Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255254 |
Here is something to get the brain going. It's been said that God created ALL things. Also it's been said that God is 100 precent pure/good. So God created man and it was said that because of man's sinful actions bad/evil things were created. But if God created ALL things then God created bad/evil things, not man. So by God creating bad/evil things this does not make him 100 precent pure/good.
- 1,849 Replies
Missed this somehow (I blame morning):
The above argument is what leads me to think that casually informing others of your religion isn't acceptable. It's just as silly as informing other of what you dreamed last night.
I like hearing about what people dream...
Getting cursory knowledge of a large and complex subject (of any kind) can in my experience evoke further interest. Starting out in great detail can kill any interest there might have been. Possibly cultural difference, dunno.
This changes things a little. The only thing I can think of that I could possibly have a problem with when ti comes to the casual Christian would be that with a good number of them it creates an environment that allows the Evangelical extremist end of the scale to flourish. But casual Christian alone not really an issue.
Yet, a casual Christian is the very reason the church in this country is failing. We need more extremists who value love above all other laws (tis scriptural) who work together for the general good of the world through humanitarian efforts.
This is nothing more then an emotional bias.
No, actually. Thanks.
Personal experience may seem like evidence at first but as long as it remains just that "ersonal" it goes unexamined. Unless you some how objectively examine what you experienced, you can't be sure what you experienced is accurate. In a way this is basically just side stepping the question rather then answering it.
Also your argument that you didn't experience it with your sense makes no sense what so ever. If your talking about something that just happened in your head like a dream this makes this even less valid.
See the problem with this is that you aren't me. You can keep telling me this but it doesn't change how I feel about God and no it isn't me being ignorant it's me being me. As I said I don't claim that my experiences are reasons for others to believe but our simply why I believe.
We could make the same argument for the Islamic religion and countless others that have experienced opposition. When your religions doctrines include trying to convert others how do you not expect opposition?
Yet, for example, point me to the threads about Islam, Scientology, and paganism. Christianity is the epitome of religious discrimination for the world as it's illegal in more countries than the vast majority of the religions. Also you don't know what converting is and I'm sorry but you need to stop acting like you do. You aren't Christian and you do not understand it therefore your viewpoint on it is flawed.
As for C.S. Lewis I don't know to much about him but if had ignored what evidence points to in favor of what the Bible says then yes I would call him stupid for that. He might have been smart in other ways but that is stupid.
See it's statements like this that make me wonder why Christians are considered the close minded ones. You don't believe in God; I do, yet I don't consider you stupid. I implore you to read his works before you call him stupid.
Einstein is a horrible example here. First off he saw Religion as foolish and didn't particularly like being called an atheist. So I suppose the best term to use would be agnostic. However that really doesn't cover his beliefs. Besides Even if we can classify him as a Christian I've never seem him ignoring evidence in favor of what the Bible says.
I was simply citing him as a deist/agnostic which, as you pointed out, he was. Also I'm almost against the majority of organized religion (Catholicism for example) yet I'm a follower of Jesus. Also ignoring the evidence seems to be your fall back point..?
No it doesn't frighten me, I find it kind of pathetic actually. Also there are plenty of religions claiming to be the only way.
Such as? Also I don't consider a morality code to constitute the only was as I can follow that on pure accident.
Yet, a casual Christian is the very reason the church in this country is failing. We need more extremists who value love above all other laws (tis scriptural) who work together for the general good of the world through humanitarian efforts.
Most extremists don't work for the common good of people, they work for the good of their own church, often at the dispense of other people.
[quote]Casually informing others of the teachings of your religion? Perfectly fine if the one you're informing is interested. If not, OH so annoying. But still not forcing.
The above argument is what leads me to think that casually informing others of your religion isn't acceptable. It's just as silly as informing other of what you dreamed last night.[/quote]
I often enjoy hearing people talk about their dreams. At the same time, I enjoy listening to people talk about religion. I don't mind people talking to me about religion because it means I can question their beleifs and possibly share my own.
I am curious, is it as equaly pointless for one to talk to a Christian about God's nonexistance as it is for a Christian to talk to atheists about God?
Most extremists don't work for the common good of people, they work for the good of their own church, often at the dispense of other people.
Another reason it's failing. The church of today's America is pitiful and deserves nothing less than to be destroyed to be rebuilt again. I know exactly what your saying but dream of a time where being an extremist is a positive title.
I am curious, is it as equaly pointless for one to talk to a Christian about God's nonexistance as it is for a Christian to talk to atheists about God?
Oh, very much so. I do love talking about it though, it really makes you think. And apparently we all like to try =P
Abiogenesis wouldn't really count, because it deals with amino acids, not the actual assembly of them . . . .
Abiogenesis doesn't just deal with amino acids, it must deal with the steps from how life arose from said amino acids. As a definition abiogenesis refers to the assertion that life arose from nonliving things, and from amino acids to life is a gigantic step.
And yes, I do believe in the Big Bang. I've said it before. I don't believe, though, that the primeval atom could have popped out of nowhere, which if I am not mistaken is its current implication.
Won't let me see page 69; hmm good page for the biblical perspective of sex? I think so.
Yet, a casual Christian is the very reason the church in this country is failing. We need more extremists who value love above all other laws (tis scriptural) who work together for the general good of the world through humanitarian efforts.
Extremist Christians had there chance, it was called the Dark Ages.
No, actually. Thanks.
While it may give you the warm and cozies it's a poor gauge for reality.
See the problem with this is that you aren't me. You can keep telling me this but it doesn't change how I feel about God and no it isn't me being ignorant it's me being me. As I said I don't claim that my experiences are reasons for others to believe but our simply why I believe.
Yes I'm not you I didn't experience what you did. I was pointing out that personal experience is a poor substitute for evidence.
Yet, for example, point me to the threads about Islam, Scientology, and paganism. Christianity is the epitome of religious discrimination for the world as it's illegal in more countries than the vast majority of the religions.
Could have sworn I saw a topic on Islam around here somewhere...odd might have to consider making one. Paganism covers a vast number of religions may of which aren't very large, mostly since they mostly tend to keep to them self. Scientology doesn't really need a thread it is often bashed as being nothing more then a popular modern day cult (very much like how Christianity was treated in the past). Besides religiously run countries that are not permissive over any other religion where is Christianity illegal?
Also you don't know what converting is and I'm sorry but you need to stop acting like you do. You aren't Christian and you do not understand it therefore your viewpoint on it is flawed.
Convert to change from one to another. In this case changing one set of beliefs to another set. Many try to spread the word and try and get others to come around to Christian beliefs. The Bible even says to do this, arguably directly or indirectly. So how am I flawed here?
See it's statements like this that make me wonder why Christians are considered the close minded ones. You don't believe in God; I do, yet I don't consider you stupid. I implore you to read his works before you call him stupid.
Didn't say believing in God made you stupid or anyone else. I said ignoring evidence in favor of what some ancient text says makes you stupid. There is no evidence for God so there is no evidence to ignore.
However I do see believing in something without evidence irrational, but that's different then stupid and I'm sure we are all irrational to some extent. Just sometimes it's far more glaring then other.
I was simply citing him as a deist/agnostic which, as you pointed out, he was. Also I'm almost against the majority of organized religion (Catholicism for example) yet I'm a follower of Jesus. Also ignoring the evidence seems to be your fall back point..?
Like I said he was more likely atheist but he hated being called that. Since your harping on the point of me saying ignoring evidence is favor of some holy book is stupid then claiming I'm calling everyone stupid for believing in God because of this when this is not at all what I'm saying then what do you expect? Perhaps I need to give you some basic example of what I mean.
I tell you "I have a baseball" and I hold a baseball up in my hand. You say "no you don't" the book I live my life by says baseballs don't exist, even though your looking right at the baseball in my hand. your ignoring the evidence (the baseball in my hand) and claiming my statement of having one is wrong all because some book says they don't exist.
Now let's use a real world example.
We evolved, we can offer the fossil record backed up with geological finding backed up by several dating methods, studies of our genetics suggest this, and as a whole we even have observed instances of evolution in other species. But all of this is ignored in favor of the Bible saying God made us.
Such as? Also I don't consider a morality code to constitute the only was as I can follow that on pure accident.
Not sure if I'm following what your saying in the second sentence but as for, such as...
Scientology
Islam
Hinduism
more extreme forms of Buddhism (my experience with Buddhists hasn't been the case)
Judaism (though arguably another form of Christianity)
Sikhism
etc...ism
As a definition abiogenesis refers to the assertion that life arose from nonliving things, and from amino acids to life is a gigantic step.
It's not as huge of step as you may think. We have been able to recreate similar conditions thought to have existed during the time life arose and developed the building blocks for RNA. Once you have that it's a very small step to go from that to full RNA strands to finally DNA and so on.
And yes, I do believe in the Big Bang. I've said it before. I don't believe, though, that the primeval atom could have popped out of nowhere, which if I am not mistaken is its current implication.
Right now we don't know. What alt was pointing out though is that it is not unthinkable for that to be the case. From my understanding the current top idea is based on the M theory. It's thought that perhaps two membranes collided allowing matter and energy from one to transfer to the other. However there is currently still a lot that needs to be pinned down before we can say anything with any amount of certainty.
Extremist Christians had there chance, it was called the Dark Ages.
Wrong; men using God for their own purposes doesn't constitute extremism. Also refer to my previous post about what I think extremism should be.
While it may give you the warm and cozies it's a poor gauge for reality.
Emotional responses are how reality is generally judged.
Yes I'm not you I didn't experience what you did. I was pointing out that personal experience is a poor substitute for evidence.
For others yes but as far as my personal belief goes my own experiences are good enough for me.
Could have sworn I saw a topic on Islam around here somewhere...odd might have to consider making one. Paganism covers a vast number of religions may of which aren't very large, mostly since they mostly tend to keep to them self. Scientology doesn't really need a thread it is often bashed as being nothing more then a popular modern day cult (very much like how Christianity was treated in the past). Besides religiously run countries that are not permissive over any other religion where is Christianity illegal?
Theres about two or three on Islam from back in the day. I know that paganism is, I just grouped them together for the ease of not having to write each one out. For the record Jesus didn't benefit from Christianity like L. Ron Hubbard did from Scientology which is a huge difference between the two. Where you asking where Christianity is illegal?
Convert to change from one to another. In this case changing one set of beliefs to another set. Many try to spread the word and try and get others to come around to Christian beliefs. The Bible even says to do this, arguably directly or indirectly. So how am I flawed here?
For the general Christian who spreads their faith they practice through the mantra "Teach the faith always use words only when necessary" in other words act in a way that people question; that differs positively from society so they ask you whats going on then you explain what you believe after they have approached you.
I tell you "I have a baseball" and I hold a baseball up in my hand. You say "no you don't" the book I live my life by says baseballs don't exist, even though your looking right at the baseball in my hand. your ignoring the evidence (the baseball in my hand) and claiming my statement of having one is wrong all because some book says they don't exist.
How I feel about people saying God doesn't exist. ^^
Well i am happy im an Atheist... dont have to worry bout god smitin me or satan smiting me more D: lol, the bible is just gettin to hard to follow... make one version and stick to it, we dont need more false prophets
Well i am happy im an Atheist... dont have to worry bout god smitin me or satan smiting me more
Yes because not believing in something (if it's true) makes it go away..
the bible is just gettin to hard to follow... make one version and stick to it, we dont need more false prophets
Can't considering the fact that a perfect translation of the original language can't be created so updates are needed constantly.
Wrong; men using God for their own purposes doesn't constitute extremism. Also refer to my previous post about what I think extremism should be.
Extremism already has a set definition. Individual thoughts can't change them.
Emotional responses are how reality is generally judged.
By convention, yes. By the process of science, no.
How I feel about people saying God doesn't exist. ^^
Are you suggesting that evidence for God is clearly manifested, while counterevidence is questionable?
Extremism already has a set definition. Individual thoughts can't change them.
a tendency or disposition to go to extremes or an instance of going to extremes
Right, so my point would be good extremes.
By convention, yes. By the process of science, no.
Explain to me the last time you attempted to use science to determine why you love someone?
According to pure logic the best way to reduce the hunger problem is to kill excess people; yet, emotionally, it's wrong.
Are you suggesting that evidence for God is clearly manifested, while counterevidence is questionable?
I'm merely suggesting that the evidences for God permeates this world and that their isn't an excuse for ignoring it.
Seeing how there is no counter-evidence for God, it is in fact questionable.
Yes because not believing in something (if it's true) makes it go away..
Actually... It does. The power of the human mind is amazing to say the least.
Are you suggesting that evidence for God is clearly manifested, while counterevidence is questionable?
I think if someone cared to try and figure it out, there would be as much evidence of faith as there is of gravity.
You can't measure it directly, but only the effects. You witness it every day one way or another. Faith even have an effect on you, even thought you don't believe.
But that's just me.
Actually... It does. The power of the human mind is amazing to say the least.
Well the inevitable affects I suppose then.
Err... But faith is believing in something without having proof of it...
If there was any evidence that any supreme being actually existed it wouldn't be called faith.
Thread is locked!