KansukeKojima

you don't seem to get it. He is basically "OK guys, because my son died NOW I can break my own rules." It makes absolutely no sense.

Incorrect.

He is not breaking His own rules. By punishing sin through placing it on Christ He is fulfilling His justice, not breaking his own rules. He would be breaking His own rules if He simply ignored sin and did not punish it.

 

Read again what I said:

So, we have this problem. We are utterly sinful, and God is completely just. It is fitting that in His justice we are punished for our sin and condemned. However, God is a loving God. So the problem is: "How can God justify man and still remain just?" He cannot just look over our sins:

 

Pro 17:15 Condemning the innocent or letting the wicked go---both are hateful to the LORD.

If He lets us go and simply forgets about our sin He is doing something that He hates.

 

He is not circumventing His justice or breaking His own rules, He is abiding in His own justice by still punishing sin. By placing our sin on His Son, He can justify men and still be a just God.

 

If justice is really god's nature, then he has disobeyed his nature. You use circular logic when you say that it's OK for God to break his nature because God said this was a nature-breaking event.

Why did god need to kill his son? Because he needed a price to be payed for sin. Why did he need a price to be paid for a sin? Because he said so. If he can just arbitrarily decided what counts, why did it have to be a horrible murder of a human being? Because he needed a price...

 

It goes on and on.

How exactly did God trespass His nature by doing what He did? Justice was still satisfied. And, now, I already explained how He was not "breaking His own rules".

 

God did not need to kill His son. The price would have still been payed for sin whether or not Christ died - only it would have ended with our condemnation, instead. Out of love for us He decided to do this so that we do not have to suffer condemnation.

 

Now, you mention God arbitrarily deciding what is able to redeem us. So? By definition, since He is the highest authority, wouldn't everything He does be arbitrary? It has to be by definition. If this is how He decided it will work, then that is how it will work - no matter how arbitrary it is (which it has to be). This does not mean what God has decided is arbitrary in the sense that it is chaotic and randomly decided. It is a reflection of His holiness, justice, and righteousness. His laws and decrees, and the things He has decided and done are all in harmonious perfection. They do not contradict each other and they are perfectly consistent.

 

The reason God purposed that Christ die on a cross and bear our sin for us is so that He may demonstrate His love. Think about it. Christ died for sinners. It is possible that some might die for a good man, or a friend of theirs, but someone dying for a complete sinner? Someone who is utterly opposed to the things of God? That is a demonstration of the utmost love.

 

you actually compared the bible and the word of god to a man made court of law? now i've heard it all haha i can appreciate your long winded post about something you don't fully understand your own self, but why all the assumptions about god? this is not heaven on earth. to truely know your god, if there is one, is to experience your life with him in his heaven. earth is not heaven. believe....maybe...but live like it is heaven or hell or or live afraid...being a god fearing person on earth? a story to scare small children. we are adults now. let's get real.

So, I can't use an analogy?

 

Second of all, scripture does use the idea of God making judgments on people. This is very much like a "court of law". Only, the law isn't man made. I don't see the problem with me using that as well or making an analogy as such.

 

true, we are all sinners. nobody is perfect. god didn't intend for us to be nor did he create us this way just to ask forgiveness. what a lousy excuse for christian to wipe their slate clean. what he DID intend is for us to make our own moral choices and wether we are judged will be determined in the after life. until then, our choices will be our lifetime judgement and it is up to us...not god or believing in god, to make our wrongs, right.

 

i hear how god saved this person and that person. heck. their whole life is about god. they didn't do a darn thing to live their life. it was god living it for them. that's all a bunch of b.s. and so is your take on comparing natural law to unatural laws.

So how good a person we are determines if we are saved or not? I tell you that there is NOTHING we can do to be acceptable in God's sight. It is said in scripture that our greatest works are like filthy rags. In other words, they are worthless to save us. It isn't an excuse for to wipe our slates clean, it's the only hope we have to not be condemned.

 

as i hope you already know, life doesn't stop at gods pearly gates. we live many lifetimes...many becasue we are not perfect and it takes that many lifetimes to achieve perfection.

 

now if there is indeed a god, he is inside us all as we live life through him...so let our self conscious be the judge as god will always be talking through it....

If I "already [knew]" this and believed it, I wouldn't be a Christian. You hold a belief system which is not falsifiable so I cannot particularly refute it. However, what I will say is that we only have one life, and it is steeped in imperfection. If you do not repent of sin trust Christ for salvation, you will be lost. You will not get many chances to achieve perfection, it is unattainable.

i have a hard time seeing the thought process behind an omnipotent being killing his son so he doesn't have to abide by rules of justice (which is an oxymoron - omnipotent beings are, by definition, unrestrained by things like justice)

I am sorry I did not see this reply sooner.

 

The justice by which God abides in is not a force which is separate from Him and one which He has to submit to. It is part of Him. He IS just. By killing His own Son He is abiding by His own justice, His own nature. He would not "allow" Himself to justify us without the price for our sin being payed. It is in His nature to deal with sin. He is not restrained by justice, rather, it is part of His nature. An omnipotent being would be unrestrained by an outside force, but justice is part of His nature. We all act consistently with our nature, correct? We are not omniscient, it is not part of our nature, so therefore we cannot know all things. We act consistently within our nature, God acts consistently within His.

Wrong and wrong again. "Europeans in the 16th century"... If I remember correctly, the old testament wasn't written in Europe nor in the 16th century.

 

I did not say the Europeans wrote the Old Testament, and I did not say it was written in the sixteenth century. Second of all, the "four corners" thing we are debating is from the New Testament. The verse you posted which started the debate about four corners was from Revelation, which was in the New testament, not the Old Testament.

 

Now, what I did say was that when the bible was TRANSLATED, Europeans would have used "the four corners of the earth" in order to express what would mean "the entire world" in Greek. I am not claiming Europeans wrote the bible. What I am claiming is that Europeans used the phrase "four corners of the earth", when they TRANSLATED the bible, to mean "the entire earth". Do you understand that now?

 

Oh, so now you're blaming me for actually examining the document, instead you want me to blindly believe everything written there. Then you say I'm not acknowledging the information that is there. Let me tell you something:

 

Let's assume you have a biology book, everything in it seems to be as it should. You're reading a chapter about monkeys and suddenly you notice that the book claims that monkeys have 2 butt holes. Would you throw the whole book away? Or would you just pick a word and start explaining how it can also mean another thing like truefusion seems to be doing all the time?(no offense tf, but it's really annoying when you do it)

There is a difference between throwing my sources out because, to you, they seem to be brainwashing material and throwing them out because the information is downright false. You threw the sources out, not because the information was false, but because it seemed to you like it was written like brainwashing material. I'm confident you would throw out almost anything I gave you written by a Christian because it appears to be "brainwashing material", to you. If you actually demonstrate to me how the information on the website is false, then I will have no problem with you throwing the sources out. I challenge you to prove the information on that website to be false.

 

I was talking about the resurrection, not the reliability. And no, I wouldn't love to do that, it'd be as stupid if I started examining "alice in wonderland". A waste of time. In fact, I'm only replying to this topic because I don't want to leave a debate open, this is getting all boring and stupid with all the "forgotten continents"... Back to the point, I don't accept eye-witnesses as empirical evidence. And when I see a big flaw in my biology book, I throw it away. Which I have done with carm.org.

I agree that eye-witnesses are not empirical evidence. The reason I am a Christian is not because I actually saw Jesus resurrected. I am not a Christian because there is enough evidence for me to believe. The reason I am a Christian is because of a supernatural work of God in my heart, leading me to repentance and belief. I KNOW this is the truth because of that experience I had, and I present what evidence I do have to you in order to defend my faith. I am arguing these points in order to defend my faith. Whether or not you accept my arguments is out of my control.

 

Yes! I dismiss stupid article where they claim that because so many people saw Jesus after his death, he must've resurrected. Happy now? Just as many people have seen Elvis after his death doesn't prove that he's still alive, many people seeing Jesus after his death doesn't prove anything. It's kinda ironic too because somewhere there it also says that eyewitnesses don't count as empirical evidence. I'm not saying they are false, but I'm saying that they don't count as evidence.

The article is not claiming that because lots of people saw Jesus after his death he must have been resurrected. The article is attempting to defend the reliability of said eye-witness accounts. If those accounts are indeed reliable, they can be used as evidence. Again, whether or not you want to accept it as such is out of my control.

 

A man that has spent many years studying the subject is either

a) Lying and brainwashing, leaving the "bad parts" of the bible out.

Hasn't studied the subject or has, but is just ignorant.

If you are going to make those accusations about him, back them up.

 

Aww, sorry I thought it was god's word so it applies everywhere? So now you agree that it's written by men and with their mindset AND knowledge. How delightful. So are you an agnostic now?

Things can still be written by men yet inspired by God. You saying those things has really demonstrated to me that you do not have much knowledge about Christian beliefs and theology. If you are going to name Christianity false, then at least study it first so you can actually attack the right belief system, not a strawman of the true position.

 

So why they didn't? The first documentations we have are 7 years after Jesus' death... This doesn't prove anything as we can't possibly all of the documents but still.

... They did write about it. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all are about the life of Jesus Christ.

 

 

Have a nice day.

You too

PIN Number? Personal Identification Number Number?

 

But yeah, it definitely isn't smart to write down your PIN, in case others find it. Thankfully, my PIN is easy to remember due to the same number being used twice, and it just happens to be the same double usage of a number I already use for a password I've used for ages.

 

Anyways, once you do get your PIN remembered, you probably won't forget it and won't have need to write it down anyways.

Sorry to dissapoint, but India is located in Asia. Your "four continents" are actually three. An also, god supposed to know everything, he forgot about the americas, poles and Australia?

Have you had a look at world maps lately? Look again. Those don't like four corners even if India somehow magically turned into it's own continent. And even if you didn't just mean continents but the corners of the known world back then, Asia doesn't have any obvious corners if you count India out...

Even if it all somehow magically turned true, you can't see those corners when you stand on a top of a mountain. Even if earth was flat back then, you wouldn't see it, because normally, the visibility is limited to 10 km.

Hehe, I can't believe I said India was a continent

 

Alright, my idea on the "four corners" thing was flawed (but I was close), so I did some research on it. Read this:

 

Europeans in the 16th century divided the world into four continents: Africa, America, Asia and Europe.[1] Each of the four continents was seen to represent its quadrant of the world?Europe in the north, Asia in the east, Africa in the south, and America in the west. This division fit the Renaissance sensibilities of the time, which also divided the world into four seasons, four classical elements, four cardinal directions, four classical virtues, etc.

 

The four corners of the world refers to the Americas (the "west"), Europe (the "north"), Asia/Oceania (the "east"), and Africa (the "south").

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_continents

Now, the reason why the bible would say "four corners" is because of how it was translated into the languages of the time. When Europeans translated it into their languages, because they have this idea of "four corners", they would have used that wording to mean the entire earth. If I were to say "I will travel the four corners of the earth" it means I would travel to the Americas, Europe, Asia/Oceania, and Africa (essentially the entire earth). This phrase is used to mean the entire earth. This has prevailed today in modern translations of the bible.

 

In the original languages that the bible was written in would not use the wording "four corners" of the earth. It would have used words which expressed the idea of the entire earth, which was later translated to "four corners" in English.

 

Pay attention, I haven't dismissed anything because I don't like it or agree with it, I dismissed your links, simply because they were stupid. It's very weird and kinda insulting to me that you think I didn't even read those stupid articles before replying. (okay I didn't read them all through but I had a quick peek at them all ). I don't "dismiss stuff" because I don't simply like it. I dismiss content that seems to be written for a 10 year old that can't read something with a critical mind, I dismiss brainwash and I dismiss dishonesty.

Okay, instead of examining how it was written, how about you acknowledge the information that is there? It is not written like brainwashing material, and it is not dishonest. You can verify the information that is there from other sources if you so wish.

 

If you are aware of that, why your links seem to contradict your awareness?

I'm attempting to establish the general reliability of the bible through examples. If you wish, we could go through every book of the bible to verify it's accuracy, etc. verse by verse. I'm sure you would love to spend your time doing that

Since when we have had "all other ancient documents" in our posession?

Well, obviously we only know about the ones we have in our possession. He definitely could have written that line better.

Another thing(I don't know if you agree with this claim or not):

 

QUOTE

It is indeed extraordinary to have someone who has died in public at an execution to appear to many people afterwards.

 

1. John 20:26, "And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, "Peace be with you."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

You know Elvis? I don't like his music, but I think he's a lot like Jesus :(he was seen by many people too... after his death. laugh.gif

That is why I dismissed all your links from that website.

That's why your dismissing the links from CARM.org written by a man who has spent many years of his life studying these things?

If you are going to make such accusations that the accounts of those who saw Jesus after His death and resurrection are false, back up those claims. Don't provide a silly argument involving Elvis.

 

I don't have to have a middle-eastern mindset, but it seems that I have to have the knowledge of people living in the bronze age to believe that you can see earth's corners from a top of a mountain.

Well, I've already explained the four corners thing above, so anyways... The reason you should have a middle eastern mindset when reading things from the bible is so that you can understand it from the point of view of those who wrote it. If I wrote something to you and it said: "Could you buy me a chair just like the one I am sitting on now?", you would obviously have to understand what that chair I was talking about looked like, etc. You need to understand the things I wrote properly or you will be prone to misinterpretation, etc. That is what I mean when I say you have to understand things with the mindset of those who it was written by: so that you can properly understand their writings.

 

It's not trying to prove anything, I just asked that if resurrection was so amazing, why didn't anybody else bother to write about it. Truefusion answered my question, but it didn't convince me. Because why would everybody just pay attention to reincarnation when there's a zombie around to write about.

- Christianity did not penetrate very far into Asia, which is one reason why there aren't writings about it from those areas (as far as I know, Asia would have been the largest population concentration to believe in reincarnation).

- People didn't bother to write about it because many of them didn't see it. Think about it, if you heard about a dead guy rising back to life I'm pretty sure you wouldn't believe it or write about it either, correct? Oh wait, you've already heard it and don't believe it . That's one reason why writings about it have only been found from a certain number of areas from that time period. Only those who actually saw Jesus walking around and only those who believed it would have written about it, otherwise it would have been brushed off.

 

 

I said that you make rationalizations, I didn't say that you made the rationalizations I stated above. Please, read carefully and don't jump in to conclusions without looking at the whole sentence.

I looked at the whole sentence, but I misinterpreted it. My bad.

I believe people can be "born gay". By this I mean that they are naturally attracted to members of the same sex because that is the way they were born. As a Christian, I believe that the bible condemns sexual acts with a member of the same sex. Keep in mind, it does not condemn them for being attracted to the same sex, that is something which the individual is not in control of. The bible condemns the physical, sexual acts between members of the same sex.

 

I hate when people are homophobic, it is not right. They are no better a man or woman than someone who is a homosexual and to treat them like the plague is ridiculous and hateful.

I'm sorry that I had not responded to this post sooner, I did not realize anyone had responded after my post until today.

 

What accuracy? you mean accuracy tha claims that the earth has four corners, sun orbits the earth, stars can fall of the sky? oh wel... Well, maybe god twisted it to make it look like a ball after he realized people were falling off? This doesn't differ than the belief that earth lies on the back of four elephants that stand on the back of a giant turtle. Actually I would say the giant turtle is pretty darn cool.

 

Four corners, how accurate scripture!

As TrueFusion pointed out, you only substantiated one of those claims. (four corners, sun orbits earth, stars can fall from the sky).

 

Now, onto the subject of "four corners". The idea of the "four corners" of the earth is referencing the four corners of largest area of landmass on the earth: Europe, Asia, Africa, India. If you take a look at a map of those four continents, you will see that the huge mass of land that they reside on has four corners

 

At the time when the bible was written, that area was essentially thought to be the entire world because no one (as far as we know) had crossed the ocean and landed in north or south america as we know it today. Europe, Asia, Africa, and India would have been considered the entire world at the time, and on a map that gigantic landmass would have corners.

 

As well, as Truefusion pointed out: North, South, East, West. I am not sure wheather or not "four corners" particularly references those or if it is meaning what I am talking about above.

 

It is VERY important that when you are talking about the bible that you think about it with a middle-eastern mindset otherwise ideas like you just had will occur, Baniboy.

 

And, the accuracy which I was speaking about was the accuracy regarding the transmission text. However, the bible is quite accurate when it comes to describing the world in which it was written . At the same time, you must remember that a good chunk of the bible is written with figurative language based upon what the authors of specific texts were educated with and saw in the world. For example, it would very much appear that the world is flat to these authors. The accuracy which I was speaking about was the accuracy regarding the transmission of biblical texts over time and the accuracy of the description of events which were recorded. The bible is reliable. I fear that you did not actually read the majority of the material which I posted in my post. If you have not, please read my last post again and read all the material I listed.

 

Even Jesus' date of birth is fake, it was Mithra's day. It was done on purpose by the church destroy the worshipping of Mithra in Babylonian Kingdom/whatever. There were a lot of people at that time claiming they are the savior and what not, they also performed "miracles". You are ready to claim that the miracles in your religion are true but all other ones aren't?

December 25th is not Christ's literal birthdate. Any Christian who thinks that needs to read. It is simply the day which it is celebrated upon.

 

I agree with what truefusion said on this part of your post.

 

Why didn't anybody else write about coming back to life?! Only some dudes over a century after the so called "resurrection"?! One of your links contained some mathematical nonsense like "the bible is 99,5 % textually pure." Like you can mathematically calculate what is pure "textually". Textually pure? Like no typos? lol

I'm not sure what the first part of this quote regarding ressurection is trying to prove. Explain more please.

 

Second, you can use math to figure out who "textually pure" something is. The whole idea behind this is judging how much of the text has been changed as it was transmitted through history. The bible we have now is remarkably close to the scriptures from the past. Comparing the bible we have today with the Dead Sea scrolls for example shows how accurately scripture has been transmitted over history. I ask that you go back and read the sources that I posted again for clarification of this and a better understanding. Please do not just simply dismiss this stuff.

 

 

Just because something contains some facts doesn't mean it's all true. I'm getting a little bored right now, I don't care anymore. do whatever you want(like stone your children to death if they're rebellious or kill someone if they can't spell "shibboleth"), but don't come and try to explain how "accurate" your holy book is, because to me, it's as accurate as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

I was not trying to make an appeal using that logical fallacy. I am aware that just because something contains some facts doesn't mean it's all true. The bible is very accurate and I hope if you go back and read the sources I posted and try to gain a better understanding of their arguments, and not just simply dismiss them, you will see why I believe the bible is accurate.

 

Further, you make an attack on the Old Testament Law which is mentioned in the bible when you talked about stoning my children to death if they are rebellious. Laws like that were created in order to preserve Israel and not let it slip into immorality and anarchy like the other nations around them. Israel had to be kept safe from these things so it could be preserved and kept safe so that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) could be born from the nation of Israel.

 

Sorry but I have a hard time trying to understand how this could've happened:

"Look son, I'm gonna send you on a suicide mission to earth but you won't actually die because you are actually me".

 

And the prophecies, they are often self-fulfilling, not very in detail blah blah blah... Nothing convincing

 

The truth is, the stories could've been based on a real person, then story got bigger and bigger and then someone wrote it. Then it was used to justify wars and keep people in line, keep them in fear, gather wealth. And you can't deny this one with any scripture. All loving god wouldn't be so murderous and jealous as described in the bible. Religions are just to fill the gap in our knowledge with nonsense, and then when the true facts come out, they desperately try to remain the same

I know you are having a hard time understanding it. If you did understand it, I assure you that you would be so shaken by the truth of it that you would repent and believe.

 

I would submit that you study about biblical prophecy and how it was fulfilled before you make claims about how they are not very detailed, etc. etc. Again, please don't just dismiss this stuff because you do not like it or agree with it.

 

I again agree with truefusion when it comes to what he said about your "murderous god" claim.

 

Wishful thinking The locations of kingdoms being right doesn't translate to believing in a being without evidence to prove the existence of that being itself. If I tell you that triangles have three sides(which is true, BTW ), but then I tell you I'm immortal, do you believe all I say? No, because you know that I have no evidence and I can't back up the other one with any logic, anything you have experienced/heard in the past and you know I'm not gonna let you test if I'm immortal. It's like I put a candy in a "magic box" and then I tell you it's not in the magic box anymore, but I won't open the magic box to show it's not there anymore.

You do realize I was using those things, (the location of kingdoms, etc.), to prove the accuracy of the Bible not prove that God exists? The accuracy of locations of things would not prove God exists, I was using it to help you understand how reliable biblical scripture is.

 

And you are making rationalizations every religion is, they develop over time, after all, how you think church survived the collision with science?

every religion is, they develop over time, after all, how you think church survived the collision with science?

earth is round: oh.. but that doesn't disprove the bible's true word of our invisible friend!!!

Fossils: lived at the same time as man.

Dating methods: They are ALL inaccurate.

Evolution: You have no evidence! Oh you do? No you don't, because my uneducated friend Kent Hovind says so!

Big Bang: But earth is only 6000 yrs old?

...

...

...

...

 

I'm not saying you do the things above, but many people do.

So you are saying I do those things?

Oh.... wait

You aren't saying that.... but you just said it....

Hello Xisto,

 

I wish to share the Gospel with you in this post, and if anyone is willing we can discuss what you have read here after. I tell you now that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation and without Him you will die in your sins and you will be condemned - the full measure of the wrath of God will be poured out upon you for your sin. I post this knowing full well that many of you will not like what I have to say, but I am saying it anyways because the gospel has amazing power to change the hearts of men and bring salvation. Please realize that I do not speak about these things to gloat over you or to condemn you for the sake of condemning you. I am warning you about your fate if you do not trust Christ for salvation. It is my prayer that you will heed my warning and become a believer.

 

First, I will share my testimony with you. I grew up in an okay home and went to Church. By the age of about 10 years old, we had stopped going to church. I believed there was a God, but I really knew nothing of Him. I had not been told the Gospel, I was not aware of the true riches that lay in the scriptures and the glory of the Son of God. A few years down the road, my family began going to church again, and at an evangelical conference and I believe this is where God started to lead me down the path where I became a Christian. I do not know exactly at what point in my life my conversion occurred, but my faith is in Christ for salvation, I am repentant of sin and wish to live for Him. He is my Lord, and my God. I have become a new creation in Christ, my faith is in Him for my salvation. He is my God, and it is my desire to be His servant. I have seen a change in my life and I am studying the scriptures, and I desire to grow in my faith more. Before I had become a Christian, my heart was full of rage and discontent. I was not (and still remain not) a popular guy at school, and I was teased, etc. I was full of hatred for these people who had done things to me. As well, my stepfather was a massive thorn in my side. I actually had day-dreamed about killing him before. My heart was utterly wicked and I was full of sin. Since then, God has convicted me of the sinful way in which I thought and lived my life. He broke my heart over my sin and I have repented and began to live my life as a Christian with my hope in Jesus Christ for my salvation. Without Him, I would be lost and on the last day I would stand in front of God and be condemned for my sin. Christ took my sin upon Himself on the Cross.

 

I wish to speak to you about the nature of God. The God of scripture is a just, righteous, and loving God. There is a common argument against the Gospel and it goes like this: "If God is an all loving God, then why can't He just forget about our sin?". I would submit to you a demonstration of what justice is:

You walk in the door to your house and you see a man standing over your entire family with a bloodied knife. He has just murdered your whole family. He bolts out of the back door to your house and you chase after him, and tackle him to the ground. You bind him, and call the police - they come an arrest Him. On the day that he stand before the judge the judge says:

"I am a very loving judge, and so I will not hold the crimes you have committed against you. You are free."

You would cry out against the injustice that this judge has performed. You would mail representatives of government, you would send letters to the president. You would be utterly outraged and say that there is a judge on the bench who is more vile and wicked than the criminals he is judging.

 

The justice of God demands satisfaction. It demands that He punishes sin. However, He is still loving because He allows us a way to escape this justice. He poured out the full cup of His wrath on His own Son, Jesus Christ, so that we may have life. Christ took that cup of wrath and drank every drop so that we may be saved. He bore my sins on the cross so that I may have eternal life.

 

Now, I also wish to say to you that you are a wicked and evil person. I know that you are because I am like you. There are things in your life that you will never reveal to another living soul and if they were revealed you would be utterly ashamed of yourself. There are hateful, malicious thoughts that you have even thought against your friends! I know this because I am like you. All of us have committed sinful and utterly depraved acts. I know this because I am like you, and I have sinned. The bible says that none of us are righteous or good:

Rom 3:10 As the Scriptures say: "There is no one who is righteous,

Rom 3:11 no one who is wise or who worships God.

Rom 3:12 All have turned away from God; they have all gone wrong; no one does what is right, not even one.

Rom 3:13 Their words are full of deadly deceit; wicked lies roll off their tongues, and dangerous threats, like snake's poison, from their lips;

Rom 3:14 their speech is filled with bitter curses.

Rom 3:15 They are quick to hurt and kill;

Rom 3:16 they leave ruin and destruction wherever they go.

Now I know that some will say, "but I have lived a good life". I tell you that no man has ever lived a good life except Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Everything we do is stained by sin because we are a walking contradiction. We are living this life completely depraved and our desires are 100% contradictory to what we have been created for. Everything we do, therefore, is entirely sinful because we are rebelling against God by not fulfilling our purpose.

 

So, we have this problem. We are utterly sinful, and God is completely just. It is fitting that in His justice we are punished for our sin and condemned. However, God is a loving God. So the problem is: "How can God justify man and still remain just?" He cannot just look over our sins:

Pro 17:15 Condemning the innocent or letting the wicked go---both are hateful to the LORD.

If He lets us go and simply forgets about our sin He is doing something that He hates.

 

The next thing I want to speak about is the man named Jesus Christ. We know that He claimed to be God:

Joh 14:8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father; that is all we need."

Joh 14:9 Jesus answered, "For a long time I have been with you all; yet you do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. Why, then, do you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Joh 14:10 Do you not believe, Philip, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I have spoken to you," Jesus said to his disciples, "do not come from me. The Father, who remains in me, does his own work.

Joh 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. If not, believe because of the things I do.

There are three possibilities regarding the person of Jesus Christ:

1) He was a madman. If someone were to stand in the street and claimed that they were the Son of God, they would be considered outright crazy.

2) He was a liar. This would mean that He made up a bunch of stuff about being the Son of God.

 

Now, with these two possibilities lays a problem. We all know that Jesus Christ was a good man. He healed many people, He ate with sinners showing love to them by doing so. So we can all agree that Jesus was a good man (even by human standards). Now, here is the problem, if you are to say that Christ is a liar, then there is a problem with your logic. It is agreed that He was a good man, but liars are not good men, and neither are madmen. This leaves us with possibility three:

 

3) Jesus really was who He claimed to be: the Son of God. Everything that He said was true and He died for our sins on the cross. In Him was both divine and human nature.

 

Jesus Christ was crucified on a cross so that we may be saved. You ask, "How does that accomplish anything?". Jesus bore sin and took the wrath of God upon himself during that time he was crucified. Instead of us being punished for our sins, God poured out his wrath on his own Son, whom He sent to accomplish this. You ask, "How can one man pay for the sins of all?!". Jesus Christ is worth far more than every man put together who has ever existed - He IS God. If you totaled the value of everything that has and will exist in this universe it would not come close to anywhere near His worth.

 

This problem that was expressed before Has a solution. A just God must condemn wickedness. It is a requirement of His justice. However, God is a loving God, so He sent His own Son to die for us. He took our sin upon himself and was slaughtered under the wrath of God. This act, this unmatchable loving act, was done to satisfy the wrath of God which we deserved for our wickedness. The price was payed for us, and if you trust in Christ's sacrifice for salvation you will be saved. Christ was lifted up on a Cross and died for our sins, whoever believes in Him and puts their faith in His sacrifice shall be saved.

 

Joh 3:14 As Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the desert, in the same way the Son of Man must be lifted up,

Joh 3:15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

Joh 3:16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.

The Gospel does not end there, however. After Christ had been crucified, He was resurrected on the third day after His death. He triumphed over death. This proves that He has the authority to lay down His life and take it back up again.

 

Joh 10:17 "The Father loves me because I am willing to give up my life, in order that I may receive it back again.

Joh 10:18 No one takes my life away from me. I give it up of my own free will. I have the right to give it up, and I have the right to take it back. This is what my Father has commanded me to do."

This proves that He truly is God and that He was worthy to die for our sins. His resurrection proves that He does have the authority to take his life back up again. In the same way, our sin can be nailed to the cross with Christ and the wrath of God be satisfied. In the same manner, we shall be raised to life again with Christ who Has triumphed over death and become new creations in Him as a result of the saving work which He did.

 

Act 3:19 Therefore, repent and turn to him to have your sins blotted out,

Repent (turn away from sins) and believe in the Gospel and the power of Jesus sacrifice for salvation. Begin to live your life for God. Believe in the Gospel and you will be saved. Trust in His sacrifice and that He took God's wrath upon Himself so that you could be saved.

 

I highly recommend and encourage that you read/watch these:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_&version=NIV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searcamp;version=31;

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searcamp;version=31;

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Again, please post here if you wish to discuss this.

But if you have any other arguments that you have not yet mentioned, feel free to do so.

I have plenty of more arguments now that the debate has shifted to topics regarding the accuracy of scripture and whether or not biblical events occurred. I'm glad I don't have to spit that time argument all over the screen again haha.

 

When I said biblical events I meant the important and crazy ones, like splitting sea in half, great global flood, living inside a giant fish for 3 days etc. Your defense here could obviously be "that's the old testament", but the new testament contains some crazy stuff too, read your bible.

At least if these did happen, there is no evidence. And evidence, scientific method and logic, is what I rely on. Religion is about jumping from a question to conclusion.

[1] Why would my defense be "that's the old testament"? That would be a pointless argument, I may as well say "bananas are yellow so you are wrong" if I was going to say that.

[2] I read my bible. I am aware that it is filled with astounding, "crazy", and amazing things.

[3] It is ridiculous to say that there is no evidence for events in the bible. First of all, since you only have the mind of a human it is impossible for you to know ever single evidence ever presented in this world. Second, there are indeed evidences which you have clearly never read before.

[4] Regarding evidence for New Testament events and the accuracy of New Testament Scripture (I ask that you read all of these articles in their entirety):

"Can we trust the New Testament as a Historical Document":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

"Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

"Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

"The writings of Josephus mention many biblical people and places":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

"Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

"Does the Bible provide extraordinary evidence for Jesus' Resurrection?":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

(Btw, if the Resurrection of Christ occurred (and come on, anyone being raised back to life is an amazing thing, far more amazing than an ocean being parted), than how much more possible is it for the other amazing events in the bible to have occurred such as the flood? We are talking about someone being raised back to life after all, something that far surpasses healings, plauges, etc. in perceived "impossibility".)

 

I think that is enough regarding the topic of New Testament events. If you wish to read more about the reliability and some evidence for the occurrence of new testament events, then check out the main directory for these kinds of questions on this website: http://carm.org/evidence-and-answers (I encourage you to do this).

I think you will agree that you are mistaken when you say there is no evidence for New testament events.

 

[5] Regarding evidence for Old Testament events and the accuracy of Old Testament scripture:

The Accuracy of Old Testament Documents:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

The Old Testament

For both Old and New Testaments, the crucial question is: "Not having any original copies or scraps of the Bible, can we reconstruct them well enough from the oldest manuscript evidence we do have so they give us a true, undistorted view of actual people, places and events?"

 

The Scribe

The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c. 900 A.D.

 

The Massoretic Text

During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls

In 1947, a young Bedouin goat herdsman found some strange clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. Inside the jars were some leather scrolls. The discovery of these "Dead Sea Scrolls" at Qumran has been hailed as the outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The scrolls have revealed that a commune of monastic farmers flourished in the valley from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. It is believed that when they saw the Romans invade the land they put their cherished leather scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves on the cliffs northwest of the Dead Sea.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of nonbiblical scrolls related to the commune found.

 

These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, "This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Massoretic tradition."{2}

 

The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Massoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Massoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Massoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.

 

What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: "A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our "honor" and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light." This word was added to the text by someone after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah."{3}

The Septuagint

The Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, also confirms the accuracy of the copyists who ultimately gave us the Massoretic text. The Septuagint is often referred to as the LXX because it was reputedly done by seventy Jewish scholars in Alexandria around 200 B.C. The LXX appears to be a rather literal translation from the Hebrew, and the manuscripts we have are pretty good copies of the original translation.

Conclusion

In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity."{4}

The thing is, the majority of the Old Testament (and the vast majority of the entire bible) is written as an account of events. The Old Testament in particular is a collection of historical documents regarding events which happened in Jewish history. These events were written as an account of things which happened, and then they were transmitted down through the ages via the careful copying of scribes who did their best to made sure their every letter was correct.

 

Now, the accuracy of transmission of scripture does not necessarily mean the events in the bible occurred. However, there have been many things in the Old Testament which have been backed up by archaeological finds. Read the articles on this page:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/archeology.html

 

As far as I know, no archeological find has ever contradicted what the bible says in concerns to locations of cities, kingdoms, etc. etc.

 

There may be limited to no evidence for certain events which occurred in the Old Testament, however: There is overwhelming evidence for the accuracy of Old Testament scripture - both in transmission of documents and accuracy of accounts of Jewish history. That being said, while the evidence may not be precisely what you are looking for, I believe the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favor of the Bible being both accurately transmitted and an accurate account of events.

 

I'm not an atheist, I view the existence of god(s) possible, but I don't view any religious viewpoint as possible, as those are obviously made up, and you can't change my mind about this(actually, yes you can, if you find me a religion that supports logic. HINT: none of the major known religions). I would also like to state I often watch videos and read articles supporting religious point of view and sometimes I get an "ahaaa"-moment. When I find a good argument from the opposite side of view I search to find if it has been debunked. So I'm pretty open-minded even tho it's I'm saying this myself.

I hope I have changed your mind about religious viewpoints being "obviously made up" with the information I have given you above.

 

As a person I have to consider what happens to me if I'm wrong. Well, in case of most religions, I'll go to hell/somewhere else and my punishment will be eternal torture.(?) I do not view that as fair, an all-loving being wouldn't send people to hell just because they didn't follow its teachings. I would rather go to hell, because the party is definately downstairs I'm sure the first few days will be horrible but I'll adapt

God is loving but He is also a just God. Consider this verse:

"Pro 17:15 Condemning the innocent or letting the wicked go---both are hateful to the LORD."

 

Christianity teaches that all of us are wicked. In the verse above (Proverbs 17:15), another translation of the bible says those things are an "abomination" to the God. An abomination is something utterly detestable. Now think about this for a moment, if God just "lets us go" in spite of all the wicked we have done that means He is doing something that is against His own nature. He would be doing something He detests. God is a loving God, but He is also a just God.

 

Further, I would submit to you that He is an extremely loving God in that He even saves any of us. All of us deserve the same fate: the full wrath of God poured out upon us for all the wicked we have done against Him. He poured out the fullness of His wrath upon His own Son when Jesus was crucified so that we may have salvation.

 

It's fun how you responded to "Jesus never said he was the son of god". But isn't the christian god the "father" of us all? Let's play the smartass game here; I said he never said that he was the son of god, he said that god was his father, checkmate! (I'm not mocking anybody, but I have like not take everything seriously)

Show me anywhere in the bible BEFORE Jesus where anyone had ever said that God was their Father. That practice only started when Christians began doing so because it is part of Christian theology that "we have been adopted as God's sons through Jesus Christ" (I can't remember the exact verse for that). No one would have said that before "Christianity" actually started. As well, the Christian God is not the Father of us all. He is only the Father of Christians: those who have been made God's children through Christ's sacrifice. All of us are lost and separated from God and are not his children. Unless we have Christ we cannot be called His children.

 

And no, big bang doesn't require eternality of time, as time didn't exist as we know it before the big bang. Time doesn't exist without space, and space doesn't exist without matter and/or energy, matter and energy wouldn't exist if any of these missed(?). OMG! It's like father, son and the holy spirit! Maybe they just have a symbolical meaning and they mean time, matter and space? Naah...

My bad for not understanding that time didn't exist before the Big Bang, according to that theory.

 

As I already said, saying that god just isn't detectable by anything in this universe is just way too easy. And I do not accept that as an explanation, at first god had to be in the sky(NOTE: people couldn't reach it, that's what made it undisprovable) after that it's another realm/dimension/whatever... You make it easy for yourselves. I prefer to seek the truth through science, without making rationalizations to make my own beliefs fit the universe.

I tend not to make rationalizations regarding my beliefs, thank you

 

Anyways, I have been enjoying this little dialogue we've been having, I hope it will continue for a while yet I enjoy discussions like this, and I've been getting lots of MyCents from it haha

I tried to answer you 3 days ago but Xisto suddenly stopped working Anyway, you were right about the infinity of time being impossible.

Yay, he finally gets it haha

 

You said that god is not a part of the physical realm. If it's not, then how can it affect the physical realm?

When I say that He is transcendent of the physical realm I mean that He is not limited by it. In Christian theology, the teaching is that God is independent of our physical realm but still sovereign over it and able to act in it.

 

Another problem is time, can you imagine a realm without time which god supposedly exists in?

I can imagine the existence of it, but I can't necessarily imagine what it is like. According to Christian theology, God exists independently of our physical realm. (Remember, this does not disable His sovereignty over the physical realm or His ability to act in it). To the best of my knowledge, the bible does not teach what sort of realm God exists in if He even exists in one at all. (Btw, Heaven would not count as this "realm" because God had created heaven, so again, He is still independent of it.)

 

 

 

Time is another thing made up by man, time technically doesn't exist. Time is relative, time is something made up by looking at a cycle that repeats itself and comparing other things to them.

Let us assume that there must be an ultimate cause for the physical realm, shouldn't there be an ultimate cause for non-physical realm? Can you imagine anything out of this realm? What religion does is claims the impossible and then simply states that you can't disprove/prove it by science, because it simply doesn't exist in this realm. What caused this undetectable being to create this universe? Why would this being want us to worship it? Wouldn't ultimate cause need an ultimate purpose too? I sure can't answer these.

First, even if time does not technically "exist", the what "time" is still exists. This means the problem with time that I expressed before (and that you have now agreed upon) still occurs.

 

Now to address some of the questions you asked:

 

1. What caused this undetectable being to create this universe?

Nothing "caused" Him to create it. He created it of His own will to do so.

 

2. Why would this being want us to worship it?

He wants us to worship Him because everything He created, He created for HIS own glory. According to the account of the fall of man in Genesis, we rebelled against God when we disobeyed the command He gave. We choose not to have the relationship with God that we were created for. Further, because God is worthy of worship and because He is perfect, His desire for us to worship Him is right and just.

 

3. Wouldn't ultimate cause need an ultimate purpose too?

The ultimate cause does have an ultimate purpose: God's glory. Everything He created was purposed to bring Him glory.

 

To me, stuff that needs a cause is what is happening, I don't even want to start to somehow philosophically try to find out if existance itself needs a cause.

But the events in the bible are not true, god didn't create the earth in six days, there was no flood, Jesus was not the son of god(I'm sure if he was, he would've happily told us so, but he didn't).

You make so many assumptions here it is ridiculous. These things are not just magically false because you say they are. Demonstrate to me how they are false. As well, Jesus did say He was the Son of God. Lets take a look at some verses from John 10:

 

14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me? 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father?and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life?only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

The misconception that Jesus never said He was the Son of God is ridiculous. This shows me that what you believe about Christianity is based only on the works of atheists and people who wish to disprove Christianity because they have used this argument before. I wonder if you have truly ever studied the bible yourself because arguments like that do NOT hold weight and can be refuted when one looks at scripture.

 

Furthermore, the things that happened in Jesus' life act as a witness to claims that He is the Son of God.

 

Almost none of the biblical events did never happen, so it's not a reliable resource for information. It was written by men (even christians don't deny that). And you can't use a book as empirical evidence to prove yahwe's or any other god's existance.

 

You're "stripping" the bible here, yes, you're stripping all the nonsense and all there is left is the existance of god. You can't pick and choose from your own holy book, it either has to be totally right(which we know it isn't, we are not gonna argue about that, are we?), or it has to be totally wrong. If you believe in the god of the bible which you believe is His word, but not in all the rest of the bible, you will burn in hell. There are/were many books(and many other beliefs that aren't even written) on this planet, every single one of them claiming they are 100% right without any evidence.

Really? You clearly have not studied this much if you think biblical events never happened. I truly think you are only relying on the ideas which atheists proclaim in order to disprove Christianity. These sorts of ideas have been countered time and time again by historians, theologians, and scholars. Please don't rely on off the cuff arguments created by atheists for debate.

 

All that you are doing is claiming the events in the bible never took place and then expecting me to go, "Oh okay, You win". Look, claims about the events in the bible never taking place have been dispelled countless times. Do some research on this stuff, don't rely on basement-atheist's arguments from YouTube. Read information from credible sources about biblical history. If you like, I will post you some examples of evidence which show that the events in the bible did occur, but I would GREATLY appreciate it if you did the research yourself.

 

Just because the majority of people believes in one book, it doesn't mean it's right, it means that there once was something that spread this belief (roman empire). What makes you think that you're right about the bible? Because your parents beliefs and where you are born mostly determine what you believe in? What makes you think that pastafarianism(Flying Spaghetti Monster) isn't the way to go? Why, because it's seems to be made-up out of nothing? Exactly! That's why I prefer to not make up something against the laws of physics. If I do, I will modify it to fit them or I will dump the whole idea.

I realize that truth is not decided by popular vote, thank you.

 

I already stated why I believe what I do in my first post in this thread:

That being said, I would declare the reason that I am a Christian is not solely because I have seen a certain amount of evidence for God, etc. Nor is the reason that I am a Christian the philosophical problems problems that exist within atheism. The reason I am a Christian is due to a supernatural work in my heart (regeneration) which has lead me to repentance and faith in Christ for salvation. This is not an argument I use against atheists to prove the existence of God, I only wish to clarify that the sole reason I believe is NOT based purely on scientific evidence or philosophical arguments. However, the evidence and arguments I have been presented with do act as support for my belief in God's existence.

I do not believe what I do because of popular vote, or because of what my parents believed.

 

 

Anyway, by simple logic, there must've been something that caused the big bang, but look how far we have come, from the earth being the center of the universe, to our solar system, our galaxy, more galaxies... Who knows what we'll discover next? Have you heard about the multiverse hypothesis?

The problem with the big bang theory is that it requires the existence of time. If something caused the big bang, then what caused that cause? And what caused that cause's cause? We still run into the infinite regression of causes problem that occurs when we have an infinite amount of time. This theory does not work.

 

I need to know one thing: Have I demonstrated to you yet that it is necessary for a creating force which is transcendent of our physical universe needs to exist in order for our universe to exist? If you accept the impossibility of an infinite amount of time then you should also agree that there needs to be a creating force like I have described (whether or not it is God). Have I demonstrated that necessity to you?

There is no problem for time gaps. You totally ignored my eternal cycle thing. You're still with that everything needs a cause theory. There is no logical proof that everything needs a cause, but not god, because so it says in a almost 2000 years old textbook. The is no problem with time gap, because we do not have to cross it, we exist in the present and it's a mathematical impossibility to go forward or backwards in time. Time is also relative to the speed we move. I also was not stating that eternal is impossible, but stating that eternal anything is impossible to understand.

Your still not understanding the impossibility of time always existing. If time has infinitely existed into the past you would never arrive at this point in time no matter how long you sat there and waited. The past would be an infinite and unending amount of time which is incapable of passing. This presents a huge problem when you say that the universe has always existed because time is a factor in the universe.

You totally ignored my eternal cycle thing.

If it was this, I did not realize it was directed at me:

/* My own "belief" */

 

I personally believe(not know, but I believe in what I believe by using my own logic) that universe is eternal. The big bang could've been caused by a shrinking universe(or something else, but this is the best we got right now). So, if universe is eternal(cycle), everything somehow starts to make sense. Except the "why" question of course, but that isn't even explained in creationism. We can never understand the deeper meaning of why something happened/happens, because it would cause an eternal cycle of why questions which we can not answer to. The reason this makes sense to me is that because no matter or energy could've came out of nowhere, they always existed. This applies because is that something which is not energy or matter, doesn't exist and *POOF* - coming to existance doesn't make sense nor is possible by the laws of physics, they must've always existed and cycled continously creating the universe, life and everything we know.

 

/* End of my personal thoughts that have so little evidence behind them, but my logic makes sense to me (hehe). If it doesn't to you, please tell why */

I will address it now.

 

If you went strictly according to the laws of physics, you would be forced to assume that there was always a universe, or there has been an eternal cycle, etc. etc. However, if you understand the problem with time always existing you will realize that this cannot be the case. I will be clear here that I am not dismissing the laws of physics. The laws of physics describe how things work WITHIN THE SYSTEM CALLED OUR UNIVERSE. They do not pointedly dismiss the existence of a God because they describe how things work within the universe. They allow for a transcendent God to have created the system where these physical laws are true.

 

Let me make a more clear argument, like a summary or something:

 

1. First law of thermodynamics: Matter and/or energy can't be created nor destroyed, but can change into one another. If matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, yet it exist, it must've always existed. Pure logic.

This law only accounts for the observations we can scientifically make about matter and energy. No force within the universe (read: natural force) is able to create matter or energy, but what stops a supernatural force from outside of this universe that is all powerful from creating the system which this law works in? Nothing. This law does not pointedly dismiss the existence of a Creator. Its meaning is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by anything within the system (read: universe) itself. (This is the same thing I addressed above about your "my personal belief" thing)

 

Further, I have demonstrated how things within the universe cannot have always existed because of the problem with time. There has to be a beginning of everything in the universe (including time), otherwise time would be infinite and the past would be an infinite and unending amount of time which is incapable of passing to get to now. It is crucial that you understand the impossibility of time always existing.

 

2. The universe will most likely(by the knowledge of our time) shrink back to where it "came from". Causing another big bang (it's not really an explosion, it's just the expansion of time-space). Eternal cycle. To my understanding, time-space expands after every big bang. So no, time-space is eternal, but it shrinks and expands.

 

Because if everything needs a cause, so does god(this would cause an eternal cycle of causes), and if god is not matter or energy, god doesn't exist. As I already said, you can't simply get out of this by saying "by definition god is eter...".

In response to "2.", I do not have much knowledge on the universe expanding, etc. so I cannot really speak on those things.

 

Every PHYSICAL thing needs a cause. God is not matter or energy, so He does not physically exist. Just because He does not physically exist does not mean He is non-existent. He exists outside of the physical realm. He is a spiritual being, not a physical one. He is not subject to the physical laws that we are subject to in our universe.

 

EDIT: As for god is outside of the universe, we can't go outside the universe and verify that. To me, it seems that everything outside this reality doesn't exist, I might be wrong of course. I mean like, it's impossible for the product of our imagination to create the universe isn't it?

No, we can't go outside the universe to verify it. You won't find God with scientific method or in a test tube. Also, God is still a part of "this reality" even if He transcends the universe. If He exists, He is reality. And if the events in the Bible are true, then it is evidence that He is part of reality. Transcending this universe does not mean He is not part of reality.

 

Also, you assume that God is a product of our imagination, and then use that assumption that He is to say products of our imagination can't create the universe. You would have to prove without a doubt why God is a product of our imaginations to me before you said that and before it could be valid.

 

Now I know you'll ignore my argument and just repeat yourself(or possibly take one portion of it and turn it against me, ignoring the rest of the argument). I have realized that nobody can force their beliefs on somebody even by using logic, the truth is something one has to realize himself/herself.

I realize that I have had to go over my argument again, but I seriously do not think you understand the problem that occurs with time if the universe has always existed, or if there has been a cycle of universes, etc. If time has always existed, we have a severe problem. Also, I addressed all of your argument and I did not ignore it. And I agree that no one can force their beliefs on someone else.

 

This can go back and forth forever (pun intended)... So I'm not sure how much longer we should continue this lol If neither one of us is getting anywhere within the next post or two, I'm done posting.

THE QUOTE TAGS ARE ALL SCREWED UP SOME HOW, I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY. SOME OF MY RESPONSES ARE IN THE QUOTES I MADE OF BANIBOY'S POST AND I CAN'T FIX IT. MY RESPONSES ARE IN BOLD AND UNDERLINED IF THEY ARE INSIDE THE QUOTE TAG.

@KansukeKojima:

Evolution doesn't disprove god neither god does disprove evolution. Evolution DOES disprove the creationism in most religions. You can't believe in contradicting theories(creationism is not a theory, but I didn't find any other good words for describing what it is).

I allow for evolution to have occurred, but not on such a large scale to say it is the source of all life. Species change and adapt over time. I still believe God was the creator. These two ideas do not contradict each other unless I go to the extreme and say that the source of all life is evolution.

 

Further, if evolution be named truth then the creation account in the book of Genesis be named false. If that scripture is in doubt, then much (if not all) of the bible goes with it. Ultimately, this is not only about evolution vs. creation but it is about: unbelief vs. belief, inaccuracy of scripture vs. accuracy of scripture, non-existence of God vs. existence of God. Truly, this is ultimately about whether there is a God or not, which is why I argue the points which I have been.

 

To me it seems that you believe that by logic you prove the existance of god, but you don't. You make a compromise in your logical thinking to make the existance of god(s) possible. Your logic is apparently like this:

Everything needs a cause, but now you make up your own stuff, you say that although evrything does need a cause, but not god, because he's eternal and what not. Logic doesn't work like that. You say that god is not bound to the laws of physics and logic. So... you get it? The only thing I can think of that isn't bound to the laws of physics and logic is human imagination.

I worry that you do not properly understand the my arguments.

 

1) My claim was that everything in the universe needs a cause. God transcends the physical thing that we call the universe.

2) You claim that God can't be eternal because: "logic doesn't work like that". What is illogical about God being eternal? Simply stating it does not make it false.

3) I said God is not bound by the laws of physics. The laws of logic are a part of God's nature and He acts consistently within that nature. God is logical because it is part of His nature to be so. I did not claim God transcends logic.

 

Yes, logical absolutes apply everywhere, so to god. You could wipe out the whole god thing and just say that universe is eternal, you wouldn't have to make compromise in your logic to understand the stuff around you.

You could not do this. Time is part of the universe. If the universe has existed eternally, that means you have an infinite amount of time. You cannot cross an infinite amount of time to get to now because the amount of time before this very moment is infinitely large. It looks like this:

|Infinitely large Gap that is incapable of being crossed|-->|this very moment|

 

You could never make it all the way through that infinitely large gap of time to get to right now. Even if you were to... uh... start at the beginning of that gap (which is impossible because there is no beginning) and sit there and wait for this very moment to occur, it would never happen because of an infinitely large amount of time. Do you understand the problem with saying that the universe has existed eternally?

 

Other problem is of course, human mind can not understand what eternal means. You can understand normally time like this: let's say I say I'm 15 years old(which I am btw ), you make sence of it by trying to remember how much 1 year is(not by days, but how long it feels to you) and multiplying it by 15 and somehow imagining... Now let's apply that to eternal. 1 or more (amount of time of your choice) multiplied by eter... *Wait.. I can't do that!* See? The result wouldn't make sense, it wouldn't give you a measurable answer.

That is because eternity has no numeric value. We can comprehend that it means forever in both past and future directions.

 

Eternality itself(I don't know if that's even a word..) however, is possible. So remember this, you can't simply get out of it by saying "god by definition is eternal", because the only way this would make sense is that god(s) is/are not being(s), but the force behind the laws of physics. Then, the statements "god is everywhere" and "god is eternal" do make sense, but I'll also add, "god is everything". So in some sense I would use the word "god" as a synonym to the word "universe"

You cannot apply the word eternal to the notion of time, other wise the problem that I demonstrated above with the "infinitely large time gap" will occur. You can apply the word eternal to the notion of a supernatural being. It is capable that a God has always existed and at one point, decided to create the universe and time itself. If time was created at a certain point, this allows for time to have a beginning, and the "infinitely large time gap" problem does not occur. The problem with saying the universe has eternally existed is that the universe includes time. If the universe was created by an external force (God), then time would have a beginning and we would not have the infinite large time gap problem.

 

Actually it could be that the other one is no more logical than the other. Just like Biblical god isn't more logical than Thor, Krishna, Allah and the flying spaghetti monster. But the comparison is to state that none of them make sence, since both are saying that a supernatural being or beings created life in an undescribable way.

I was speaking about the argument that Christianity essentially "stole" parts of its religion from previously existing religions of the Egyptians, etc. This argument has been used for years, but it is invalid and has been debunked by many scholars. I believe the movie Zeitgeist uses this argument, but of course, it has been debunked.

 

Also, why does it not make sense to say that a supernatural (though, I would rather say Divine) being created life? Just because you don't accept it does not mean it is illogical. I would like you to explain why it doesn't make any sense.

 

 

1. To verify universe's existance you must be observing it from outside.

2. Everything is possible, but not probable. To verify this you would have to be outside the universe, using the scientific method.

3. Just because human beings don't understand that something can exist without a cause, doesn't mean it can't, again, you have to observe from outside. So how can god exist if it needs a cause too. If something isn't matter or energy, by the laws of physics, it doesn't exist. [/b]"Because you do not exist, you are incapable of doing anything - including bringing yourself into existence." - Neither does god

4. Pointing to the big bang, scientists don't have theories, but they have some ideas. Google is your friend.

6. So for god. eternal god isn't possible because you already stated that it needs an "uncaused cause" to exist. You are not observing this from outside of the universe and this isn't a good answer.

1. Why are we debating about the cause of the universe, evolution, etc. if the universe doesn't exist? The fact that we are arguing about it means that we assume it does exist. For the sake of discussion we assume it exists.

2. You misunderstand. It is possible for the universe to not exist. This means that the universe will either exist, or it will not exist as both options are possible options. As per point one, we already assume the universe is in existence or else any of these discussions are pointless.

3. It is logically necessary that if the universe exists it must have been caused by something else to exist. Something is incapable of bringing itself into existence according to logic. This means that something outside of the universe would have had to cause its existence.

A. God, by definition, is the uncaused cause. You mentioned that if something is not matter or energy, then according to physics it does not exist. God transcends the physical world and is therefore not bound by the laws of physics. Furthermore, I never stated that God caused His own existence. By definition, God has existed eternally without any cause.

4. I do not think you understand this part of the argument. If time has always existed, there would be no beginning of time. This would mean that time is infinite (forever in both directions, past and future). You cannot cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. This means that there would have never been a single initial cause for the universe because there would be an infinite regression of causes. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes or else there would have never been an initial cause.

5. Therefore, there has to be an uncaused cause for the universe.

6. I stated that the universe needs an uncaused cause to exist. God does not need a cause to exist because by definition he has eternally existed. He is the uncaused cause. This is not a problem because He is not bound by time, and therefore point #4 is not an issue in the case of God. Finally, as stated above: If you will not assume the existence of the universe then why are we discussing things pertaining to existence, etc.?

 

The argument still stands.

 

I would appreciate it if you addressed the other argument which I brought up:

Another argument, which is EXTREMELY extensive and takes time to understand, is the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. I will explain the very shortened version of it below, but I will provide a link for the full version of the argument.

 

1. Logical absolutes exist.

A. These logical absolutes are transcendent and apply to the entire universe (to the best of our knowledge. It is logical to assume they are, if you go to another galaxy 2 still equals 2).

B. These logical absolutes are not the result of the existence of the physical universe. If the universe was to suddenly cease to exist, logical absolutes would still be true.

C. Logical absolutes are not the product of human minds. Human minds differ and contradict each other and even themselves. The laws of logic are consistent throughout this world are are not in existence because of human thought.

D. Logical absolutes are concepts, in that they are grasped by the mind. They are conceptual by nature (note: this does not mean they are a product of human minds).

2. Because logical absolutes exist and are consistent everywhere, and are not a product of anything in the universe (they transcend the universe), an absolute and transcendent mind MUST have authored them because nothing else can account for them. This mind is called God.

 

Now, this argument is only valid unless atheists can come up with something to account for the existence of logic. However, this argument has been attacked a fair bit already, but as it stands (to the best of my knowledge) no atheist has been able to account for the existence of logical absolutes. The only explanation is God. If all other possibilities have been exhausted, and only one remains, then that last remaining possibility must be the correct one. It is a logical imperative.

 

Click here to read the full version of the argument.

It's interesting (lame) how that guy Hovind bulks up his argument with completely irrelevant arguments. You think he'd at least stick the questions not related to evolution in the middle or the end to make his ignorance a little less obvious. He brings up questions that he can't answer himself -- unless you consider baseless theories of magic to be an answer. I (personally) can't explain where space and matter came from, but I'd rather admit it's something we don't know and should attempt to find out, then to give up research and say it was just created by God and never find any proof of that. If creation by a deity ever turns out to make sense in a modern world, I'll believe it. Back in ancient times there were less explanations for why things were so it's understandable religion was thriving. One thing I don't admire about some Believers, is that they have absolutely no interest in understanding the truth. I live to learn, even if the truth hurts, to discover and explore the world. To understand. Life, The Universe, and Everything (h2g2 :angel: ) is incredible, vast and almost unbelievable. Sometimes I'm amazed by many things, an insect, a plant, the stars. People and why they are the way they are (psychology). I discuss these things in awe of our incredible world with a God-believing friend and they have no interest in why things are the way they are, why would they evolve this way. Their only opinion is "God made it that way" -- boring!. That's not for me, I yearn for understanding with intelligent theories, not so far completely unprovable myths.

That is commendable that you are searching for the truth . I believe that all of us must search for the truth about this universe. It is quite sad to see many people who have no regard for things such as this, they simply exist without learning about anything that pertains to our existence, etc.

 

I believe this world is philosophically and logically bankrupt. I also believe that description applies to the atheist world-view. I am beginning to see a trend among many atheists. It is that they simply set up a straw-man of Christian beliefs to attack. While there are many people who simply say "God did it" because of their lack of understanding, I believe someone who truly wished to be engaged in truth will yearn to understand the truth. As a Christian, I do not simply say that "God did it", however I do see that there are problems with the atheist world-view (such as the inability for atheism to account for logical absolutes). There either is a God or there is not (one of these MUST be true, it is a logically necessary), and if the atheist position is wrought with philosophical problems then I would much rather place my faith in the theistic position. In other words, there is a reason why I believe God has created the universe - and it is not my ignorance on the subject.

 

That being said, I would declare the reason that I am a Christian is not solely because I have seen a certain amount of evidence for God, etc. Nor is the reason that I am a Christian the philosophical problems problems that exist within atheism. The reason I am a Christian is due to a supernatural work in my heart (regeneration) which has lead me to repentance and faith in Christ for salvation. This is not an argument I use against atheists to prove the existence of God, I only wish to clarify that the sole reason I believe is NOT based purely on scientific evidence or philosophical arguments. However, the evidence and arguments I have been presented with do act as support for my belief in God's existence.

 

Scientists/"Evolutionists" may or may not know the facts, yet, or ever, but at least they attempt to understand and their theories make some sense. Creationist theories aren't even logical and honestly, they're often delusional to non believers. At best, they're something like, "Well, look at the eye! It's too complex to have just evolved, obviously!"

 

Well yeah, it is hard to believe, but what isn't hard to believe? Almost everything in the entire universe is hard to believe yet things happen, inventions are made, things are discovered, the impossible becomes possible, the unbelievable becomes reality. Do people ever stop to think how incredible and unbelievable life as we know it today would have been to humans 2000 years ago? Even 50 years ago. Yet all of these highly unbelievable things are explainable. There are logical explanations why why things are/work, and we can reproduce that. Not everything can be explained yet, but it's stupid to expect to understand everything "over night". We're only a relatively young species in the universe!

You made the assertion that creation is illogical. Why is it such? Bear in mind that just because something does not fit in your world-view does not mean it is illogical. What actually is contradictory about it and why do the laws of logic not allow for it? As well, just because it is delusional to non-believers does not make it false. Truth is not decided by popular vote.

 

Hopefully from what I have written at the beginning of this post, you will see that I am also a person engaged in seeking the truth - not just simply relying on something that is comfortable to me and saying "God did it". I will admit there are many Christians who do not spend time educating themselves on apologetics, scientific, philosophical, or theological concepts. This is unfortunate because it leads to an inability to defend their beliefs and it also causes people to draw the conclusion that all of us are delusional and do not think rationally or logically.

 

Commenting on your second paragraph in the above quotation, I would also like to point out that atheists often have the same demands of Christians. There are cases in which Christians are unable to explain certain biblical phenomena to the atheists standards, so they use that to say that the Christian is wrong. On the contrary, just because someone does not have the knowledge of something at that specific moment does not mean their position is incorrect. This also applies for atheists, even if they are unable to account for certain phenomena via science (at the present time), it does not mean their position is automatically and ultimately wrong and they may just need more time in order to explain things.

 

At worst, their arguments are borderline insane. I know perfectly intelligent and sane people who believe in Bible stories that are as nothing but ludicrous. Believing in God is one thing, and atleast somewhat understandable. If you're going to claim that there were intelligent talking animals to have a conversation with and a man parting the sea and an innumerable number of even more highly unbelievable things (I can't remember) that people actually believe, PLEASE, HAVE SOME LOGICAL EXPLANATION! I could never believe in something so unbelievable when there is no explanation/proof, and when there are alternatives (evolution) that actually make sense. I don't know if evolution is 100% true fact, but it sure is a better argument to anyone with a truly open and unprejudiced mind.

First, I would like to note that just because an argument is not in the bounds of "scientific" or if it transcends the "natural realm" (so to speak) and is supernatural, does not mean it is illogical. Also, you do something within this paragraph such as saying that things like parting the red sea is unbelievable but say you would rather believe in alternatives such as evolution. First of all, parting the red sea has nothing to do with evolution. This argument does not work very well because you are trying to use the perceived inability for these events to occur in order to further your support of evolution. Parting the red sea has nothing to do with evolution.

 

I would ask that you read this article on how miracles do not defy the laws of logic:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

That being said, there is a logical explanation for why these supernatural miracles occurred. The explanation that these things occurred because of something God did does not defy logic in the least bit. What it does defy is your presupposition that there is no God... which many atheists somehow equate with logic

 

 

The thing that really bugs me is that it's egyptian religion and greek deities and roman what what not are all today almost unanimously accepted as being nothing but very interesting fictional stories. The religions of today are just as unbelievable and very very similar...... ? Hint hint..? Religious books are interesting and story-like for a reason, text books are for factual information. You don't open up a factual book on astronomy and see Mr Julius Jupiter the farmer magically being turned into a planet because he was a great man and his children who missed him so became satellites destined to play around him happily forever. You see, well this is Jupiter, 5th planet from the sun, has many satellites.

First, I would like to point out that the argument about how Christianity is similar to the religions of the ancient egyption, greek, etc. has been used for years. I don't know why it is continued in its use because it has been debunked by countless scholars in the past. Every few years it seems like a movie comes out which is promoting that argument, and scholars are quick to take it down with facts.

 

The latter half of your paragraph insinuates that the bible is written like a myth. The majority of the bible is written as an account of events which took place, and the writing style does not fit they style of the myth writers during the times when the various books of the bible were being written. The majority of books in Old Testament scripture are accounts of the history of the Jewish people or prophecies (prophecies are not myths, these are words which have come out of a prophets mouth which predicted the future fate of Israel and other nations as well as specific individuals, etc.) which have been recorded. New testament scripture is comprised of eye witness accounts (read: the four gospels) of Jesus' life, epistles (letters) written to various churches around the middle east roughly during the lifetime of the apostle Paul, and a single book of end-times prophecy. The biblical books are not myths and legends, but for the most part (aside from poetry (Song of Solomon), and Psalms, etc.) it is recorded events which people witnessed, letters, or prophecy.

 

In all these years of human history, there's never been logical proof of the existence of God or that he created everything. Gods and religions in history have been discredited and antiquated, nobody believes in them. I have a feeling the modern religions will soon (in the big picture) be extinct as well. More and more religious myths are revealed as false all the time. The sun revolves around the earth because God made earth special? FALSE! People believed Heaven was in the sky, yet man pierced the sky and entered space, surprise, no heaven. Where is Heaven? Ah, some where else I suppose!

First, you assertion that there has NEVER been any proof in the whole human history of mankind should not be taken seriously. Are you actually capable of knowing, every single evidence provided for God in all of history? No you are not, and therefore you cannot make that assertion. I would also submit that there is logical proof for the existence of God, and please remember that your presuppositions that there is no God does not define what logic is (I mentioned that atheists have a tendency to do this earlier).

 

Secondly, beliefs such as the sun revolving around the earth existed because people made observations and at the time could not account for things any other way. However, things such as this do not contradict biblical scripture. Also, about heaven existing in the sky, the bible is quite clear heaven is a spiritual realm, not a physical manifestation in the sky (otherwise our spaceships and airplanes would be colliding with angels ) . Often times confusion that the bible states other wise stems from the sky being referred to as the "heavens". They are not literally the spiritual heaven.

 

I welcome someone to prove it the existence of God and his hand in creation with real facts and not the argument that "Unexplainable(for now!!) = God did it!" I have an open mind. I have had no biased negative opinion of believers, I have been open to their arguments my entire life as my interest is in TRUTH and UNDERSTANDING, I'm no scientist, or an authority on the subject of our existence, I don't claim to know, I'm just an interested human being trying to understand, but good grief Creationists.. have a decent argument don't say "We don't get it, so God did it!" . Life is confusing and complex and we my never fully understand, but at the very least believe in something that makes SOME sense, not something that makes zero (negative?) sense and is believed by people ranting and raving about burning in the pits of hell and God wrecking havoc on entire countries for sinning.

I accept your challenge

 

A philosophical argument that I am very fond of is the Cosmological Argument.

1. The universe exist.

2. Its possible for the universe not to exist, of course.

3. If the universe exists, it must have been caused into existence. If it is possible for it to not exist, it must have been caused to exist otherwise it would not exist.

A. You cannot say that something has brought itself into existence. If you don't exist, you have no attributes and no nature. Because you don't have any attributes, nature, and because you do not exist, you are incapable of doing anything - including bringing yourself into existence.

4. Time could not have existed for an infinity allowing for time enough for the universe to be caused.

A. If time is infinite, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time to get to now (this present moment in time). If you wished to go back an infinite amount of time to get to the first initial cause, you could not because of the nature of infinity (expanding forever in both directions: past and future). There would be an infinite regression of causes, and there would be no original cause.

B. Because the universe exists, it must have been caused. There must have been a specific point at which the universe was created. As shown above, time could not have infinitely existed allowing for the universe to be caused because there would be an infinite regression of causes which means there was not initial cause.

5. Therefore, there has to be an uncaused cause for all things (the universe).

6. The only thing that fits the definition of an uncaused cause is an eternal God. The bible says God is from everlasting to everlasting.

 

Another argument, which is EXTREMELY extensive and takes time to understand, is the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. I will explain the very shortened version of it below, but I will provide a link for the full version of the argument.

1. Logical absolutes exist.

A. These logical absolutes are transcendent and apply to the entire universe (to the best of our knowledge. It is logical to assume they are, if you go to another galaxy 2 still equals 2).

B. These logical absolutes are not the result of the existence of the physical universe. If the universe was to suddenly cease to exist, logical absolutes would still be true.

C. Logical absolutes are not the product of human minds. Human minds differ and contradict each other and even themselves. The laws of logic are consistent throughout this world are are not in existence because of human thought.

D. Logical absolutes are concepts, in that they are grasped by the mind. They are conceptual by nature (note: this does not mean they are a product of human minds).

2. Because logical absolutes exist and are consistent everywhere, and are not a product of anything in the universe (they transcend the universe), an absolute and transcendent mind MUST have authored them because nothing else can account for them. This mind is called God.

 

Now, this argument is only valid unless atheists can come up with something to account for the existence of logic. However, this argument has been attacked a fair bit already, but as it stands (to the best of my knowledge) no atheist has been able to account for the existence of logical absolutes. The only explanation is God. If all other possibilities have been exhausted, and only one remains, then that last remaining possibility must be the correct one. It is a logical imperative.

 

Click here to read the full version of the argument.

 

I guess my post wasn't too much about evolution vs creationism..but really what is there to say? Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution is a relatively young theory which happens to make a more than a little bit of sense and stands up to most arguments. Creationism is an ancient truckload of highly unbelievable, still completely unexplainable (except for "against" explanations mind you) and unprovable theories that curiously resembles a fairy tale story not unlike already extinct and unanimously unbelieved religious beliefs from ancient cultures. To me, it's rather obvious which theory a person with an open mind should be subscribing to.

This last paragraph is essentially a summation of all the points in your post, and they have all been addressed above. My fingers are tired now

I do not consider Catholics who practice what the Catholic church teaches. This "church" is apostate and does not believe in one of the basic doctrines of Christianity. There are specific doctrines which lay at the core of Christianity and these are:

 

1) Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4). (Accepted by the Catholic Church)

2) Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14). (Accepted by the Catholic Church)

3) Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4). (Denied by the Catholic Church)

4) The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9). (Accepted by the Catholic Church)

5) There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8) (Accepted by the Catholic Church)

 

-- http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ --

These are doctrines which are essentially to Christianity and these are the doctrines which are backed up by scripture. Those who deny any of these are not Christians because they do not affirm the beliefs of Christianity. These are the beliefs which were historically taught by the early Christian Church. I would like to examine point number three:

 

3) Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4). (Denied by the Catholic Church)

This is a very important doctrine to affirm. Christ took our sin upon Himself when He died on the cross so that we could be forgiven our sin and be acceptable before God. It is only by His grace that He took our sin and bared the wrath of God. In Catholicism, they add works to this. In other words, YOU have to do something in order to win God's favor. That is not grace. Grace is something undeserved, not something worked for. Lets examine Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; and 5:1-4.

Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

- Justification is a legal term which means that we are no longer seen as guilty. Under God's law, all who have broken it are guilty of sin.

Eph 2:8 For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God

Eph 2:9 and not the result of works, lest anyone boast.

- We see here that it is only be the grace of God (a gift) that we are saved. It is not the result of our own works. Catholicism affirms that we need to do specific things so that we may be saved.

- When we consider this as well as Rom 5:1 it is apparent that nothing we can do is able to justify us before the law of God. It is clear that our works are not capable of justifying us and that they cannot save us from God's wrath.

Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who put a spell on you? Before your very eyes you had a clear description of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross!

Gal 3:2 Tell me this one thing: did you receive God's Spirit by doing what the Law requires or by hearing the gospel and believing it?

- None of us is capable of obeying the Law of God and that all our unrighteous and under condemnation (Rom 3:10-3:20). If that is the case, then there is no way we could be saved because we cannot fulfill what the Law requires. We can only be saved by the Gospel of Christ. If we are not even capable of obeying God's laws, it is illogical to believe that we can be saved by obeying the laws of the Catholic church which are invented by men. The rituals of Catholicism have no power to save.

Gal 5:1 Freedom is what we have---Christ has set us free! Stand, then, as free people, and do not allow yourselves to become slaves again.

Gal 5:2 Listen! I, Paul, tell you that if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, it means that Christ is of no use to you at all.

Gal 5:3 Once more I warn any man who allows himself to be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the whole Law.

Gal 5:4 Those of you who try to be put right with God by obeying the Law have cut yourselves off from Christ. You are outside God's grace.

Gal 5:5 As for us, our hope is that God will put us right with him; and this is what we wait for by the power of God's Spirit working through our faith.

- This scripture is talking about men who had placed their faith in obeying the Law instead of putting their faith in the Gospel and God's grace. Putting our faith in the tenets of the Catholic church and relying on our own "goodness" robs Christ's sacrifice of its saving power.

 

The Catholic Church outright rejects this biblical truth and instead relies on man-made traditions and rules. This is why Catholicism is not Christianity.

 

For more information on this please read the articles found here:

http://carm.org/roman-catholicism

The author of these articles, Matt Slick, has done excellent comparative research of what the Catholics believe compared to Christianity.

In my opinion, I think it is reasonable to classify atheism as a religion. However, I think that it is really irrelevant whether or not we do. I don't see a point to classifying atheism as a religion or not classifying it as one. Regardless of that, lets take a look at the definition of religion:

 

From Dictionary.com

 

re⋅li⋅gion  [ri-lij-uhn]

–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Definition one, I think, does describe the atheist position. Why? They do indeed have a set of beliefs regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. The cause is usually believed to be a scientific explanation of the origin of life, the nature of the universe is usually regarded as a set of random occurrences, etc., and (depending on the atheist) it is often believed that the universe has no purpose other than to fulfill our own desires, etc.

 

Definition two also adequately describes the atheist position. Just take a look at YouTube for evidence of this. There is essentially an "army" of atheists, many of whom support each other in their endeavors such as disproving theism etc. Many of them share extremely common beliefs about the world and I would say that the vast majority of atheists all share the same core beliefs about the world.

 

Definition six is also another point I believe describes the atheist position. Many atheists make a point to demonstrate their atheism and they actively denounce and attempt to refute theism. In essence, their atheism is a point or matter conscience in which it becomes a ethical system to proliferate.

 

In my opinion, the actions and core beliefs of atheists demonstrate that they do have a religion in the "dictionary-style" of the word. They do not believe in a God, but the definition of religion accurately describes some of their core beliefs and their actions. Though this be my conclusion, I do not think that it is really an important issue - and the issue that need be discussed is the issue of truth. The issue that needs to be discussed is whether or not there is a God and if there is, who is He?

 

Cheers,

Davis

I haven't been drunk once, and I'm quite glad I haven't been. Its interesting, at school I hear these people say "I got so drunk last night bla bla bla" and they eventually get to the point about how terrible they feel and the person they saw puke all over the place, etc. Seriously, I don't know what would compel someone to impair themselves to the point where they get a hangover the next day, puke all over the place, and possibly suffer through alcohol poisoning. Its ridiculous.

Swine Flu is no different than regular flu. I don't get why people are freaking out over it. Of course people are dying. Old people and young people always die from the flu. It's not exactly something unique about swine flu.

Yep. Also, not very many people have died from it - according to the World Health Organization. So I find it kind of interesting just how much media attention, etc. it is getting. It is utterly ridiculous, and I really don't know why everyone is freaking out about it. I guess that is what happens when the media hypes things up

I would love to know when I was going to die. I would then take the chance to do anything to put my self in harms way. Get in my car and just floor it, never stooping for the cops. Rob a store. and then i would end the party by skydiving with out a para shoot.

You would spend your last days putting others in harms way and causing chaos ??? I mean, driving like a maniac surely endangers other drivers, not to mention the police officers chasing you. Robbing a store can result in people being shot, etc.. excellent way to end your life

Thanks, glad you liked it. It would be cool and all to head to Maine and play a show but I highly doubt that is going to happen haha. We don't have travel money or anything like that, plus we aren't like a full time band or anything. Our next show is probably going to be in like 2-3 months and it will probably be self organized, and played out of our guitar players garage . We'll definitely try to pick up as many shows as we can though and get some footage of them as well.

Part 1:
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Part 2:
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

We played a music festival that was happening at our high school. It was a lot of fun, and we really enjoyed it. We got a lot of positive feed back afterwards which was great

We had some sound problems during the first song, so it threw us all off a bit - but we got them fixed when the camera cuts the first time in the video, and the rest of the show was better.


Let me know what you think!

I would like two songs played at my funeral, in succession. They are both from the album by the gothic/metal/classical band Virgin Black off their "Requiem - Fortissimo" album. The first song is entitled "Darkness", and the second song is a brief postlude comprised of some haunting piano keys entitled "Forever" that is meant to follow the previous song. These songs are very mournful, and I think they would fit perfectly. The combination of these two songs would be the perfect representation of my passing from the darkness of death into eternity.

I would absolutely not want to know when I die. When it comes, it comes - and that is all there is to it. I would likely become preoccupied with the date it would occur on and unfortunately be very depressed about it, although I would be departing to something much better . I would know the exact day I would be leaving behind everyone I love and care about behind, which is something I rather not have knowledge of.

I've been thinking some more about your theory... and haven't you thought that the numbers in the bible are symbolic? there are numbers everywhere... also 120 is referred as a 'number of perfection', many of the numbers in the bible have hidden meanings tho... so it wouldn't surprise me if those long living persons and those big numbers were something symbolic and didn't exactly have anything to do at all with the flood thing

There is a field of study regarding the symbolic meanings of numbers in the bible. However, as far as I know - the people who study this have never found any symbolic meanings in the ages of people. There are indeed numbers in the bible with symbolic meanings, common occurrences, etc., however the ages of people do not have any such special meaning. The ages are simply that - ages.

I have some truly horrible speakers for my computer. Its one of those white rectangular shaped sets from around the year 2000 . That being said, I usually listen to music on my iPod. I have a $30 pair of headphones ("Cresyn") with really great sound, and they also cancel noise for the most part. I've had them for a few months and they have worked great, although they are starting to get a little bit of wear and tear. I may have to replace them soon, but we will see. They should be good for months yet.