God has declared that you have a choice of communion with him or separation from him. His idea is for you to accept him on his terms, i.e. believe in Jesus. You have the choice not to.
The implication of your penultimate paragraph is that you know how to do this better than God. I think not.
The bible presents the idea that God redeeming us predates the creation of the universe (2nd Timothy, 1:9)
If he thinks it worth dying for, who am I to argue, especially seeing how imperfect I am.
Jesus made the sacrifice as an adult, willingly, and for the joy of seeing you accept him. The idea that there is nothing in the world worth dying for is really sad, and makes a mockery of the self-denial that is the highest of man's thoughts.
What Islam does not believe is what Christians do believe: Jesus is the son of God, (Allah has no son, by the way) Muslims burn bibles and kill Christians where ever they can. I am not sure where you got the idea that Muslims are OK with the bible. They are not.
I would take exception to your idea that evolution is cross-examined in the scientific literature. It is a dogma that will end your career if you question even the most specious argument. There is ample proof that evolution is impossible on its face, and the theory has been disproved by Darwin's own criteria.
(Yes, I have read Darwin.)
I will assume your last statement is the result of ignorance of the bible, because there have been all kinds of neat things discovered about the world because a statement in the bible piqued someone's curiosity. (Matthew Maury's mapping of ocean currents comes to mind.)
There are other possibilities as well, such as the idea of God 'stretching' the heavens. Is that why there is red shift? Big Bang theories have a problem:"First there was nothing, then it exploded" does not happen where we live.
I think you may conflating two things: science as the realm of repeatable experiment on the one hand, and theories of origins on the other. Neither evolution nor creation can be proven in the sense of running an experiment and developing a statistical statement of probability, since there was only one origin, whichever it was, and no way to repeat the experiment. In this case, we must apply a different approach: Apply the tools of experimentation to what is implied by these mutually exclusive origins. It is rather easy to prove that things move from order to disorder in the absence of intelligence: just quit imposing order on your socks and see where they end up. The evolution idea is more problematic. Order does not arise from disorder in the absence of intelligence.
The idea of intelligent creation is critical to science, because it implies that there is an order that can be discovered. Of course, the question of the nature of God comes into play here, because only an unchanging God can be expected to make immutable laws.
I would like to point out that chroniclers are notoriously silent on lost battles. The disaster that Egypt suffered may well have kept folks busy finding food rather than pontificating about the Hebrews. There is no particular reason to disbelief the texts of Exodus, other than a desire to disbelieve the bible in general.
Please provide an example of an emendation that became scripture. I would agree with you in reference to the Mishna (commentaries) but not the Tanach (the first five books of the bible) The standard for copying the scriptures was very high, with even a single letter deviation being a cause to destroy the whole attempt.
I use the King Jimmy because the few minor problems are well documented, and I love the poetry of the KJV.
I also use modern versions when I need to quote the bible, because I do not expect the level of education implied by an acquaintance with English from 1611, nor do I expect that everyone will be so interested as to make the effort to understand the older English.
The 'both' idea is hogwash, and does a disservice to both the evolution idea and the creation idea. I better idea is to examine the initial state as defined by both ideas and examine the current measurable world for processes that operate in accordance with those states. The creation idea is that the world started in a state of order and is going to a state of disorder. The evolution idea is that the world started in disorder and is going to a stat of order. Experiment to find out which is the correct initial state. It is pretty easy to find experiments that show the order moving into disorder, evolution is another story.
Ah yes, but what inertial time-frame do we use? We know that time is fungible based on the local gravity. I can see using earth as the standard, but only after Gen 1. Isaiah 42:22 talks about God 'stretching out the heavens, and presumably the light that is there as well.
The Obama says I have to pay for abortions through my taxes. Santorum says that is wrong, and I agree with him. BTW, what is a granfalloon? new words always interest me.
It might well be that science and Christianity do not pull in opposite directions, after all without the idea of absolutes such as 'true' and 'false' science would be impossible, because there is nothing to search for, no reason to experiment.
It would be far better to examine evolutionists for flaws in evidence, assumption, or conclusion.
Let's be fair and subject creationists for flaws in textual treatment, interpretation and assumption not supported from the text.
In the end we will know more about the world around us.
The protestant bible has been subjected to rigorous examination and comparison with the ancient texts. If there is something left out, (or included) there are very good reasons for doing so. Muslim books are a different matter, and intend to contradict the bible. I know of no serious Christian thinkers who would use Muslim sources.
As for your claims, you do not have a proven body of prophecy to prove you see the end from the beginning, so your claims are in a different class of communication.
A rather cursory examination of Islam reveals that this is not the same god presented in the Judeo-Christian orthodoxy. Believing in one god is not the same thing as believing in the same god.
So examine the evidence for the reliability of the bible, and decide for your self. Once you understand the text, you might proceed by asking yourself how you would go about creating a set of folks with real free will, and how you would redeem the ones that foul up. Jesus looks pretty good to an imperfect fellow like me.
Unless the God in question has committed himself to a universe that is discoverable, and does not himself change. This is how the God of the bible describes himself: "For I [am] the LORD, I change not..." Malachi 3:6. You might well have a beef if God kept changing, but he does not. What was wrong in Eden (disobedience of God) is wrong today. Your trickster god is not the God of the bible.
Your disbelief is an answer. I encourage you to translate your disbelief into languages that have no written form. I will then use your translation (to the extant possible) to create a Bible in that language. Oh. There isn't an organization in Atheism that translates Hitchens into new languages? why are you behind us Christians? could it be that Atheism is a parasitic idea that can only survive where there is some one else to do the heavy lifting?
Hang in there, there are more than a few slashers that are fully versed in science, and fully faithful to God. Slashdot is a little like a freeway; Everyone has a horn. A few of the posters are more thoughtful and well-reasoned than some, but the questions about faith are here because they are relevant to slashers, and some of the most vitriolic posts are by folks who need a thoughtful response the most.
Remember that Christ was crucified. We who follow him can expect the same.
There is a standard phonetic alphabet that allows a written language to be derived from a spoken language. It derives from Roman characters (for convenience) and reads down the page and left to write. Again, for convenience because European languages all do the same, and the bulk of the library is in European languages.
I care. I think they should be able to make the decision about the bible for themselves, not have it made for them by someone named Foofoobar. The bible translation teams also have the side effect of generating an infrastructure that can then be used for creating a written culture and tradition where none existed before, and allows the uniqueness of a culture to be captured and preserved in written form.
Sorry, no. It was the will of an inventor at Motorola that gave them the cell phone, and a bunch of engineers dedicated to the idea that there are absolutes in the universe that can be found and manipulated to create a working machine. It was also a lot more engineers who took the idea from the realm of Star Trek and put it in your pocket, cheaply.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the Russian monitor Novgorod, which is about the right size. Scrapped in 1912, I am not sure where, but a lot of old boats did final duty as targets for weapon testing.
I have no complaint with your new way. Please do not construe my post as a criticism of your idea. I just think we have a built in flaw that removes one legitimate choice from the equation: that none of the presented candidates should be elected. Add "None of the above" to each ballot and I am content, Online, paper, or plastic.
Slashdot Mirror
The implication of your penultimate paragraph is that you know how to do this better than God. I think not.
The bible presents the idea that God redeeming us predates the creation of the universe (2nd Timothy, 1:9)
If he thinks it worth dying for, who am I to argue, especially seeing how imperfect I am.
Jesus made the sacrifice as an adult, willingly, and for the joy of seeing you accept him. The idea that there is nothing in the world worth dying for is really sad, and makes a mockery of the self-denial that is the highest of man's thoughts.
What Islam does not believe is what Christians do believe: Jesus is the son of God, (Allah has no son, by the way) Muslims burn bibles and kill Christians where ever they can. I am not sure where you got the idea that Muslims are OK with the bible. They are not.
I would take exception to your idea that evolution is cross-examined in the scientific literature. It is a dogma that will end your career if you question even the most specious argument. There is ample proof that evolution is impossible on its face, and the theory has been disproved by Darwin's own criteria.
(Yes, I have read Darwin.)
I will assume your last statement is the result of ignorance of the bible, because there have been all kinds of neat things discovered about the world because a statement in the bible piqued someone's curiosity. (Matthew Maury's mapping of ocean currents comes to mind.)
There are other possibilities as well, such as the idea of God 'stretching' the heavens. Is that why there is red shift? Big Bang theories have a problem:"First there was nothing, then it exploded" does not happen where we live.
The idea of intelligent creation is critical to science, because it implies that there is an order that can be discovered. Of course, the question of the nature of God comes into play here, because only an unchanging God can be expected to make immutable laws.
Please provide an example of an emendation that became scripture. I would agree with you in reference to the Mishna (commentaries) but not the Tanach (the first five books of the bible) The standard for copying the scriptures was very high, with even a single letter deviation being a cause to destroy the whole attempt.
I use the King Jimmy because the few minor problems are well documented, and I love the poetry of the KJV.
I also use modern versions when I need to quote the bible, because I do not expect the level of education implied by an acquaintance with English from 1611, nor do I expect that everyone will be so interested as to make the effort to understand the older English.
Bush is irrelevant. Why bring up a former president? Should I accuse Obama of sexual infidelity because Kennedy was unable to keep it zipped?
LOL!
The 'both' idea is hogwash, and does a disservice to both the evolution idea and the creation idea. I better idea is to examine the initial state as defined by both ideas and examine the current measurable world for processes that operate in accordance with those states. The creation idea is that the world started in a state of order and is going to a state of disorder. The evolution idea is that the world started in disorder and is going to a stat of order. Experiment to find out which is the correct initial state. It is pretty easy to find experiments that show the order moving into disorder, evolution is another story.
Ah yes, but what inertial time-frame do we use? We know that time is fungible based on the local gravity. I can see using earth as the standard, but only after Gen 1. Isaiah 42:22 talks about God 'stretching out the heavens, and presumably the light that is there as well.
The Obama says I have to pay for abortions through my taxes. Santorum says that is wrong, and I agree with him. BTW, what is a granfalloon? new words always interest me.
It would be far better to examine evolutionists for flaws in evidence, assumption, or conclusion.
Let's be fair and subject creationists for flaws in textual treatment, interpretation and assumption not supported from the text.
In the end we will know more about the world around us.
So at what point did your life begin? Can I harvest you for stem cells?
The protestant bible has been subjected to rigorous examination and comparison with the ancient texts. If there is something left out, (or included) there are very good reasons for doing so. Muslim books are a different matter, and intend to contradict the bible. I know of no serious Christian thinkers who would use Muslim sources.
As for your claims, you do not have a proven body of prophecy to prove you see the end from the beginning, so your claims are in a different class of communication.
A rather cursory examination of Islam reveals that this is not the same god presented in the Judeo-Christian orthodoxy. Believing in one god is not the same thing as believing in the same god.
So examine the evidence for the reliability of the bible, and decide for your self. Once you understand the text, you might proceed by asking yourself how you would go about creating a set of folks with real free will, and how you would redeem the ones that foul up. Jesus looks pretty good to an imperfect fellow like me.
Unless the God in question has committed himself to a universe that is discoverable, and does not himself change. This is how the God of the bible describes himself: "For I [am] the LORD, I change not..." Malachi 3:6. You might well have a beef if God kept changing, but he does not. What was wrong in Eden (disobedience of God) is wrong today. Your trickster god is not the God of the bible.
Your disbelief is an answer. I encourage you to translate your disbelief into languages that have no written form. I will then use your translation (to the extant possible) to create a Bible in that language. Oh. There isn't an organization in Atheism that translates Hitchens into new languages? why are you behind us Christians? could it be that Atheism is a parasitic idea that can only survive where there is some one else to do the heavy lifting?
Or maybe just the manager.
Hang in there, there are more than a few slashers that are fully versed in science, and fully faithful to God. Slashdot is a little like a freeway; Everyone has a horn. A few of the posters are more thoughtful and well-reasoned than some, but the questions about faith are here because they are relevant to slashers, and some of the most vitriolic posts are by folks who need a thoughtful response the most.
Remember that Christ was crucified. We who follow him can expect the same.
There is a standard phonetic alphabet that allows a written language to be derived from a spoken language. It derives from Roman characters (for convenience) and reads down the page and left to write. Again, for convenience because European languages all do the same, and the bulk of the library is in European languages.
I care. I think they should be able to make the decision about the bible for themselves, not have it made for them by someone named Foofoobar. The bible translation teams also have the side effect of generating an infrastructure that can then be used for creating a written culture and tradition where none existed before, and allows the uniqueness of a culture to be captured and preserved in written form.
Sorry, no. It was the will of an inventor at Motorola that gave them the cell phone, and a bunch of engineers dedicated to the idea that there are absolutes in the universe that can be found and manipulated to create a working machine. It was also a lot more engineers who took the idea from the realm of Star Trek and put it in your pocket, cheaply.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the Russian monitor Novgorod, which is about the right size. Scrapped in 1912, I am not sure where, but a lot of old boats did final duty as targets for weapon testing.
Zombies. They probably vote the same way, without a thought of who will have to pay for all those social programs.
I have no complaint with your new way. Please do not construe my post as a criticism of your idea. I just think we have a built in flaw that removes one legitimate choice from the equation: that none of the presented candidates should be elected. Add "None of the above" to each ballot and I am content, Online, paper, or plastic.