Are christians averse to researching anything that would contradict the bible no matter how true they might find it to be upon reading ? Every thinking christian owes it to themselves to research every source of possible contradiction, if for no other reason than being able to refute the contradictory material. Here are two good sites that every christian of intelligence ought to look into: God vs. the Bible (http://www.godvsthebible.com/) & The Age of Reason (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason).

Religion is faith/belief... just what a person choses to believe regardless of facts and knowledge. If Christians were interested in facts, they would reject ignorance and learn about sciences of all kinds.

This Christian is not averse to "knowlegde." This Christian has a doctorate and deals with life and death every day at work.

Your game is evident.

You come and pose these questions to try to sway believers.

Let me ask you this.
How does science explain the origins of dna. Life from non-life?
How does science explain the big bang?
How does science explain HOPE?
How does science explain LOVE?

Does science provide this to its belivers?
Or does science also concur with the fact that we will all die?
That this life is it. Survival of the fittest and all.
Does science explain suffering any better than religion?

How does a deist have any HOPE in believing that the creator just created everything and left everything to "nature."






Grace and Peace

Seeing as how we believe that the Bible is the true Word of God, not conradicting in any way, shape or form, untrue, or wrong on any level we have no need to study your supposed contradictions. We would rather spend our time studying the Bible to learn all we can and continue growing spiritually. I have to agree with inthebox.. your focus is on trying to sway believers, or making them look the fool. Why aren't you better spending your time growing in your faith and studying your beliefs to gain as much knowledge as you can. The only time I like to study what someone states is contradictions is to get a better understanding. Usually so called contradictions are centered on the tough scriptures. It doesn't hurt to study and get a better understanding of those scriptures. You know deist.. the "contradiction" you mentioned in Ezekiel in one of your other posts had never been brought to my attention before. Upon studying it last night God revealed the truth to me. Though it wasn't acceptable for you or a "poor explaination" in your opinion is not the point. I put it out there. I studied it, after a while of reading several times and cross studying I understood. I let you know what I learned. Whether you except it or not is no longer my concern. I did what I could, what I think God would have me do. It is not a Christians job to argue.. matter of fact God doesn't want us to do that. But at the same time we should not ingnore people's questions and let them them go on thinking what we believe to be incorrectly. Whether they end up agreeing, learning, or seeing is up to them, but at least we did what we could. Know this deist... God cannot reveal truth to you if your learning experience of the Bible is with a one sided mind. How can you see truth if in your mind there is none?

Religion is faith/belief...just what a person choses to believe regardless of facts and knowledge. If Christians were interested in facts, they would reject ignorance and learn about sciences of all kinds.

That's just it.. it is fact to us. It can't be undeniably proven, but it is proven to us through God. We believe in something, we practice it, we study it to gain as much knowledge as we can... that is far from being ingnorant. It's actaully quite the opposite whether you agree with the material being learned or not.
Focusing your attention on something you do not believe in, instead of the things that you do is ignorance.
There is nothing wrong with learning about all things, but you are better off focusing more and learning more about the things you do believe in.
A lawyer focusing most of their learning attention on how to perform surgery instead of law.. not too smart eh?
Christians aren't close minded nor ignorant because they don't want to focus their attention on your "contradictions". They're smart not to.

This Christian is not averse to "knowlegde." This Christian has a doctorate and deals with life and death every day at work.

Your game is evident.

You come and pose these questions to try to sway believers.

Let me ask you this.
How does science explain the origins of dna. Life from non-life?
How does science explain the big bang?
How does science explain HOPE?
How does science explain LOVE?

Does science provide this to its belivers?
Or does science also concur with the fact that we will all die?
That this life is it. Survival of the fittest and all.
Does science explain suffering any better than religion?

How does a deist have any HOPE in believing that the creator just created everything and left everything to "nature."






Grace and PeaceI'm a deist not an atheist. I believe God created the universe. Or more specifically I believe God created the original singularity that exploded in the big bang to form the universe. Everything else, by intention of God, evolved from that through natural laws that God also intended. I don't believe in original sin, or that human suffering stems from it. Suffering is just a part of living in a world where creatures live & die, it is neither good nor evil. I believe mental states such as hope & love evolved along with everything else as a part of the human mind that also evolved. And it is a fact that christians & muslims try to sway people everyday. That's the reason for Jesus' Great Commission, "Go ye into all the world & preach the gospel to every creature". Christians are trying to sway people when they go out on visitation to witness door to door. Muslims are trying to sway people everyday to convert to Islam. But my main purpose is not to sway, but to get people to think, to question, to quest. Deism is a thinking philosophy. Did God give us the gift of reason & a rational mind, only that we should reject it, not use it, & just accept things on faith without questioning ?

To me only doubt causeth reasoning

Muslims are trying to sway people everyday to convert to Islam.

I have to tell you a fact, it is a muslims duty to remind people IF the reminder benefits.
And we are not doing any swaying of minds/hearts one way or another .It is by the will and mercy of the Almighty that anyone is guided.
No ones heart is in our hands to force it to believe one way or another.

When the Almighty guides to His light no one can take a person away from it, and when the light is taken away from a person then there is no one who can guide him back to it except the Almighty.

To me only doubt causeth reasoningDoubt causeth reasoning ?
From freedictionary.com... Reason: the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
Are you saying here that you lack this capacity ?

Let me ask you this.
How does science explain the origins of dna. Life from non-life?
How does science explain the big bang?
How does science explain HOPE?
How does science explain LOVE?


To each of your questions - the same answer:
Not yet with certainty perhaps, but be patient - it will happen.

People don't "believe" science like religious people "believe" their religion. There's a huge difference, science requires itself to prove things before they are believed.

Religious people continuously use things that are currently unknown to try to provide reasons for God. Why try to prove something by saying the other person cannot explain it satisfactorarily either. That doesn't prove you're right.

Find some better reasons for us to take you seriously. It doesn't take much thought to say "God did it" now does it?

If I say there is a purple monster living in your house that you will never find - prove me wrong. If you can't then I must be right - yes?

Here's a question for you, why did God do this? Why create the universe, earth and everything on it?

To each of your questions - the same answer:
Not yet with certainty perhaps, but be patient - it will happen.

People dont "believe" science like religious people "believe" their religion. There's a huge difference, science requires itself to prove things before they are believed.

Religious people continuously use things that are currently unknown to try to provide reasons for God. Why try to prove something by saying the other person cannot explain it satisfactorarily either. That doesn't prove you're right.

Find some better reasons for us to take you seriously. It doesn't take much thought to say "God did it" now does it?

If I say there is a purple monster living in your house that you will never find - prove me wrong. If you can't then I must be right - yes?

Here's a question for you, why did God do this? Why create the universe, earth and everything on it?

Why did God do this? Here's my answer... the same reason my daugther draws a picture of her family and puts it on the fridge 1) she loves what is in the picture 2) she is proud of it 3) she created it for other people to enjoy

We are here to worship a living God and enjoy the things he has provided.

Answer the flip side... if God didn't do any of this Why are we here and to what end?

In my opinion, there would be no reason to live, if it was all a coincidence.

Why did God do this? Here's my answer...the same reason my daugther draws a picture of her family and puts it on the fridge 1) she loves what is in the picture 2) she is proud of it 3) she created it for other people to enjoy

So, what your saying is that God had nothing to love (before the universe etc)so he created something for him to love? You don't hear the lonely God explanation very often but I'll admit it has merit.

2, He can't have created something because he was proud of it - that's just in the wrong order.

3, I see this one, He created the universe and everything to show off to his other Godly friends. Now that's a good reason! Tell me more about all the other Gods that our God is trying to impress by creating the universe.

So, what your saying is that God had nothing to love (before the universe etc)so he created something for him to love? You don't hear the lonely God explanation very often but i'll admit it has merit.

2, He can't have created something because he was proud of it - thats just in the wrong order.

3, I see this one, He created the universe and everything to show off to his other Godly friends. Now that's a good reason! Tell me more about all the other Gods that our God is trying to impress by creating the universe.


Thank you for analyzing the entire analogy and not getting the "big" picture. And also did you forget or miss the question I asked you?

Back to the original question I asked that started this thread. Are christians (& muslims for that matter) averse to researching anything that might bring their view of the bible (or the quran) into question ?

Back to the original question I asked that started this thread. Are christians (& muslims for that matter) averse to researching anything that might bring their view of the bible (or the quran) into question ?


The seed of doubt can be easily implanted into the minds of anyone including believers strong in their faith... for that reason I am skeptical to hold any amount of creditability to any research that looks to put the Bible in question.

Could you be specific on what you mean by averse?
Give a list of something's that you have in mind.

The seed of doubt can be easily implanted into the minds of anyone including believers strong in their faith...for that reason I am skeptical to hold any amount of creditability to any research that looks to put the Bible in question.If you don't check out the sources that claim to put the bible in doubt how can you know they are in error ? And if you don't know what arguments they present how can you refute them ?

If you don't check out the sources that claim to put the bible in doubt how can you know they are in error ? And if you don't know what arguments they present how can you refute them ?



I can refute them because I have a Biblical world view to refute them with. I know that the sources are in error because it comes from man with the intention of discrediting God and the Bible.

Could you be specific on what you mean by averse?
Give a list of somethings that you have in mind.I'll rephrase the question. Are christians or muslims disinclined (averse) to research anything that might bring the bible or the quran into question ?

I can refute them because I have a Biblical world view to refute them with. I know that the sources are in error because it comes from man with the intention of discrediting God and the Bible.I submit that the bible comes from man also, & is interpreted by man.

I submit that the bible comes from man also, & is interpreted by man.

It was written by man but authored by God. I hold it as true and accurate in all regards!

I'll rephrase the question. Are christians or muslims disinclined (averse) to research anything that might bring the bible or the quran into question ?

I accept the Quran as the word of the Almighty without question or doubt.
So there is no question of me trying to disprove it or to disprove it is the word of the Almighty.

Now if you have questions regarding the Quran and Islam, if possible I will find answers for them (I say this because I am just a muslim and not an Islamic scholar).
But when you ask do bear in mind that a lot of belief in the Quran involves faith in the Almighty and you will not understand this nor will you accept it.

Another thing is that you are already prejudiced against the Quran and hence whatever I say, you will counteract with your comments about how it is not proof.So when you do ask questions keep an open mind and read to understand even if you do not accept.

And if you wish to ask questions in Islam, please use the appropriate topic and start a new thread.

It was written by man but authored by God. I hold it as true and accurate in all regards!See my question under the thread on Revelation or hearsay, & the thread Failed prophecy.

Thank you for analyzing the entire analogy and not getting the "big" picture. And also did you forget or miss the question I asked you?

Why are we here? - No reason - chance, inevtibility.

Now that I have answered your question please answer mine - Why did God do it?

Or another, what did god do before he made the universe?

Or another, why is the universe so big? What else does it contain - other worlds with other people on like you and me?

Please don't use the "big picture" excuse with me, it really doesn't work. Either answer the question or don't.

Can I ask another question to everyone out there please?
If I were to choose a religion from a neutral view point which should I choose?

Are christians averse to researching anything that would contradict the bible no matter how true they might find it to be upon reading ? Every thinking christian owes it to themselves to research every source of possible contradiction, if for no other reason than being able to refute the contradictory material. Here are two good sites that every christian of intelligence ought to look into: God vs. the Bible (http://www.godvsthebible.com/) & The Age of Reason (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason).
Of course they are adverse to research. They have been brainwashed and told for centuries not to empower themselves and instead believe what they are told. They are like soldiers just believing what they are told and contradicting themselves all the time because they are more involved with the shiny badges that represent their religions, and they have forgotten that to be spiritual means to also do spiritual things, create spiritual events and address spiritual concerns that will empower and educate the world.

That never happens, what usually happens is that a religion goes into a village and forces their religion upon another at the expense of the villages cultural ideas and customs. If it hurts no one, it can't be that bad. If its creating great havoc in the world, its something that needs to END.

These types are as common as the penny Im afraid. For all the good they think they do, they are nearly always hypocritical. I don't have the time to write a thesis on the subject, but it's a very old one for me.

I submit that the bible comes from man also, & is interpreted by man.
Of course it was, that's why we are in such a mess these days and always have been. :rolleyes:

The most sane quotes come from Jesus, mostly everyone else in there sounds like an egotistical madman whose number one obsession is to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. Its quite sickening and immature.

I'll rephrase the question. Are christians or muslims disinclined (averse) to research anything that might bring the bible or the quran into question ?

Of course. There is no room for doubt in that belief thought construct. If they began to question their beliefs which are so entwined with their identity, they feel in their subconscious that they would then lose their identity and not know who they are. The ideas of spirituality that they are told to accept usually begins early on in their lives, by the time they grow up, they are too mind controlled to do any independent research. They have become one with their doctrines and dogma's. This is why there is so much war, everyone thinks they are right, that they are spiritual, and their idea of spirituality is to kill each other.

That's SOME spirituality isn't it? Its insane. Its all about ego. In their relentless pursuit for "the truth" they forgot to be spiritual.

They are constantly lamblasted with ideas of "faith" and very few real answers that will work in their personal lives and in the world. Its embarrassing to be around one as I always feel like Im around a little child who never grew up.

This is not to say Im not spiritual, I have had incredible visions, dreams that came true etc. I am not part of religion or atheism, I do my own fearless research and I have a conscious working mind. :eek:

Of course it was, thats why we are in such a mess these days and always have been. :rolleyes:

The most sane quotes come from Jesus, mostly everyone else in there sounds like an egotistical madman whose number one obsession is to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. Its quite sickening and immature.


Who else matters but JESUS! He is the "way the truth and the light, no man comes to the Father except through Him"

Why are we here? - No reason - chance, inevtibility.

Now that I have answered your question please answer mine - Why did God do it? I did answer in previous post.
Or another, what did god do before he made the universe? I don't know; does anyone?

Or another, why is the universe so big? what else does it contain - other worlds with other people on like you and me? We may know these answers by the end of our life but we may not. I am not so much concerned about those questions as I am about how can I treat people with love and compassion each and every day.
Please don't use the "big picture" excuse with me, it really doesn't work. Either answer the question or dont.

Can I ask another question to everyone out there please?
If I were to choose a religion from a neutral view point which should I choose?


I think many people have a big problem with "religion" and I don't blame them. They also have a problem with the hypocrisy in the church, with religious leaders, and with christians in general; and I don't blame them for that either. Religion is a set of beliefs that can or cannot be in-line with what Jesus taught. Jesus did not spend as much time with religious leaders as he did with his friends or in prayer with his Father. He many times said for "His Father's will to come and be done on earth" not the will of the religious in power or a certain religious philosophy. So I believe your "religion" should be your personal relationship with God the Father through belief and trust in Jesus our savior; nothing more nothing less

I am not so much concerned about those questions as I am about how can I treat people with love and compassion each and every day

So, do you need God to make you do that then? Would you be a bad person if it wasn't for God watching your every move?

To me, compassion and love do not depend on a God to threaten me into it.

If, when I die, it turns out I was wrong and there is a God, will I go to hell just for not believing in him? I think that I am a fairly good human being, does that not count for anything in the final reckoning?

So, do you need God to make you do that then? Would you be a bad person if it wasn't for God watching your every move? I don't need God to make me do it but i sometimes need a reminder (love you neighbor as yourself) to love the ones I don't want to.
To me, compassion and love do not depend on a God to threaten me into it. I agree.

If, when I die, it turns out I was wrong and there is a God, will I go to hell just for not believing in him? The Bible and my belief say yes.
I think that I am a fairly good human being, does that not count for anything in the final reckoning? Again according to the Bible and my beliefs it won't "we are saved by grace not by works"


God is not an evil commander in the sky waiting to punish you. I know a lot of people have that view for whatever reason or experience. We all face trials and pain in our life but don't blame it on God when it occurs. Find the good in your experiences and grow from them.

God is not an evil commander in the sky waiting to punish you. I know a lot of people have that view for whatever reason or experience. We all face trials and pain in our life but don't blame it on God when it occurs. Find the good in your experiences and grow from them.

Wow! I find it absolutely amazing that you follow this God then, He places NO value on good deeds, only belief. As you yourself say, good deeds will not get someone into heaven.

When you die I hope you are both happy together - I will not support such a selfish God who takes brainless followers over people who do good deeds for the sake of it. You should be ashamed of your religion for such rules.

Wow! I find it absolutely amazing that you follow this God then, He places NO value on good deeds, only belief. As you yourself say, good deeds will not get someone into heaven.

When you die I hope you are both happy together - I will not support such a selfish God who takes brainless followers over people who do good deeds for the sake of it. You should be ashamed of your religion for such rules.


You do not seem understand the concept... You are only saved by God's grace, if you believe and trust in Him. Good works are not required for that criteria but of course He does place value on good works. The two greatest commandments from God are 1) Love God with all your heart, soul, mind 2) love your neighbor as yourself... I don't know about you but loving people is a good work and something I have to try really hard to do in many cases. We as believers will be rewarded in heaven for the works we do here on earth.

And I am not ashamed of my beliefs and I am glad you are amazed that I follow this God because so am I!

You do not seem understand the concept...You are only saved by God's grace, if you believe and trust in Him. Good works are not required for that criteria but of course He does place value on good works. The two greatest commandments from God are 1) Love God with all your heart, soul, mind 2) love your neighbor as yourself....I don't know about you but loving people is a good work and something I have to try really hard to do in many cases. We as believers will be rewarded in heaven for the works we do here on earth.

And I am not ashamed of my beliefs and I am glad you are amazed that I follow this God because so am I!

You don't seem to understand what you are advocating. That all good people from the entire globe (apart from those who follow your religion) should go to hell for eternity.

HELL!! For all eternity!! For what crime - not believing in God.

How do you people sleep at night?

If you all believe that this is good and just then I just hope you never serve on a jury.

Hello Angry Christians (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=adf_1190731634&p=1)

You don't seem to understand what you are advocating. That all good people from the entire globe (apart from those who follow your religion) should go to hell for eternity.

Advocating hell. We're not in favor of hell or people going to hell. It's the exact opposite actually. It is not our choice whether people go to Heaven or hell... never was.

HELL!!! for all eternity!!! for what crime - not believing in God.

What you should be wondering is why someone who doesn't believe in God should go to Heaven. It's like your employer paying you for not working. Besides, if someone does not believe in God then Heaven and hell does not exist for them.


How do you people sleep at night?

Do you think we don't care? It is a sad thing that there will be many people that will go to hell, even good people. If we are doing what we are supposed to do then we will be trying to win over as many souls to Christ as we can. You do what you can and let God take care of the rest. No one could sleep at night if they dwelled on it. It's no different than dwelling on all the bad in the world... cancers, AIDS, child abuse, poverty, etc. How do you sleep at night? Because you don't dwell on it.

If you all believe that this is good and just then i just hope you never serve on a jury.

No true Christian would believe hell is good. It is because of our belief that we ask for salvation. It is through God's grace that we are saved. And it is because of all three that God gives us eternal life/Heaven.

Are christians averse to researching anything that would contradict the bible no matter how true they might find it to be upon reading ? Every thinking christian owes it to themselves to research every source of possible contradiction, if for no other reason than being able to refute the contradictory material. Here are two good sites that every christian of intelligence ought to look into: God vs. the Bible (http://www.godvsthebible.com/) & The Age of Reason (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason).
Christians don't have to chase after the truth, and why research contradictions when you know you have the truth. Why do we know we have the truth, because Jesus told us. He frequently said I tell you the truth

Christians don't have to chase after the truth, and why research contradictions when you know you have the truth. Why do we know we have the truth, because Jesus told us. He frequently said I tell you the truth

Wait, what? :confused: Why research contradictions when you know you have the truth? That makes no sense...

If you (not you, but the general "you") claim the bible is without error, and there are no contradictions, then how can you explain away obvious contradictions? And what does the "truth" have to do with anything? If I say, "The sky is blue" and you say, "The sky is purple", one of us is right, and the other is wrong. So how can two portions of the bible, which contradict one another, both be right? How do you find the "truth" when you are being told two different things? Doesn't logic tell you one must be right and the other is wrong? And thus, the bible is not without error?

I'll even point to a discrepancy:

John 19:17; Jesus carries his own cross
John 19 King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/john/19.htm)

Mark 15:21-22; Simon carries Jesus' cross
Mark 15 King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/mark/15.htm)

I've got more, if you want 'em.

Are Christians averse to researching anything that would contradict the bible no matter how true they might find it to be upon reading ? Every thinking christian owes it to themselves to research every source of possible contradiction, if for no other reason than being able to refute the contradictory material. Here are two good sites that every christian of intelligence ought to look into: God vs. the Bible (http://www.godvsthebible.com/) & The Age of Reason (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason).
I find it hilarious when people make comments like this. It is assuming that Christians walk around afraid to question. Like we're afraid we are going to see something to shake our faith.
I am very sure of my faith and what I believe. I have no problem reading other things, I find some things funny and some things I explore a little further. With God all things are possible, so it all comes back to HIM. Perhaps people such as yourself should not be so afraid you might believe and open your heart to what God has for you.

Wait, what? :confused: Why research contradictions when you know you have the truth? That makes no sense...

If you (not you, but the general "you") claim the bible is without error, and there are no contradictions, then how can you explain away obvious contradictions? And what does the "truth" have to do with anything? If I say, "The sky is blue" and you say, "The sky is purple", one of us is right, and the other is wrong. So how can two portions of the bible, which contradict one another, both be right? How do you find the "truth" when you are being told two different things? Doesn't logic tell you one must be right and the other is wrong? And thus, the bible is not without error?

I'll even point to a discrepancy:

John 19:17; Jesus carries his own cross
John 19 King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/john/19.htm)

Mark 15:21-22; Simon carries Jesus' cross
Mark 15 King James Bible (http://kingjbible.com/mark/15.htm)

I've got more, if you want 'em.

You are only considering this as an ether/or. It is actually both. The verses do not say at what point Simon was forced into taking the cross. Nor do the verses mean that Jesus carried the cross the whole way. John omits the details of Simon being forced to carry the cross. That does not mean that he didn’t. Mark does not say that Jesus carried the cross himself for a while. That does not mean that he didn’t.

For example: What did I do today? I woke up and went to work. After work I had supper and now I am at my computer. This is all true.

Now I will tell you about my day again. I woke up, took a shower, had breakfast, and drove to work. After work I drove home, on the way home I stopped by the store and picked up some food for supper. This is all true as well.

These two stories do not contradict each other.

The four gospels do not contradict . They were written by four different men coming from different perspectives, but writing about the same Jesus.
Matthew was written to the Jews. He objective was to prove the authenticity of Christ. To prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. This is why he thought it important to have the genealogy. Mark's thing was to give a summary of His teachings.
Luke was a Gentile, he wrote with the gentile world in mind. He gospel is more about Jesus being a Savior to the gentiles, the sympathy of Christ.
John was closest to Christ. He was very contemplative, his was more a supplement to all of the gospels. His contains a lot more history and facts.
It's like having singers from four different genres sing the same song. Same song, four different styles.

Advocating hell. We're not in favor of hell or people going to hell. It's the exact opposite actually. It is not our choice whether people go to Heaven or hell...never was.

Yes it is you prawn, by believing in this rubbish! You're not forced to be a Christian you know, do you do everything your parents told you? Hell has always been the stick to get people to join up!


What you should be wondering is why someone who doesn't believe in God should go to Heaven. It's like your employer paying you for not working. Besides, if someone does not believe in God then Heaven and hell does not exist for them.

Yes, I was looking at it from a Christian point of view (for those that did not get it the first time round) And asking whether being good is valued by your God – clearly not.


Do you think we don't care? It is a sad thing that there will be many people that will go to hell, even good people. If we are doing what we are supposed to do then we will be trying to win over as many souls to Christ as we can. You do what you can and let God take care of the rest. No one could sleep at night if they dwelled on it. It's no different than dwelling on all the bad in the world...cancers, AIDS, child abuse, poverty, etc. How do you sleep at night? because you don't dwell on it.

Firstly I can sleep at night in the knowledge that I am not a bad person.

You lot however agree that innocent people should go to hell just cause they don't believe in god. What about tribes, infants etc. that have never been told about god. In your system they all go to hell! Try thinking about the points raised in this thread before blindly following someone else's thoughts.

No true Christian would believe hell is good. It is because of our belief that we ask for salvation. It is through God's grace that we are saved. And it is because of all three that God gives us eternal life/Heaven.

I'm sorry, did I miss something here. Firstly you say it is right for all non-believes to go to hell (approval of hell) and then you say hell is not good.

You people are just plain crazy, you don't even listen to yourselves speaking and forget logic or any kind of sense. You're just away with the fairies. I don't mind that in itself, but don't try to pretend that your religion makes sense to non-brainwashed people.

StuMegu; what has caused you to be so bitter and hateful of Christian beliefs? If you don't believe that you have to be saved by grace through Jesus to have eternal salvation than what is the problem with what we are saying. You just don't believe it. We believe just being good will not get you into heaven. That doesn't mean that is the way we or God wants it but you personally have to make a decision to follow Him. That is free will. You have the choice to believe or not, that is your choice. It seems from the way you talk that you have made the choice to not follow Him and that is why we take the time to talk and explain.

1). If you believe in God just to get out of going to Hell don't you think God can see right through that motive, so how would that be "our stick" to get people to join. We don't need numbers to fill some quota.

2). Again there is a lot of forgiveness from God toward infants, children, etc that don't have the capacity to believe (ie David in the Old Testament lost a child and he stated that he would be with him in heaven; the infant couldn't believe in God yet but based on the bible passage he will indeed be in heaven)

3). HELL IS NOT GOOD! But unfortunately people will end up there that choose not to believe

Do you think the Bible is a "religion"? Because what I am referencing or quoting doesn't come from religious rules it comes for the Bible...

I'm a deist not an atheist. I believe God created the universe. Or more specifically I believe God created the original singularity that exploded in the big bang to form the universe. Everything else, by intention of God, evolved from that through natural laws that God also intended. I don't believe in original sin, or that human suffering stems from it. Suffering is just a part of living in a world where creatures live & die, it is neither good nor evil. I believe mental states such as hope & love evolved along with everything else as a part of the human mind that also evolved. And it is a fact that christians & muslims try to sway people everyday. That's the reason for Jesus' Great Commission, "Go ye into all the world & preach the gospel to every creature". Christians are trying to sway people when they go out on visitation to witness door to door. Muslims are trying to sway people everyday to convert to Islam. But my main purpose is not to sway, but to get people to think, to question, to quest. Deism is a thinking philosophy. Did God give us the gift of reason & a rational mind, only that we should reject it, not use it, & just accept things on faith without questioning ?

Where is the "research" - the proof that the human minds and such ideas of hope and love
"evolved?"

Is the casual observer suppose to believe that just because you or other evolutionists or universities teach that?

Evolution cannot explain life from non life. It cannot even explain how a protein like hemoglobin came about, and yet it is taught as fact and anyone who questions it is wrong.

In your own words deism is a philosophy that suffering is neither good nor evil?

If you believe God created the universe, how can you believe that God is some finite object that man can put under a microscope?





Grace and Peace

Hello Angry Christians (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=adf_1190731634&p=1)



I would look at your own posts on President Bush to see what anger is about.

You lot however agree that innocent people should go to hell just cause they don't believe in god. What about tribes, infants etc. that have never been told about god. In your system they all go to hell! Try thinking about the points raised in this thread before blindly following someone else's thoughts.

You should try learning about something before you speak of it as if you know what you are talking about. God has mercy on the inncocent and will not send someone to hell who does not have the capability of understanding. But He will have no mercy on someone who can understand but chooses not to.

I'm sorry, did I miss something here. Firstly you say it is right for all non-believes to go to hell (approval of hell) and then you say hell is not good.

Approval or disapproval of hell is not even a question or thought in our minds. It is the way God made things to be and it is the way they WILL be. It matters not what anyone thinks. Why should anyone get anything they do not deserve?
You think.. I will be a good person so that when I die if there truly is a God I can go to heaven? That way you get it both ways, right? While on earth you don't have to do something so low as to humble yourself to God, but just in case there is a Heaven, I will be a good person so I will still be deserving of Heaven? Wrong! And that's what you're angry about, right? That we don't think it or believe it to be that way? If you think it should be that way then you are the one without sense.

I would look at your own posts on President Bush to see what anger is about.Good point, he is ruining your country not mine. You sit idly by and all will settle itself I'm sure. Maybe praying will help.

Where is the "research" - the proof that the human minds and such ideas of hope and love
"evolved?"

Is the casual observer suppose to believe that just because you or other evolutionists or universities teach that?

Evolution cannot explain life from non life. It cannot even explain how a protein like hemoglobin came about, and yet it is taught as fact and anyone who questions it is wrong.

In your own words deism is a philosophy that suffering is neither good nor evil?

If you believe God created the universe, how can you believe that God is some finite object that man can put under a microscope?





Grace and PeaceEven if I provided you websites to research I doubt you would research them. I already provided the site God versus the bible, God vs. the Bible (http://www.godvsthebible.com). And some of those who have responded to this thread have shown that, indeed, christians are averse to researching anything that may put the bible in doubt. It is a fact that modern biology & medicine is dependent upon evolutionary science. No christian just became a christian out of the blue. They were talked into it by another christian, whether it be a parent, a pastor, a friend, or the writers of the New Testament. The bible is not God's revelation to man, the creation itself is God's revelation to us. We discover God through observation of God's universe through the means of science. God did not give us a rational, reasoning, mind, only that we should reject it & accept things on faith alone. God gave us a reasoning mind that we should use them in the pursuit of knowledge through observing God's universe.

You are only considering this as an ether/or. It is actually both. The verses do not say at what point Simon was forced into taking the cross. Nor do the verses mean that Jesus carried the cross the whole way. John omits the details of Simon being forced to carry the cross. That does not mean that he didn’t. Mark does not say that Jesus carried the cross himself for a while. That does not mean that he didn’t.

For example: What did I do today? I woke up and went to work. After work I had supper and now I am at my computer. This is all true.

Now I will tell you about my day again. I woke up, took a shower, had breakfast, and drove to work. After work I drove home, on the way home I stopped by the store and picked up some food for supper. This is all true as well.

These two stories do not contradict each other.

You don't think Simon carrying the cross was sort of significant? Seems odd that an important thing such as that was left out...

There's also contradiction on Jesus' last words (Mat 27:46, Luke 23:46 and John 19:30), but I'm sure that's because they all heard something different, or they remembered differently, right? Seems to me if they remembered differently that's an error... There's also some contradiction about time...

But what do you care? The bible is the enerrant word of god, and no amount of pointed out errors will cause you to think otherwise.

StuMegu; what has caused you to be so bitter and hateful of Christian beliefs? If you don't believe that you have to be saved by grace through Jesus to have eternal salvation than what is the problem with what we are saying. You just don't believe it. We believe just being good will not get you into heaven. That doesn't mean that is the way we or God wants it but you personally have to make a decision to follow Him. That is free will. You have the choice to believe or not, that is your choice. It seems from the way you talk that you have made the choice to not follow Him and that is why we take the time to talk and explain.

It's not much of a choice really, more an application of intelligent thought leading to a single possibility. What's your excuse?

I don't consider myself hateful, I have no external compulsion to come to this place and engage in argument with you, so what do you think my motives are?


1). If you believe in God just to get out of going to Hell don't you think God can see right through that motive, so how would that be "our stick" to get people to join. We don't need numbers to fill some quota.

Ok, so why send people who don't believe to hell then, why not just end their existence? Do you understand this point - without the threat of hell (the stick) you (religious people) have to work harder at selling heaven (the carrot).

Also, lets say someone is scared of hell and decides to "join up". They devote the rest of their life to God and truly repent of all their sins. You say that God would see right though them and off they go to hell.


2). Again there is a lot of forgiveness from God toward infants, children, etc that don't have the capacity to believe (ie David in the Old Testament lost a child and he stated that he would be with him in heaven; the infant couldn't believe in God yet but based on the bible passage he will indeed be in heaven)

What about the angel of death? I'm just dying (no pun intended) to hear your excuse for that one :) :) :)


3). HELL IS NOT GOOD! but unfortunately people will end up there that choose not to believe

Do you agree that this is not a very balanced moral stance - good people along with murderers and rapists etc.


Do you think the Bible is a "religion"? because what I am referencing or quoting doesn't come from religious rules it comes for the Bible....

Wow, you've done it again, I am amazed. I always thought the bible was a religious object and contained rules. What a dummy I am, please explain the difference so I can be more lucid next time.

You should try learning about something before you speak of it as if you know what you are talking about. God has mercy on the inncocent and will not send someone to hell who does not have the capability of understanding. But He will have no mercy on someone who can understand but chooses not to.
Approval or disapproval of hell is not even a question or thought in our minds. It is the way God made things to be and it is the way they WILL be. It matters not what anyone thinks. Why should anyone get anything they do not deserve?

Exactly, why do good people get put in HELL AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!! I'm BURRRRNNNNNIIIIIINNNNNGGGGGG!!


You think..I will be a good person so that when I die if there truly is a God I can go to heaven? That way you get it both ways, right?
While on earth you don't have to do something so low as to humble yourself to God, but just in case there is a Heaven, I will be a good person so I will still be deserving of Heaven? Wrong! And that's what you're angry about, right? That we don't think it or believe it to be that way? If you think it should be that way then you are the one without sense.

Wrong. I think there is no God! (and I'm right:)) I am just trying to understand why you lot agree that (in your system) good people should burn (see above for my description of hell).

Please remind me of where it says that anyone who hasn't heard of God will go to Heaven. I assume you wouldn't make such a claim without biblical evidence?

It's not much of a choice really, more an application of inteligent thought leading to a single possibility. What's your excuse?

I don't consider myself hateful, I have no external compulsion to come to this place and engage in argument with you, so what do you think my motives are?



Ok, so why send people who dont believe to hell then, why not just end their existence? Do you understand this point - without the threat of hell (the stick) you (religious people) have to work harder at selling heaven (the carrot).

Also, lets say someone is scared of hell and decides to "join up". They devote the rest of their life to God and truly repent of all their sins. You say that God would see right though them and off they go to hell.



What about the angel of death? I'm just dying (no pun intended) to hear your excuse for that one :) :) :)



Do you agree that this is not a very balanced moral stance - good people along with murderers and rapists etc.



Wow, you've done it again, I am amazed. I always thought the bible was a religious object and contained rules. What a dummy I am, please explain the difference so I can be more lucid next time.


You clearly have made a choice not to believe in God so you are confident in the result and so on and so forth...

I can't say things in any different way than I am, you are just not willing to hear. That is why I wonder why do you continue on with these discussions? I am happy to answer your questions based on my beliefs if you truly want them but if the answers are just being used for more fuel for your fire than there is no need. I do hope and pray that someday God will speak to you through someone or an event and you will listen.

I do hope and pray that someday God will speak to you through someone or an event and you will listen.I do hope that one day you will come out of your daze, live your life according to your own rules and drop this charade of organized religion. We are available to teach you this if you will listen.

You clearly have made a choice not to believe in God so you are confident in the end result and so on and so forth...

I can't say things in any different way than I am, you are just not willing to hear. That is why I wonder why do you continue on with these discussions? I am happy to answer your questions based on my beliefs if you truly want them but if the answers are just being used for more fuel for your fire than there is no need. I do hope and pray that someday God will speak to you through someone or an event and you will listen.

"I can't say things in any different way than I am, you are just not willing to hear. That is why I wonder why do you continue on with these discussions?"

That bit was good - mind if I bounce it back at you? I also have the higher ground of actually attempting to make sense :D

Stu and need, I hear you both loud and clear.

Then you have seen the rational view and will change your ways?

Then you have seen the rational view and will change your ways?


Ha, no I'm sorry:D

Isn't it annoying having someone tell you how wrong you are all the time? :)

Ha, no I'm sorry:D

Liar, you aren't sorry! :D

"Are christians averse to researching anything that would contradict the bible"



No.

Liar, you aren't sorry! :D


You are correct!

Isn't it annoying having someone tell you how wrong you are all the time? :)


I am the ultimate antagonist so I have to learn when to say when...

Religion is faith/belief...just what a person choses to believe regardless of facts and knowledge. If Christians were interested in facts, they would reject ignorance and learn about sciences of all kinds.

Religion is a lifestyle, not just faith/belief. And if critics such as yourself were interested in facts you would have little to no justification for your constant criticism.

deist, bypassing all the talk of creation, biblical inerrancy, hell and all that and back to the original question, no Christians aren't averse to information that might contradict their beliefs.

I have to laugh a little every time I read one of these questions because those that think we're brainwashed idiots come crawling out of the woodwork. You would think that after having said that a thousand times they might stop and think about just who it is that's really brainwashed instead of offering the same convulsive response with no basis in reality.

Everyone faces things that are difficult to reconcile with their beliefs, and anyone, Christian or otherwise that professes differently is a liar. I'd bet that most of those that think Christians are non-thinking robots have no clue as to what we're really like. In fact, the only real difference as we see it is we're forgiven by God - we are no more or less perfect than anyone else. We make decisions for ourselves, encourage research and appreciate sound science. The fact the we stand on certain beliefs and values and encourage others to see things our way doesn't set us apart either, everyone else does that, too.

Steve

Of course they are adverse to research. They have been brainwashed and told for centuries not to empower themselves and instead believe what they are told. They are like soldiers just believing what they are told and contradicting themselves all the time because they are more involved with the shiny badges that represent their religions, and they have forgotten that to be spiritual means to also do spiritual things, create spiritual events and address spiritual concerns that will empower and educate the world.

That never happens, what usually happens is that a religion goes into a village and forces their religion upon another at the expense of the villages cultural ideas and customs. If it hurts noone, it can't be that bad. If its creating great havoc in the world, its something that needs to END.

These types are as common as the penny Im afraid. For all the good they think they do, they are nearly always hypocritical. I don't have the time to write a thesis on the subject, but its a very old one for me.

Gee, nobody told me what to say to this. I'm smart enough to know how absurd your response is all by myself.

deist, bypassing all the talk of creation, biblical inerrancy, hell and all that and back to the original question, no Christians aren't averse to information that might contradict their beliefs.

I have to laugh a little every time I read one of these questions because those that think we're brainwashed idiots come crawling out of the woodwork. You would think that after having said that a thousand times they might stop and think about just who it is that's really brainwashed instead of offering the same convulsive response with no basis in reality.

Everyone faces things that are difficult to reconcile with their beliefs, and anyone, Christian or otherwise that professes differently is a liar. I'd bet that most of those that think Christians are non-thinking robots have no clue as to what we're really like. In fact, the only real difference as we see it is we're forgiven by God - we are no more or less perfect than anyone else. We make decisions for ourselves, encourage research and appreciate sound science. The fact the we stand on certain beliefs and values and encourage others to see things our way doesn't set us apart either, everyone else does that, too.

SteveI have been many things in my search for meaning; buddhist, taoist, wiccan, agnostic, & atheist. Before that I was a bible believing christian for more than 27 years. I believed in the bible with all my heart & lived for Jesus. But in all that 27 years I never had one prayer answered, out of literally thousands of prayers, hundreds of which,statistically speaking, had to be within the will of God as revealed in the bible. And we know what John said about those who ask according to the will of God; they'd get what they asked for. Yet none of my prayers were answered. Then I happened upon deism, & having studied it, I saw that reality as it really is, & not what I wanted it to be, lined up more with the teachings of deism than the teachings of the bible. So now I am a deist, & a deist to stay. Deism answers all the questions for me that the bible couldn't. I believe my search for meaning is finally over.

I have been many things in my search for meaning; buddhist, taoist, ,wiccan, agnostic, & atheist. Before that I was a bible believing christian for more than 27 years. I believed in the bible with all my heart & lived for Jesus. But in all that 27 years I never had one prayer answered, out of literally thousands of prayers, hundreds of which,statistically speaking, had to be within the will of God as revealed in the bible. And we know what John said about those who ask according to the will of God; they'd get what they asked for. Yet none of my prayers were answered. Then I happened upon deism, & having studied it, I saw that reality as it really is, & not what I wanted it to be, lined up more with the teachings of deism than the teachings of the bible. So now I am a deist, & a deist to stay. Deism answers all the questions for me that the bible couldn't. I believe my search for meaning is finally over.

If that's where your journey led then who am I to question it? My journey has led me to remain a Christian, it's the only one that not only makes sense to me but experience has shown me the reality. I've seen too many answered prayers and changed lives to believe otherwise... but back to the original question, like most Christians I still don't have an aversion to research. In fact, I tend to thrive on it.

If that's where your journey led then who am I to question it? My journey has led me to remain a Christian, it's the only one that not only makes sense to me but experience has shown me the reality. I've seen too many answered prayers and changed lives to believe otherwise...but back to the original question, like most Christians I still don't have an aversion to research. In fact, I tend to thrive on it.Then check out this deist site, God vs. the Bible (http://www.godvsthebible.com).

Then check out this deist site, God vs. the Bible (http://www.godvsthebible.com).

Thanks deist, perhaps another time. A cursory review reads much like "infidels.org" (http://infidels.org). Been there, done that.

Thanks deist, perhaps another time. A cursory review reads much like "infidels.org" (http://infidels.org). Been there, done that.Not averse eh ?

Not averse eh ?


Stirring up the pot and setting a trap. Why would you need to do all this if your view/belief was clearly the true view??

Not averse eh ?

No, I just see no need to repeat virtually the same research. I've seen those questions asked and answered dozens of times. Show us something new.

No, I just see no need to repeat virtually the same research. I've seen those questions asked and answered dozens of times. Show us something new.I doubt you have read anything quite like God versus the bible. It's not anti-God, it is just anti-bible.

This certainly doesn't help the cause:

New "View" Co-Host Sherri Shepherd Doesn't Know If World Is Flat
New "View" Co-Host Sherri Shepherd Doesn't Know If World Is Flat - Media on The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/18/new-view-cohost-sherri_n_64864.html)

Who else matters but JESUS!! He is the "way the truth and the light, no man comes to the Father except through Him"
You're preaching to the choir. I understand him more than you do.

Gee, nobody told me what to say to this. I'm smart enough to know how absurd your response is all by myself.
Yes someone must have because your response is only to insult me, which totally proves all my points that religionists spend their time not being "spiritual" as the badge they love to show, but as hypocrites with closed minds.

You expose yourself. If you really were an openminded person you would have an openminded dialogue, instead you close doors and shut your mind and insult, and according to religionist rules, you're not supposed to be doing that.

My words were merely a summation to what I have experienced for the last 30 years.

Are christians averse to researching anything that would contradict the bible no matter how true they might find it to be upon reading ? Every thinking christian owes it to themselves to research every source of possible contradiction, if for no other reason than being able to refute the contradictory material. Here are two good sites that every christian of intelligence ought to look into: God vs. the Bible (http://www.godvsthebible.com/) & The Age of Reason (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason).
OKay, I am a christian but I won't speak for other christians here. We as christians are taught to refrain from looking at anything contradictory to what we believe in... I know, this sounds ignorant and in this scientific age down right laughable, but understand this... FAITH is based on undeniable belief in something on our case Jesus as the messiah and the son of God.
THe thing is take a look around yourself, even evolution has so many loopholes and if you ask me it's the product of scientists trying to force down uncooked food down our throats. My point is if you do you're research on all angles of thought regarding the origin of our species non is proved beyond resonable doubt. In my case, I find it easier to believe in something that gives me hope rather than in a series of articles that are in the end,a compilation of endless theories that do not fulfil me in anyway. And to tell you the truth.. denying or not-denying doesn't pple on opposite side of an argument... no... at one point or the other we are al going to pass away, and I don't want someone to be reading an encyclopedia britannica at my funeral.. hahahaha

I my case if find it easier to believe in something that give me hope rather than a series of articles that are in the end,a compilation of endless theories that do not fulfil me in anyway.The fact that you need "fulfilling" has nothing to do with science but a personal need on your side. Many people do not have a need to be "fulfilled".

Who else matters but JESUS!! He is the "way the truth and the light, no man comes to the Father except through Him"You misquoted your own savior. He didn't say, "I am the way, the truth, and the light". He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life". I know the bible better than you.

Gee, nobody told me what to say to this. I'm smart enough to know how absurd your response is all by myself.


Yes someone must have because your response is only to insult me, which totally proves all my points that religionists spend their time not being "spiritual" as the badge they love to show, but as hypocrites with closed minds causing arguments and making fun of others whilst simultaneously believing they are the ones that actually know how reality operates.

You expose yourself. If you really were an openminded person you would have an openminded dialogue, instead you close doors and shut your mind and insult, and according to religionist rules, you're not supposed to be doing that.

My words were merely a summation to what I have experienced for the last 30 years.

Might I add a post you just wrote


If that's where your journey led then who am I to question it? My journey has led me to remain a Christian, it's the only one that not only makes sense to me but experience has shown me the reality. I've seen too many answered prayers and changed lives to believe otherwise...but back to the original question, like most Christians I still don't have an aversion to research. In fact, I tend to thrive on it.


Well if you're smug as a bug in a rug why would the first "spiritual Christian" thing you do is insult me?

Prayer and answered prayers don't belong to christianity, that is the individuals natural right, no matter what you'd label it. The fact that Christians happen to pray and many prayers get answered doesn't PROVE Christianity, it proves that you can get prayers answered at times, by your own desires and beliefs. It says more about the individual, not about some external source.

Reminds me of that "kingdon of heaven is within you" concept. It happens with you, not outside of yourself.

Again also, if you "thrive on research" why would you make fun of my research? I don't get my answers because I mimic what was told me by those so not in the know, I have gotten my answers in a multitude of ways, research, intuitive responses and by hearing what the souls of others has told me.

If you have no contempt for research, you should respect mine, and be happy Im doing it, not call me or my research absurd.

Or do you mean you just care about your own slanted research? Obviously that's what you must have meant.

This only makes you look like a child.

Then again lets look at this from a scientific angle...
Evolution, for some reason, we developed an almost perfect means of storage of information.. hmm.. yes, For another awkward reason this information seemed to pop at once! YOu say no? Okay, have you ever wondered what would happen if you didn't have... like 2 essential amino acids codes in your DNA code? Have you ever wondered why pple get sick when they can't manufacture essential proteins? NOW... stick with me here okay?
Now imagine your whole body is made of protein? Done that...
Okay, now imagine if there was ever a human being without eyes? No sockets no mouth? You can't? Well me too :) What about a human with gills? Okay then lets go micro
A human without insulin? Oh that you can... lol... how about epinephrine? Blood? White blood cells? Osteocytes or bone? Neuron tissue? Hahahaha...
Ask me again why I doubt evolution and I'll just laugh!

Evolution; "A childs attempt to complete a puzzle at the beggining and end with no clue if the pieces are from the same board"
Oh how I love me proffesors. Hahahahahaha

Nigel,
I am laughing.. but it's in regards to your post. I can't figure out your reasoning, you're all over the map. Is it some form of parable?
Are you laughing because you can't understand stuff? Are you laughing at your lack of education?

Nigel,
I am laughing..but it's in regards to your post. I can't figure out your reasoning, you're all over the map. Is it some form of parable?
Are you laughing because you can't understand stuff? Are you laughing at your lack of education?


No am laughing because ave never seen a human fossil without a set of eyes! Hahaha... or maybe wings.. woot! Though thanks einstein for the heads up:)

No am laughing because ave never seen a human fossil without a set of eyes! hahaha...or maybe wings..woot! Though thanks einstein for the heads up:)

Hi Nigel, thanks for the laugh!

Why do we look so similar to other monkeys? Can you explain god's reason for doing that?

No am laughing because ave never seen a human fossil without a set of eyes! Hahaha... or maybe wings.. woot! Though thanks einstein for the heads up:)

You need a science book. A real science book, not a "science" book from whatever fundie school you apparently go to...


OKay, I am a christian but I won't speak for other christians here. We as christians are taught to refrain from looking at anything contradictory to what we believe in... I know, this sounds ignorant and in this scientific age down right laughable, but understand this... FAITH is based on undeniable belief in something on our case Jesus as the messiah and the son of God.

See, here's why that makes no sense - if your faith is SO STRONG, why the big no no to looking at things which might contradict what you believe in? Is it because looking at something contrary to your belief might shake your faith? If reading one science text, or one article, or studying one non-christian subject is all it takes to shake your belief, perhaps it's not as strong as you think it is.

I doubt you have read anything quite like God versus the bible. It's not anti-God, it is just anti-bible.

The anti-bible page I linked to asks the same questions. It's old news to me.

If it is anti bible, it is anti God, the plain fact is too much of the evolution ideas are just beleifs, with little facts of their own, We know minor evolution or changes happen esp with the help of man and science today,
But come on, the oak tree, the redwood tree, the fish, the monkey and man, all evolved from the same life form that was started in some ancient swamp ( and not to even ask where all of that material came from)

I just have to laugh at anyone that can be silly enough to believe all life animal and plant came from one cell that was puffed into being alive.
That to me is the most silly thought of anything I could even think of.
And you say creation is a streach of belief, get real.

You need a science book. A real science book, not a "science" book from whatever fundie school you apparently go to...


See, here's why that makes no sense - if your faith is SO STRONG, why the big no no to looking at things which might contradict what you believe in? Is it because looking at something contrary to your belief might shake your faith? If reading one science text, or one article, or studying one non-christian subject is all it takes to shake your belief, perhaps it's not as strong as you think it is.

Real science book?Since you study the real science book give me one connection between species? Just one. You say they evolved gradualy from a single celled prokrayotic cell to a multi cellular organism right?
IF so, tell me...
1) How did our DNA come about? Did we mutate in an instant to our present genetic make up? If not, how did previous species survive without a full human genome?
2) Explain to me how anaerobic species finally accommodated oxygen?
3) Explain to me, why until now haven't we found even a single thread of evidence (tangible) connection between reptile and mammals or between humans and any other animal kingdom? Where did we come from? How did we come to be?
4) What is the universe? Where did that BIg cloud of dust come from that expanded exponentially? Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed where did this energy come from?
5) Why ohhh why? Haven't we been able to create even one single workable cell? Is nature that good at this so called survival of the fittest escapade? And if so why aren't others forming as we speak? And in that case, how does survival of the fittest concept affect your genetic make up?


These questions are not meant to strengthen one side of this argument.. which christian belief and why we don't question them... but rather to prove both side of this so called argument are flawed. Since you say fundies are uneducated talk to me.
See, here's why that makes no sense - if your faith is SO STRONG, why the big no no to looking at things which might contradict what you believe in? Is it because looking at something contrary to your belief might shake your faith? If reading one science text, or one article, or studying one non-christian subject is all it takes to shake your belief, perhaps it's not as strong as you think it is

"faith is the belief in things not seen" ~ I cannot sit here and argue with you about what my faith is, its not logical. But I can argue about why I have faith. Two different things. You keep on saying scientific text, give me a scientific explanation why God doesn't exist? And I'll give you a scientific explainstion of what faith is :)

Real science book?Since you study the real science book give me one connection between species? Just one. You say they evolved gradualy from a single celled prokrayotic cell to a multi cellular organism right?
IF so, tell me...........
1) How did our DNA come about? Did we mutate in an instant to our present genetic make up? If not, how did previous species survive without a full human genome?
2) Explain to me how anaerobic species finaly accomodated oxygen?
3) Explain to me, why until now havent we found even a single thread of evidence (tangible) connection between reptile and mammals or between humans and any other animal kingdom? Where did we come from? How did we come to be?
4) What is the universe? Where did that BIg cloud of dust come from that expanded exponentially? Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed where did this energy come from?
5) Why ohhh why? havent we been able to create even one single workable cell? Is nature that good at this so called survival of the fittest escapade? And if so why aren't others forming as we speak? And in that case, how does survival of the fittest concept affect your genetic make up?


These questions are not meant to strengthen one side of this argument..which christian belief and why we dont question them.....but rather to proove both side of this so called argument are flawed. Since you say fundies are uneducated talk to me.
See, here's why that makes no sense - if your faith is SO STRONG, why the big no no to looking at things which might contradict what you believe in? Is it because looking at something contrary to your belief might shake your faith? If reading one science text, or one article, or studying one non-christian subject is all it takes to shake your belief, perhaps it's not as strong as you think it is

"faith is the belief in things not seen" ~ I cannot sit here and argue with you about what my faith is, its not logical. But i can argue about why i have faith. Two different things. You keep on saying scientific text, give me a scientific explanation why God doesn't exist? And i'll give you a scientific explainstion of what faith is :)

Some of your questions have answers, some don't. Some things science can currently explain, others it can't. Just because your answer to every question possible is, "god did it" doesn't mean you're right. But to tell you the truth, I don't care if your answer is "god did it". Have fun with that. I'm happy with my answer, "what science doesn't know, it will continue asking until it finds out." PS - your questions just scream you know nothing about the scientific method.

Oh, and I never said fundies were uneducated. I just said you needed to pick up a science book, not a "science" book.

You don't have to argue your faith to me, I never asked you to. But thanks for admitting it's not logical! I have no interest in "converting" you to a doubter or non-believer or anything of the sort - I'm simply wondering WHY if your faith is SO STRONG it's such a problem to read about things which contradict the bible. Knowledge is power, you know. Learning about other people, other faiths, other socioeconomic backgrounds, etc makes you a better person. You don't have to suspend your belief in god to read an issue of Scientific American, and reading such things will not corrupt you and turn you into an atheist, if, as you say, your faith is strong. I can read the bible without becoming a christian, can you not read the Qu'ran without becoming Muslim?


I just have to laugh at anyone that can be silly enough to beleive all life animal and plant came from one cell that was puffed into being alive.
That to me is the most silly thought of anything I could even think of.
And you say creation is a streach of beleif, get real.

And it's not silly to think everyone descended from two naked people in a garden? Or that dinosaur bones were put here by the devil to "test us" (don't know for what, but test us), and that the entire earth was flooded and some dude built a ship to house every animal in the world (two)? And that's not even getting to the talking snakes and unicorns... Oh wait, I forgot... god did it.

Some of your questions have answers, some don't. Some things science can currently explain, others it can't. Just because your answer to every question possible is, "god did it" doesn't mean you're right. But to tell you the truth, I don't care if your answer is "god did it". Have fun with that. I'm happy with my answer, "what science doesn't know, it will continue asking until it finds out." PS - your questions just scream you know nothing about the scientific method.

Oh, and I never said fundies were uneducated. I just said you needed to pick up a science book, not a "science" book.

You don't have to argue your faith to me, I never asked you to. But thanks for admitting it's not logical! I have no interest in "converting" you to a doubter or non-believer or anything of the sort - I'm simply wondering WHY if your faith is SO STRONG it's such a problem to read about things which contradict the bible. Knowledge is power, you know. Learning about other people, other faiths, other socioeconomic backgrounds, etc makes you a better person. You don't have to suspend your belief in god to read an issue of Scientific American, and reading such things will not corrupt you and turn you into an atheist, if, as you say, your faith is strong. I can read the bible without becoming a christian, can you not read the Qu'ran without becoming Muslim?



And it's not silly to think everyone descended from two naked people in a garden? Or that dinosaur bones were put here by the devil to "test us" (don't know for what, but test us), and that the entire earth was flooded and some dude built a ship to house every animal in the world (two)? And that's not even getting to the talking snakes and unicorns.... Oh wait, I forgot... god did it.


Hahaha... "ignorance in the name of science doesn't justify lack of evidence"
The mere fact that you keep on mentioning I have no clue about theories of evolution that exist suprises me. And again you say I claim God did this and that, while in all of my questions I have clearly stuck to scientific and "logical" statements.

And trust me, Its more logical to believe you were created by a being far superior than you than to believe you formed from a single celled algae via series of accidents coined up by the term "EVOLUTION"

This so called evolution, gave you a symmetrical body, a single skull , cavities, organs lined by membranes, a brain that has billions of neurons with specific functions. And above all the ability to reproduce. Yes, its easier to believe in evolution... NOT! Rofl

So all in all I can confidently say anyone who doubts the existence of God because of science's lack of evidence is the same as another who believes in his existence because of science's failure to disapprove it. Truth be told, we are all fundies for one thing or the other. *scratches head in disbelief* LOL

Oh wait, ave been tossing a coin around for an hour now, and its landed on tails every... single... time :(
Hahahahahahahaha

How old is the universe according to the bible?

Oh wait, ave been tossing a coin around for an hour now, and its landed on tails every...single......time :(
hahahahahahahaha

Did God do it?

If it is anti bible, it is anti God, the plain fact is too much of the evolution ideas are just beleifs, with little facts of thier own, We know minor evolution or changes happen esp with the help of man and science today,
But come on, the oak tree, the redwood tree, the fish, the monkey and man, all evolved from the same life form that was started in some ancient swamp ( and not to even ask where all of that material came from)

I just have to laugh at anyone that can be silly enough to beleive all life animal and plant came from one cell that was puffed into being alive.
That to me is the most silly thought of anything I could even think of.
And you say creation is a streach of beleif, get real.

There is a new book out which describes once again the scientific evidence against macro-evolution. It is "The Edge of Evolution" By Michael Behe, a leading scientist in the field. He is not, a creationist, but the book is of great value in demonstrating from scientific viewpoint, based upon the latest research findings, that macro-evolution is not possible.

By Michael Behe, a leading scientist in the field.Not really. Even the university that employs him stears clear of him:

Due to Behe's views on evolution, Lehigh University exhibits the following disclaimer on its website: “ While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.

Not really. Even the university that employs him stears clear of him:

[/URL]
You make too many assumptions. It did not say that they steer clear of him, nor did it say that they in any way take away from his credibility or recognition. What they did say is that they are not taking a stand on his conclusion, which is "Intelligent Design" (not the same as creationism, BTW). That is considerable different than what you implied.

Have a gander at this:


Michael Behe

Michael J. Behe was graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry. He did his graduate studies in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and was awarded the Ph.D. in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978-1982 he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982-85 he was Assistant Professor of Chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University where he is currently Professor of Biochemistry. In his career he has authored over 40 technical papers and one book, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, which argues that living system at the molecular level are best explained as being the result of deliberate intelligent design. Darwin's Black Box has been reviewed by the New York Times, Nature, Philosophy of Science, Christianity Today, and over one hundred other periodicals. He and his wife reside near Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, with their eight children.
(Source: [url]http://counterbalance.net/bio/behe-body.html (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#_note-7))

His first book was "... internationally reviewed in over one hundred publications and recently named by National Review and World magazine as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.
(Source: Discovery Institute - Michael J. Behe (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=31&isFellow=true))

"He holds honors from The National Institute of Health and American Cancer Society and has received a Queens College Faculty in Residence Award and National Research Service Awards Fellowships"
(Source: Writers' Representatives, LLC: Michael J. Behe (http://www.writersreps.com/author.cfm?AuthorID=139))

There is a new book out which describes once again the scientific evidence against macro-evolution. It is "The Edge of Evolution" By Michael Behe, a leading scientist in the field. he is not, a creationist, but the book is of great value in demonstrating from scientific viewpoint, based upon the latest research findings, that macro-evolution is not possible.And here is a website that refutes Behe's theory of irreducible complexity. Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html).

And here is a website that refutes Behe's theory of irreducible complexity. Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html).

In his new book, Behe acknowledges that the theory or irreducible complexity no longer stands against current research. What he was showing was too simplistic and gave too much leeway. The real situation, based upon the latest research is far more complex and less possible than "Darwin's Black Box" indicated. He has updated the information in the new book. There is a new more precise way of determining the feasibility of a mutation based upon the work of three other scientists.

You need to keep up with the times! :D

In his new book, Behe acknowledges that the theory or irreducible complexity no longer stands against current research. What he was showing was too simplistic and gave too much leeway. The real situation, based upon the latest research is far more complex and less possible than "Darwin's Black Box" indicated. He has updated the information in the new book. There is a new more precise way of determining the feasibility of a mutation based upon the work of three other scientists.

You need to keep up with the times! :DFor a review of Behe's new book, Edge of evolution, see Powell's Books - Review-a-Day - The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael J. Behe, reviewed by The New Republic Online (http://www.powells.com/review/2007_06_14). This book is no better than Darwin's Black Box. Also ID is Creationism wrapped in a new name, as the review will show, if you care or have the gumption to read it.

For a review of Behe's new book, Edge of evolution, see Powell's Books - Review-a-Day - The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael J. Behe, reviewed by The New Republic Online (http://www.powells.com/review/2007_06_14). This book is no better than Darwin's Black Box. Also ID is Creationism wrapped in a new name, as the review will show, if you care or have the gumption to read it.

I took the time to actually read the book rather than just reading a couple of reviews of it.

I stand by my statements.

I took the time to actually read the book rather than just reading a couple of reviews of it.

I stand by my statements.Of Behe's theories, in a 2005 ruling made against Behe, Judge John E. Jones, a churchgoing republican, ruled that Intelligent Design is not only unscientific, but a doctrine based firmly in religion. So much for Behe.

Of Behe's theories, in a 2005 ruling made against Behe, Judge John E. Jones, a churchgoing republican, ruled that Intelligent Design is not only unscientific, but a doctrine based firmly in religion. So much for Behe.

You are changing the subject. I already said that I disagree with some of his conclusions, and specifically with respect to what he says regarding Intelligent Design. However it is hard to discuss with you if you have only read reviews and don't know what he actually said.

The fact is that there are many scientists trying to sort out the answers, but the one thing that the evidence is showing is that macro-evolution is in deep trouble.

You are changing the subject. I already said that I disagree with some of his conclusions, and specifically with respect to what he says regarding Intelligent Design. however it is hard to discuss with you if you have only read reviews and don't know what he actually said.

The fact is that there are many scientists trying to sort out the answers, but the one thing that the evidence is showing is that macro-evolution is in deep trouble.

Could you give us an example please?

Could you give us an example please?

Due to time / space constraints, I am going to have decline on that at the moment, at least going through it in any detail, because the explanations get fairly involved into the DNA makeup and how the proteins interact with each other - and to be honest, I don't think that I could compress the explanations and do it justice.

Let's not use it for the basis of an argument just at the moment then :) I am always happy to comment on actual material, not just hearsay.

Let's not use it for the basis of an argument just at the moment then :) I am always happy to comment on actual material, not just hearsay.

Buy the book or go to a library. I'd scan it but that is illegal.

So many books, so little time!

I wish you well convincing people without a single example to refer to!

So many books, so little time!

I wish you well convincing people without a single example to refer to!

Thank you... I don't know how much you have gotten into micro-biology, but if you have ever managed to cross paths with it, you would understand the conplexity.

On the other hand, we could turn this around quite easily and ask the cilia on a single celled animal evolved. That gives you an opportunity to provide an example.

Hahaha...."ignorance in the name of science doesn't justify lack of evidence"
The mere fact that you keep on mentioning i have no clue about theories of evolution that exist suprises me. And again you say I claim God did this and that, while in all of my questions i have clearly stuck to scientific and "logical" statements.

And trust me, Its more logical to believe u were created by a being far superior than you than to believe you formed from a single celled algae via series of accidents coined up by the term "EVOLUTION"

This so called evolution, gave you a symmetrical body, a single skull , cavities, organs lined by membranes, a brain that has billions of neurons with specific functions. And above all the ability to reproduce. Yes, its easier to believe in evolution..................NOT! rofl

Based on the questions you have asked, it indicates you do not understand the fundamentals of science, the scientific method, or evolution. I do not have the time, nor the patience to explain it all to you, especially since it will make no difference. I could type until my fingers fall off, and there would be no change to your method of thinking. I'd rather not waste my time and instead continue with my initial assertion that you need to pick up a science book, not a "science" book. If you would like, you can put a tick mark in the "win" column for this one - I'm through.

About Behe... been there, done that, chased a fundie off the site because of it. If anyone would like to read the argument which ensued in regards to Behe, please see the link below. Start on about page 10.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/earth-only-6-000-years-old-102975-10.html?highlight=behe

You will learn all sorts of fun stuff, like how Behe admitted in open court that his findings were not peer reviewed, that you must believe in god to accept his claims, and most wonderfully, that he changed the definition of "theory" so it would fit his claims. To me, this makes anything and everything he says worthless.

You will learn all sorts of fun stuff, like how Behe admitted in open court that his findings were not peer reviewed, that you must believe in god to accept his claims, and most wonderfully, that he changed the definition of "theory" so it would fit his claims. To me, this makes anything and everything he says worthless.

I looked and saw nothing relating to this, but let's look at a quote from Behe regarding one of your claims:

"Now, I am keenly aware that in the past few years many people in the country have come to regard the phrase "intelligent design" as fighting words, because to them, the word "design" is synonymous with "creationism", and thus opens the door to treating the Bible as some sort of scientific textbook (which would be silly). That is an unfortunate misimpression." (Michael Behe, Pg.166, The Edge of Evolution)

Now I disagree with Behe on that point, but I post it because I see so many folk mis-representing what Behe said about ID - I do believe that science clearly shows that God is the creator, and I have a science background. In fact I used to believe in evolution and the evidence in science for creation was a surprise to me at the time.

did God do it?


From a scientific point of view? Who knows... if I said God did, would you prove to me scientifically that he didn't? LOL

I looked and saw nothing relating to this, but let's look at a quote from Behe regarding one of your claims:

"Now, I am keenly aware that in the past few years many people in the country have come to regard the phrase "intelligent design" as fighting words, because to them, the word "design" is synonymous with "creationism", and thus opens the door to treating the Bible as some sort of scientific textbook (which would be silly). That is an unfortunate misimpression." (Michael Behe, Pg.166, The Edge of Evolution)

Now I disagree with Behe on that point, but I post it because I see so many folk mis-representing what Behe said about ID - I do believe that science clearly shows that God is the creator, and I have a science background. In fact I used to believe in evolution and the evidence in science for creation was a surprise to me at the time.

Page 10, post #95 explains all of my claims. I should know, I wrote it. The claim that intelligent design and creationism aren't the same thing is ridiculous. I'm curious to know how you think they are different, actually...

Page 10, post #95 explains all of my claims. I should know, I wrote it. The claim that intelligent design and creationism aren't the same thing is ridiculous. I'm curious to know how you think they are different, actually....

I see you making claims, but that is all that I see. Anyone can make claims.

BTW, I agree with you that Intelligent Design means that God created - that is one area where I disagree with Behe, but the quote from Behe does not support your claim said that you must believe in god. Indeed, if you read the book, you will see that he refutes that idea in detail.

BTW, Behe also dealt with this point in "Darwin's Black Box" on page 196, so he has been consistent. Here he says:

"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer."

Page 10, post #95 explains all of my claims. I should know, I wrote it. The claim that intelligent design and creationism aren't the same thing is ridiculous. I'm curious to know how you think they are different, actually....

Creationism and intelligent design are the same thing! Gosh! I can't believe your even arguing about this!

And the more you study microbiology the more you understand why intelligent design is the only logical explanation for why humans exist!

Based on the questions you have asked, it indicates you do not understand the fundamentals of science, the scientific method, or evolution. I do not have the time, nor the patience to explain it all to you, especially since it will make no difference. I could type until my fingers fall off, and there would be no change to your method of thinking. I'd rather not waste my time and instead continue with my initial assertion that you need to pick up a science book, not a "science" book. If you would like, you can put a tick mark in the "win" column for this one - I'm through.

About Behe... been there, done that, chased a fundie off the site because of it. If anyone would like to read the argument which ensued in regards to Behe, please see the link below. Start on about page 10.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/earth-only-6-000-years-old-102975-10.html?highlight=behe

You will learn all sorts of fun stuff, like how Behe admitted in open court that his findings were not peer reviewed, that you must believe in god to accept his claims, and most wonderfully, that he changed the definition of "theory" so it would fit his claims. To me, this makes anything and everything he says worthless.


Fundamentals of science? And what is this "science" book that you keep on bringing up? Hahaha... let me see, let me see!

I see you making claims, but that is all that I see. Anyone can make claims.

BTW, I agree with you that Intelligent Design means that God created - that is one area where I disagree with Behe, but the quote from Behe does not support your claim said that you must believe in god. Indeed, if you read the book, you will see that he refutes that idea in detail.

BTW, Behe also dealt with this point in "Darwin's Black Box" on page 196, so he has been consistent. Here he says:

"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer."

Am curious here... So what does intelligent mean? Nature's intelligence? Humour me.

Am curious here........So what does intelligent mean? Nature's intelligence? Humour me.

This is where I disagree with Behe. I believe that it must mean God and that it is illogical to conclude otherwise.

He concludes that the intelligence is un-identified and that it is not necessary to identify the source of the intelligence. To that degree he is correct, from a scientific point of view. But then he suggests that there could be another intelligence out there that set things rolling (i.e. a scientist larger and more powerful than us, performing a science experiment and set out our universe and triggered it to start).

The first and most obvious problem that he fails to address is where did that intelligent being come from.

There is a new book out which describes once again the scientific evidence against macro-evolution. It is "The Edge of Evolution" By Michael Behe, a leading scientist in the field. he is not, a creationist, but the book is of great value in demonstrating from scientific viewpoint, based upon the latest research findings, that macro-evolution is not possible.



Macro evolution is actually more believable than micro evolution. I wonder if darwin had any idea we passed down genetic information equaly during mitotic division? LOL

Macro evolution is actually more believable than micro evolution. I wonder if darwin had any idea we passed down genetic information equaly during mitotic division? LOL

We can see micro-evolution (variation within a species) - there is no question about the fact that it occurs - either from a scientific or Christian perspective. There never has been any evidence of macro-evolution (evolution to new species).

This is where I disagree with Behe. I believe that it must mean God and that it is illogical to conclude otherwise.

He concludes that the intelligence is un-identified and that it is not necessary to identify the source of the intelligence. To that degree he is correct, from a scientific point of view. but then he suggests that there could be another intelligence out there that set things rolling (i.e. a scientist larger and more powerful than us, performing a science experiment and set out our universe and triggered it to start).

The first and most obvious problem that he fails to address is where did that intelligent being come from.


Behe to me sounds like a person in denial. He's been to a temple, he's been to roswel... but for some reason roswel's his fav :)

Behe to me sounds like a person in denial. He's been to a temple, he's been to roswel.....but for some reason roswel's his fav :)

I agree - he appears to be a brilliant scientist, but when you read the book, he fails to apply the same logic to his conclusion regarding intelligent design and who the designer is, that he applies to his research.

We can see micro-evolution (variation within a species) - there is no question about the fact that it occurs - either from a scientific or Christian perspective. There never has been any evidence of macro-evolution (evolution to new species).

Hmm... to me a variation in genetic make up is not a sign of evolution, that's all.( Tho as you said, there is tangible evidence) Mutation rarely produces a desirable trait, although some times it does but with obvious disadvantages. For example, sickle celled anaemia patients are immune to malaria.
And on your connection between species? I completely agree. That's what ave been trying to tell some guy for a while... but for some reason he keeps on telling me to go look up a "science" book... :S

You are changing the subject. I already said that I disagree with some of his conclusions, and specifically with respect to what he says regarding Intelligent Design. however it is hard to discuss with you if you have only read reviews and don't know what he actually said.

The fact is that there are many scientists trying to sort out the answers, but the one thing that the evidence is showing is that macro-evolution is in deep trouble.The fact remains. Judge Jones Said Intelligent Design (& by extension Creationism) is unscientific & based firmly in religion.

The fact remains. Judge Jones Said Intelligent Design (& by extension Creationism) is unscientific & based firmly in religion.

I saw only claims by the other user that someone had said this. I saw nothing which said that Judge Jones said it, nor any links to a source document, but even if a judge said it, I'd have to ask - are judges now making scientific decisions? When did that happen? That would be like having a hairdresser diagnose an irregular heartbeat!

BTW, maybe you did not notice, but Behe disassociates ID from creationism.

Have either of you (TJ, nigel) even bothered to read my sig? Apparently nigel thinks I'm a dude... never met a dude named "jillian", but whatever. And TJ has once again failed to read the post I refer to... the quotes in the post are from a link posted earlier in the thread, they are not my own words. Allow me to post it here, just in case you've somehow missed the gigantic arrow pointing to it:


Quote:
Furthermore, they asserted that he deliberately aimed the publication of this book at the general public in order to gain maximum publicity while avoiding any peer-reviews from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his claims.


This means he intentionally published his book to the masses because he knew it would not hold up to peer review.


Quote:
Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[27] During this testimony Behe conceded that definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[28] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.


This is where he admits, under oath, there are no peer reviewed articles supporting his claim. He also admits he changed the definition of "theory" to fit his argument. That means it's not science. He also admits the mutations could happen, even if the environment wasn't ideal.


Quote:
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."


This means in order to accept his claims, you must believe in God. Belief in God is not science.


Quote:
Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition


This is where it is explained his view is religious, not scientific.


Quote:
"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."


This is where it is evidenced he ignores known evolution menthods in order to fit his claim. This also explains why his idea of "irreducible complexity" is incorrect.


Quote:
Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies""


Well, there you go!

Did he formally denounce his findings? No. Did he admit to manipulating his results and generally accepted scientific procedures and methods to make his idea work? Yes. A majority of these quotes are from what a judge ruled, which have not been skewed by Wiki. In fact, you can link to the fully published ruling by clicking the little blue numbers after each statement.


If you'd like to read the site this information came from in the first place, here you go:

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe)

And nigel, there's no particular science book I have in mind for you to read, but at least one with peer-reviewed information and, oh, I don't know, facts in it would be nice. But I have a feeling I'm wasting my time, you have no intention of reading anything that might contradict the bible.

Have either of you (TJ, nigel) even bothered to read my sig? Apparently nigel thinks I'm a dude.... never met a dude named "jillian", but whatever. And TJ has once again failed to read the post I refer to... the quotes in the post are from a link posted earlier in the thread, they are not my own words.


Jillian,

First, I did read the post, but I assumed from your comments that you had something more substantial. I am surprised that you do not see the holes in your arguments. Let's examine this:

General

- You are going on someone's interpretation of the document rather than the document itself. This makes even the quotes that you gave subject to the bias of the author. To properly examine this, we would need to examine the original document and the context of the comments. If you have a link to the original document, then let's see it and let's see if it adds anything to the credibility of your arguments.
- A judge is in no position to make a determination as to whether ID is scientific. He can only decide upon the law.
- This does not address creationism though you try to make a link.

Specifics on your claims

1) This means he intentionally published his book to the masses because he knew it would not hold up to peer review.

RESPONSE: The excerpt that you gave does not support your claim. The quote only states that that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". Your extrapolation is not validated by the quote, nor is it warranted.

2) He also admits he changed the definition of "theory" to fit his argument. That means it's not science. He also admits the mutations could happen, even if the environment wasn't ideal.

RESPONSE: No one denies mutations. The question is with respect to mutations which are beneficial and which are capable of transforming a creature from one species to another.

3) This means in order to accept his claims, you must believe in God. Belief in God is not science.

RESPONSE: No, the quote does not support your claims, and further I provided quotes to the contrary. Therefore, not having the original document in your case, and going on an interpretation or commentary vs two of his original books, even the quote is suspect.

4) This is where it is explained his view is religious, not scientific.

RESPONSE: See #3

5) This is where it is evidenced he ignores known evolution menthods in order to fit his claim. This also explains why his idea of "irreducible complexity" is incorrect.

RESPONSE: Again, it does not say that. You are providing your interpretation of someone else's interpretation. Further, this summary ignores the Smith-Orr and Coyne-Orr criterion.

Here is a very good place to look for a science book
Understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php)
And it even has a section about why macro and micro evolution.
Evolution at different scales: micro to macro (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evoscales_01)
If you read all the information on the Berkeley web site you should understand why evolution is the prevailing theory.

TJ, I have no desire to do your homework for you. The link I got the quotes from has references (or it did when I posted it), so if you would like further information, click away. I'm satisfied with my interpretations and statements. If you aren't, well, too bad, life is full of disappointments.

Tj3 disagrees: I went through the document and through your response. Rather than making demenaing remarks about those who disagree with you, your position would be better served by better validation of your claims.

You don't like my answer so you gave me a disagree? I won't argue with you, so you give me a disagree? I think you need to familiarize yourself with the site rules and how the agree/disagree function is supposed to be used. I'd post a link to it, but again, I don't want to do your homework for you. :)

You don't like my answer so you gave me a disagree? I won't argue with you, so you give me a disagree? I think you need to familiarize yourself with the site rules and how the agree/disagree function is supposed to be used. I'd post a link to it, but again, I don't want to do your homework for you. :)

I gave you a disagree because you have failed to properly validate your claims. I went to the link that you gave, as I pointed out, but you you appear to think that if I disagree with you, that I must not have "done my homework". That is exactly why I gave a "disagree".

My suggestion is to stop assuming that everyone must agree with you if they "do their homework", and be prepared to address the challenges.

I gave you a disagree because you have failed to properly validate your claims. I went to the link that you gave, as I pointed out, but you you appear to think that if I disagree with you, that I must not have "done my homework". That is exactly why I gave a "disagree".

My suggestion is to stop assuming that everyone must agree with you if they "do their homework", and be prepared to address the challenges.

Right, you gave me a disagree because you didn't like my answer. I never said if you did your homework you would agree with me, only that you would see where my claims came from. If that wasn't the answer you were looking for, well, tough.

And thank you, but I am free to pick my battles and decide which arguments I would like to participate in. This one simply isn't worth it to me because frankly, I don't care if you agree with me or not. So my suggestion to YOU is to stop making assumptions about other's intentions, and get over yourself when someone doesn't feel like engaging you in an argument.

Right, you gave me a disagree because you didn't like my answer. I never said if you did your homework you would agree with me, only that you would see where my claims came from. If that wasn't the answer you were looking for, well, tough.


I did my homework, and still disagreed with you because I did not find the basis for your claims to be adequate. You assumed that I did not do my homework. If you had additional validation, I would have been quite willing to reconsider. You chose not to provide additional validation, which is your choice - why not leave it at that?


So my suggestion to YOU is to stop making assumptions about other's intentions, and get over yourself when someone doesn't feel like engaging you in an argument.

I don't care if you don't wish to engage, but as for making assumptions about others intentions, please note that goes both ways.

I did my homework, and still disagreed with you because I did not find the basis for your claims to be adequate. You assumed that I did not do my homework. If you had additional validation, I would have been quite willing to reconsider. You chose not to provide additional validation, which is your choice - why not leave it at that?



I don't care if you don't wish to engage, but as for making assumptions about others intentions, please note that goes both ways.

Right, my choice not to provide additional validation, which is when you decided to give me a "disagree". My this has gotten off topic. If you would like to continue discussing if your "disagree" was given appropriately, feel free to PM me.

Right, my choice not to provide additional validation, which is when you decided to give me a "disagree". My this has gotten off topic. If you would like to continue discussing if your "disagree" was given appropriately, feel free to PM me.

I disagreed when you suggested that I did not do my homeowrk and that your links were adequate. I stand by that disagreement.

I have no need to discuss further. It is your choice to provide additional backup or not. I am happy to leave it at that. I trust that you are also.

Really no, the heathen and unsaved of the world will not accept the truth. It has always been that way, when Christ hisself was here there were many that would not accept him, and since there is really no "proof" I have ever seen that has showed evolution has having any valid proof, I would merely laught at someone wanting other Christian proof, find your own, then come back,
Post your bull about your beleifs in your area, don't come to a christian site with little but beliefs that are not proved and can't even be accept on faith as Christianity can.

Jillian,
1)Bacteria flagellum needs it motory action to survive... Indeed there would be a change in function... WHICH MEANS, the bacteria would be immobile!

2) Its really sad that you came to the conclusion that am an idiot and I have no clue about Evolutionary fundamentals, if you knew me personaly u'd really be surprised! Jus saying :)

Now...
1) Evolution claims that life started via the combination of gases in the atmosphere. This occurred due to the harsh conditions that were present at the time, to be specific... lightning energized molecules in the atmosphere which in turn molecularly combined to form the now 20 amino acids that exist. Really hard to do that in a lab... but somehow it occurred in nature.

2) These amino acids "miraculously" combined to form protein. Where the information was obtained to do this puzzles me. BUt anyway, they did. From here these proteins conformed to their 3 dimensional arrays accidentally too... to give you *drum roll*... simple prokaryotic cells with no organelles, no enclosed nucleic material, and surprisingly a flagella with full motory action so advanced we barely understand it on a nano scale!

3) Mitochondria, which is the power house of the cell, somehow existed on its own at this time (hahaha)... So what happened a prokarotic cell that needed food engulfed the mitochondria... (LOL)... But instead of the mitochondria being ingested by cell enzymes it somehow integrated with the cell!! Wow... never happens these days... why? Ask you're so called scientists!LOL

Really no, the heathen and unsaved of the world will not accept the truth. It has always been that way, when Christ hisself was here there were many that would not accept him, and since there is really no "proof" I have ever seen that has showed evolution has having any valid proof, I would merley laught at someone wanting other Christian proof, find your own, then come back,
Post your bull about your beleifs in your area, don't come to a christian site with little but beliefs that are not proved and can't even be accept on faith as Christianity can.

Chuck, you've been here a long time, you know this is a public forum and anyone with any belief system is permitted to comment anywhere they see fit. Beyond that, it's been suggested an atheism section should be made, but apparently that suggestion has fallen on deaf ears.

I can go on and on and on, through acidophiles, extremophiles, algae, eukaryotic cells, amphibians, reptiles, mammals... but y'all get my point ladies and gentlemen.

OH hold on am not done... lets see... oxygen. The prokrayotic cells on engulfing mitochondria, also soon got hungry again... and surprisingly, came along cells known as chloroplast! Engulfed them... and.. you guessed it.. they integrated too.

So now, the cell has a means of respiration and means by which it can manufacture food via sunlight using its chloroplast! Amazingly the byproduct of this process turned out to be oxygen.. From there on normal processes of respiration and decomposition increased the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere.
Providing a platform by which eukaryotic cells can form. Whew! So much had to happen right?? Nature sure is classy :)

1)Bacteria flagellum needs it motory action to survive....Indeed there would be a change in function....WHICH MEANS, the bacteria would be immobile!

2) Its really sad that you came to the conclusion that am an idiot and i have no clue about Evolutionary fundamentals, if you knew me personaly u'd realy be suprised! Jus saying :)

Your number one question explains why people come to the number 2 conclusion.

Here is the answer to number 1
The Flagellum Unspun (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html)

The reason people on the evolution side get in such a hoff about intelligent design is because it's the same thing as saying that sun revolves around the earth because you can see the sun move and you never feel the earth move. It's on the same level of intellect.

If you have evidence that disproves evolution(you don't but if you did) write a paper point to evidence and take the scientific world by storm. That is the way science works not by some guy who doesn't understand basic scientific theory spouting on the internet. If there is something you don't understand like all the questions you have been asking post it in the science forum and we will be glad to answer each of them.

I'm okay with religion if you want to say that god did it and you don't care what science says that's fine. As long as your honest about it.

Nigel - great points.

You have to wonder the ultimate "evolutionary" cell would be one that has chloroplast AND mitochondria.

Can you imagine the selective advantage!

You can either eat and get energy, or bask in the sun inhaling the co2 that is one of the byproducts of your mitochondria, and get energy that way.

Where is this cell? This organism?


One does not have to believe in ID or creationism to have questions about evolution as the explanation for life.











Grace and Peace

A second reaction, which I have heard directly after describing the relationship between the secretory apparatus and the flagellum, is the objection that the TTSS does not tell us how either it or the flagellum evolved. THIS IS CERTAINLY TRUE, although Aizawa has
Suggested that the TTSS may indeed be an evolutionary precursor of the flagellum (Aizawa 2001). Nonetheless, until we have produced a step-by-step account for the evolutionary derivation of the flagellum, one may indeed invoke the argument from ignorance for this and every other complex biochemical machine.

From post #143's link.

In other words, why should I have Faith in evolution until evolution proves to me every step by step account of how first life came from non-life and how humans and other animals came from a single ancestor?

Isn't it that the same argument from non- believers. I won't believe in a Creator until that creator proves to me every step in creation so that I can fathom and understand it myself.






Grace and Peace

[QUOTE=michealb]Your number one question explains why people come to the number 2 conclusion.

Here is the answer to number 1
The Flagellum Unspun (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html)

Hahahaha! Einstein.. what is flagellum unspun? What does the term being immobile mean? If the flagellum doesn't exist the prokaryotic cell cannot move.. period! Read the article you post and don't just post it! Hahaha...


This is what is meant by irreducable.. since it seems to me you have a problem grasping simple concepts. It means that if a single factor or element in a system is removed.. the system cannot function! Therefore the fact that evolution says mechanisms evolved gradualy is questionable accroding to behe! LOL. Go read some more!

Your number one question explains why people come to the number 2 conclusion.

Here is the answer to number 1
The Flagellum Unspun (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html)

The reason people on the evolution side get in such a hoff about intelligent design is because it's the same thing as saying that sun revolves around the earth because you can see the sun move and you never feel the earth move. It's on the same level of intellect.

If you have evidence that disproves evolution(you don't but if you did) write a paper point to evidence and take the scientific world by storm. That is the way science works not by some guy who doesn't understand basic scientific theory spouting on the internet. If there is something you don't understand like all the questions you have been asking post it in the science forum and we will be glad to answer each of them.

I'm okay with religion if you want to say that god did it and you don't care what science says thats fine. As long as your honest about it.


If you understood the fundamentals of evolution yourself u'd understand the points I have written down are well known facts in the theory of evolution! Such ignorance makes me sick :(

Oh and by the way... by all means Google my questions and answer them! Since you claim to have all the facts! Hahahaha.. good luck with that!

In other words, why should I have Faith in evolution until evolution proves to me every step by step account of how first life came from non-life and how humans and other animals came from a single ancestor?


No one is asking for faith in evolution, we have evidence that fits the theory if you have a hypothesis that fits the evidence better publish it.

Evolution is not meant to explain how life came from non life. As far as I know there isn't one theory that explains this very well yet. We are working on it but we don't have one that fits all the evidence yet but that's okay we will find one someday that's what people do.

And to "in the box", thanks :) grace and peace :P

You know, ave been on this forum for a couple of days now and ave realized a trend...
Most pple think if you don't accept evolution you're either a fundie christian( which I am not ashamed of anyway) or you haven't studied evolution itself. Anyway, its all the better... makes it easier to shove arguments aside.LOL

Yes, yes... and if you have a theory and workable hypothesis as to why God doesn't exist... please please... we want to see :)

No one is asking for faith in evolution, we have evidence that fits the theory if you have a hypothesis that fits the evidence better publish it.

Evolution is not meant to explain how life came from non life. As far as I know there isn't one theory that explains this very well yet. We are working on it but we don't have one that fits all the evidence yet but thats okay we will find one someday thats what people do.

Fact: Evolution's basis is to explain how we, living creatures evolded from non-living material. What is evolving? Ask yourself this and come back and try again!

If you understood the fundamentals of evolution yourself u'd understand the points I have written down are well known facts in the theory of evolution! Such ignorance makes me sick :(

Okay I'm at a loss. I've done lots of research and I think I have a pretty good grasp of the fundamentals of evolution and the question you have written down are question about the evolution theory not facts all most all have been answered, maybe not to your satisfaction but to the scientific communities satisfaction. I don't know what more I can tell you other than if you are so intelligent that you sound stupid as you say you are publish a paper post evidence and I'll be the first to admit I was wrong if the evidence is there.

My dear friend,
Most of what I have posted are not really questions... they are intended to use logic to draw out conclusion! I haven't just strung out a list of points from the top of my head. I have taken my statements from the evolutionary theory and how it worked. C'mon! Don't make yourself look bad.

And lastly take some classes in microbiology and biochemistry! Gosh!

Hey, nigel, quit editing your posts. I noticed you edited #152 and #155. If you have something new to say, put it in a new post, don't go back and delete what you've already written and posted. People get booted from this site for things like that...

Thanks jillian, am not that good of a typist so am bound to make mistakes here and there :)

It's OK, we're all human, but you haven't been correcting spelling. You've been changing content. That's a big no-no.

Okay, I'll avoid that... am new here so yeah, lol.

There are plenty of scientific sites out there that refute Intelligent design & Creationism. Personally I believe in a God, but I also believe in evolutionary science, there's all kinds of evidence for it out there; just look.

"Ok, so why send people who dont believe to hell then, why not just end their existence? Do you understand this point - without the threat of hell (the stick) you (religious people) have to work harder at selling heaven (the carrot)."

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -- John 3:16

Now, what does "perish" mean?

It means the opposite of "life".

Dead as a doorknob.

I hope this gives you comfort.

Hello Angry Christians (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=adf_1190731634&p=1)

Very funny, NK. It's always enlightening when an atheist teaches us about our faith, speaking of the love and forgiveness we should have for others - while mocking us with every breath.

His point was that the 'love and forgiveness' is apparently absent in the many nasty emails he has received from good christians.

His point was that the 'love and forgiveness' is apparently absent in the many nasty emails he has received from good christians.

I get the point, NK, maybe some day skeptics such as this will get it, too.

Get what?

His point was that the 'love and forgiveness' is apparently absent in the many nasty emails he has received from good christians.


Whether christians like it or not! God is a jeolus God, he is slow to anger but that doesn't mean he doesn't get angry. He loves us all, but that doesn't mean he doesn't Judge.
Am afraid to see this, but it indeed is the basis of christianity... the fundie christians are the one who are on the right! Look at paul, not even paul, look at Jesus himself! He always told the pharisee and scribes to their faces of what he's God's will was, he never went through all sorts of angles to make his point! Jesus did not come to change the old testament but to enforce it! God's word is everlasting, it never changes. The new and old are supposed to be equally important! IMO!

God's judgment is just. What does just mean? It means if you abide by his will, he rewards... if you go against it... he condemns! People keep on saying love and forgivness! Indeed God forgives, but above all... remember this, forgivness only counts for the one who accepts it. Hope y'all get this. I may act with love and forgivness towards my brother and friend, but if he doesn't accept it or acknowlege it... he is judged by his own actions! He condems himself... This is the ultimate meaning of free will :)

"Judgment is self attained, Nothing is pre-set, via free will we unwind our fate"

This is how "I" think the end will come. God only lays out the sentence.. IMO

Nigel,
Who are you responding to? Just posting for the sake of it?

Is their a problem here?

Am responding to whoever's quote is put in!

"Ok, so why send people who dont believe to hell then, why not just end their existence? Do you understand this point - without the threat of hell (the stick) you (religious people) have to work harder at selling heaven (the carrot)."

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -- John 3:16

Now, what does "perish" mean?

It means the opposite of "life".

Dead as a doorknob.

I hope this gives you comfort.

I'll take it this is directed at me :)

You actually haven't answered my question have you? Do I assume that I, as a non-believer, am now to be spared your hell if I am wrong or not?

I bet not one of the christians here looked at the site I provided in the original question that started this thread (www.godvsthebible.com), because they are averse to questioning. If they would look at the site they might learn a few things about their bible, like how it doesn't know anything about the cosmos, or botony (sp?), or nature, or the nature of reality, & other such things. It is entirely wrong on matters of science. Take the earth; the bible many times refers to the four corners of the earth, in Isaiah 40:22 it refers to the "circle" (Heb. Chuwg) of the earth, in Dan. 4:11 is reference to a dream in which is a tree so high that it can be seen from all over earth, & in Matt. 4:8 it says Satan took Jesus into an exceedingly high mountain, so high that all the kingdoms of the earth could be seen from it. These instances taken together show that the bible writers believed in a flat earth. "Four corners" intimates a flat earth. The Hebrew word chuwg used in Isa. 40:22 does not refer to a globe, a three dimensional round object, but a "circle", a one dimensional flat object. Circles are flat. Nowhere in the American Heritage dictionary or in Strong's Hebrew dictionary does circle refer to a globe. In Daniel's vision (Dan. 4:11), & Matthew's account of Jesus' temptation (Matt. 4:8) the only way the whole world could see such a tree, or the only way Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the earth from the high mountain, would be if the earth were flat. You cannot see things on the other side of a globe, no matter how high a mountain be, not even from space. So the writers of the bible thought the earth a flat circle, just like all other peoples back then. If the christians would look at the site I provided they would learn many more things like this. Don't be averse. Check out the site & learn just how unscientific the bible is.

I bet not one of the christians here looked at the site I provided in the original question that started this thread (www.godvsthebible.com), because they are averse to questioning.

Not true, but there is nothing there that I have not seen many times before. I have in the past taken time to refute the majority of these from time to time, but rarely do so any more for one reason - that is that I often see people expecting Christians to take the time to validate what they believe - and I agree wholeheartedly with that message. Those who have heard me speak know that I encourage Christians to test everything, including what they are taught.

But what gets me is that these same people who go after Christians for not accepting the challenge typically fail to do so themselves. To date, not one person who has brought forward these so-called contradictions or problems in the Bible has done anything from my observation but copy and paste the questions or the links from an internet site. Discernment is appropriate for all.

Rather than just copying and pasting these, one should take the time to objectively study the claims and see if they hold up. After all, what is the objective? To attack Christianity right or wrong, or to discover the truth wherever it may lead. I can honestly say that my objective is to accept truth wherever it may lead.

Not true, but there is nothing there that I have not seen many times before. I have in the past taken time to refute the majority of these from time to time, but rarely do so any more for one reason - that is that I often see people expecting Christians to take the time to validate what they believe - and I agree wholeheartedly with that message. Those who have heard me speak know that I encourage Christians to test everything, including what they are taught.

But what gets me is that these same people who go after Christians for not accepting the challenge typically fail to do so themselves. To date, not one person who has brought forward these so-called contradictions or problems in the Bible has done anything from my observation but copy and paste the questions or the links from an internet site. Discernment is appropriate for all.

Rather than just copying and pasting these, one should take the time to objectively study the claims and see if they hold up. Afterall, what is the objective? To attack Christianity right or wrong, or to discover the truth wherever it may lead. I can honestly say that my objective is to accept truth wherever it may lead.So, what do you have to say about what I said about Daniel's vision of the tree, Isaiah's use of chuwg (circle), & Matthew's mention of the high mountain ? I'd be interested in your response to that.

So, what do you have to say about what I said about Daniel's vision of the tree, Isaiah's use of chuwg (circle), & Matthew's mention of the high mountain ? I'd be interested in your response to that.

So, what do you have to say about what I said about Daniel's vision of the tree, Isaiah's use of chuwg (circle), & Matthew's mention of the high mountain ? I'd be interested in your response to that.

Dan 4:11; This is explained in details in Daniel 4:19-27. See why I say that people just copy and paste these off internet without even checking the context?

Is 40:22: When you look at a ball, what do you see? A circle. And do you know that the word chuwg can also mean a "vault", which would describe our spherical atmosphere. We also see this described in Job.

Job 26:10
10 He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
At the boundary of light and darkness.
NKJV

Matt 4:8: Are you aware that Satan is Spirit and that Jesus is God? This means that it is not necessary to see the whole world from the mountain and it does not say that they saw the whole world due to the height of the mountain. But this passage is a good proof of the deity of Jesus.

Matt 4:7
7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the LORD your God.' "
NKJV

Jesus is once again stating that He is God.

Now stop copying and pasting things blindly from internet and take the time to accept your own challenge - get into the Bible and find out what it really says for yourself. I've been through these weak attempts to attack the Bible far too many time to waste my time when those asking don't feel that it is worth their time to check out the context of the claims first.

So, what do you have to say about what I said about Daniel's vision of the tree, Isaiah's use of chuwg (circle), & Matthew's mention of the high mountain ? I'd be interested in your response to that.

Dan 4:11; This is explained in details in Daniel 4:19-27. See why I say that people just copy and paste these off internet without even checking the context?

Is 40:22: When you look at a ball, what do you see? A circle. And do you know that the word chuwg can also mean a "vault", which would describe our spherical atmosphere. We also see this described in Job.

Job 26:10
10 He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
At the boundary of light and darkness.
NKJV

Matt 4:8: Are you aware that Satan is Spirit and that Jesus is God? This means that it is not necessary to see the whole world from the mountain and it does not say that they saw the whole world due to the height of the mountain. But this passage is a good proof of the deity of Jesus.

Matt 4:7
7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the LORD your God.' "
NKJV

Jesus is once again stating that He is God.

Now stop copying and pasting things blindly from internet and take the time to accept your own challenge - get into the Bible and find out what it really says for yourself. I've been through these weak attempts to attack the Bible far too many time to waste my time when those asking don't feel that it is worth their time to check out the context of the claims first.When I was a bible believing christian I spent 27 years studying the bible, I know what it says. Also a vault or a firmament is not a circle, it is a half circle, a hemisphere, a dome.

When I was a bible believing christian I spent 27 years studying the bible, I know what it says. Also a vault or a firmament is not a circle, it is a half circle, a hemisphere, a dome.

If you spent 27 years studying it, then surely you know the answers to some of these claims.

When I was a bible believing christian I spent 27 years studying the bible, I know what it says. Also a vault or a firmament is not a circle, it is a half circle, a hemisphere, a dome.


Get this... the bible rarely gives us a glimpse in the scientific nature of things! I wholeheartedly agree, the bible was written by men... men inspired by the spirit of God.

Ave been a christian for 23 years! And at no time do I claim that I know every single thing it says! That's A FAT LIE! Don't say you know the bible... show you know the bible, PLEASE!

"Ok, so why send people who dont believe to hell then, why not just end their existence? Do you understand this point - without the threat of hell (the stick) you (religious people) have to work harder at selling heaven (the carrot)."

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -- John 3:16

Now, what does "perish" mean?

It means the opposite of "life".

Dead as a doorknob.

I hope this gives you comfort.




1) Christians believe in God or Jehovah... The maker of all things.

2) Christians believe God will pass judgment at the end of days!

3) Christians don't decide who goes to hell and who doesn't...

4) And lastly christians don't give out carrots... if we don't have any!

Geez!

Ave been a christian for 23 years! And at no time do i claim that i know every single thing it says! THATS A FAT LIE! Don't say you know the bible...show you know the bible, PLEASE!You can ask me about any doctrine in the bible & I can give you information on it, & it will be according to the bible. I don't agree with it now, but I still know it.

Deists take the bible more literally than fundamentalists do, & fundmentalists are generally literalists when it comes to the bible, unless they are trying to justify a belief of theirs when they don't want to accept something at face value. For example, in Matthew 24 when Jesus said, "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled", we deists take it literally & at face value, that by "this generation", Jesus meant the generation of Israelites then living in the first century. We don't add interpretations to Jesus' supposed words, we take them at face value. Likewise when Jesus told the high priest in Mark 14:62 that he would see Jesus sitting at the right hand of power & coming in the clouds of heaven, we take Jesus at his word without adding our own arbitrary interpretations. We believe Jesus meant the high preist would still be alive when Jesus came again, in the first century, which is the plain sense of the passage when you don't arbitrarily interpret it.

Deists take the bible more literally than fundamentalists do, & fundmentalists are generally literalists when it comes to the bible, unless they are trying to justify a belief of theirs when they don't want to accept something at face value. For example, in Matthew 24 when Jesus said, "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled", we deists take it literally & at face value, that by "this generation", Jesus meant the generation of Israelites then living in the first century. We don't add interpretations to Jesus' supposed words, we take them at face value. Likewise when Jesus told the high priest in Mark 14:62 that he would see Jesus sitting at the right hand of power & coming in the clouds of heaven, we take Jesus at his word without adding our own arbitrary interpretations. We believe Jesus meant the high preist would still be alive when Jesus came again, in the first century, which is the plain sense of the passage when you don't arbitrarily interpret it.


Look at the context by which Jesus was talking in matthew 24 again... For a person who claims to know scripture!

Let me take a quote from the bible literally like you keep on saying, this verse is right before the one you just quoted!

(the rest of matthew 24 precedes this quote and it all talks of the end days my friend :))
... So you also, "when you see" all these things, "know that it is near"- at the doors!
"assuredly I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will by no means pass away.
But of "that day" and hour no one knows, not even the angles in heaven but my father only!

Tell me again you understand scripture!

On mark 14.62

Jesus was talking about his second coming... Geez! So what you mean to tell me is that jesus meant he would be coming immediately after he ascended to heaven? Hahaha.. now that's not taking the bible literally that's being ignorant.


"the dead in christ will rise first....followed by the rest of the earth for judgement! Everyone will see Jesus coming in the end days.....fora light will be seen as far as the west is from the east..and so shall be the coming of the son of man!"

Deists take the bible more literally than fundamentalists do, & fundmentalists are generally literalists when it comes to the bible, unless they are trying to justify a belief of theirs when they don't want to accept something at face value. For example, in Matthew 24 when Jesus said, "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled", we deists take it literally & at face value, that by "this generation", Jesus meant the generation of Israelites then living in the first century. We don't add interpretations to Jesus' supposed words, we take them at face value. Likewise when Jesus told the high priest in Mark 14:62 that he would see Jesus sitting at the right hand of power & coming in the clouds of heaven, we take Jesus at his word without adding our own arbitrary interpretations. We believe Jesus meant the high preist would still be alive when Jesus came again, in the first century, which is the plain sense of the passage when you don't arbitrarily interpret it.

Deist, I will grant that many people - not just fundamentalists - tend to complicate things. And, we do need to be open to things that may make us a squirm a little. Fair enough?

However, as much as I can appreciate the author of God vs. the Bible that you recommend, "trying to save" my mind (http://www.godvsthebible.com/preface.htm) from that "dangerous" faith called Christianity - no thanks, my mind is fine.

As I suspected, this work not only asks and answers the same questions that skeptics before him have, he relied on their work:


Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to the authors of different skeptic websites and information resources that I frequently visited as I came to a greater understanding of my own spiritual outlook. The insights they provided were invaluable, not just to me but to others as we all search for the truth. Among these web authors are:

* Steven Wells who wrote the Skeptics Annotated Bible (skepticsannotatedbible.com), which was of great help in pointing out many of the absurdities and contradictions of the Bible.

* The “Rev” Brendan Powell Smith and his ingenious work with Lego to tell the Bible’s story, including some of the passages most embarrassing to Christians. His website, thebricktestament.com was of great assistance to me in pointing out some of the more absurd and morally bankrupt passages of the Bible.

* Cliff Walker, the author of his “labor of love”, Positive Atheism (positiveatheism.org) for the exhaustive list of famous quotes, including those of our founding fathers. I also thank him for helping to expose the fraudulent founding father quotes, disingenuously spread by certain conservative Christians.

* Kenneth Humphreys, who authored both the “Jesus Never Existed” book and website (jesusneverexisted.com), for his tireless and exhaustive historical research into the Jesus myth.

* Brian Fleming for his documentary about the Jesus myth, “The God Who Wasn’t There” and his advice and assistance as I sought to publish this book.

* Reginald “The Infidel Guy” Finley for his informative radio program.

So see, before you question my openness to research you should see research to see if what I said was true - or follow that "do unto others" thing and take me at my word.

His is the sort of nonsense that doesn't attract many from his targeted audience, much like the Christians and Muslims that categorize him as "in league with the devil" don't inspire such skeptics to give them any serious consideration:


I fight because I believe that these two religions are the greatest causes of misery, stagnation and bigotry in all of human history. I fight because of how much happier and more productive human civilization would be without them. I fight because if we don't bury our beliefs in Jesus, Mohamed and the Devil, they will bury us.

The old Crusades type argument by outrage again. I don't know about the Crusaders, that was well before my time, and I can't vouch for all Muslims but I wonder if there is any particular group that gives more of their time, money and other resources in helping others than most?


However, one need not look at the more dramatically horrifying consequences of these religions to get an idea of their cost to humanity over the ages. In addition to terror and bloodshed, these faiths also bring sociological and technological stagnation. It’s no accident that the period in Western civilization when Christianity ruled supreme is called “The Dark Ages”. Neither should it be any surprise that once this Christian stranglehold on the mind and imagination of humanity was finally broken, this period was called “The Age of Enlightenment”.

Yes of course, things are so much better with those backward Christians (http://www.rae.org/influsci.html) out of the way.


I don’t hate the Christian or the Muslim. They are the minds that I’m trying to save. It is the institutions, these viral memes, that are my enemy. Through rational discourse, I believe they can be brought down. As Soviet-style Communism peacefully collapsed one day when its adherents finally got tired of living under its yoke, I hope that these malevolent faiths will also go peacefully in the night.

Well now, that's how to win friends and influence people... attack all that's dear to them. Thanks, but no thanks. If I can't get past the preface without being attacked and offended multiple times I have no reason to give him any credibility when it comes to "the proper way to serve God."

Was the bible written for an elite group that must study it for years to gain any understanding or is it for the common man?

Jesus himself doesn't know when the He's coming Only God knows... he only mentioned the sighns that lead up to it...
And again I don't believe in the trinity.. so don't give me that point of view! I read the bible myself and understand it myself :) These days you can't rust anyone to tell you what the bible say... am saying :)

Was the bible written for an elite group that must study it for years to gain any understanding or is it for the common man?


I believe the bible was written for people who accept God. Lets be real here, if you don't care whether God exists or not the only reason you look at a bible is to figure out how you can diapprove it. I have no problem with that... but the fact still remains, there are close to 2 billion pple who believe in this book... and there is no way... not even in 500 yrs, you can tell them how and when to pick it up. That's a fact!

What's a fact?

Deist,

Thank you for your concern of my welfare as a muslim.
My mind does not need any saving nor does my soul, I am fine with submission to One Almighty and He alone knows what is my future,present and past.

I really do hope you put as much effort to understand that it might not be us that needs saving, maybe it is you who needs saving.
From a life of fighting with believers of different faiths to make us change our beliefs to yours.
Haven't you thought of it this way,that I maybe at peace in my religion,both body and soul?

Look at the context by which Jesus was talking in matthew 24 again....For a person who claims to know scripture!

let me take a quote from the bible literaly like you keep on saying, this verse is right before the one you just quoted!

(the rest of matthew 24 preceeds this quote and it all talks of the end days my friend :))
.......So you also, "when you see" all these things, "know that it is near"- at the doors!
"assuredly i say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will by no means pass away.
But of "that day" and hour no one knows, not even the angles in heaven but my father only!

Tell me again you understand scripture!Jesus said "this generation" shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. Take with this his words to the high priest in Mark 14:62. Now add:
1 Corinthians 7: 29 -31. Paul says the time until the 2nd coming was so short that the Corinthians must drastically change the way they live.
1 Thessalonians 4: 16-18. Paul believed the 2nd coming would come in his lifetime, as evidenced by the fact that he includes himself among those still living at the time of the 2nd coming ("we" which are alive).
1 Thessalonians 5: 23. Paul's prayer is that the Thessalonians will be good until Jesus' 2nd coming, indicating he expected it in their lifetime.
1 Peter 4: 7. Peter believed the end of all things was at hand in his day.
1 John 2: 18. John thought he was living in the last times.
Revelation 3: 11; 22: 7, 12, 20. John believed Jesus was coming quickly.
When Jesus said "this" generation he meant the people then living. The idea that it referred to a future generation is a 20th century invention to explain why he didn't come in the first century, & as an excuse for why christians should continue to look for the 2nd coming.

Jesus said "this generation" shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.


Did you look to see what generation he was talking about? Context is the key.

As for the references to things happening quickly or soon, remember these are relative terms. You provided verses which appear to imply a short timeframe, and insist that these verses mean that it must be within the lifetime of those living in the 1st century. But that timeframe is from God's perspective, which is not always the same as ours. For example, let's look at the book of Haggai:

Hag 2:6-7
6 "For thus says the LORD of hosts: "Once more (it is a little while) I will shake
Heaven and earth, the sea and dry land; 7 and I will shake all nations, and they shall
Come to the Desire of All Nations, and I will fill this temple with glory,' says the
LORD of hosts.
NKJV

How long is a “little while”?

Haggai was written about 500 BC and Jesus, “the desire of all nations” referred to by this
Prophecy, did not come until 500 years later. That is what God called “a little while”. So we
Need to be careful about trying to quantify these terms within our timeframe, but rather let's look to what God has to say with respect to the specifics of the timing of these events.

Did you look to see what generation he was talking about? Context is the key.

As for the references to things happening quickly or soon, remember these are relative terms. You provided verses which appear to imply a short timeframe, and insist that these verses mean that it must be within the lifetime of those living in the 1st century. But that timeframe is from God's perspective, which is not always the same as ours. For example, let's look at the book of Haggai:

Hag 2:6-7
6 "For thus says the LORD of hosts: "Once more (it is a little while) I will shake
heaven and earth, the sea and dry land; 7 and I will shake all nations, and they shall
come to the Desire of All Nations, and I will fill this temple with glory,' says the
LORD of hosts.
NKJV

How long is a “little while”?

Haggai was written about 500 BC and Jesus, “the desire of all nations” referred to by this
prophecy, did not come until 500 years later. That is what God called “a little while”. So we
need to be careful about trying to quantify these terms within our timeframe, but rather let's look to what God has to say with respect to the specifics of the timing of these events.You are merely assuming that the desire of all nations is the coming of Jesus.

You are merely assuming that the desire of all nations is the coming of Jesus.

I share that assumption with historical precedent.

It is well to remember, however, that from earliest days the majority of Christian interpreters followed the Jewish tradition in referring the passage to the coming of Israel's Messiah. It seems clear to these interpreters that the longing all nations have in common must be their yearning for the Deliverer, whether or not they realize the nature of their desire or the identity of its true fulfillment in the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Source: The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)

I would suggest that the onus is on you to come up with a feasible alternate interpretation.

Jesus said "this generation" shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. Take with this his words to the high priest in Mark 14:62. Now add:
1 Corinthians 7: 29 -31. Paul says the time til the 2nd coming was so short that the Corinthians must drastically change the way they live.
1 Thessalonians 4: 16-18. Paul believed the 2nd coming would come in his lifetime, as evidenced by the fact that he includes himself among those still living at the time of the 2nd coming ("we" which are alive).
1 Thessalonians 5: 23. Paul's prayer is that the Thessalonians will be good until Jesus' 2nd coming, indicating he expected it in their lifetime.
1 Peter 4: 7. Peter believed the end of all things was at hand in his day.
1 John 2: 18. John thought he was living in the last times.
Revelation 3: 11; 22: 7, 12, 20. John believed Jesus was coming quickly.
When Jesus said "this" generation he meant the people then living. The idea that it referred to a future generation is a 20th century invention to explain why he didn't come in the first century, & as an excuse for why christians should continue to look for the 2nd coming.


I thought we were talking about matthew 24? Has the translation of the book changed over the 20th century? If you say the bible talks about the apostles saying He would come then... and I tell you Jesus himself said no one would know the time or the hour not even him. What you're trying to tell me is the apostles knew the exact time Jesus would come back! Go study some more!

Notice whenever Jesus talked about the end time he mentioned specifc signs had to be seen first before he got to the generation part. In revelation John did say he believed God would come during his time... But did he say for sure that he would? NO! Even daniel himself thot the same.. But God told him to seal the word of the book for the event would happen long in the future!
My point is the only person who knew and knows for sure when he is coming back is God himself! And the biggest point of all, John the revelator knew all the words of the book had to be fulfilled first! Sadly, it never happened during there time!!

ANd notice in all your quotes you have


"BELIEVED HE WOULD COME" LOL

You are merely assuming that the desire of all nations is the coming of Jesus.


2 billiion christians! That's a 1/3 of the planet!

"He who is unjust, let him be unjust still, he who is filthy, let him be filthy; He who is righteous, be righteous still, he who is holy, let him be holy still.
" Many shall be purified, made white and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly and none of the wicked shall Understand but the wise shall understand"
"And from the time that the daily sacrifice is done away with and the abomination of desolution is set up, there shall be one thousand three hundred and thirty five days"
Dan 12:11

I share that assumption with historical precedent.

It is well to remember, however, that from earliest days the majority of Christian interpreters followed the Jewish tradition in referring the passage to the coming of Israel's Messiah. It seems clear to these interpreters that the longing all nations have in common must be their yearning for the Deliverer, whether or not they realize the nature of their desire or the identity of its true fulfillment in the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Source: The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)

I would suggest that the onus is on you to come up with a feasible alternate interpretation.The onus is on me huh ? Then let me quote from the Bible Encyclopedia at Desire of all nations (WebBible Encyclopedia) - ChristianAnswers.Net (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/desireofallnations.html). And I quote:
"Desire of all nations."
(Hag. 2: 7), usually interpreted as a title of the Messiah.
The Revised Version, however, more correctly renders 'the desirable things of all nations', i.e. the choicest treaures of the Gentiles shall be consecrated to the Lord.
End quote.
Notice, it says it is "usually INTERPRETED as a messianic title, not that it actually refers to a title of the Messiah. Furthermore it says it is more correctly rendered in the Revised Version of the bible as "desirable things" ( not thing, singular, as in a single person ), referring to, not the Messiah, but the nations, the Gentiles, more specifically, their treaures. I have provided a christian site that refutes the traditional Christian view. I haven't actually searched for what Orthodox Jews interpret this phrase to be, but I will be on it shortly. I stick by what I said in my earlier answer to you; you merely assume because of SOME interpretations, that the phrase is a title of the Messiah. According to the Bible Encyclopedia it is referring to the treasures of the Gentiles, not a Jewish Messiah.

2 billiion christians! Thats a 1/3 of the planet!So what ? So 1/3 of the globe believe the bible. That means there are even more, 4 billion, who don't believe the bible. Furthermore, numbers doesn't make truth. The whole world (millions of people) used to erroneously believe the world was flat. Just because they all believed it didn't make it the truth. And don't tell me that in the first century there was not wars & rumors of wars, & pestilences, & famine, & earthquakes, & false christs, & persecutions. The generation living in the first century saw all the signs mentioned by Jesus. They also witnessed the one major sign that allegedly heralded the imminent return of Jesus... the Roman siege & destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. under Titus. Yes, indeed, Jesus meant that generation of his day would see all these things be fulfilled (Matt. 24.). He meant to the high priest (Mark 14: 62), I will return in the clouds within your lifetime.He meant to the disciples he would come again in the first century before they could go over all the cities of Israel with the gospel (Matt. 10: 23). Yes, indeed, Paul, Peter, & John believed he would come again in their lifetime. Wake up man ! Come out of your dark ages of ignorance & superstition. Jesus is not coming at any time ever. He is dead & gone.

...Wake up man ! Come out of your dark ages of ignorance & superstition. Jesus is not coming at any time ever. He is dead & gone.

I know this is the Christian thread,but Jesus (alaihi salaam) did not die, he was taken up to Heaven and is still alive,he will descend during the end times and establish the truth.
Deist, even if you do not believe,when this event happens and if you are alive then you may believe me.
Then you will realise the term "faith" better,know that all of us have to be always prepared for our own deaths even if Jesus(alaihi salaam)descends during our time or not.
Those who are in this world during his(alaihi salaam) descent are very fortunate to be able to see with their own eyes the belief held all their lives.

Dear friend,
The word shall be preached to all the corners of the earth... then shall the end come.


GET THIS!

GOD IS THE ONE WHO SETS THE TIME, THE PLACE THE HOUR, AND THE AGE.


All we do is watch for the signs. The main ones being the antichrist and the mark of the beast... yes and am betting u'll say that's already happened... yeah right! The great tribulation? The re-birth of the nation of israel in 1948? The sighning of the seven year peace treaty with the anti-christ? The world split into 10 kingdoms? One ruler the antichrist and the false prophet? The bowls of wrath and the dying of a 1/3 of the earth? The falling out of the saints and persecution?The darkening of the sky? The apearance of the 3 prophets? The ganging up of all nations against israel? The rebuilding of the temple? The abomination of desolution in the temple? The list is practically endless!"This generation" is still not here my friend! Sheeesh!

And yes numbers don't justify being on the right... so what do you mean to say? 4 billion pple are Aethists? NO! 2 billion are christians! But not all will go to heaven too... Only God knows that. Yes, pple believed the earth was flat back then! EVEN JOB WAS BEEN ASKED QUESTIONS BY GOD AND HE Couldn't ANSWER THEM! You didn't see God giving him an answer book did you?

My point is: No prophets, disciple, men, angels or even the messiah In THE BIBLE gave a SPECIFIC TIME WHEN HE WOULD come. You said it yourself, people have always "THOUGHT" he was coming but...


He didn't!

What you believe in... is what you believe, But you have no right to say 1/3 of the planet is ignorant and superstitious! Mind you these pple are teachers, proffessors,doctors,scientists,lawyers,students and the like. The brightest minds of the 20th and 19th century have been christian... so don't for one second call others ignorant and superstitious... am sure you have family members too.. bet you're not thinking about them being part of that number huh?


"brother shall turn against brother and father against sons"

Dear friend,
The word shall be preached to all the corners of the earth.......then shall the end come.


GET THIS!

GOD IS THE ONE WHO SETS THE TIME, THE PLACE THE HOUR, AND THE AGE.


All we do is watch for the signs. The main ones being the antichrist and the mark of the beast....yes and am betting u'll say that's already happened.....yeah right! The great tribulation? The re-birth of the nation of israel in 1948? The sighning of the seven year peace treaty with the anti-christ? The world split into 10 kingdoms? One ruler the antichrist and the false prophet? the bowls of wrath and the dying of a 1/3 of the earth? The falling out of the saints and persecution?The darkening of the sky? The apearance of the 3 prophets? The ganging up of all nations against israel? The rebuilding of the temple? The abomination of desolution in the temple? The list is practically endless!"This generation" is still not here my friend!! Sheeesh!

And yes numbers don't justify being on the right.......so what do you mean to say? 4 billion pple are Aethists? NO! 2 billion are christians! but not all will go to heaven too...Only God knows that. Yes, pple believed the earth was flat back then! EVEN JOB WAS BEEN ASKED QUESTIONS BY GOD AND HE COULDNT ANSWER THEM! You didn't see God giving him an answer book did you?

My point is: No prophets, disciple, men, angels or even the messiah In THE BIBLE gave a SPECIFIC TIME WHEN HE WOULD come. You said it yourself, people have always "THOUGHT" he was coming but..........................


he didn't!Nowhere did I say that four billion people are atheists. I said four billion didn't believe the bible. I'm one of those four billion & I'm not an atheist, I'm a Deist. Among those four billion are Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Pagans, Deists,Hindus,Atheists, Agnostics, Pantheists, & etc. Every generation since Jesus uttered the words, "this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled", thought they were the generation referred to. It is no different today, & it will be no different in the next generation if christianity is not extinct by then. Every generation has seen what they thought were the signs Jesus mentioned, yet Jesus didn't return then, & he is not going to return now or at any time in the future. The Christians thought at the time that Nero was the Antichrist, later they thought the Papacy was the Antichrist, then it was Hitler or Mussolini, later it was Reagan, then Clinton. Christians thought the social security number was the mark of the Beast, then it was the universal product code, now it's the dermal microchip. In the 1970s a false rumor was spread by fundamentalist Christians that there was a giant supercomputer in Luxembourg nick named the Beast that would play a role in events leading to the second coming. The Old Testament's alleged prophecies of the rebirth of Israel had no reference to May 14, 1948. The rebirth of Israel occurred in the return from Babylonian captivity under Cyrus the great. As I said, every generation since Jesus' time thought they were seeing the signs, & every generation will continue to do so as long as there are Christians.

What you believe in...is what you believe, But you have no right to say 1/3 of the planet is ignorant and superstitious! Mind you these pple are teachers, proffessors,doctors,scientists,lawyers,students and the like. The brightest minds of the 20th and 19th century have been christian...so don't for one second call others ignorant and superstitious....am sure you have family members too..bet you're not thinking about them being part of that number huh?


"brother shall turn against brother and father against sons"There are plenty of intelligent Christians in the world, so what ? I doubt that the intelligent ones are premillennial dispensational fundamentalists, as you seem to to be. Take the founding fathers of the United States. Most of them were not Christian, most were Deist, Mason, or Universal Unitarian. If you need proof of that see article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams himself & ratified by Congress in 1797. Article 11 states that the government of the Unites States is in NO WAY founded on the christian religion. Yet far right wing fundamentalist reconstructionists have tried to change history itself, by saying the US is founded upon Christian principles. The founding fathers intended for the US to be a secular nation where there was freedom of religion, with no one religion representing the US to the world.

What you believe in...is what you believe, But you have no right to say 1/3 of the planet is ignorant and superstitious! Mind you these pple are teachers, proffessors,doctors,scientists,lawyers,students and the like. The brightest minds of the 20th and 19th century have been christian...so don't for one second call others ignorant and superstitious....am sure you have family members too..bet you're not thinking about them being part of that number huh?


"brother shall turn against brother and father against sons"

It's quite a well documented fact that the more education you receive, the less likely you are to be religious.

It's quite a well documented fact that the more education you recieve, the less likely you are to be religious.


Are we to assume by your answer that being educated puts you at a higher thinking or reasoning level than the Creator (God)? ALso based off this we can assume you (more educated people) know better than say people back in biblical times of what they witnessed first hand and/or experienced and recorded?

Faith and belief again is not conventional and not everything can be put in little boxes and discussed as "black and white" There are, believe it or not, things that you just need to trust and believe. I know trust is a difficult thing for many and many don't even trust their parents, loved ones, etc so why trust God or the Bible or religion. I get all that.

I know this is the Christian thread,but Jesus (alaihi salaam) did not die, he was taken upto Heaven and is still alive,he will descend during the end times and establish the truth.
Deist, even if you do not believe,when this event happens and if you are alive then you may believe me.


I think religion is about controlling the masses so that they have blind faith in leadership but if Jesus descends from the heavens on throne made of clouds or something like that I think that would be enough to convince me. That being said its not going to happen and if I'm wrong may any being, god, powerful force, angel, devil or ghost strike me down where I sit... hmm still here I must be right.

I think religion is about controlling the masses so that they have blind faith in leadership but if Jesus descends from the heavens on throne made of clouds or something like that I think that would be enough to convince me. That being said its not going to happen and if I'm wrong may any being, god, powerful force, angel, devil or ghost strike me down where I sit....hmm still here I must be right.


I would be very cautious to put God, Jesus, etc to the test... wouldn't you want to believe in Jesus and potentially be wrong in the end than not ever believe at all and then find out you were wrong!

I would be very cautious to put God, Jesus, etc to the test...wouldn't you want to believe in Jesus and potentially be wrong in the end than not ever believe at all and then find out you were wrong!We're not going to find out we're wrong. The sad thing is you won't find out if you are wrong because you'll be dead in your grave, & you won't see Jesus come again ever. If you lived to be a thousand you'd still not live to see it. It's never going to happen. Jesus is as dead as they come, & he's dust now. And if there is life after death, which I admit is possible, when you get there you'll find out there that Jesus was not the Christ after all. There is no Messiah. We need no redemption, there is no original sin to be saved from.

We're not going to find out we're wrong. The sad thing is you won't find out if you are wrong because you'll be dead in your grave, & you won't see Jesus come again ever. If you lived to be a thousand you'd still not live to see it. It's never going to happen. Jesus is as dead as they come, & he's dust now. And if there is life after death, which I admit is possible, when you get there you'll find out there that Jesus was not the Christ after all. There is no Messiah. We need no redemption, there is no original sin to be saved from.

OK

I would be very cautious to put God, Jesus, etc to the test...wouldn't you want to believe in Jesus and potentially be wrong in the end than not ever believe at all and then find out you were wrong!

What about all the other religions we would be upsetting further by following your God? Safer to believe none (correctly)and (should the fairytale come true) jump on the correct bandwagon at the end whilst the real (don't take me seriously - seriously) God mames all the followers of the "False" Gods.:D

Now, tell me the flaw in my logic.

What about all the other religions we would be upsetting further by following your God? Safer to believe none (correctly)and (should the fairytale come true) jump on the correct bandwagon at the end whilst the real (don't take me seriously - seriously) God mames all the followers of the "False" Gods.:D

Now, tell me the flaw in my logic.


The problem as I see it is... that you want your cake and eat it too... you want live life by your rules but when the end comes you are then willing to "conceed" to God to save yourself... sounds pretty selfish

You don't get it do you - did you see the bit about "don't take me seriously" - I put that there for a reason!

Just as you send all other religious people to hell if you're right, all the other religions will (probably - can't really speak for all of them) send you to hell for believing in the wrong God.

Are you ready for that outcome?

What about all the other religions we would be upsetting further by following your God? Safer to believe none (correctly)and (should the fairytale come true) jump on the correct bandwagon at the end whilst the real (don't take me seriously - seriously) God mames all the followers of the "False" Gods.:D

Now, tell me the flaw in my logic.

Purely from a believers point of view, I think when you want to believe at the last minute/second it maybe too late.:)

Like when your last breathe escapes your lips.
When you are dying and you realise the truth.

For me the example that comes to mind is the Pharaoh of Mose's time.
He had it all, kingship and loyal subjects at his beck and call,power,money and fame,
On his last breathe as he drowned he said he believed, but it was too late for him.

Please see my post #216

I saw that after I posted... :)
And from their view I may belong in Hell as well.:)

You don't get it do you - did you see the bit about "don't take me seriously" - I put that there for a reason!!

Just as you send all other religious people to hell if you're right, all the other religions will (probably - can't really speak for all of them) send you to hell for believing in the wrong God.

Are you ready for that outcome?


The short answer to your question is YES.

The problem with your statement is that religions and/or people don't send anyone to Hell only God does! So Yes I am completely confident that I will be judged accordingly by God at the end times. Are you?

The short answer to your question is YES.

The problem with your statement is that religions and/or people don't send anyone to Hell only God does! So Yes I am completely confident that I will be judged accordingly by God at the end times. Are you?You don't believe in Allah, e.g. you believe in Yahweh. But what if you're wrong ? Then you will go to the Muslim version of hell. I'm willing to concede that if I'm wrong I could go to the Christian or Muslim version of hell. Why aren't you willing to concede it ?

You don't believe in Allah, e.g., you believe in Yahweh. But what if you're wrong ? Then you will go to the Muslim version of hell. I'm willing to concede that if I'm wrong I could go to the Christian or Muslim version of hell. Why aren't you willing to concede it ?


I don't believe I am wrong! It is as simple as that, I have experienced Him personally in the good times and bad and have seen Him do wonderfully powerful things. He indeed exists, that is what I believe.

Why would you be willing to concede anything if you believe in it?

I don't believe I am wrong! It is as simple as that, I have experienced Him personally in the good times and bad and have seen Him do wonderfully powerful things. He indeed exists, that is what I believe.

Why would you be willing to concede anything if you believe in it?It's obvious; if the Christian God exists, I'm going to hell. If the Muslim God exists we're both going to hell. If the Deist God exists, no one is going to hell, & there may not even be an afterlife. How do know that those wonderfully powerful things you've witnessed wasn't Allah extending you a mercy in hopes that you would see his truth ? It's all just belief really, nothing more. My belief is as good as yours. The Muslim's is just as good as mine, but they all can't be right, & maybe even none of them are right, not even the Atheist's belief or lack thereof.

I don't want to play by my own rules. I am willing to follow the laws of the country I'm in and even willing to follow the reasonable ethics of the country that I'm in. I don't steal. I don't cheat on my wife. I don't do others harm except in self defense. I try not to lie. Here is a big one, I have never wished that anyone be tortured for an eternity for their ideas. I have never told someone that they will be tortured for eternity. I probably am a better person than 90% of the religious folks out there as far as just general laws and ethics. I am a good person not because I fear punishment. I am a good person simply because it is the right thing to do and the more people that are good the better the chance my offspring will have.
Another thing I find interesting is that Firmbeliever and Mountain_man are both religious people but according to their perspective religion one of them will burn forever. Even though they are both certain they are right. I on the other hand try to convince you to live this life to it's fullest and longest. If there really is an angry old man in the sky you have a much better chance at picking the wrong religion than the right one since there are thousands of religions and your all convinced that there is only one correct one. It falls under the same reason I don't play the lottery sure it's only a dollar a week and if I win it's big but the chances are so low it's not worth the buck.

It's obvious; if the Christian God exists, I'm going to hell. If the Muslim God exists we're both going to hell. If the Deist God exists, no one is going to hell, & there may not even be an afterlife. How do know that those wonderfully powerful things you've witnessed wasn't Allah extending you a mercy in hopes that you would see his truth ? It's all just belief really, nothing more. My belief is as good as yours. The Muslim's is just as good as mine, but they all can't be right, & maybe even none of them are right, not even the Atheist's belief or lack thereof.

Done that question with mountian_man before her is the jist.

Originally Posted by michealb
What if the bible was inspired by Hades to lure you away from the worship and the truth of Zeus. Do you not think that a god is not capable of fooling man? How do you know what god inspired man to write the bible? There are so many gods that man has lost count. The point is you don't know for sure it takes faith in something impossible and you believe it because it's what your parents believed and what their parents before them believed. If you were born in a muslim house hold you would be muslim and would be talking about how the koran is the truth. This blind faith is why you can't use the bible as a historical text because once you start allowing religious text as historical fact it's a slippery slope.

Originally Posted by mountain_man
I don't agree at all... you are talking about all god's collectively as if they are one... there is only one true God and that God inspired the Bible... the Bible is so much more of an historical text than a world history testbook from college... I believe what I believe because I have personally experienced a loving and true God in my life, not from generation past... I believe what I believe because all the prophesies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in the New Testament... the Bible is a seamless account written by mulitple authors that don't contradict one another and were inspired by God... you ask for proof, read, study, and pray about the Bible and you will receive the proof you need!

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/resurrection-130690-3.html

.....
Another thing I find interesting is that Firmbeliever and Mountain_man are both religious people but according to their perspective religion one of them will burn forever. Even though they are both certain they are right.

The difference in my belief is that I am not guaranteed Heaven by default because I believe,but due to the mercy of the Almighty I maybe admitted to Heaven.

And about another who does not believe in my belief, he/she has until the moment of death and what he/she dies on is what counts and the Almighty knows what is in the hearts of men.
There are believers who will go to Hell for hypocrisy and other deeds which might negate their good deeds.

Done that question with mountian_man before her is the jist.

Originally Posted by michealb
What if the bible was inspired by Hades to lure you away from the worship and the truth of Zeus. Do you not think that a god is not capable of fooling man? How do you know what god inspired man to write the bible? There are so many gods that man has lost count. The point is you don't know for sure it takes faith in something impossible and you believe it because it's what your parents believed and what their parents before them believed. If you were born in a muslim house hold you would be muslim and would be talking about how the koran is the truth. This blind faith is why you can't use the bible as a historical text because once you start allowing religious text as historical fact its a slippery slope.

Originally Posted by mountain_man
i don't agree at all...you are talking about all god's collectively as if they are one...there is only one true God and that God inspired the Bible...the Bible is so much more of an historical text than a world history testbook from college...I believe what I believe because I have personally experienced a loving and true God in my life, not from generation past...I believe what I believe because all the prophesies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in the New Testament...the Bible is a seamless account written by mulitple authors that don't contradict one another and were inspired by God...you ask for proof, read, study, and pray about the Bible and you will recieve the proof you need!

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/resurrection-130690-3.html


Well that saved some typing huh

I don't want to play by my own rules. I am willing to follow the laws of the country I'm in and even willing to follow the reasonable ethics of the country that I'm in. I don't steal. I don't cheat on my wife. I don't do others harm except in self defense. I try not to lie. Here is a big one, I have never wished that anyone be tortured for an eternity for their ideas. I have never told someone that they will be tortured for eternity. I probably am a better person than 90% of the religious folks out there as far as just general laws and ethics. I am a good person not because I fear punishment. I am a good person simply because it is the right thing to do and the more people that are good the better the chance my offspring will have.
Another thing I find interesting is that Firmbeliever and Mountain_man are both religious people but according to their perspective religion one of them will burn forever. Even though they are both certain they are right. I on the other hand try to convince you to live this life to it's fullest and longest. If there really is an angry old man in the sky you have a much better chance at picking the wrong religion than the right one since there are thousands of religions and your all convinced that there is only one correct one. It falls under the same reason I don't play the lottery sure it's only a dollar a week and if I win it's big but the chances are so low it's not worth the buck.

I believe we are all sinners and in need of a saviour! And through God's mercy and grace and Jesus sacrifice those who believe will be saved! I respect Firm for having strong beliefs and know that we have differing beliefs but God is a just and merciful God. I don't wish any torture or punishment on any man because I have been a sinner with no regard for anyone and need mercy as much as anyone erveryday.

"Time is relative, so looking at death from a different perspective, "death" can be seen as a means of time travel,Without the reference frame which is time!
Therefore when you die whatever happens, (if anything will happen), will happen in an instant. "

So taking that into consideration...
"EVERYONE WHO'S DEAD AS FAR BACK AS A MILLION OR A THOUSAND YEARS AGO IS TECHNICALLY IN THE FUTURE AND ALREADY KNOW'S THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION:

Is there life after death?

Scary thought... will know it too sooner than later!! :D

Are we to assume by your answer that being educated puts you at a higher thinking or reasoning level than the Creator (God)? ALso based off this we can assume you (more educated people) know better than say people back in biblical times of what they witnessed first hand and/or experienced and recorded?

You assume a lot in this post. You assume in the existence of a creator (I know you believe in one), and the way your statement is phrased, the person it is directed at, must also believe in a creator. If they don't, you are saying that educated people believe they are at a higher thinking power or reasoning level than something they don't believe in. Are you smarter than the tooth fairy? I know I am! :)

Additionally, you reference the recorded experiences of individuals of those in biblical times... which means the bible. The only historical evidence which supports the bible is, well, the bible. And there's a lot of controversy over if it is the literal truth or complete metaphor. There's also a lot of controversy on if Jesus even existed. I'm not saying he did or didn't, just making a point here. So your second question, you are asking if educated people believe they know better than what a work of fiction says. Do you know better than what is written in Jurassic Park? I sure do.

What about the dead sea scrolls?

Dead Sea scrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls)

What about the dead sea scrolls? Isn't it historical evidence :)

Nash Papyrus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Papyrus)

Nash papyrus with the ten commandments?

We're not going to find out we're wrong. The sad thing is you won't find out if you are wrong because you'll be dead in your grave, & you won't see Jesus come again ever. If you lived to be a thousand you'd still not live to see it. It's never going to happen. Jesus is as dead as they come, & he's dust now. And if there is life after death, which I admit is possible, when you get there you'll find out there that Jesus was not the Christ after all. There is no Messiah. We need no redemption, there is no original sin to be saved from.


Pretty dogmatic statements there.

So - do you believe in a creator who just started things out and left?




Grace and peace

Pretty dogmatic statements there.

So - do you believe in a creator who just started things out and left?




Grace and peaceI believe God may be observing things on earth, but It doesn't intervene or interfere.

Dead Sea scrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls)

What about the dead sea scrolls? Isn't it historical evidence :)

From your link (emphasis mine):

"The "Dead Sea Scrolls" comprise roughly 900 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves in and around the Wadi Qumran (near the ruins of the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea) in the West Bank. The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include practically the only known surviving copies of Biblical documents made before 100 AD, and preserve evidence of considerable diversity of belief and practice within late Second Temple Judaism."

They are historical documents in that they document religion and are very old. But they are not historical evidence as far as, "these people were alive, this happened, etc". Key word in there is: Bible.


Nash papyrus with the ten commandments?

From a different link (below, emphasis mine):

"It contains parts of the Ten Commandments from Exodus chapter 20, along with some verses from Deuteronomy chapters 5 and 6. So this was not a regular Bible manuscript but a mixed text with a special purpose. It was evidently part of an instructional collection to remind a Jew of his duty to God."

Papyrus Nash (http://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/Papyrus%20Nash.htm)

No doubt this is a significant historical document in that it is so old. But let's say you have a copy of the ten commandments framed and hanging on your wall at home. Fast forward 2,000 years - what sort of historical evidence is that when it is found? It is significant because it is old, or does it prove something other than someone in that era believed in the bible?

I'm not trying to dismiss the importance of these documents to your faith, but they don't really point to anything except "people in this era were Jewish/Christian". They don't document "The Great Flood" or the "Rising of Jesus" or "The Last Supper" or any of the important events in the bible which you (collective you) claim actually happened. And before you bring up the shroud of Turin, there is so much controversy over it's authenticity that there is no way we can debate it here and reach a reasonable conclusion.

Jillian is correct. The discovery of the scrolls does not prove that the happenings written actually took place.
No matter what scientists or archaeologists find, it will never be undeniable evidenced that God exisits. God wanted us to have free will. He wants us to choose Him. To have faith that He exists without physical undeniable evidenced. If there were undeniable evidenced that God exists then that choice would be eliminated. I mean sure you could still say He doesn't exists, but that would be the same as saying the sky isn't blue on a clear day. Maybe archaeologists are searching for their piece of mind, who knows. But if they are searching to prove God's existence they are wasting their time.

You assume a lot in this post. You assume in the existence of a creator (I know you believe in one), and the way your statement is phrased, the person it is directed at, must also believe in a creator. If they don't, you are saying that educated people believe they are at a higher thinking power or reasoning level than something they don't believe in. Are you smarter than the tooth fairy? I know I am! :)

Additionally, you reference the recorded experiences of individuals of those in biblical times... which means the bible. The only historical evidence which supports the bible is, well, the bible. And there's a lot of controversy over if it is the literal truth or complete metaphor. There's also a lot of controversy on if Jesus even existed. I'm not saying he did or didn't, just making a point here. So your second question, you are asking if educated people believe they know better than what a work of fiction says. Do you know better than what is written in Jurassic Park? I sure do.


To respond to my post with comparisons like the "tooth fairy" and "Jurasic Park" come on! You are really stretched for debate.

To respond to my post with comparisions like the "tooth fairy" and "Jurasic Park" come on! you are really stretched for debate.

I'm not trying to make you angry or offend you, I'm trying to make a point (and use a little humor! :rolleyes: ). My intent is to make you think about your post in a different light. To you, god is real, but to an atheist, he is nothing more than the tooth fairy. To you, the bible is the inspired word of god, to an atheist, it is a book of fiction, similar to Jurassic Park. I didn't mean to offend you, only to make you consider what you wrote from a different perspective.

From your link (emphasis mine):

"The "Dead Sea Scrolls" comprise roughly 900 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves in and around the Wadi Qumran (near the ruins of the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea) in the West Bank. The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include practically the only known surviving copies of Biblical documents made before 100 AD, and preserve evidence of considerable diversity of belief and practice within late Second Temple Judaism."

They are historical documents in that they document religion and are very old. But they are not historical evidence as far as, "these people were alive, this happened, etc". Key word in there is: Bible.



From a different link (below, emphasis mine):

"It contains parts of the Ten Commandments from Exodus chapter 20, along with some verses from Deuteronomy chapters 5 and 6. So this was not a regular Bible manuscript but a mixed text with a special purpose. It was evidently part of an instructional collection to remind a Jew of his duty to God."

Papyrus Nash (http://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/Papyrus%20Nash.htm)

No doubt this is a significant historical document in that it is so old. But let's say you have a copy of the ten commandments framed and hanging on your wall at home. Fast forward 2,000 years - what sort of historical evidence is that when it is found? It is significant because it is old, or does it prove something other than someone in that era believed in the bible?

I'm not trying to dismiss the importance of these documents to your faith, but they don't really point to anything except "people in this era were Jewish/Christian". They don't document "The Great Flood" or the "Rising of Jesus" or "The Last Supper" or any of the important events in the bible which you (collective you) claim actually happened. And before you bring up the shroud of Turin, there is so much controversy over it's authenticity that there is no way we can debate it here and reach a reasonable conclusion.


Am afraid I have to agree with your argument... because its well organized and sticks to facts. Good job.

Am afraid i have to agree with your argument...because its well organized and sticks to facts. good job.

Don't be afraid, we can agree on some things and disagree on others! :)

The historical evidence might be old but it indeed doesn't substitute for physical evidence of lets say, the death of Jesus or the flood. But look at it this way, the fact that the bible is centuries old with multiple translations and still can hold out with a document that is from the 1st century truly is amazing... well, to me it is :)

inthebox agrees: takes a 'childlike" faith and innocence. The more you think you know, the less likely you are to believe

It's also a well documented fact that people who know very little about a subject think they know more than people who know an average amount about the subject :). I believe the study into faith against education actually correlated how much people actually know, not how much they think they know.

Who else matters but JESUS!! He is the "way the truth and the light, no man comes to the Father except through Him"
I can understand your thought processes on this belief, but I just know that what is taught in these times and attributed to "jesus christ" for the most part has been twisted. That's why so many Christians judge, they claim they don't but they do. I can't tell you how many people who said nothing to be verbally, were condemning me for this or that and the other thing. It is very inauthentic behavior for a person to behave in this, it makes others feel that sometimes when they don't comment, they are accepting, instead they are silently judging. I've had a lifetime of that. A lifetime of "enough already". :rolleyes:

Jillian is correct. The discovery of the scrolls does not prove that the happenings written actually took place.
No matter what scientists or archaeologists find, it will never be undeniable evidenced that God exisits. God wanted us to have free will. He wants us to choose Him. To have faith that He exists without physical undeniable evidenced. If there were undeniable evidenced that God exists then that choice would be eliminated. I mean sure you could still say He doesn't exists, but that would be the same as saying the sky isn't blue on a clear day. Maybe archaeologists are searching for their piece of mind, who knows. But if they are searching to prove God's existance they are wasting their time.


God is not a "Him" or a "He". You only have to look at women who create life inside their bodies, to see how creators of life would be more female than male.

However, Im not saying it's a She either. I can't stand people who use the woman "Mankind" either.. women have gotten a second place bad rap in this world thanks to religion.. and no one ever notices they are the ones giving birth to men.

God is not a "Him" or a "He". You only have to look at women who create life inside their bodies, to see how creators of life would be more female than male.

However, Im not saying its a She either. I can't stand people who use the woman "Mankind" either.. women have gotten a second place bad rap in this world thanks to religion.. and noone ever notices they are the ones giving birth to men.

God refers to Himself as "He", and though one could argue whether it is appropriate or not, I think that we need to bow to His description as to how we should describe Him.

God refers to Himself as "He", and though one could argue whether it is appropriate or not, I think that we need to bow to His description as to how we should describe Him.The bible is not the word of God. It is a man-made book written by "men" at a time when society was male dominated. God is neither male nor female, nor anything in between. We are not really created in God's image the way the bible claims. God is nothing like us at all, nor is It like anything in the creation. God is totally incomprehensible. To say we are created in God's image is nothing more than a human centered attempt at anthropomorphism, to bring God down to our level.

The bible is not the word of God. It is a man-made book written by "men" at a time when society was male dominated. God is neither male nor female, nor anything in between. We are not really created in God's image the way the bible claims. God is nothing like us at all, nor is It like anything in the creation. God is totally incomprehensible. To say we are created in God's image is nothing more than a human centered attempt at anthropomorphism, to bring God down to our level.

I don't see how you can claim this with any more certainty than those who claim that God is either male or female..

I believe God inspired men to write the Bible, but I think u might differ which is okay :)

We know that man will not understand God with his mind, it has always been so and we are told it is so. God can not be studied like a lab animal and is not subect to our rules and our desires. And HE is referred to as male, the Father, because he has told us to refer to him as such, Since even Christ hisself referred to God the Father, it is so no matter how much moderal liberals wish to take and change God in their image