I have a question for you, you stated that you've read the Bible six times, maybe more, so did you read it so as to learn more about your Creator, or in attempt to pick out every trivial flaw or contradiction you might find?
Paragraph 2: I'm ignorant and deliberately blind myself to reality because I've given up on life and am waiting for death in ridiculous hope that I'll be given eternal bliss singing praises to the egotistical sky-pixie! You'll find that it is quite the opposite of what you have stated. I have not given up on life, I've chosen to accept through faith, that what God tells us through His Word is true and leads to eternal life. Accepting Jesus in no way implies giving up. In fact, life as a Christian involves being persecuted, overcoming temptations, resisting sin, and spreading His Gospel. And having something to look forward to when life on this earth does cease.
When we are confronted with judgement at the end of this life, standing before our Creator, we will either be in a position to say, "Yes, I accepted Jesus and believed that He died for my sins, and I am forgiven through Grace.", or "Look, I've written up a list of trivial contradictions and grammatical errors, how could I possibly have believed it?". We can either use this life to accept in faith what God has given to us through His Word, or we can choose to reject it. There are consequences for the latter, and I'm sure you've read the Bible enough times to know what they are.
All I can suggest is, if you plan on reading the Bible from front to back again, to ask your Creator to reveal Himself to you through His Word. You know yourself, even Paul went around persecuting Christians up until the Lord revealed Himself. Before devoting your life to attacking Christians, it would be wise to find out for sure whether He is real or not, by asking Him yourself. If He is real, He can reveal Himself to you, if He's not, well you can continue on your not-so-merry way.
Acts 26:12-18 On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?' 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
Paul/Saul was, in all probability, a Roman plant in the early church to break it up and use the remnants to reinforce Roman requirements on the members. Well, I've been enlightened. Not sure why you felt it necessary to add in all probability, that is if there is any evidence to back that statement up.
Modern Christian teachings (including the self-proclaimed "same as the apostles" type churches are based primarily on the teachings of Paul, and not on the teachings of Christ. If Paul's writings contradict the message of the Gospel, that God sent His Son Jesus to this earth, to be crucified for our sins, and then rose again on the third day to be seated at the right-hand of God, to return again in the future, then I guess Christians must have been deceived for the past two milleniums. Interesting theory, but surely if there was any truth in it, Christians would have removed Pauls writing from the Bible at some point in history, whether in the early church, or even in these modern days.
Also, if God were not an omnipotent God, then your claims might have some grounding, but seeing as God is omnipotent, if what Paul preached and wrote was really contradictory to the Gospel, it would not be contained in what we now know as the Bible.
As the original 12 were allegedly based directly on Christ they would have had very little in common with those who went with the teachings of Paul. Thus they also had very little in common with the current "Christians" who's core doctrines are mostly based on Pauls original materials and interpretations of Christs teachings. How does "they would have had very little in common with those who went with the teachings of Paul", have anything to do with the underlying message of Scripture? Having things in common with each other has little to do with the fact that God sent His one and only Son so that we can be made right with God, by His grace, through Jesus.
Yeah, sorry, I was a bit out of line with that post. I should have read what C-14 was before posting. In fact, I'm still only a little more enlightened after reading the wiki explanation. Still not 100% sure on how that works.
So, the original 12 never did all the stuff the Roman plant in the church (Paul) wrote in opposition to Christs teachings, and upon which all modern Christian faiths are based? Not quite sure where you're coming from here. Did you miss a comma or a period, maybe?
If evolution is wrong, there is no harm in openly and fairly considering the evidence. If evolution is true, then the Galileo situation is replaying itself. If evolution is true, then you are unwittingly telling people they must reject the Bible and reject God. You did make a good point in this post. And I do agree with what you have said to an extent. When I say extent, without getting back into the for and against argument, God does not rely on physical proof to reveal Himself to us, majority or minority Christians can argue for and against all types of evidence that might prove that the Bible is true, but in the end, none of that matters. It shouldn't matter what rules, theories, or laws man (non-Christian and Christian alike) concoct, we just need to have faith that what is written in Gods Word is the truth.
Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
I don't profess to be a theological scholar or a multi-platform scientist, I only speak on behalf of my observations and beliefs based on what the Bible says. The crux of my stance against the theory of evolution is based on the Bible, wherein It states that the world was created in 6 days, and the genealogy starting with Adam, and goes all the way down the line. But, as I was pointing out, I don't need to prove the Bible to anyone beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, because it's something that they have to figure out for themselves. I can only do what I can to inform and correct, to the best of my knowledge, according to what is written in the Word.
Aside from all that, as an interesting point to ponder, I wonder why humans haven't changed the way our dates are set over the past 2007 years?
The "problem" with Carbon dating is that it is only reliable for X thousands of years and then quickly approaches a zero-C14 level. At a hundred thousand years - which is an eyeblink in evolutionary time - the C14 level is indistinguishable from zero. That's an interesting statement. Several thousand years sounds strangely familiar. So, what caused them to think that this C14 method was the flawed method?
Interesting. So since my belief, like that of the Original Twelve, comes from the Holy Spirit (with support from the Bible, which they didn't have), I am NOT a Christian, or I don't have faith? Boy, won't Pastor be surprised! One thing I should have also added, the Original Twelve didn't need the Bible because they had Jesus himself in their presence to teach them and preach the Word. One verse for example:
Luke 5:1One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the people crowding around him and listening to the word of God,
here's a hint. There are none! The bibles writers believed that insects had four legs. Are you telling me you trust the Divine Inspiration through a process that can't even transmit a single digit number without error? Dude, are you suggesting that several thousand years ago, people had an inability to count higher than 4? You're speaking on behalf of people that existed long before yourself. Have you taken into account that there may have been more species of animals and insects in those days that have since become extinct? For example the thylacine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine, just because they're extinct, doesn't mean to say that a dog-looking animal with a striped back could have never existed. There are even species in jungles and in the sea that we don't even know of yet.
Your claim though that christianity is not tradition based is a nonsense. The traditions are mostly documented in the bible you clutch, and others are disguised as being "an understanding of the true meaning" of the same. Which traditions in the Bible are we referring to here? Traditions constructed by humans? I'm not sure where you're coming from here.
And no, pi does not, in effect, equal 3. That you would even suggest so indicates a lack of critical thought on your part that borders on the unforgivable in a forum specifically aimed for nerds and geeks. I assume you haven't heard of rounding off numbers. When they wrote these books, methinks they weren't detailing a set of blueprints, or writing a mathematical textbook. How do you know it wasn't the circumference they rounded up from 9.554... to 10 cubits? A lack of precise measurements is hardly an issue to discredit the Bible on. It's almost laughable.
Night, Day and Plants pre-sun... That is also another weak limb to lean on. From a logical worldly PoV, if you stick a plant in utter darkness for one day, can it survive?? Plus there _was_ already light before the plants were created, whether it was the sun as we know it or not (Gen. 1:3).
Live a full and good life, make memories, benefit yourself and those around you through friendship, devotion, honesty and wisdom. When the time comes to die, do so knowing that you lived a good life which is now completed. Seeing as you've read the Bible multiple time over, you would already be aware of man and his sinful nature. Does friendship included ripping apart anyone who believes what is written in the Bible? Does devotion refer to trying to tear down truths that come through the Word? And wisdom... wisdom according to who? Man? That sounds like a great kind of life, one I really want to conform to.
At least you will never know you were wrong as you'll be just as dead as the atheist at the end. Right, only problem is the alternative, when the end comes, you will know that you were wrong, and you've just used your Free Will to reject and suppress the Gospel. I'm sure you've read this more than six times but, just to reiterate the underlying message of the Gospel:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Christianity is in no way, shape or part different in any significant manner to Judaism, Islam, Tiki-worship, Daoism, Wicca, Sun-worship, pyramid building, putting out milk for the pixies or building giant models of crashed aircraft in the hope that more of them will follow with their wondrous bounty. And thats where you're wrong my flamebait friend. Christianity is separate from all other religions in that there is only one (1) way and that is through grace alone. Other religions teach salvation through works and actions, but as a learned person, you would know the Bible teaches we are saved by grace through faith. And I'm sure you saw the verse in one of my other posts about faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the Word of God.
Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
I'm not sure if it's only me you've attacked with your malicious posts, or what your motivation is behind it, but I'm not forcing you to believe what I believe, you can have your own PoV, but rather than submitting spiteful remarks to try to eliminate views opposing your own, try posting something with a bit of grounding, something foundational.
John 3:16-21 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Otherwise known as a religious belief based on a small subset of traditional beliefs as enclosed in a collection of religious texts? Sure, if you want to put it in that context. Otherwise known as the inspired Word of God. Although the point I was making was the difference between religion and Christianity which is not based on traditions, but rather on faith in the Word of God which has withstood thousands of years of oppression, and yet is still prevalant today.
Easy ones to start. The Bible states insects have 4 legs. Go check. Bats are allegedly birds. Pi is 3. Plants existed before the sun. Day and night existed before the sun (Not just incorrect, but daft). Did you have references for those claims (i.e.: Pi = 3, Plants & day/night before Sun)? When interpreting scripture, the context has to be taken into account. Scripture should be interpreted with scripture.
QUOTES...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_%CF%80 That the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is the same for all circles, and that it is slightly more than 3, was known to ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese, Indian and Greek geometers.
Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
Leviticus 11:13-23 These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.
I found two of those claims in the old testament in Leviticus. As far as things being created before the sun, Genesis makes it pretty clear about the creation of the earth in the first few verses of the Bible. I couldn't find the verses relating to pi = 3 which, in effect does equal 3 anyway. As far as the insects and animals go, apart from factors like, what scientific terminology they had for animals in those days compared to today, the issues do not undermine the fundamentals of the Bible.
I know there are other minor parts of the Bible that have been mistranslated or lost in translation, but they don't have any effect on the main thrust of the Gospel in its entirety. You may want to read it for yourself to better understand what the underlying message is, rather than clutching to trivial facts pointed out by others.
As soon as you come up with a belief-based system that has predictive ability that's better than the scientific method I'll accept it. Ooo, will you? Cause there is already a system in place. It's called the Bible. It not only predicts/informs what will happen in the future but also what happened in the beginning. On top of that, it also predicted what happened 2007 years ago, well and truly before it happened. For an example of future events:
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Unlike religion, scientific believes can change when new evidence shows old ones were wrong. Religion doesn't change no matter how much evidence there is showing it's wrong. Only thing is, a lot of these scientific beliefs are stated as facts, when in fact they are based on assumption. When referring to religion, it should be pointed out that Christianity is not based on religion and tradition, but rather on faith which comes through hearing the Word (the Bible).
I'm still yet to see factual evidence proving anything written in the Bible as wrong. Many humans have been trying for the past 2000 years to prove the Bible wrong. If there was hard evidence giving reason to believe the Bible is not true, one would think the Bible would have been disregarded by now.
No, but new facts are constantly being discovered which extend and refine our knowledge of the universe. We cannot have final 'beliefs' on how everything in the universe works because we are still learning about it. But in each pass we get closer and closer to fundamental truths. Religion stays where it's always been. The new facts being constantly discovered doesn't contradict the Creator, rather, certain discoveries make us aware of how comlpex this world actually is. Can I ask what type of fundamental truths we're getting closer to?
Faith isn't scientific. If having faith brings you joy and peace, congratulations. But don't try to bring it into science, for faith requires belief without proof, and science requires proof before belief. Taking the concept from Carl Sagan, faith is usually prejudice and science is postjudice. From a Christian point of view, faith comes from the Bible, which is God-Breathed according to 2 Timothy 3:16, and the Word is the written proof we rely on. More proof is in nature, in the complexity and creativness of it, not something humans can create without using existing ideas and materials.
Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Scientific studies and experiements are all good, but unfortunately does not always require proof before belief. This/. topic for example, creationists have been using Dr. Jacobsons writings because they weren't entirely based on fact, there may (or may not) have been some proven facts, nevertheless it was withdrawn for a reason.
One question I don't have an answer for is, how can scientists reliably speculate the state of this earth millions or billions of years ago with the evidence we have now, in this day and age? I can't see how that is feasibly possible, without basing it around assumptions or belief.
Yet no one that claims to know Him can agree on what he really want, so he is either unknowable or he have a dissociative identity disorder. Actually, I'm not sure where the previous posts were going (i.e.:"very knowable if you only wish it", "So, faith in chance is better than faith in tradition and personal experience."), but the Creator (and His Son whom he sent to this earth just over 2007 years ago) _is_ knowable through reading His Word (the Bible).
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Thousands of years of cows, eh? You should really do some research on the number of cows living on the planet as compared to date. You'll find that we now have orders of magnitude more cows on our planet than before. I typed "cow + population + world began", unfortunately I didn't find any reliable sources of information. Did you have any links to how many cattle were around up until, say, 1000 B.C.? I'm interested in the flatulation (or was that fluctuation) of the cow population over the past few milleniums.
If the cows are multiplying nowadays, isn't that part of a natural process? Man needs food, man likes eating cows, other man sees market in cow sales, man breeds lots of cows to supply market.
From what I've seen, and this is just my view point (not necessarily factual), the global warming epidemic seems to be a ploy to take control of businesses and individuals, by means of scare tactics using speculation.
After watching the Great Global Warming Swindle, and the subsequent ABC interview, it is quite evident that Global Warming is a theory that started in the 70's, amongst fears of heading into an ice age, by a European scientist and was latched onto by Margaret Thatcher to support her political movements. I'm not saying that the theory in the Great Global Warming Swindle isn't flawed itself, but it pushes some very good points.
It doesn't? I would like to see the quote in the bible that describes slavery as the abomination that it is. If it's described in a matter-of-fact way (as it is), then that has a clear implication of approval. But really my point is the fact that it's addressed at all implies (if not out-and-out proves) that the Bible is not divinely inspired. Just the triviality of the listing of those rules. Why would God care about mere political matters, and particularly *that* one?
I think the topic of slavery really depends on one's perception of the word slavery. The word is used a lot in the Bible in different contexts. For example:
Romans 6:16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
As far as God condoning slavery goes, the following verse is where God brings His people _out_ of slavery. I haven't read any passage in the Bible in which God condones slavery, and if you do know of a verse, please let me know.
Exodus 13:3 Then Moses said to the people, "Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because the LORD brought you out of it with a mighty hand.
One of the points I made earlier, was that slavery is an issue in this world, due to the sinful nature of man, and the Christian slaves are addressed, as are Christians in every other situation. Whether it be Wives->Husbands, Children->Parents, Employee->Employer, Slave->Master, etc.
Colossians 18:25 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.
Actually, I did tell a Christian friend of mine once, "Well, if Christianity is really true, then I hereby accept whatever I need to accept." Of course, I also believe that the probability of it being actually true is vanishingly close to zero, but what the hell. If it's true, then I accept it, whatever that means. Of course, I also gave a blanket acceptance to all other gods as well -- Zeus, the Pharoes, the Sun God, whatever might actually be true. Every God has pretty much exactly as much evidence as any other God, so why not cover the bases?
I'm not sure how your Christian friend responded to that, but I'm sure he/she would have let you know about the following few verses from the Bible, they pretty much underline the main message of Christianity:
John 3:16-21
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
No one in this discussion ever solicited an expression of faith from you, and yet all we have is unbacked assertions of what you believe. My understanding was that we were having a civil argument, yet in an argument, one is supposed to give reasons to back their viewpoint, reasons that the other person would have reason to agree with. You haven't done that....If God's existence is contingent upon human technology being insufficient to replicate some natural process, wouldn't the advancement of technology destroy God? Actually, I believe you yourself asked the soliciting question. And my responses to your questions and statements _are_ backed up with documentation that well and truly precedes any textbooks we have today. You have the right and the choice to believe what man tells you about what they can understand about this world, and I don't expect you to believe what I believe, but I can tell you my reasoning is not based on my own ideas, or the ideas of man, rather it is based on those documents that have been translated into what we know as the Bible.
...You are indeed a troll--not because you say things people disagree with, but because you state controversial opinions, refuse to provide any arguments for them, and continue to restate those opinions to anyone who dares argue against you.
It's so easy to label someone a troll when you don't like hearing a particular PoV or belief, even if it is based on fact. It's a good way of supressing opposing opinions. If you want to believe that someday, man can create life, that's fine, but you don't have anything to back that up with. You're relying on hopeful future events. If someone has some factual, reliable documented evidence to prove the point I was making about "new life", that's ok, bring it on, I'm not going to blindly argue against it.
I've tracked down some specific references from my source of documentation. You can choose to believe it, or not:
Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.
1 Timothy 6:13-15 In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time--...
Ecclesiastes 8:15-17 So I commend the enjoyment of life, because nothing is better for a man under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany him in his work all the days of the life God has given him under the sun. When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe man's labor on earth--his eyes not seeing sleep day or night- then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.
I can't help but think the whole global warming/emissions issue is really not that significant. After reading about the concerns of cow emissions, a completly natural animal that's been around for thousands of years, producing more emissions than cars, and bushfires (also 100% natural) producing all these harmful greenhouse gases, I can't help but think that our jet-fuels, cars, planes, things designed and built over the past 100 years or so, aren't making as much of an impact as we are led to believe.
Rather than eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, I wonder if there are more effective ways of absorbing some of those emissions. For example, putting more money into planting trees (I'm not a tree-hugger, if that's what you're thinking, it's just an example), to absorb CO2 emissions, etc.
You mean, everything that he wanted to tell you (assuming there is a God), true or otherwise. I do find it odd how, however, along with the words about his nature and the beginning of the universe, he also felt it important to tell everyone how we're supposed to treat our slaves. Doesn't seem on the same scale of importance somehow (beyond the fact that God approves of slavery). But I digress.
If you have a read through the Bible, you'll actually find that God doesn't necessarily "approve of slavery". He is fully aware that slavery did, and still does exist, but just because he addressed slaves and slave's masters, doesn't mean to say he condones it.
1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
Something wasn't created from nothing. It was created within some sort of super-universe that we'll probably never be able to measure.
That sounds like a speculated assumption. Even if anything was created within some sort of "super-universe", would that not fall into the "side of supernatural things"? Also, when, where and how was this "super-universe" created? I haven't heard of any reliable ancient document's giving any evidence of this, just new age scientists trying to explain something they aren't able to comprehend.
As a bumper sticker once said, "God created me to be an atheist. Who are you to argue with God?" If there is a God, then he created me to be literally unable to accept something with zero evidence. And I mean literally impossible. Sure, I could go around mouthing the words "I Accept Jesus!" out of some fear of dying, but that would be a lie, and God would know it.
That is another misconception delivered up by humans and this is where the Free Will comes into it. We are given the choice to accept or reject the Gospel, and you're right, just saying the words "I accept Jesus!" without believing and repenting for your sins would be pointless and would totally contradict everything the Bible tells us.
Because the alternative is nothingness. Why would I choose that?
If the other side of this life was nothingness, it's inevitably going to catch up with us (before the age of 120) anyway, so it's either now or later. Otherwise, if, per chance, the Bible was telling us the truth, and you had a choice between eternal life or eternal damnation, why would you choose the latter? The least you could do is ask God if He does exist and, if so, to reveal Himself to you.
My argument was that we do, in large part, understand gestation. I mention the prime mover idea to illustrate that, even if our understanding of a natural process is incomplete, that is rarely a reason to leap to theistic explanations. It was an analogy--if you have difficulty comprehending them, perhaps abstract reasoning is a little beyond you.
It's all good and well that scientists have studied and, to some extent, can understand some of the processes of gestation, but as I was saying in my previous post, scientists are not capable of creating "new life". So back to the main point, how something so complex can be created from something so minute, something that humans will never be able to achieve (new, self-sustaining, reproductive, etc.) life, can be described as miraculous.
I wish we were having this argument just over 50 years ago. After all, 50 years and 1 month ago, actually being able to recreate the process of orbit around the earth was something humans couldn't achieve either.
As for the "prime mover" attempted analogy, an orbiting satellite can hardly compare to the orbit of the moon, which was perfectly designed and created to do what it does. There again, scientists can study and research the orbiting patterns of the moon around the earth, as far as their understanding will allow them, but as for creating an object so large out of nothing which sheds reflected light by night (a massive fluke by evolution, or purposefully designed by a creator?), and continues on its orbiting path to this day, can also be explained as miraculous.
If God's existence is contingent upon human technology being insufficient to replicate some natural process, wouldn't the advancement of technology destroy God?
God's existence is by no means reliant on technology. The technology that we use and study today was designed for us, by Him. Even if scientists started knuckling down and were able to figure out how to create life (as per mentioned earlier), overcome death, create something from nothing (without the use of anything that was already created by someone else), the purpose of our existance remains. He created us humans with free will for His own glory. Technological advancements and discoveries do not eliminate the fact that he sent His son (2007 years ago... wait it's 2007 now?!) to be crucified by men he created and rise again to be with His Father only to return again one day to save everyone from sin who believed and accepted Him and lock-up the evil one.
John 3:16-21 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
No, actually, it can be explained far better than that. Read a biology textbook. Sure, to have a full understanding you'd have to understand some pretty heavy biochemistry and genetics, and there are some details we don't know yet, but the same is true about the orbit of the moon around the earth--that doesn't mean there's a "prime mover" shoving the moon around.
I don't really get the relation between a "prime mover" pushing the moon and the creation of life and development in a baby. Also, having a limited understanding of how the process works, and actually being able to recreate (not modify) that process is something humans can't achieve, simply because humans cannot create life.
No, that makes us intelligent robots programmed for reproduction, survival and self-awareness. What's your point? Is the idea that we're biological computers such a horrible idea that it "just can't" be true? Frankly, I don't find it all that horrible. It just *is*. I'm perfectly happy with the illusion of free will.
The point is, is that the world and science has led you to believe that our thinking is just a mechanical process. Humans didn't create our thinking, and they, still to this day (some people think millions or billions of years, I'll take the several thousand year option), are trying to figure out how it works. Who actually made the statement that our 'Free Will' is a process of thought anyway? One could assume or speculate that, but even that is not fact.
Ecclesiastes 8:17 "then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it."
Unfortunately, the bible answers nothing about the existence of God, since it's self-referential.
The Bible tells us everything we _need_ to know about God and also everthing we need to know to receive salvation at the end of this life. Also, the Bible was written by men and inspired by God:
2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
But just because we don't know the full nature of the programmer (and can't know, and can't ever measure it), that doesn't mean we can't conclude that the programmer does have some sort of laws of physics in his own universe.
Actually, going back to the Bible, the old testament goes into a lot of detail about the "programmer". It tells us a lot about His nature.
What I find interesting is that you are arrogant enough to presume to know the nature of God by "just knowing" that he didn't evolve in any way. How do you conclude that?
I can make my conclusions based on logic. If God thinks, therefore, there is some mechanism that supports that thinking. Your conclusions seem to be made based on "it's just gotta be that way" emotion.
I don't claim to know the nature of God by knowing that he didn't evolve, everything I need to know about the nature of God is written in the Bible, including the part that states that "He is, He was, and He is to come".
You're making a speculation that God has "some mechanism that supports that thinking" based on human thinking and logic (which is imperfect and fallible). We are incapable, in our current state, to comprehend anything outside of this universe. For example, the creation of this world (if you want to believe the worldly evolution conclusion, something still had to of been created at some point to cause the "big bang"), we can't comprehend how something could have been created from nothing.
It's up to you, but if you use use your free will to reject the Gospel, when this world comes to an end, you will have to account for all your actions. But if you think that we're just mechanical animals, you shouldn't have anything to worry about, death shouldn't be an obstacle either because then there would be nothing to worry about on the other side, in fact, why, if there's no after life would you want to continue living in this life with all the heartache, misery, pain, caused by sin? Before this life is over, I would highly recommend picking up the Bible and finding out the truth about this life, rather than lean on the understanding of finite men.
True, but your premise is wrong. Free will *is* an illusion. We *are* just cells reacting to stimuli. It's just that the decision tree is so complex that it's not easily understood.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if our thinking is "just cells reacting to stimuli", would that not make us unintelligent robots who are programmed to complete certain tasks?
I believe in what can be measured and observed.
It's a pity science doesn't enlighten us as to what happens when our time on this earth is up, and seeing as science hasn't overcome death, we are inevitably going to die in this life (before the age of 120 - Genesis 6:3).
What are the mechanisms that allow God to think? Somehow, those mechanisms must have arisen either through a super-God, or through an evolutionary process. If it's evolution, then it's a simpler explanation to simply eliminate God and apply evolution to humanity.
Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
If you read through your Bible, it has all the answers to the questions we need to know. God did not have a beginning, as it says, He always was, so to answer that evolution statement, no, he didn't evolve, that's just another of your speculations.
God was, IMO, a control tool. Imagine you're the leader of a tribe. You do, of course, want to make this tribe strong and want it to prosper. How can this be achived? By ensuring that the tribe does not fight amongst itself and only against outsiders. How do you achive that? By laws. How do you enforce them? With 'police'.
You're facing 3 important problems, though. First, due to necessity a good portion of your tribe is armed. Weapons are (remember, we're stone age here, maybe bronze age) not much different from your tools. Bow'n arrow is as much a weapon as a hunting tool. As are spears. Your whole tribe is 'armed'. And how do you keep your police in check? You have to reward them, but this first of all costs your resources (which you probably don't have) and might make the rest of your tribe jealous. And finally, of course, you and your police can't be everywhere, there's always a chance that a clever criminal outsmarts you and can get away with murder.
Interesting theory. Although, that's all it is, a theory. The Bible details the history of this world back to it's creation.
Today, we don't need God anymore. We have the technology to replace him.
That's a very strong statement. We don't have the ability to create life, or overcome death. Also, there's nothing we can create in this world without using something or some element that was already created prior to us being here.
What they actually believe is that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humans because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree and thereby pissing off an invisible wizard who lives in the sky.
That certainly is an interesting perception of the Bible. Although if you read the Bible yourself (rather than picking up snippets that you've heard along the way), that story would make a lot more sense. God is not his own Father, he is a Triune God, 3-in-1:
Matthew 28:19
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,..."
Also, we are all going to live forever. Where we live eternally depends on if you reject God's Word or accept it and believe that His Son did die for your sins(and consequently rise from the dead and ascend into heaven, to return again at a later time). You have free will and have the choice to either reject it or accept it.
Slashdot Mirror
When we are confronted with judgement at the end of this life, standing before our Creator, we will either be in a position to say, "Yes, I accepted Jesus and believed that He died for my sins, and I am forgiven through Grace.", or "Look, I've written up a list of trivial contradictions and grammatical errors, how could I possibly have believed it?". We can either use this life to accept in faith what God has given to us through His Word, or we can choose to reject it. There are consequences for the latter, and I'm sure you've read the Bible enough times to know what they are.
All I can suggest is, if you plan on reading the Bible from front to back again, to ask your Creator to reveal Himself to you through His Word. You know yourself, even Paul went around persecuting Christians up until the Lord revealed Himself. Before devoting your life to attacking Christians, it would be wise to find out for sure whether He is real or not, by asking Him yourself. If He is real, He can reveal Himself to you, if He's not, well you can continue on your not-so-merry way.
Acts 26:12-18
On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?'
'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
Also, if God were not an omnipotent God, then your claims might have some grounding, but seeing as God is omnipotent, if what Paul preached and wrote was really contradictory to the Gospel, it would not be contained in what we now know as the Bible. As the original 12 were allegedly based directly on Christ they would have had very little in common with those who went with the teachings of Paul. Thus they also had very little in common with the current "Christians" who's core doctrines are mostly based on Pauls original materials and interpretations of Christs teachings. How does "they would have had very little in common with those who went with the teachings of Paul", have anything to do with the underlying message of Scripture? Having things in common with each other has little to do with the fact that God sent His one and only Son so that we can be made right with God, by His grace, through Jesus.
Yeah, sorry, I was a bit out of line with that post. I should have read what C-14 was before posting. In fact, I'm still only a little more enlightened after reading the wiki explanation. Still not 100% sure on how that works.
Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
I don't profess to be a theological scholar or a multi-platform scientist, I only speak on behalf of my observations and beliefs based on what the Bible says. The crux of my stance against the theory of evolution is based on the Bible, wherein It states that the world was created in 6 days, and the genealogy starting with Adam, and goes all the way down the line. But, as I was pointing out, I don't need to prove the Bible to anyone beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, because it's something that they have to figure out for themselves. I can only do what I can to inform and correct, to the best of my knowledge, according to what is written in the Word.
Aside from all that, as an interesting point to ponder, I wonder why humans haven't changed the way our dates are set over the past 2007 years?
Luke 5:1 One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the people crowding around him and listening to the word of God,
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
I'm not sure if it's only me you've attacked with your malicious posts, or what your motivation is behind it, but I'm not forcing you to believe what I believe, you can have your own PoV, but rather than submitting spiteful remarks to try to eliminate views opposing your own, try posting something with a bit of grounding, something foundational.
John 3:16-21
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
QUOTES...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_%CF%80
That the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is the same for all circles, and that it is slightly more than 3, was known to ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese, Indian and Greek geometers.
Genesis 1:1-3
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
Leviticus 11:13-23
These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.
I found two of those claims in the old testament in Leviticus. As far as things being created before the sun, Genesis makes it pretty clear about the creation of the earth in the first few verses of the Bible. I couldn't find the verses relating to pi = 3 which, in effect does equal 3 anyway. As far as the insects and animals go, apart from factors like, what scientific terminology they had for animals in those days compared to today, the issues do not undermine the fundamentals of the Bible.
I know there are other minor parts of the Bible that have been mistranslated or lost in translation, but they don't have any effect on the main thrust of the Gospel in its entirety. You may want to read it for yourself to better understand what the underlying message is, rather than clutching to trivial facts pointed out by others.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
I'm still yet to see factual evidence proving anything written in the Bible as wrong. Many humans have been trying for the past 2000 years to prove the Bible wrong. If there was hard evidence giving reason to believe the Bible is not true, one would think the Bible would have been disregarded by now. No, but new facts are constantly being discovered which extend and refine our knowledge of the universe. We cannot have final 'beliefs' on how everything in the universe works because we are still learning about it. But in each pass we get closer and closer to fundamental truths. Religion stays where it's always been. The new facts being constantly discovered doesn't contradict the Creator, rather, certain discoveries make us aware of how comlpex this world actually is. Can I ask what type of fundamental truths we're getting closer to?
Romans 10:17
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Scientific studies and experiements are all good, but unfortunately does not always require proof before belief. This
One question I don't have an answer for is, how can scientists reliably speculate the state of this earth millions or billions of years ago with the evidence we have now, in this day and age? I can't see how that is feasibly possible, without basing it around assumptions or belief.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
If the cows are multiplying nowadays, isn't that part of a natural process? Man needs food, man likes eating cows, other man sees market in cow sales, man breeds lots of cows to supply market.
From what I've seen, and this is just my view point (not necessarily factual), the global warming epidemic seems to be a ploy to take control of businesses and individuals, by means of scare tactics using speculation.
After watching the Great Global Warming Swindle, and the subsequent ABC interview, it is quite evident that Global Warming is a theory that started in the 70's, amongst fears of heading into an ice age, by a European scientist and was latched onto by Margaret Thatcher to support her political movements. I'm not saying that the theory in the Great Global Warming Swindle isn't flawed itself, but it pushes some very good points.
It doesn't? I would like to see the quote in the bible that describes slavery as the abomination that it is. If it's described in a matter-of-fact way (as it is), then that has a clear implication of approval. But really my point is the fact that it's addressed at all implies (if not out-and-out proves) that the Bible is not divinely inspired. Just the triviality of the listing of those rules. Why would God care about mere political matters, and particularly *that* one?
I think the topic of slavery really depends on one's perception of the word slavery. The word is used a lot in the Bible in different contexts. For example:
Romans 6:16
Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
As far as God condoning slavery goes, the following verse is where God brings His people _out_ of slavery. I haven't read any passage in the Bible in which God condones slavery, and if you do know of a verse, please let me know.
Exodus 13:3
Then Moses said to the people, "Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because the LORD brought you out of it with a mighty hand.
One of the points I made earlier, was that slavery is an issue in this world, due to the sinful nature of man, and the Christian slaves are addressed, as are Christians in every other situation. Whether it be Wives->Husbands, Children->Parents, Employee->Employer, Slave->Master, etc.
Colossians 18:25
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.
Actually, I did tell a Christian friend of mine once, "Well, if Christianity is really true, then I hereby accept whatever I need to accept." Of course, I also believe that the probability of it being actually true is vanishingly close to zero, but what the hell. If it's true, then I accept it, whatever that means. Of course, I also gave a blanket acceptance to all other gods as well -- Zeus, the Pharoes, the Sun God, whatever might actually be true. Every God has pretty much exactly as much evidence as any other God, so why not cover the bases?
I'm not sure how your Christian friend responded to that, but I'm sure he/she would have let you know about the following few verses from the Bible, they pretty much underline the main message of Christianity:
John 3:16-21
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
I don't choose it. If there is a God,
It's so easy to label someone a troll when you don't like hearing a particular PoV or belief, even if it is based on fact. It's a good way of supressing opposing opinions. If you want to believe that someday, man can create life, that's fine, but you don't have anything to back that up with. You're relying on hopeful future events. If someone has some factual, reliable documented evidence to prove the point I was making about "new life", that's ok, bring it on, I'm not going to blindly argue against it.
I've tracked down some specific references from my source of documentation. You can choose to believe it, or not:
Deuteronomy 32:39
"See now that I myself am He!
There is no god besides me.
I put to death and I bring to life,
I have wounded and I will heal,
and no one can deliver out of my hand.
1 Timothy 6:13-15
In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time--...
Ecclesiastes 8:15-17
So I commend the enjoyment of life, because nothing is better for a man under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany him in his work all the days of the life God has given him under the sun.
When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe man's labor on earth--his eyes not seeing sleep day or night- then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.
I can't help but think the whole global warming/emissions issue is really not that significant. After reading about the concerns of cow emissions, a completly natural animal that's been around for thousands of years, producing more emissions than cars, and bushfires (also 100% natural) producing all these harmful greenhouse gases, I can't help but think that our jet-fuels, cars, planes, things designed and built over the past 100 years or so, aren't making as much of an impact as we are led to believe.
Rather than eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, I wonder if there are more effective ways of absorbing some of those emissions. For example, putting more money into planting trees (I'm not a tree-hugger, if that's what you're thinking, it's just an example), to absorb CO2 emissions, etc.
You mean, everything that he wanted to tell you (assuming there is a God), true or otherwise. I do find it odd how, however, along with the words about his nature and the beginning of the universe, he also felt it important to tell everyone how we're supposed to treat our slaves. Doesn't seem on the same scale of importance somehow (beyond the fact that God approves of slavery). But I digress.
If you have a read through the Bible, you'll actually find that God doesn't necessarily "approve of slavery". He is fully aware that slavery did, and still does exist, but just because he addressed slaves and slave's masters, doesn't mean to say he condones it.
1 Corinthians 7:21
Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
Something wasn't created from nothing. It was created within some sort of super-universe that we'll probably never be able to measure.
That sounds like a speculated assumption. Even if anything was created within some sort of "super-universe", would that not fall into the "side of supernatural things"? Also, when, where and how was this "super-universe" created? I haven't heard of any reliable ancient document's giving any evidence of this, just new age scientists trying to explain something they aren't able to comprehend.
As a bumper sticker once said, "God created me to be an atheist. Who are you to argue with God?" If there is a God, then he created me to be literally unable to accept something with zero evidence. And I mean literally impossible. Sure, I could go around mouthing the words "I Accept Jesus!" out of some fear of dying, but that would be a lie, and God would know it.
That is another misconception delivered up by humans and this is where the Free Will comes into it. We are given the choice to accept or reject the Gospel, and you're right, just saying the words "I accept Jesus!" without believing and repenting for your sins would be pointless and would totally contradict everything the Bible tells us.
Because the alternative is nothingness. Why would I choose that?
If the other side of this life was nothingness, it's inevitably going to catch up with us (before the age of 120) anyway, so it's either now or later. Otherwise, if, per chance, the Bible was telling us the truth, and you had a choice between eternal life or eternal damnation, why would you choose the latter? The least you could do is ask God if He does exist and, if so, to reveal Himself to you.
My argument was that we do, in large part, understand gestation. I mention the prime mover idea to illustrate that, even if our understanding of a natural process is incomplete, that is rarely a reason to leap to theistic explanations. It was an analogy--if you have difficulty comprehending them, perhaps abstract reasoning is a little beyond you.
It's all good and well that scientists have studied and, to some extent, can understand some of the processes of gestation, but as I was saying in my previous post, scientists are not capable of creating "new life". So back to the main point, how something so complex can be created from something so minute, something that humans will never be able to achieve (new, self-sustaining, reproductive, etc.) life, can be described as miraculous.
I wish we were having this argument just over 50 years ago. After all, 50 years and 1 month ago, actually being able to recreate the process of orbit around the earth was something humans couldn't achieve either.
As for the "prime mover" attempted analogy, an orbiting satellite can hardly compare to the orbit of the moon, which was perfectly designed and created to do what it does. There again, scientists can study and research the orbiting patterns of the moon around the earth, as far as their understanding will allow them, but as for creating an object so large out of nothing which sheds reflected light by night (a massive fluke by evolution, or purposefully designed by a creator?), and continues on its orbiting path to this day, can also be explained as miraculous.
If God's existence is contingent upon human technology being insufficient to replicate some natural process, wouldn't the advancement of technology destroy God?
God's existence is by no means reliant on technology. The technology that we use and study today was designed for us, by Him. Even if scientists started knuckling down and were able to figure out how to create life (as per mentioned earlier), overcome death, create something from nothing (without the use of anything that was already created by someone else), the purpose of our existance remains. He created us humans with free will for His own glory. Technological advancements and discoveries do not eliminate the fact that he sent His son (2007 years ago... wait it's 2007 now?!) to be crucified by men he created and rise again to be with His Father only to return again one day to save everyone from sin who believed and accepted Him and lock-up the evil one.
John 3:16-21
16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
No, actually, it can be explained far better than that. Read a biology textbook. Sure, to have a full understanding you'd have to understand some pretty heavy biochemistry and genetics, and there are some details we don't know yet, but the same is true about the orbit of the moon around the earth--that doesn't mean there's a "prime mover" shoving the moon around.
I don't really get the relation between a "prime mover" pushing the moon and the creation of life and development in a baby. Also, having a limited understanding of how the process works, and actually being able to recreate (not modify) that process is something humans can't achieve, simply because humans cannot create life.
No, that makes us intelligent robots programmed for reproduction, survival and self-awareness. What's your point? Is the idea that we're biological computers such a horrible idea that it "just can't" be true? Frankly, I don't find it all that horrible. It just *is*. I'm perfectly happy with the illusion of free will.
The point is, is that the world and science has led you to believe that our thinking is just a mechanical process. Humans didn't create our thinking, and they, still to this day (some people think millions or billions of years, I'll take the several thousand year option), are trying to figure out how it works. Who actually made the statement that our 'Free Will' is a process of thought anyway? One could assume or speculate that, but even that is not fact.
Ecclesiastes 8:17 "then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it."
Unfortunately, the bible answers nothing about the existence of God, since it's self-referential.
The Bible tells us everything we _need_ to know about God and also everthing we need to know to receive salvation at the end of this life. Also, the Bible was written by men and inspired by God:
2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
But just because we don't know the full nature of the programmer (and can't know, and can't ever measure it), that doesn't mean we can't conclude that the programmer does have some sort of laws of physics in his own universe.
Actually, going back to the Bible, the old testament goes into a lot of detail about the "programmer". It tells us a lot about His nature.
What I find interesting is that you are arrogant enough to presume to know the nature of God by "just knowing" that he didn't evolve in any way. How do you conclude that?
I can make my conclusions based on logic. If God thinks, therefore, there is some mechanism that supports that thinking. Your conclusions seem to be made based on "it's just gotta be that way" emotion.
I don't claim to know the nature of God by knowing that he didn't evolve, everything I need to know about the nature of God is written in the Bible, including the part that states that "He is, He was, and He is to come".
You're making a speculation that God has "some mechanism that supports that thinking" based on human thinking and logic (which is imperfect and fallible). We are incapable, in our current state, to comprehend anything outside of this universe. For example, the creation of this world (if you want to believe the worldly evolution conclusion, something still had to of been created at some point to cause the "big bang"), we can't comprehend how something could have been created from nothing.
It's up to you, but if you use use your free will to reject the Gospel, when this world comes to an end, you will have to account for all your actions. But if you think that we're just mechanical animals, you shouldn't have anything to worry about, death shouldn't be an obstacle either because then there would be nothing to worry about on the other side, in fact, why, if there's no after life would you want to continue living in this life with all the heartache, misery, pain, caused by sin? Before this life is over, I would highly recommend picking up the Bible and finding out the truth about this life, rather than lean on the understanding of finite men.
True, but your premise is wrong. Free will *is* an illusion. We *are* just cells reacting to stimuli. It's just that the decision tree is so complex that it's not easily understood.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if our thinking is "just cells reacting to stimuli", would that not make us unintelligent robots who are programmed to complete certain tasks?
I believe in what can be measured and observed.
It's a pity science doesn't enlighten us as to what happens when our time on this earth is up, and seeing as science hasn't overcome death, we are inevitably going to die in this life (before the age of 120 - Genesis 6:3).
What are the mechanisms that allow God to think? Somehow, those mechanisms must have arisen either through a super-God, or through an evolutionary process. If it's evolution, then it's a simpler explanation to simply eliminate God and apply evolution to humanity.
Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
If you read through your Bible, it has all the answers to the questions we need to know. God did not have a beginning, as it says, He always was, so to answer that evolution statement, no, he didn't evolve, that's just another of your speculations.
God was, IMO, a control tool. Imagine you're the leader of a tribe. You do, of course, want to make this tribe strong and want it to prosper. How can this be achived? By ensuring that the tribe does not fight amongst itself and only against outsiders. How do you achive that? By laws. How do you enforce them? With 'police'.
You're facing 3 important problems, though. First, due to necessity a good portion of your tribe is armed. Weapons are (remember, we're stone age here, maybe bronze age) not much different from your tools. Bow'n arrow is as much a weapon as a hunting tool. As are spears. Your whole tribe is 'armed'. And how do you keep your police in check? You have to reward them, but this first of all costs your resources (which you probably don't have) and might make the rest of your tribe jealous. And finally, of course, you and your police can't be everywhere, there's always a chance that a clever criminal outsmarts you and can get away with murder.
Interesting theory. Although, that's all it is, a theory. The Bible details the history of this world back to it's creation.
Today, we don't need God anymore. We have the technology to replace him.
That's a very strong statement. We don't have the ability to create life, or overcome death. Also, there's nothing we can create in this world without using something or some element that was already created prior to us being here.
What they actually believe is that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humans because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree and thereby pissing off an invisible wizard who lives in the sky.
That certainly is an interesting perception of the Bible. Although if you read the Bible yourself (rather than picking up snippets that you've heard along the way), that story would make a lot more sense. God is not his own Father, he is a Triune God, 3-in-1:
Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,..."
Also, we are all going to live forever. Where we live eternally depends on if you reject God's Word or accept it and believe that His Son did die for your sins(and consequently rise from the dead and ascend into heaven, to return again at a later time). You have free will and have the choice to either reject it or accept it.