a major one momentarily.

In the Bible itself, if you look in the Book of James (or The Epistle of James, as it's named in some versions), in Chapter 1, verses 5 & 6, it states and I quote

5) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him
6) But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Basically, if you want to know, then ask, HOWEVER, you must be sincere and truly(sp?) want to know. You can't do it just to see if it's going to work, like teenagers and a ouija board. In the 1830's, a 14 year boy, read that scripture and acted upon it, and he sure got an answer ;) .

Real quick and then I'll wrap this up, I want to share one of my recent major blessings. It wasn't only a blessing for myself though. My husband was a die-hard pagan when we married about a year and a half ago. It would of meant a tremendous amount to me if he was mormon like myself, but for the longest time, we couldn't even agree on what to do with children once we had any, religion-wise. A couple months ago, we were eating out and got to talking of religion. He was telling me that he wasn't satisfied with being a pagan, it just wasn't working for him like he wanted and felt no motivation for it (note on the side, I have nothing against pagans, I think they're great members of the community and are good people all around), and that he was thinking of opening up his search. I told him he ought to try coming to church with my family, for just a couple Sundays and see if it was up his alley. The agreement was that if it wasn't for him, I would never bring it up again.

He came to one Sunday meeting and a few days after that he surprised me by saying that I had one hour to clean house because the church missionaries were coming over to teach him more. The following Sunday he looked both me and my bishop in our eyes and said he wanted to join. I had no idea it would happen so fast. I honestly thought I would have to drag him to church several more times before he made a decision. Now, an official member, he drags me to church! It's unbelievable, but I couldn't possibly tell you how great this is for our growing family.

Anyway, if you seriously want to know the truth; ask! What do you have to fear and what have to loose?

I know, I could talk forever if allowed :p

Shadowmage

03-27-2004, 07:21 PM

no response to tests? faith, people. he will give you what you need, and it doesnt always come when you want it. "why would he allow these things to happen?" is the one i hear the most,though

if you read and belive the bible, it says you will be tested

Fascination

03-28-2004, 04:29 AM

J.L.R.

03-28-2004, 06:11 AM

1. God ruled Heaven, as He still does. Satan began to round up Angels on His behalf to oust God off the throne.

2. The belief in the One God, has been a Hebrew tradition for thousands of years. Before Christ, God only dealt with His people, when they rejected Christ, God opened the doors for the Gentiles. Referring to the age old prophecy, that God gave Abraham thousands of years before, saying, "Through your seed, the whole world will be blessed."

3. One reason God chose the Hebrews over everyone else, is because they were good historians. History has always been an important part of their life. In Israel today, many Jews still practice concepts of their religion, that has been around since the days of Moses. Many other nations had the habit of deifying everything from the sun to the moon, such as the Egyptians, making it hard to translate through history, while the Jews didn't. Also the Bible has been surprising historically accurate, making their claims all the more viable.

4. If you are referring to the Exodus laws... Other than the Ten Commandments, God gave Israel several laws that were created to keep them a peculiar people, different from other nations around them. God gave Israel extreme laws, because they themselves were easily pursuaded to do other wise. Many of those laws though changed when they became a Nation themselves, leaving their laws of Exodus. When Christ came to Earth, he perfected the concept of the law, through His life, death, and resurrection. If you are referring to the Roman Catholic persecution, that wasn't of God, nor was it comissioned by God. The Clergy of the period were murderous cut-throats, who melded their own perversion of Christianity, to control the minds and hearts of people. Another good note is, many of the witches, werewolves, and ect. that were presecuted were in actuality protestants, that wanted to read or translate the Bible themselves. These accounts can be found in the book, Fox's Book of Martyrs.

5. For His glory...

LV426

03-28-2004, 08:18 AM

1) Before the Earth was created, what did God do?

2) Any religion based on God was virtually unheard of till the run up to the birth of Jesus, so what happened before then? I would have thought if God really existed he would have had a bit of a better reputation.

3) It took awhile before the Bible was written; you honestly believe that the stories of God got passed down through the generations without the slightest change to make it more exciting? Think of the game Chinese Whispers, where players sit in a circle and pass a message round; by the time its got round the full circle, the message is alot different.

4) Why did the aggressive nature suddenly stop? Burning wiccans, battles against those of other religions - the persecution of non-believers in general.

5) Why did he create the Earth at all?

1. Played lots and lots of solitaire.

2. I was trying to keep my identity a secret. Jesus was a big mouth who couldn't shut the hell up.

3.Look I wrote a book, people took it seriously and thought it was my will or something, hell I just thought it was a good read and held some common sense in it. I never expected people to revere it.

4. Oh I still smite people, but mass smitings are really tiring and I am lazy. And I wasn't persecuting non-believers, I was just bored.

5. I was trying to make a cake. Boy did that go wrong.

Shadowmage

03-28-2004, 12:27 PM

the others were exlpained well but i wanted to add something to #4:he gave us a choice with Jesus, accept him or dont. trying to force the choice wouldve gotten more converts, but they wouldnt seriously accept it, they may even belive they have over time but they really havent, whereas if they had been given a choice and time to think on their own terms, there wouldve been less people but they would be true Christians.

J.L.R.

03-28-2004, 12:54 PM

LycanthropicHowl has cracked a joke.... :D

This is scary.... This is very scary....

What Next, DW on Comedy Central! :D

Ender

03-30-2004, 06:00 PM

I feel obligated to run a thread similar to this one based on LOTRs.

Fascination

03-30-2004, 06:22 PM

Question to those who believe in God:

Out of interest, what do you think your local vicar/priest would do, or how he would feel, if you informed him or her of the fact that you are a therianthrope?

Aquilan

03-30-2004, 06:35 PM

COLONV

03-31-2004, 12:30 AM

Have faith in something that doesn't exist, and you have nothing. Have faith in something that does exist and you have all you'll ever need.Good words of wisdom

Fascination

03-31-2004, 12:56 AM

They would blow a gasget, like most of us.

Well, maybe not my pastor. The guy reads the most "Evil" things ever. Like dirty humor, pagan beliefs.. all that "evil" stuff. It is interesting, because it really defies what my image of a priest was.

Ah, so its a very forgiving religion then? Cant really see how you could put your faith in something so ... close minded.

J.L.R.

03-31-2004, 05:38 AM

Fasc...

People are closed minded, not Christianity. Sometimes pastors as well as many many Christians like to add to the Scriptures, what their personal feelings are, and sometimes that can lead to some seriously rediculous conclusions.

There is a churh down from ours where the pastor teaches it is wrong for women to wear make-up, slacks, or have short hair! It is soooo stupid! Plainly ignorant... They spend more time talking about works and such like that, that they totally miss the true message of Christianity.

However, these such conflicts have been going on since the creation of the Church. Peter and Paul had a huge dispute over this very subject.

During the early church, Peter, being a Jew, wanted the Gentile converts to obey all the Jewish laws and follow the Jewish costums, however, Paul being an highly eductated Pharisee (before his own conversion) saw how this could hinder people becoming Christians. The Jews had over 600 laws, and many of them were straight out rediculous in measure. Paul didn't see the importance of people changing their own customs and ways of life, such as dress, food, housing... in order to be a Christian. Peter didn't like this though. Then God showed Peter through a dream, that all people cultures and customs were fine. Jesus Christ didn't set out to change peoples lives, but peoples hearts, their lives will follow. Christ knew that if He went around telling people you are going to hell, and that everything you are doing is wrong, so don't do it! They would reject Him, even more than they did.
It is like the meeting of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The Pharisees brought her to Christ with condemnation of death, because she was a prostitute. Christ, however, changed their hearts, when He said, "Who is with out sin, cast the first stone." They were so convicted by their own guilt, they left. Jesus then told Mary, that Her accusers were gone, and He told her not to sin anymore. While Jesus didn't condone her actions or lifestyle, He showed that he loved her enough that her life was important.

Too me that is what a model Christian should be like. If Christians spent more time truly loving people, they wouldn't hurt them or be mean to them...

JadenKorr

03-31-2004, 12:15 PM

I think if I told my minister about my therianthropy, he would try to exorcise the evil spirit from me, but then again I don't like him very much anyway. He teaches flawed theology, and makes comprimises. The way I think, If you are going to be a minister of this, then you should at least be firm in what you believe and not have to make a compromise.

He is rather closed minded and probably wouldn't listen if I tried to explain therianthropy to him. I am also from one of the poorer classes where I live, and though I am by no means poor, I'm just not as rich as they are. I live in a very priveleged section of ... and as a result, I am frequently shut out because of my class.

Hmm...there's something wrong here...

J.L.R.

03-31-2004, 02:10 PM

Something I might want to add is, if you went up to anybody, and told them that you were a wolf/cat/bear/skunk/whatever on the inside and that you were spiritually connected with the animal world, closer than even Snow White could get, I bet they'd think you're crazy too.

As for comprimising ministers... A lot do that today, for larger crowds, larger salaries, and fancy living conditions. It is really sad, because at least in Christianity, it isn't about money, riches, or furthering your walk up the latter, it is about loving others, and sharing with them the Good News.

You are right though, if anybody preaches the Bible, they ought to believe the Bible and follow it, other wise, there is really no point in it.

COLONV

03-31-2004, 03:09 PM

Aquilan

03-31-2004, 04:22 PM

This thing could go on forever. One of you will pose a question, people will answer, people will counter those answers, and then others will counter the counters. It comes down to this: Do you believe? Yes/no. I do. You don't. Simple. Asking why is fine, so long as you let the guys answer, instead of judging it to your fullest ability. I will try my best not to do the same.

ArcaneWolf

04-03-2004, 01:37 PM

Something I might want to add is, if you went up to anybody, and told them that you were a wolf/cat/bear/skunk/whatever on the inside and that you were spiritually connected with the animal world, closer than even Snow White could get, I bet they'd think you're crazy too.

You do realize that describing your inner self as an animal is a very primitive religious idea that predates the whole jewish/christian/islamic mess. Most tribes had ideas of totems or spirits that protected them, often these were in the forms of animals. The "Church" deemed most of these beliefs as forms of satanic worship and such.

One of the amny major problems with Jewish/christian/islamic belief system is it's idea of man's seperation from nature.

Voicavamp4life

04-06-2004, 01:21 PM

Why not just have faith in yourself? It's okay to have a little ego. And it means you are putting faith in something that you know exists.

But what if you know God exists? (not solid proof. More of a feeling) And if he dosnt, then how come so many people believe that he does? :confused:

Voicavamp4life

04-06-2004, 01:23 PM

You do realize that describing your inner self as an animal is a very primitive religious idea that predates the whole jewish/christian/islamic mess. Most tribes had ideas of totems or spirits that protected them, often these were in the forms of animals. The "Church" deemed most of these beliefs as forms of satanic worship and such.

One of the amny major problems with Jewish/christian/islamic belief system is it's idea of man's seperation from nature.

I agree. The bible sais nothing about being seperated from nature, However, i think that alot of people want to believe what best suits them so they go by that and not what the bible actually says. At least that is what i am seeing in my church. :)

WhiteCrowUK

04-06-2004, 03:23 PM

The logic to me behind "the existance of God" is this ...

The Universe exists.

The Universe is constantly changing - this suggests that the Universe we see has evolved into being.

If the Universe has evolved, it suggests that it has been shaped by forces and consequences. These forces are what I would call "God" - although I'm not 100% sure they are consious as we'd like to think about it.

Of course this is my personal logic - and many an equally intelligent person might come with a different line and a different answer ... :D

Béni_Etre

04-06-2004, 05:32 PM

Im my personal opinion I don't really think there is a god. But I would like to believe that there is a higher power and everything happens for a reason and there is somewhere special to go once we die. So it's a part of believing. That's how I see it.

DarkWolf

04-06-2004, 06:59 PM

But what if you know God exists? (not solid proof. More of a feeling)
How can you "know" via a feeling? Feeling is not relative to knowledge.
And if he dosnt, then how come so many people believe that he does?
Religion offers many securities in one dose. Some people are afraid of death and what do you know: some religions just so happen to tell you what happens. People fear their own actions, and the consequences: religion can offer absolution. People find themselves lost in life, directionless: Religion offers guidance. And it has all the answers to any otherwise unanswerable questions: "How did the universe begind" - God made it. "Why do bad things happen?" - God has a plan for it, you are to trust him.

So why do so many people follow it? A: It offers reasons and hope because some people are too weak to get it themselves. B: People were grown into believing it. C: People are forced into believing it out of fear for their souls going to Hell otherwise (yes, perhaps this is wrong even to the religions: but it one of the main causes for its popularity). These are the main reasons I see and hear of others and why they are christian or catholic or whatever.

ArcaneWolf

04-06-2004, 07:20 PM

I agree. The bible sais nothing about being seperated from nature, However, i think that alot of people want to believe what best suits them so they go by that and not what the bible actually says. At least that is what i am seeing in my church. :)
I don't think you get what I was saying in my original post. I wasn't supporting the bible in any way!

Voicavamp4life

04-07-2004, 07:06 AM

Actually, There are lots of holes in all this. Evolution has quite alot wrong withit. And, the bible , And it sais so , was written by man but the men were told what to write by god. Have you even read the bible? At all? here are many instances where this happens. God talks to Moses, Joseph, and David. Alot more but i dont have time to post them. Also sience has proven the bible sveral times over. If the people who wrote the bible were just trying to make make it match history, How could they?They didnt have the technology to look for dinosaurs or Carbon date Meteor craters.

Voicavamp4life

04-07-2004, 07:14 AM

Not only that, but he placed an enchanted flaming sword to protect it from any good explorers who do actually find it. I don't think Eden itself was corrupted though, just the the rest of the Earth.
So it could be out there, so always pack your extinguishers and homicidle maniacs in kilts if you're looking for it.
And don't touch the fruit.... Aw no, not again...

:) I think you're taking it too literally. I dont think he actually put a sword there. (I could be wrong. Depends on how you interpret the bible.) :)

Voicavamp4life

04-07-2004, 07:20 AM

I feel obligated to run a thread similar to this one based on LOTRs.

:eek: Nooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! ! My friends talk about that too much!!! No More!!!!!!!!! :p

DarkShadow13X

04-07-2004, 09:32 AM

Im an atheist, but only because i dont like the idea of someone controlling my entire life, and the only wat=y to stop yourself from suffering forever is to submit. And please, don't use the "The world is 25 hours off, but NASA won't admit it" thing, because thats just an urban legend.

LycanSpectre

04-07-2004, 11:28 AM

And please, don't use the "The world is 25 hours off, but NASA won't admit it" thing, because thats just an urban legend.

Huh? What?

DarkShadow13X

04-07-2004, 03:06 PM

There's an urban legend circulating about the world being 25 hours off, its somewhere in the bible.

ArcaneWolf

04-07-2004, 11:21 PM

And, the bible , And it sais so , was written by man but the men were told what to write by god.

and who said god talked to them? and should anyone believe that or are you going to say the idiotic excuss of blind faith.

Darth Cluich

04-08-2004, 01:58 PM

Huh? What?

Um...yeah...what he said. :confused:

Hellcat

04-08-2004, 03:17 PM

and who said god talked to them? and should anyone believe that or are you going to say the idiotic excuss of blind faith.

I can see the philosophy on god talking to a person. Imagine you heard a voice talking to you in your head and you knew it wasn't yours. If you came to accept the voice in your head you might chose to name it, in the same way that some people chose to name their therian animal types. So Joe Bloggs is walking around with some voice rattling around in his noggin and he thinks of a name...James perhaps..no no that wouldn't do. Fred? no to common, well since it follows me around like a dog I'll call it just that So the voice in Joe Bloggs head becomes known as "Dog" unfortunately Joe Bloggs is dislexic :D

Seriously though who (at least in this day in age) would take a person seriously if they mentioned that some "invisible friend" was talking to them? Wouldn't you think (children aside) that maybe they weren't a full shilling, a sandwich short of a picnic perhaps? not all there, lost a few marbles etc.

COLONV

04-09-2004, 08:57 PM

I can see the philosophy on god talking to a person. Imagine you heard a voice talking to you in your head and you knew it wasn't yours. If you came to accept the voice in your head you might chose to name it, in the same way that some people chose to name their therian animal types. So Joe Bloggs is walking around with some voice rattling around in his noggin and he thinks of a name...James perhaps..no no that wouldn't do. Fred? no to common, well since it follows me around like a dog I'll call it just that So the voice in Joe Bloggs head becomes known as "Dog" unfortunately Joe Bloggs is dislexic :D

Seriously though who (at least in this day in age) would take a person seriously if they mentioned that some "invisible friend" was talking to them? Wouldn't you think (children aside) that maybe they weren't a full shilling, a sandwich short of a picnic perhaps? not all there, lost a few marbles etc.You can recognize God voice by the feeling of your soul when you hear it.

WhiteCrowUK

04-10-2004, 04:27 PM

I can see the philosophy on god talking to a person. Imagine you heard a voice talking to you in your head and you knew it wasn't yours. If you came to accept the voice in your head you might chose to name it, in the same way that some people chose to name their therian animal types. So Joe Bloggs is walking around with some voice rattling around in his noggin and he thinks of a name...James perhaps..no no that wouldn't do. Fred? no to common, well since it follows me around like a dog I'll call it just that So the voice in Joe Bloggs head becomes known as "Dog" unfortunately Joe Bloggs is dislexic :D

Seriously though who (at least in this day in age) would take a person seriously if they mentioned that some "invisible friend" was talking to them? Wouldn't you think (children aside) that maybe they weren't a full shilling, a sandwich short of a picnic perhaps? not all there, lost a few marbles etc.

I dont know about anyone else here - but I kind of tried my hand seriously as a writer. Consequently there are a good many voices always chattering away in my head.

I've learnt to question the advice any of them might be give me - that way you should never see me being bundled into a police van screaming "they made me do it ...". ;)

Voicavamp4life

04-15-2004, 01:07 PM

[QUOTE=DarkWolf]How can you "know" via a feeling? Feeling is not relative to knowledge.

:shrug: That is like asking me how can I know that I am angry, sad, Happy, etc, via a feeling. You know if you are feeling one of these things. Does that not also apply to god? :confused:

LV426

04-15-2004, 02:06 PM

Feelings can also be imagined and or false depending on a state of mind. For instance there have been individuals who have been sure that they are dying and experiance pain but when tests are done it turns out that the pain is a simple psychological problem. Feelings, while they seem quite real are nothing more than a chemical imbalance. Even love is considered a chemical reaction.

Feeling god is an intangible and unprovable notion.

J.L.R.

04-15-2004, 05:39 PM

I agree...

Feelings are only as good as the mood you are in, or what medication you are taking...which ever comes first.

Emotionalism is just that, emotion. I've seen too many people who could "feel" God on Sunday, and cheat everybody else the rest of the week.

WhiteCrowUK

04-15-2004, 05:56 PM

Emotionalism is just that, emotion.

You have to accept though that some people will deal with the world in terms of their emotions over logic.

Jung calls the way people view the world as archetypes. In Men are from Mars Women are from Venus (which is a kind of dumbed down Jung), men are painted as beings that interact by logic and women as beings who interact by emotion.

All this talk seems to be heading towards "feelings are for the weak" etc.

I am quite an intelligent person - I have the degrees to back it up! However to me it is my feelings for family and friends which are far more important to me than flexing my intelligence.

DarkWolf

04-15-2004, 06:39 PM

I am quite an intelligent person - I have the degrees to back it up!
Take it from somebody who's graduated college twice with a long and impressive list of qualifications etc... Qualifications are not proof of intelligence, they are proof you paid attention, and did as you were told.

But I agree, my emotional attachments to friends and family are more important than my academic records.

Edwardo_son_of_haqim

04-15-2004, 06:42 PM

Take it from somebody who's graduated college twice with a long and impressive list of qualifications etc... Qualifications are not proof of intelligence, they are proof you paid attention, and did as you were told.

But I agree, my emotional attachments to friends and family are more important than my academic records.

Twice at 19 not bad.

DarkWolf

04-15-2004, 08:18 PM

Twice at 19 not bad.
Thanks.

J.L.R.

04-15-2004, 09:15 PM

No, you misunderstood what I am saying...

Feelings and emotions are a part of our life. It is what makes us human, and seperates us from machines. However, feelings can be misleading.

For example: I know of several churches that teach emotionalistic worship, where the people get into this emotionalistic frenzy and basically spaz all over the building. You'd think they were rabid, and by all the acting and chanting, they'd make you believe that they were right next to God, right then and there...
However, come Monday morning, they are humdrum, and act like they are hundreds of miles from the God, they swore was right with them Sunday.

I am saying you can't base your relationship with God (Christianly speaking) by feelings, because your feelings change. In the Christian walk, God doesn't change. He is always with you, but if you base His presence by how you feel, then you wouldn't be able to tell.

I'm not saying emotions are wrong, I am just saying basing your relationship with God, by feelings, forces you to miss the point.

That is all...

WhiteCrowUK

04-16-2004, 04:33 PM

Take it from somebody who's graduated college twice with a long and impressive list of qualifications etc... Qualifications are not proof of intelligence, they are proof you paid attention, and did as you were told.

Not when you do a higher degree which involves research it doesnt.

If my degrees were awarded for doing as I was told, I'd never have graduated! :D

COLONV

05-05-2004, 01:31 PM

Obsidian Claws

05-05-2004, 02:02 PM

Don't know if this should go in religion or not, but do we really know if he exists?
In the bible it says 'do not test the Lord'. But if we dont do that, how can we prove he exists?
And if we do, he usually fails the test. But does he have the potential to pass...?

Religon is based upon faith.

Faith: 2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Faith based things cannot be tested.

I dont know about anyone else youve included in "we", but I know He exists.

Obsidian Claws

05-05-2004, 02:31 PM

Question to those who believe in God:

Out of interest, what do you think your local vicar/priest would do, or how he would feel, if you informed him or her of the fact that you are a therianthrope?

He might ask me what the hell a therianthrope was, and then look at me funny every time he saw me afterwards.

One of the amny major problems with Jewish/christian/islamic belief system is it's idea of man's seperation from nature.

Not going to read the rest of this long thread, but I just wanted to comment on this.

Everyone has heard of the bible code, correct? Well with the bible code, aside from using matrices and key words to find events, every Hebrew letter is asigned a number (I think the numbers were asigned thousands of years ago, not sure though). And some words that total up to the same number are supposed meant to have significant meaning and they are somehow related. What I found incredibly interesting when I saw this on the History channel, was that God, Nature, and One all equal the same value. There of course are other significant words that have the same value as each other, but this is the only set of words I remember, as it was so interesting.

Now Im not saying the bible code is true, because I simply dont know enough about it to make such a judgement... but just thought I would mention what I saw :)

Xzengrim

05-06-2004, 04:29 AM

Yeah, that bible code is a load. They've also found premonitions in Moby Dick using the same code. Any book with enough letters to use will turn up words and things.

Secondly, faith is the biggest load ever. I know this thread is for Christians but I'm bored and I want to put my two cents in. But yeah... faith. Isn't it wonderful to believe that when you see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing, have no proof of existance, and basically can't make a case for what you believe... that's your friend Jesus! Your wonderfully huggable imaginary prophet friend. ...Good for you. ...Okay, that was mean. But faith is an ugly thing. It's willful self delusion. To quote liberally from Transmetropolitan, you need medical help if you can't even make it through the day without something invisible to believe in.

Thirdly, I don't know how vicars would take to the knowledge that you might be a therian, but I'd pay to see it!! That would be really funny. They'd probably think you were infested with demons and beat you with a crucifix.

Lastly, emotionalistic faith gets on my nerves. My sister's a psycho fundy born again, and they do that at her church; with people screamin' and wavin' their arms and such. They do this thing where they get "drunk in the spirit" where the pastor whacks em on the head and they stumble around like they're loaded, crying out to god. Ugh... Her ex boyfriend talks in tongues, too. He's all like fhslskedhe! Ghgoaoghnk! And she thinks it's angels talking through him. I think he's got a case of dyslexic Turrets. He's all like ufck! isht! ssa! kcuff! And she thinks it's angels.

That, and if I WERE a Christian, I'd tell you that you have to do it all or nothing. If I had a god (other than Ozzy Osbourne, that is :buttrock:), I'd have to do everything he said and not question a thing. Your own wants and feelings and opinions should have no place in your faith. ...That's why the church is so New Age and screwed up today. Everyone wants to cut corners. If you're going to be a soldier in the army of God, you have to do it to the letter and without insubordination, backtalk, or compromise. Because your god pulls the strings and you do the dance, not the other way around.

Xzengrim

05-06-2004, 04:47 AM

Speaking of which... here comes Grim's favorite Black Sabbath lyric:

"Won't you help me, Mr. Jesus
Won't you tell me if you can,
When you see this world we live in
Do you still believe in man?"

~Black Sabbath, Megalomania

StrayWolfen

05-13-2004, 10:24 PM

Honestly, I think as long as you believe in something, you're doing pretty good for yourself. I do think a belief in something, whether it be yourself, Diana, Pan, God, Allah, or who/whatever is necessary to motivate and/or find a purpose for yourself (which, in turn, is probably essential to happiness in life).

orange camelion

06-05-2004, 11:49 AM

why have people here gone to such lengths to try to convince themselves and others that god does not exist and jesus is not their savior?for people who 'dont believe' in him/her you sure spend alot of time thinking about god,why do you doubt in the first place,MOST people were brought up to believe in god so what changed in your life that you now doubt his/her very existance?why not put all the energy you spend trying to disprove(?)god and his/her works into something positive and worthwhile instead of trying to crush peoples hopes and beliefs?

Darth Cluich

06-05-2004, 12:02 PM

The burden of proof, when it comes to something's existence, is not on the shoulders of those who deny that thing's existence, but rather on those who claim that is does exist.

orange camelion

06-05-2004, 12:29 PM

The burden of proof, when it comes to something's existence, is not on the shoulders of those who deny that thing's existence, but rather on those who claim that is does exist.

not necessarily true,take christianity for example if i didnt believe in god and jesus then the burden on my shoulders would be much greater than it is now,god is not a burden but the opposite he/she shares my troubles and helps me through the day not weigh me down and burden me

ArcaneWolf

06-06-2004, 06:50 PM

Why fight god/christianity? because I for one see it as a lie that is a part of the fabric of lies that covers the eyes of mankind. I simple am rather disgusted with the whole thing. I suppose I take a bit more of a romantic like view on how to deal with it like a giant fire that would spread burning the lies and allow the birth of truth and beauty to exist.

About Christianity, I think Jesus was an alright guy with good beliefs. I simple think that the early church corrupted his views and beliefs and even though there have been reformations and revolution within christianity, that early corruption still exists in all branches of that faith.

Religion (all religion not just christianity) is simply a tool used by society (among many other tools like the media or school or government) to control people, both their actions and thoughts. I wish to lessen this control that society has on me, which inpart for me means not following the religious paths that society is trying to push me into. To escape this entire control by society is to leave society entirely. This is something I don't wish to do, but I still want to limit how much of a control I allow others to have over me.

I'm sorry If my writing is confussing and unorganized. Thouhts come to me and I simple write them. I rarely have my points organized out before I write them (especially on forums and chats).

Darth Cluich

06-07-2004, 11:41 AM

not necessarily true,take christianity for example if i didnt believe in god and jesus then the burden on my shoulders would be much greater than it is now,god is not a burden but the opposite he/she shares my troubles and helps me through the day not weigh me down and burden me

But, since we can't actually see/hear/touch/taste it, the burden of proving the existence of a god is on the one who believes in said god. I was not talking about the burdens of life and how some god or his son help you deal with your everyday existence. I was talking about the burden of proving that god exists. I don't have to prove anything, because I say there is no god. It's up to you, as a believer in a god, to show me the evidence to the contrary.

Obsidian Claws

06-07-2004, 11:54 AM

It's up to you, as a believer in a god, to show me the evidence to the contrary

Its all about faith. To me (and I would hope others), its a personal faith, that does not need to be explained to anyone else. I have tried to explain it, long ago, to people who did not believe, or were undecided, and it never goes as planned, as its not really something you can explain to another through words (at least I cannot).

I agree that for some people who are still not fully accepting of God or their religon might be burdened by trying to prove their existance to others, as a way to actually prove it to themselves, as they do not have complete faith yet.

But for people who do have faith, such as myself, I do not need to prove Gods existance to anyone to satisfy any need to validate my own faith.

Darth Cluich

06-07-2004, 12:26 PM

But those of us who don't have your faith were asked for proof as to the non-existence of a god. We're not the ones saying there is one, so we need not prove anything. That's all I'm saying.

Obsidian Claws

06-07-2004, 12:38 PM

We're not the ones saying there is one, so we need not prove anything

Correct, the faithless (for lack of a better term) dont need to prove anything... but neither do the faithful :)

Referring to my earlier post:

Faith: 2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Faith based things cannot be tested.

There is no way to prove, through science, God. We who believe cannot prove him, and those who do not, cannot disprove him. For this reason is why I try to always avoid discussions on the existance of God and proving it... discussions anywhere, especially IRL.

Would it help if there was some way to prove to other people that God exists? Yes, deffinitely... but short of preforming miracles infront of people on demand (which would still not convince all people), I just dont see anyway for someone to convince another that God exists. Each person has to decide for themselves.

J.L.R.

06-07-2004, 12:47 PM

The problem with the said arguement is the fact that I CAN prove the existance of God, however, the evidence that I would place is based on my perception of how the world began.

Let's look at evolution... Evolution is flawed in many ways, but most schools and scientists don't stress the areas where they are wrong. Only the areas where they appear to be right.

Of course, and THIS does not mean the Bible is fact, nor does it mean I am right, it simply means that it is somebody elses perception of events that is readily being accepted.

I watched a Planets special, about these scientists theory that the planets were created by the Increasion method, or the comic collision method. It is often believed it was comets that brought water to the earth.

They created a test program to prove their theory, and while it worked for the 3 planets nearest to the sun. The other planets were deemed uncreatable, but of course, we know they are there. What really got me about these scientists though, was the fact that instead of saying they have some errors in model program, they simply stated that "It DID happen this way, they just don't have enough information yet to make the planets work with the program." I find that reasoning foolish... We are right, the planets are wrong?

Anyway...

For those who don't believe in God or any god, answer me this one simple question... "Why?"

Why are we hear?

It is a tough question...

Of course I am always open to listen to others arguements...

Obsidian Claws

06-07-2004, 01:00 PM

For those who don't believe in God or any god, answer me this one simple question... "Why?"

Because they want scienctific evidence that God exists (most of them.)

I also have a question, for those who dont believe in God or an afterlife... why go on living?

I asked this I believe in this thread earlier, but no one answered me. Why go on living? If there is no God, no afterlife, nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING has any meaning, purpose, or point. You are meaningless. Your family is meaningless. Life is meaningless. The universe, as it will someday end, is meaningless. Nothing you could ever do or hope to do would matter, as the telos of the universe remains the same. The universe and all life will end in complete entropy, or another big bang, and this ultimate end is unchangable, and unstoppable.

This, I believe is a very valid question for atheists, but everyone I have asked this to has never come up with a good answer. Why go on living? You will eventually die, and fade into nothingness, with no consciousness, memory, or thought, as will all life in the universe.

I would love to hear a good answer!

Darth Cluich

06-07-2004, 01:26 PM

I also have a question, for those who dont believe in God or an afterlife... why go on living?

I would love to hear a good answer!

The answer's simple: We're hear for a limited amount of time, as you said, then we're gone. Gotta make the best of what we've got. ;)

Obsidian Claws

06-07-2004, 01:33 PM

Gotta make the best of what we've got

Thats what I usually hear... but the fact remains, it doesnt matter. Once you are gone, if there is no God or afterlife, nothing you do now or will do will be remembered, or matter. The best is the same as the worst, as the final end of you, and all things living remains the same. If you live a great life, you wont remember it, as you wont exist anymore once you die. If you lead a horrible life, you wont remember it, as you wont exist anymore.

Any and all actions and events lead to the same outcome. Nothing.

Lycan_Ghost04

06-07-2004, 01:46 PM

Don't know if this should go in religion or not, but do we really know if he exists?
In the bible it says 'do not test the Lord'. But if we dont do that, how can we prove he exists?
And if we do, he usually fails the test. But does he have the potential to pass...?

What it is ment by the bible saying "don not put thy god to the test" is don't do stupid thing you know will hurt you, others or get you in trouble and then expect god to bail you out. because he tells you what not to do and what to do with your everyday life. but god will always forgive you and help you make the right choices in your life.but the the bible tells you that " you will know them by their fruits" what that means is you should test the word of god and other docterins and religons to see what does the best with their teaching. also it should follow along whith god's word what they teach. a good bible to read is the N.I.V. that is the best explantion i could give right now. others feel free to add on. p.s. sorry for any spelling mistakes. peace to all.

orange camelion

06-07-2004, 02:10 PM

What it is ment by the bible saying "don not put thy god to the test" is don't do stupid thing you know will hurt you, others or get you in trouble and then expect god to bail you out. because he tells you what not to do and what to do with your everyday life. but god will always forgive you and help you make the right choices in your life.but the the bible tells you that " you will know them by their fruits" what that means is you should test the word of god and other docterins and religons to see what does the best with their teaching. also it should follow along whith god's word what they teach. a good bible to read is the N.I.V. that is the best explantion i could give right now. others feel free to add on. p.s. sorry for any spelling mistakes. peace to all.

i think it says do not put your god to the test because if you are testing him/her then obviously in you sub concious you do believe and accept god otherwise you would not even think to test him/her and you just have some doubts you need to work through,testing god will not help these doubts you have to deal with them yourself(like any true christian already has)and on the other hand if you truely believe in god you will not need to test him/her because you know in your very soul that he/she exists and is as real as you yourself

Darth Cluich

06-07-2004, 02:15 PM

Thats what I usually hear... but the fact remains, it doesnt matter. Once you are gone, if there is no God or afterlife, nothing you do now or will do will be remembered, or matter. The best is the same as the worst, as the final end of you, and all things living remains the same. If you live a great life, you wont remember it, as you wont exist anymore once you die. If you lead a horrible life, you wont remember it, as you wont exist anymore.

Any and all actions and events lead to the same outcome. Nothing.

But at least I'm enjoying it while I'm living it. ;)

DarkWolf

06-07-2004, 02:44 PM

But at least I'm enjoying it while I'm living it. ;)
My very philosophy. And is it really nothing anyway? What about the loved ones in your life - won't they still carry memory of you, isn't that what matters about your death - somebody still remembers and loves you?

--

And who cares what happens when we die? That's then. Why worry over futures that may or may not be, when the now is all that you know and all that truly matters?

J.L.R.

06-07-2004, 09:11 PM

My very philosophy. And is it really nothing anyway? What about the loved ones in your life - won't they still carry memory of you, isn't that what matters about your death - somebody still remembers and loves you?

--

And who cares what happens when we die? That's then. Why worry over futures that may or may not be, when the now is all that you know and all that truly matters?

However; what if the now, is only a test for a future life?

In truth, I agree mostly to your point. A person shouldn't worry about the future, but focus on the now. There are many people out there that are so consumed with what is going to happen tomorrow, that they fail to live for the now. Thus they lose out on many important points in life. However, I believe in the here-after, as I believe in an all powerful God.

Which rises the question...

What if the Bible is true, and what it says is true? There is an actual Heaven and Hell, and what we do in this world today, can affect where we will spend the rest of eternity...

If I am wrong... Well I don't have any regrets, as far as doing the absurdly stupid. I haven't missed out on anything. True a lot of people have been stunned by the fact that I don't drink, smoke, or anything above, but honestly I just don't feel drawn too. I don't know why people fuss over that. I mean I don't gripe about them for drinking, smoking, and all that, but because I am simply a Christian, they want to justify to me their reasons for doing that...as if I care... really... Then again, I end up being the first to know, when they quit... Oh well...
I am healthy and I am happy, and that is all that matters...well other than taking over the world...er I wasn't suppose to say that...darn...

Yet another twisted diabolical plan ruined...

Obsidian Claws

06-07-2004, 09:48 PM

But at least I'm enjoying it while I'm living it

But you wont remember it after youre dead.

My very philosophy. And is it really nothing anyway? What about the loved ones in your life - won't they still carry memory of you, isn't that what matters about your death - somebody still remembers and loves you?

How many times do I have to say it people? Eventually the universe will end, and with it, all life, and with that goes all memory, consiousness, and thought. Therefore, with no God, or afterlife, it doesnt matter what your loved ones carry on from you, as they will all die too, and fade into nothing with no memory of you, or anything else.

Please, someone tell me they understand what Im saying. Im not sure how much clearer I can be that if there is no afterlife or God, and our universe is the only thing in existance, then when all life at the end of the universe is gone, nothing anyone ever did, thought, or anything, will have mattered. Why? Because the universe will end no matter what, and you have nothing to show when it does.

I dont know how that cannot be disturbing to an anthiest.

LycanSpectre

06-07-2004, 10:56 PM

why have people here gone to such lengths to try to convince themselves and others that god does not exist and jesus is not their savior?

Probably for the same reasons christians try to convince us that there IS a god. They want to be right, and the easiest way to convince yourself that you are right is to convince others that it is so.

Blah blah blah....

...instead of trying to crush peoples hopes and beliefs?

Uh, I think we are just trying to provoke a discussion, not crush your beliefs. If your beliefs can be "crushed" so easily by some anonymous people on the internet, then maybe they weren't all that strong to begin with?

DarkWolf

06-07-2004, 10:59 PM

JLR: Personally if the bible is true and such as then when I face that God: I will respectfully decline entrance to Heaven and either be sent back to earth as a ghost or rest in Hell. To me, both outcomes far surpass that particular heaven and that particular god - based on what I have read in the bible and prayers and my own views on it. No offense to anyone, but I would rather suffer Hell eternal than accept a God I currently despise.

But ultimately it still doesn't change the decision: Live life to the full within your own definitions of "full". If my comfortable life leads me to Hell for the stupid and hypocritical "sins" then so be it.

Obsidian:

I still stick to my point. If it is all going to end in nothingness, then why not live my life to the fullest now? It serves no point, but so what - why care? My conciousness can not be conciously aware of any environment except that in the present. No human or living thing on this planet can be any different. So, I'll thrive in the present environments. I'll prepare for a tomorrow - but I'll live for today, even if it is my last. I mean why not? To your scenario it's not going to matter, so if I choose to be alive while I am, then that is my choice and the purpose rests only in the simple fact: it was my choice. Seriously, anybody needing a full "reason" to live except the state of living itself is weak in my opinion. But that's me. People search for a purpose in life: I say I have found it - my purpose is to simply live while I can. Nothing more, and nothing less. That's all I need.

If my existence becomes erased, so what? I will have no concious ability to care then, so I see no reason to care now. A moment will come when I cease to exist - but that moment isn't now.

orange camelion

06-08-2004, 06:02 AM

Uh, I think we are just trying to provoke a discussion, not crush your beliefs. If your beliefs can be "crushed" so easily by some anonymous people on the internet, then maybe they weren't all that strong to begin with?[/QUOTE]

i said try to crush the beliefs not succeed it would take alot more than this discussion to crush my beliefs and ya your right it sis just a discussion and an interesting one at that itts interesting to hear what other people believe

ArcaneWolf

06-08-2004, 10:24 AM

If you believe in an end, then your an idiot.

JLR: Personally if the bible is true and such as then when I face that God: I will respectfully decline entrance to Heaven and either be sent back to earth as a ghost or rest in Hell. To me, both outcomes far surpass that particular heaven and that particular god - based on what I have read in the bible and prayers and my own views on it. No offense to anyone, but I would rather suffer Hell eternal than accept a God I currently despise.
less. That's all I need.

I would probably make the same decision if all of the christian garbage were true.

Nedra

06-08-2004, 10:42 AM

My very philosophy. And is it really nothing anyway? What about the loved ones in your life - won't they still carry memory of you, isn't that what matters about your death - somebody still remembers and loves you?

So true. And just because there mightn't be an afterlife, it's not as if you never existed.

We have life, why should'nt we go on living just because we don't believe in god? No offence, but that's the most stupid thing i ever heard. We live, we die. Everybody should have their turn, regardless of beliefs.

Obsidian Claws

06-08-2004, 12:29 PM

I still stick to my point. If it is all going to end in nothingness, then why not live my life to the fullest now? It serves no point, but so what - why care?

I guess thats the only attitude an athiest can have without going insane :)

So true. And just because there mightn't be an afterlife, it's not as if you never existed.

You existed at one time, but your existance meant nothing, and it would be as if you had never existed.

We have life, why should'nt we go on living just because we don't believe in god? No offence, but that's the most stupid thing i ever heard. We live, we die. Everybody should have their turn, regardless of beliefs.

My entire point is, if you dont believe in God or an afterlife, it doesnt matter one way or the other if you live for another 10,000 years, or die tommorow. The final outcome is the same. My question was, why go on living if you know there is nothing to gain from it?

DW summed it up nicely for athiests (which I guess answered my question in a round about way...) : live for the moment, and dont think or care about what will happen when you die. Im guessing you would go crazy if you thought about how pointless your existance was all the time. :rolleyes:

Xzengrim

06-08-2004, 12:37 PM

orange camelion

06-08-2004, 12:48 PM

Hey, here's a question that has no point... What if when you die, you reincarnate... but backwards?? I mean, what if instead of getting another life a hundred years in the future, you get one a hundred years into the past?? I just wonder what that would be like.

you still get to experience something new so you should have fun either way,then there is the question if you are reincarnated is there the possibility that you could still have memories from this life and if that is so then you would know the outcome of wars and whatnot and so would have a chance to change the course of history....or maybe you already have and this time was meant to be different but in the future the reincarnated you has gone back in time and changed the present aaaahhhhh its just going round in circles and so confusing

DarkWolf

06-08-2004, 01:01 PM

DW summed it up nicely for athiestsThanks. Kind of ironic though: I'm not an athiest. I think myself more agnostic: there may be a God, I'm willing to believe in the paranormal and supernatural - but I just don't care if it is true or not. :D

One_Fine_Day

07-05-2004, 07:41 PM

Well I believe that you need to seek your own boundries. Your whole life is a test. There are the little things like the chance to pick up trash, to the big things like this. God is testing us right now as we speak. He wants you to believe without proof. Seeing is not believing, believing is seeing.

Oh, and by the way, i am Jewish, not Christian. Christians arn't the only people in the world who believe in God.

LV426

07-05-2004, 09:20 PM

Ves

07-05-2004, 09:49 PM

So I would like you to pay me $100,000 for the perfect place to live in the future. I'm not saying you can have it now you have to wait but when the time is right you will have the most beautiful place to live. Just have faith in me.
Except it's more complex than that. You're also not allowed to try to speed up the process and thus be able to live in the nice place now. It's purely up to me when you can move in.

In other words, you'll go to heaven when you die, but you're not allowed to kill yourself and thus go there early because that's against the rules.

Okami Ryu Kurai

07-09-2004, 10:36 PM

you still get to experience something new so you should have fun either way,then there is the question if you are reincarnated is there the possibility that you could still have memories from this life and if that is so then you would know the outcome of wars and whatnot and so would have a chance to change the course of history....or maybe you already have and this time was meant to be different but in the future the reincarnated you has gone back in time and changed the present aaaahhhhh its just going round in circles and so confusing

Actually, having hosted a Japanese forhien (probably wrong spelling, but, meh.) exchange student, he told me that you would have no memories from your past life when re-incarnated. He also said that you would be re-incarnated after your first existance. I think that's what he said anyway, but if it is true, then it nips your question in the bud. If it isn't, then it's dealt with anyway.

Just a question here: How can you condone the past deaths, sometimes mass genocides, that your religeon has been responsable for? I can't bring up a list now, but I'm guessing LH's Mad Journalism skills could probably do something...Unless there are no articles about this sort of thing ever.

Note: This is not made in an offensive tone whatsoever. This is an honest question.

Edit:There is no way to prove, through science, God. We who believe cannot prove him, and those who do not, cannot disprove him. For this reason is why I try to always avoid discussions on the existance of God and proving it... discussions anywhere, especially IRL.

Let me quote something that I heard a while ago.

Faith is good.

Blind faith is bad.

This essentially means that we should have faith in things that we know are there, that we can understand, and that the truth is not always handed to us on a silver platter. I had to do quite a bit of searching to find what I think is the truth.

Blind faith being bad: If you believe the bullet will not hit you, then it won't. Complete and utter bull. That whole thing about not testing God? If someone puuled a gun to your head, and your entire family's survival rested on your shoulders, then would He help you? Once again: an honest question. I want to see if there's any deviation in beliefs here.

And for the record: Not Christian. Was raised by a solid Catholic family though.

J.L.R.

07-10-2004, 06:09 AM

Well you have to understand this. The genocides and mass murders of countless people, was not something that God had wanted. God didn't condone it, murderous people did it, who used the guise of religion in order to justify their actions. Saying that is like saying that Islam is evil, just because Osama bin Laden uses it to justify his murderous acts. People are the foolish ones, not the beliefs.

Jesus Christ never commanded Christians to go and kill people that believed different, in fact he told His followers to love others... Kind of different, don't you think. However, one has to actually read the Bible to honestly know that. Once again, when people don't know about the belief they are believing they usually cause more damage than they do good.

Blind Faith....

So you agree that every singe piece of matter and energy in all the universes across the great frontier of space was all condensed by tremendous pressure until it was forced into a ball the size of your thumb? (Big Bang Theory)

Is that physically possible? Scientists say it was, even though by common logic and by the Laws the govern our world today say it is impossible.

By the Laws that be, the Universes, after Big Bang, should be slowing, but yet it is moving faster...

As my Uncle said, who is a physicist, astronomer, and a Jew. It is the best guess we have with the information that is available, but he also added, but it is the information that isn't available that worries me.

First off, nobody living today on this Earth, was here in everything began. We have evidence today to suggest that it did happen...we are all alive, so we know it HAD to happen.

You believe in Evolution because the scientific evidence or perception of that evidence supports it. However, there are still numerous loop holes and gaps, whether you admit it or not, there is. So scientists continue to work on these problems with the belief and faith that they will find the answers.

So is there any difference in believing in God? I believe God created the world. I believe in God, because I see evidence of His Creation today. I believe the Bible, because the Bible explains what separates man from animal, and I can readily see the human flaw that exists today. However, there are still questions that arise. Their are still things we (Creationists) do not understand, so we continue to study, until we figure it out.