in the beginning god created haven and the earth.
but where did he come from.?

twinkiedooter

Amber - if I knew the right answer to this one, I'd be famous. God did not come from anything or anywhere - he has always been there and always will be there.

MoonlitWaves

Yep. God is eternal, meaning He had no beginning and will have no end.

Credendovidis

Amberlynn : that is part of the CHRISTIAN BELIEF
There is no objective supporting evidence for it. Either you believe it or you don't.
.

Fr_Chuck

God did not "come" from anywhere, he was always God. The idea of time is a man made creation.

Credendovidis

Incorrect. Time is not a man-made creation. (Space) time is a dimension, like height, like width, like lenght. The ever-existence of God is belief-based. As a Christian you BELIEVE that God existed forever. What seems so wrong for you to confirm that you BELIEVE that?

Fr_Chuck

See how nice it is to disagree in a nice manner

But I will disagree, even time and dimension is a "concept" this concept is defined by human understanding of it.
In the beginning time the idea of wave lenghts, speed of light and the such were not known, time was days, seasons and the such
Man as he progresses with knowledge redefines things as he sees them or beleives them to be.

And yes, I may use the word faith since to you I "beleive" to me I "know" it since I wouild no more doubt that God exists since he is more real to me than you are, I have not seen you, heard you, touched you.
I merely reads wrtten on the computer that I have to have faith and beleve are from you. So from God, I have felt his spirit, I have seen his power and watched his miricles at work.

But I respect your non beleif, belief is hard, it is much easer not to.

Credendovidis

Again you are wrong on that. Time is a dimension, and does not require much human understanding. Time is - as previously stated - just a dimension as width, length, and height. We all KNOW what width, what length, what height, and what time is without having to conceptionalize any of these dimensions. Your argument suggests that one has to understand the specific scientific rules and explanations to know what time is. But that is not true.
Example : our very far ancestors allready knew that even if they had (sufficient) food (width, lenght, height) TODAY, but ate everything, that the TOMORROW (i.e. the concept of time) they had to hunt again. They understood the concept of time without knowing the technicalities of time itself.
.
As to my personal position : the existence of the four common dimensions has nothing to do with the spiritual feelings a person has. Religion (Christianity) is just one of many manifestations of spiritual feeling.
And of course you may BELIEVE anything you prefer. But without providing objective evidence for what you BELIEVE that remains BELIEF, while KNOWING requires a support other than BELIEF. For instance by providing objective evidence or logical argument.
.
Not true. It requires much personal strenght and character not to hide behind a mythological deity to do "the right thing". Believing is much easier, as all you have to do is follow the claimed "instructions as provided by the deity".
A non-believer has to develop proper arguments as to moral and ethical values. The "golden rule" is of some help there, but that process is clearly more demanding than simply following religious claims.
.

Fr_Chuck

Thank you such ideas only show and support how weak the arguement is from those that attack Christians. One attacks beleif or accepting for one value, but when it is science, it has to be a fact because science says it is.
If i was no so sad, it would be funny

Credendovidis

Incorrect :
.
First of all there is no attack on Christianity at all. I just provide my views, my reaction to the topic. That you disagree with me is your prerogative.
.
Secondly I am not attacking Christianity or belief in general. I wonder how you came to that conclusion.
.
Thirdly : there is a clear difference between differing of opinion between spiritual concepts like religion and scientific support.
Spiritual concepts are unsupported ideas that lack any objective evidence. Differences are of course possible and to be expected.
.
Scientific theories all carry scientific objective support. Any difference should be argued based on other (new) objective evidence that contradicts the current position.
There is no reason NOT to argue scientific theories, but that requires a valid reason to disprove the earlier provided objective evidence on which the theory is based.
.
I have no idea why you are so sad, but the feeling is misplaced and most probably totally invalid.