[Smoked]

So let me get this straight you believe that a child who has done nothing wrong in it's life deserves to suffer because you feel he is wretched because of something you think someone 6 thousand years did.

First, did I say I think he deserves it? It is not a matter of what I think. It's a matter of what the theological facts say. We are fallen beings, with physical bodies prone to disease and illness.

A great passage from the bible is

Passage Psalm 119:67-75:

67Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word.

68Thou art good, and doest good; teach me thy statutes.

69The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart.

70Their heart is as fat as grease; but I delight in thy law.

71It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.

72The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.

73Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments.

74They that fear thee will be glad when they see me; because I have hoped in thy word.

75I know, O LORD, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me.

I know you all hate for people site a source but...

[Galveston1]

But when you flag the person down and tell them the bridge is out when you really have no clue whether the bridge is out or not. Your pretty much just wasting everyones time. Which isn't a crime but should be.

I do hope you don't really mean what you said here. You just said it should be a crime for me to flag you down when I have reason to believe your life is in danger. You are saying that you are not willing for me to have my Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If I don't have those rights, you don't have them either.

Now who is being intolerant?

[Alty]

I do hope you don't really mean what you said here. You just said it should be a crime for me to flag you down when I have reason to believe your life is in danger. You are saying that you are not willing for me to have my Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If I don't have those rights, you don't have them either.

Now who is being intolerant?

A bridge is one thing, believing in God is another. No one's "life" is in danger because they don't believe in God, although I realize that's what you believe, it isn't reality.

You have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, you do not have freedom to harrass.

As for who is being intolerant, I think all of us are guilty of that, obviously.

[michealb]

I do hope you don't really mean what you said here. You just said it should be a crime for me to flag you down when I have reason to believe your life is in danger. You are saying that you are not willing for me to have my Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If I don't have those rights, you don't have them either.

Now who is being intolerant?

Freedom of speech has limits you can't yell fire in a crowded room. You can't flag people down and tell then the bridge is out if you have no knowledge of the bridge being out.

The issue is that I have the right to have freedom from your religion.

So I'm not intolerant, I just want the guy to get out of the middle of the road so I can go on my way to the perfectly fine bridge that I can see in the distance.

I think though you have your metaphor wrong. I think religions are waving people down and telling them to take a right because there is a bridge that only the locals can see but the people in the car should go full steam to the bridge and not to worry if they don't see it just keep going.

[De Maria]

There is ample proof for that, to be found in all libraries. ....

We're not discussing all of the other stuff. All that boils down to the fact that you provided no evidence. You simply tried to side step the issue again. Which proves that your statement is simply an unsupported statement of what YOU BELIEVE.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[arcura]

michealb,
One of the things that non-Christian people fail to understand or acknowledge is the fact that Christians are supposed to spread the Word of salvation of souls. It is a main part of the religion.
In all cases it is supposed to be a loving thing to do.
ALSO Christianity is supposed to be a religion of attraction though there are many who do not practice it that way.
Christians are not to try to shove the religion down other peoples throats or worse yet FORCE it on them via one way or another.
In fact those who do that are chasing people way from the loving Son of God, Jesus.
To me "Freedom of religion" means I have a right to practice it with no harm to others.
Freedom from religion, I think, is that a person has the right to not be a part of or practice a reliegion.
To live in a country where the great majority of people are of one religion or another and try to not be exposed to religious activities seems to me to be a futile effort.
Religious symbols, buildings, advertising, and people are just about everywhere there exists communities.
How does a strong anti-relgion person avoid being exposed to all religious things and activities?
Close their eyes, ears, and avoid being exposed to religious symbols and buildings?
Do you take a different route just because there is a Church on the street which is the shortest route?
I'm just wondering about the answers I might get to those two questions.
I'm seriously interested in that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Alty]

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I don't shy away from religious symbols, or churches. Of course, I do believe in God, just not church or the bible.

When I was last in Germany I took my husband and son to Rothenburg ob der Tauber, the city I was born in. It is a very old city and has many old churches, actually, all of Germany does.

We went in to a few, they were absolutely beautiful. I lit a candle for both of my parents in every church we went to. My mother died on that trip to Germany, we were there for 3 weeks, and went to Rothenburg around 1 week after she died, my father passed 6 1/2 months before her.

I love the churches there, the are all so old, so beautifully made, architecture at its finest. Yes, I have to say that even I was respectful of what that building represents, even though I have no wish to belong to a church.

I have a cross necklace given to me when I was confirmed, and even though I am no longer a practicing Lutheran, I still wear the cross once in a while.

If you don't mind, I'll post a picture of my parents final resting place. You see, they were both cremated and the urn is with me and my family, in our home. My husband built a special alcove for them, it's right by my computer. You will see a cross on the right, two angels, a cross on the urn.



Even though I no longer go to church or believe that the bible is the word of God, I still believe. :)

[arcura]

Altenweg,
Thanks for sharing that.
May your folks rest in peace.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Alty]

Thank you Fred. :)

I believe that they are waiting for me in heaven, we will meet again. :)

[Smoked]

I think though you have your metaphor wrong. I think religions are waving people down and telling them to take a right because there is a bridge that only the locals can see but the people in the car should go full steam to the bridge and not to worry if they don't see it just keep going.

So, in your opinion you think "hell with salvation and afterlife" best life now is all I have? Pretty common view actually. Thing about it is, I have a great life and also don't have to be concerned with my afterlife.

1.) If I am right I have eternal salvation
2.) If I am wrong then it doesn't matter anyway

So, instead of living a man centered "it's all about me" attitude, I live a good holy life. A life of attempting to model my life after my maker. Model my life trying (attempting) to be more Christ like. Man, I am so screwed. Lol

[Smoked]

michealb,
One of the things that non-Christian people fail to understand or acknowledge is the fact that Christians are supposed to spread the Word of salvation of souls. It is a main part of the religion.
In all cases it is supposed to be a loving thing to do.

True, spreading the word of the gospel is called for in the bible.

ALSO Christianity is supposed to be a religion of attraction though there are many who do not practice it that way.

I might have taken this statement wrong so understand that before you respond to my next couple sentences.

First, Attraction? The point of Christianity for example is not to "attract" people to a religion. The point is the spread the word of the gospel and bring the world the "good news".

Not everyone, actually very few are truly saved. God does not promise "our best life now". Your promise is salvation if you truly believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins. Seeker sensitive attitudes are what causes the non-believers to fall when they "try on" church for size.

To live in a country where the great majority of people are of one religion or another and try to not be exposed to religious activities seems to me to be a futile effort.
Religious symbols, buildings, advertising, and people are just about everywhere there exists communities.
How does a strong anti-relgion person avoid being exposed to all religious things and activities?
Close their eyes, ears, and avoid being exposed to religious symbols and buildings?
Do you take a different route just because there is a Church on the street which is the shortest route?

This is a very true statement. I would be interested in the answer.

[Smoked]

Alt,
Thank you for sharing that. May your mom and dad rest in peace.

I do have a question, curiosity. What made you turn away from the church and the bible?

[Alty]

Alt,
Thank you for sharing that. May your mom and dad rest in peace.

I do have a question, curiosity. What made you turn away from the church and the bible?

Thank you Smoked.

The answer to your question isn't really an easy one. Many things contributed to my turning away from church and the bible.

Part of it was my years in Catholic school and the way I was treated, part of it was the fact that our long time pastor was forced to leave the church because of an argument with the people who ran that church. Part of it was bible study and realizing (for me anyway) that the bible was written by men, not God and therefore not relevant to my faith.

So many different things contributed to the way I feel and the things I do, I can't pinpoint one specific event that took place, it was the combination of all that lead me to where I am now.

My parents death also contributed, in a very large way. I actually turned my back on God for a while after they died, or at least I thought I had. I was very angry with God, how could he take two such wonderful people away, and in such a horrible way? They were young, my dad was 60, my mother 63. They both suffered terribly. I was 30 when they died, an adult with a family of my own, an only child. I had the best relationship I can imagine with my parents, their death left a huge gaping hole in my heart, it still does. I hated God for quite some time after that.

I did what I thought they wanted, had their funerals in the church where our old pastor now preached. I kept their ashes with me, that's what they wanted. I stopped going to church because for me it was no longer a comfort, but a reminder of what I had lost. I also didn't want to hear the preachings of a man written book.

I did find my way back to God, but in a very different way than I had before. God is still a part of who I am, a part of my life, but not in a man made way, in my own way.

Not really an explanation, I know, but like I said, so many things contributed to my becoming a Deist. :)

[Credendovidis]

For Smoked + Galveston1 + De Maria + Arcura + whoever else agrees with the topic header .

Actually the topic header is :

"Science is now catching up with what God already established thousand of years ago"

I have the following disagreements with that header :

... with what God already established...

"God"?? "God" is a CLAIMED to exist deity.
There simply is no OSE for "God's" existence.
All you can do is BELIEVE that.

And - surprise surprise ! - there is not any OSE for "God" to have established anything at all.
So neither is there is any OSE for "God" to have established anything.
All you can do is BELIEVE that.

... with what God already established thousand of years ago

Besides that there is no OSE for "God's" existence, nor for "God" having established anything at all , nothing really noteworthy happened to earth for the last 63 MILLION years (other than perhaps a "homo sapiens" investation, that currently is threatening to destroy the environment of the planet).

... "thousands of years" is a preposterous statement, that has to be seen in the light of the creationist's claim that the earth etc. is only approx, 6.400 years old (a total ridiculous claim in view of the science supported fact that earth + solar system is already 4,6 BILLION years old.

Science is now catching up with what God already established thousand of years ago

Besides that there is no OSE for "God's" existence, nor for "God" having established anything, nor for "God's" claimed creation to be thousands of years old, there is one more point that is ludicrous :
Science is not in some sort of match against "God". As far as REAL SCIENCE is concerned there is no "God".
Science is not catching up at all. How can you catch up with a wild claim without any OSE support ? So far as I know there is no OSE for god/gods at all, so it remains with that BELIEF ONLY.
Therefore science has overtaken and corrected anything that ever has been religious claimed. That includes anything irrespectful of specific religious belief..

NOTE 1 : Science demands that claims are supported by OSE.
NOTE 2 : Science demands that any Theory or Thesis is frequently checked against the latest findings and possible mistakes - thereby correcting itself and insuring that the data is as near to reality as possible.

Unlike religion, where there are only CLAIMS combined into a story and rules (called DOGMA) that is beyond any scrutiny, it even is beyond any real discussion. You simply has to accept it (You have to BELIEVE it).

Of course : if theists can manage to provide any OSE for any religious claim, we can validate such claim on it's reality. Till that moment every religious statement remains a wild claim.

So back to the topic header :

"Science is now catching up with what God already established thousand of years ago"

A totally unsupported and preposterous wild claim : nothing else!!

:rolleyes: ;) :p :rolleyes:

[Smoked]

Eye witnesses saw the miracles that Jesus did. Eye witnesses touched Jesus, the holes in his hands, his flesh, at the resurrection. This all documented in the bible.

Archeologist have been uncovering artifacts for years that support the material in the bible. Historians state the bible is probably the oldest accurate compilation of human history. Geneticists can't fathom how something like DNA, actual living DNA, DNA that actually has a purpose, could have been produced by something or someone less then a supreme being.

The bible explains creation, where science can't. But you claim foul-able in the bible but not science?

Why do you keep spewing the same rhetoric? Might you have a new thought? You know, when someone contests a topic they usually have some evidence of their own. So, the ball has been in your court now for a while. Evidence to the contrary, Asked by countless members to produce.

By the way, why? Why would you, someone who if god dropped down and said hello probably still wouldn't believe, bother yourself in a conversation about god? Puzzling, unless your only agenda is to cause trouble and strife. Oh, let me use conflict. That way no confusion.

[michealb]

The whole debate boils down to evidence. Some insist on using one source for all their evidence others want to use multiple sources.

[Galveston1]

You have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, you do not have freedom to harrass.

As for who is being intolerant, I think all of us are guilty of that, obviously.

I apologize. I didn't realize that I was forcing you to read my posts.

[Smoked]

I apologize. I didn't realize that I was forcing you to read my posts.

I think she meant in general. A lot of posts seem to be one sided and may even be construed as intolerant. From the conversation that alt and I have been having in this post and others I believe she was making a blanket statement.

[Alty]

I apologize. I didn't realize that I was forcing you to read my posts.

Galveston, do you know how to read? I never said that you were forcing me to read your posts, nor did I say that I was forced to respond. I do so of my own free will.

You are exactly the type of Christian I went to school with. When you don't get your way you become belittling, sarcastic, and offer fake apologies to try to prove your point.

After 10 years of dealing with such people, putting up with their "Christian" ways, I will not tolerate any more.

You are exactly the type of Christian that turned me away from Christianity. Thank you for reminding me.

God Bless. :)

[Alty]

I think she meant in general. A lot of posts seem to be one sided and may even be construed as intolerant. From the conversation that alt and I have been having in this post and others I believe she was making a blanket statement.

I was making a blanket statement. :)

I have to say that everyone is guilty of intolerance at times, myself included, as I just blatantly pointed out in my post to Galveston.

It's hard to turn the other cheek when you feel that someone keeps slapping you. I've been slapped too many times, and now I slap back. I'm honestly trying very hard to change that aspect of my personality, but 38 (darnit, I just turned 38, gulp) years of being who I am is hard to change over night.

Bear with me everyone, I am trying.