Need a quick God related question answered

[jordandog]

Hear me now!
I was born 13th child, 'neath the 13th moon
Spit out all hungry and born anew

Daddy drag me to the river tie me in rocks
Throw me in where it's deep and wide
I go down, I don't die
Hole in the river bottom, I crawl through

Come back kill six brothers and sisters, kill papa too
Sway down Mama, sway down low
They gonna know me wherever I go

Into my bed with her kerosene my mama creep
Set my flesh to burning, whilst I sleep

I burn, burn, burn, till my soul burn black
Black rains fall, I come back, I come back
Get down Mama, get down low
They gonna know me wherever I go

16 witches, cast 16 spells
Make me a guitar outta skin and human skull
Sing you a song like the wind in the sandy loam
Bring you baby out your happy home

Ram's head, forked tail, clove hoof, love's my trail
I sup on your body, sip on your blood like wine
Out world theirs, this world mine

So kiss me baby till it hurts
God lost in heaven, we lost on earth
Sway down Mama, sway down low
They gonna know me wherever I go
Wherever I go, wherever I go

Well I got a brand new lover
I love her yes I do,
She's my one and only and her name is Baby Blue.....

"A Night With The Jersey Devil" - Bruce Springsteen

[liljp617]

So, now being in a position to trust the bible I can trust the witnesses to Jesus and things He has claimed.  The eyewitnesses of his life and ministry, death and resurrection gave accounts of events of all this.

Who are these witnesses we're speaking of?  Surely we're not referencing the Gospels as first-hand accounts....

[sigmapi1501]

It ain't no fun.... if the homies can't have none
- Tupac Shakur

[shernajwine]

So, now being in a position to trust the bible I can trust the witnesses to Jesus and things He has claimed.  The eyewitnesses of his life and ministry, death and resurrection gave accounts of events of all this.

Who are these witnesses we're speaking of?  Surely we're not referencing the Gospels as first-hand accounts....

If you read my post thoroughly, I set up the historical credibility of the bible and enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the bible can be legitimately believed. Based on evidence of Creation and credibility of the bible, I find it reasonable to trust the writers of the Gospels in their accounts of Jesus' life. So yes that is I am talking about.

[shernajwine]

Opinion? I can prove that the moon swings around the earth through centrepetal force. This is not a mere opinion

Okay, my statement was that it is your opinion that I am delusional. There are other people whose opinion differs from yours.
Opinion:a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. You stating your opinion does not make your opinion true.

Can you prove your great defined and personalized Yahweh exists and he came down and performed magic without your old book written by men?

No, I can't and I stated that in my earlier posts. I have come to a conclusion based on EVIDENCE...substantial evidence, OUTSIDE the bible, based on FACTS from SCIENCE. This is at least the third time I have stated this in this thread; are you ignoring half of what I say or do you just not understand this statement?

Again, your foundation of thought is damaged from the get-go because you're allowing for magical thinking to pass as truth even though it is demonstratably fallible.

And I say, your foundation of thought is damaged from the get-go because you're dismissing sound scientific research that supports creation and it is no more or less fallible than the evolutionist theory of origins. It is matter of where I am placing my faith, I place it in the creator you place it in evolution.

Right. With the obvious fake claims of supernatural occurences (among all protagonist characters of each faith), and the gospels being written decades after the apparent death of JC, the story of Jesus Christ is based on a dozen other stories that came before it. Therefore it is logical and rational to conclude that this characters story is fictional and this character was not a god.

And I say, with the obvious fake claims of evolutionists (gluing fossils together to create a transitional form, Haeckel's embryos), and the book written billions of years after the creation of the universe, the theory Darwin presents is fallible and Darwin said one thing pretty strongly in the Origin of Species. He said that if it could be shown that any system or organ could not be produced by many small steps, continuously improving the system at each step, then his system would absolutely fall apart. Well, it has been shown with irreducible complexity. THEREFORE,  it is logical and rational to conclude that Darwin was wrong, evolutionists lie and God exists. Now having rationally concluded there is a God,  it is no giant leap of faith to believe in Jesus Christ as God in the flesh.

[shernajwine]

I want to point out here that, I realize I cannot "convert" you. So my statements are in defense of my belief not an attempt to convince or convert. You want to say I'm delusional or utterly insane, as sig says. I'm defending my position of how I came to my conclusions logically.

I do care what you believe in the sense that I'm passionate about God and I want to share Him with people and witness about His love. But my stance is defensive, not offensive.

And I did notice that all the skeptics were happy with me until I began to defend myself with facts rather than feelings. I was commended for correcting a fellow christian but sig trolled every comment on this thread and acted like a moron and no one called him out on it. And quite frankly I don't understand    that because if he was the only source a person had to go on to make a decision about whether God exists or not....he makes your side look pretty pathetic.

If all Darwin did in his book was say we came from monkeys and called everybody names throughout all the pages, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this discussion. But no......I guess you thought it would make you look bad to contradict someone who was defending a position you agree with...even if his method of defending it was wrong?? 

 

     Discussion Boards / Debate & Discuss / Re: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith  Message ID: 209741      on: July 20, 2010, 03:57:44 pm
Hey Sherna...I do value your opinions and questions. After reading Queens post above, would you do me the favor of reading my post link and telling me what you think? On this thread?

Hmmm, how do you value the opinion of someone you believe is delusional? Was this false flattery used to bait me  ? Or maybe your opinion of me changed when I wouldn't allow myself to be a doormat for mockery? 

[amyrouse]

God I pray that you clean up the forum!

Be careful what you wish for.  Remember what Garth Brooks said about unanswered prayers.

[Falconer02]

You stating your opinion does not make your opinion true.

Delusion- a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Your holy text is full of supernatural fantasy stories and you defend them. This isn't an opinion. This is the definition of a delusional mindset. You try to defend those unreal aspects by allowing for the impossible. You may say that this is a mere opinion, but my feet are on the ground here.

OUTSIDE the bible, based on FACTS from SCIENCE. This is at least the third time I have stated this in this thread; are you ignoring half of what I say or do you just not understand this statement?

I understand.  You're diving too deep though for any tight connection- I'm concentrating on the fantasy stories and you're trying to connect it with scientific research explaining our origins and such. Again- connecting the supernatural (delusional) with the natural. It's more obvious to see that the stories were fictional considering the time period and the stories that were before it. Connecting the stories to "gods creation" seems like a cop-out because you're making room for the impossible. We're kind of running into a cloaked red herring here though.

It is matter of where I am placing my faith, I place it in the creator you place it in evolution.

I do not have faith in evolution. My beliefs are based on proofs. Faith is left for dreamy and unreliable speculation. I can view micro-evolution with my eyes. Macroevolution is obviously harder to see, but it has ridiculously more reliable proof than, say, your cosmic-zombie-jew-savior-carpenter guys story (that's quite a stretch to tie the argument together). Darwins theory was not wrong. Just like my agnostic belief system, I know we can only reach so far into the universe at the moment so it's impossible to know precisely how everything happened. I have the guts to admit that I do not know it all. But to preach and say it was all due to dime-o-dozen gods is just lazy to the human condition since we're historically beating a dead horse by thinking that as a society.

BTW where'd Queen and Walksalone go? THey'd probably comment on this paragraph.

Now having rationally concluded there is a God,  it is no giant leap of faith to believe in Jesus Christ as God in the flesh.

That is a HUGE leap of faith to believe that JC is god basing it solely on your view of evolution. Why? Disprove all of the other gods that people put faith in then. I really wish we had more of a larger group of beliefs here than just your avg evangelicals.

Hmmm, how do you value the opinion of someone you believe is delusional?  Was this false flattery used to bait me  ? Or maybe your opinion of me changed when I wouldn't allow myself to be a doormat for mockery?

I'm not mocking you. I may throw in a funny-snide mark or two once in a while but we're having an argument here. But I do feel that I'm finally seeing the true light of you- as nice as you are, you're a creationist at heart so I automatically think any argument presented is tainted with the irrational. I see it all too often.

[shernajwine]

You're defining delusion, the definition of delusion is a fact....it is your opinion that I fit that description.

I'm concentrating on the fantasy stories and you're trying to connect it with scientific research explaining our origins and such

Well, I don't know how much more clearly I can explain. When I look at scientific evidence for proof of God, I come to the conclusion that He exists. If He exists then what you are describing as fantasy has become reality. So it is very reasonably connected. You can't believe in God without believing in the supernatural because that is His nature, the means to which I came to my conclusion were based on nature. No longer fantasy.

But to preach and say it was all due to dime-o-dozen god

The Christian God is no dime-o-dozen God. If He was like every other man created god (including Allah) He wouldn't be so offensive. The very reason men have created gods to worship is because they want a god who will give them what they want. Any gods of the pagan religion are all limited in power and are given human flaws....the christian God is known to be perfect and will give men the desires of their hearts but they are expected to follow the rules. Man created gods don't demand much from their people. God demands righteousness, the OT is proof of the high expectations God has of His people. I could go on and on but you will not find ANY God that is like the biblical God of christianity. And I don't know if you meant to imply it but, I'm not preaching. I'm explaining and discussing my views.

I do not have faith in evolution. My beliefs are based on proofs.

Your beliefs for the origin of life (not microevolution) are faith based. Science can only postulate about how life came to exist on this planet and how the planet itself came into existence. You believe, without 100% proof, the naturalistic evolutionary process that explains the event. That requires faith. Unless something is 100% proven it is not fact. Microevolution is a fact. But microevolution has nothing to do with origins.
faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
There is no proof. You will not find any scientist say they have PROOF of what they theorize about the universes beginnings; only that they are confident in the evidence they feel supports the theory. So I'm sorry but if your going to claim to believe in evolution's explanation of origins of life, then you are asserting a statement of faith.

That is a HUGE leap of faith to believe that JC is god basing it solely on your view of evolution. Why? Disprove all of the other gods that people put faith in then

It isn't based solely on my views of evolution. It is based on my trust in the bible, which I explained earlier. My views of evolution and it's rotting foundation led me to confirm that God exists. My research for biblical accuracy led me to confirm a trust in it's writings...if I trust the bible then I believe what it says and it says Jesus is God.

As for disproving other gods, well I have done that to my own satisfaction in my own research but it is not be attempted here in this forum. If you are interested in such an endeavor I can refer you to information I found useful.

You are right, I am a creationist at heart. And I find that to be a high compliment indeed. You can say it's irrational but I find your standpoint irrational, blind, and delusional myself.

So where does that leave us? Hopefully, two people, who despite a disagreement, can still love each other as human beings. 

[sigmapi1501]

So from all this....

I learned That God Can create a big rock (already conceded that he could)
And that God could lift any rock that exists (kinda assumed that)

But never if he could do both.  Learned a lot about monkeys. Got to read a lot of Bible quotes. Just never a reasonable answer to the questions.

P.S. You CANNOT use the Bible to Prove the Bible is factually accurate.
it's like using your theory to prove your theory works.

Pythagoras- "A squared plus B squared equals C squared"
Skeptic- "How so?"
Pythagoras "The Pythagorean theory"
Skeptic- "What is that?'
Pythagoras- "It's Adam and Eve... NOT Adam and Steve!  Switch the B with an S and... coincidence?"

[liljp617]

So, now being in a position to trust the bible I can trust the witnesses to Jesus and things He has claimed.  The eyewitnesses of his life and ministry, death and resurrection gave accounts of events of all this.

Who are these witnesses we're speaking of?  Surely we're not referencing the Gospels as first-hand accounts....

If you read my post thoroughly, I set up the historical credibility of the bible and enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the bible can be legitimately believed. Based on evidence of Creation and credibility of the bible, I find it reasonable to trust the writers of the Gospels in their accounts of Jesus' life. So yes that is I am talking about.

Well since you've taken in all the information to come to your "rational and logical conclusions," you should probably know there's plenty of reason in not believing the Gospels were first hand accounts.  Paul's writings were written down before the Gospels and those sure as hell weren't first hand. The only Gospel that has a shot at being a primary source is that of Mark, and even that is questionable given the debate still surrounding "Q," as well as simply looking at the dates for Mark (roughly 60-70AD).  There's really not a single iota of evidence that the other three Gospels are primary sources.  You don't find it the least bit odd the Gospels do not reference each other, even when they contradict one another?  You don't find it the least bit odd that much of Luke's writing is heavily based on what is written in Mark?  You don't find it the least bit odd that Paul never once quotes Jesus...hell, he never even makes it obvious that he met him -- the only times he mentions seeing him is "in visions."  Paul's letters say Jesus was crucified, but he never makes a hint at when or where -- in fact, he goes out of his way to say he got the information through divine revelation, not by seeing it himself.  This list goes on and on.  There are numerous reasons to have doubt towards the accuracy/validity of the Gospels and Paul's writings, which are basically everything that Christianity is based upon.

Outside of the Bible -- which, let's be honest, is a poor source..it's like saying Masters of the Universe is evidence of the existence of He-Man -- there is extremely little historical evidence Jesus existed, especially how he is portrayed in the Gospels.  There is a questionable mention in Josephus, which is largely seen as fake/altered by scholars -- this was written around 60 years after the assumed death of Jesus.  There is a brief mention in Tacitus, a source that is already known to have factual errors in other details -- around 100 years after the assumed death.  One of the Plinys wrote around this time as well.  Then there is smattering of other fourth-and-fifth-hand sources like Suetonius and Celsus.  No, there is basically zero first-hand extant evidence.

I've always found it odd that this is the case, when you have armies of scribes manipulating historical documents to provide evidence for Jesus, and still the best they can do is two short books and a handful of letters.  Then you turn around and look at the overwhelming amount of historical and textual evidence supporting the existence of someone like Socrates -- a man whose entire identity and catalogue was victim to widespread, organized attempted destruction by early Christian Roman leaders looking to destroy the old, "heretical" beliefs of people like Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, etc.  On one hand, you have an individual who had a cult of fanatics (and eventually a gigantic worldwide organization) who did everything they could to preserve anything even remotely related to him, and on the other hand you have a man whose entire existence and everything he wrote was purposely destroyed (had it not been for Muslims of the time).  And here we are, with a ridiculous amount of evidence supporting one individual, and quite a small amount of evidence, relatively speaking, supporting the other individual.  But I digress.

Was there a real Jesus? Perhaps. Was there a real King Arthur? Perhaps. The probability of both is about the same, I'd say.  And the explanations for both run down the same path: maybe there was a person the stories are based upon. Maybe the stories are compiled from fragments and pieces of several people. Maybe they're completely fictional.  You can pick a position for now, they're all about the same probability.  But if there was a real person who inspired the Jesus of the Gospels, his life was probably nothing like the character in the Gospels.

[Falconer02]

You're defining delusion, the definition of delusion is a fact....it is your opinion that I fit that description.

Alright let's get to the base. Unless you can prove to everyone that the magic in the bible actually happened and that your myths have no reason to be false, any general non-bias consensus would think this is magical thinking.

When I look at scientific evidence for proof of God, I come to the conclusion that He exists. If He exists then what you are describing as fantasy has become reality. So it is very reasonably connected. You can't believe in God without believing in the supernatural because that is His nature, the means to which I came to my conclusion were based on nature. No longer fantasy.

No, it's still fantasy unless you can prove otherwise. Science is not helping much here-- there's a lack of proof for your gods magical ways when weighed against your myths just being written by men. It's surprisingly easy to come to the conclusion that these stories are fictional. Liljp makes some good points about this.

The Christian God is no dime-o-dozen God. If He was like every other man created god (including Allah) He wouldn't be so offensive. The very reason men have created gods to worship is because they want a god who will give them what they want. Any gods of the pagan religion are all limited in power and are given human flaws....the christian God is known to be perfect and will give men the desires of their hearts but they are expected to follow the rules. Man created gods don't demand much from their people. God demands righteousness, the OT is proof of the high expectations God has of His people. I could go on and on but you will not find ANY God that is like the biblical God of christianity. And I don't know if you meant to imply it but, I'm not preaching. I'm explaining and discussing my views.

To say that your god is unique is just ludicrous...I'm not sure you went back and reread your paragraph:
- Many personal gods all over history were extremely offensive to humans and killed/tortured them left and right.
- Your god promises you eternal life in heaven by following the rules- that's definately a want for worshippers.
- Many man-created gods demand(ed) a truckload of things. The Aztecs sacrificed people because their 5 gods sacrificed themselves to allow humanity to thrive.
- Your god has many human flaws including childish anger and jealousy.
- Of course I'm not going to find any god JUST like your god. But I can find dozens of them that have similar aspects to them. Some even pre-dating your holy texts.

Your beliefs for the origin of life (not microevolution) are faith based. Science can only postulate about how life came to exist on this planet and how the planet itself came into existence. You believe, without 100% proof, the naturalistic evolutionary process that explains the event. That requires faith. Unless something is 100% proven it is not fact. Microevolution is a fact. But microevolution has nothing to do with origins.
faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
There is no proof. You will not find any scientist say they have PROOF of what they theorize about the universes beginnings; only that they are confident in the evidence they feel supports the theory. So I'm sorry but if your going to claim to believe in evolution's explanation of origins of life, then you are asserting a statement of faith.

You fail to distinguish a belief from a faith-based belief. And you said microevolution is fact so you must accept macroevolution as fact or your terminology is shot.

It isn't based solely on my views of evolution. It is based on my trust in the bible, which I explained earlier. My views of evolution and it's rotting foundation led me to confirm that God exists. My research for biblical accuracy led me to confirm a trust in it's writings...if I trust the bible then I believe what it says and it says Jesus is God.

Are you a young-earth creationist?

You are right, I am a creationist at heart. And I find that to be a high compliment indeed. You can say it's irrational but I find your standpoint irrational, blind, and delusional myself.

Just remember who puts faith in man-made fairy-tale stories and their characters and who does not.

[shernajwine]

For both liljp and falconer.

I have researched many sources and I have found the evidences I have come across to be more than sufficient to support belief in God and the bible and Jesus and the claims the bible makes about him. Many of your statements are just plain false, and I conclude that by facts found in my personal research. So perhaps you should do more research and when you're done examining it from the skeptic side look at the claims and defenses of the other side. Many of what you're saying is things I have seen on atheistic or evolutionist websites. So if you're not willing to thoroughly research from both sides of the coin and listen to ALL evidence then your claims are worthless.

You haven't thoroughly researched the principles of christianity and the true character of the God of the bible if you think he is anything like other gods. Sorry. Your statements are full of misinformed assumptions about God, taken out of context. You probably ignore any explanations given by apologetics but if you were interested in making sure you believe something that is true, you shouldn't discard and disregard evidence and explanations from the other side. And you don't go to atheistic or other skeptic resources to learn about God or the bible. I went to atheist websites and evolution websites and books and articles to make sure I had enough knowledge and understanding of ALL evidence. It appears you have not done the same.

Are you a young-earth creationist?

No I am not a young earth creationist, and the bible supports old earth creation. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

And you said microevolution is fact so you must accept macroevolution as fact or your terminology is shot.

I stated to liljp before about my understanding of the difference (and there is a difference) and he continually tried to redefine it, in the pattern of so many other evolutionists.

This is a definition from an evolution website.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:


It is essentially correct, however we have undeniable irrefutable proof for microevolution. Macroevolution requires the proof of transitional fossils, there is none. There is no proof of one species evolving over time into a complete different species. So sorry. And if you want to list all your nonsense evidence like archeopteryx and "Lucy" and fruit flies and moths.....well, don't waste your time because I have read all about them and they fall very short of proving anything on a large scale of evolution, such as required for macroevolution. And it comes back to origins, macroevolution is what is used to say we all descended from a common ancestor.....there is NO proof of that. So if you want to continue in ignorance, that is your problem. Hmmmm, you believe in something for which there is no proof (FAITH).

Just remember who puts faith in man-made fairy-tale stories and their characters and who does not.

Once upon a time nothing made something and that something exploded to create matter in the nothing (now referred to as the universe). Then it rained and rained on one the rocks until it made a warm soup. One glorious moment lightening flashed across that soup and a tiny little cell was formed. Fred (that's the cell's name now), he was so excited to be alive that he turned into fish! He swam around for soooo many years until finally he decided he wanted to go on land. So he grew some legs! Oh Fred was so proud of himself for growing legs and he was ecstatic to crawl on the land. One day Fred decided he was lonely and needed a partner so he magically split himself in half! He loved Freda (the other half that magically had the capability to reproduce) so much. They lived happily ever after creating children who constantly mutated over the years to produce all the animals and people we see today!

No that doesn't sound like a fairy tale at all! You were right, you are definitely not delusional for believing that story  

[jcribb16]

So from all this....

I learned That God Can create a big rock (already conceded that he could)
And that God could lift any rock that exists (kinda assumed that)

But never if he could do both.  Learned a lot about monkeys. Got to read a lot of Bible quotes. Just never a reasonable answer to the questions.

Since God is truly omnipotent, then that means He is all-powerful and can do anything. You could say that means He can lift any size boulder He chooses to make. Or, you can say that He can make one so big so that He knows He can't lift it. 
(Omnipotent - unlimited power);

[Falconer02]

I have researched many sources and I have found the evidences I have come across to be more than sufficient to support belief in God and the bible and Jesus and the claims the bible makes about him.

More than sufficient? If you did any research other than creationist sources, you'd find the story of JC is ridiculously questionable. Unless you're going to pull the faith card, this is bunk. What about other religious people from different faiths that do this exact thing? All they do is replace your characters with their characters. They are no more right than you are.

So if you're not willing to thoroughly research from both sides of the coin and listen to ALL evidence then your claims are worthless.

I was just like you for around 18 years of my life. No offense, but your arguments are bringing back some nostalgic feelings.

You haven't thoroughly researched the principles of christianity and the true character of the God of the bible if you think he is anything like other gods.

Well you obviously have done some research, but if you believe that it ultimately points to yahweh, you're nothing more than a mindless minion of one religion. Do I believe there is a god? I am not throwing it out the window. I do leave room for it. I would just like undeniable proof. It's like me saying "Is there a man in Peru walking on the beach right now? Possibly. I'm not there so I do not know." What you are stating is so personalized...so precise...that it's like saying "Is there a cybernetic man in Peru on the beach singing the Happy Days theme wearing a green shirt with a picture of elmo on it standing on a couch swinging a gladiator sword while doing the riverdance while reading the Chicago Tribune from August 7th, 1978 and wants coffee? Undoubtedly. I've done my research." Is it a possibility? Sure. But this is such a long shot that it's not worth wasting my time to disprove.

No I am not a young earth creationist, and the bible supports old earth creation.

I've heard the exact opposite on this forum with similar biased links.

Macroevolution requires the proof of transitional fossils, there is none.

A typical creationist claim. This claim is ignorant in itself because every fossil is a transitonal form. Fossils that present clear features found in both classes of animals are transitioning. There are plenty in the animal kingdom; especially with hominids. Granted the fossil record is limited, there is undeniable proof of this. This leads me to believe you have only used bias creationist sources that cherry pick the most problematic traits of evolution (thus your lucy and archaeopteryx examples).

And it comes back to origins, macroevolution is what is used to say we all descended from a common ancestor.....there is NO proof of that.

Homology? If you're one of those who thinks it's fake, what are these similar characteristics then? What's up with recurring Atavisms?

No that doesn't sound like a fairy tale at all! You were right, you are definitely not delusional for believing that story  

Well you told the story pretty quick and left out a lot. This fine woman tells just your first sentence so much better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PqJ2eEzD3o  Besides, the whole thing is much more realistic and plausable than say...a rib woman and dirt man with a posessed talking demon snake. Similar fantasy stories are heard throughout primitive cultures.