Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: syntaxmachine on June 21, 2012, 06:29:39 PM
-
Let's accept the (just somewhat) controversial idea that Jesus was the son of God and that he did in fact die for our sins. Is this sacrifice forever in the sense that it covers all subsequent sinning? I'm not convinced that this is necessarily the case, for Jesus was after all sent down at a particular time and place. Maybe the sinning up to that point was covered.
Can it really be that Jesus' acts still cover the Holocaust and other such boundless depravity on the part of human beings? Perhaps after the Holocaust God retracted the "here's another chance at being saved" offer. Or, if it hasn't quite happened yet, perhaps the revocation will in due time (because the depravity surely will continue).
I know it's a part of the mythology that the offer will continue to stand. But I'm wondering, have any of you considered that at some point humans may become beyond "saving"?
-
Ive often wondered about this.
Pretty sure someone cant spend their life raping children and murdering people, and have it be covered. Just my .02.
Different people look at it different ways - but I cant imagine god giving a pass to someone that cut people up and wore their skin or continuously raped innocent children just because he accepted Jesus into his heart and prayed for forgiveness.
I think its more for people that TRY to live a good moral life (yes I realize morals hugely vary person to person, im speaking of the basic "dont kill, do unto others, yadda yadda"), but sin is just a part of their lives. (as it is with anyone).
I just cant picture some dude having sex out of wedlock, or drinking himself stupid once in a while, being judged on the same slate as some dude that slaughters hookers or some shit.
-
No reason to kill hookers... They're already dead inside.
-
A truly repentant person that believes in Christ as Savior is forgiven all of their sin, past, present and future.
1 John 2:1-2b
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins...
Ive often wondered about this.
Pretty sure someone cant spend their life raping children and murdering people, and have it be covered. Just my .02.
Different people look at it different ways - but I cant imagine god giving a pass to someone that cut people up and wore their skin or continuously raped innocent children just because he accepted Jesus into his heart and prayed for forgiveness.
I think its more for people that TRY to live a good moral life (yes I realize morals hugely vary person to person, im speaking of the basic "dont kill, do unto others, yadda yadda"), but sin is just a part of their lives. (as it is with anyone).
I just cant picture some dude having sex out of wedlock, or drinking himself stupid once in a while, being judged on the same slate as some dude that slaughters hookers or some shit.
Personally I wonder if people like Hitler, serial killers and child rapists would ever become truly repentant. I suppose it's possible, but those are some warped and twisted brains that don't seem to work like normal ones.
....Like a psychopath/sociopath you know?...They don't really even see some of the evil that they do as being wrong.
-
A truly repentant person that believes in Christ as Savior is forgiven all of their sin, past, present and future.
1 John 2:1-2b
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins...
Personally I wonder if people like Hitler, serial killers and child rapists would ever become truly repentant. I suppose it's possible, but those are some warped and twisted brains that don't seem to work like normal ones.
....Like a psychopath/sociopath you know?...They don't really even see some of the evil that they do as being wrong.
What bothers me, is that I dont believe some of them actually know what theyre doing is so wrong - they may actually believe they are attempting to live a good moral life, and pray for forgiveness of their sins, without actually thinking what they did was so horrible.
-
What bothers me, is that I dont believe some of them actually know what theyre doing is so wrong - they may actually believe they are attempting to live a good moral life, and pray for forgiveness of their sins, without actually thinking what they did was so horrible.
I guess I don't understand what you're saying? It bothers you that they are praying for forgiveness or that they do so but don't mean it? Or ?
-
I guess I don't understand what you're saying? It bothers you that they are praying for forgiveness or that they do so but don't mean it? Or ?
No, im saying it bugs me that they have no idea that the atrocities they were committing were wrong.
They probably really believed they were living a moral life. (Some of them)
-
Discusssed in a previous thread:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=192333.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=192333.0)
-
Oh well, I don't see the harm in rehashing +bringing new elements into the discussion here, such as the status of all human beings before Christ. There's 200K years of human existence there; where did these humans go when they died? Did they cease to exist and then were retroactively revived and rewarded/punished? I think it might be unfair to do as such given that nobody had been told the message. Another mysterious aspect of all this is why God chose the particular time he did. What changed that suddenly made him decide to intervene after an extraordinary absence?
Plus, I still doubt that Jesus' actions could be forward looking: wasn't he explitily addressing human beings at that time? Why does this cover stuff like the Holocaust centuries later? If it does, it is a blank check to be as evil as possible and then repent near the end? Why would the creator invent such an exploitable system?
-
A truly repentant person that believes in Christ as Savior is forgiven all of their sin, past, present and future.
1 John 2:1-2b
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins...
Why would he need to atone in the first place?
The problem that I have, in principle, with the concept of sin and salvation is this:
God decrees that the wages of sin is death. God additionally decrees that nobody can ever atone for their sin. Since we assume that nobody is perfect and everybody sin, then everyone is screwed. But apparently, God loves us, and so he wants to save us (from the penalty that he decreed - let's not forget that), so he sends his Son (who is, also, himself in some incomprehensible way) to die and absolve us of our sins but only if we are willing to believe that the death of Jesus was for our own good.
Let's recap: God says that sin is bad and that the punishment of sin is death. But God loves us, so sacrifices himself to himself to satisfy the punishment he himself imposed. Wha...? Really?! Who comes up with that? How is that sensible?
I've yet to hear a cogent answer on why this convoluted system of salvation needs to be in place, and why the God of love can't just forgive us all and be done with it.
In other words, why can't God just say: "Aww, shucks you guys. I love you so much, I can never stay mad at y'all. Tell you what, we're cool. Just, like, don't do bad stuff, k?"
-
Why would he need to atone in the first place?
The problem that I have, in principle, with the concept of sin and salvation is this:
God decrees that the wages of sin is death. God additionally decrees that nobody can ever atone for their sin. Since we assume that nobody is perfect and everybody sin, then everyone is screwed. But apparently, God loves us, and so he wants to save us (from the penalty that he decreed - let's not forget that), so he sends his Son (who is, also, himself in some incomprehensible way) to die and absolve us of our sins but only if we are willing to believe that the death of Jesus was for our own good.
Let's recap: God says that sin is bad and that the punishment of sin is death. But God loves us, so sacrifices himself to himself to satisfy the punishment he himself imposed. Wha...? Really?! Who comes up with that? How is that sensible?
I've yet to hear a cogent answer on why this convoluted system of salvation needs to be in place, and why the God of love can't just forgive us all and be done with it.
In other words, why can't God just say: "Aww, shucks you guys. I love you so much, I can never stay mad at y'all. Tell you what, we're cool. Just, like, don't do bad stuff, k?"
Apparently if you apply the salvation thing through out history, it may be 80 billion souls that are damned.
Additionally, God is not a big happy loving teddy bear in heaven. He's a petty vengeful killer from killing 42 rowdy teens with a bear to killing every man, woman and child on earth except for one family.
-
I see getbig has not changed one bit ;)
-
Why would he need to atone in the first place?
The problem that I have, in principle, with the concept of sin and salvation is this:
God decrees that the wages of sin is death. God additionally decrees that nobody can ever atone for their sin. Since we assume that nobody is perfect and everybody sin, then everyone is screwed. But apparently, God loves us, and so he wants to save us (from the penalty that he decreed - let's not forget that), so he sends his Son (who is, also, himself in some incomprehensible way) to die and absolve us of our sins but only if we are willing to believe that the death of Jesus was for our own good.
Let's recap: God says that sin is bad and that the punishment of sin is death. But God loves us, so sacrifices himself to himself to satisfy the punishment he himself imposed. Wha...? Really?! Who comes up with that? How is that sensible?
I've yet to hear a cogent answer on why this convoluted system of salvation needs to be in place, and why the God of love can't just forgive us all and be done with it.
In other words, why can't God just say: "Aww, shucks you guys. I love you so much, I can never stay mad at y'all. Tell you what, we're cool. Just, like, don't do bad stuff, k?"
This post was really funny ;)
-
I see getbig has not changed one bit ;)
Hustle Man!! :D
Hope all is well w/you and yours.
-
Oh well, I don't see the harm in rehashing +bringing new elements into the discussion here, such as the status of all human beings before Christ. There's 200K years of human existence there; where did these humans go when they died? Did they cease to exist and then were retroactively revived and rewarded/punished? I think it might be unfair to do as such given that nobody had been told the message. Another mysterious aspect of all this is why God chose the particular time he did. What changed that suddenly made him decide to intervene after an extraordinary absence?
Plus, I still doubt that Jesus' actions could be forward looking: wasn't he explitily addressing human beings at that time? Why does this cover stuff like the Holocaust centuries later? If it does, it is a blank check to be as evil as possible and then repent near the end? Why would the creator invent such an exploitable system?
The people that died before Christ came were saved by grace through faith, just as the ones after.
Hebrews 11
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.
21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions concerning the burial of his bones.
23 By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.
29 By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the army had marched around them for seven days.
31 By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[d]
32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning;[e] they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
-------------------------------
I don't really understand your thought that Jesus' actions could not be "forward looking." Seems like most people question how the people before He came were saved. Are you saying you thought that you think that only the people who believed on Him during the time He lived would be saved (or right around that time)?
Grace is not a blank check for acting evil (if that is what you are saying).
Romans 6
6 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin — 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
Slaves to Righteousness
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey —whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
19 I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
-
Why would he need to atone in the first place?
The problem that I have, in principle, with the concept of sin and salvation is this:
God decrees that the wages of sin is death. God additionally decrees that nobody can ever atone for their sin. Since we assume that nobody is perfect and everybody sin, then everyone is screwed. But apparently, God loves us, and so he wants to save us (from the penalty that he decreed - let's not forget that), so he sends his Son (who is, also, himself in some incomprehensible way) to die and absolve us of our sins but only if we are willing to believe that the death of Jesus was for our own good.
Let's recap: God says that sin is bad and that the punishment of sin is death. But God loves us, so sacrifices himself to himself to satisfy the punishment he himself imposed. Wha...? Really?! Who comes up with that? How is that sensible?
I've yet to hear a cogent answer on why this convoluted system of salvation needs to be in place, and why the God of love can't just forgive us all and be done with it.
In other words, why can't God just say: "Aww, shucks you guys. I love you so much, I can never stay mad at y'all. Tell you what, we're cool. Just, like, don't do bad stuff, k?"
I'd also like if your last sentence could happen....but we're not going to not do bad stuff. But you may say, why doen't He make us not do bad stuff? Then where is free will?
I know this means nothing to you or will seem like a cop out but why doesn't God always do things like we think He should?:
Isaiah 55:9
“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
-
I'd also like if your last sentence could happen...
No you wouldn't.
but we're not going to not do bad stuff.
Why not?
But you may say, why doen't He make us not do bad stuff?
No. I would't say that.
Then where is free will?
Where is free will in being born with the taint of Original Sin?
I know this means nothing to you or will seem like a cop out but why doesn't God always do things like we think He should?:
Isaiah 55:9
“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
The fact is that the "plan" of the God, as outlined in the Bible boils down to: God decides that some acts merit the death penalty. While enforcing the death penatly, God wants to stop. So he sends himself to die in our place so that he doesn't have to kill us, but only if we believe that's what he did.
Since you can't justify this absurdity, you fall back to "god works in mysterious ways! hallelujah!". It doesn't just seem like a cop out; it is a cop out.
-
My grandfather never EVER did anything bad... EVER.
Never cursed... was always nice... Was just the best guy I ever knew in my life.
EVERYONE who ever met him said he was ALWAYS like that... He wasn't just a christian... he was "CHRIST LIKE"
-
No you wouldn't.
Are you saying you mean I would regret it or that you have some type of special ability to read things in people's minds of which they themselves are not even aware? Or are you just saying I'm lying?
If it's that you are saying that I'd regret it or that I'm lying, what is your reasoning for thinking so?
-
Are you saying you mean I would regret it or that you have some type of special ability to read things in people's minds of which they themselves are not even aware? Or are you just saying I'm lying?
If it's that you are saying that I'd regret it or that I'm lying, what is your reasoning for thinking so?
I am saying that the sacrifice of Jesus is the central tenet of your religion. Would you really not want for that sacrifice to have been necessary?
-
The people that died before Christ came were saved by grace through faith, just as the ones after.
Hebrews 11
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.
21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions concerning the burial of his bones.
23 By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.
29 By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the army had marched around them for seven days.
31 By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[d]
32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning;[e] they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
-------------------------------
I don't really understand your thought that Jesus' actions could not be "forward looking." Seems like most people question how the people before He came were saved. Are you saying you thought that you think that only the people who believed on Him during the time He lived would be saved (or right around that time)?
Grace is not a blank check for acting evil (if that is what you are saying).
Romans 6
6 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin — 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
Slaves to Righteousness
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey —whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
19 I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Adam and Eve are historical fictions. Human beings have around 100-200 thousand years; if the grace and faith scheme was sufficient for their salvation (despite their not being such a thing as a Christian at the time), why change it and insist on a new scheme where one has to parochially swear allegiance to one Apocalyptic preacher in particular, a scheme in which God must kill himself?
I'm asking you - and any other Christians willing to participate - to think critically on these matters, not throw up Biblical passages. The Bible will not be of assistance when it comes to answering the most interesting questions, e.g., why God chose evolution via natural selection - the process that creates perhaps the most suffering of all the tools available and eliminates 99% of life over time. If you really cared about the implications of all this you ought to be a Gnostic, not a Christian.
At what point do you start to see how terribly unreasonable all of this is? I'm genuinely curious: what could possibly occur to make you change your mind about anything? I have a little list drawn up that, if fulfilled, would convince me that Christianity was probably correct. Do you have anything similar regarding its falsehood? The problem with many Christians is they have no such list: no such ability to hold beliefs contingently. And thus they'll pretend to have a critical discussion with you, during which the shoddy or non-existent reasons for being Christian are paraded out, and after which 'faith,' 'mystery,' and 'awe-inspiring feeling' are deployed to defend their belief from any further evaluation. In other words, the discussion is academic because the person is going to believe what they're going to believe regardless of the reasons under discussion! There's nothing comparable in science, logic, or philosophy, and this does not reflect well on religious belief.
-
Adam and Eve are historical fictions. Human beings have around 100-200 thousand years; if the grace and faith scheme was sufficient for their salvation (despite their not being such a thing as a Christian at the time), why change it and insist on a new scheme where one has to parochially swear allegiance to one Apocalyptic preacher in particular, a scheme in which God must kill himself?
The people before Christ were saved by believing God...that He would (eventually) address their sin issue in HIs way so as to "wash them clean" so to speak. They knew a Messiah was coming. So Christ coming in the flesh was not a "new scheme."
One does not "parochially swear allegiance" to anyone to be saved...just believe.
At what point do you start to see how terribly unreasonable all of this is? I'm genuinely curious: what could possibly occur to make you change your mind about anything? I have a little list drawn up that, if fulfilled, would convince me that Christianity was probably correct. Do you have anything similar regarding its falsehood? The problem with many Christians is they have no such list: no such ability to hold beliefs contingently. And thus they'll pretend to have a critical discussion with you, during which the shoddy or non-existent reasons for being Christian are paraded out, and after which 'faith,' 'mystery,' and 'awe-inspiring feeling' are deployed to defend their belief from any further evaluation. In other words, the discussion is academic because the person is going to believe what they're going to believe regardless of the reasons under discussion! There's nothing comparable in science, logic, or philosophy, and this does not reflect well on religious belief.
I don't think I've ever thought about having a list that would convince me that Christianity was not correct. If you were a Christian what would be on your list?
What is on your list (if you don't mind sharing) that would help to convince you that Christianity is correct?
-
The people before Christ were saved by believing God...that He would (eventually) address their sin issue in HIs way so as to "wash them clean" so to speak. They knew a Messiah was coming. So Christ coming in the flesh was not a "new scheme."
One does not "parochially swear allegiance" to anyone to be saved...just believe.
I don't think I've ever thought about having a list that would convince me that Christianity was not correct. If you were a Christian what would be on your list?
What is on your list (if you don't mind sharing) that would help to convince you that Christianity is correct?
I only have one thing on my list that says there is no God in the first place.
God lets little babies that have never EVER harmed another soul die... for no reason.
Anyone who lets that happen and has the power to stop it can get bent.
-
The people before Christ were saved by believing God...that He would (eventually) address their sin issue in HIs way so as to "wash them clean" so to speak. They knew a Messiah was coming. So Christ coming in the flesh was not a "new scheme."
One does not "parochially swear allegiance" to anyone to be saved...just believe.
Which brings us back to my question... why this convoluted scheme to address sin? Please, don't just say "God works in mysterious ways" because that's, to put it bluntly, not an answer.
I don't think I've ever thought about having a list that would convince me that Christianity was not correct. If you were a Christian what would be on your list?
For me, the first - and only - thing on the list would be "Can I define God?" I can't believe in something I cannot define. Belief in something unknown and, fundamentally, unknowable is meaningless.
What is on your list (if you don't mind sharing) that would help to convince you that Christianity is correct?
I don't have such a list, but the first step would be a logical, consistent explanation of God. The second step would logical proof that the previously defined entity exists. No step should require faith, and no step should require that I accept a premise before proof of the validity of the premise can be provided.
-
Adam and Eve are historical fictions. Human beings have around 100-200 thousand years; if the grace and faith scheme was sufficient for their salvation (despite their not being such a thing as a Christian at the time), why change it and insist on a new scheme where one has to parochially swear allegiance to one Apocalyptic preacher in particular, a scheme in which God must kill himself?
I'm asking you - and any other Christians willing to participate - to think critically on these matters, not throw up Biblical passages. The Bible will not be of assistance when it comes to answering the most interesting questions, e.g., why God chose evolution via natural selection - the process that creates perhaps the most suffering of all the tools available and eliminates 99% of life over time. If you really cared about the implications of all this you ought to be a Gnostic, not a Christian.
At what point do you start to see how terribly unreasonable all of this is? I'm genuinely curious: what could possibly occur to make you change your mind about anything? I have a little list drawn up that, if fulfilled, would convince me that Christianity was probably correct. Do you have anything similar regarding its falsehood? The problem with many Christians is they have no such list: no such ability to hold beliefs contingently. And thus they'll pretend to have a critical discussion with you, during which the shoddy or non-existent reasons for being Christian are paraded out, and after which 'faith,' 'mystery,' and 'awe-inspiring feeling' are deployed to defend their belief from any further evaluation. In other words, the discussion is academic because the person is going to believe what they're going to believe regardless of the reasons under discussion! There's nothing comparable in science, logic, or philosophy, and this does not reflect well on religious belief.
The Persian Empire held the biggest army in the known world, Darius mounted an army of 1 million men, the human population at this time was between 120-140 million, 350 bc- 2350 years ago.
The Babylonians managed to be the first world power to incorporate trade and commerce, Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom had anywhere from 500-600 thousand soldiers, population was 100 million, 550 bc nearly 2600 years ago
Sennacherib, king of Assyria carried 200 000 soldiers on campaign and that was 50% of is army, leaving half his Army in Mesopotamia, guarding cities such as Babylon and Nineveh. World Population 80-90 million, 700 bc, 2700+ years ago.
King Solomon reigned over Israel, Egypt, Syria, Ammon and Moab (present day Jordan), Asia Minor (present day Turkey), Ethiopia, Mesopotamia (Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia and Uruk), Chaldea (present day Iran), Median and Sinai peninsula (present day Saudia Arabia),.... all of these territories made up at last 1 third of the World and his kingdom reigned with only a population of 3 million, world popluation 50 million. 1000 BC,... 3000 years ago
Between 1000 BC and 2000 BC many nations marched Armies but non exceeded 100 000 soldiers, some had several hundred thousand men that where capable o fighting, but the same men where also need for other task, nations include, Cush, Egypt, Median, Philistine, Chaldea, Elam, Accadian, Summer, Babylonians etc
Hammurabi is the first known man that historians recognize as giving the first law code "tooth for tooth, eye for eye" etc he was from Babylon and he enforced his law with an army of 20 000 men
Finally the oldest language and writings known to mankind, Cuneiform, found on clay tablets in the fertile cresent 3000 BC, and sure enough the oldest civilisation recognized by historians across every single university on the planet, the Summerians
.... Now this is funny, Sargon the great also known as Sargon of Accad is the first (yes the first), known General of all time, there is absolutely no record of an Army or any type of military power before him, 3000 BC, he mounted an Army of 5000 men, the biggest army in the world according the cuneiform tablets this information was founded on. OH you noticed the pattern the numbers keep getting smaller..
The greatest archaeological find of all time (IMO) is the Ashurbanipal library, found in present day Iraq has over 1000 documented wars dating between 600bc and 3000 bc and all of sudden nothing before this time, no nations, no civilizations, no cultures, no nothing, thousands of manuscript, biggiest library of antiquity,....
... So what's my point?...
....SO WHAT IS THIS NON-SENSE "HUMANS AROUND FOR 200 000 YEARS" ... YOU SPEAK OF?
-
The Persian Empire held the biggest army in the known world, Darius mounted an army of 1 million men, the human population at this time was between 120-140 million, 350 bc- 2350 years ago.
The Babylonians managed to be the first world power to incorporate trade and commerce, Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom had anywhere from 500-600 thousand soldiers, population was 100 million, 550 bc nearly 2600 years ago
Sennacherib, king of Assyria carried 200 000 soldiers on campaign and that was 50% of is army, leaving half his Army in Mesopotamia, guarding cities such as Babylon and Nineveh. World Population 80-90 million, 700 bc, 2700+ years ago.
King Solomon reigned over Israel, Egypt, Syria, Ammon and Moab (present day Jordan), Asia Minor (present day Turkey), Ethiopia, Mesopotamia (Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia and Uruk), Chaldea (present day Iran), Median and Sinai peninsula (present day Saudia Arabia),.... all of these territories made up at last 1 third of the World and his kingdom reigned with only a population of 3 million, world popluation 50 million. 1000 BC,... 3000 years ago
Between 1000 BC and 2000 BC many nations marched Armies but non exceeded 100 000 soldiers, some had several hundred thousand men that where capable o fighting, but the same men where also need for other task, nations include, Cush, Egypt, Median, Philistine, Chaldea, Elam, Accadian, Summer, Babylonians etc
Hammurabi is the first known man that historians recognize as giving the first law code "tooth for tooth, eye for eye" etc he was from Babylon and he enforced his law with an army of 20 000 men
Finally the oldest language and writings known to mankind, Cuneiform, found on clay tablets in the fertile cresent 3000 BC, and sure enough the oldest civilisation recognized by historians across every single university on the planet, the Summerians
.... Now this is funny, Sargon the great also known as Sargon of Accad is the first (yes the first), known General of all time, there is absolutely no record of an Army or any type of military power before him, 3000 BC, he mounted an Army of 5000 men, the biggest army in the world according the cuneiform tablets this information was founded on. OH you noticed the pattern the numbers keep getting smaller..
The greatest archaeological find of all time (IMO) is the Ashurbanipal library, found in present day Iraq has over 1000 documented wars dating between 600bc and 3000 bc and all of sudden nothing before this time, no nations, no civilizations, no cultures, no nothing, thousands of manuscript, biggiest library of antiquity,....
... So what's my point?...
....SO WHAT IS THIS NON-SENSE "HUMANS AROUND FOR 200 000 YEARS" ... YOU SPEAK OF?
Hey Onetime,
I am referring to our history as a species, Homo sapiens , of which we are all members. As far as I'm aware the evidence still indicates a 100-200 year ago genesis for our particular species. Check out the relevant fossils at a nearby museum of natural history (actually, they'll only be replicas, as the originals are spread about elsewhere; it's the same info, anyway).
-
I only have one thing on my list that says there is no God in the first place.
God lets little babies that have never EVER harmed another soul die... for no reason.
Anyone who lets that happen and has the power to stop it can get bent.
It's hard for us to understand but I believe that God makes things for eternity. Scripture indicates that babies that die go to heaven.
tu, if God allowing little babies to die is the one thing on your list that turns you from believing in God, why do you support abortion?
-
I am saying that the sacrifice of Jesus is the central tenet of your religion. Would you really not want for that sacrifice to have been necessary?
Yes, I wish it would not have been necessary. I wish He hadn't had to die such a horrible death for us.
But I see the way you are asking the question probably means that if God would just wipe the slate clean then Christ would have died for nothing if that applied to all people.
-
Which brings us back to my question... why this convoluted scheme to address sin? Please, don't just say "God works in mysterious ways" because that's, to put it bluntly, not an answer.
I don't know why that is the way God chose to address sin.
I do know that in Genesis when Adam and Eve sinned that blood had to be shed (animal) which recognizes the seriousness of sin and that the skins "covered (clothed)" them (a symbolic covering up of sin)...but it still doesn't answer why that as well...my answer is I don't know why that is the plan.
For me, the first - and only - thing on the list would be "Can I define God?" I can't believe in something I cannot define. Belief in something unknown and, fundamentally, unknowable is meaningless.
OK so since you can't define something it must not exist? Can you explain cold fusion? Or for that matter, how about women ;D
I don't have such a list, but the first step would be a logical, consistent explanation of God. The second step would logical proof that the previously defined entity exists. No step should require faith, and no step should require that I accept a premise before proof of the validity of the premise can be provided.
If no step should require faith, how do you explain your acceptance of macro evolution? (Sorry if that's not you, I get you and syntax mixed up for some reason)
-
It's hard for us to understand but I believe that God makes things for eternity. Scripture indicates that babies that die go to heaven.
tu, if God allowing little babies to die is the one thing on your list that turns you from believing in God, why do you support abortion?
:o ??? :o ???
-
I don't know why that is the way God chose to address sin.
I do know that in Genesis when Adam and Eve sinned that blood had to be shed (animal) which recognizes the seriousness of sin and that the skins "covered (clothed)" them (a symbolic covering up of sin)...but it still doesn't answer why that as well...my answer is I don't know why that is the plan.
OK so since you can't define something it must not exist? Can you explain cold fusion? Or for that matter, how about women ;D
Butterbean, I didn't say "what I can't define doesn't exist." I said "I can't believe in something I cannot define. Belief in something unknown and, fundamentally, unknowable is meaningless." Words have meaning. Can you provide me with a cogent, rational definition of what God is? If not, what exactly am I supposed to believe in? And what is it that you believe in?
Now, on to cold fusion: mentioning it doesn't help your case. I can define cold fusion. What's more, I can use an existing, validated rational framework (nuclear chemistry/physics) to decide whether it's viable or not.
If no step should require faith, how do you explain your acceptance of macro evolution? (Sorry if that's not you, I get you and syntax mixed up for some reason)
I don't accept macro-evolution on faith. Faith is belief in the absence of (or, worse still, contrary to) evidence. I accept macro-evolution as a scientific theory on the basis of evidence, both direct and indirect. And, unlike beliefs based on faith, I am willing to reexamine my acceptance of the theory of evolution if and when new evidence that contradicts it comes to light, or a new theory that explains the evidence better is presented.
-
It's hard for us to understand but I believe that God makes things for eternity. Scripture indicates that babies that die go to heaven.
tu, if God allowing little babies to die is the one thing on your list that turns you from believing in God, why do you support abortion?
I don't know if you noticed... but I ain't god.
-
Butterbean, I didn't say "what I can't define doesn't exist." I said "I can't believe in something I cannot define. Belief in something unknown and, fundamentally, unknowable is meaningless." Words have meaning. Can you provide me with a cogent, rational definition of what God is? If not, what exactly am I supposed to believe in? And what is it that you believe in?
You presume that God is unknown and unknowable. We differ on this. You don't accept the bible as true and I do. Any description of God I would give you will still be meaningless to you.
In short, I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and that He rose on the 3rd day and I have accepted His graceful gift of forgiveness by faith.
Now, on to cold fusion: mentioning it doesn't help your case. I can define cold fusion. What's more, I can use an existing, validated rational framework (nuclear chemistry/physics) to decide whether it's viable or not.
OK, go ahead please.
I don't accept macro-evolution on faith. Faith is belief in the absence of (or, worse still, contrary to) evidence. I accept macro-evolution as a scientific theory on the basis of evidence, both direct and indirect. And, unlike beliefs based on faith, I am willing to reexamine my acceptance of the theory of evolution if and when new evidence that contradicts it comes to light, or a new theory that explains the evidence better is presented.
So you believe that it is a theory. So do I.
But do you believe macro evolution occurs/has occured...correct? Isn't there something missing in that theory that you are taking by faith? Or do you believe it is thoroughly outlined..step by step (without needing any step accepted by faith)? If you have a link that you think is good that proves this I am willing to read/watch video etc.
-
You presume that God is unknown and unknowable. We differ on this.
OK, if you think that God is knowable then you should be able to tell me what are the attributes of God? How did you come to know them?
You don't accept the bible as true and I do. Any description of God I would give you will still be meaningless to you.
Of course I don't accept the Bible as true. If I did, I'd be putting the cart before the horse.
In short, I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and that He rose on the 3rd day and I have accepted His graceful gift of forgiveness by faith.
In short you're telling us nothing.
OK, go ahead please.
Go ahead to do what? Explain cold fusion? It's a type of nuclear reaction that would occur at low temperatures (at least low when compared to traditional "hot" fusion). It's controversial, and the scientific consensus so far is that it's not likely to be possible. Please note that I don't have to first believe that cold fusion is possible in order to consider its merit as a theory.
So you believe that it is a theory. So do I.
Yes, I believe it is a theory. But the nature of my belief is very different from the basis of your belief in God. I know what the theory claims to explain without having to believe the theory is true; I know what the evidence is without having to believe the theory is true; and I use all that information to make a decision based on the evidence: no belief required.
But do you believe macro evolution occurs/has occured...correct? Isn't there something missing in that theory that you are taking by faith? Or do you believe it is thoroughly outlined..step by step (without needing any step accepted by faith)? If you have a link that you think is good that proves this I am willing to read/watch video etc.
Based on the evidence available to us, I am confident that macro-evolution explains things very well and doesn't have any obvious shortcomings; of course, I remain open to a new and better theory, but I am pretty confident that any such theory would be a superset of evolution rather that something completely new.
Is there "something missing"? No, I don't think so. I don't need a complete, unbroken causal chain from A to Z, although that would certainly be great and awesome. If you think there is something missing then the onus is on you to bring it up. I'd be happy to consider any objections you bring up, but I am telling you in advance that you would have a very high hurdle to jump over.
-
No one has ever witness a species change into another species, so as far as I am concerned you are taking a big leap of faith here.
-
No one has ever witness a species change into another species, so as far as I am concerned you are taking a big leap of faith here.
So you object to speciation? ::)
-
No one has ever witness a species change into another species, so as far as I am concerned you are taking a big leap of faith here.
I'll refer you to Dave Palumbo and his specimens:
(http://i46.tinypic.com/2dabwk3.jpg)
-
OK, if you think that God is knowable then you should be able to tell me what are the attributes of God? How did you come to know them?
He is faithful, loving, graceful, just, patient, wise, holy, comforting, trustworthy etc.
I know them from the Bible as well as my personal experiences/feelings.
Didn't you say you didn't want Bible info? Or was that syntax?
In short you're telling us nothing.
What choo talkin' bout avxo? I answered you what you asked.
Go ahead to do what? Explain cold fusion? It's a type of nuclear reaction that would occur at low temperatures (at least low when compared to traditional "hot" fusion). It's controversial, and the scientific consensus so far is that it's not likely to be possible. Please note that I don't have to first believe that cold fusion is possible in order to consider its merit as a theory.
So do you think it exists at low temps or no? Or maybe just not sure?
Yes, I believe it is a theory. But the nature of my belief is very different from the basis of your belief in God. I know what the theory claims to explain without having to believe the theory is true; I know what the evidence is without having to believe the theory is true; and I use all that information to make a decision based on the evidence: no belief required.
Based on the evidence available to us, I am confident that macro-evolution explains things very well and doesn't have any obvious shortcomings; of course, I remain open to a new and better theory, but I am pretty confident that any such theory would be a superset of evolution rather that something completely new.
Is there "something missing"? No, I don't think so. I don't need a complete, unbroken causal chain from A to Z, although that would certainly be great and awesome. If you think there is something missing then the onus is on you to bring it up. I'd be happy to consider any objections you bring up, but I am telling you in advance that you would have a very high hurdle to jump over.
I'm under the impression there are no fossil records of transitional forms between species.
-
He is faithful, loving, graceful, just, patient, wise, holy, comforting, trustworthy etc.
How has God been these things to you?
I mean, I do these things for my children physically... How has God physically done these things?
Is it not the IDEA of God that does these things actually?
Physically God doesn't do anything right?
-
How has God been these things to you?
I mean, I do these things for my children physically... How has God physically done these things?
Is it not the IDEA of God that does these things actually?
Physically God doesn't do anything right?
So it's just an idea that you love your children, you don't really love them. You can't prove to me that you love them so I don't believe you love them
Well I have experienced God's presents and his love personally, can I explain or prove to you how? NO, I can't, but I know that if you have the experience that I have you would believe in God too. I am more certain of this feeling then that I am certain of the feeling of the love I have for my 2 children, and I love them a lot. So if you don't believe me or if you think I am deluding myself, well, there is absolutely no difference in me claiming you don't love your children, cause you can only have faith that you love them and it is not something that can be proven.
-
So it's just an idea that you love your children, you don't really love them. You can't prove to me that you love them so I don't believe you love them
Well I have experienced God's presents and his love personally, can I explain or prove to you how? NO, I can't, but I know that if you have the experience that I have you would believe in God too. I am more certain of this feeling then that I am certain of the feeling of the love I have for my 2 children, and I love them a lot. So if you don't believe me or if you think I am deluding myself, well, there is absolutely no difference in me claiming you don't love your children, cause you can only have faith that you love them and it is not something that can be proven.
No, I walk to up to them and hold them... I give them things... They touch me when they are scared... I give them food.
PHYSICALLY.
God doesn't PHYSICALLY do anything.
In your mind, he METAPHYSICALLY does things... You don't get a hug from god... He doesn't bring you a blanket when you're cold.
So no... I don't just have an IDEA... I show it by being there.
In your mind, God just magically does stuff, but he's never actually THERE to do anything.
-
No, I walk to up to them and hold them... I give them things... They touch me when they are scared... I give them food.
PHYSICALLY.
God doesn't PHYSICALLY do anything.
In your mind, he METAPHYSICALLY does things... You don't get a hug from god... He doesn't bring you a blanket when you're cold.
So no... I don't just have an IDEA... I show it by being there.
In your mind, God just magically does stuff, but he's never actually THERE to do anything.
Any stranger can do what you mention that does not prove that you love them. In your mind you love them right?
-
Any stranger can do what you mention that does not prove that you love them. In your mind you love them right?
Yes, and I do it with no bad intent.
With your comparison, a complete stranger does more for you than God.
Thanks for helping me out with my argument.
-
Yes, and I do it with no bad intent.
With your comparison, a complete stranger does more for you than God.
Thanks for helping me out with my argument.
The fact remains you can not prove to me you love someone, no one can prove it, so it may be just a dumb idea and you might just be deluding yourself about loving your children, right?
-
The fact remains you can not prove to me you love someone, no one can prove it, so it may be just a dumb idea and you might just be deluding yourself about loving your children, right?
Again... I physically show them love.
Whether you choose to believe that I do is not my issue.
I PHYSICALLY am there for them in their time of need.
God is not.
You can try to spin this as I can not PROVE that I love them, sure... go ahead... but since I'm at least AROUND and PHYSICALLY there to assist them... What the hell does that say about God?
He doesn't even get that part done.
He's not even PHYSICALLY there to assist anyone.
So is he even as helpful as a stranger?
I say nay.
-
God does help physically though, he helps the ones who have faith and he has sent angels to people in need many times.
The Ashurbanipal library (that was discovered buried in Iraq) showed documents that told of Ashurbanipal's grandfather Sennecherib, king of Assyria, returning home with less then a couple hundred soldiers from a campaign of which he brought 185 000 soldiers, almost all where mysteriously killed in a single night, no bodies of an opposition was found nor did any nation fight them, 180 000 soldier's simple got murdered. God send an angel to save the Hebrews from being slaughtered. There are many times in which Gods helps humans with faith. Of course you don't believe, but that don't mean anything to any of us that do.
-
He is faithful, loving, graceful, just, patient, wise, holy, comforting, trustworthy etc.
None of those attributes tell us anything unique about the nature of God; most of them can be used to describe my Mom, and awesome as she is, she's not God.
What we need are attributes that allow us to distinguish God from non-God.
I know them from the Bible as well as my personal experiences/feelings.
Didn't you say you didn't want Bible info? Or was that syntax?
The problem with attributes that come from the Bible is that you have a chicken and an egg problem: namely that I must believe that the Bible is the word of God before you can use to provide information about God.
So do you think it exists at low temps or no? Or maybe just not sure?
Nuclear physics is not my forte and I am not up to date on research in the field, so my personal opinion on the subject carries little weight. With that said, I don't think that cold fusion is viable.
I'm under the impression there are no fossil records of transitional forms between species.
Even if there are no such fossils, what does that prove? The fossil record isn't complete. Here's a rather extensive list of transitional forms from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
-
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. Becoming a believer makes one eligible to receive presents? What were the presents? Were they gift-wrapped or did they just appear in your living room one morning as is? I may need to reconsider my lack of belief if God has decided to grant members a spiritual membership rewards card!
It was a typo braniac :P
-
No one has ever witness a species change into another species, so as far as I am concerned you are taking a big leap of faith here.
I look forward to your presentation to the National Academy of Science demonstrating all of your reasons for supposing almost all the scientists that have studied the topic over the last 150 years are wrong about evolution. When are you scheduled to present?
-
I look forward to your presentation to the National Academy of Science demonstrating all of your reasons for supposing almost all the scientists that have studied the topic over the last 150 years are wrong about evolution. When are you scheduled to present?
A childish post, don't you think?
-
I think it would only be childish if its content were full of dicks and vajayjays or some such. As is, it is a rather sarcastic post, with the sarcasm indicating rather clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about.
It is nothing personal really, it is just the facts. For example, if I went to a conference for string theorists and began lecturing them about the absurdity of their theories despite my not having studied any of them nor even being adequately acquainted with the field to even try, I would be called out as well.
You are being in-mature, one of my professors of physics thought evolution was stupid, a lot of intelligent people that have studied evolution extensively think it is a stupid theory so get mad and start with you pointless remarks cause you are just making an ass of yourself
-
You are being in-mature, one of my professors of physics thought evolution was stupid, a lot of intelligent people that have studied evolution extensively think it is a stupid theory so get mad and start with you pointless remarks cause you are just making an ass of yourself
I doubt he thought it was "stupid." Her may have disagreed with the theory of evolution (although I don't quite buy that either) but even if he did, I don't see why it would matter.
-
I doubt he thought it was "stupid." Her may have disagreed with the theory of evolution (although I don't quite buy that either) but even if he did, I don't see why it would matter.
Yes he did think it was stupid, his exact words " it's stupid". But you are right it doesn't matter, to each their own, but ding dong over here seems to think that only people who don't know what they are talking about go against evolution.
-
Yes he did think it was stupid, his exact words " it's stupid". But you are right it doesn't matter, to each their own, but ding dong over here seems to think that only people who don't know what they are talking about go against evolution.
Frankly, only people who don't know what they're talking about or who have personal beliefs that override everything else "go against" evolution, when there's a significant - some would say overwhelming - amount of evidence in its favor, which means that it will almost certainly be a subset of any subsequent theory.
As for your professor, without knowing more about his position, I can't say much, but I'd question the scientific credentials of anyone whose opinion on a topic of active scientific inquiry is so nuanced as to boil down to "it's stupid."
-
Frankly, only people who don't know what they're talking about or who have personal beliefs that override everything else "go against" evolution, when there's a significant - some would say overwhelming - amount of evidence in its favor, which means that it will almost certainly be a subset of any subsequent theory.
As for your professor, without knowing more about his position, I can't say much, but I'd question the scientific credentials of anyone whose opinion on a topic of active scientific inquiry is so nuanced as to boil down to "it's stupid."
Spoken like a fundamentalist ^^^^
Your perception is your perception only not everyone else's and lots of scientist that know everything about evolution are against it and many that don't even believe in God, don't be so closed-minded.
-
Spoken like a fundamentalist ^^^^
What part, exactly?
Your perception is your perception only not everyone else's and lots of scientist that know everything about evolution are against it and many that don't even believe in God, don't be so closed-minded.
There's really no doubt that the theory of evolution is correct as a general framework, and there's no scientist that I know of that disputes evolution qua evolution. Any anyone who does should be laughed out of the club: evolution is easily observable in rapidly replicating organisms, such as viruses. That's not to say that evolution is the end-all theory, but, as I said before, it'll almost certainly be at least a subset of any future theory in the field.
Anyone who dismisses a theory which has so much evidence behind it outright, like your physics professor, is a joke.
-
What part, exactly?
There's really no doubt that the theory of evolution is correct as a general framework, and there's no scientist that I know of that disputes evolution qua evolution. Any anyone who does should be laughed out of the club: evolution is easily observable in rapidly replicating organisms, such as viruses. That's not to say that evolution is the end-all theory, but, as I said before, it'll almost certainly be at least a subset of any future theory in the field.
Anyone who dismisses a theory which has so much evidence behind it outright, like your physics professor, is a joke.
Wow, you are a rebel, serious do you feel cool making remarks like those outlined.
When you use the words "anyone" or "only people"...... this is the behaviour of a fundamentalist. "rapidly replicating organisms" of course there are a lot of truth to the theory. No one is saying that the whole theory is wrong.
-
When you use the words "anyone" or "only people"...... this is the behaviour of a fundamentalist.
I don't think that fundamentalism means what you think it means.
"rapidly replicating organisms" of course there are a lot of truth to the theory. No one is saying that the whole theory is wrong.
Well, almost no one. Don't forget your physics professor who calls evolution stupid... ::)
-
I don't think that fundamentalism means what you think it means.
Well, almost no one. Don't forget your physics professor who calls evolution stupid... ::)
are you done speaking for everyone?
-
are you done speaking for everyone?
What an answer! In the form of a question, no less!
-
At least one person believes in Santa
at least one person believes in the boogyman
Only a retard would believe what you are proposing. I agree with you, I would never say just cause one intelligent person believes that evolution is wrong, therefor it must be wrong, stop putting words in my mouth and stop wasting your time on obvious stupidity.
-
You are a rather confused person that does not understand how the language you are using functions (especially implicature), and clearly have a very limited understanding of the world. I won't comment on whether this reflects a lack of intelligence as I don't have enough information to know. In any case, I will no longer attempt to discuss these sorts of matters with you as it is like discussing it with a child who does not have the capacity to understand. Best of look in all your future endeavors.
Thank God, anything to get rid of you, you don't discuss anything, you make fun, you mock, you put words into my mouth and claim I meant something I didn't. Not 1 argument from you, so what discussions are you going to stop, you haven't discussed a damn thing. You attack my English, lol,... this is the internet, no one cares to write correctly. I run my own roofing biz. I come on here for a couple min at a time, do you think I have time or even care to write correctly, not even relevant to the discussion of whether a supreme being exist or not, wake up bro, stick to the topic, stop being emotional and stop with your dumb belittling posts, they accomplish nothing.
Cheers :)
-
How do you guys explain Mermaids? I saw a special. I'm an expert now.
-
I've yet to hear a cogent answer on why this convoluted system of salvation needs to be in place, and why the God of love can't just forgive us all and be done with it.
Without being insulting, I don't think there's a cogent answer that will satisfy you. Salvation doesn't jive with your intellect because you know everything about God and yet know nothing of God. It's all theory and no application and without application via faith you can't bridge the gap.
-
Let's accept the (just somewhat) controversial idea that Jesus was the son of God and that he did in fact die for our sins. Is this sacrifice forever in the sense that it covers all subsequent sinning? I'm not convinced that this is necessarily the case, for Jesus was after all sent down at a particular time and place. Maybe the sinning up to that point was covered.
Can it really be that Jesus' acts still cover the Holocaust and other such boundless depravity on the part of human beings? Perhaps after the Holocaust God retracted the "here's another chance at being saved" offer. Or, if it hasn't quite happened yet, perhaps the revocation will in due time (because the depravity surely will continue).
I know it's a part of the mythology that the offer will continue to stand. But I'm wondering, have any of you considered that at some point humans may become beyond "saving"?
Adolf Hitler Quotes
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.
Who says I am not under the special protection of God?
-
Adolf Hitler Quotes
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.
Who says I am not under the special protection of God?
Anyone may lay claim to anything. By his deeds, Hitler showed himself to be no follower of Christ. That is obvious to anyone with even a modicum of honesty. Hitler was scum.
-
Anyone may lay claim to anything. By his deeds, Hitler showed himself to be no follower of Christ. That is obvious to anyone with even a modicum of honesty. Hitler was scum.
Hitler was an altar boy! HA HA Religion attracts all type of degenerates - Religion itself is degenerate - Remember The Reichskonkordat - the Churches were complicit in the extermination of Jews and the tacit consent of Hitler's actions while the Jews and the Poles dug their own graves and were slaughtered. Yeah Religion is awesome!
-
Hitler was an altar boy! HA HA Religion attracts all type of degenerates - Religion itself is degenerate - Remember The Reichskonkordat - the Churches were complicit in the extermination of Jews and the tacit consent of Hitler's actions while the Jews and the Poles dug their own graves and were slaughtered. Yeah Religion is awesome!
I put no stock in "religion" and even less in mankind.