Only For Athesists

[thelawtman]

Ok well here on this site we have all theses threads for Christians so I thought us non belives and people with open minds need a thread so here it is. What I want to know is why did you come a Athesist and why do u think religon is fake OR whatever.

Like I have said in other areas I think religoin in jsut a explantaion for what was once unexplained. People did not know how to explain things so they made up religons and other ideas.

[CSLewisFan]

Well let’s start with you :) Why are you an atheist?

-Austin

[thelawtman]

Like I said above. I think the bible is jsut a made up stor to explain what WAS unexplained. People that take the bible seriosuly dont relize that there are mistakes and alot of it was roughly translated. I want hard proof and evidence that someting happened. I belive in science not religion.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

For "people with open minds", eh? Question, thelawtman - have you ever read Lewis' Mere Christianity? If so, I've got a couple questions for you - though, of course, we can discuss them elsewhere, since I'm only a guest here, and want to leave this thread for you "people with open minds".

[thelawtman]

No i have not read that and don't want to. I have as little to do with Chirstanity as possible beacuse it is compleley loony and unbleivable in the least.

[CSLewisFan]

Congratulations, you’re just like the large majority of atheists :)

1. You believe that the Bible is a lie. That people believe in "religions" because they have absolutely nothing better to do, or were fed lies as a child.

2. When you say you believe in science not religion you are claiming to be a naturalist (someone who believes only in the natural laws of this universe).

So I have two questions for you:

1. What made you initially believe the bible is inaccurate?

2. Why do you believe in the natural, but not the supernatural?

I like you; you’re to the point :)
-Austin

[thelawtman]

1) Becuase there is no possible way most of thoes things could have happend and the ones that did happen are proved to be natural occurances. Also they are still findind mistranslations in the bible to this day.

2) Becuase there is proof of the natural. That would be like saying that humans are the only life in the universe. It is not possible there are billions of stars and plants and to say that only ONE has life on it is unbelivable.

[CSLewisFan]

1) Becuase there is no possible way most of thoes things could have happend and the ones that did happen are proved to be natural occurances. Also they are still findind mistranslations in the bible to this day.

"Things" is a very general word.... could you maybe be more specific?

2) Becuase there is proof of the natural.

You only believe in what can be proved.
You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.
How can you believe there is no God?

That would be like saying that humans are the only life in the universe. It is not possible there are billions of stars and plants and to say that only ONE has life on it is unbelivable.

There is a definite possibility of life on other planets, however this is a bit of a irrelevant discussion. Maybe in another thread?

-Austin

[Basilides]

thelawtman,

I'm actually very encouraged that you are an atheist. Two of the men who influenced me most, C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, were solid atheists before turning to Christianity. It gives them both a unique perspective. Atheism, in my view, provides a person with an honest template with which to evaluate truth. The kind of Christianity (or any religion) that is all wish-fulfillment or fire-insurance or peer pressure or inherited only because of family or society can be very difficult to transform into the kind of Christianity our C.S. Lewis talks about...or the kind that Paul or James talk about. Remember that the Romans called the early Christians "atheists" because they were more interested in the kind of faith that comes from knowing the truth than they were the blind faith for the pantheons of the polytheists.

PrinceoftheWest's suggestion that you read Mere Christianity is worth considering on your part because (you may already know this) it was written by C.S. Lewis, the solid atheist as a young man and author of the Narnia series we all adore. He did not become a Christian because he wanted to live forever and was afraid of dying, or because his parents taught him to, or because he wanted to be reunited with loved ones and so on. In fact, for a time he believed in God without believing in the afterlife at all. The reason he became a Christian is because first, on a worldly level, he found that atheism was intellectually untenable (we can go into the exact reasons why this is so if you wish) and that among the various religions from which to choose, only Christianity explained the "whole story" in a way that was both valid and authentic. On a deeper level, he became a Christian because he was hunted down like quarry by the Hound of Heaven who, once He had a hold of Lewis, refused to shake him loose. But that last won't make sense to you until you meet Him.

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. If you never read it, you won't know some of the most cogent arguments in favor of Christianity. I've read lots by Bertrand Russell and other atheists for the same reason you ought to read Mere Christianity...it's no fair thinking someone is wrong unless you actually understand what they think.

[The half blood plinth]

Garg! I just wrote a really long reply and the computer totally hate's me and sent it off into oblivion - here, I'll try again:

C.S Lewis fan: He's like the large majority of athiests? Not any athiests I know - niether I, nor my friends are athiests because of holes in religious texts (Christian and otherwise), because "science is our religion" (of course science has holes too) or due to some sort of anti-religious sentiment - on the contrary, I'd love to feel that sense of security "believers" have : that there's justice after death, that existance continues forever and that there's some kind of force guiding me.

But I don't. I was raised a Roman Catholic, I've also attended Anglican and Baptist churches and studied and little of Hinduism and Buddhism - but ever since I was - ever since I can remember - I've never really felt that way.

I think my reasons for being athiest are much more drawn from the little I know of anthropology rather than science. Basically: people - as both individuals and whole societies - need faith/religion to fill that unknown void - kind of like what thelawtman said: to explain the unexplained but also to provide that sense of security, to create limits and boundaries and to create incentives for people to do good deeds/help society run smoothly (as in heavenly rewards/englightenment/etc). Thats not to say "believers" only do acts of goodness for future self reward, or that athiests are anarchists with no sense of moral duty or boundary.

It's like (and this is an absolutely horrible analogy but I can't think of another at the moment: it's like how a child creates an imaginary friend. The child need the imaginary friend for comfort and security, and so the friend exists to the child. Humans create god(s) and the like to fill a need, but god(s) and the like would not exist without humans being there to believe in them/it.

When you start looking at it in that way, it's hard to see it any other way, and like I said - i've felt like this since I can remember. If you can convince me otherwise or pick holes in my (rather confused) logic please do.


Two more notes: I write "believers" because even as an athiest i believe in the potential of humans to do good and great things, and I believe the world and universe is all the more beautiful because someone didn't ordian it - it got there all by itself.

Secondly, C.S Lewis fan, so we all know where we stand - I'm guessing your religous in some sense or another?

[The half blood plinth]

Basilides: I'd love to find out why he thought athiesm was intellectually untenable, do tell.

[Rhyanidd]

Like I said above. I think the bible is jsut a made up stor to explain what WAS unexplained. People that take the bible seriosuly dont relize that there are mistakes and alot of it was roughly translated. I want hard proof and evidence that someting happened. I belive in science not religion.

What mistakes are in the Bible??? And I bet ya there are other records from other people of events that happend in the bible!! And science is a religion, what you believe is your religion, weathder or not you go to church or dont, you have a religion, I find flaws in your logic! So if you would like to convince me then please try!!!Have you even read anny of the Bible???

[inkspot]

Welcome, Plinth! I trust you are a Narnia fan as well as an atheist?
Basically: people - as both individuals and whole societies - need faith/religion to fill that unknown void - kind of like what thelawtman said: to explain the unexplained but also to provide that sense of security, to create limits and boundaries and to create incentives for people to do good deeds/help society run smoothly (as in heavenly rewards/englightenment/etc).
Could this be because people really need a relationship with God to fill that unknown void? Why would we have that unknown void in us, if not for the fact that we are estranged from our Creator?

thelawtman, I am sure Basilides meant nothing but kindness in suggesting that you, like CS Lewis, might one day change your mind about atheism. He has not been privy to our previous discussions about that and is a nice, good, person who would not want to offend you at all. :)

[hanguk859]

Ok, first of all, don't ask him to try and convince you, because if you're firm in the faith, then he won't convince you, and you probably won't convince him! no argument in a forum is going to completely sway thelawtman...anyone could tell you that...and I'm also positive that he has very convincing arguments for his beliefs, even if others may view them as flawed, and I'm not saying that all beliefs lead in the same direction or anything, don't misinterpret me, but we can't exactly shove it down his throat!
However, after saying all of this, I do have some question/statements
,and I do apologize for opening my mouth on this thread, because I'm not at all an atheist, but I don't think you'll get a big turnout....
You say that the Bible is an excuse for things that WERE un-explained...
does this mean that they are explained now?
forgive me, but, knowing that science is learning and predicting from OBSERVATION, i am at a loss to see how there could possibly be a "scientific" if you will, explanation for: The Origin of Matter, The 'Creation' or 'Origin' if you prefer, of the Universe, etc.!
I'm sorry, deeply sorry, but you've got to have faith either side you choose! all these theories that claim to be 'scientific' are not, because they CAN'T BE! that's really not Good Science, for Science does have its boundaries, it shouldn't be made into this all-knowing ghastly creation of man that tries to expain the un-observed!
and personally (not trying to be rude) I think that the Atheistic View is an Escape, from: obligations, arguments (although you're not doing too well), and faith
I mean, it seems to me like they just drop the ball and say "that's it! I just don't believe in ANYTHING anymore, I'll just follow 'science' 'cause hey? that's always right isn't it?!"
again, I do apologize for writing on your beloved atheistic thread, but I'm interested in what you believe, because if on the off-chance it's the truth, then it's valuable I guess

[The half blood plinth]

I am a narnia fan, I just finished ummm.. thingy ... whatsname... The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Starting The Silver Chair next. And I loved the BBC show as a kid, and now am a big fan of the film.

And in reply to inkspot: But that's just it: I can see why I feel the need for a god/faith in something and because I can see why, I can also see why such a god/faith is just made up to fill that need, and therefore doesn't really exist, but is just a creation of my own (or my society).

Some athiests don't feel that need however - they're content with life as it is and thus they have no void to fill and thus they don't "need" a god/faith.

And to Hanguk859: dude, read my post at 1:27 in response to the whole "science as religion". I agree with some of what you said, but I think you've simplified it a little too much.

[Rhyanidd]

to Hanguk and Inkspot rock on!! Here here!!!

anyway I have not had my question answered would you please answer it? what flaws does the Bible have!!

[Rhyanidd]

Without God there are no morals, Here is a paper I wrote, please read it, and tell me what you think...

Ariana
Right vs. Wrong
To determine whether or not right and wrong change we must ask the questions: Who sets the standard? and Are the standards dependent on circumstance or society? My opinion is that the standard rests on an unchangeable God.
It is my belief that God sets the standards. I think this because He has revealed Himself to us through His word. In Exodus 20 He gives us a law that clearly defines what is expected of man.
Some think that society sets the standard, but what authority does society have? They have no more authority than we, the people, give them, and it can be taken away.
Society exists because we exist. It is dependent upon us, So the standard will change. But God is independent of people, He exists whether or not we believe in Him. Whether or not we exist. We are dependent on him, whether we know it or not.
Society changes, because people change. So one day what you are doing is socially acceptable and the next it is not, which confuses and frustrates people. God, however, is unchanging and His standard doesn't change either. Providing stability and regularity in life.

[Aslan the Wise one]

I'm a christian but i'm also open minded to other peolpes views and thoughts and faiths if they have one.

[Kai Tetsuki]

1) Becuase there is no possible way most of thoes things could have happend and the ones that did happen are proved to be natural occurances. Also they are still finding mistranslations in the bible to this day.
.

Sorry to make any one mad but he is so right the bible is mistranslated all over the place.. sorry but its true... now im not athiest i go to church i believe and all that but really there are things in the bible i believe where once explained but are not and other things that where left out on purpose. there are holes all over things left unexplained. i have studyed the bible for the last 6 years and i have some questions that only one religion cound answer ( i wont say which on to avoid any confertations) but still if you study it hard you could find the gaps your self.
And kudos to "thelawtman" for starting a thead like this.

[Basilides]

Basilides: I'd love to find out why he thought athiesm was intellectually untenable, do tell.


Certainly. He thought so for several reasons.

One is that if there were no supernatural Creator of Nature, then Nature would either
a. Have created itself, which is nonsense
b. Have never itself had a beginning, which is a supernatural quality, which of course requires a belief in the supernatural, which an atheist isn't allowed to do
Nature requires a cause by its own rules (otherwise its rules are contradictory). The thing caused cannot itself be the cause. Thus the cause of Nature must be outside of Nature.


Also
Human beings have a law of human behavior he sometimes call the Tao and sometimes The Law of Human Nature, which tells us which instinctive morals to use in various situations. Following this is what makes us human. But oddly, we keep breaking this Law. We know how we ought to behave but do not behave that way. In fact, we break it more often than we keep it. Nothing else in the universe acts this way so consistently. If atheism is true, humans should never have an "unkeepable" Law of Human Nature to begin with, or at least the incongruity should have killed us off or forced us to accept a new law everyone can keep. But it seems to be imbedded in human nature to break laws no matter what they are. No amount of complexity can possibly account for this...it is something novel in Nature and requires a supernatural explanation. In fact the Fall is the only logical explanation.

But most unique to Lewis
is his "argument by reason" first proposed formally inthe first edition of "Miracles", corrected in a debate by the brilliant Wittgensteinian philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, and then tuned to a masterpiece as a result of Anscombe's corrections in the edition of "Miracles" we have today. It is an argument that I'd be doing grave injustice to by summarizing it, but it is quite a watertight argument against atheism, or more properly "Naturalism", which states that there is no supernature. It is pure genius, and is set forth in the chapter of "Miracles" titled "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism".

In the "argument by reason" Lewis argues that the rules of logic require any argument to be grounded, not simply "caused". In fact, if an argument is caused (such as "You only argue against atheism that because you were beaten by an atheist uncle as a child) then it is invalidated. A valid argument must have grounds. Naturalism and atheism argue that arguments and in fact all of human reason, in the long view, are all caused by natural events. Thus, no arguments or propositions or theories can be logically valid...including the theory of Naturalism itself, if Naturalism is true. If it is true, it can't be true...it refutes itself. If all events are naturally caused, no science can be true, because the validity of science stands upon human reason, and human reason stands upon the logical assumption that valid statements must be grounded in a way that is free from a determined cause. The only way this can be is if human reason was not naturally caused at all, but is supernatural in origin.

Lewis takes pages and pages to carefully take you through this argument in Miracles and takes great pains (especially after the slightly embarrassing Anscombe debate) to answer every objection.*

There are lots of other arguments against the intellectual viability of atheism, but these are the three I know Lewis used. We can discuss the others if you like.











*An interesting side note: a myth has been circulated that Lewis' argument by reason was "disproven" by Anscombe and that Lewis was so crestfallen that he never wrote about theology again but wrote only Childrens' books. This mythis widely circulated. However, some careful historians have discovered this view of events to be invented. Anscombe herself said she didn't think Lewis was crestfallen in the least. Lewis wrote numerous articles on theology over the next several years even though he had some significant life events with his marriage and the failing health of his wife, Joy Gresham Lewis. Further, he spent ten years perfecting the argument by reason to take into account Anscobe's correction (it had to do with the different types of causation) and the result is a theological materpiece. Frankly, SkepticsAreUs uses the myth of the defeated Lewis to convince people that Lewis' argument was disproven so that people don't actually read it for themselves. Clever, isn;t it?

[The half blood plinth]

Kai: of course it's full of holes (not only mistranslations but misinterpretations and major, major edits), all religous texts are and I don't think anyone can really dispute that. I think the question there is whether you follow and believe in the institution (and it's texts) or the faith (the core teachings, as oppossed to quoting no-longer-relevant verses from all over the place).
And ditto, kudos to thelawtman - I can see the threads already v. popular (lets just hope all posts are thoughtfully written).

Reepicheepfan: sorry, but that's not an essay, it's an opinion article - you arguement is biased, not balanced. And to me, society did set the standard for morals, and moral standards do, thankfully, change - that's why past religously approved "standards" like Sutti (again, scuse spelling), slavery, womens roles and commonplace racism are no longer approved of.

[The half blood plinth]

Basilides: Wow. I'm confused. I think this calls for a lunch break, and I'm gonna have to google Mere Christianity and check out that chapter. And i'd always believed that Nature had created itself, though admittedly my knowledge of the Big Bang is pretty shallow.

Anyway, toodles for now.

[Basilides]

Kai: of course it's full of holes (not only mistranslations but misinterpretations and major, major edits), all religous texts are and I don't think anyone can really dispute that.

Full of major, major edits? Really? By whom, half blood plinth? Keep your facts together. I'm into amateur papyrology and textual criticism. I'm sure the world would love to know about these major, major edits and who did them!


I think the question there is whether you follow and believe in the institution (and it's texts) or the faith (the core teachings, as oppossed to quoting no-longer-relevant verses from all over the place).

Um, according to the texts, Christianity is not an institution at all. But I do get your point.

The problem is this...if believing in Christianity is simply a matter of people believing what they want, why go to all the trouble of trying to prove the texts have meaningfully changed? I don't see anyone doing this with the Bhavagad Gita, or I Ching, or even The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. If the Scriptures are irrelevent, why should it matter if they have been edited? I would think you should try to prove they are as antiquated as possible, if you really think Christianity is just a silly irrelevent religion. You know, put as much distance between the writing and more relevant times. But no one actually does this. The reason no one does this is that Christianity has the ring of truth about it. It strikes a chord - to some, a chord of joy, to others, one of resentment. Truth tends to elicit just such a response. So, what can a good atheist do but question the authenticity of the very texts which carry this world-shaking story? I don't envy you, as there is more textual evidence for the persistence of the Scriptures than there are for most of the Greek Poets that everyone takes for granted. It is a tough job. I wouldn;t want it. I have to respect your tenacity for your cause.

And ditto, kudos to thelawtman - I can see the threads already v. popular (lets just hope all posts are thoughtfully written).

How's it going so far?

[Basilides]

Basilides: Wow. I'm confused. I think this calls for a lunch break, and I'm gonna have to google Mere Christianity and check out that chapter. And i'd always believed that Nature had created itself, though admittedly my knowledge of the Big Bang is pretty shallow.

Anyway, toodles for now.


No no. Miracles, not Mere Christianity, although in the latter you will read about Lewis' argument from the Lawof Human Nature

[kirke]

No i have not read that and don't want to. I have as little to do with Chirstanity as possible beacuse it is compleley loony and unbleivable in the least.


being that i am just a guest and reading out of personal intrest i saw this on the first page about in response to reading an article about christianity... you said in other posts (well not in exact words) that christianity if false. Is it really possible for you to say its wrong if you refuse to have anything to do with it and have no knowllege about anything involving the religion?

[kirke]

I only say learn before you say its wrong because in my school newspaper every person plays a role and every role must be played by someone. by this i mean our paper requires if anything is said about being gay there has to be a gay person on staff who says print the article; there in tern must be a straight person to say the article is ok and have it printed. In my case i am the "religiously sound person" Anything about religion that is not Catholisism or Judaism (because there are others who keep those due to their beliefs) Any article that is written about religion must go through me before it is printed as well as an atheist.

Journalism is all about facts. If you remember Tom Brokauff (sp) lost his job because he had his facts wrong one time. I must research and research anything involving with whatever is being talked about and have spent hour upon hour learning everything from Atheism-Zoroastrianism. I enjoy it because it reassures me of my faith when i learn about others.

yeah, now that you have probably stopped reading my point is i dont think it could be possible to say that any religion is wrong until you havew thoroughly studied it.

[Parthian King]

Kirke, I think thelawtman is following what Lewis himself counseled. As he says in Surprised by Joy, Chapter 14 ("Checkmate"), "Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side." And we can see Lewis, being well-read and informed on all sorts of subjects, fell prey to Christianity. It is better for people like thelawtman to remain as poorly read and closed as possible, so that his atheism can remain intact.

Kai Tetsuki, you reveal in another thread that you are a Mormon. Mormonism holds that the Bible is mistranslated and textually corrupt as a central tenet in order to justify the authority of the Book of Mormon. I challenge you or anyone to provide a single substantial incident of mistranslation (whatever that means, with all the translations we have floating around, and a great many people who can read the texts in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) or textual corruption that would cloud our understanding of Scripture. As I have stated elsewhere, classicists hold that we have, collectively, the orginal text of Homer's Iliad through the existence of only 40 copies of the same. In contrast, there are literally thousands of manuscripts of both Old and New Testament texts which enable us to sift through minor variants and get the true text. The accuracy of what the Church has had and used for centuries was confirmed through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (in particular a scroll of the entire book of Isaiah) about 50 years ago. Textual experts in ancient manuscripts who are not even religious people conclude that any determination that the biblical text is corrupt or inaccurate is an ideological and not a scientific or scholarly conclusion. In other words, people who say that say it because they want to believe it.

Unless you come up with something other than a dogmatic statement of anti-faith, I'm sorry, but the Bible isn't corrupt and is reliable. If someone chooses to pitch it out the window (like thelawtman, as a choice of faith in atheism), that's their business. But don't make assertions just because you heard some elder say so.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

No i have not read that and don't want to. I have as little to do with Chirstanity as possible beacuse it is compleley loony and unbleivable in the least.Clearly a statement by a person "with an open mind". I think you've hit it dead on, Parthian King - if one is an atheist, one cannot be too careful what one allows within one's scope of concern. There are dangers on every side.

[Charn_Tim]

I would like to just quickly point out to all you atheists here that I (and others) am currently holding a discussion/debate with Jedi of Narnia-a reknowned atheist on these forums-in the creation vs. evolution (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?p=89664#post89664) thread (in the land of the Duffers), and I would welcome any of you over to the this thread as well (and so would Jedi of Narnia) to discuss the scientific validity of the Bible-either Biologically, astrophysically, or otherwise.

My claim is this: as one with a substantial scientific background, I have come to the conclusion that modern science beautifully and exactly meshes with the Bible, modern science supports the Bible, and we as Christians have absolutely no need whatsoever to feel ashamed, embarrassed, or change the subject when people bring up "evolutionary" arguments or "modern astrophysical arguments" against the Bible. If anyone is seeking honest answers to how science correlates with the Bible (does it support or contradict), I welcome any discussion. I am not an expert, but simply a fairly knowledgeable and informed Christian scientist who would like to discuss the validity of the Bible in light of modern science using well-reasoned arguments (not opinion or unsupported assertions).

I would like to say one last thing: to those Atheists who believe that it is a choice between belief in science or belief in the Bible, I empathize with your view, as I once thought similarly-that I could either be a logical thinker and believe in the "truth of science and reason" or I could have an irrational faith in the outdated, boring, and scientifically inaccurate Bible. But I have to say that the more I learn about the Bible and the more I learn about modern science, the more my beliefs in Christianity are strengthened.

[The half blood plinth]

Okay - it looks like out of all the posters on this board, thelawtman and I are the only actual athiests, and while it's great to hear your opinions, it'd be absolutely lovely if you'd actually read and try to comprehend ours. I'm directing that mainly at Charn Tim, for thier quote "I too feel sympathetic to your view, as I once thought very much like yourselves-that science was right and the Bible is wrong-until I correctly understood science and the Bible." 1. Please read my first post. 2. I'd rather you felt empathetic, not sympathetic, as there's nothing about athiesm to be pitied and your just coming across as patronizing. 3. What do you mean by "correctly understood science and the Bible"? Is there only one way to do so?

Furthermore, and unsurprisingly, I'm sensing people feel that we're "attacking" Christianity and the Bible. I'm not - I'm trying to cover all I know of faith/religion via my (admitedly still developing) understanding of how history works. When I say Christianity as an institution I'm refering generally to the Church - which is exactly what it was for centuries in regards to it's public role in modern and fuedal states - and as for the arguments of textual corruption... well, i guess I'm thinking primarily of the gnostic gospels and the supposed 80-something gospels the vatican apparently edited out (and while i take that claim with a grain of salt I do believe much was edited to suit the writers - especially in light of it being male writers with certain agendas (though not neccessarily "sinister" agendas)).
And I'm not saying the scriptures are entirely irrelevant - I feel like your putting words in my mouth. I do think much of the bible, especially the Old testament is 2000+ years out of date (and I don't appreciate people telling me I can't approach the alter if I've got a sight deficiency or I can't talk to a man because I've got my period, all because the Bible says so) and gets heavily misinterpreted due to modern vs ancient perceptions (such as the story of the rich man's camel fitting through the "eye of the needle", which in my understanding was a small doorway in Jerusalem where you had to get off your camel to get through - as opposed to, say, a sewing needle), but I do see the revelance of Jesus' core teachings. And to the Parthian King - I'd really like to hear who these classicists and textual experts are, and while the dead sea scrolls may verify certain translations, I'd like to know what kind of bible your talking about, as in, which denomination? It seems even all the current Christian groups can't agree on the correct translation/interpretation, hence the different types of bible available...

Oh honestly. Truth be told I'm still learning much about history and religion - all I can go on is what I've learnt from a Catholic education and my first year in Uni - so of course many of you who are so much better versed in the subject can argue much better about it than I can. But (and now I know I'm a hypocrite) I really, really, really didn't want to argue about the bible - or other religious texts (the bible was foremost 'cause it's what I'm - and most of you apparently - are familiar with).

This thread was originally about athiesm - I posted because I thought maybe I could give some none athiests an idea for why some of us are athiests and how we feel about religion etc - but it seems some people are too comfortable in their preconcieved notions, so they are being narrow minded and will not try to comprehend what we're (or at least what I'm) saying. And personally, I do read widely and allow much into my "scope of concern", all of which turns me further away from following any particular religion (though I still find it a facinating study). Except Buddhism, as a way-of-life (as oppossed to as a religion or philosophy), it's quite appealing.

P.S: Basilides: how's what going so far?

[Charn_Tim]

...while it's great to hear your opinions, it'd be absolutely lovely if you'd actually read and try to comprehend ours. I'm directing that mainly at Charn Tim, for thier quote "I too feel sympathetic to your view, as I once thought very much like yourselves-that science was right and the Bible is wrong-until I correctly understood science and the Bible." 1. Please read my first post. 2. I'd rather you felt empathetic, not sympathetic, as there's nothing about athiesm to be pitied and your just coming across as patronizing. 3. What do you mean by "correctly understood science and the Bible"? Is there only one way to do so?
The half blood plinth:

Excuse me...the word "sympathetic" is rather patronizing. I apologize and I will change it to empathize right now-which is what I meant. I in no way intend to be patronizing to you or the other atheists at all. It is kind of late over here; perhaps I should have replied to this thread in the morning when my thoughts are clearer so as not to mis-speak :).

First of all, I was really not intending my post to be directed at you at all, even though I see your confusion when I said "all you atheists." Again, I should have been more precise, and said "all you atheists who believe that the Bible is flawed for scientific reasons" which I did see some of in this thread.

Secondly, by "correctly understanding science and the Bible" I mean that I have misunderstood both scientific theories and the Bible in the past. For example, I have misunderstood what the Theory of General Relativity means (until I took a graduate course on this), what Quantum Mechanics is and means (before I took upper division courses on this as well), or what the Second Law of Thermodynamics means (before I took courses in Thermal Physics), for example. By the way, I still do not "fully understand these theories" after all, the famous nobel-prize winning physicist Richard Feynman himslef said, "I think I can safely say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics." I only understand these things better now. Perhaps I should have said, "Of what I understand, the Bible and science are perfectly compatible" which does not rule out the possibility that a new discovery in science could falsify Biblical claims. I'm sorry if I sounded like I was in possession of the full truth of science and the Bible. Of course I don't mean this :).

So then, I maintain that I would love to discuss science and the Bible with anyone who is interested, just not in this thread.

[The half blood plinth]

That's cool Charn_Tim, maybe I'll pop over and see if I can contibute anything useful.

And yeah, sorry everyone if my last post sounded stupid and a little arrogant - it sounds a bit stupid to me now that I come back to read it. Like I said - I'm in first year uni, so I really know only very little and I get a bit heated up about all this because I find it very important to have people understand me (though of course I'd be very bored if people actually agreed with me). So just, ignore all the stuff I said about the bible - it's not relevant to this board.

[Charn_Tim]

...so I really know only very little and I get a bit heated up about all this because I find it very important to have people understand me
haha, I'm right there with you!! I think we could all use a little dose of humility :).

[Krissy]

At this point, I believe that it just ravels(sp?) down to whether or not you have faith. Faith for some people is easily attained which is why religion is such a strong point for them, and they have no doubt whatsoever that it is their correct path. For others, faith is something that must build apon them. There are also those who can never grasp faith. I suppose it's because their mind does not allow them, which is why for them, the idea of God sounds far-fetched, while those who believe in God, find the ideas of the Big Bang and other scientific ideas not believable at all.

[The half blood plinth]

Krissy: nicely put. I like to think I'd be in the 2nd group, but I'm probably in the 3rd.

[Jay7]

Its amazing to me why atheist think they have 'open minds' :rolleyes:

Firstly, scientific proof of a prophecie of the coming of Jesus Christ dates back to 1000 years before Jesus was born, then he did come, and was exactly as predicted, also theres other historical documents that mention Jesus and proof he did exist, not to mention 350 prophecies that have came true in the bible just recently.

Oh, just some other interesting facts i thought i'd bring up is the bible says the earth floats in space upon nothing, and that the earth is sphere.

Now a question for atheists:

Why are you willing to throw away a chance of enternal life? Its plain ignorant.

[Gibby]

What is always interesting to me is how atheists spend so much energy and time trying to convince others (and I believe themselves) that there is no God. If there truly was no God, you would think that they would be at peace with that realization and would be indifferent about those who do believe in God. But they have a passion for trying to knock others who do believe and they "faithfully" try to push their agenda of removing any suggestion of God at all from society. It takes alot of self-convincing for atheists to keep this non-belief going, considering we were all hard-wired by God Himself to worship Him.


Psalm 53:1

1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."...

[FallOfFingolfin]

What is always interesting to me is how atheists spend so much energy and time trying to convince others (and I believe themselves) that there is no God. If there truly was no God, you would think that they would be at peace with that realization and would be indifferent about those who do believe in God. But they have a passion for trying to knock others who do believe and they "faithfully" try to push their agenda of removing any suggestion of God at all from society. It takes alot of self-convincing for atheists to keep this non-belief going, considering we were all hard-wired by God Himself to worship Him.


Psalm 53:1

1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."...

Although I do agree with you for most of that, as I believe in God, I'm not sure that we do inherently believe.

If you put a human on Earth in a completely neutral and empty environment, I don't think this human will instantly sing the praises of God, or believe in him.

I think it's something that must be taught.

[Parthian King]

half blood plinth: I like you. Not that you were looking to be liked, but one can hold a discussion with someone like you.

FallofFingolfin: Thanks for your respectful remarks. I respectfully disagree, though, for a numebr of reasons. First, our situation is not theoretical, but concrete. Second, people who have worked among stone age tribes testify that these people do in fact exhibit not just the moral codes Lewis refers to in Mere Christianity, but more complex concepts regarding God, the fall of humanity and the ensuing estrangement from God, and hope for reconciliation. It is true that missionary anthropologists will have a different tack on the this than secular anthropologists. Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that missionaries have in fact tied into these concepts to evangelize such tribes. I recommend a search for Don Richardson's books Peace Child, and Eternity in Their Hearts (regarding his work in Papua New Guinea), and Bruce Olson's Bruchko (about his work among the Motilones in Colombia). Special revelation (i.e., Jesus Christ is the Son of God) indeed does have to be taught, but the concept that there is a God and that God's relationship with humanity has been sundered is waiting for these missionaries when they arrive, and they never really have to start from scratch.

[Gibby]

I agree PK.


Romans 1: 18-20

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

[inkspot]

Hey, y'all. Maybe we should start a separate thread for "Veracity of the Bible" where people could post their proof that the Bible is flawed, and people could post their proof that the Bible is documented? It seems like everyone is saying it's wrong, it's right, but there's no documentation ...

(Or maybe y'all already did that while I wasn't looking, opened another thread?)

I think Krissy's about right ... some people have faith to believe in God, and some people have faith to believe there is no God. Maybe some more atheists will jump in here with thelawtman and Plinth and shore up their side ... For an athesists only thread, there are too many of us believers buzzing around!

[Gibby]

... For an athesists only thread, there are too many of us believers buzzing around!

Yeah, you're right Ink...
We kind of invaded, uninvited. I'm outa here. Sorry, unbelievers. :o

[inkspot]

Yeah, you're right Ink...
We kind of invaded, uninvited. I'm outa here. Sorry, unbelievers.http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif
No, no, no, I didn't mean believers should decamp, I meant maybe more atheists should come and join in the discussion!

[Jay7]

Lets start with some atheists proof the Bible is flawed. :)

May i mention before any of you bring it up the bible isnt believing what you want to here, its believing what there is to here. I mean think for a second, what if it was really true? What if it isnt a stupid 'myth' or 'flawed' bible? Also with the number of proofs in the bible its a bit silly to ignore and not even study it..

[thelawtman]

Well I am looking at sites right now that there is proof the bible is flawed. One thing I can say is that Christiantiy is so special than why the Hell does is discrimnate aginst everyone. It discriminates agisnt women and gays. If peopel here can call themselves christians they why do you hate other religons? Why do we treat mormans and Muslems like trash? Its what they belive in jsut like u belive in. Christainty only takes up 30% of the worlds religon. It may be the most common but ther are alot more people out ther that arent christian than are so you guys are not all the special.

here is a site that has almost 150 contradictions in the bible

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

[inkspot]

One thing I can say is that Christiantiy is so special than why the Hell does is discrimnate aginst everyone. It discriminates agisnt women and gays.
I think you have gotten the wrong impression of us. Christianity does not discriminate against anyone. Christian people may act in ways that are discriminatory, but then so may atheist people. Were we all true to the Scriptures, there would be no discrimination whatever, for the Bible teaches all have sinned and "fall short of the glory of God." That means what I regard as my petty sins of disrespecting my neighboors or muttering curses under my breath are as atrocious to God as theft and murder. People are all alike to God: all sinners. This is what the Bible says. There is no basis for discriminating against anyone in Christianity. I am heartily sorry if some Christian has practiced discrimination against you and wounded you, thelawtman. Please accept my apology on their behalf, and please forgive.

If peopel here can call themselves christians they why do you hate other religons? Why do we treat mormans and Muslems like trash? Its what they belive in jsut like u belive in.
Again, people who are living by the Scriptures will not treat anyone like trash, and if someone has treated you or someone you love like trash, in the name of religion, then I am very sorry for it, and ask you to accept my apologies on their behalf. it is a terrible thing to have someone mistreat you in the name of God, and that is not the way of Christianity at all. I am sorry that your opinion of Christ has been jaded by the actions of some of His followers who do not live by His example. For instance, in the Scriptures you see Jesus breaking all religious taboos by befriending a woman, and a Samaritan woman. These were traditionally people despised by the Jews, so society would have demanded He have nothing to do with such a one, and especially a woman like her ... but the longest recorded private conversation of Christ in the New Testament is with this woman that other religious people would have treated like trash. That was Jesus' way, a way of love and acceptance. I am sorry you have not experienced that from His followers.

Christainty only takes up 30% of the worlds religon. It may be the most common but ther are alot more people out ther that arent christian than are so you guys are not all the special.
We are only special because God has put His hands on us. But that touch is available to anyone!

It has been pointed out to me that discussing the veracity of the Bible might actually be counter-productive to our discussion, so I will not pursue that. We both know where we stand on the issue, so that's probably just as well. :)

[kirke]

Kirke, I think thelawtman is following what Lewis himself counseled. As he says in Surprised by Joy, Chapter 14 ("Checkmate"), "Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side." And we can see Lewis, being well-read and informed on all sorts of subjects, fell prey to Christianity. It is better for people like thelawtman to remain as poorly read and closed as possible, so that his atheism can remain intact.

im sorry since im supposed to be a guest here i shouldnt be hanging around too much, but because this was addressed to me i must respond. Shouldnt you be open to changing your religion? If 1 thing in my church doesnt correspond to what the bible says i will quit being a baptist. If 1 thing in the bible is wrong i will quit being a christian. Should it not be the same for every religion? If there is something more logical should you not change? It makes no sense to make yourself ignorant and stupid just so that you can be ignorant and stupid! even if after learning about christianity or budism or hinduism you feel they are wrong (keeping in mind you learn with an open heart) it is far better than to make sure you stay away for fear that you find out you are wrong. i do not care so much that you guys convert because i know that i cant convert you. but to make sure you dont read anything that tells you that you are wrong, or that maybe something else is right is just saying "i want to be stupid and ignorant." if you learn about christianity than by all means if it seems illogical say why, you have no right to say that it is wrong if you refuse to know anything about it.

[CSLewisFan]

Yeah, you're right Ink...
We kind of invaded, uninvited. I'm outa here. Sorry, unbelievers. :o

I think it was an invitation considering this is the Christianity in Narnia section :rolleyes: :)

-Austin

[Gibby]

I think it was an invitation considering this is the Christianity in Narnia section :rolleyes: :)

-Austin

Or was it more like baiting instead of an invitation?http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Warrior-Poet51088]

here is a site that has almost 150 contradictions in the bible

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm


Uhh, dude, you just shot yourself in the foot--that list is a Christian's answer to supposed "contradictions" in the Bible, not just a list of problems in the Bible!




(Man, and here I was, chomping at the bit to get to refute these "contradictions"! Nuts!)

[Tweetsie]

My parents are Atheists. But they just don't like fantasy, so they don't care much about Narnia. I'm half Jewish, half Roman Catholic, so I can technically be neither. But I go to Episcopal chruch for choir. So I'm nothing at the moment. But I might be something later.

[Jay7]

Well I am looking at sites right now that there is proof the bible is flawed. One thing I can say is that Christiantiy is so special than why the Hell does is discrimnate aginst everyone. It discriminates agisnt women and gays. If peopel here can call themselves christians they why do you hate other religons? Why do we treat mormans and Muslems like trash? Its what they belive in jsut like u belive in. Christainty only takes up 30% of the worlds religon. It may be the most common but ther are alot more people out ther that arent christian than are so you guys are not all the special.

here is a site that has almost 150 contradictions in the bible

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

Hehe. :) Christians are actually special then other religions, i mean, theres religions where they think elephants hold the earth, and that the earth is flat! Christianity is obviously the real thing.

Oh, and sorry to spoil your beliefs, but those contradictions are not contradictions. Ive found many atheist claim are contradictions arent, if you go read the bible you'll find the passages arent even in it. For the ones that are, many of you read them wrong, an example of this is where one passage says there was two angels in the bomb, and another says one, but the other one was outside on the rock, the other two were inside, if you read the full text surounding those passages. There are also a few other little contradicitions due to translation issues, many of these have been fixed, because sometimes their arent words in english for some of the words it was originally written in. But its getting better, they are updating bibles all the time. so i suggest stop reading these stupid sites and look into it yourself, as these people are thinking for you and stating false claims and endangering your beliefs. I don't hate other religions, people who do arent real catholics, just like the muslims who spoil it for the good muslims.

Please look into things yourself, and study into things more.

[Parthian King]

Dear friend Kirke, what you said was my exact point. I was merely saying it "tongue in cheek," as was Lewis when he first wrote those words. An Atheist like Lewis, while Atheist, gloated and boasted of his superior knowledge. But he admitted that once he began to really read widely, he became a Christian. So, for Lewis, Atheism was a false intellectualism, and Christianity was the only reasonable way to approach life. He was so convinced of this that he turned things around from what people usually think: It isn't the Christian that needs to guard his faith most carefully, but rather the Atheist.

thelawtman, my tone right now is as gentle and concilitary as it could be, and I mean you no offense or harm. But it appears that your argument is with some Christians who have not been very good ones. In the end, I cannot know. But I will say that even our faith says that all will stand before God in the end, not before a bunch of religious people (thank God!). If you think we're bad guys, believe me, I understand. A lot of the time I think I'm a bad guy. But don't think God is a bad guy just because some who claim to have followed Him are bad. Take a look at Him, read some of what Lewis says about Him. If you don't like me, that's my loss. But if you reject Him because of me, that's your loss.

[Jay7]

Kai: of course it's full of holes (not only mistranslations but misinterpretations and major, major edits), all religous texts are and I don't think anyone can really dispute that. I think the question there is whether you follow and believe in the institution (and it's texts) or the faith (the core teachings, as oppossed to quoting no-longer-relevant verses from all over the place).
And ditto, kudos to thelawtman - I can see the threads already v. popular (lets just hope all posts are thoughtfully written).

Reepicheepfan: sorry, but that's not an essay, it's an opinion article - you arguement is biased, not balanced. And to me, society did set the standard for morals, and moral standards do, thankfully, change - that's why past religously approved "standards" like Sutti (again, scuse spelling), slavery, womens roles and commonplace racism are no longer approved of.

Heh.

Major edits? Not! They actually discovered one of the original copies from thousands of years ago and they were amazed at the simularities between two copies written about a thousand years apart. Plus, the people who translate the bible do not change it at all, wheres your proof of this?

and LOL. Society did not create morals. If your happy whos to say that happy is really sad? They cant, its been set so that happy is happy, happy is not a 'thing' in the universe, its not a form of matter/engery, nothing, it cannot be put into a jar! Wheres it come from? I think you know my answer to that question.

While im typing.. how did humans happen to have food around on the earth to eat? I mean, theres the earth ok, and theres food all over it, then theres little organisms that 'evolve' into species and humans, how did they evolve to be able to eat? And how did food just happen to come about for us? Its not like the organisms new that there was going to be food! And why do we have taste buds? Why do we smell things? Admit it, the whole planet has signs of intelligent design all OVER IT! And here i am laughing at the fact atheist call themselves people with open minds.

[CSLewisFan]

The title: "Countering Bible Contradictions" kind of gave it away :)

My parents are Atheists. But they just don't like fantasy, so they don't care much about Narnia. I'm half Jewish, half Roman Catholic, so I can technically be neither. But I go to Episcopal chruch for choir. So I'm nothing at the moment. But I might be something later.

I actually noticed that atheists don't seem to care for The Chronicles.

Phillip Pullman atheist and author of "His Dark Materials" trilogy.

"But Pullman said the Narnia books contained "a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice" and "not a trace" of Christian charity.

"It's not the presence of Christian doctrine I object to so much as the absence of Christian virtue," he added.

"The highest virtue - we have on the authority of the New Testament itself - is love, and yet you find not a trace of that in the books."

Pullman's acclaimed His Dark Materials trilogy tells of a battle against the church and a fight to overthrow God."

Atheist, T.M. Wagner wrote:
The finale of The Last Battle is thus breathtakingly simple to understand thematically: yes, it gets very bad here, but you'll go to a better place soon. Depending upon your own beliefs or lack thereof, that may or may not seem like wishful thinking and naive emotionalism. But people don't always look at the horrors of the world rationally, and fear is a fundamental emotion rooted in our innate survival instincts. Does religion exploit that fear? In my opinion, absolutely. But as for this story, all Lewis means to do here is give his young readers reasons to fear the big bad world around them less. While I personally admit to finding most things about all religions, not just Christianity, both morally and intellectually disagreeable, it's hard to fault the avuncular Jack Lewis for trying to shed a little light on a world we know sadly now he saw as a very, very dark place indeed.

It seems like to the atheist, the most mind-blowing thing about Narnia\Followers of Jesus, is the glorification of death.

Figure that one out...
-Austin

[The half blood plinth]

Ok - the edited version:

Jay 7: dude, believe what you want, but don't dismiss other religions out right. It's like once you have one idea in your head, you won't question it, or explore other options. It's a willed closing of the mind - to me. And not as an athiest but as a student of history and archaeology I find that appalling - I can't ... I find it plain depressing. And I can't say I'm surprised.

Look, everyone, please read my first post (it seems a lot of you haven't) where I explain why I'm an athiest - and it's not due to science or the faults with religous texts. And please try to respect my beliefs, even though they don't involve the super natural. Since this board opened I feel like many of you are far too comfortable with the notion that athiesm is a state of mind in (apparently spiteful) reaction to religion - specifically your Christianity. It's not. Like I said, I never chose to be an athiest, it's what has always made sense to me, and I don't like people acting like I'm doing this to purposefully step on toes (ok, I didn't come to make friends but I certainly didn't come to aggravate people), or .... garg, there goes my bus, lateraters.

Toodles

[Basilides]

thelawtman,

I submit to you, just for you to think about, that atheism is not so much a "conclusion" about the existence of God by thinking people such as yourself, but that it is a philosophical framework by which most atheists seek to make sense of the universe and the problems in it. If there is no God, then the issue of suffering and the issue of conscience are quietly and firmly resolved. Sort of. Besides, there is a kind of stark beauty in chaos. I remember reading a part of a poem by C.S. Lewis written when he was an atheist - before his conversion - where he looked at a sunset and saw how beautiful it was. At the time, Lewis believed the main reason it was beautiful was because it was accidental. He was revolted at the idea that a "god" had designed it, removing the nobility of pure chance from the equation.

Later, he realized that he was only creating a new kind of god, a god of chaos...and that to credit all things to Nature is to completely misunderstand Nature. Instead of looking at Nature as a kind of universal womb in which humans have been randomly and accidentally conceived - Nature as a long-lived mother while we are mere specks of organic incongruities in the cosmic scheme of things - he faced the other possibility. The possibility that Nature is not our mother at all, but a created thing...not vastly more important than us, but a beauty to be treasured and cared for by we who are immortals. We should look upon her with the kind of affection one shows for a dear friend who is terminally ill. We know that we will go on long after the last nebula has faded, but she will pass away. We should and will miss her, even with all her imperfections.

But anyway...sorry for the digression...the point is that atheism resolves some of the big dilemmas. After all, you can't blame "chance" for human suffering. I suppose you could, but that would be like blaming photosynthesis for your being hungry. There's no point. You just have to accept it. I really do understand the attraction of atheism.

But unfortunately, atheism actually raises more dilemmas than it answers. In fact, as Lewis shows, since atheism makes human reason invalid, it sort of precludes itself from being true. Even ideas like "chance" and "nature" are really meaningless unless human reason can actually give them enough valid content that they refer to something true. It is a desperate, no-win situation for atheists philosophically. The only hope of a noble athiest is that the theists won't understand the arguments well enough to present them cogently, or that they will get on the defensive when specific beliefs are attacked. Most of the time this works well for an atheist, because a theist does not have to be a thinking person, just a believing person...while atheism must by its nature produce adherents that can intellectually explain away the natural inclination of the human soul (to believe). Thus, when debates (online or elsewhere) take place, it usually involves an atheist who is trained in logic and philosophy versus a theist armed with faith. Since debates are won or lost by strength of argument, the atheist usually shines.

All this changes when the theist is familiar with the arguments and equally trained in logic and philosophy. In fact, Lewis was just such a man. Schaeffer was also one. Ravvi Zacharias is a living example. These kinds of men "clean up" in such debates. There is a reason for that, and it isn;t because they are just lucky or clever...it is because they understand the questions, they know how the answers fit those questions, and they are outfitted with the confidence that there really is something called the Truth.

If you are curious about all this, please consider reading the works by Lewis described here. A brilliant atheist friend of mine, after having been subjected to the kinds of arguments I've only touched on here (and subjected to them for years...his fault - he started it!) has told me that yes, the theistic arguments are obviously logical and valid...he just doesn't believe them. He gets less fun out of belittling Christianity these days, I think, due to the fact that he knows when one follows the arguments logically to the very end of the game, theism (and Christianity most of all, but that is something more) stands on more solid ground than atheism.

I respect him and his beliefs all the more for his honesty.

[Jay7]

Jay 7: dude, believe what you want, but don't dismiss other religions out right - that's called rascism. And I understand what your saying but I totally disagree, and anyway, I'm honestly losing all interest in posting here, this board is too full of big headedness on both sides and yes - closed minds - to achieve anything. It's like once you have one idea in your head, you won't question it, or explore other options. It's a willed closing of the mind - to me. And not as an athiest but as a student of history and archaeology I find that appalling - I can't ... I find it plain depressing. And I can't say I'm surprised.

Toodles

Hey,

Sorry if it sounded that way to you, but i was no way being racist. I was trying to state why 'us' christians believe what we believe, well me anyway, because atheist always ask "why do you believe christianity out of all the other religions?" well its because of things like i said, other religions say the earths held up by elephants, which is why i don't believe them. And, i question my faith all the time, its normal, but i just know Gods real. Yeh, that sounds stupid to an atheists, but i do know. And im skeptical, i find things ahrd to believe unless i see it for myself, which is why i research things on the bible and ive found many proofs. Im convinced, and thats pretty hard for me to be.

[Basilides]

Half blood plinth,

I'm sorry you are leaving the discussion. You have an opportunity here to show people who are on the fence on this issue how atheists comport themselves with the facts, logic, and confidence...while people who believe in God are simply grasping at metaphysical straws to make themselves feel better. Not that you will convince any of us, but surely you can show us up for what we really are!

Jay 7: dude, believe what you want, but don't dismiss other religions out right - that's called rascism.

Actually, it is called the Law of Non-Contradiction. Two contradictory assertions cannot both be true. If one religion says "God is a ficus tree in a house on NW 2nd Street in Miami", and another religion says "er...no, actually, He's not" then they cannot both be true. Each religion (or any philosophy or opinion for that matter) must decide which, if any, assertion to agree with and then dismiss the one not agreed with. Otherwise, one has no religion, philosophy, or opinion whatsoever.

An atheist, for example, must dismiss the religions that claim there is a God/god/gods, because if the atheist did not dismiss them, he would no longer be an atheist. Mind you, he can consider their arguments, but in the end he must either accept or reject them.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with a person's race.

And I understand what your saying but I totally disagree, and anyway, I'm honestly losing all interest in posting here, this board is too full of big headedness on both sides and yes - closed minds - to achieve anything.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm quite interested in hearing and considering what you have to say, for example.



It's like once you have one idea in your head, you won't question it, or explore other options. It's a willed closing of the mind - to me.

In that case, don't leave. Let's you and I be an example to the rest :)


And not as an athiest but as a student of history and archaeology I find that appalling - I can't ... I find it plain depressing.

I love history and archaeology. Maybe we can begin with a discussion of those subjects.



And I can't say I'm surprised.

Well, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that neither theists or atheists will seriously consider the merits of the arguments of the other, you should not be surprised. As a student of anthropology too, you know how ingrained worldviews can become to people. The only possible remedy is patience and empathy mingled with sound arguments.

If you mean that you are not surprised that no one, in a thread of so far only a few posts, hasn't given up their faith in God by taking your word for it that He doesn't exist...well, then your lack of surprise is eminently logical.

[FallOfFingolfin]

half blood plinth: I like you. Not that you were looking to be liked, but one can hold a discussion with someone like you.

FallofFingolfin: Thanks for your respectful remarks. I respectfully disagree, though, for a numebr of reasons. First, our situation is not theoretical, but concrete. Second, people who have worked among stone age tribes testify that these people do in fact exhibit not just the moral codes Lewis refers to in Mere Christianity, but more complex concepts regarding God, the fall of humanity and the ensuing estrangement from God, and hope for reconciliation. It is true that missionary anthropologists will have a different tack on the this than secular anthropologists. Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that missionaries have in fact tied into these concepts to evangelize such tribes. I recommend a search for Don Richardson's books Peace Child, and Eternity in Their Hearts (regarding his work in Papua New Guinea), and Bruce Olson's Bruchko (about his work among the Motilones in Colombia). Special revelation (i.e., Jesus Christ is the Son of God) indeed does have to be taught, but the concept that there is a God and that God's relationship with humanity has been sundered is waiting for these missionaries when they arrive, and they never really have to start from scratch.

While perhaps it may be part of our natural instinct to believe that there is something higher than us, I don't think it can be argued that we inherently are aware of God in the way that we (meaning the people of this forum, among others) do, in the strict sense. Either way, I don't think that "hot-wired" is the proper term to use.

[Parthian King]

Perhaps I should be more precise. I agree that we don't spontaneously praise Him (as you pointed out). But I am merely relating the experiences of others as I have read them that primitive people, in contexts as close to "neutral" (as you put it) do indeed have a concept of a personal God, a Creator, and that there is an issue with their relationship to that God. It is a sense of a greater power, but it is more than that--it is a longing for contact with that has been lost. I'm not sure I would go with "hot-wired," since that phrase could be turned to mean other things, but I'll just say what I'm saying, and let it stand at that.

But I am just passing on what others have related. Perhaps if you cheked out the books you could come to your own conclusion after reading them.

Pax.

[Jay7]

While perhaps it may be part of our natural instinct to believe that there is something higher than us, I don't think it can be argued that we inherently are aware of God in the way that we (meaning the people of this forum, among others) do, in the strict sense. Either way, I don't think that "hot-wired" is the proper term to use.

Well why do you think the universe's nature makes it appear that it has been created by intelligent design? Because it has.

Picture this, your God, creater of the universe and your watching everybody, and theres somebody like you whos saying that humans just believe theres a God because its our nature to think theres something higher, but then you think to yourself as God that what this person said is not true. you see what i mean? Just because you think that you cant base your beliefs on it, at least christianity has something to base belief on, the bible.

And whats made us gave us that natrul instinct? Haven't you ever considered that may be God so that we one day end up believing in him and being with him after death?

As an ahtiest, have you ever felt soemthing weird? Like something missing or something out there continuesly getting your attention? Sometimes i imagine being an atheist and there being nothing higher then us, but i feel that there is something out there, its unexplainable.

[FallOfFingolfin]

Well why do you think the universe's nature makes it appear that it has been created by intelligent design? Because it has.

Picture this, your God, creater of the universe and your watching everybody, and theres somebody like you whos saying that humans just believe theres a God because its our nature to think theres something higher, but then you think to yourself as God that what this person said is not true. you see what i mean? Just because you think that you cant base your beliefs on it, at least christianity has something to base belief on, the bible.

And whats made us gave us that natrul instinct? Haven't you ever considered that may be God so that we one day end up believing in him and being with him after death?

You lost me somewhere there...

[Jay7]

You lost me somewhere there...

You said God is just something humans believe is becauses its their nature to think that there is a higher being, so i was giving an example, pretend your God when reading my post, btw i edited it.

[Basilides]

My parents are Atheists. But they just don't like fantasy, so they don't care much about Narnia. I'm half Jewish, half Roman Catholic, so I can technically be neither. But I go to Episcopal chruch for choir. So I'm nothing at the moment. But I might be something later.

Tweetsie, if you ever read this message, I really have to disagree with you. Imagine, for a moment that your favorite celebrity of the opposite sex got a huge crush on you. The celebrity starts sending you flowers, writing you love songs, offering to wait for you for 30 years if that's what it takes. One day, you are held up by a very cruel man with a gun, who then points at you and shoots...but your admiring celebrity jumps in from nowhere and takes the bullet. I think you would identify yourself proudly as a friend of that celebrity.

Now imagine the exact same thing happening, except instead of a celebrity it is the Creator of the Universe. This is, in fact, what happened and is happening.

You are something, for sure.

[Jay7]

Tweetsie, if you ever read this message, I really have to disagree with you. Imagine, for a moment that your favorite celebrity of the opposite sex got a huge crush on you. The celebrity starts sending you flowers, writing you love songs, offering to wait for you for 30 years if that's what it takes. One day, you are held up by a very cruel man with a gun, who then points at you and shoots...but your admiring celebrity jumps in from nowhere and takes the bullet. I think you would identify yourself proudly as a friend of that celebrity.

Now imagine the exact same thing happening, except instead of a celebrity it is the Creator of the Universe. This is, in fact, what happened and is happening.

You are something, for sure.
Wow, that was a awesome way to put it :D

[The half blood plinth]

Half blood plinth,

I'm sorry you are leaving the discussion. You have an opportunity here to show people who are on the fence on this issue how atheists comport themselves with the facts, logic, and confidence...while people who believe in God are simply grasping at metaphysical straws to make themselves feel better. Not that you will convince any of us

Dude - that's not what I want to do at all. I admire people of faith, and I don't plan, want or even think I ever could take someones faith from them. I just want to get my viewpoint across - I expect people to disagree (actually I expected more athiest posts so I expected to read a variety of reasons for people being athiest).
I find facts are always debatable and prone to change according to one's own perspective. I'm not a student of logic, and I think a lot of people I know who are athiests have flaws in thier reasoning for athiesm.My own logic makes sense to me but again - it's a matter of perspective. And I'm certainly not confident in my athiesm - not in the way I think you think I am - I'm sure of it but not about to burst into song on the subject, proclaim it to the sky or try and convert people.

Actually, it is called the Law of Non-Contradiction. Two contradictory assertions cannot both be true. If one religion says "God is a ficus tree in a house on NW 2nd Street in Miami", and another religion says "er...no, actually, He's not" then they cannot both be true. Each religion (or any philosophy or opinion for that matter) must decide which, if any, assertion to agree with and then dismiss the one not agreed with. Otherwise, one has no religion, philosophy, or opinion whatsoever.
I dont think that's exactly right - but again, it depends on perspective. I've had - oh, how bad of me, I've forgotten if it was Hinduism or Buddhism, I think it was Hinduism - in Hinduism you can combine gods and religions - you can worship Jesus alongside Shiva if you wanted, although Christians might not recognize you as a Christian, and some Hindus would of course disagree. Maybe that doesn't work with your laws and principles, but it seems to work for those worhippers.

[An atheist, for example, must dismiss the religions that claim there is a God/god/gods, because if the atheist did not dismiss them, he would no longer be an atheist. Mind you, he can consider their arguments, but in the end he must either accept or reject them.

Okay, maybe "dismiss" was a little too ambiguous. If you mean "dismiss" as in disagree and therefore reject - then yeah, I agree you there. I think I meant "dismiss" as in to be dismissive, or disrespectful, to consider those religions worthless or to belittle them, which is how the comment seemed at first reading. I've edited that post anyway - I was jumping on the defensive and I was wrong to say it was racist, I interpreted it wrongly.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with a person's race.

Sorry, I thought racism covered discrimination of one's religion, sexual preferance, ethnicity, nationality etc. If you can find a more suitable word please share it - my vocab could do with some excercise.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm quite interested in hearing and considering what you have to say, for example. In that case, don't leave. Let's you and I be an example to the rest :)

Aw shucks. Thankyou. And ditto. I'm learning a lot from you already, And I've only been on this board for 5 minutes. I'd love to talk about hisory and archaeology - but that might lead to the whole creationism vs evolution and that's scary territory. Maybe in that other thread... if I have the energy...


Well, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that neither theists or atheists will seriously consider the merits of the arguments of the other, you should not be surprised.
Yep, Thats what I meant :)

Hmmm... I didn't do a good job at leaving, did I? These boards are too addictive.

Oh, and Jay 7: Saying that you believe in god doesn't sound stupid at all - don't think for a moment that all athiests think that. And that religion with elephants holding up a flat earth - that sounds very much like the Discworld, a satire series written by fantasy author Terry Pratchett (the most successful modern fantasy writer in the UK until Rowling came long). I have no idea what religion he follows, but he certainly promotes people to believe in something, whether its the great god Om (v. similar to Allah/God) or the Veruca Gnome. It's a great series - v. funny with an interesting philosophy - check it out.

[Jay7]

Oh, and Jay 7: Saying that you believe in god doesn't sound stupid at all - don't think for a moment that all athiests think that. And that religion with elephants holding up a flat earth - that sounds very much like the Discworld, a satire series written by fantasy author Terry Pratchett (the most successful modern fantasy writer in the UK until Rowling came long). I have no idea what religion he follows, but he certainly promotes people to believe in something, whether its the great god Om (v. similar to Allah/God) or the Veruca Gnome. It's a great series - v. funny with an interesting philosophy - check it out.

Ok thats good too know.

i might checkout discworld. ;)

[Basilides]

Dude - that's not what I want to do at all. I admire people of faith, and I don't plan, want or even think I ever could take someones faith from them. I just want to get my viewpoint across - I expect people to disagree (actually I expected more athiest posts so I expected to read a variety of reasons for people being athiest).

There are a variety of reasons. Your own reasons, as stated in your first post on this thread, are fair enough. It does indeed seem to be the case that all human societies have had some kind of belief in the supernatural to fill a void and longng in their hearts. But this is not really an argument against the existence of the supernatural. If anything, it is a fact in favor of God's existence. As Lewis said about this very issue, the fact that a man is hungry does not prove that he will get bread...but it would be odd indeed for a man to be hungry in a universe in which there was no such thing as food or eating.

If there is a nearly universal hunger for God, as your studies in anthropology clearly show, it would indeed be odd if there were not some basis for that desire.

Your example of a child who invents an imaginary friend supports my case. For a lonely child to invent an imaginary friend would make no sense if there were no such things as real friends. Humans invent imaginary gods all the time...but only to take the place of Someone Real. Christianity (and Judaism, for that matter) is less just another attempt to fill the old longing, and more of an "Oh, I see now what it was I desired all along."

Christianity did not begin because of a desire for an afterlife. The roots of Christianity, early Judaism, barely gave any hints of an afterlife. It is as if God wanted His people to love Him before they had any hope of reward. Lewis himself, as I mentioned somewhere perhaps on this thread, believed in God before he believed in an afterlife.




I find facts are always debatable and prone to change according to one's own perspective.

Actually, the facts themselves are not subject to change. It is the interpretation of those facts that leads to trouble.


I'm not a student of logic, and I think a lot of people I know who are athiests have flaws in thier reasoning for athiesm.

Just as many Christians do. The question is, is atheism itself logically flawed?

My own logic makes sense to me but again - it's a matter of perspective. And I'm certainly not confident in my athiesm - not in the way I think you think I am - I'm sure of it but not about to burst into song on the subject, proclaim it to the sky or try and convert people.

You should be more confident before calling yourself an atheist. Have you ever heard of Pascal's wager?


I dont think that's exactly right - but again, it depends on perspective. I've had - oh, how bad of me, I've forgotten if it was Hinduism or Buddhism, I think it was Hinduism - in Hinduism you can combine gods and religions - you can worship Jesus alongside Shiva if you wanted, although Christians might not recognize you as a Christian, and some Hindus would of course disagree. Maybe that doesn't work with your laws and principles, but it seems to work for those worhippers.

Ravvi Zacharias, who I mentioned before, is from India and dispels this myth that Hindus do not have an "either or" kind of logic but rather a "both and" type of logic. This argument is a favorite of comparative religion professors in schools, but it is a misunderstanding. Certainly Hindus incorporate any old god at all they wish, including Jesus, into their worship...they just ignore or reject His claims of exclusivity...which of course means they are including an imaginary Jesus rather than the real one.

When in a lunchtime deiscussion with a Professor who was explaining why Western logic didn;t apply to Hindus, and therefore "either or" doesn't apply to them, Ravvi said,

"So what you are saying is "EITHER I accept that the Hindu both/and view of logic OR I don;t know what I'm talking about."

The professor was silent for a few minutes, and then finally said, "Yes, the either/or does seem to present itself."

In India, they do look both ways before crossing a busy road. They understand that BOTH they and a bus cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

Okay, maybe "dismiss" was a little too ambiguous. If you mean "dismiss" as in disagree and therefore reject - then yeah, I agree you there. I think I meant "dismiss" as in to be dismissive, or disrespectful, to consider those religions worthless or to belittle them, which is how the comment seemed at first reading. I've edited that post anyway - I was jumping on the defensive and I was wrong to say it was racist, I interpreted it wrongly.

I agree with you

Sorry, I thought racism covered discrimination of one's religion, sexual preferance, ethnicity, nationality etc. If you can find a more suitable word please share it - my vocab could do with some excercise.

Religious bigotry is maybe what you meant. But I don't think exclusivity is bigotry...it is logic.

I'd love to talk about hisory and archaeology - but that might lead to the whole creationism vs evolution and that's scary territory. Maybe in that other thread... if I have the energy...


Tell youwhat...if you want to discuss history and archaeology with me, I won't say anything bad about evolution. I'll discuss the issues as if evolution might be true. Fair enough?


Hmmm... I didn't do a good job at leaving, did I? These boards are too addictive.

I agree. It's a great board.

[thelawtman]

Ok well this is not exaclty the way I wanted this form to go but its working out ok.

Now I can't rember who said that there were no major changes but You obvilously haven't heard of the King James Version of the bible. It was written by King james Based offf the bible but he altereted it to his liking.

The main problem that I am having is that the christians are getting so uptight about people like us that are athesists and don't like the fact that we have differnt beliefs.

The bible does discrimanate from the very beging where that girl takes the apple. From the very first moments we have though women inferior becuase they "screwed" us over. Now We know that there is no such garden because there is no place in time that there is. If we Make a time line, Which smeone has already done. We see that Humans are only 6000 years old, If that is the truth than why do we have fossils of people that are over 1,000,000 years old? Also The story of the arc has been explained and we know that there was no "great flood".

I can say all this because I was once a devoted christian and i had an open mind. I have seen both sides of the table and I fully disagree. I am a historian and I don not dispute that events in the bible never happened. The peoplewere real and we know that some of the events did happpen.

We can explain the great flood, The plagues and also the mistranslation of Moses parting the red sea. We know know that is was the Reed sea. It has become accepted by most people but Many christians will not accetp it becuase it takes away the "Theory or Miralces". There is no miracles that can not be described in more than one LOGICAL theory. If there is such thing as miracles than people would belive in witches because it is along the same line.

Now I am galde I have at least one person here that is supporting me and understands what I am saying and I am glade that I have his support.
To the other people try to look out side what the bible says and look at it Scientificly and you will see that there is other explanations.

Also please dont tell me to read theose books about finding jesues and all that crap becaue they are written by christians and are extremely bias so it does no good. I dont want to hear about peoples jurney to finding god and all that jazz becaue it only means that they were looking for some way to make their pathetic lives a bit brighter.

[Gibby]

Ok well this is not exaclty the way I wanted this form to go but its working out ok.

I have noticed that they never seem to.http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif

Now I can't rember who said that there were no major changes but You obvilously haven't heard of the King James Version of the bible. It was written by King james Based offf the bible but he altereted it to his liking.

Where did you get this?


The main problem that I am having is that the christians are getting so uptight about people like us that are athesists and don't like the fact that we have differnt beliefs.

The truth of this is that when we, as Christians, are flooded with the love of Christ in our hearts, we don't want to see anyone perish but have eternal life. This was placed in our hearts by God Himself. This love is true love and is proclaimed unapologetically. True love sometimes has to confront; not out of judgement, but out of love. Consider when you were younger and your parents requested that you come home at a specified time. At the time, it did not seem popular, perhaps ridiculous, but your parents had your best interest in mind. They were not trying to win a popularity contest with you; they just wanted you to be safe, whether you liked it or not. So much more that our Father in Heaven knows what is best for us! It is not a popularity contest. It is tough proclaiming a message that is not popular in today's culture, but Christians do it out of love.

Galatians 1:10
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

The bible does discrimanate from the very beging where that girl takes the apple. From the very first moments we have though women inferior becuase they "screwed" us over. Now We know that there is no such garden because there is no place in time that there is. If we Make a time line, Which smeone has already done. We see that Humans are only 6000 years old, If that is the truth than why do we have fossils of people that are over 1,000,000 years old? Also The story of the arc has been explained and we know that there was no "great flood".

Adam was just as much at fault as Eve. They were both given free choice, and they both knowingly and with intent, turned their backs on God and His goodness.

Maybe someone can help me here with the problems with carbon dating. I have read about it but I can't remember now.

I can say all this because I was once a devoted christian and i had an open mind. I have seen both sides of the table and I fully disagree. I am a historian and I don not dispute that events in the bible never happened. The peoplewere real and we know that some of the events did happpen.

What happened that caused you to turn your back on Christ?

We can explain the great flood, The plagues and also the mistranslation of Moses parting the red sea. We know know that is was the Reed sea. It has become accepted by most people but Many christians will not accetp it becuase it takes away the "Theory or Miralces". There is no miracles that can not be described in more than one LOGICAL theory. If there is such thing as miracles than people would belive in witches because it is along the same line.

The Red Sea is still being parted in our world today!



Also please dont tell me to read theose books about finding jesues and all that crap becaue they are written by christians and are extremely bias so it does no good. I dont want to hear about peoples jurney to finding god and all that jazz becaue it only means that they were looking for some way to make their pathetic lives a bit brighter.


I wouldn't say a little brighter, I would describe it as blinding light that fills our entire hearts with God's presence!

Don't want to hear it eh?

Matthew 13:14-15
14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&verse=13&end_verse=15&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-23555a)]

Lawtman, I appreciate your honesty in your feelings. You are closer to the truth than some of the people that go to church every Sunday! You remind me of Nathanial. Jesus revealed Himself to Nathanial and Nathanial turned to believe. He sees you under your "fig tree" right now also, Lawtman!



John 1:43-51

43The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me."


44Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. 45Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

46"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.
"Come and see," said Philip.

47When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false."

48"How do you know me?" Nathanael asked.
Jesus answered, "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you."

49Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel." 50Jesus said, "You believe[k (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-26085k)] because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that." 51He then added, "I tell you[l (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-26086l)] the truth, you[m (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-26086m)] shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

[thelawtman]

That was the biggest load of rubbish that i have read, Why the hell would some stupid words make u all happy and devote ur life to someting like that? I did at one point and looking back i can't belive i was sucked into that cult.

[Warrior-Poet51088]

Because I know that I can trust Basilides, CSLewisFan, and others to answer your post, I will only address the parts which particularly enraged me.


1. The "Sea of Reeds" is just another name for the Red Sea.

2. Adam & Eve:

Actually, if you look at it from the perspective that both knew they shouldn't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whereas Eve was simply tricked into doing so, Adam *deliberately* chose to do so (read Paradise Lost for a Romantic interpretation of it)


3. How do you propose to explain away the flood? I am particularly interested in this matter, because I wrote a paper on it 3 years ago. Which, barring the pathetic writing style, still proves that the flood occurred!

[Gibby]

That was the biggest load of rubbish that i have read, Why the hell would some stupid words make u all happy and devote ur life to someting like that? I did at one point and looking back i can't belive i was sucked into that cult.

LOL! Anyway, thelawtman, interesting thread I must say. I know this will cause some serious eye-rolling on your end, but I am going to pray for you anyway! http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Queen Swanwhite]

Like I said above. I think the bible is jsut a made up stor to explain what WAS unexplained. People that take the bible seriosuly dont relize that there are mistakes and alot of it was roughly translated. I want hard proof and evidence that someting happened. I belive in science not religion.

Hmmmm. Your're opinion is welcome, but I think you're going to get a shock when you're standing face to face with God. You're going to have to deal with the consequences and believe me, they won't be pretty.

Secondly, how do you know the bible is made up? It's not easy for Christians to tell other people about God, but like I said, face up to the consequences fo your decision.

[Makuta]

I hope that I am not too much interfering, but I wanted to express myself
on this particular subject. First, I must say that I am neither Atheist,
neither Christian, I have spiritual beliefs of my own.

Second I totally agree with some Atheists who say that Bible can be contraditory and extremly cruel and violent. The old testament alone has
rape, mass murder,tribal wars,genocides,and above all(sorry if I might insult
christians, but I really have no other words for it :( ) a arrogant, Tyrannical
God who murders anyone who dissagrees with him.

Although that does not mean that I dissagree with some criticism of Atheism comming from Christians. A lot of Atheists can be terribly dogmatic.
They think that Science is the only tool in learing about the universe, and that people who hold any other beliefs are either fools, or deluded persons.

A good example of this bogus guru stance, is the Sceptic's dictionary:http://www.skepdic.com/

The fellow claims he is a true scientific minded person, yet fails to mention
any proof that contradicts him.

I am really sorry if I have insulted anyone :( , but this is really how I think about it.

P.S sorry if my english is not that good, but I haven't practiced it in time.

[Queen Swanwhite]

a arrogant, Tyrannical
God who murders anyone who dissagrees with him.

Well, firstly God ABSOLUTELY NEVER kills anyone who disagrees with him. He died for ALL of us, aethiests and christians, muslims and buddists, everyone! If you read Matthew chp 25, you will find out why people go into heaven. God doesn't kill anyone how disagress with. Also, he is NOT arrogant! God is caring, loving. I mean HELLO! HE DIED for us! How has done that for you? GOD!

I'm getting quite annoyed now.
I'm sorry if I seem a bit mad, but God doesn't murder anyone. It's the devil who brings murder, hate, ignroance, pain and just plain sadness.
However, God brings happiness, joy, light, love and most of all eternal life! :)

[inkspot]

Your English is very good, Makuta. Welcome to the discussion. I am glad you believe there is a God, and sad that you think the I AM of the Bible is not the right one -- arrogant and murderous I think you beieve ... Let me say, in His behalf:

The Old Testament God was ruling a brutal people who had fallen from the perfection He intended for them, and His aim was to keep them alive and as uncorrupted as they could be in the state they were in. He wiped out a lot of wicked people to protect His own. What father wouldn't? He took the steps of separating Israel from other tribes involved in spurious pursuits and dengerous lifestyles in order to save a people that repeatedly forgot or denied Him ... and yet He went ahead and sent His own Son to die in their place and make a way to salvation for them and everyone else.

That is not a God I would call arrogant (although He if anyone has a right to be).

thelawtman, you have again expressed your opinion that Christians are uptight and narrow-minded, and I am sorry that you find us to be so. PK, Basilides and I have all -- I think -- tried to overcome that and invite you to an intellectual discussion ... please feel free to be part of it! (Dismissing our opinions as rubbish may not enhance the environment for free discussion ... I don't know, maybe that's just me.) :)

[Jay7]

Now I can't rember who said that there were no major changes but You obvilously haven't heard of the King James Version of the bible. It was written by King james Based offf the bible but he altereted it to his liking.

Good for him.

The main problem that I am having is that the christians are getting so uptight about people like us that are athesists and don't like the fact that we have differnt beliefs.

Not really, atheist are actually struggling to find more scientific theorys to disprove God when alot of them support his existence.

The bible does discrimanate from the very beging where that girl takes the apple. From the very first moments we have though women inferior becuase they "screwed" us over. Now We know that there is no such garden because there is no place in time that there is. If we Make a time line, Which smeone has already done. We see that Humans are only 6000 years old, If that is the truth than why do we have fossils of people that are over 1,000,000 years old? Also The story of the arc has been explained and we know that there was no "great flood".

:rolleyes: lol. Firstly, nobody knows there no such garden. Secondly, they didn't screw us over, it was symbolic that man has a sinful nature. Also, the great flood hasn't been explained that it didnt happen, where are you getting your stupid 'facts' from? There is actually evidence supporting it but i won't go into it here.

The peoplewere real and we know that some of the events did happpen.

Yep, especially the resurrection, that was a classic huh. ;)

Now I am galde I have at least one person here that is supporting me and understands what I am saying and I am glade that I have his support.
To the other people try to look out side what the bible says and look at it Scientificly and you will see that there is other explanations.

You want to look scientificly? Why didn't you say so.
Think of this, energy/matter is spining around until it gets too the point it explodes and causes the big bang, the universe continues getting bigger and randomly starts forming life :rolleyes: , and is still growing to this very second, and will end in a 'big crunch'. then start all over again, but, all patterns have a beginning, so for this universe too exist, it needed to be created from an outside source, a timeless, no beggining nor end source, sounds familiar? Yep, God.
Did i mention once i told an atheist this and the next day he comes up to me saying the bigbang never happened and that the universe is infinite?!

Also please dont tell me to read theose books about finding jesues and all that crap becaue they are written by christians and are extremely bias so it does no good. I dont want to hear about peoples jurney to finding god and all that jazz becaue it only means that they were looking for some way to make their pathetic lives a bit brighter.

I tell you what, i'd rather read about Jesus then read your post anyday.

[Jay7]

I hope that I am not too much interfering, but I wanted to express myself
on this particular subject. First, I must say that I am neither Atheist,
neither Christian, I have spiritual beliefs of my own.

Second I totally agree with some Atheists who say that Bible can be contraditory and extremly cruel and violent. The old testament alone has
rape, mass murder,tribal wars,genocides,and above all(sorry if I might insult
christians, but I really have no other words for it :( ) a arrogant, Tyrannical
God who murders anyone who dissagrees with him.

Although that does not mean that I dissagree with some criticism of Atheism comming from Christians. A lot of Atheists can be terribly dogmatic.
They think that Science is the only tool in learing about the universe, and that people who hold any other beliefs are either fools, or deluded persons.

A good example of this bogus guru stance, is the Sceptic's dictionary:http://www.skepdic.com/

The fellow claims he is a true scientific minded person, yet fails to mention
any proof that contradicts him.

I am really sorry if I have insulted anyone :( , but this is really how I think about it.

P.S sorry if my english is not that good, but I haven't practiced it in time.

Has the world really sunk this low? God help us.

read the bible for yourself and find out the meanings or study the hebrew language before reading sutpid internet lifers skeptic website.

[Makuta]

[QUOTE=Queen SwanwhiteWell, firstly God ABSOLUTELY NEVER kills anyone who disagrees with him. QUOTE]

Sorry, but I partialy dissagree with this one. I am pretty sure that the historical Joshua was kind and incredible man. But the old Testament god
is a tyrant who's personality has striking resemblance to Zeus.

I doubt that the histotical Joshua would have agreed with such a Hideous creature:

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Genocide
Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14


You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Murder of the Midianite children:
Numbers 31:1-18: "...And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded moses, and they slew all the [adult] males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones...And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses...And Moses was angry with the officers of the host And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

[Jay7]

[QUOTE=Queen SwanwhiteWell, firstly God ABSOLUTELY NEVER kills anyone who disagrees with him. QUOTE]

Sorry, but I partialy dissagree with this one. I am pretty sure that the historical Joshua was kind and incredible man. But the old Testament god
is a tyrant who's personality has striking resemblance to Zeus.

I doubt that the histotical Joshua would have agreed with such a Hideous creature:

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Genocide
Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14


You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Murder of the Midianite children:
Numbers 31:1-18: "...And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded moses, and they slew all the [adult] males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones...And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses...And Moses was angry with the officers of the host And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Read this: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html
and this: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/killergod.html
:)

and these:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/racism.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Quick question for you, Jay7 - why is murder bad? I mean, I know my reason for thinking so, but I want to know yours.

I'm not kidding, and I'm not baiting you. I'm seriously interested in your rationale.

[Jay7]

Quick question for you, Jay7 - why is murder bad? I mean, I know my reason for thinking so, but I want to know yours.

I'm not kidding, and I'm not baiting you. I'm seriously interested in your rationale.

Um, did i say murder was bad? I only think its bad if its unjust, killing for no reason. Its not good to take away someones life. But if its killing people for a bad thing such as terrorism, then i dont see why they shouldnt be killed in some way..

[Makuta]

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense :confused: How do we know that
the populations living before the "INVASIONS" were as bad as they are painted? It is a know fact in history that nations that are at war always
try to create a diabolical image of their enemy. La léyenda Négra comes to mind.And if they were so "evil"
why did god support the Hebrews who could just be as cruel? (Animal sacrifices and death by stonning dissapeared only a few hundred years later)

Not only that, but I find the idea that god would kill you if you aren't for dispicable. And yet there is still the tip of the iceberg with the death penalty for minor offences as blasphemy.

Sorry, but these laws aren't fit for the 21st century, their fit for the taliban
of Afganistan.

[Jay7]

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense :confused: How do we know that
the populations living before the "INVASIONS" were as bad as they are painted?


Well because its God word, he is God you know.

It is a know fact in history that nations that are at war always
try to create a diabolical image of their enemy. La léyenda Négra comes to mind.And if they were so "evil" hy did god support the Hebrews who could just be as cruel? (Animal sacrifices and death by stonning dissapeared only a few hundred years later)

It was an example of killing justly, not unjustly.

Not only that, but I find the idea that god would kill you if you aren't for dispicable. And yet there is still the tip of the iceberg with the death penalty for minor offences as blasphemy.

You wouldn't know the first thing about God and his reasonings. If you could do a better job at being God then go ahead.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Oh - sorry, I put the question to the wrong person. I need to read more carefully. I meant to ask Makuta or thelawtman. Same question, guys - just looking for a simple answer.

[Jay7]

Oh - sorry, I put the question to the wrong person. I need to read more carefully. I meant to ask Makuta or thelawtman. Same question, guys - just looking for a simple answer.
Thats ok. :)

[Jay7]

Just thought i'd post up some lniks:

How do I get the image of God as imposing and angry out of my mind? - http://www.gotquestions.org/God-imposing.html

Why is God so different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Testament?- http://www.gotquestions.org/God-different.html

Old Testament vs. New Testament - What are the differences?-
http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html

[inkspot]

Makuta, in the Old Testament, there was no Christ, so there was no way for God to bring the lost into His kingdom, other than the law and sacrifices specified in the Pentateuch. Clearly there was no hope for Israel to present that system as "good news" to anyone -- it was workable at best, and even the Israelites weren't able to keep it working for very long at a time. So in those times, God preserved His people with the brutal means available. It doesn't seem just to us today, but where does our idea of justice come from? I think, from God. So we can hardly judge.

When Christ came, that changed everything! There was no longer any need for God to try to protect His people from the corrupting influences around them -- there was a need for His children in Christ to go out into the corrupted world and bring them the Good News! You will not find, today, God selecting a nation for extermination, etc. You will find instead believers who take their message of salvation to the nations.

Hope that helps ...

thelawtman, I am sorry that you are so disgusted with the believers in your thread! I fear there aren't enough atheists on the site to get together and discuss why you don't believe in God. However, the discussion is going along all right -- if you weren't so angry, maybe you could enjoy it a little more. What is so distressing to you? If there is not God, why does it matter if we pray for you ...? It really is an expression of our esteem for you ...

[Makuta]

You wouldn't know the first thing about God and his reasonings. If you could do a better job at being God then go ahead.

That is ridiculous. It is common sense that if it is crime of speaking against
a figure of authority, and get killed for it, that it is a autocracy.

[Jay7]

That is ridiculous. It is common sense that if it is crime of speaking against
a figure of authority, and get killed for it, that it is a autocracy.
Read the last 3 post on page 9.

[Jay7]

Makuta, in the Old Testament, there was no Christ, so there was no way for God to bring the lost into His kingdom, other than the law and sacrifices specified in the Pentateuch. Clearly there was no hope for Israel to present that system as "good news" to anyone -- it was workable at best, and even the Israelites weren't able to keep it working for very long at a time. So in those times, God preserved His people with the brutal means available. It doesn't seem just to us today, but where does our idea of justice come from? I think, from God. So we can hardly judge.

When Christ came, that changed everything! There was no longer any need for God to try to protect His people from the corrupting influences around them -- there was a need for His children in Christ to go out into the corrupted world and bring them the Good News! You will not find, today, God selecting a nation for extermination, etc. You will find instead believers who take their message of salvation to the nations.

Hope that helps ...

thelawtman, I am sorry that you are so disgusted with the believers in your thread! I fear there aren't enough atheists on the site to get together and discuss why you don't believe in God. However, the discussion is going along all right -- if you weren't so angry, maybe you could enjoy it a little more. What is so distressing to you? If there is not God, why does it matter if we pray for you ...? It really is an expression of our esteem for you ...

Thanks i wasn't clear on why God did that before Christ came, thanks for mentioning it. :)

[CSLewisFan]

Hi Friends,

This is a great thread, but I have noticed some sly taunting and poking, that is unnecessary and seems to be building up on some people.

Being gentlemanly (and lady-like) is crucial to any successful serious discussion.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything and there is no need to reply, I would just hate to see such a super great discussion thread deteriorate to a squabble.

-Austin

[Makuta]

Read the last 3 post on page 9.

Sorry, but I wasn't speaking here about crimes such as people killing other people, I was talking about leaders justfying executions of people speaking against them, and giving perverse reasons for them.

[Gibby]

Welcome Makuta.

The stories in the Old Testament are examples of how serious sin actually is. God is awesome and holy; to even see Him face to face would result in instant death. That is how far sin has seperated us from the Holy Creator. Sin=death, period. God is Holy and a God of just judgement. Sin has the same disasterous effect today. It has the capacity to destroy the whole town just as one sin did in the OT. For example. Look at adultery. The sin of one man has the power to destroy families, reputations, feelings...the list goes on. The only effective way of dealing with the cancer of sin is to wipe it out, fast. That is what God did in the OT. What hope does mankind have against such a powerful, awesome, holy, and terrifying God? We're doomed for sure! But wait... God loved us so much that He sent His only son to die and suffer the horrible death and seperation from Him that we all deserve just so we can be back in fellowship with Him!

Psalm 8:3-5
3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,


4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him? 5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=8&verse=3&end_verse=5&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-14018a)]
and crowned him with glory and honor

God is love, and God is righteous. God is righteous love!

1 Chronicles 21:15-17


15 And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the LORD saw it and was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was destroying the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=13&chapter=21&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-10950a)] the Jebusite.

16 David looked up and saw the angel of the LORD standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell facedown. 17 David said to God, "Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I am the one who has sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? O LORD my God, let your hand fall upon me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on your people."

I bet all the angels in heaven were cheering like the home crowd at an NFL football game as the home team runs 100 yards for a touchdown when David said this!

Jesus said, I forgive you David...

[Jay7]

Welcome Makuta.

The stories in the Old Testament are examples of how serious sin actually is. God is awesome and holy; to even see Him face to face would result in instant death. That is how far sin has seperated us from the Holy Creator. Sin=death, period. God is Holy and a God of just judgement. Sin has the same disasterous effect today. It has the capacity to destroy the whole town just as one sin did in the OT. For example. Look at adultery. The sin of one man has the power to destroy families, reputations, feelings...the list goes on. The only effective way of dealing with the cancer of sin is to wipe it out, fast. That is what God did in the OT. What hope does mankind have against such a powerful, awesome, holy, and terrifying God? We're doomed for sure! But wait... God loved us so much that He sent His only son to die and suffer the horrible death and seperation from Him that we all deserve just so we can be back in fellowship with Him!

Psalm 8:3-5
3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,


4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him? 5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=8&verse=3&end_verse=5&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-14018a)]
and crowned him with glory and honor

God is love, and God is righteous. God is righteous love!

1 Chronicles 21:15-17


15 And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the LORD saw it and was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was destroying the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=13&chapter=21&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-10950a)] the Jebusite.

16 David looked up and saw the angel of the LORD standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell facedown. 17 David said to God, "Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I am the one who has sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? O LORD my God, let your hand fall upon me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on your people."

I bet all the angels in heaven were cheering like the home crowd at an NFL football game as the home team runs 100 yards for a touchdown when David said this!

Jesus said, I forgive you David...
Very well said. :) Some people assume Gods some evil guy who wants hes own way, without considering what his done for us.. :D

[Makuta]

I find the death penalty for adultery extremly harsh. Western nations might
just then copy the laws of Saudi Arabia and the islamic republic of Iran.

[inkspot]

Maybe you didn't understand my post ... those Old Testament laws are no longer valid, Christ was the fulfillment of the law. Now there is a new way for people to remain pure before God: through Jesus. All that harshness of the OT is no longer necessary.

In fact, the Apostle Paul says in Christ all things are lawful for him -- there are no more harsh rules! Jesus is the man who shamed all the people who brought an adulteress to Him for judgment. He didn't allow them to stone her! He compared their own sins to hers. Love is His law.

Please don't continue on thinking that God is harsh and wants to kill people or that Christians believe in OT law. This is not the case.

Hope this helps ...

[Basilides]

Ok well this is not exaclty the way I wanted this form to go but its working out ok.

Wow, that sounds an awful lot like my life!!

Now I can't rember who said that there were no major changes but You obvilously haven't heard of the King James Version of the bible. It was written by King james Based offf the bible but he altereted it to his liking.

That was me.

Believe it or not, I have heard of the King James bible. Although it is not my transaltion of choice, I have a few copies as well as the 1611 version on my computer. And I know a bit about how it came about. Unfortunately, someone has given you some inaccurate information. King James did not translate the version, nor did he really oversee the translation. It was kinda out of his league. He did fund it, however, and because of this the dozens of scholars who toiled over it dedicated the work to him.

If you like, I can give you the specific texts used by the King James translators in their work...texts in Hebrew and Greek. They did a pretty good job, actually, and the many earlier manuscripts and papyri that have turned up in archaeological quarters since 1611 have shown amazing - almost miraculous - correspondence to the King James texts. The differences are few and those few can be ascribed to well-known types of copyist's errors. The idea that there were a bunch of intentional changes simply does not square with the manuscript evidence (meaning the archaeological data). Let me know if you want to know more about this subject...it is a hobby of mine.

The main problem that I am having is that the christians are getting so uptight about people like us that are athesists and don't like the fact that we have differnt beliefs.

I actually quite like atheists. I get along wonderfully with them, and there are one or two I count among my sincerest friends. Let's keep that record going!

The bible does discrimanate from the very beging where that girl takes the apple. From the very first moments we have though women inferior becuase they "screwed" us over.

There is a difference between what the Bible actually teaches and what out-of-context evidence male chauvenists try to take fromt he Bible in order to terrorize women. Although Eve at the apple first, consider Adam...standing in the background letting it all play out so he could blame his wife. He was there during the whole thing, and then took a bite when he saw Eve didn;t immediately keel over. Frankly, the whole story puts Adam in a far worse light than Eve. And remember, Judaism was far more enlightened when it came to honoring women than virtually any other extant culture. Christianity went further. Jesus' first evangelist was a Samaritan woman who had five husbands and was living with a man not her husband. Paul himself said in Christ there is neither male nor female. Now, this is not to read feminism into Scripture - that would be error. But women are levevated in Christianity more than almost any other belief system.

If we Make a time line, Which smeone has already done. We see that Humans are only 6000 years old, If that is the truth than why do we have fossils of people that are over 1,000,000 years old?

Those who have made that 6000 year timeline have failed to take into account the Hebrew tradition of skipping sometimes several generations in geneologies to focus only on the most noteworthy members of the line. You cannot figure the age of the Earth from the geneologies for this reason.

And don't get me started on the unreliability of carbon dating.



Also The story of the arc has been explained and we know that there was no "great flood".

We know nothing of the sort. The same data that many scientists use to suggest a worldwide geologic ice age is identical to the kind of evidence one would find in a worldwide flood. In fact, in most cases it fits a deluge sceneario better. Massive hydrodynamic events explain things like the Grand Canyon and the incongruity in fossil layers far better than the retreat of glaciers or the subduction of tectonic layers. It is rejected simply because no one in the secular scientific community wants to be scorned.

But in any case, don;t you find it interesting that some primitive superstitious tribe in ancient times held a theory that acounted for all these geological facts we are just now beginning to understand?

I can say all this because I was once a devoted christian and i had an open mind.

But, as a Christian, did you read what scholarly Christians had to say on these subjects? Men and women such as C.S. Lewis? Was your mind open to Christianity or only to the opponents of it?


I have seen both sides of the table and I fully disagree.

It is your right to disagree and I support that right. But I'm not entirely sure you have given the Christian view a full hearing, even if you once assented to Christian beliefs. Now would be a great time.


I am a historian and I don not dispute that events in the bible never happened. The peoplewere real and we know that some of the events did happpen.

What rule of thumb do you use to differentiate between what "really did happen" and what didn't?

The plagues and also the mistranslation of Moses parting the red sea. We know know that is was the Reed sea. It has become accepted by most people but Many christians will not accetp it becuase it takes away the "Theory or Miralces".

Actually, the "reed Sea" theory has been debunked by even secular philologists long ago. A lot of peple are reading old books and putting the disproven theories on the internet as if they were "new" information.

But I wish it were the "Reed Sea", a swampy area with ankle-high water...because that would make the drowning of Pharaoh's army in it an even more amazing miracle. An Egyptian army, chariots and all, drowned in ankle deep water! Halleluia!



There is no miracles that can not be described in more than one LOGICAL theory. If there is such thing as miracles than people would belive in witches because it is along the same line.

If the Supernatural exists, miracles are eminently logical. Miracles are only illogical if you accept the presuppostion that they are impossible because no supernatural Agent exists. And Logic is fully against that presupposition.

Do you really think that the disciples were amazed tot he point of soiling their pants when they saw Jesus walking onthe water, when in reality He only knew where the stones were? That Jesus multiplied five loaves and two fish to feed 5,000 because He shamed people into sharing their lunches? That the Resurrection was a conspiracy...or that Jesus, after being crucified and pierced with a spear through His heart, was faking it? My, the lengths we must go to give "logical" explanations.



To the other people try to look out side what the bible says and look at it Scientificly and you will see that there is other explanations.

I'm afraid that it is either true or false. Science cannot help us when Jesus tells us He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man comes to the Father but by Him.

Also please dont tell me to read theose books about finding jesues and all that crap becaue they are written by christians and are extremely bias so it does no good.

You don't have to read Christian books to stand by your atheism. I just thought that since we are in a C.S. LEwis and Christianity forum, and that you started a thread on this specific forum, that it would be in order to suggest a couple of books by C.S. Lewis to you. Would that be totally unreasonable?

And, don't you think those who believe Christianity is true are best suited for explaining why it would be? Don;t look for too many atheists fairly arguing the Christian position. Their bias is in another direction. And an atheist arguing Christianity as true is a logical contradiction. If you can argue for the truth of something, and yet choose not to believe it, you are either mentally disturbed or a liar.

I dont want to hear about peoples jurney to finding god and all that jazz becaue it only means that they were looking for some way to make their pathetic lives a bit brighter.

There is nothing wrong with turning the light on if you are stumbling around in the dark. Leaving the light off would be far more pathetic.

[thelawtman]

It is people like you why i am MAKING THIS MY LAST POST. it will be usless to try and talk to me though here because I am not cheking it again. SO have fun living in ur shell of a world that you call christianty.

[Basilides]

I'm thinking you misunderstood something I said. I did not intend to be offensive in any way. Let me know what bothered you and I'll try to make amends.

[Jay7]

It is people like you why i am MAKING THIS MY LAST POST. it will be usless to try and talk to me though here because I am not cheking it again. SO have fun living in ur shell of a world that you call christianty.
He said nothing wrong at all tlm.. no offence but for somebody whos suppossed to have an open mind you sure dont listen. Why are you so protective over atheism anyway? Its not a good belief..

[Astral]

"He said nothing wrong at all tlm.. no offence but for somebody whos suppossed to have an open mind you sure dont listen. Why are you so protective over atheism anyway? Its not a good belief.."

Hrm. I read the first two pages, then this one, because in essence I'm a lazy butt and don't care to read through pages of what's sure to be marvelous theological debate. I'm trying to figure out how we got from 'keep an open mind' to 'I'm leaving because your belief sucks.'

And then I'm trying to figure out why the first person to call thelawman on this obviously doesn't have an open mind either. Atheism, Christianity, whatever, everything is a 'good belief' to me. Whatever floats your boat. Why spend time arguing about who is right and who is wrong when you will never agree?

...Okay, okay, because it's fun, I admit it, fine fine fine. I suppose my beliefs about everything are rather muddily clear - I don't know if I believe in God, organized religion or any other theological device you can think of, but I do know what I believe about general morality. I figure, what's the use worrying that there's someone watching my every move, or that there isn't someone looking out for me? If I just live morally as best I can, who can ask more?

I am all for atheism, if you're okay with finding inspiration elsewhere. I'm all for Christianity, if you don't find the need to jack my mouth open and shove it down my throat. I'm essentially for anything that doesn't make you a heartless bastard. ^_^

[Gibby]

I bet he keeps checking this thread. What do you guys think?

[hanguk859]

Amen, and I also think that it's good to argue for your faith, or else you end up not caring ;) wink wink, no offense intended tho, only a pun...

[Basilides]

I hope so, because then he may see this:

Reading carefully over my post, I see one thing that might be misunderstood...

And an atheist arguing Christianity as true is a logical contradiction. If you can argue for the truth of something, and yet choose not to believe it, you are either mentally disturbed or a liar.

I meant "you" in a generic sense. I meant that a person who wasn't Christian presenting Christian beliefs would be out of court, and since tlm won't consider arguments about Christianity from Christians, he would have no one left to listen to but such an either deceptive or unbalanced person (who would seriously argue for something they don't believe?). But he may have misinterpreted the "you" as referring to himself.

Besides this, I also saw a horrible amount of typos. I'm afraid to edit them now, since I don't want it to seem I am changing something offensive I may have said.

Ah well. If he won't forgive me, I guess I've lost out on a good conversation with someone who believes differently than me. :(

Astral, will you come and play?

[Queen Swanwhite]

[QUOTE=Queen SwanwhiteWell, firstly God ABSOLUTELY NEVER kills anyone who disagrees with him. QUOTE]

Sorry, but I partialy dissagree with this one. I am pretty sure that the historical Joshua was kind and incredible man. But the old Testament god
is a tyrant who's personality has striking resemblance to Zeus.

I doubt that the histotical Joshua would have agreed with such a Hideous creature:

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Genocide
Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14


You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Murder of the Midianite children:
Numbers 31:1-18: "...And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded moses, and they slew all the [adult] males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones...And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses...And Moses was angry with the officers of the host And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

I disagree. God is not a tyrant. He cares about us. He wasn't brutal. How would you think about all the GOOD things he has done. He doesn't kill. He isn't evil. If you call him a tyrant (which he isn't) he's bad. God isn't bad. Please, God is absolutley the most kindhearted, loving and he loves us with UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. He loves you, you know.

You're being quite stubborn. Do you see ANY good things in God. Why would he do all of these bad things, then die for us?

I'll keep you in my prayers :)

[hanguk859]

Quite a pity, we seem to be losing a lot of atheists that way these days... :(
will anyone else answer the call? (Atheists I mean) :)

[Jay7]

Ring ring, ring ring :P

Maybe one day lol.

[inkspot]

Atheism, Christianity, whatever, everything is a 'good belief' to me. Whatever floats your boat. Why spend time arguing about who is right and who is wrong when you will never agree?
I wouldn't say we were arguing ... it's more of a discussion. One reason Christians want to tell others about the faith is that we believe your personal future depends on the decision you make in this lifetime about Jesus. But the other reason is: belief on Christ in this lifetime enhances your life with many good things.

If you do read through this Thread, I think you will see (and I am assuming thelawtman is gone and won't read this) that although some believers come across as smug or arrogant, in general we are caring/peaceful lot -- and thelawtman almost every post came across as angry and well, hurting. It's in my nature as a Christ follower to allow Christ to live his llife through me, and when He sees that hurt in thelawtman, He instinctively wants to reach out and comfort him. So, with my two cents on the faith, I was hoping to let thelawtman see that there is Someone who cares and can change his whole outlook and life, for the better, in a dramatic, positive way.

(I didn't say this outright in the Thread, because in a previous Thread, thelawtman got really angry when I suggested that God might change his heart.)

I'm not someone who gets passionate about your stepping on my toes because you say there's no God, but I do get passionate about showing Christ to you. I hope that's what I was doing in this debate ...

I figure, what's the use worrying that there's someone watching my every move, or that there isn't someone looking out for me? If I just live morally as best I can, who can ask more?
The Christian faith says you aren't saved by living morally as best you can, but by belief on Jesus Christ. So living morally really ha nothing to do with whether your llife will be empowered by Christ on this earth. If you're curious about this, I suggest "What's So Amazing About Grace?" by Phillip Yancey as a great starting point for a study of the one thing that makes Christianity different from all other religions. It's grace -- the idea that you need do nothing to "earn" your salvation from Christ, but merely accept the gift He has already given. It's really very cool.

[Jay7]

The Christian faith says you aren't saved by living morally as best you can, but by belief on Jesus Christ. So living morally really ha nothing to do with whether your llife will be empowered by Christ on this earth. If you're curious about this, I suggest "What's So Amazing About Grace?" by Phillip Yancey as a great starting point for a study of the one thing that makes Christianity different from all other religions. It's grace -- the idea that you need do nothing to "earn" your salvation from Christ, but merely accept the gift He has already given. It's really very cool.

Yeah, and the fact that God doesnt sit there waiting for us to sin, and ponit out every little thing we do wrong, i read that in the bible somewhere. :)

[Malchristian]

2) Becuase there is proof of the natural. That would be like saying that humans are the only life in the universe. It is not possible there are billions of stars and plants and to say that only ONE has life on it is unbelivable.
Actually, there is proof of the supernatural. How would this world have been created without intelligent design? Creationist scientests have prove evolution loonies wrong time and time again. How could the earth be created from a blast? It doesn't make any sense at all. After a blast, how would stray pieces of matter formed the earth? Like us, how would we be decendents of fish and monkeys? We would probably just sit here picking ticks out of our armpits. It just can't happen! And anyways, how would trees get started. An alien came down here and planted one? No. Check this song out.


May I have your repentance please?
May I have your repentance please?
Will you tell Him "Save me" and please stand up?
I repeat ... will you tell Him "Save me" and please stand up?
We're gonna have to prod them here
Y'all act like you never seen a nice person before
You oughta hope in the Lord
Your panting tongue is just thirstin' for more
You started lookin' around searchin' cause you're
Uncertain you're sure you know where you're goin' eternally
If you return to God ... ah, wait, no, wait, we're sinning
We couldn't get saved with the things we did, can we?
And Dr. J. says -- nothing you did is such a grave sin
It costs you salvation
Ha Ha — Heavenly livin's above every man
"Chick-a-chick-a-chick-a he's crazy!
I'm sick of them ‘born agains'
Walkin' around askin' if you know God — speakin' of You Know Who
Yeah, but there's no proof though"
Yeah, probably got a couple of you who think I lack proof
But no worse than what's goin' on in America's classrooms
Sometimes I wanna get on TV and just spread the truth
But can't -- but the school can tell me we come from evolution
"My mama was a fish -- my mama was a fish"
"And if we're monkeys you might as well forget original sin!"
And that's the message that we deliver to little kids
And expect them not to question on their own if God exists
Of course they're gonna wonder if the Lord's fake
By the time they hit fourth grade
They got the Easter Bunny and Santa don't they?
We ain't shinin' examples
Well some of the scandals are caused by people posin' as evangelists
But if Jesus loved His enemies and Pharisees
Then there's no reason that you can't get another chance and believe
But if you feel a slight chill -- I got the anti-freeze
This is not a fantasy -- it's important and it's free
I've sinned greatly, but Christ's for real, baby

[Jay7]

Exactly, nice song btw lol

And if evolution is true which its not, how did the organisms evolve to be able to eat? I mean, how did organisms know there'll be food? How did the evolve mouths without knowing theres such thing as food, evolution is plain stupid.

Also if we evolved from apes, howcome no other apes are evolving

[Malchristian]

They would probably turn inside out and explode :p

[Jay7]

They would probably turn inside out and explode :p
Ah, of coarse, big bangs solve the biggest life mysterys! :D

[Malchristian]

So true, so true.

[Jay7]

Oh, who built your house?
I did, just got a load of TNT and bang! a House!

[Malchristian]

LOL :D :D

Is dat how you got your dog, too?
Yeah.
I gotta' try that.

[Jay7]

Nahhhh, my dog evolved from a fish.

[Malchristian]

Can I see its fins?

[Jay7]

Um, they fell off over a period of a billion years! Dont know how, maybe a big bang did it! yeah!! :D thats it! go me! im a scientest!!

[Smog]

lol, maybe you two should cut it out a bit, while I think what you're saying is funny, it is also offensive to others who hold to the evolutionary theory...

[Jay7]

Sorry, ill laugh at my own jokes in my head :D ill try not to let them public. :P

[Charn_Tim]

Since modern science has gotten everything completely wrong, you can undoubtedly become a nobel prize winner and enjoy worldwide fame by disproving all of their theories. Go ahead, the best universities in the world are just dying for you to do your research there and give them unprecedented worldwide fame.

[Jay7]

I'll do that. :D

The bible said the universe was expanding before science even knew, same goes for water cycle, shape of the earth, etc.

I'd be quite happy to put in my research and recieve my noble prize. :D

[Charn_Tim]

The bible said the universe was expanding before science even knew, same goes for water cycle, shape of the earth, etc.
That's true-you do have isolated verses in Isaiah, Job, and the Psalms in particular which address all three of these things. However, the claims made are not specific enough to make any accurate predictions-and hence it is not science. (Please feel free to quote some scriptures if you think I'm wrong about this). However, the fact that the Bible remains consistent with modern science in these and many other ways is in fact one of our greatest defenses for the validity of the Bible.

However, we should not be afraid to re-evaluate our interpretation of the scriptures in light of scientific discoveries. This is what the 17th century church, for example, did not do when they had Galileo excommunicated for proposing a heliocentric model of the solar system. When we read too much into the text and we wed ourselves too greatly to a specific interpretation of what the Bible tells us about nature when we do not have valid contextual justification for doing so, we become like the 17th century Church and it is a great embarrassment for those of us trying to make a rational defense of the gospel to an unbelieving world.

[.::Briar-Of-Narnia::.]

I have never believed in any god. It's a ridiculous idea that some man could make two people who interbred and make the whole human civilisation. Religion is something to fall back upon when no answers could be found. The Bible is just the ficticious works of this so called "jesus" who was just some crazy old man desperate for some fame and fortune. rumours spread and lies become "truth". TO believe a man named moses split a whole sea and that a man named jesus resurected himself is ridiculous. Its been medically proven this cannot happen over such a period of time.
I believe in evolution. Look at those chimpanzees theyre so close to human its not even funny.
Religion has a history of taking responsibilty for all good things that happen but once a natural disaster occurs, jesus has absolutely nothign to do with it. As for the 10 commandment theyre just common sense. Thou shoult not kill. Come on people, pretty **** simple common sense.
But given the bad rep I'm giving religion i respect all people's choices and the only time i dont like it is when people try to force christianity upon me. And I know that for some people, faith in "god" is all they have and they need it so i am not here to snatch that from underneath anyone's nose.
The previous is all just my opinion and i dont mean to offend anyone and im sorry if i did. Be good to eahtoher.
Love,
Briar. :)

[Jay7]

Haha.

Ill be back tomorrow, and ill give you evdiences and reasons why everything said in your above post is incorrect. :)

Bye!

[Charn_Tim]

I have never believed in any god. It's a ridiculous idea that some man could make two people who interbred and make the whole human civilisation. Religion is something to fall back upon when no answers could be found. The Bible is just the ficticious works of this so called "jesus" who was just some crazy old man desperate for some fame and fortune. rumours spread and lies become "truth". TO believe a man named moses split a whole sea and that a man named jesus resurected himself is ridiculous. Its been medically proven this cannot happen over such a period of time.
I believe in evolution. Look at those chimpanzees theyre so close to human its not even funny.
Religion has a history of taking responsibilty for all good things that happen but once a natural disaster occurs, jesus has absolutely nothign to do with it. As for the 10 commandment theyre just common sense. Thou shoult not kill. Come on people, pretty **** simple common sense.
But given the bad rep I'm giving religion i respect all people's choices and the only time i dont like it is when people try to force christianity upon me. And I know that for some people, faith in "god" is all they have and they need it so i am not here to snatch that from underneath anyone's nose.
The previous is all just my opinion and i dont mean to offend anyone and im sorry if i did. Be good to eahtoher.
Love,
Briar. :)
Thanks for stating your opinions, and welcome to the site :).

I am about to go to bed right now, but please check back tomorrow, and I'm sure that you will have plenty of responses then, including my own. If both sides can keep an open mind and refrain from attacking the other's position, I propose we discuss some of these issues that you have presented regarding religion in general and christianity in particular. I hope both sides can maintain a peaceable, humble attitude through this, and not mock the other's opinions or beliefs, or this thread will undoubtedly close down, and we won't accomplish anything...

[inkspot]

Welcome to the discussion, Briar! You raise some of the same points that thelawtman and others have raised.

It's a ridiculous idea that some man could make two people who interbred and make the whole human civilisation.
That is ridiculous! A man could never do that! But why couldn't God do it? Have you ever considered what a being with limitless power and limitless love could do? If such a being existed, then I believe He could create people and anything else He wanted to create. A man could not do it, I agree with you. But could God do it?

Religion is something to fall back upon when no answers could be found.
Again, I totally agree with you! When you come to the end of your human striving, what else can there be, but God? Psychologists will tell you: no one changes until the pain of change is less than the pain or remaining the same. It's so with Jesus: no one turns to Him until they have exhausted all their own options. That's human nature. But does that make Christ any less real, or the relief He gives any less vital? In my own life, no, it did not. I can only speak for myself and rely on the witness of others who walked this path.

The Bible is just the ficticious works of this so called "jesus" who was just some crazy old man desperate for some fame and fortune. rumours spread and lies become "truth".
This could very well be, and Jesus must have been crazy indeed to let His desire for fame and fortune land Him a Roman style execution! He didn't receive any fortune at all, and His fame did Him no good. But have you read His teachings? They are really a beautiful description of how human life on earth could be perfect if we all followed them religiously ... that is pretty good for a crazy man, I think. In fact, His words are so wise, and so full of love, I find it difficult to believe he was so crazy. What do you think? I advise you to read His words, and read Philip Yancey's "The Jesus I Never Knew" and just examine for yourself what Jesus taught, then decide if he was, indeed, crazy. The Message Bible and the Gospel of John would be a good place to start, too.

TO believe a man named moses split a whole sea and that a man named jesus resurected himself is ridiculous. Its been medically proven this cannot happen over such a period of time.
Again I agree with you, such things are physically impossible. That's why it's so cool if they did happen, because they are MIRACLES. You won't find an explanation for them in science, because they are supernatural, if indeed they did occur. Wouldn't that be something?!

I believe in evolution. Look at those chimpanzees theyre so close to human its not even funny.
I suggest a read through the creation vs. evolution thread here in the Land of Duffers forum for the scientific facts about evolution. There is no logical reason to believe it is possible, and since you are fond of saying what is possible and not possible, before you place your faith in evolution, you owe it to yourself to get the truth about it. I will not tackle it here because it has been thoroughly gone over in the other thread.

Religion has a history of taking responsibilty for all good things that happen but once a natural disaster occurs, jesus has absolutely nothign to do with it.
Hmmm ... I am not so sure about this. Have you ever heard disaster survivors praising God that they made it out? People find Jesus everywhere, maybe more than ever in the midst of a disaster.

As for the 10 commandment theyre just common sense. Thou shoult not kill. Come on people, pretty **** simple common sense.
Again I agree with you, and so did the Apostle Paul. He said people who have never even heard of Jesus or God still have the law written on their hearts! And he was a very religious man. But still I wonder sometimes: If the commandments are indeed common sense, why are the prisons full, and what caused the holocaust? Wonder why it is safer today in Fallujah that in Washington DC?

What do you make of all this, Briar? I am curious ...

[Jay7]

I have never believed in any god. It's a ridiculous idea that some man could make two people who interbred and make the whole human civilisation. Religion is something to fall back upon when no answers could be found.

Nah, evolution is what you fall back on when theres no answers to be found. Maybe even a big bang! as demonstrated by me and the house! (other thread)

The Bible is just the ficticious works of this so called "jesus" who was just some crazy old man desperate for some fame and fortune. rumours spread and lies become "truth".

LOL, hold on, need to stop laughing.. ok there we go. Anyway, he died at the age 33, not an old man hey. ;) He wasnt rich, and they were not rumours, read into it more, get some books, research, and you'll find evidence for it.

TO believe a man named moses split a whole sea and that a man named jesus resurected himself is ridiculous. Its been medically proven this cannot happen over such a period of time.

LOL, your forgetting we are talking about involvment with God here. If God wants to ressurect his son, can he do it? of coarse.

I believe in evolution. Look at those chimpanzees theyre so close to human its not even funny.

I find that offensive your comparing me to those things, i mean, they may have a head, i may like bannanas, but im not that hairy am i. :rolleyes: :D


Religion has a history of taking responsibilty for all good things that happen but once a natural disaster occurs, jesus has absolutely nothign to do with it. As for the 10 commandment theyre just common sense. Thou shoult not kill. Come on people, pretty **** simple common sense.

Miracles, ever heard of em. Yeah it is common sence, but in saying that, do you think i shouldn't believe or follow the law because they say not to kill? No!

Btw, read all of these:

http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/who.php
http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php
http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/foretold.php
http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/came_back.php
http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/why.php

Once your done, come back and reply, if they dont satisfy you, ill give you about... hmm... 50 more to read? :D

[Gryphon]

Ok well here on this site we have all theses threads for Christians so I thought us non belives and people with open minds need a thread so here it is.

HAHAHAHA, im sorry, you cant stand to listen to us talk about God and you call yourself "open minded"

[Smog]

The problem with most "open minded" people is that they are only open to ideas that fit their preconceived presuppositions. Once something is said that does not fit their ideas about the world, it is safely swept away and marked as "religious mumbo-jumbo." Many people who claim "religious types" as narrow minded, are in fact themselves just as narrow minded in their beliefs.

[Charn_Tim]

Inkspot, great job of responding in love to the arguments by Briar, and offering reasons of your own to back up your beliefs. :) I fully agree with you and would like to see Briar respond to your thread, if she could...

I'm not sure why other Christians would come on this thread and start belittling the atheists and "laughing" at them. How is belittling them and throwing your opinions back into their face going to help anything? We should use inkspot's approach and try to reason with them and present the gospel to them as best we can, not make fun of their beliefs and belittle their intellect. If they don't come around, then fine, that's between them and the Lord. God only calls us to do our job and "sew the seeds"-we leave the convincing/saving up to Him.

[iheartsk]

ok a question for thelawtman: why did you make this thread its got nofing to do with narnia!!!!and why are you talking about ur religion and wat u believe in??? i think its strange i mean people havefree will and they can beleive watever they want to believe thats the beauty of iit dont u think and dont u think that this thread kinda ruins the whole narnia thing and i personally think that it is unfair to all the people who is a christian on this thread that they have to read things like you said the bible is a made up story or christianity is loony and unbelieveble in the least i mean do u have to say that or could you go without im pretty sure the people who r christians would rather do without!!!!! its like moking the people who r christians and i personally dislike it but i dont know about others but thats all im gonna say!!!!

[Jay7]

Inkspot, great job of responding in love to the arguments by Briar, and offering reasons of your own to back up your beliefs. :) I fully agree with you and would like to see Briar respond to your thread, if she could...

I'm not sure why other Christians would come on this thread and start belittling the atheists and "laughing" at them. How is belittling them and throwing your opinions back into their face going to help anything? We should use inkspot's approach and try to reason with them and present the gospel to them as best we can, not make fun of their beliefs and belittle their intellect. If they don't come around, then fine, that's between them and the Lord. God only calls us to do our job and "sew the seeds"-we leave the convincing/saving up to Him.
Just a sence of humour. ;) I like brightening the thread up a bit, alot of people in it get a bit depressing.

[Charn_Tim]

Just a sence of humour. ;) I like brightening the thread up a bit, alot of people in it get a bit depressing.
Can you please not do so in a way that pokes fun of other people's beliefs? On a certain level humor is good, but when it makes fun of other people's beliefs (whether they are right or wrong), it helps no one and is a detrament to their chances of accepting your views.

[Jay7]

Ok man, but you taking it a bit seriously, i mean, im sure he wont be offended by me saying things about apes and me liking bannanas. If you dont like the way im responding then ignore me, but ill continue responding in the way i like, im not changing.

[Charn_Tim]

Ok man, but you taking it a bit seriously, i mean, im sure he wont be offended by me saying things about apes and me liking bannanas. If you dont like the way im responding then ignore me, but ill continue responding in the way i like, im not changing.
Well if the atheists start getting angry and leaving again, don't blame me...

[Jay7]

Well if the atheists start getting angry and leaving again, don't blame me...

I wont. :) Maybe ill just start calling myself an ape, what do ya think? :p

[iheartsk]

i havent heard from thelawtman yet maybe he cant answer those questions cause he knows he is in the wrong talking about beliefs in a site like this

[iheartsk]

yeah that would be real funny but so true....... the truth hurts

just kidding!!!!!!!!!!

anyways this thread will so get locked and then just like someone said we have accomplished nothing!!!!!!!!

[Iamnotjustdreaming]

iheartsk, this particular section is basically a section dedicated to religion and religion in it's correlation with C.S. Lewis' works. There are also a few threads about religion in the off topic (land of duffers) forum (also there were some formerly in the main chronicles of narnia forum). This thread most likely won't be locked unless the debate gets out of hand and people start taking the debate out iof hand

malchristian, if you are reading this...

That song brought back memories. I used to love Apologetix. I am glad I have found someone else who has heard of them. Good lyrics :).

[THEWHITEWITCH14]

Ok well here on this site we have all theses threads for Christians so I thought us non belives and people with open minds need a thread so here it is. What I want to know is why did you come a Athesist and why do u think religon is fake OR whatever.

Like I have said in other areas I think religoin in jsut a explantaion for what was once unexplained. People did not know how to explain things so they made up religons and other ideas.
when C.S.Leiws did the books to imply JESUS comeing to save the world and he did a very good job of it too

[inkspot]

OK, let me tie up some loose ends.

Why thelawtman made this thread:
Because there are a lot of Christian threads, and he wanted an atheist one, which is a goood reason, and I am glad he did. I think this forum is fun because we have a lot of different viewpoints, and we can meander away from strictly talking about Narnia and explore other intellectual/philosophical topics. I see no problem with that. If this doesn't particularly interest you, you can always click away to another thread.

Why we shouldn't laugh at others' beliefs:
If you are a Christ follower, that means you follow the example left you by Christ. Did you ever hear him poking fun at someone else's beliefs, or belittling anyone who came to him seeking to understand his point of view? The worst sinners were the ones he treated with the gentlest love and respect. I can see why some atheists get the idea that Christians are smug and/or arrogant if we answer their statements with "I am laughing at that idea it's so ignorant!" If they responded to me that way, I would feel hurt, too.

And of course, if you are sincerely seeking to share your faith, you must consider where the person you're sharing with is, intellectually and philosophically. You cannot convince an atheist God is real by saying "It's in the Bible," cuz he probably doesn't believe the Bible is real, see? of course, none of us here can convince anyone God is real, it is God's Spirit which does that work. But Jesus can use you to be part of the process, if you are sincerely seeking to allow His life to be expressed in yours. Above all, whatever you say, say it with God's love:

If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don't love, I'm nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate. If I speak God's Word with power, revealing all his mysteries and making everything plain as day, and if I have faith that says to a mountain, "Jump," and it jumps, but I don't love, I'm nothing.
1 Corinthians 13:1-2, The Message

You cannot serve God with your eloquence if you do it in a mean, sniping and derogatory way. Without love, your good arguments become the creaking of a rusty grate ...

[Gryphon]

The problem with most "open minded" people is that they are only open to ideas that fit their preconceived presuppositions. Once something is said that does not fit their ideas about the world, it is safely swept away and marked as "religious mumbo-jumbo." Many people who claim "religious types" as narrow minded, are in fact themselves just as narrow minded in their beliefs.
wow, that was really good, and really true, how did you DO that? Can i quote you?

[Basilides]

Philosophically serious atheists need a good reason to believe before they will seriously consider the possibility God exists. Even if you are not trained in Logic and philosophy as Lewis was, you can point them in the right direction. But the terrible mistake many Christians make is to tell atheists they must "give up" their reason and rely on "Blind faith", which of course is exactly what the atheist presupposed any Christian would say. But many times the Christian says this because he/she simply does not intend to or have the ability to follow the atheist's logic to the end. It isn't the fault of Christianity that Christians do this. Christ accepts people apart from their philosophical education and then starts training them how to live by faith and not by sight. It is no wonder that many Christians see Reason itself as the atheist's biggest problem.

But Christians should not do this for the very good reason that Reason isn't an obstacle to faith at all. If followed to the end, Reason leads to a recognition that of all theories only Supernaturalism is tenable. Atheists should be encouraged to read more, not less. And most of all, atheists should be encouraged to read things they really enjoy, especially poetry or fiction, because sooner or later they will have to square the reality of this enjoyment with their belief that the enjoyment is merely a quirky blend of chemical stimuli. In other words, they have to believe it isn't actually real (or they will have to believe this if they think about it clearly and for long enough). So if they keep reading what they enjoy but don't believe the enjoyment means anything important objectively, they are going to have an item of Truth (the real enjoyment) constantly chipping away at their faulty Reasoning until the whole thing is hanging by a thread.

And this is when an atheist must be very careful not to read what intellectual Christians such as Lewis have got to say, because one logical argument will be enough to send the whole load of faulty reasoning over the edge of the precipice (where it belongs).

The best approach is to encourage the atheist to keep thinking, keep expanding his field of authors, keep practising his logic and honing his knowledge of philosophy, but most of all...keep reading what he enjoys. If the fellow (or lady) is diligent in these pursuits, God will find him out.

If he asks why you do not do the same, you can say something along the lines that you are spoiled now, that it is hard to go back to chef Boyardee when you have been feasting at Emiril's house for so long. And that's a pretty close analogy.

[inkspot]

Emeril? The celebrity chef? Let's spell it ... Emeril. Love his recipes.

[darkestlight88]

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but, since the majority of the world wants to rid itself of Christianity, I just have to ask....WHY?! What did Christians ever do to the world? We're peaceful. :cool: And since a lot of people ask Christians to prove there IS a God, I want to ask any athiest to PROVE there isn't one. Hard, eh? May I point something out about evolution vs. the Bible?

God told of the Tower of Babble, that it was destroyed because man wanted to reach Heaven, thus creating different languages. What's the athiest theory of language if you believe humans came from monkeys? I have more questions as well. And just a reminder, I'm finally coming out of my shell about religion and I don't mean to offend anyone. I just have a lot of curiosity about Atheism.

~*~Amanda~*~

[Warrior-Poet51088]

May I point something out about evolution vs. the Bible?

God told of the Tower of Babble, that it was destroyed because man wanted to reach Heaven, thus creating different languages. What's the athiest theory of language if you believe humans came from monkeys?



Uh, I'm a Christian, but I believe the Atheistic answer to that question should be painfully obvious, even to one who belives in God:


Language evolved, as a means of communication. Simple gestures and grunts started the process, and, over time, these become more uniform until people from different villages could communicate. Eventually, regional dialects and specific languages started popping up, and then someone (the Egyptians, maybe?) were the first to write down sounds (lol, like in 13th Warrior!).

[chuam8919]

Uh, I'm a Christian, but I believe the Atheistic answer to that question should be painfully obvious, even to one who belives in God:


Language evolved, as a means of communication. Simple gestures and grunts started the process, and, over time, these become more uniform until people from different villages could communicate. Eventually, regional dialects and specific languages started popping up, and then someone (the Egyptians, maybe?) were the first to write down sounds (lol, like in 13th Warrior!).Above this all, I would say the best question to ask them is: explain all the miracles in the Bible. How come they still happen today?

Now, I know some may question me about this, asking why I say miracles still happen today amidst all that has been happening in the world. Because I have read real-life accounts of people being instructed by God to fast, lasting for 74 days and nights without food or water (it wasn't exactly a hunger strike). I've read of a child being resurrected in the 21st century. I've read about people who were at the final stages of cancer being healed instantaneously when the group knelt down to pray around the individual (and for all to make sure, no, it wasn't anything like what you may see on television. It was a simple prayer circle without any need for those antics. Rather like how Elisha prayed that the boy would be resurrected, not the lying on the body part, of course.). I have read of a true story when a guy was shot at extraordinarily close-range with rifles, getting out of it with only minor bruises. I have heard the personal testimony of a guy who received the genuine gift of tongues to share the Gospel to a Latino who didn't speak a bit of English. (Before getting the gift, his vocbulary was limited to 'Enchilada', 'Burrito', etc.)(To the charismatics, no, it had nothing to do with strange babblings from the mouth.) I have heard the true testimony of a woman who was going to be executed by a firing squad for her faith when a blast of wind came so strong that all the bullets flew off and never touched her. (You know how powerful the wind must be? And it was just a stream of wind that cut between her and the soldiers!)

When the atheists can answer all this, then I will be impressed. :D

[waterhogboy]

Uh, I'm a Christian, but I believe the Atheistic answer to that question should be painfully obvious, even to one who belives in God:


Language evolved, as a means of communication. Simple gestures and grunts started the process, and, over time, these become more uniform until people from different villages could communicate. Eventually, regional dialects and specific languages started popping up, and then someone (the Egyptians, maybe?) were the first to write down sounds (lol, like in 13th Warrior!).

Eee - you can tell when someones about to start a language degree at uni!!! ;)

[darkestlight88]

My cousin had a brain aneurysm a couple years ago. She was completely healthy. But when she had it and went to the hospital, the doctors told her parents that she would NOT survive the surgery. They had her take the surgery anyways and she came out fine. She had to have another brain surgery operation and the doctors said again that it would kill her. It didn't. It even surprised the doctors. To this day my cousin walks, talks, sings and breathes. She's fine. The only thing is, when she had the operation, the surgeons did not find the broken blood vessel. There was a lot of blood in one area from a "burst", but no sign of a blood vessel. That's a mirracle. Doctors said she would never be able to talk or walk again. Right now, she's in Mexico doing a mission and building a church. Can anyone (non Christian) explain that to me? If there isn't a God, how come she's still alive today when she should be dead?

[max_aslan]

I don't get it .... is an athiest someone who doesn't believe in anything? If so does that mean im not an athiest because i believe in the supernatural, i'v thought i was an athiest all my life? So am i ,,, can anyone explain it to me? :confused:

[PrinceOfTheWest]

If you don't believe in a divine supreme being, you'd be by one defintion atheist (from Greek - "without god"). If you believe in unseen realities, that just means you're not a materialist.

Though if you're in that state, I'd have some interesting questions for you...

[langtab]

I always considered myself an atheist but this year I started my first year of an Arts degree. I am studying Anthropology. One night while studying for a cultural anthropology final I came to a decision. I could keep my mind closed, and be atheist the rest of my life or I could keep it open an accept religion as a viable source of inspiration and being. If we look at the evidence we see religion in many differnt forms. We see the ancestorial religions, Monotheism, Polytheism, all differnt forms of faith. It doesnt have to be a belief in a "God". Someone commented on atheists having an "open mind." If Atheists truely had an open mind, they would consider themselves Agnostic (Dictionary.com: One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.) and not only Atheist.

[inkspot]

Langtab, good for you! In Mere Christianity, one of CS Lewis' first points is the admission that many religions -- possibly all religions -- have some truth to offer! It is actually more open-minded to look for the truth and inspiration in religion than simply to deny there is any possible truth to be had in them. I am proud of you for following in such an illustrious man's footsteps, and I trust you will continue to do so, and find yourself discovering, as he did, the Ultimate Truth. :)

[Señor Puntos]

Ok well here on this site we have all theses threads for Christians so I thought us non belives and people with open minds need a thread so here it is. What I want to know is why did you come a Athesist and why do u think religon is fake OR whatever.

Like I have said in other areas I think religoin in jsut a explantaion for what was once unexplained. People did not know how to explain things so they made up religons and other ideas.
I'm an athiest (more agnostic really) because

A) I was brought up in a non-believing family,
B) I think religion was just a thing that tried to create control and explain things which back in the old days must've seemed pretty weird and
C) Everything to do with religion is totally ridiculous and all the events that happened are extremely unlikely--as in totally impossible.

[onlymystory]

Hey Jimmy, any chance you'd clarify which events are extremely unlikely? Because there are a lot of religious events so I'm curious as to which ones you see as not happening. Just because I see the potential for an interesting debate but are you talking about stuff like miracles of Christianity or just all religious happenings. After all, the Crusades were a religious war but no one says they didn't happen. So could you be more specific so I can give a good response. Thanks.

[Señor Puntos]

Hey Jimmy, any chance you'd clarify which events are extremely unlikely? Because there are a lot of religious events so I'm curious as to which ones you see as not happening. Just because I see the potential for an interesting debate but are you talking about stuff like miracles of Christianity or just all religious happenings. After all, the Crusades were a religious war but no one says they didn't happen. So could you be more specific so I can give a good response. Thanks.
I mean miracles and just the existance of God to be extremley unlikely--and how he managed to create a world and other lives. I mean, how did God get here? "hE hsa alwayz b33n LOL!!!!1!" isn't a good enough answer I'm afraid.

[onlymystory]

Well, I don't plan on giving you an answer that says hE hsa alwayz b33n LOL!!!!1!" First because I can't even understand that and second because a real answer to the tough questions in life should never come wrapped up in a neat little package with a pretty bow. I do personally believe that God has always been but that also comes from the idea that he is beyond time and space as we know it. We want to limit God but he doesn't stay in our limits. However, I will go into that more a little later. I want to say something on the miracles bit before I have to run to my next class. I would first urge you to read the second chapter in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. He interviewed some top notch scientists and philosphers to get their views. (If you'd like I can pm you the chapter so you don't have to bother finding the book.) The other thing is as far as the miracles go, if you can believe in an all-powerful God (yes, I'm aware you don't.) then wouldn't it make sense that he could perform miracles? The miracles aren't as hard to believe then. But yeah, anyway, now that I know which you mean I'll outline my thoughts so they're clearer. And that chapter really is good insight on miracles. But I'll be back to go into more depth. :)

[candleman]

I mean miracles and just the existance of God to be extremley unlikely--and how he managed to create a world and other lives. I mean, how did God get here? "hE hsa alwayz b33n LOL!!!!1!" isn't a good enough answer I'm afraid.

you say you think God must have a beginning and an end.. and cant be eternal..

where then does space start/ end ?
ind what comes after space ends ?

[candleman]

ATTENTION ALL.

LISTEN TO THIS FREE AUDIO !..
A DEBATE !..

Atheist Debate: BC/AD
Debate between Ray Comfort and Ron Barrier
(American Atheists Inc). Held in Orlando,
FL at the American Atheists' National Convention.

www.livingwaters.com/listen.shtml

(scroll down until you see the title and Click either download/listen)

its VERY funny.. and Both sideS come up with some excelent points
many QUESTIONS ARE VERY SIMPLY ANSWERED.. AND SOME VERY GOOD QUESTIONS PUT FORWARD...

[NARNIASTORY]

i think some people are to analytical..
they ignore the facts and make things up in theitr own minds...

[LifeMaiden]

I believe all religions are created by man and are therefore dogma, which is why I do not adhere to one faith. Religion is not about facts, its about faith, and I have faith in humanity, not in something that cannot be proven. I do not believe there is a thing called one path to salvation or one way to believe in a god or gods. I have an open mind and respect all faiths though I don't agree with many of their teachings. If I had a religious or spiritual slant I would say its more Eastern in thought, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. But I don't adhere to any one religion or a belief in a god.

[NARNIASTORY]

I believe all religions are created by man and are therefore dogma, which is why I do not adhere to one faith. Religion is not about facts, its about faith, and I have faith in humanity, not in something that cannot be proven. I do not believe there is a thing called one path to salvation or one way to believe in a god or gods. I have an open mind and respect all faiths though I don't agree with many of their teachings. If I had a religious or spiritual slant I would say its more Eastern in thought, such as Buddhism and Hinduism. But I don't adhere to any one religion or a belief in a god.

so is there a 'Spirit' that Judges us for doing wrong ?

EG..

what if a person rapes and murders a little girl... and is never caught..
Is God good enough to care that this person should be punished ?

[LifeMaiden]

I believe we are judged by karma and courts, basically. We all have our own personal beliefs, and there is no right way or wrong way to believe how wed will be judged. Is there a universal 'spirit' or 'god' good enough to care about the people who suffer and die daily? My problem with religion is that a few of them believe they're the ONLY way to believe, and that's just completely and utterly nonsense.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

But if there is a math problem to be solved, is there not only one right answer? Other answers may be closer, but only one would be right.

You seem to be thinking that different standards of truth apply to spiritual matters than apply to material matters, or that issues regarding the unseen are purely subjective. You ought to read Lewis' Mere Christianity - his starting point is just where you are: skepticism, admitting nothing. Honestly, you'd find it a fascinating read.

[LifeMaiden]

I'm afraid I don't see spiritual matters in the same way as an analytical matter such as math. It would be akin to history and art, for example. Many different OPINIONS, and there may be some facts to back those opinions up, but there is no RIGHT opinion or WRONG opinion.

I am indeed a skeptic, because I do not place faith in things such as the Bible. I find many things in the Bible offensive to women and to my own beliefs. When science has proven, for example, that the earth is 4.4 billion years old and not a handful of thousands such as some religious texts state, then I'm going to go with what has been scientifically proven. If you're going to tell me that a math problem has only one right answer, then I'll counter that by saying if you study and relate to science, such as biology and paleobiology, then you will see that through measured and specific scientifc data, some things stated in the Bible, such as the earth being created in seven days, is simply unthinkable.

POW, we are never going to agree upon the topic of religion, and that's okay. For me, I do not believe that Christ is the Messiah, nor do I believe that Allah is God, nor do I believe that I'm going to go to hell or not be 'saved' because I do not believe in Christ. I will not accept Christ as my so-called Messiah or 'savior' and I do not believe that a man who died on the cross is divine. My first and foremost belief is in myself, my ideals, and my personal spirituality.

To me, to state that in math there is one right answer and applying that theory or idea to something as broad as religious beliefs just doesn't compute. There are only opinions and theories and 'faith' when it comes to religion or spirituality. I will never be a Christian, and I will never choose to believe in Christ. My interest in the Chronicles of Narnia is purely from a secular humanist view and not from a religious view. It didn't even occur to me that there was any religious connection at all between the Disney movie or the book the Lion. the Witch and the Wardrobe other than the mentioning of the Pevensie children being the daughters and sons of Adam and Eve. Reading the MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW of course I could see the Biblical implications.

But in terms of spiritual belief, I adhere to my own.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

See, that's essentially casting spiritual matters in a subjective light - your comparison to art illustrated it beautifully. That's a very modern mindset, and doesn't really square with how reality actually is. (For a superb treatment of this, pick up Flight from Woman by Karl Stern, and pay special attention to how the post-Enlightment thought separates the two forms of knowledge.)

Think of it with simple logic: either there is an eternal, pre-existant, all-knowing, infinte God, or there isn't. Such a being would either exist or not. If there were no such being, no amount of believing would bring him into existence. If there were such a being, he would exist no matter who did or didn't believe in him. The logic doesn't permit any of this "well, if you want to believe that, it's fine for you, but I believe differently". Either God exists or he doesn't.

[Charn_Tim]

Thanks for posting in here, IceMaiden. I have enjoyed reading your posts, even though I've largely disagreed with your views. It's very nice to get alternative beliefs though.

I'm afraid I don't see spiritual matters in the same way as an analytical matter such as math. It would be akin to history and art, for example. Many different OPINIONS, and there may be some facts to back those opinions up, but there is no RIGHT opinion or WRONG opinion.
I can respect this view regarding certain spiritual matters, but I cannot accept the assertion that metaphysical claims are not objectively right or wrong. Now you may believe that there is no in principle way to determine whether the claims of one religion is right or wrong, but it is simply fallacious to lose objective truth when discucssing other religions.

I am indeed a skeptic, because I do not place faith in things such as the Bible. I find many things in the Bible offensive to women and to my own beliefs. When science has proven, for example, that the earth is 4.4 billion years old and not a handful of thousands such as some religious texts state, then I'm going to go with what has been scientifically proven. If you're going to tell me that a math problem has only one right answer, then I'll counter that by saying if you study and relate to science, such as biology and paleobiology, then you will see that through measured and specific scientifc data, some things stated in the Bible, such as the earth being created in seven days, is simply unthinkable.
In this thread (http://narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6373&page=31&pp=10), (post#304 especially sums it up well) I have been trying to correct the misinterpretation of Genesis 1/2 that leads some Christians to believe that the earth/universe is merely 10 000 years old and that it was created in one 6 - day, 144 consecutive hour week. If you look at the original Hebrew (as I explain in this post), you can see that the Bible leaves the question of the amount of time it took God to create the universe open-ended. In other words, the word that is translated as "day" in the english bibles isn't necessarily 24 hours.

Furthermore, I've been trying to point out in there that Genesis 1 nails the time order of events perfectly, according to the fossil record, planetary science, etc. and if you'd like me to elaborate on this, I'd be happy to explain what I mean.

Another thing you might want to look into before making the claim that the Bible and science conflict is the anthropic principle. This principle which has been developed over the last couple decades, is essentially the fact that there are many physical constants built into the laws of nature that must be highly fine tuned in order for life to exist. For example, if either the coupling constant of the weak nuclear force or the universal constant of gravitation was changed by as little as one part in 10^100 (a 10 followed by 100 zeros), then it would be impossible to set up the conditions for life in the universe. And there are actually about 70 or so of such parameters that must be fine tuned to a high degree such as this in order to even get the right conditions suitable for life to exist. (reference: this website (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml))

To me, to state that in math there is one right answer and applying that theory or idea to something as broad as religious beliefs just doesn't compute. There are only opinions and theories and 'faith' when it comes to religion or spirituality. I will never be a Christian, and I will never choose to believe in Christ. My interest in the Chronicles of Narnia is purely from a secular humanist view and not from a religious view...which is why I am currently searching for a Narnia site that does not have or emphasize a heavy Christian background, a place where a person can discuss Narnia and NOT bring religion into it.
With all due respect, I think you may be missing the point on the math analogy. In mathematics, you start with a specified set of assumptions, then use these assumptions to deductively prove something. The nature of reasoning in mathematics is fundamentally different from the nature of reasoning with regards to metaphysics. I am in agreement with you on that point. However, it does not follow that "there are only opinions and theories and faith" when it comes to objective claims made my different religions. Differing religions make different claims, so either only one is right, or they are all wrong. But this is the key: they ARE either right or wrong, so it matters what we believe, even if you believe in secular humanism or atheism.

One final note: even though your views may be different from some of ours, we still welcome your input and your views here. :)

[LifeMaiden]

There are many Christians who interpret the Bible literally, which means just that, the literal word of God. And even among Christians there is much dissent and debate about the meanings, symbolisms, and verbiage that is in this particular spiritual text.

For me, I have gotten very little out of Christianity as a belief and a religion. I do not believe in the symbolism that a woman bought sin into the world, or that a man is the spiritual head of the household. I find more truth and more peace in religions of the Eastern faiths, which do not adhere to a belief in a supreme god, ideal or being. I have gotten more inner peace out of meditating the Lotus Sutra than I have out of reading the Bible. The spiritual ways and paths of the East do not believe that their way is the 'only' way, and allow others to believe what they want to without judgement or condemnation or the assumption that if you don't believe what they believe, then you're not going to be 'saved'.

All religions, from paganism to Christianity and Buddhism and all the others, are merely theories and speculations to me as to what gives meaning to a person's life. That is all they are. They are ways created by people, different ways perhaps, They were created by man, and if they are dogma, which essentially they are, then there IS no one right way or one wrong way. Karl Marx also stated that religion was the opium of the masses, and that's what I agree with. Religion has been used to murder people around the world and control people's lives. All you have to do is look at this country to figure that one out.

If Christ's message is therefore meaningless to a person, and that person like myself does not believe in a 'salvation' or heaven or hell, but believes in reincarnation and karma, you certainly have the right and the freedom to say I am wrong. But by the same token, I also can say with impunity that I do not believe for one instant that a man, no matter how remarkable, died for my sins, or that I am not 'saved' or going to be damned for not believing in this man and the Bible. I am not worried about my salvation, and neither am I worried about going to heaven or hell, because I do not believe in either place.


By the same token, if one does not believe in Christ or follow Christianity or even Judaism, then whatever principles and beliefs or 'truths' adhering to anything about the Bible is meaningless, as it is to me. The problem I have with believing that 'one way' is the 'right way' or the 'only way' is that it leaves no room for accepting other people's beliefs.

[LifeMaiden]

See, that's essentially casting spiritual matters in a subjective light - your comparison to art illustrated it beautifully. That's a very modern mindset, and doesn't really square with how reality actually is. (For a superb treatment of this, pick up Flight from Woman by Karl Stern, and pay special attention to how the post-Enlightment thought separates the two forms of knowledge.)

Think of it with simple logic: either there is an eternal, pre-existant, all-knowing, infinte God, or there isn't. Such a being would either exist or not. If there were no such being, no amount of believing would bring him into existence. If there were such a being, he would exist no matter who did or didn't believe in him. The logic doesn't permit any of this "well, if you want to believe that, it's fine for you, but I believe differently". Either God exists or he doesn't.

If I sounded a bit harsh in my earlier post, you'll have to forgive me with all due respect. I'm a very fast thinker and very fast reactor, and sometimes I start typing something without thoroughly reading everything through.

How does one 'prove' that God exists? If an atheist cannot prove that God does NOT exist, then how can one truly prove he does?

If someone isn't Christian but believes in God, such as someone Jewish or Muslim, and does not accept Christ as their savior, then is the 'God' they believe in the 'wrong' God?

How is it that God is a HE rather than a SHE? Why is God masculine and not feminine? Is he both? Neither?

In terms of the comparison between a mathematical equation that says there are two things that add up to a right answer, ( 2 plus 2=4) , what proof does one have that the answer is RIGHT? Who determines what is THE RIGHT ANSWER?

[onlymystory]

Oooh!!!! Goody!!! Ok, give me a chance because I'm not sure how well I'll get this across but I've been reading about this so here goes nothing. Ok, so I think it is definitely a matter of realism. More and more scientists who are genuinely looking for answers have been finding extensive proof of an intelligent designer behind the world. Some of the facts I've been learning about have been simply astounding. However, it is also a matter of faith. Scripture tells us that God is a hidden God. We have to work at finding him and we do that through faith. But God doesn't want us to search blindly so he gives us clues to use to follow him. See, we have to prove God's existence both by faith and by reason. Peter Kreeft, a philosophy professor at Boston College says this; "unlike reason, which bows down faithfully to the evidence, faith is prejudiced." He goes on to use an example by talking about how if a policeman came to his home and said they had caught his wife in the act of murdering several of their neighbors by cutting off their heads and that there were other witnesses, he would laugh at the cop. Because he has evidence that his wife wouldn't do that. Its not that he saw her somewhere else, its that he knows his wife and knows her character and so he knows she wouldn't do something like that. Its different evidence but still evidence that it could not be. (and of course character witnesses are used all the time.) He is prejudiced but reasonably so. Kreeft goes on to explain this by saying; "My prejudice is a resonable prejudice because its based on the evidence I've gathered in my very real experience. So someone who knows God has evidence--and therefore prejudices based on that evidence--which someone who does not know God does not have."

another stumbling block is that people like to use evil and suffering as proof that God does not exist. But this argument can be used to prove God's existence as well. For something to be evil, there has to be something good to measure it against. By saying that the suffering world is wrong its an implication that there is an objective standard that one is basing your views on. "If there is no God, where did we get the standard of goodness by which we judge good and evil?"
CS Lewis also commented on this in Mere Christianity, "If the universe is so bad...how on earth did humans beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good creator?" The idea is that if we view something as evil (especially those things such as rape and murder that are seen by the entire world as wrong) then we need to investigate what standard we are measuring that evil by.
Also, atheism is a cheap answer. An atheist says there is no God of any sort. That means that an atheist is telling 9 out of 10 people that they are wrong about God. Kreeft asks how it can be possible that 90% of the people who have ever lived can be wrong about God?

Right there are hopefully a few insights. I would try to go into some of the science stuff but I'm still learning it all. I never knew science could be so interesting and I wouldn't want to misconstrue it. There are smarter people than myself on this site though who can probably further my argument.

[LifeMaiden]

I definitely believe there is ORDER in the universe and in the creation of life on earth. Do you guys think we will ever find a medium between the two theories of creationism versus evolution? How can one be an atheist or a non-Christian and believe that there is order in this world, and nothing happens for random reasons? I have never believed for an instant there wasn't 'order' in the universe

Would say that Darwin, himself a Christian, did the world a grave error when he published his Origins of Man?

Now don't be shocked by what I'm about to say here, but in a recent issue of a very well known men's magazine ( older girls and men, you know which one I mean) there were two very interesting articles about creationism in schools and evolution. Most of you probably don't read this particular magazine but they were fascinating articles that also dealt with the history of teaching creationism and evolution in schools.

I don't deny the existence of 'God' because of evil existing. Evil to me largely exists because people allow to, and don't speak out against it or act out against it. You can't have a front without a back or an up without a down. But neither do I allow the existence of good to allow myself to believe in 'God' especially a god that is always referred to as HE.

[onlymystory]

Just a quick bit on the God referred to as a he business, I thought I'd give you this quote from one of our members about God's true nature. "God, being pure spirit, is asexual (just as the angels are--Matthew 22:30), even if limited human language is inadequate at expressing that. Being sexual beings, we necessarily refer to all others in either masculine or feminine. Most languages, in fact, ascribe masculinity and femininity to everything, not just people, as gender is applied to everything from animals to appliances. Yet toasters have no sex. It is true, God reveals Himself in sexual terms, but that's only because we cannot understand things any other way. In fact, the truth is probably the opposite: The human concepts of father and mother are derived from traits of God, and are attached to the sexes as roles after the fact (meaning, as part of God's natural created order). [I will not go into what I think about the passages you quote concerning submission etc. Those are hot potatoes, and I'd rather stay the course here.] Ultimately and eternally, sexuality will pass, but the traits of strength, provision, nurture, and so forth will last forever. If asexual is too hard to swallow, perhaps supra-sexual would be more palatable." (Parthian King)


Now, on the creation and evolution ever coming together I think its possible. As Charn_Tim pointed out earlier, there is a lot of evidence for an intelligent design form of creation. I think the issue is going to be if both sides can look at things objectively and weigh all the evidence. William Craig, a professor at Talbot School of Theology had this to say; "Logicians have a term: inference to the best explanation. This means you have a body of data to be explained, and then you have a pool of live options or various explanations for that data. you need to choose which explanation fromthat poll would, if true, best explain the observed data." He goes on say that supernatural influences need to be considered as options too especially if one is going to be truly objective. I think it will take time but as more scientists realize that there was an Intelligent Designer behind the world and Christians start realizing that science can help Christianity we will find a medium. I think the place we will end up is believing that there was an Intelligent Designer behind it. The difference is that Christians know he has a name.

I think Darwin definitely did a disservice to the world. While a few tiny aspects of his ideas were a good starting block, I'm constantly hearing about scientists who have to reprove Darwin wrong. And of course when people already have the Darwinist idea of evolution in their head its hard to get them to understand the real ideas of evolution. (Oh, and Darwin wasn't a Christian nor did he claim to be. There is a story of a deathbed conversion but no confirmation of that is around.)

[LifeMaiden]

In a biography of Darwin that I read for a college class, he stated in a series of long letters to a nephew that he was conflicted deeply by his religious convictions ( which I am sure were not Buddhist) and what he was introducing to the world. ( theory of evolution). When you say deathbed conversation, do you mean that he was laying there dying and professed something to or about God?

So you stated that when scientists are starting to see there is truly order in the universe and creation but they are unaware that is it God, then by that same token, if someone like myself who is AWARE of God, also believes in order ( which I truly do), would it be safe to say that somewhere in me exists the possibility that I could believe God 'exists' but am unwilling to admit this?



Now, here's the primary reasons that Darwin's distant cousin, an evolutionary biologist who resided on the remote island of Sarawak in Indonesia in the 19th century, stated for not believing in God. I'd really like to hear your comments and responses to what he stated. I'm not saying I believe this is why God 'doesn't exist' I am saying this is what the cousin stated.


On God ( written in a letter to Charles Darwin) from Sarawak:

If God ALLOWS evil things to happen on earth, and his REFUSES to stop them, then he is:
1. A merciless, cruel God without remorse and pity

If God is UNABLE to stop these things ( evil) from occuring, then he is
2. Not an omnipotent, all-powerful god, and therefore not worth worshipping or revering.


Now, let's move the discussion to a different topic. What would you, as Christians TODAY, HAVE TO SAY TO THOSE WHO IN THE PAST( and some even now) HAVE USED GOD, THE BIBLE AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH FOR THE FOLLOWING INJUSTICES:( I've numbered each topic so that you guys can answer each one. I will use a few broad ways that people on history have used from the Bible, but keep in mind that these are what I have read chiefly in texts from school and on my own.)


1.JUSTIFY slavery and racism/segregation. In the South and many places in the Midwest, Genesis was used as an example " seperating the light from the darkness" to justify segregation. Slavery was tolerated in Biblical societies, many Southern states believed, so why should they not take that as a right to own slaves too?

2. The killing and burning of women at the stake as witches, and the way that women have been treated as second class citizens throughout American history. Try reading Malleus Maleficarum, as I did on my own, and be amazed at how these torturers found every single way to justify their horrendous actions against women.

One of the biggest Biblical stories used to 'blame sin on the woman' was Adam and Eve. Many stories that appear to us be to secular in nature have often used Biblical symbolism to blame women for being 'snakelike, treacherous, and seductive'.


What would be your stance and views concerning women and the Bible? Such as men being the spiritual heads of the household, or Martin Luther declaring that women were merely vehicles for procreation rather than equal partners with men in the procreative act?

3. The killing and murdering of those who did not follow the Christian faith such as the American Indians, who were FORCED to become Catholic or die. There was very little spreading of the faith in the New World by PEACEFUL means at that time.

4. A few current evangelists who believed 9/11 was truly God's way of 'punishing' America because of tolerating homosexuality, etc.


Keep in mind, these are things in the past. I think my main question is...how do you feel about your faith being used to justify crimes in the world? Does this affect you? Should people allow others' actions to affect their faith in God and Christ, as some have?

[inkspot]

Obviously, no one on this Forum (that I am aware of) endorses the use of reigion as a means to jsutify crime. I believe our ES addressed this in one Thread with his example of the Eskimos and their sled dogs, remember? he also addressed the slavery issue, so I think there is no need to answer for these crimes, as we are not the ones who committed them. Obviously, religion has been used to do terrible things. But none of us believers on this Forum are committed to religion: we are committed to Jesus Christ, who never committed any of these things in the past which are worrying you.

Rest easy, IceMaiden, no one, that I am aware of, on this Forum, uses religion to justify hatred and violence, nor would we condone it if anyone did. And as I say, none of us have much use for religion, which is man's attempt to get at God ... we are more interested in Jesus Christ, who was God's method of reaching down to man.

To address a few of your other points:

* Evolution by natural selection, which I think is what Darwin first proposed, has been pretty much discredited. It is an unworkable theory, and Charn Tim can give you more on that as our resident scientist. Darwin speculated and theorized as to what he thought had happened, but he need not have worried about it as a Christian, because he was wrong. Evolution, if it happened, did not happen the way he theorized. The continued teaching of this flawed theories in the school is a political more than a scientific effort.

* You propose either God can't stop evil which means He's not powerful, or He lets evil happen because He is evil. I really must refer you to Mere Christianity if you want a classic view on this, but basically I can say: God doesn't make the evil in the world. Christians believe there was a fabulous Light Bearing angel named Lucifer, who turned his back on God and became Satan, the devil, who tempted our first parents to sin and brought calamity upon our world. We live today, as Lewis would say, in "occupied territory." The evil in the world is the devil's doing, and God is stopping it today, through His Son's love, as expressed in the hearts and hands of His followers — and he will stop it, at the end of days, when we know Satan wil be defeated, and peace will reign through Christ. So God is neither unable nor unwiling to stop evil. He is allowing this world to rock on so more and more people will reach out to Him and find their future in Him, before the end, when everyone must either be consigned for eternity in heaven or hell.

(I know you don't believe in those concepts, but if you are looking for the Christian viewpoint, there it is.)

OMS has already nicely answered your query about masculine God. He is more than man, more than woman, but for our limited viewpoint, He must be referred to as something, and It would not be very respectful. Rest assured, He has His feminine side and loves women very much: we were the last thing He created, according to Genesis, and I think it was because we were His crowning achievement! He gave us the gift of bringing new life into the world, not to mention making us so fair and lovely ... We are the apple of His eye. You are the apple of His eye!

[onlymystory]

Oh, and IceMaiden, if you want a more indepth answer to some of these latest questions I would read The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. I questioned a lot of stuff a couple years ago even after becoming a Christian and that book is really helpful. He talks to a wide variety of philosophers and critics from all sides to get the truth. I'd highly recommend it and Mere Christianity. I think those two books will give you a good idea of where many of us on this forum stand with our faith.

[Neevil]

Unfortunately, people in the past have used Christianity for injustices. Slavery- I think it is important to note that all cultures, every group of people in the past have had slaves. the Bible does not say we cannot have slaves, it says to treat your slaves well, and for slaves to obey their masters. I am not trying to say the way slaves in America were treated is alright. They were treated very badly, and they shouldn't have been. It also more racial, which is is not in any way Biblical. the people who did use Biblical references to support their opinons that racism is ok, took the scriptures out of contex and "stretched" their meaning to fit their own purposes.

Burning at the steak- There have been many instances in history where this has happened in the name of Christianity. During the Spanish Inquisition and into the Reformation, the Church was very corrupt. The Spanish Inquisition started out as a means to rid Spain from heretics. This seems a slightly religious motive, but, again, is not Biblical, since we are told to love our neighbors, etc. But the Spanish Inquisitors were not in the least bit worried about religion. if I remember correctly, they were allowed to keep a portion of the property, possetions, wealth, ect., of the unfortunate people who were killed. So, greed became their motive for torturing people to death.

I have to eat dinner now, so i don't have time to write more, but I guess what i'm trying to say is that in all of these instances, the people doing the injusteces were not really Christians, nor did they have a Biblical motive.

(i'm sorry for my spelling, I know it's terrible... spelling has always been my worst subject)

[Breehyhinnybrinnyhoohyhah]

On God ( written in a letter to Charles Darwin) from Sarawak:

If God ALLOWS evil things to happen on earth, and his REFUSES to stop them, then he is:
1. A merciless, cruel God without remorse and pity

If God is UNABLE to stop these things ( evil) from occuring, then he is
2. Not an omnipotent, all-powerful god, and therefore not worth worshipping or revering.



God has given us the gift of freewill, which means that He gives us the choice to do evil. He hopes and tries to persuade us to do good, but as humans, we don't. He does not want to be a cruel tyrrant over us by running our lives for us. So He would not have to go back on His gift of freewill, He provided another way for us to be with Him. Tell me if you think this sounds like He is a merciless God:
God, out of His love for us, sent His Son, Jesus Christ to die on the cross, the punishment that each of us deserved for our wrongdoings. (This does not just condemn those who have murdered or some like crime. God takes all wrong things very seriously) This death was one of the worst things the Romans could think up. You and I cannot even begin to imagine His sufferings. Well, he did this out of love for us. Even when we messed-up by disobeying Him, He still went to great lengths to make sure there was always a way for us to get to Him. The punishment He suffered on our behalf does not make me think of Him as "a merciless, cruel God without remorse and pity".

The other thing ties back to the first. He is very capable of stopping our sin. However, that would require wiping out the whole earth, as all have sinned. God did not want to have to do that again, so He provided another way: Jesus Christ. Jesus preformed many miracles while He was living on earth. Three days after His death, God raised Him from the dead. God shows His power through many things. Even if you refuse to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, the love He had for us surely deserves honour and reverence. How many of you would like to take a punishment (death) for people that deliberatly disobayed you? I am sure I wouldn't.

He layed down His life for you, and as Legolas says, "You owe Him your alliegence"!

[Neevil]

Sorry I didn't get to finish my post, but anyways, can I go back to something you said earlier? about no religion being true, there being no one religion.

I know a lot of people, especially today, believe nothing is "true"; "what's good for you is good for you, and what's good for me is good for me." There is no truth, no good, no right, no wrong. "Such extreme relativism is indistiguishable from total despair, chaos, and suicide." (The Journy so Far) If nothing is true, if there is no one thing we all must do, no one purpose for life, life is utterly meaningless and depressing.

As humans, we have this idea of right and wrong implanted in our minds. I know some people try to say what I stated above, that there are no absolute morals. But, really, we all have some idea of good and evil. we're born that way. All past civilizations have had a code of honor, morals that they try to uphold. Ancient Greece, Egypt, Rome, China, the Aztecs, Incas, Native Americans, and all the rest. Relitivism contradicts the very nature of humans. There has to be right and wrong. There has to be truth and things which are false.

Humans are sinful, we all sin. By that I mean we all disobey God's law. If you don't believe in God, i guess you could say we all do things that are universally thought of as bad (like cheating, lying, stealing, etc.). Most religions are about finding peace, living a life that's good enough to out way the bad stuff you do, getting to heaven, and so on. They all are trying to acheive something extremely good. But humans are not perfect. We all mess up sometimes. Getting any of that is impossible for humans. Whether you are looking for Nirvana and inner peace, trying to live in harmony with nature, trying to get to Heaven, or just trying to live a good life, we can't do it. Humans are sinful, and we cannot achieve any of this on our own. Look at the Ancient Egyptians; they thought they had to live a life that had more good deeds in it than bad deeds, so they could enter paradise. No matter how hard we try, this is impossible. Try to go 1 hour without sinning. That means you can't do anything bad, but you also can't think anything bad. I've tryed this before, and it just doesn't work. I can't even go 10 minutes without doing something that's wrong. We're humans, we are full of falts. No matter how hard we try, we'll always have more bad stuff than good.

The point is, all religions, with the exception of Christianity, are trying to achieve something good, but they're trying to do it on their own. As humans, we can't make it by ourselves. Christianity is the only religion that has some one else helping us. Somebody who allows us to achieve the impossible, what we could never dream of achieving by ourselves. This is the main difference that sets Christianity apart from other religions.

So if there has to be either a right or wrong religion, I think Christianity is the right one. Because if we could get to Heaven, or live a good life, or find peace, or any of that, on our own, we wouldn't need Christ.

[inkspot]

One of CS Lewis' foundations for Mere Christianity is this point, Neevil: where did the concepts of right and wrong come from? You cannot find them in nature, so if there is no God who set these standards, why did humans develop them, and in general all societies developping the same principles? It's an interesting idea.

[LifeMaiden]

Another member here also stated something very important about Christianity being about having a RELATIONSHIP with God which distinguished it from other religions.

I don't necessarily agree that humans, even if there were NO religions in the world, don't have some moral absolutes. I think it's in human nature to at least try to distinguish or make sense of something that strikes them deep in their hearts and feelings as wrong or evil. Even in primitive times the taking of a human life by force was probably considered against whatever law a tribe had, or stealing someone else's food, or raping a woman ( well, that's questionable because in some cultures today a woman is the one who gets blamed for the rape).

Here is what I've been wrestling with about the idea of God existing.


1. Is it that I can't/won't/refuse to believe in a supreme being, versus I 'don
t' want to believe?

2. I believe the universe is anything but chaotic or meaningless...I believe everything has a reason, and that people's lives intersect because it was meant to be. Nothing is random, or by luck, chance or coincidence. I believe everything has a reason behind it and there is order in life and the world.

3. As a kid in Catholic school I began to question God's existence because of the hypocrisy and evil of PEOPLE I saw around me. Note I said PEOPLE. I also didn't understand why I had to had my sins absolved through a priest when I felt talking to 'God' and asking for forgiveness was a more personal and direct route.

4. I always feel a sense of awe and wonder when I see a rainbow, or when after a thunderstorm the clouds open up and bars of sunlight pour through. It's like something I can't describe when I see those things.

5. I believe all people have souls, and we are not just 'meat' or 'bodies.'



So that's a little of what I believe at this moment in my life.

[Neevil]

1. Is it that I can't/won't/refuse to believe in a supreme being, versus I 'don
t' want to believe?
I think it is possible for everyone to believe in God, so maybe its you don't want to. In today's culture, we are bombarded (sp?) from every direction with the idea that that the existence of God is utterly ridiculous. This thought is implanted into most peoples' minds. However, more and more scientific discoveries are being made each day that support Creation, a young earth, a Creator, so I think these statements are mostly political. The Bible says that all things are possible with God, so I think you can believe in Him if you choose to do so.
2. I believe the universe is anything but chaotic or meaningless...I believe everything has a reason, and that people's lives intersect because it was meant to be. Nothing is random, or by luck, chance or coincidence. I believe everything has a reason behind it and there is order in life and the world.
Good for you! I learned something interesting in science this year. In order for life to randomly occur, protiens need to be able to form through random chemical reactions. Protiens are made up of amino acids that form in an exact pattern. If even one amino acid were out of place, the protien would be unable to preform its job. Now lets assume that a protien needs a mixture of 17 amino acids (there are actually about 20, but we'll just say 17 to increase the probability). We can say that the probability of the correct amino acid forming first is 1 in 17. That's farly good odds. But the chance of the first amino acid being correst, and the second amino acid being correct, is 1 in 289. The odds aren't looking too good any more. It turns out that the odds for 1 protien forming by chance and having the corrrect amino acid scequence is 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000 (that should be 10 followed by 152 zeros, if I typed it correctly) Now this is statistic is for one of the simplest protien in our bodies, the odds for more complex protiens forming by chance is even more unlikely. So with these odds, it seems logical to assume that life can probably not form as a result of random chance, and I'm glad you don't think such an unlikely hypothesis is correct.

But if you are acknowledging that life cannot be formed by chance, that brings the question of how was it made then? You can't just stop and say "life did not result from chance". That statement does not finish answering the question, "How was life formed?" So I encourage you to continue searching for answers.
3. As a kid in Catholic school I began to question God's existence because of the hypocrisy and evil of PEOPLE I saw around me. Note I said PEOPLE. I also didn't understand why I had to had my sins absolved through a priest when I felt talking to 'God' and asking for forgiveness was a more personal and direct route.
Unfortunately, there are hypocritacal people out there. But, it is important to remember that humans are sinful. Christians sin just like everyone else. We don't claim to be perfect, just forgiven :). It would be unfair to God to make your judgement of Him by what you see in people, rather than Himself. As far as getting your sins absolved through a priest, this is one issue that I differ from what the Catholic Church believes.

In the Old Testament, there was a Temple, where the Isrealites went to offer sacrifices for forgiveness to God. There were several sections in the Temple, but the inner most one was the Holy of Holies. This is where The Arc of the Covanent, where God's presence rested, was. The Holy of Holies was separated from the rest of the Temple by a curtain. Only on one day a year could anyone enter there. It wast the high priest who went in, to ask for forgiveness for all the people. He could only enter if he had purified his body and his soul, by confessing all his sins. The people could not enter the Holy of Holies, they had to send the high priest in their stead. However, when Jesus died on the cross, at the moment He took His last breath, the Bible says the curtain that seperated everyone from the Holy of Holies was torn in two. This means that because Christ died and became our sins, we can freely enter God's presence with boldness. We no longer need a high priest to go for us. Please realize I have nothing against Catholics. My mom used to be Catholic, and I have several very good friends who are Catholic. But the Catholics don't seem to catch on to this... the Bible says we can pray and enter God's presence when ever we want, because of Christ.
4. I always feel a sense of awe and wonder when I see a rainbow, or when after a thunderstorm the clouds open up and bars of sunlight pour through. It's like something I can't describe when I see those things.
Yes, I also find it amazing that anything could be so beautiful. I look at my surroundings and think that such things could not have happened out of randomness and chance.
5. I believe all people have souls, and we are not just 'meat' or 'bodies.'
Good for you! but how did the souls get there? Are we any different from animals? Do they have souls, or are they just 'meat' and 'bodies'? You have been doing a lot of good thinking, but your ideas are still incomplete. I encourage you to continue thinking about these things.

[LifeMaiden]

Neevil, I've done a lot of thinking over the course of my 38 years LOL. I'm probably a lot older than you, and wiser in many ways. As far as my ideas being imcomplete, they're not 'ideas'...they are merely statements to which I did not decide to elaborate on in the given moment.

[Señor Puntos]

Neevil, I've done a lot of thinking over the course of my 38 years LOL. I'm probably a lot older than you, and wiser in many ways. As far as my ideas being imcomplete, they're not 'ideas'...they are merely statements to which I did not decide to elaborate on in the given moment.
Talk about being patronizing :rolleyes:

[LifeMaiden]

I was being sarcastic ;)


I've thought many times over a long course of years about my beliefs. I had a serious crisis of faith that was never healed when I decided to stop being a Catholic, although I wonder if that's truly ever possible to 'stop' believing in something so deeply ingrained in one's psyche. I still feel awe and wonder and a feeling I can't always describe palpably in words when I enter a church. I haven't been in one in many years. But I remember the last time I was in St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC on a vacation trip there, this was long after I had stopped attending church and studying the Bible in school. Sometimes even now I find myself turning to the Catholic channel and watching the nuns and the noviates pray to Mary in a convent or listen to the Mass being said in a beautiful cathedral. It still moves me to this day.

Think about the very essense of life, which is DNA...and the Watson-Crick model of the DNA molecule, the source of heredity and genetic study. That itself is a model molecule of the most beautiful and complex design with its chemical components repeating itself pattern after pattern. The very atoms and molecules that make up substances on the earth have patterns of intelligent design and order.

I believe that anything organic in nature has some sort of 'essence' to it, a sort of spirit...and I also believe energy itself is the source of life. I can say when I saw ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN ( lol) there's a part of me that believes a dog heaven is full of bones to bury and firehydrants to use, and cat's heaven is a field of catnip and lots of fish in the ocean ;)

[Namaste]

1. Is it that I can't/won't/refuse to believe in a supreme being, versus I 'don
t' want to believe?'
I was talking to someone several years back, and they came out and asked me why it is athiests don't believe in God. I couldn't have been much older than 17 at the time and I simply said, 'they believe to not believe'. This person sort of looked at me. Either she thought I was trying to be some sort of 'teenage Aristotle' or she was totally stumped by that logic. Needless to say, I figured then, and now (some 18 years later) that people's belief (or lack thereof) are theirs, and I have no right to tell them otherwise.

It does strike me as odd how often people try to use Bible passages to 'affirm' or 'solidify' their arguments to an athiest about God's existence. If a person doesn't believe in God, then chances are these passages may not prove to them of God's existence. I always described faith as being a belief in something that one cannot visually see, but that one can feel the presence of. If one does not feel that presence, then it cannot be forced onto them, no matter how many passages one cites.

Also, I think a lot of people have been given this image of this jealous, angry, and vengeful diety as they have grown up. They have been exposed to angry preachers, shouting matches, confrontations, and contradictions, all in the name of religion or belief. It has either pushed them away from Christianity and Organized Religion entirely, or has given them the means to find a different path. Perhaps it's not so much a question of why it is that athiests don't believe, but what are their experiences that could have led to the conclusion that God doesn't exist for them? I think that whether one believes in God or doesn't, that their experiences have lead to their current reality.

2. I believe the universe is anything but chaotic or meaningless...I believe everything has a reason, and that people's lives intersect because it was meant to be. Nothing is random, or by luck, chance or coincidence. I believe everything has a reason behind it and there is order in life and the world.
I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. I gave up believing in coincidence at an early age. :)

3. As a kid in Catholic school I began to question God's existence because of the hypocrisy and evil of PEOPLE I saw around me. Note I said PEOPLE. I also didn't understand why I had to had my sins absolved through a priest when I felt talking to 'God' and asking for forgiveness was a more personal and direct route.
Although I am not Catholic, and am fascinated with the faith, I never thought that confession was a very good idea. Even if a Priest is sworn to keep these confessions to himself, I never really could understood the whole talking to God through a priest concept. Maybe I'll ask one of my friends about that the next time I see him (he's a Benedictine Monk and Priest, so he'd most likely be able to explain it to me). If I can pray to God, then I can tell God what He/She already knows, that sometimes I do err in judgment. For me, I don't believe that we are 'sinners', I believe that our 'mistakes' are lessons and that we learn and grow spiritually when we make a decision that does not work. To sin, btw, is an archery term meaning 'to miss the mark'.

4. I always feel a sense of awe and wonder when I see a rainbow, or when after a thunderstorm the clouds open up and bars of sunlight pour through. It's like something I can't describe when I see those things.
You too? I love rainbows. I once made a teddy bear with different colored mohair and called her 'Promise', because the rainbow is the symbol of a promise from the story of Noah. I always loved that story as a little girl. But, you're right, the sky is a really beautiful and wondrous thing.

5. I believe all people have souls, and we are not just 'meat' or 'bodies.'
I agree with that as well.

It's nice to read postings from someone who does not use the Bible to back up or support their beliefs, but who can simply speak from the heart about them and touch others with these words. :) It was these words that gave me the motivation to post in this forum again. Thanks.

[Señor Puntos]

Hey, I've thought of another reason why I dismiss religion.

Hell.

Punishment is supposed to teach someone a lesson so they can be a better person. Hell is the ultimate punishment--except it's missing one thing. If you go to Hell there's no escape, no chance to correct your mistakes, you're stuck there forever and it just seems like one of the best ways to scare people into believing in God. The idea of sending someone to Hell for being a logical and rational person and not following the first thing that crosses their path is just--I can't describe just how horrendous an idea that is.

Christians who say they don't believe in Hell are just nitpickers--choosing parts of the Bible they like and dismissing the parts they dislike as nonsense.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

You're right that Christians who ignore Hell are picking and choosing what they attend to - nobody spoke of Hell with more sincerity and certainty than Jesus.

Where you're wrong is thinking of hell as a "punishment". You need to read more Lewis, particularly The Great Divorce. Hell is not something imposed on people by God; hell is something people choose of their own free will despite God's pleadings and entreaties to them to not choose that path.

Hell - or the potential for hell - is a consequence of the mystery of free will. God has created us able to love, which means He's created us with the ability to choose, because no creature can be commanded to love. And if we can choose, we can choose things that are not good. God wants us to choose Him, and all the goodness He has for us. But if He has given us true choice, then He must allow us to choose the opposite.

In fact, that's what you profess to be doing, Jimmy. You don't want a thing to do with God. That breaks His heart, but He's not going to force Himself on you. He's giving you chances - a lifetime full of them, in fact - but ultimately He will let you go whichever way you choose. One hitch, though - if you choose other than God, then when you reject Him you'll also be rejecting every good that He's given you. Like love. And, say, food. And comfort. In fact, every good in your life that you currently take for granted is a gift from God, and if you kiss Him off, you're going to be kissing all that off as well. That will be hell.

It's no good coming back with some wimpy nonsense about "well, why can't I have all that without this god stuff?" That's nonsense. It's like saying, "why can't I not bother with this messy eating stuff, yet enjoy the benefits of good health? Why do I have to feel hungry and get weak and sick?" If you want the goods that follow eating, you have to accept that you have to eat. You can't walk away from eating without consequence. Likewise you can't walk away from God without consequence - the loss of every good that God brings into your life.

Nobody is sent to hell, Jimmy. Those who go there, go there by their own choice. And they're given plenty of opportunity to turn back along the way. Heck, you have been.

[LifeMaiden]

Actually, the images of hell, with the fire. brimstone, and fantastical demonic images did not exist during early Christian history. I don't remember where I read that or saw it, but I remember that the images of hell was 'punishment' were something that came about during the later Middle Ages.

What I'm having may be a crisis of faith that has lasted for many, many years, because I did not sit down with a theologian or a priest and ask the many questions I felt I had within me that were unanswered. It became easier to dismiss faith and say it was 'stupid' or not worth 'asking about' rather than to sit down and have thoroughly analyzed what it was that I was feeling in the given moment. It was easier to say I did not believe in God because no one could 'prove' to me that he existed. Or that 'the world is full of misery' so God 'doesn't exist.'

What I am having trouble with are basic questions that I am sure many Christians here have also asked. When someone like Ted Bundy can kill and murder dozens of innocent women and then ask forgiveness from God and be accepted into the kingdom of heaven and save, it doesn't seem right to me, just as someone who might totally be unaware that Jesus and God exists, such as someone on a Mongolian plain, and then not be 'saved' because he has never heard of Jesus.

[unleavened]

What I am having trouble with are basic questions that I am sure many Christians here have also asked. When someone like Ted Bundy can kill and murder dozens of innocent women and then ask forgiveness from God and be accepted into the kingdom of heaven and save, it doesn't seem right to me, just as someone who might totally be unaware that Jesus and God exists, such as someone on a Mongolian plain, and then not be 'saved' because he has never heard of Jesus.
I don't usually do this. I haven't read the whole thread before this post, but I promise I won't attack you or anyone w/o proof (usually this is the objection to postinge w/o reading).
The question you propose is certainly a difficult one. Even Chistians do not know really how to answer the question of the man on the Mongolian plain. But scripture does say that nature proclaims the truth of God's excistance, "The heavens declair the glory of God. The stars proclaim the work of his hands." It also says that if Chistians do not share the Bible the rocks and trees will cry out. I suspect that somehow the truth will get there whether by missionaries, nature or even dreams or visions, no one will be able to say they never knew. God is mighty enough to reach them. There are other theories involved here too, but I won't go into them. The point is the same w/ all of them.
As for the Ted Bundy issue: That is the beauty of Christ's love. The sins that seem horrible to man are still forgivable, b/c God is powerful enough to over come all sin. This also brings a another concept that sin is sin even if it seems small to man. Whether you tell a 'little white lie' or rape and murder a young lady they are both sin and both require the blood of Jesus Christ to cover them.

[Namaste]

For what it's worth, as a New Thought person who tries to practice the teachings emerging from the Christian faith, I dismissed the whole hell, fire and brimstone concept years ago. That is probably why many Christians do not view me as being Christian and why many people who are atheists try to find contradictions in my beliefs.

People ask me, how can you not believe in evil when there is evil all around us? Sure, there are people who do things everyday that I would perceive as 'not good'. But, these are also choices. We look on someone else's choice and label it, either 'good', 'bad', 'smart', stupid' etc. If said act diverges away from what we perceive to be 'normal' and 'good', then it must be 'evil'. The problem with that is that for every person on this planet, there are different definitions for how one defines 'evil'. Even dictionary definitions are founded and perceived by individuals. Of course, by my own definitions, people who harm others are not what I would perceive as 'good'.

People have said that folks like me with a different world view are 'evil' or 'of the devil' because it's different from their own. There are religions around the world who say they are good and the rest of the world is 'evil and must be done away with'. Some of this emerging from professed Christian groups.

On an individual level, when we make a choice that reaps a negative result, instead of taking responsibility for it, we either blame God for not having intervened, or we say 'The Devil made me do it' or 'God's punishing me'. If each person was given free will as a gift of God, then it was that free will that suddenly becomes the 'evil', because it is laced with temptation. Yet, to turn the theory on its head a little, when we do something good and it reaps a positive result, we generally want to take the credit for it ourselves instead of thanking God for guiding us to the right choices.

To top that all off, we are told in more than one place, by more than one religion how God has no room for us in Heaven if we don't follow some straight and narrow path defined for us by other people's interpretation of scripture. That is, we suddenly ignore the gift of free will that we have been given and allow others to determine all aspects of our lives, including our beliefs.

This is specifically where I have so many hang-ups with the Christian faith, the conditionality that is being placed on God by human beings. It is no wonder that the concept of death is a fearful one for so many people. If I was going to a place where I was going to be literally put on trial by this angry, hostile, and judgmental deity, then I would be shivering in my shoes every second of the day. If my fate was put in the hands of traditionalist Christian churches, then I would probably end up in a psycho ward.

Why is it that more people are getting turned off with this whole idea? Even if one does believe in 'hell', but they fully embrace the unconditional nature of God, then the whole concept of hell would hold no relevance to them. Sure, the whole good-versus-evil concept is great to write about, watch movies on, and even contemplate. But if people of all faiths were completely comfortable with God as divine love, and not this conditional 'parental figure', then there would be no point to trying to convert another person's faith.

Now grant it, hell could exist, I don't know, the Bible says that it does, but I don't buy it, at least not in the literal sense. I think a lot of times, with all the fear-based mentalities and beliefs that are going about, we ultimately are creating our own hell right here on earth, because we have programmed ourselves to be deathly afraid of God.

[inkspot]

IceMaiden, you are right in that Christians have struggled with the same questions you struggle with. There is lots of literature devoted to these issues, and I encourage you to check out some of it, I'll post a list here later if you like, but I would seriously start with CS Lewis' Mere Christianity, and would not neglect his Surprised By Joy.

You are already witnessing God's power and loving Him when you express awe over nature, such as rainbows, and this is a beautiful natural response. But you are falling just short of the real intimacy God wants to have with you, and is proposing to you, in the displays of such beauty. You feel His Presence in His works, and yet you don't reach out to know Him ... It's like someone falling in love with Alexander Graham Bell because of the wonders of the telephone, without taking the extra step of getting to know him, personally. Think how much more satisfying a real friendship with him would be, rather than just enjoying the technology he invented ... You wouldn't just have the convenience of the telephone, but the support of a real and loving person who cared for you. (Supposing Bell were a nice man -- all analogies break down eventually, but what we know of God's nature indicates He is a wonderful person!)

Let me see if I have your objections to the Christian God right:

1. He has flawed children. Sadly, so true, and I am one of them. Please do not judge my father by the mistakes I make. He is perfect, and he is leading me to perfection, but I am not there yet. If I, or someone like me, has wounded you in his name, please forgive us. We didn't know what we were doing, and he never intended it.

2. You don't understand his justice: Ted Bundy saved, Mongolians doomed. Although Namaste doesn't like Christians throwing Scriptures into the debate when trying to talk about whether Christianity is true, I think it can be allowed when there's a misconception about the Christian view of God.

When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God's yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences.
Although we Christians believe no one can be saved outside of Christ, we do not know at what point people who have never heard of Jesus receive that opportunity to choose or reject Him. Paul seems to indicate in the passage above that even people who never heard of Christ, if they have responded as well as they can to what small part they know of His message as received in nature, may be saved.

The Bible tells us God is never wicked or unjust, so we know He will not condemn people willy-nilly, and yet we know only through Christ can we be saved. Both must be true, in a way we cannot understand. Don't fear: God loves the Mongolians as much as he loves Ted Bundy. He will make a way.

And as far as the advisability of letting people like Bundy into heaven at all ... it's a human thirst for vengeance that makes us want to send him to hell, but in fact, none of us have lived up to God's standards of perfection, so we all "deserve" hell -- which is separation from God. As UL pointed out, it's the love of Jesus which allows any of us to be forgiven those sins and received by God.

[onlymystory]

to icemaiden first: I personally think that God will not condemn those who have truly never heard of Him. I like to think of it as CS Lewis portrays it in The Last Battle. (I'll explain for those who haven't heard it) Anyway, there is a young Calormene named Emeth who ends up in the new Narnia. He tells Peter and the others that he was talking to Aslan and explaining that he used to worship Tash. But Aslan tells him that the things he did for Tash, Aslan counts as done to him and that in reality he was seeking Aslan without realizing it. I think a lot of indigenous people could be looked at the same way. And on a slight historical sidenote, there are a lot of groups that have stories very similar to the Bible yet they've never read or even heard of the Bible.

On the why people like Ted Bundy would even have the chance to go to heaven is something I don't fully understand. But as others have said we are all imperfect and so we are slowly working towards becoming perfect. I like what a little boy said in one of my favorite books. Several kids were discussing the methods of torture they would like to use on the Kaiser (WWI) and the little boy said he wouldn't kill him or torture him. He said the worst punishment he could think of would be to turn the man into a good person. That way he would just feel terrible about everyone he hurt. I always thought he had a point. anyway, I'm still working to understand that one completely.

to Namaste: Have you read CS Lewis's The Great Divorce? I think you'd enjoy it. I personally don't agree with Lewis (one of the only areas where I differ) but his picture of hell is much different from a lot of the typical ones.

And then on the evil vs. good sort of thing. I liked the comment you made on defining something as good. I may jokingly say that mornings or basketball is evil but to be honest I don't think there really is such a thing as evil. Now before anyone jumps down my throat with a reply please hear me out. To me, evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not a new thing it is a twisted version of a good thing. I use light as an example. I can't bring dark into a room. I can take away the light and the absence of it produces darkness. But there is no way that I can produce darkness without first having light. In the same way, I can't produce evil without having good. And if we think about all the things that we call evil in the world every single one is a twisted version of something good. The main example that comes to mind is sex and I will just be quick to keep it family oriented. But God created sex as a good thing and yet society perverts it with things such as rape and assault. Its a twisted version of the real thing. And so to me, this idea of evil is merely an absence of good or perhaps a better saying is its an absence of God. (just my thoughts)

[inkspot]

This is exactly what CS Lewis says about evil in Mere Christianity, OMS. God created only good, and God is the only Creator, so evil had to start with something good, come along and twist it into evil. Further, Jack says, there is nothing you can do just for evil's sake, the way you might do a good deed just because it is the right thing to do. No one ever does a bad thing, just because it is the wrong thing to do -- there is always a motive of gaining something good for myself (even if it is just some kind of sadistic pleasure in hurting someone else, the pleasure itself was once a good thing). Very astute.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Have you read CS Lewis's The Great Divorce? I think you'd enjoy it. I personally don't agree with Lewis (one of the only areas where I differ) but his picture of hell is much different from a lot of the typical ones. The Great Divorce is well worth it, and if you read the story carefully, you'll see that Lewis states explicity that he is not intending to portray what he thinks "hell is really like". (It's in one of his "conversations" with George MacDonald) He's using the imaginative device of his dream and the bus trips to make statements about human attitudes and how we can end up choosing lesser things over God. It's intended to be a parable, not even a theory about how things actually are. But it's powerful!

And then on the evil vs. good sort of thing. I liked the comment you made on defining something as good. I may jokingly say that mornings or basketball is evil but to be honest I don't think there really is such a thing as evil. Now before anyone jumps down my throat with a reply please hear me out. To me, evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not a new thing it is a twisted version of a good thing. I use light as an example. I can't bring dark into a room. I can take away the light and the absence of it produces darkness. But there is no way that I can produce darkness without first having light. In the same way, I can't produce evil without having good. And if we think about all the things that we call evil in the world every single one is a twisted version of something good. The main example that comes to mind is sex and I will just be quick to keep it family oriented. But God created sex as a good thing and yet society perverts it with things such as rape and assault. Its a twisted version of the real thing. And so to me, this idea of evil is merely an absence of good or perhaps a better saying is its an absence of God. (just my thoughts)In this you're squarely in the camp of orthodox Christianity. There was a lot of debate in early Christianity over the idea of the nature of evil. A lot of attitudes brought in from the Platonists framed the debate, and they treated evil like a thing in its own right. St. Thomas Aquinas eventually clarified the issue by stating pretty much what you've said: evil is the absence of good, a perversion of the real thing. It's like "cold" - strictly, there's no such thing as "cold", only the absence of heat.

[Jill Pole Queen of Narnia]

Hey, I've thought of another reason why I dismiss religion.

Hell.

Punishment is supposed to teach someone a lesson so they can be a better person. Hell is the ultimate punishment--except it's missing one thing. If you go to Hell there's no escape, no chance to correct your mistakes, you're stuck there forever and it just seems like one of the best ways to scare people into believing in God. The idea of sending someone to Hell for being a logical and rational person and not following the first thing that crosses their path is just--I can't describe just how horrendous an idea that is.

Christians who say they don't believe in Hell are just nitpickers--choosing parts of the Bible they like and dismissing the parts they dislike as nonsense.
I don't want to start an argument or anything, but it says in the bible that all non-christians do get a second chance, at the end of the world. But if you still don't believe, then you've got a problem.

[onlymystory]

I'd forgotten that Lewis said that too. I remembered that concept from some of Thomas of Aquinas writings. (and I am so impressed that you knew of that POTW. no one ever knows what I'm talking about when I mention him. :( ) Although I will have to reread parts of it. I always wondered how that one part of Lewis could be so different when I agree with his ideas pretty much everywhere else. Thanks for clearing that up, POTW.


Now to Jimmy, for me at least, I view hell as God finally giving us what we want. (and I think I've mentioned this before) But the people who go to hell are the people who want nothing to do with God. Everytime they get a chance to be with God they turn it down. And hell is God finally giving you what you want. When you die, God finally says, ok. I'll give you want you want. If you really want nothing to do with me then I'm going to turn my back and quit bothering you. The nightmare of hell comes when you realize that a life without God is the worst life of all. As Lewis points out in Mere Christianity, man is born with an emptiness that is to be filled with God. We are already missing something and we are looking for God. To not find that would mean to never be complete. Its not a punishment so much as a final agreement from God to give us what we want. But its only when we get to hell that we realize how terrible it really is. (I hope that made sense.)

edit: whoops. guess I should have scrolled up a little more on the thread. POTW said it better than I did.

[unleavened]

I suspect that those who go to hell will want to get out, but not enough to submit to God.

[LifeMaiden]

I suppose if you believe in God and forgiveness, then only you know ( and if you believe in God, then of course, God would know) if you are truly sorry for the sins you have committed. Ted Bundy was such an evil man to me that he may have just said what he did for some kind of reaction from people. He was a master at manipulating people.In another statement he bluntly said he had no remorse over what he did, and that he was cold-blooded to the very end.

[NARNIASTORY]

Hey, I've thought of another reason why I dismiss religion.

Hell.

Punishment is supposed to teach someone a lesson so they can be a better person. Hell is the ultimate punishment--except it's missing one thing. If you go to Hell there's no escape, no chance to correct your mistakes, you're stuck there forever and it just seems like one of the best ways to scare people into believing in God. The idea of sending someone to Hell for being a logical and rational person and not following the first thing that crosses their path is just--I can't describe just how horrendous an idea that is.

Christians who say they don't believe in Hell are just nitpickers--choosing parts of the Bible they like and dismissing the parts they dislike as nonsense.

you couldnt be more off track..
punishment is the penalty for breaking the Law.. If I murder and rape a little girl.. i get punished for what I did.. not to change who I am.
same as a speeding ticket.. you get slapped with a fine for your transgression of the Law

If you have broken Gods Law you are guilty, and deserve punishment
(Look at the Ten commandments)

Jesus died on the cross.. taking the punishment for your sins.. He Paid your Fine,
But he even took it a step further and was raised to Life, showing how if we die to our sins (Repent and Turn away from sin.. not just say sorry)
Then we will be Born again and live forever..

listen to www.HellsBestKeptSecret.com

[unleavened]

I agree NS.
Jimmy, I think you are confusing justice and correction.
I know it is a bit confusing b/c (for example) America has a justice system and when someone is found guilty in that system they are sent to a correctional facility.
However, don't be confused. Justice is basicly (I know it's not a complete definition) getting what you deserve. In Chistian terms, if you sin you deserve Hell.
Correction is what a parent does for a child. Little Bobby hits little Suzy. Little bobby get a time out. Next time he thinks about hitting Suzy, he remembers the time out and doesn't do it (in theory).
While on this earth we recieve correction. This is our chance to get on the right track, so to speak. Listen to God when He speaks to us (through whatever way: Bible, other people, circumstances...), respond to the messages he sends. (Stop hitting Suzy).
However, once this life is past it is time for justice. If you didn't listen to God, you get your just reward:Hell.

I don't mean to condmn you. Only God can judge the heart. I also don't mean to prove Chistianity to you though this post. I just mean to sort out some vocabulary and theory differences. If anyone (especially my Chirstian brothers and sisters who I ask to keep me in check and let me make fools of us) would like to correct me or add to this, please to right ahead.

[inkspot]

CS Lewis also makes the point that it is not being virtuous that gets you into heaven, but if you do not have at least the seeds of virtue -- at least the desire to be good -- within you, there is nothing in heaven which will make you want to be there. The whole point of heaven is being united with God, and achieving the perfection Christ intends for you. If you do not desire to achieve that perfection, if you have no interest in being like Jesus, then there is nothing for you in heaven. You'll probably be just as happy (as is possible to be) somewhere else. Like the dwarves in the stable at the end of TLB. There was nothing in New Narnia to attract them, so they remained where they were familiar with things...

[unleavened]

Exactly. Heaven would not be atractive to many b/c God demands complete submission. Ironically complete submission brings the greatest joy to man. However, I somehow think that those in Hell will not want out badly enough to submit. Even when sujected to the flames their hearts will still be hard and they will still by choice be slaves to their sin.

[Catalyst]

What is always interesting to me is how atheists spend so much energy and time trying to convince others (and I believe themselves) that there is no God. If there truly was no God, you would think that they would be at peace with that realization and would be indifferent about those who do believe in God. But they have a passion for trying to knock others who do believe and they "faithfully" try to push their agenda of removing any suggestion of God at all from society.


That's dangerous, being that the "duty" of Christians is to tell the good news, and preach the gospel. So the same question could be asked about Christians, why do they care if they are satisfied in the knowledge of their Lord?
Why did they go to the extent of colonizing and destroying Nations, Tribes and countless lives just to spread knowledge of this God?

I believe that Atheists try to..."preach" their views because the world that they live in is based on religion. Everyone wants to be heard, especially when you're of the minority, and are automatically cast off as being incorrect by a majority whom is backed by your president(for the states) , and countless other major power players.

[Parthian King]

Why did they go to the extent of colonizing and destroying Nations, Tribes and countless lives just to spread knowledge of this God?

Whoa there. Colonization was always primarily a commercial venture, not a religious one, and even the Pilgrims at Plymouth were hitchhikers in what was already an established trade interest. I will not deny that colonization did damage (though having lived in South America I would argue--along with a number of prominent Latin Americans--that the damage was greater there than in the North), but to say that this damage was the direct result of missionary activity (as opposed to commercial interest) is painting with a broad brush to say the least. It may very well be that people of past ages (particularly in British imperial times) considered the two activities to be strongly linked (i.e., trade=civilization=Christianity), but that is due the the cultural norms of their day, from which no one--not even super-enlightened post-moderns--are exempt, and for which Christianity and its tenets are hardly to blame.

Or would you forget as well that those horrible Christian missionaries also accomplished other things in their travels, such as the banning of widow-burning in India and internecine strife among the tribes of South America?

[Catalyst]

I'm not saying it was solely Christianity, (I apologize it came off that way) but it was a factor that made it easier for people to believe what they were doing was right. Slavery was once referred to as "the school of slavery" because the enslavers believed that they were civilizing and saving the souls of the Africans through slavery. So to them everyone won; they got free labor and got rich, the Africans got civilization and salvation. At one point, Very early on in the trade, an African could get out of slavery by converting to Christianity.

But I kind of digressed from my primary post. To say that Atheists are shakey in their beliefs because they "preach" their point of view is dangerous because Christianity is about Preaching and spreading the "good news" they (Atheists) or anyone, could turn around and take it a step further and say, "If Christians are secure in their belief of God, then why is the major part of the religion based on spreading it? Why not be content with it?"

To say that passionately talking about one's belief is proof of a shakey foundation doesn't sit right with me.

[Parthian King]

Catalyst, well said. You are correct (in my view) about what you say concerning colonization and (sadly) even slavery. (Of course, those were always lame excuses and there were always significant voices saying exactly that.)

And from a purely conceptual position, I agree with you: Atheists could very easily turn the tables and say what Gibby said back to Christians. But that construct implies that everyone is seeing things from a bird's eye, societal-level position. I think Gibby was making a much more visceral statement: Christians (real ones, not exploiters who use the name of Christ for personal gain) are full of a joy and faith they want to share. Like the ex-slave trader John Newton who wrote Amazing Grace, they want to share how God "saved a wretch like me." They also feel a command to do so comes directly from Scripture (for those days when they don't "feel" anything).

Atheists, on the other hand, have neither the injunction nor (it seems) much to share. I have yet to speak to the atheist who says, "Wow, since embracing atheism I have so much joy and peace--my life is so full." They may say they are free of hangups or something, but never anything equivalent to a vibrant Christian testimony (however misguided you think it is). That, I think, was Gibby's point: Atheism is essentially nihilism--an argument for nothing. To argue for it as if it is a religion (which you almost indicate) is sort of a contradiction in terms.

[Catalyst]

Atheism is essentially nihilism--an argument for nothing. To argue for it as if it is a religion (which you almost indicate) is sort of a contradiction in terms.
Hey Parthian King, thanks for your response.

I'm not arguing it as a religion, because that's what they're against,(and like you said would be a contradiction) I'm saying it's their way of life.

I have one friend who's an Atheist, and another who seems to be leaning in that direction. The latter feels as if she now has nothing to fear. There is no pressure to walk like a man whom she can't identify with. (Jesus) A man who had never sinned. She feels that through Christianity we are at a disadvantage being that we are born with sin in our souls, therefore, the religion sets us up to fail or to be hypocrites. She feels that since she has released the religion she can just follow the "rules of nature", if you will, a Live and let live type of attitude.

I know I didn't put it as eloquently as she, but I hope you get it.

All in all, I dont know every Atheist, and have only knowingly had a debate with her on the topic. Maybe she feels good now, but will feel empty in a month, a week, heck in an hour... Who knows? I just know, that in the now, she's happy with her life.

[Catalyst]

Like the ex-slave trader John Newton who wrote Amazing Grace.
Completely off topic, but we were just discussing the irony of how that song has been adopted by the Black community, and how it's come full circle. We can go as far as to say the same about the "neo-N-word". History is very interesting.

[Desii noble knight of Narnia]

can you guys explain to me exactly what this thread is about please??
Thank you :)
~Kristen

[Parthian King]

can you guys explain to me exactly what this thread is about please??

Well, it's kind of morphed, so I guess it's been about a lot of things. It started as an atheist who sounded off.

I'm not arguing it as a religion, because that's what they're against,(and like you said would be a contradiction) I'm saying it's their way of life.

Oh, I know you weren't. My point is that in discussions like this, atheism practically functions as if it were a religion.

I have one friend who's an Atheist, and another who seems to be leaning in that direction. The latter feels as if she now has nothing to fear. There is no pressure to walk like a man whom she can't identify with. (Jesus) A man who had never sinned. She feels that through Christianity we are at a disadvantage being that we are born with sin in our souls, therefore, the religion sets us up to fail or to be hypocrites.

...I just know, that in the now, she's happy with her life.

Sadly, she has missed the whole point of Christ and His life. The fact that Jesus was a man (i.e., God become man) was so that we would be able to identify with Him more--not less. The fact that Jesus was human in every way (emotions, weaknesses, disappointments, etc.) but was without sin means He can both identify with us and comfort us, as well as being the one who takes away our sins. Christianity isn't a guilt trip, it's a trip away from guilt. The Cross helps us "kick the sin habit" even while it offers total forgiveness for the sins we commit in the mean time. I'm sorry your friend hasn't heard this. In the end all will find that acting as if a sinless man never lived or a sacrifice for sins isn't important to us will never be enough to take away our own guilt. You cannot escape from yourself.

As for being "happy," that isn't what I referred to. I referred to joy--a theme very important to Lewis and something much, much deeper than happiness.

Pax!

[echoscot]

As for being "happy," that isn't what I referred to. I referred to joy--a theme very important to Lewis and something much, much deeper than happiness.

Pax!


I love that theme. I try to make it the theme of my life. The Joy of the lord. It is my strength. :)

[tumnus_luver15]

1) Becuase there is no possible way most of thoes things could have happend and the ones that did happen are proved to be natural occurances. Also they are still findind mistranslations in the bible to this day.

2) Becuase there is proof of the natural. That would be like saying that humans are the only life in the universe. It is not possible there are billions of stars and plants and to say that only ONE has life on it is unbelivable.

he has a point they all are -most- have been proven by nature.

but if you have faith in god then u r a christian if u don't then u beleve in something else and i respect that.

Mandy

pleez pm me -igotta have something to do during the summer :) -

[echoscot]

he has a point they all are -most- have been proven by nature.

but if you have faith in god then u r a christian if u don't then u beleve in something else and i respect that.

Mandy

pleez pm me -igotta have something to do during the summer :) -


he actually didn't have much of a point at all.

1. Which has been addressed countless times, is actually merely an opinion which is not backed up by any of the facts. Most places, events etc have been geologically and historically proven several times over to be accurate. In all fairness, there are certain places, the Garden of Eden for example, which has not been precisely located. However the other events are all chronicled outside of Biblical Canon as well. There is overwhelming evidence of a worldwide flood from shells located in the rocky mountains, to sea life found in the middle of the dessert. In addition to the reports in religions world wide of tbe great cataclysm, which means others took note as well.
The escape of the Israelites from Egypt is pretty historically accurate. Regardless of whether it was through the Reed Sea or the Red Sea both are miraculous. A group of trodden on slaves overwhelming the greatest army at that time on the face of the Earth? Amazing to my point of view, yet documented historically. Even in Egyptian heiroglyphs.

Just because something is a natural occurence does not make it any less miraculous.

As far as mistranslations, that is an utter myth declared by those who refuse to know the truth. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls was an overwhelming blow to that myth. Many of the current Old Testament books, particularly the Book of Isaiah, were found to be within 99% accuracy. The DSS were dated to a couple of hundred years before Christ. The books of the Bible have more ancient manuscripts and documents well dated and preserved than any other to date. Thousands of documents still exist from the first centuries that translators use to write various translations of the Bible. Most other texts from that period have less than a hundred documents. I have read several translations of the Bible: King James, New American Standard, and New International Version (My personal favorite). Ultimately the differences are stylistic, not interpretive or critical. And the teams that worked on all three did their faithful best to use the best translational technology available to them at the time.

Before I leave point 1 which in Lawman's post was really several points I will refer to his original statement:

Becuase there is no possible way most of thoes things could have happend and the ones that did happen are proved to be natural occurances. Also they are still findind mistranslations in the bible to this day.

Effectively what he says at the beginning is "because I can't see how that could have happened, it didn't, so there!" That is false logic. Limiting potential occurrences to one's own perspective does not mean that they do not or could not happen. Many things, both good and bad have occured that no one could possibly foresee or predict, and at one time seemed impossible. People at one time believed that if you sailed far enough you would fall off the edge of the earth. They were convinced: " Becuase there is no possible way most of thoes things(that the Earth is round) could have happend and the ones that did(we have never seen them again) happen are proved to be natural(I can look out my front door and see the Earth is flat) .


2. Moving on. This is great. I love this one.

Becuase there is proof of the natural. That would be like saying that humans are the only life in the universe. It is not possible there are billions of stars and plants and to say that only ONE has life on it is unbelivable.


I'm sorry, proof of the what?


Becuase there is proof of the natural.


Oh, okay, that's what I thought you said. What exactly is "the natural"? That is pretty much an undefined thing, and what proof? Are you saying that you believe that there is some unseen power in control? Are you saying that you can see trees grow and the sun set and the waves lap at the shore and hear dogs bark and see birds fly, that there is some force, if you will, that is guiding all of this? Then you are definitely NOT an atheist, you have just denied atheism. You could claim to be a naturalist. By those things, most Christians know there is a God. Yet the character of that God is not defined by those observations.

Then the non-sequiter point about life in the universe, I guess. Not sure really how that ties into the first part of his point, but here goes:

If you want to be imaginative and dream and believe about life on other planets, I suppose the probability exists that it could be so. It wouldn't surprise me if life was found elsewhere, but that does not mean that it is absolutely so. It is also just as probable that the Earth was the pinnacle of creation. So far scientists have exhausted themselves trying to find proof of life on other planets. It is an exciting and tantalizing thought, but without success. We sent probes to Mars, nothing. Reason given, we only took a small sample, perhaps that would be like one landing in the middle of the Sahara Desert and claiming there was no life on Earth. Well, the logic falls through, in that a sample of sand in the middle of the Sahara would yield evidence of life. There are plant and animal fossils, ground and weathered as well as microbes and bacteria that thrive there. It is not always visible to our eyes, but the sensitivity of that probe would have picked it up. In addition, life does not exist in an isolated part of Earth, it explodes all over the planet from pole to pole and to the depths of the seas. We are always finding new species and new forms as we explore our own planet.
Then there was the excitement a few years ago about the meteorite found in Antarctica. It had crashed there a few thousand years ago and had evidence of carbon based microbes on it. Theories were proposed that this had come from Mars. Upon further examination, however, it turned out that this microbe was a native form to Antarctica, not Mars and had just finally "infected" the meteorite. Disappointing, to say the least.

There is no evidence, yet, of a Star Wars or Star Trek kind of universe where every planet and Solar system has new civilizations.

This is also a moot point, in that life on other planets does not necessarily disprove Christianity or the existence of the Judeo/Christian God.

Basically his statements were nonsense.

Perhaps there are atheists on this forum that are better spoken, but I don't think he had any point at all.

[Catalyst]

I'm sorry your friend hasn't heard this.


She's heard it, she just doesn't buy it anymore.

[Parthian King]

She's heard it, she just doesn't buy it anymore.

Actually, "hear" carries a deeper meaning than "been informed of," but I'll leave that alone in favor of another observation:

Your friend, Catalyst, along with many "atheists" that I've conversed with (on this forum and elsewhere) really sound like lousy atheists altogether. Not that they are lousy people, mind you, just very intellectually dishonest. The reasons you gave for your friend turning to "atheism" (which, of course, is all I have to work with) are that it makes her feel guilty, she cannot identify with a sinless man, it makes her feel hypocritical, it puts her under pressure, etc. All those reasons have to do with preference of lifestyle and inner posture in terms of relating to God. In other words, she sounds more like she has been informed (as you point out), but rejects what she hears, much as a young woman rejects the advances of a suitor she isn't attracted to. Her reasons don't sound at all like the attitudes of a person who has carefully weighed the evidence (empirically and philosophically) and dispassionately concluded that there is in fact no God (the very defintion of atheism). I can't tell you how many "atheists" that I have spoken to who either directly or indirectly end up confessing anger, disillusionment, or even simple apathy towards God--emotions no true atheist could ever feel.

So in short, it sounds like (in her gut) your friend believes there is a God--she just doesn't want anything to do with Him right now (i.e., she doesn't "buy it,"as you say).

I repeat, if she (or anyone else) rejects the forgiveness and life offered in the message of Christ, they haven't heard it. Not really.

[Catalyst]

^^ I can dig what you're saying.

Personally, I feel like she's doing an experiament by clearing the slate of her "former" religious beliefs and seeing the effects of that action (how she feels about herself, the world around her etc).

[Parthian King]

My hope is that she gets a true taste of what she's sticking in her mouth very quickly, and before it does too much harm, so she can turn back to the One who weeps for her absence. To do battle with God (even God as a lost person understands Him) is like denying the ground upon which you stand, like choosing to dislike water, like resenting the pure air that fills your lungs. Though it grieves Him, God can take it; though we be "happy" without Him, we cannot.

[ILoveJensenAckles]

Like I said above. I think the bible is jsut a made up stor to explain what WAS unexplained. People that take the bible seriosuly dont relize that there are mistakes and alot of it was roughly translated. I want hard proof and evidence that someting happened. I belive in science not religion.
im with you on that i need cold hard proof not just stories

[ILoveJensenAckles]

has anyone here read the Da Vinci Code
its a good book and it has some stories about how the bible was made i dont know if they are true but it offeres another side. and its pretty interesting.

[skandarlous]

I have been reading a few of the posts here and do agree with a lot of it; however, I have more views about God and a higher being that lean towards being a Naturalist than an Atheist. If I'm not mistaken, Atheists do not believe in a higher being at ALL, while Naturalists prefer to believe in evolution and a higher being if science proves there is one. PLEASE feel free to correct me if I am wrong, because I'd hate to stand up for views that are completely wrong. :)

I just recently realized that I do believe there is SOME form of energy in the universe that created us, not necessarily being God. I believe that we came about from evolution, and something started it.

No offence at all to Christians, Atheists, or any other religious person reading this post. :)

[onlymystory]

I'd suggest checking out our thread on the DaVinci code. It might clear up a few things for you. Dan Brown is an idiot and a quack and completely belittled the work of hundreds of dedicated historians both Christian and atheist. And I know we've discussed the amount of "mistakes" in the Bible but I'd be happy to add to the discussion and prove that statement wrong with some "cold hard facts". Because the facts are that the Bible can be proved correct tens of times easier than most other old manuscripts we have.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I have been reading a few of the posts here and do agree with a lot of it; however, I have more views about God and a higher being that lean towards being a Naturalist than an Atheist. If I'm not mistaken, Atheists do not believe in a higher being at ALL, while Naturalists prefer to believe in evolution and a higher being if science proves there is one. PLEASE feel free to correct me if I am wrong, because I'd hate to stand up for views that are completely wrong. :)

I just recently realized that I do believe there is SOME form of energy in the universe that created us, not necessarily being God. I believe that we came about from evolution, and something started it.

No offence at all to Christians, Atheists, or any other religious person reading this post. :)Oh, no offence. Strictly speaking a "naturalist" is someone who believes that the observable reality ("nature") around us is the only reality that exists (using "observable" in the extended sense - not necessarily with the naked senses, but meters, telescopes, and microscopes are allowed.) This is as opposed to a "supernaturalist", such as myself and C.S. Lewis, who believed that there were realities that transcended our space-time matrix and could never be detected in this universe.

Interestingly, much of modern physics is coming to the same conclusion, but that would take us into superstring theory, so we won't go there right now.

Question for you regarding the "energy" you believe was the start of everything: this is an impersonal energy you're talking about here, right? That is, it doesn't have a personality, making it something like gravity or electricity? That's as opposed to an energy that is either personal in its own right or has a personality behind it? An example of a personal energy would be a human mind (however you conceive of that profound mystery), and an example of energy motivated by personality would be OMS' fingers tapping away on the keyboard. The energy being used is electro-muscular, which is impersonal in its own right, but it's being guided by a personality.

You're thinking strictly impersonal energy, right? No personality anywhere?

[Parthian King]

This is almost too much to take without ROFL. First, ILJA posts this:

im with you on that i need cold hard proof not just stories

Then follows it immediately with this...

has anyone here read the Da Vinci Code its a good book and it has some stories about how the bible was made i dont know if they are true but it offeres another side. and its pretty interesting.

Whatever you choose to believe, the Bible is the most tested, proven selection of texts ever known in human history. Dan Brown is a novelist and hack would-be historian whose theories fall like a house of cards. Yet in the above, look at the perspective: Skepticism over the true Scriptures, and openness to sheer nonsense--in posts made one right after the other. Amazing.

[onlymystory]

*raises eyebrows and very innocently* there was something amusing about those posts, PK? why whatever was it?

[skandarlous]

Question for you regarding the "energy" you believe was the start of everything: this is an impersonal energy you're talking about here, right? That is, it doesn't have a personality, making it something like gravity or electricity? That's as opposed to an energy that is either personal in its own right or has a personality behind it? An example of a personal energy would be a human mind (however you conceive of that profound mystery), and an example of energy motivated by personality would be OMS' fingers tapping away on the keyboard. The energy being used is electro-muscular, which is impersonal in its own right, but it's being guided by a personality.

You're thinking strictly impersonal energy, right? No personality anywhere?

Well, it could be either. Both parts of what you're saying make sense to me.

As far as 'religion' goes, I probably have to look into religion more to actually define myself as a Naturalist, or an Atheist, or a Christian, or anything. I guess I may just not be a religious person.

[ILoveJensenAckles]

This is almost to much to take without ROFL. First, ILJA posts this:



Then follows it immediately with this...



Whatever you choose to believe, the Bible is the most tested, proven selection of texts ever known in human history. Dan Brown is a novelist and hack would-be historian whose theories fall like a house of cards. Yet in the above, look at the perspective: Skepticism over the true Scriptures, and openness to sheer nonsense--in posts made one right after the other. Amazing.

ok i guess what i ment to say was that the Da vinci Code was a good read and yes it is a story but there are stories in the bible too. and might i add that you dont put ROFL because you sound like a freakin idiot or a stupid monkey.

[inkspot]

ok i guess what i ment to say was that the Da vinci Code was a good read and yes it is a story but there are stories in the bible too. and might i add that you dont put ROFL because you sound like a freakin idiot or a stupid monkey.
Welcome, Jensen. Please do not make personal comments of this nature. You can say you find the argument laughable, but please do not, again, say the person himself sounds like a monkey, etc. We do not have personal attacks in these Threads. Thank you.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, it could be either. Both parts of what you're saying make sense to me.If it was a "personal energy", it would be something unlike anything we experience in everyday life. I mean, glowing energy clouds that talk are well known to the writers of Star Trek episodes, but when we say "energy", we usually mean things like electricity, magnetism, and gravity - forces without personality. We don't talk to the wind and expect it to respond, do we?

So this energy that you think began the universe - whether it had a personality or it didn't makes a huge difference. If it was just an impersonal force like gravity, then it couldn't decide what to do, could it? It would just do what gravity does, right? But if it was personal energy - energy with character, so to speak, that could make decisions, then that makes a big difference. But such energy is unlike any "energy" we know of. Also, if it has a personality, it can't not have personality at the same time, so it would be impossible to be both, right?

[skandarlous]

If it was a "personal energy", it would be something unlike anything we experience in everyday life. I mean, glowing energy clouds that talk are well known to the writers of Star Trek episodes, but when we say "energy", we usually mean things like electricity, magnetism, and gravity - forces without personality. We don't talk to the wind and expect it to respond, do we?

So this energy that you think began the universe - whether it had a personality or it didn't makes a huge difference. If it was just an impersonal force like gravity, then it couldn't decide what to do, could it? It would just do what gravity does, right? But if it was personal energy - energy with character, so to speak, that could make decisions, then that makes a big difference. But such energy is unlike any "energy" we know of. Also, if it has a personality, it can't not have personality at the same time, so it would be impossible to be both, right?

Ah, okay, now I see what you're saying. Then yes, I do mean an impersonal force. Maybe it's a force we haven't discovered yet, I don't know.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Ah, okay, now I see what you're saying. Then yes, I do mean an impersonal force. Maybe it's a force we haven't discovered yet, I don't know.Oh, I don't know about that - we know about pretty much all the forces in the universe. Electro-magnetism, gravity, the strong force, the weak force - pretty much it, there. There's molecular movement, of course, which gives us heat, but from the Big Bang forward it pretty well distills down to those. Which of those sounds like the best candidate?

Another thing I'm curious about: here you're saying that it could be a force we don't know about (which would surprise a lot of theoretical physicists, but they'd be extremely curious), but a couple posts back you said this:I just recently realized that I do believe there is SOME form of energy in the universe that created us, not necessarily being God.So, you believe in it, but you don't know about it? How does that work?

[skandarlous]

Oh, I don't know about that - we know about pretty much all the forces in the universe. Electro-magnetism, gravity, the strong force, the weak force - pretty much it, there. There's molecular movement, of course, which gives us heat, but from the Big Bang forward it pretty well distills down to those. Which of those sounds like the best candidate?

Another thing I'm curious about: here you're saying that it could be a force we don't know about (which would surprise a lot of theoretical physicists, but they'd be extremely curious), but a couple posts back you said this:So, you believe in it, but you don't know about it? How does that work?

Well, if it was an unknown force, how we would know if we discovered it?

Basically, I believe in evolution. The force I'm talking about is the force that started the first living things. But, I don't know what that force is, so I'm saying it may be an unknown force... even though it may be right under my nose and I may not even know it. Sometimes I can be a bundle of contradictions because I'm ignorant about things, and I'm probably being ignorant right now. x-x;

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, if it was an unknown force, how we would know if we discovered it?Well, if you're talking about natural forces, then you discover it by sensing it in some way, right? Measure heat, see light, feel gravity, that sort of thing. Some of the forces act at such small levels that they have to be measured by special instruments, but natural forces don't hide - they're right there. If you're postulating a natural force that has not yet been discovered - again, the physicists would want to talk to you, because the basic list has been settled for quite some time. Any indication that there was one lurking out there undiscovered would be a major discovery. Of course, you'd have to supply some evidence for this unknown force - just thinking it might be there wouldn't be good enough.

Sorry if I seem to be pressing the point, but I've read a lot of C.S. Lewis, and he wouldn't leave such a major question hanging by such tenuous threads - he'd want a bit more pinned down. For instance, you speak of "the force that started the first living things", then turn around and say you don't know what the force might be. Naturalistic evolution postulates that life (whatever that is) was started by the effect of all the forces acting on matter - but you seem to be supposing that a different kind of force started life.

A force that you don't know anything about, and can't supply any evidence for, yet you're crediting with starting something as significant as life. Call me slow, but that sounds a lot like faith to me.

[skandarlous]

Well, if you're talking about natural forces, then you discover it by sensing it in some way, right? Measure heat, see light, feel gravity, that sort of thing. Some of the forces act at such small levels that they have to be measured by special instruments, but natural forces don't hide - they're right there. If you're postulating a natural force that has not yet been discovered - again, the physicists would want to talk to you, because the basic list has been settled for quite some time. Any indication that there was one lurking out there undiscovered would be a major discovery. Of course, you'd have to supply some evidence for this unknown force - just thinking it might be there wouldn't be good enough.

Sorry if I seem to be pressing the point, but I've read a lot of C.S. Lewis, and he wouldn't leave such a major question hanging by such tenuous threads - he'd want a bit more pinned down. For instance, you speak of "the force that started the first living things", then turn around and say you don't know what the force might be. Naturalistic evolution postulates that life (whatever that is) was started by the effect of all the forces acting on matter - but you seem to be supposing that a different kind of force started life.

A force that you don't know anything about, and can't supply any evidence for, yet you're crediting with starting something as significant as life. Call me slow, but that sounds a lot like faith to me.

You're not pressing it, and from what you're saying I have to admit that you're right. My thought of a 'force' was probably what you just said ("Naturalistic evolution postulates that life (whatever that is) was started by the effect of all the forces acting on matter"), and I kept insisting it was one force only because I didn't know it was an effect of ALL of the forces acting on matter.

(Sorry for pressing on about something I knew nothing about. ^^; )

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Hey, that's how we all learn! One of the greatest thinkers of history, Socrates, always started with acknowledging what he didn't know and moved on from there.

So what you're saying is that you believe that evolution began by the working together of these various forces in some manner that we don't know, and that the result was life, and eventually (through various processes) intelligent life. All the way along, though, it was just these forces like heat, gravity, and the weak force working together?

It's important that you keep one thing firmly in mind - these are all impersonal forces. No personality behind heat or gravity - they just work a certain way. Gravity doesn't decide when it's going to work and when it isn't, and as far as we know there's no being that adjusts gravity as it chooses (unless you postulate God, but that would be faith, so let's not go there.) Impersonal forces - remember that.

[skandarlous]

Hey, that's how we all learn! One of the greatest thinkers of history, Socrates, always started with acknowledging what he didn't know and moved on from there.

So what you're saying is that you believe that evolution began by the working together of these various forces in some manner that we don't know, and that the result was life, and eventually (through various processes) intelligent life. All the way along, though, it was just these forces like heat, gravity, and the weak force working together?

It's important that you keep one thing firmly in mind - these are all impersonal forces. No personality behind heat or gravity - they just work a certain way. Gravity doesn't decide when it's going to work and when it isn't, and as far as we know there's no being that adjusts gravity as it chooses (unless you postulate God, but that would be faith, so let's not go there.) Impersonal forces - remember that.

*nods* Yes, that's what I believe.

Yeah, I think I just misunderstood your first post about personal forces. All the while I was thinking it could be a personal force or an impersonal one because I didn't think the forces could act with each OTHER, resulting in life after evolution.

But still, I think that for me to firmly say that I am a Naturalist would be to look deeper into the matter. After all, here I am saying there was some unknown force that Science hadn't discovered, while Naturalists are supposed to think Scientifically. I may end up like my dad, who is Hindu but also thinks a few parts in the Bible have very good meanings.

Once again, sorry for pestering ^^;

[Driad54]

thelawtman,
On a deeper level, he became a Christian because he was hunted down like quarry by the Hound of Heaven who, once He had a hold of Lewis, refused to shake him loose. But that last won't make sense to you until you meet Him.


Interesting

[ILoveJensenAckles]

Ok well here on this site we have all theses threads for Christians so I thought us non belives and people with open minds need a thread so here it is. What I want to know is why did you come a Athesist and why do u think religon is fake OR whatever.

Like I have said in other areas I think religoin in jsut a explantaion for what was once unexplained. People did not know how to explain things so they made up religons and other ideas.

ok im atheist because its kinda hard for me to belive in this great God when he let Columbine happen(look it up if you dont know) and if he would let 9/11 happen. also there have been many murders over the course of time that have been comited in "Gods name"(ie. the crusades&
the witch trials are another example). Also some of the stories in the bible like how the earth was flooded i dont get how the fish would live because wouldnt the oceans have more fresh water and not salt water and most of the animals in the ocean would die.

[SlpNarniaQueen]

I have a few questions...if you have read the bible, and in John Ch. 20 verse 25 it says: So the disiples told Thomas"we have seen the Lord" But Thomas replied "First I must see the nail marks in his hands. I must put my finger where the nails were. I must put my hand into his side. Only then will I believe what you say." then in verse 29 it says: Then Jesus told him "Because you have seen me you have beleived. Blessed are those who have not seen me and beleived." You say it has to be proved, but what is this saying: blessed be the one who beleives without proof or seeing. I'm not trying to make you become a christian just explain how a person in the bible has the same thoughts as you? he had to see to beleive, and proof is the same thing. that is a real feeling...how did someone in the bible have that feeling too?

[Princess_Iliana]

No, I'm not Athiest and as I have read, I'm not welcome, being a Christian. I'm not here to make any one mad, but to show you my perspective.I think every one is entitled to their opinion, but no one has 2 perspectives, so they don't know how to agree or correct this. I don't understand why someone, basicaly all of us, is choosing to fight a never ending fight about who is right. We will never know until we die.

For one thing, yes, it has been proven in lots of places, television books and lots of other places, that the bible has been misstranslated. Now with that said only some words get mixed up, and I think the same point made is still the same point gotten across, no matter what language.

A few questions for people who are Atheist.
1) What do you picture after life to be? Just life and then you die and *poof* its just done, or what?
2) If it is just *poof* that you believe, what is the point of life, and what is our purpose?

I personaly think that if it were just *poof* we wouldn't be here, we would have no purpose and I believe God has a special purpose for all of us, and if its was just *poof* and there is a purpose, why would we just dissapear?
Also, I don't believe science has to do with every thing.
(Please no one get mad! :( )

[SlpNarniaQueen]

I'm not mad! you spelled what I wanted to ask out! I want to know that to and think you made a perfect point. :D I know I'm not welcome either! :( being a christian...but i'm happy anyway!

[Per Sempre]

I know I'm not supposed to be here (being a christian and all), but I am. I respect your thoughts and opinions, but have you ever thought of becoming a christian, just curious?

[Red Rose]

i am a christian :) :p :D

[Parthian King]

ok im atheist because its kinda hard for me to belive in this great God when he let Columbine happen(look it up if you dont know) and if he would let 9/11 happen. also there have been many murders over the course of time that have been comited in "Gods name"(ie. the crusades & the witch trials are another example). Also some of the stories in the bible like how the earth was flooded i dont get how the fish would live because wouldnt the oceans have more fresh water and not salt water and most of the animals in the ocean would die.

ILJA, it doesn't seem anyone has really had a go at your objections, so I guess I'll give it a shot.

It appears you really have two issues you are dealing with. First, you have the problem of evil in the world, which apparently contradicts the Judeo-Christian concept of a God who is at the same time all-good and all-powerful. Second, you have issues with the believability of some of the more fantastic stories in the Bible.

I'll start with the second, since it's easier. For one thing, you don't have to believe in the Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or the idea that manna fell from Heaven for the Israelites for 40 years, or any number of other things to believe in God. In fact, you don't have to believe the Bible at all to believe in God--many believe in God who practice other religions that don't recognize the Bible as true at all. But playing along for the moment that for you "belief in God" means "belief in the Christian God," let me just say that a saving knowledge of God (meaning, coming to know Christ as Son of God) does not depend on whether you literally believe the earth was created in six days, or a bunch of other things hard for the scientifically-minded to believe. It rests on believing that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Savior, and that His death and resurrection saves from sin and redeems. I happen to believe what many would call impossibly fantastic stories from the Bible. But I also know there's more to it than that. I won't bore you with all sorts of evidence for the Flood, because once I did, you'd (justifiably) bring up some other issue you are skeptical about, and there'd be no end to it. Let me simply say many Christians take those stories figuratively, while others take them literally with supporting evidence, while still others just believe them and even reject the use of science as unnecessary. There's no rule. So that alone shouldn't keep you from believing there is a God. As a Christian, I certainly don't condemn you for having questions there.

As for evil in the world (Columbine, or 9/11, or the Holocaust, or the Crusades, or millions of other injustices that have gone on since time began and Cain killed Abel), that is a tougher question. C.S. Lewis addresses it in his book The Problem of Pain, and in a collection of essays he wrote called God in the Dock (meaning, "God on trial"). The point is, Christians are not blind or mute to the difficulty of great pain and evil in the world while our gospel says God is both perfectly good and perfectly powerful. If He's so good, and He can do something about evil, why doesn't He? Why doesn't He punish those who do it right now, or better, stop it before it happens?

I really suggest you get those books, because Lewis was an atheist who worked through those things. He doesn't cut God a whole lot of slack, if I can put it that way. On the other hand, Lewis really helps answer some tough questions and helps us mortals put things in perspective. I don't want to muddy things in comparison to his brilliance, but I might simply offer this:

God created the world good. He created humanity good. But He wanted to give humanity freedom--not make a race of robots that followed His truth and goodness like puppets. So He gave us freewill, and He turned creation over to us in a way (sort of like a rental agreement on a house). That "lease" has a fixed time limit, but while it is in effect, God will respect it, just like a landlord has to respect a lease. If I rent you my home, I can't go barging in to the house any time I like, even though I own it; you have legal residence there. I may be totally in disagreement with what you do there, but you have a lease, and I have to respect it. Now, all illustrations are limited, but that is more or less the way it is here. The Bible says humanity used its freewill to sin--to turn from God. That involves a whole lot of evil and injustice--people hurting each other. But God made the choice: if freewill was to be truly free, people had to be able to choose evil as well as good--otherwise it wouldn't be freewill at all. God in His divine wisdom decided that the good that would come out of those who truly and freely chose to do good (rather than do good because they were "programmed" to do it) was greater than the evil that would be done by those who would use their freedom for bad.

So in the end, God has two options: 1) Take away our freewill and turn us into robots, or 2) terminate the "lease" on the planet. He won't do the first, since it violates His nature. God can't change His mind or He'd stop being God. So that leaves the second option. And that leads to a strong Christian belief: The Second Coming of Christ. We believe that since He came once (as Jesus) He'll come again to clean up this mess. At that time, all the injustice will seem small compared to the good and glory that will be revealed, and the time darkness "ruled" will be as the wink of an eye.

[ILoveJensenAckles]

ok thanks for pointing out some other things that i needs to get clarified and ill go out and find that book and read it.

[Gwen]

I know I'm not supposed to be here (being a christian and all), but I am. I respect your thoughts and opinions, but have you ever thought of becoming a christian, just curious?

Well, I'm Atheist, and I guess I'll always be :p
I never really considered becoming a christian. I know what christians believe, who Christ was, I saw the Passion of the Christ and I even know most biblestories (my mum told them when I was little) but I don't feel like a christian... My parents never pushed me becoming a christian (they're not either). Reading the biblestories of for example David and Goliath to me was like reading fairytales. Maybe that's insulting for the bible or christianity, but to me teh bible is nothing more than stories. God is to me also strange... I just can't believe there's some 'higher power' who decides what happens to you and me.
And I just want to say it: Please don't get mad, it's just my opinion and I don't mean to insult anyone with it. If I do so please PM me and I shall remove this immediately.