only atheists are allowed to post in this thread.

[DanielPaul]

Theists ALWAYS go back to the same old argument about morals, despite numerous arguments against it. Nothing will satisfy them. They need to hold onto this argument for some reason.

Human being create a consistent theory of morality via dialogue. Often, what will inform what is moral or not is what research and evidence. It is not a perfect system, but to a GREAT extent, we have come to design a pretty consistent moral system.

For example, from what I know of the bible, it says nothing about abstaining from child abuse. However, via research we have come to a conclusion that child abuse is psychologically and physically bad for the child. We realize that when you consistently beat or sexually abuse a child, there will be short and long-term consequences for the child, the family, the perpetrator (yes, even the perpetrator), the community, and society at large. We began to understand this via dialogue and important research in the field. Psychologists, social workers, neuroscientists, politicians, etc., all got together and decided that this was wrong. We did not need to look toward the bible for an objective standard of morality that it is NOT okay to abuse your child. In fact, the moral system regarding the abuse of children is fairly new. Hell, back in the 50's and 60's, no one really did much about it. Now, there are SO many ways that children are protected. We devised a moral system where if a parent is caught abusing their child, numerous things may occur: jail time for the parent, mandated therapy for parent, child is removed from home, etc. Will people still abuse children? Unfortunately, yes. However, we have devised a sophisticated, moral system where abuse will not be tolerated. To a great extent, we have met a general consensus that abuse will not be tolerated. Via logic and reason, we have been able to hold those accountable who abuse children. We did not need to appeal to the bible to "invent" all that we have done for abused children (social welfare programs, foster homes, care, etc.). There are so MANY moral dilemmas that the bible does not address that humans have worked out. A moral system is grounded upon empathy, justice, fairness, cooperation, and probably many other things. Will some people stray? Of course. But, overall, we have developed a pretty consistent theory of morality. As stated previously, its not perfect, but its pretty damn good.

The Bible does speak against child abuse specifically in a few places.

[Man of Steel]

For example, from what I know of the bible, it says nothing about abstaining from child abuse.

The bible doesn't use the specific term "child abuse".  It also doesn't say not to hit someone with a toaster. 

John 13:34
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Ephesians 4:32
32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.


Psalm 127:3
3 Behold, children are a gift of the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.

Matthew 18:2-5
2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me

The gist is to love each other, recognize how precious the Lord regards children, don't abuse or hurt children and don't hit each other with toasters.

[SF1900]

The bible doesn't use the specific term "child abuse".  It also doesn't say not to hit someone with a toaster. 

John 13:34
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Ephesians 4:32
32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.


Psalm 127:3
3 Behold, children are a gift of the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.

Matthew 18:2-5
2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me

The gist is to love each other, recognize how precious the Lord regards children, don't abuse or hurt children and don't hit each other with toasters.

I think those are rather vague statement and do not indicate to abstain from child abuse. But even if I grant you that those indirectly talk about child abuse, we still did not appeal to the bible for an authority regarding child abuse.

And even so, child abuse laws have only really been strengthened within the last 20-30 years. Where were all the theists before this who looked toward the bible for morality? Why did it take theists so long to talk against child abuse and put in stronger laws preventing such actions?

Most of the laws and policies against child abuse over the last 20-30 years have been due to much research involving PTSD and war, which shed further light on other forms of trauma. We started to then understand the effects of trauma on the developing brain.

No god or bible was necessary. In fact, if the bible and theists were so strongly against child abuse, then they failed miserably. Trauma is perhaps the number one social issue plaguing society. Yet, just merely 30 years ago, you could beat your children without any repercussions. Sorry to burst your bubble, but mental health workers did not look toward the bible to deem child abuse wrong. We looked toward the evidence.

[avxo]

From the outset, I wanted to note that I engage in this discussion with Christian faith and love.  Although, I understand my responses might be frustrating I’m not trying to frustrate or be difficult or insulting.

Time for a little disclaimer: I am about to counter every single one of the Bible verses you quote with another Bible verse. This doesn't suggest that I accept the Bible - I do not. You, however, do. I am using these quotes to highlight that the book that you rely on is inconsistent and logically flawed.

His is limited by that which is inconsistent with his nature.

We do not know anything about his nature.

Handwaving implies a sense of dishonesty.  That a person uses flowery or colorful language coupled with emotion appeals to make a point that actually can’t be made.  Essentially that a position (or point) isn’t truly grounded in anything else.

Not necessarily and that's not the way I used it. I don't think you're dishonest; in fact, I know that your beliefs are genuine even if you cannot rationally justify them. That's all fine and dandy. The problem is that you try to justify your beliefs by assertion. That's what I'm challenging.

Immutability - Malachi 3:6  “1 am the Lord, I change not."

And yet, he does. See Exodus 32:14: "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." Even if you want the King James version, the change is still there - God repents. In the New King James version God relents. So clearly, God changes. And this is but one example.

Now, I’m fairly certain you know what “divine” means, but just in case it means “to have the quality of God or to be God.”  His nature is divine…..His nature is to be God.

You are defining divine to mean to have the quality of God or to be God, but we don't know what God is, so we have no idea of what that quality is.

Divinity -  Exodus 3:14-15  God replied to Moses, “I am who I am.  Say this to the people of Israel: I am has sent me to you.”  God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh,  the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.  This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.

The “I am who I am” bit is a tautology and it's meaningless. You are you who you are. A rock is what it is is. It tells us nothing. You cite this is as having to do with divinity, but it tells us nothing.

Eternality -  Psalm 102:24-27  "I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old thou hast laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."

Again, you are using circular reasoning: The Bible is true because it's the word of God, and it tells us that God's years shall have no end. But even if you ignore the circular reasoning, this tells us little. 

Isaiah 40:28   Do you not know? Have you not heard?  The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth  Does not become weary or tired.  His understanding is inscrutable.

Really? He was weary enough that he had to take a day off (Ex. 31:17).

Unique -  Isaiah 45:5 “ I am the Lord; there is no other God.”

Really? Exodus 15:11: "“Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?" Also, Psalm 86:8: "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord."

Within scripture we have revealed to us the quantification of God and that quantity is one.  
Deuteronomy 6:4  “Hear, “O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.”  

Except when one is also three: 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." How is that possible? Who knows. But clearly there's more than one.

If God could create another being equal to or greater than himself then there would either be multiple Gods or he would no longer be God as the greater creation would replace him.   That’s neither possible or logical.

No more or less logical than the Biblical God at any rate...

Omniscience - Job 37:1 “Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?”

Clouds don't balance - that statement is meaningless. This entire thing tells us nothing about omniscience. What's "perfect knowledge"? What does that even mean? I've asked you this before. Clearly it can't mean omniscience: Otherwise, why would God need to come down to Sodom and Gomorrah himself to see and know what was going on. (Gen. 18:20-21)? Or not know what the Israelites were up to when they "made princes" (Hos. 8:4)?

Free Will for humanity - Joshua 24:15  “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live”

It's a pity you have things like Jude 4: "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation."

And let's not forget 2 Thes. 2:11-12: "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."

So much for free will...

I’ve defined who God is on several occasions in the past (matter of fact in replies to you)….please refer to that material.

Your definitions were flawed or insufficient.

Not really.   Toast, pink unicorns…..sorry.   No correlation with God there that I see, just a substitution of words.   I suppose “chimichanga” would work as well?

Sure - a substitution of words. But why is it irrational or impossible when the word is "pink unicorn" but somehow possible when the word is "god"? I'll tell you why: because you are allowing your belief to cloud your rational judgement.

As I explained, knowledge or foreknowledge is simply knowledge….it’s benign.    People tend to confuse the “fore” in foreknowledge with “force”…..it’s not “forceknowledge” in that we are forced to do something.

Foreknowledge can be bening - there's nothing bad with foreknowledge. The problem - which you're failing to address - is how does inerrant foreknowledge co-exist with free will. The answer is that it does not. You can have one or the other. You CANNOT have both.

Rationality is subjective based upon our presuppositions and worldviews (which in this discussion are diametrically opposed).   My faith and God doesn’t comport with your worldview so my explanation won’t be deemed rational by you…..it’s an act of futility.   I know this because we’ve gone down this path repeatedly.

No, rationality is not subjective. If your presupposition is that God is real, that doesn't make God rational or real. 

Here’s the crux: “then I can't choose anything other than what God knows”.   That is correct, but that doesn’t change the fact that the knowledge is benign in regards to your choice.  You’re inventing a notion of control within the idea of perfect, complete knowledge.

It's not benign to my choice. If God knows I'm going to choose to have pizza tonight and that knowledge is inerrant, I don't have any choice: it's pizza. I only have the illusion of choice.

God’s will is that we choose him, enter into fellowship with him, accept Christ and turn from sin.

 

And instead of providing clear and convincing evidence that he exists and that is, actually, his will, he requires a leap of faith long enough to qualify for the Ultra-Olympics!

You firmly reject his will and you aren’t a Christian.   Choice made and choice upheld.

I'm open to his will, if I can be convinced that (a) he exists and (b) that his will is what you claim it is.

I understand tautology, but not exactly sure what you’re suggesting.  If this is just about repetition of ideas then ok.    We’re both doing that.

You understand tautologies? If that's true, why say: "Total knowledge is total knowledge." That's a meaningless and completely vacuous statement. And, with respect, it's not something we're both doing.

You’re awfully passionate about something you have no feelings towards.

I'm just allergic to bullshit.

Scripture attests to it.

If only scripture also didn't attest the opposite...

Our Lord Jesus Christ attests to it.

Through the scripture - so how's that different from the previous point.

The Holy Spirit that indwells believers attests to it.

When you can provide observable, quantifiable evidence that the Holy Spirit spirit exists and indwells believes me know.

Yes, he pronounced judgment upon them and through them the proclivity to sin is passed to humanity (we’ve already discussed that though).

If we have a proclivity to sin, to punish us for it is immoral and unjust.

The promises of scripture continue to be fulfilled in me through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the process of sanctification, the process of becoming a new creature in Christ, the complete change of perception, the joy of fellowship and worship experienced by believers.   Man, I’ve experienced the love and goodness and God in my life.   Because of these things I faith that his promises for the future will also be fulfilled.

Great - there's not argument there. You have had a direct, personal revelation. That's perfectly fine and, in fact, logically unassailable. But only when it comes to your belief; that direct personal revelation you had is meaningless to anyone other than you. For all we know, you're hearing voices.
 

I would say that for God to step in and only allow certain folks to be born because he knows they would choose him would violate the free choices of those folks that desired to have families even if some of those children would mature into adults that would reject God.

Wow... you're like a fucking politician! What an argument... God allows people who he knows will reject him to be born because otherwise, some people couldn't have families..

Yes it does.

Tell that to children slaughtered for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). And to Eli's descendants (1 Samuel 3:12-13). 

The innocents need not fear God’s wrath for they are without blame or need for judgment.

There are no innocents according to the Bible. Your warm and fuzzy feelings about reunions in heaven aside.

“Jesus called a little child to him and put the child among them. Then he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.  So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.’”

Except the little children that are cursed in the name of God (2 Kings 2:23-24).

Christ also indicated how severely those that cause the children (the little ones) to fall into sin would be judged.  The children are lead into sin and out of innocence.   Further, the primary attributes of God (justice, love, grace and mercy) don’t jive together if the innocents are separated eternally from him after their death.

Let me remind Jesus of Psalm 137:9: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

The moment we entertain the notion of what “God needs” we’re in error.  

Yes, I can and it begins with a faithful journey to him as outlined in scripture.   You come to God on his terms and not your own.   Refuse to do so and you remain in ignorance of him.

Yes, yes... we get it. Believe first and then you can be given proof. How's that not putting the cart before the horse?

So essentially you’re generalizing my entire argument and labeling it a “non sequitor” because it doesn’t agree with your worldview and presuppositions.   That isn’t a non sequitor……that’s what I call “fallacy shopping”.  Don’t like a premise so you go shopping for a logical fallacy that can be forced upon it.

You asked me to highlight the logical fallacies in your argument. I did. Don't complain.

“We’re out of peanut butter because I wanted a sandwich today.”   That’s a non sequitor.

That's a non-sequitur, yes. That slapping a police officer might mean jail, therefore "slapping" God means eternal punishment is also a non-sequitur.

Once again the “fallacy shopping” because my worldview and presuppositions don’t agree with yours you call “logical fallacy”.   Not the case.

NO. This has nothing to do with worldviews and presuppositions. You assume the very thing that you are trying to prove. This is a logical fallacy. You may not like this, but it is.

There is nothing unclear about what I presented because you fully grasp it.   As I explained the “slap” is an example of an offense or a breaking of a law.   Law breaking can occur by humanity in the finite and infinite.

What does it mean to break the law in the infinite?

Scripture relates to God in anthropomorphic language whereby we humanize him.   We can adjust our examples to include God as he relates to our situation in a similar manner.

In other words, we anthropomorphize God when it's convenient and we don't when it's not.

That’s a lot of absolute statements about God from a man that has absolutely no personal experience or relationship with God.

Well then, you, who do have a relationship with God, should be able to quickly and conclusively disprove every single one of those statements...

[Tapeworm]

Could God write a post so long that He couldn't answer it?

[avxo]

Could God write a post so long that He couldn't answer it?

Haha!

[DanielPaul]

Book written during a coarse of 1500 years and was completed 1700 years ago people are going to be skeptical, the bible states in end times it will be very difficult if not impossible for people to believe.  For all the agnostic getbiggers if you don't want to believe don't and leave it at that , but if you choose to criticize you had better read it first before you try to debunk it

[The Ugly]

Book written during a coarse of 1500 years and was completed 1700 years ago people are going to be skeptical, the bible states in end times it will be very difficult if not impossible for people to believe.  For all the agnostic getbiggers if you don't want to believe don't and leave it at that , but if you choose to criticize you had better read it first before you try to debunk it

Reading the bible is exactly what changed me from a troubled doubter to a convinced atheist.

[DanielPaul]

Really? What part specifically?

[SF1900]

Really? What part specifically?

Most likely from the first page to the last page. 

[The Ugly]

Really? What part specifically?

Generally speaking, the inconsistencies, contradictions, immorality, and overwhelming improbabilities for starters. Scientific inaccuracies, childish silliness ...

Specifically? Well, Genesis was a biggie, and that was just under the cover. Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus ... f'n JOB for God's sake. Then there's Revelations - where do you even start with that one?

[Primemuscle]

Lets say you work at a business.

The Boss, who no one has ever met, has put signs out that say=

 "everyone who comes to my office, waits there till I arrive, and then agrees to my terms of employment, all those people will receive a promotion and a job forever...

 ...but anyone who does not seek me, or anyone who seeks me but gives up and leaves before they find me, or anyone who refuses my terms of employment; all such person will be fired at the end of the week"



Now, one day a man comes up to you and says: "hey, i sought out the boss, and eventually he showed up, and i met the guy, and hes great, and i agreed to his terms, and now im getting a promotion and a job forever! the signs he put up are true! you had better go look for him, or else youll get fired!"


But you say....   "BULL CRAP!!!!!!! no one has ever met the guy! theres no such thing as a Boss! this business was the result of random processes! and now you have the arrogance to tell me that if i dont agree to this imaginary persons terms, that im going to get fired! Get a life, MORON!



.......



 




but thats not even all of it.

not only does that happen... but several other people come up and testify to the same thing! the boss is real! the signs are true! they all agreed to the terms and are getting a promotion and a job forever!

and guess what else? nearly everyone who tells you this testimony, they all have a supernatural change of heart towards their job, towards their coworkers, towards their salary, all of it!  its amazing! nothing else in the history of the company has ever effected people in this way!



but you still say.....    BULL CRAP!!! It's all a big lie.


But why do you say that?


I think I know why.


It's because the Boss actually posted a list of his terms of employment on that letter.
And you hate his terms. He wants you to agree to surrender your entire life to Him.
He wants you to give up pornography, fornication, adultery, selfishness, self-righteousness, pride, ambition, and all of your hopes and dreams.
He wants you to die to yourself.


And thats something you absolutely refuse to do.

So you prefer to just tell yourself the guy doesnt exist.
The business is a product of random chance.
or maybe there is a Boss, and this guy is just a fraud and a phony.

either way, you aint accepting those terms of employment.

What if I told you I have met the "boss" and the boss is nothing like what you describe. What if I told you the boss said to me he/she only wants what is best for us and rather than punishing us in the afterlife for our sins, the boss forgives us our sins unconditionally.

[Necrosis]

What if I told you I have met the "boss" and the boss is nothing like what you describe. What if I told you the boss said to me he/she only wants what is best for us and rather than punishing us in the afterlife for our sins, the boss forgives us our sins unconditionally.

That would be to kind and good, the only way to improve things is servitude and overt slavery to a god we have to worship. He sent back his son to be killed to somehow absolve us of our sins. To bad he didn't suffer more, like some children in nazi germany, seems he got off light considering he knew he would not actually die.

[DanielPaul]

Generally speaking, the inconsistencies, contradictions, immorality, and overwhelming improbabilities, for starters. Scientific inaccuracies, childish silliness ...

Specifically? Well, Genesis was a biggie, and that was just under the cover. Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus ... f'n JOB for God's sake. Then there's Revelations - where do you even start with that one?

if you actually read Leviticus and exodus and stayed attentive enough to comprehend all of it I am impressed.  These are the only books I could not study , I wish I could but my attention span is terrible.

[DanielPaul]

It all really comes down to this, some people are ok believing that we are nothing more than a complex organisms that happened by chance over billions of years.  To me that seems so illogical, every object has a designer and for some reason I can't get it out of my head that after this life it's not the end, I just feel it in my soul, I by no means grew up religious but it really started to hit me when my first child was born and I'll believe till the day I die and I'll never judge you because you don't.

[avxo]

It all really comes down to this, some people are ok believing that we are nothing more than a complex organisms that happened by chance over billions of years.  To me that seems so illogical, every object has a designer and for some reason I can't get it out of my head that after this life it's not the end, I just feel it in my soul, I by no means grew up religious but it really started to hit me when my first child was born and I'll believe till the day I die and I'll never judge you because you don't.

But it seems, to you, perfectly logical that the entity that could design all this didn't itself need a designer. Right? Do you not see the contradiction there?

[Parker]

That would be to kind and good, the only way to improve things is servitude and overt slavery to a god we have to worship. He sent back his son to be killed to somehow absolve us of our sins. To bad he didn't suffer more, like some children in nazi germany, seems he got off light considering he knew he would not actually die.

Well, get off lightly? Death is death, torture is torture, and he still was mortal There was a special I believe on Nat Geo, that he had to carry his approx 200 pound cross. Also flogged by a Roman flagrum (which can contain pieces of glass and bone).
Then crucified. He lasted 9 days correct? Most people last longer. Among other things, it is a horrible way to die.

[The Ugly]

It all really comes down to this, some people are ok believing that we are nothing more than a complex organisms that happened by chance over billions of years.  To me that seems so illogical, every object has a designer and for some reason I can't get it out of my head that after this life it's not the end, I just feel it in my soul, I by no means grew up religious but it really started to hit me when my first child was born and I'll believe till the day I die and I'll never judge you because you don't.

But a supernatural explanation is logical? And even if evolutionists are wrong, why settle on Abraham's God?

Be honest, if you grew up in, say, Albania, do you think the bible would resonate with you as much as it has? Remove popular consensus and societal pressure, does it still seem like a reasonable explanation?

Keep in mind, about 1.6 billion Muslims (23% of the world's pop.) are equally convinced you will burn eternally for accepting Jesus (Thanks, Pascal). Does this keep you up at night?

[tbombz]

When Jesus talked about the kindgom of god, the kingdom of heaven, he did not mean a post mortem realm but the essence of who you are in the present moment. He wanted people to wake up to the Divine in the here and now, to the transcendent and experience unity with the Father like he did. Church men bent on control over people changed things to a heaven after death of the body to which one can gain entry only if they accept Jesus the one and only saviour. Jesus and his teachings were hijacked by ignorant men.

BigRo,

It is cool that you know a verse from the Bible! I highly recommend reading more!

Jesus did say that The Kingdom of God is inside you!

He also said:

 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

and


"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them."



If you have any questions, please feel free to send me a message or ask me in whatever you wish. I will do my best to answer for you.

[tbombz]

Any examples of this otherworldly insight Jesus had, was it love thy neighbour? or was it turn the other cheek?


Just to point out, he was a man, there is no such thing as divine inspiration or enlightenment etc. It may be a brain state but it's not transcendent, humans cannot do this, like we cannot read minds or move objects with it. Everything you think you know about the afterlife, existence is coming from ordinary plain old humans, all trying to figure out what the fuck is going on.

Like you kundalini shit, it's kindling, it's been figured out, it's not energy or chakra's or anything of that nature. We know what it is, just like I know human's will lie, deceive and make up shit, we are after all just apes.

How do you know all of this ?
Where did you get this knowledge ?

[polychronopolous]

[BigRo]

BigRo,

It is cool that you know a verse from the Bible! I highly recommend reading more!

Jesus did say that The Kingdom of God is inside you!

He also said:

 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

and


"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them."



If you have any questions, please feel free to send me a message or ask me in whatever you wish. I will do my best to answer for you.

Yes I know a few, I have a book of the parables of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. My Dad used to be a catholic priest. I even played Jesus in a stations of the cross play at the church!

Those two you quoted are not from Jesus though! At least they are not the words of an enlightened man. Christ is within us all as the source of our being. We do not need a middle man. Hell has no power of conviction over me, nor do I need an everlasting heaven in the afterlife. To be one with the ground of my own being is to be one with God and what more can one need. That is my life's inner process.

[tbombz]

Doesn't it ever make you think when you consider how massive our universe really is?
nearest star ( besides the sun) = 4.3 light years or aprox 25 trillion miles from earth.
nearest galaxy ( besides our Milky Way) = 2.5 million lights yrs from earth or 15 million-trillion miles from earth

Those are the NEAREST  celestial objects ( besides comets) outside our solar system!

How do you deal with the proof from the Hubble deep space images that the Universe is at least 14 billion yrs old?
FYI, this data is based on the light images collected on the Hubble lens.
It's basically like measuring how bright a light source is. It really is that clear and simple.

Oh, I've never seen the "creationists" come up with any proof that the Hubble universe dating is wrong.

Hey Howard.

I am glad to try to help you understand the "Creationist" perspective.

As for your question about the data collected from the hubble telescope, and trying to use that data to determine the "age of the universe"..

Well, there are various ways of interpreting the data.
For example.. does light always move at the same speed everywhere in the universe?
Has light always moved at the same speed throughout all time?
Are red shifts really a reliable measure of distance (empirical data says otherwise)?

But, those questions aside, there are ways in which "the universe" can be both 6,000 years old and 14 billion years old at the same time.
You see, time is relative.


Here is a great video on the subject (you can fast forward to the 16:45 mark)

Here are some good articles on the subject

http://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creation-cosmology

http://creation.com/distant-starlight-and-genesis-conventions-of-time-measurement

http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show

[The Ugly]

Yes I know a few, I have a book of the parables of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. My Dad used to be a catholic priest. I even played Jesus in a stations of the cross play at the church!

Those two you quoted are not from Jesus though! At least they are not the words of an enlightened man. Christ is within us all as the source of our being. We do not need a middle man. Hell has no power of conviction over me, nor do a need an everlasting heaven in the afterlife. To be one with the ground of my own being is to be one with God and what more can one need. That is my life's inner process.

I detect some Deepakish gobbledygook here.

[tbombz]

What if I told you I have met the "boss" and the boss is nothing like what you describe. What if I told you the boss said to me he/she only wants what is best for us and rather than punishing us in the afterlife for our sins, the boss forgives us our sins unconditionally.

Hey Primemuscle.

Because of the fact that I already met the boss, and the boss already proved to me that He is the boss, I would know that you were either deceived or lying.