Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Radical depends on what you mean by radical
My guess is I would be considered radical and I don't see God as some pie in the sky that is distant. I know he is right with me and reveals things to me everyday.

---

Deism, as I said, is one thing. But theism (an intervening god, one who interacts with people and creation) is a leap of faith of gargantuan proportions. There's no logical reason to pick one god over another and they cannot all be real. That's the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

cadillac59,
I am convinced that there is indeed a supreme intelligence who in responsible for all that is seen and unseen in the universe including all the various universal physics laws.
Also that some religions are extremely worthwhile while some radical members therein are not.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

Some religions are worthwhile? You mean useful?

Reminds me of what Bertrand Russell had to say about that: "I can respect a man who says that religion ought to be believed because it is true; but, I have nothing but the most profound moral reprobation for the man who says religion ought to be believed because it is useful and to ask whether it is true or not is a waste of time."

I don't think any religion that is untrue-- viz, one that is teaching a lie-- is ever worthwhile. I don't see how anyone can seriously believe that.

I have way more than a leap and bounds of faith in God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I have way more than a leap and bounds of faith in God

---

All I was saying was that being a theist is a leap of faith because there is no factual or evidentiary basis on which to believe one theistic religion over another.

N0help4u,
I meant radial members to be those in any religion who go to great extremes such as murder, suicide bombings, cutting off the heads of those who refuse to join, and generally cause terrorist events to take place.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Ahhh I was thinking of how Jesus was radical for his day

I think that Cadillac has not done serious study of the history and prophecy of the Bible.

As to the OP, it is interesting to speculate, but that is all it amounts to.

When we leave the Biblical record, we have absolutely nothing to guide us as to our origins. Even scientific speculation is not reliable.

Personally, I speculate that the universe is as infinite as eternity. Also, that the total physical universe is nothing more than controlled energy.

Of course, that is pure speculation and therefore worthless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Though the article did not deal with the idea of a supreme life bringing all we can see and witness into being I found that the article did that without mentioning it. That is typical of much of science not willing to give God credit for anything I thought.

---

This is interesting and is all too common. In fact, I think it goes both ways equally. While science doesn't typically associate its theories with "God"... most believers (of any religion or faith) won't associate their "God" with any explanations offered by science.

If God is the "who", "what" and the "why", then why can't science be the "when", "where" and the "how"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrJ

This is interesting and is all too common. In fact, I think it goes both ways equally. While science doesn't typically associate its theories with "God"... most believers (of any religion or faith) won't associate their "God" with any explanations offered by science.

If God is the "who", "what" and the "why", then why can't science be the "when", "where" and the "how"?

---

Yeah I always say that the BIG BANG was God saying ''Let there be... ''
And scientific fact is merely confirming what God already DID and KNEW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I think that Cadillac has not done serious study of the history and prophecy of the Bible.

As to the OP, it is interesting to speculate, but that is all it amounts to.

When we leave the Biblical record, we have absolutely nothing to guide us as to our origins. Even scientific speculation is not reliable.

Personally, I speculate that the universe is as infinite as eternity. Also, that the total physical universe is nothing more than controlled energy.

Of course, that is pure speculation and therefore worthless.

---

I think I know enough about the history and prophesy of the Bible to say it's not what believers claim.

As to our origins, the Biblical record is useless. Not only is it untrue (the Adam and Eve fairytale) the bible lessons on morality are the utmost in immorality (condoning slavery and genocide--just to give two examples).

I'm not ready to say god does not exist, which gets me to deism, but I find no reason to make the leap to theism.

DrJ,
There are a number of denominations that do give credit to science.
Some, such as mine, have there own scientists, labs, and even observatories.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrJ

This is interesting and is all too common. In fact, I think it goes both ways equally. While science doesn't typically associate its theories with "God"... most believers (of any religion or faith) won't associate their "God" with any explanations offered by science.

If God is the "who", "what" and the "why", then why can't science be the "when", "where" and the "how"?

---

If you refer to pure science and not scientific theories, then I am in complete agreement with you on this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

I think I know enough about the history and prophesy of the Bible to say it's not what believers claim.

As to our origins, the Biblical record is useless. Not only is it untrue (the Adam and Eve fairytale) the bible lessons on morality are the utmost in immorality (condoning slavery and genocide--just to give two examples).

I'm not ready to say god does not exist, which gets me to deism, but I find no reason to make the leap to theism.

---

I you have done a study of prophecy, then you know that there are many detailed prophecies that have been literally fulfilled after the time of their writing. There is no explanation for this other than what the Bible says. Holy men of old wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

No one other than God can know the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I you have done a study of prophecy, then you know that there are many detailed prophecies that have been literally fulfilled after the time of their writing. There is no explaination for this other than what the Bible says. Holy men of old wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

No one other than God can know the future.

---

Yeah right. I'm not convinced.

There are all sorts of "prophecies" that supposedly have been fulfilled in other religions and other superstitious teachings and, considering the expansive definition of "fulfillment" of any alleged prophecy and room for interpretation of historical events the human mind can invent, this test of "truth" is meaningless.

galveston,
I fear that neither you or I or anyone here can convince cadillac59, his/her mind id made up and only the Holy Spirit can break through that if the Spirit so wants to or decides.
And so, let's all pray that The Holy Spirit does help open cadi's mind to the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

galveston,
I fear that neither you or I or anyone here can convince cadillac59, his/her mind id made up and only the Holy Spirit can break through that if the Spirit so wants to or decides.
And so, let's all pray that The Holy Spirit does help open cadi's mind to the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

Galveston's fatuous remarks about fulfilled prophecies underscores the shallowness of the arguments advanced by theists. Rest assured that Christianity is not alone in claiming fulfilled prophecies-- astrology has the same claim but nobody takes it seriously.

By the way Fred, I am a male (and I'm gay incidentally, which I thought I mentioned once before). So the Christian world denies the legitimacy of my very existence. Nothing could be more personal than that. They/it rejected me so my choice it rejecting it was easy.

cadillac59,
Not all of Christians will reject you because you are gay.
I do not.
Most denominations that I am aware of reject the pracice of the gay lifestyle but not the person.
I have several friends who are gay, one who once was, and before I retired my supervisor was gay and he and I got along quite well for we liked each other as persons.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

cadillac59,
Not all of Christians will reject you because you are gay.
I do not.
Most denominations that I am aware of reject the pracice of the gay lifestyle but not the person.
I have several friends who are gay, one who once was, and before I retired my supervisor was gay and he and I got along quite well for we liked each other as persons.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

To say you reject the practice of the gay lifestyle is like saying you reject the practice of the heterosexual lifestyle. And I've never heard of the rejection in the church of the heterosexual lifestyle because to say that would mean the rejection of the bulk of the congregation. So it's nonsense to argue you love gay people but reject the very aspect of their being that defines them as gay.

Let's be honest. Christianity sees the world through rose colored glasses. That's the problem. It rejects reality in favor of a make-believe reality that fits its preconceived view of the world, one where dinosaurs lived alongside humans and baby dinosaurs or dinosaur eggs were brought onto the mythical Arc. Or, where gay people don't exist, only people with bad [gay] habits who need to mend their ways. Nonsense. It's time Christians and other theists overcame this childish way of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

By the way Fred, I am a male (and I'm gay incidentally, which I thought I mentioned once before). So the Christian world denies the legitimacy of my very existence. Nothing could be more personal than that. They/it rejected me so my choice it rejecting it was easy.

---

The Christian world does not deny your existence, however the Scriptures are clear regarding homosexual acts, just as they are clear about hetrosexual acts which are immoral. The Christian biblical view is that God intended that man and woman should cohabit together in a relationship called marriage, any other form of sexual relationship is proscribed. What you are saying to us is that any acceptance of you is an acceptance of you to behave any way you want to. Sorry, but we cannot give that license to anyone. As a single Christian male I am not entitled to engage in sexual acts without recognising the proscribed nature of such acts and the need for repentance, why should you be exempt. No, the reality is you can have the same love and fellowship as I have within the boundries set by the Christian relationship with Christ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

The Christian world does not deny your existence, however the Scriptures are clear regarding homosexual acts, just as they are clear about hetrosexual acts which are immoral. The Christian biblical view is that God intended that man and woman should cohabit together in a relationship called marriage, any other form of sexual relationship is proscribed. What you are saying to us is that any acceptance of you is an acceptance of you to behave any way you want to. Sorry, but we cannot give that license to anyone. As a single Christian male I am not entitled to engage in sexual acts without recognising the proscribed nature of such acts and the need for repentance, why should you be exempt. No, the reality is you can have the same love and fellowship as I have within the boundries set by the Christian relationship with Christ.

---

Thanks, but I don't need your permission to live my life the way I want to. You may place whatever restrictions on your own life that you wish. Go right ahead. But keep me out of it. I will not tolerate other mammalian primates telling me how to live my life because of what their god supposedly told them. No.

Perhaps you can undestand my point by looking at it this way: Imagine a racist church that taught that those of African descent were second class citizens, second class human beings (it's not as far-fetched as you might think... some churches have taught this in the past) and, although such a church allowed blacks into their churches, what if they refused to ordain them as pastors, refused to allow them to take communion, made them sit in segregated seating in the church building, refused to allow them to marry and taught that they had to remain celibate their entire lives? Who would put up with such an institution? Who would sit still for that? No self-respecting person of African descent would for 5 seconds. This is exactly what is going in with gay people in the church. Our right to exist is denied for a condition we did not choose and cannot change and should not want to change (did it ever dawn on you that many gay men actually like being gay and are glad they are not straight?).