From an email I sent to a friend on religion. Any opinions?

Nothingman54

Science is the break down of Gods work.

mikesguitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesguitar
I do my own interpreting of the Bible. I don't rely on the Church. Anyway, if you take the time to throroughly study the other religions you'll find they have irreconcilable contradictions. Like I mentioned in a previous post, I'm not trying to have an attitude. I'm just putting some info out there in case someone wants to check it out, which I believe would benefit them.

...
You just validated my point.


I didn't make myself clear, so I think you misunderstood me. Yeah, other religions contradict Christianity. But, for the most part, my point was that I decided after a lot of research that I believed the other religions contradict themselves.

---

You have chosen your own path towards God... I have chosen mine. Who are we to say our path is the only path? And as you and i have seperate paths, so do other people and other religions... Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.. They do not need to share the same path, or even parallel them.
Like a mountain.. there are many different ways to get to the top. There is only one mountain top, many trails that lead to it.
...
And you need to at least point out some verifiable 'irreconcilable contradictions' (even in brief) to make this point valid.

---

To be honest, it's been years since I studied other religions. For the most part I only remember the conclusions I came to at the time/thinking the other religions contradicted themselves.


Though Islam existed before Mohamad, he and his teachings have become the center of mainstream Islam. This is one man, arguably immoral as they come (I'm not trying to be offensive, so sorry if that is too blunt for anyone), without witnesses, claimed to hear God's special instruction for the world one day while in a cave. This instruction is now lived out word for word through Islam. Now, if you're still openminded to Islam at this point I'll continue with the two contradictions I remember about this religion. The contradictions pertain to both Islam and Christianity. Though Islam claims Jesus was one of their prophets (second in line to Mohamad in importance, if I'm not mistaken), it claims that Jesus was not God. But Jesus did claim to be God (the Jewish pharisees also accused him of this) and He did things only God could do (raised the dead including himself, forgave sin, etc.). Islam can't have Jesus as both prophet and liar. Also, if I remember right, Islam holds to the swoon theory in regards to Christ's crucifixion, which is very easily refuted by history and commen sense.


In regards to Judaism, old testament religion was designed to be temporary. This is why old testament law (blood sacrafices, countless ceremonies, nearly impossible regulations; etc. ) aren't carried out today and were generally replaced by various occult practices (numerology, talismans, amulets, and incarnation of divine names and words) in the Cabala that contradict former OT teachings which Judaism claims as it's foundational beliefs.

More info on the Cabala:

http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2886073/k.B02A/DC040.htm

mikesguitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesguitar
I'm just curious what your refutation of this is.

.

Cosmo wrote:

...
Dragons.
Dragons are mythical creatures... same as Unicorns, Griffins, Minataurs and Gargoyles.
The fossils you'll find at Natural History Museums are (although originally misnamed) Dinosaurs. The more we learn about Dinosaurs, the more we discover that they were warm blooded and closer to being related to modern day birds, than reptiles.
The one thing that is uniform in this is Myth. Dragons and creation rely heavily on the Myth factor. Factual data does not come into play.
...
Also... if you choose to believe these to be true... again, God bless you on your journey. I hope you find what you are looking for... Your (relative) Truth.
__________________

I only quickly scanned through the creationism article you posted. I didn't give much thought to the "dragons" bit. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was referring to dinos when he used "dragons". If this is not the case then I feel sorry for that person.

I was asking you why you thought the idea of dinos and humans living in the same time period was impossible.

mikesguitar

Cosmo wrote:

...
It is quite possible that our existance... in this time.. in this place... is the result of this 'Big Bang'. Just one in an infinate series of Big Bangs. Where everything in the Universe expands and contracts.
In very simple terms... like tossing a stone into the air, it reaches a point where acceleration slows and gravity causes it do come back down. In the case of the Universe, all of the matter that was expelled will reach a point where accelleration cannot escape gravity and return to the origin... where it condences... heats up... and **BANG**.

I'm fine with the idea of God creating the world this way but I didn't ever get past the idea of the matter and motion (needed for the bang) not having a way to exist outside of creation.

ClimberInOz

mikesguitar wrote:

I'm fine with the idea of God creating the world this way but I didn't ever get past the idea of the matter and motion (needed for the bang) not having a way to exist outside of creation.

I have (if you'll pardon my arrogance) an above average understanding of modern cosmology. I know that their are many theories that have supporting evidence (it is not just guess work). I also know that when it comes to the origin of the universe we still can only hypothesize based on the conditions we see in the present and early universe.

But all of this is beside the point. Our inability to explain the origins of the universe means only that we do not know how the universe began. It is not evidence in favor of a creator, nor is it evidence that a scientific explanation is forever out of reach. All it means is that we do not know right now.

Consider the very nature of the question we are addressing- it is hardly surprising that many of us have a hard time comprehending the concepts. I understand that faith is the dominant factor in most religous beliefs, but I personally think that it would be selling short the grandness of the universe to assume that, because we cannot yet understand the origins of this...

http://www.jonathanminard.com/EarthSpace/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg

that it must therefore have been created. We have achieved wonderful things in our tiny corner of the solar system, but we must never forget that we are very small and very insignifigant to the universe. If we survive long enough as a species we may well one day know all that there is to know, but we should not expect that to be the case. To do so would be pretentious beyond belief.

Kilgore_Trout

ClimberInOz wrote:

http://www.jonathanminard.com/EarthSpace/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg

i am in AWE everytime i see that photo! thanks!

why anyone would ever want to solve all that instead of just appreciating it is beyond me... there doesnt need to be an answer... the beauty is in the mystery

PJ_Saluki

I would label myself an agnostic. It's the creation of the universe thing I just can't wrap my head around. I sincerely believe there is something out there. I've found myself becoming interested in Judaism, which is strange because I was baptized Catholic, though I don't label myself a Catholic. I guess I have two issues with Christianity -- while I think Jesus was a great prophet and a better guy (from what I've read), the whole "son of God" thing is tough to swallow; my other issue is with free will. I often hear Christians explain that God has a plan for them and guides them. I guess I believe more in free will, which is something Judaism addresses. My main problem with Judaism, however, is its political slant. Practitioners' belief in Israel being the one true state and a one-world Jewish state at some point scares me a little. But then again, I've just started looking into the religion so I'm no expert. Right now I'm content to believe there is something out there, whatever it is, that created everything. I don't think a belief in a higher power automatically means that evolution is bunk. I guess I think if there is a plan it's just part of the plan. A belief in a higher power or creator and a belief in science aren't mutually exclusive, IMO. I guess we'll all find out the answers of an afterlife in whatever form it does or doesn't take when we die.

Cosmo

mikesguitar wrote:

"I do my own interpreting of the Bible. I don't rely on the Church. Anyway, if you take the time to throroughly study the other religions you'll find they have irreconcilable contradictions. Like I mentioned in a previous post, I'm not trying to have an attitude. I'm just putting some info out there in case someone wants to check it out, which I believe would benefit them.

I didn't make myself clear, so I think you misunderstood me. Yeah, other religions contradict Christianity. But, for the most part, my point was that I decided after a lot of research that I believed the other religions contradict themselves.

---

To be honest, it's been years since I studied other religions. For the most part I only remember the conclusions I came to at the time/thinking the other religions contradicted themselves.

Though Islam existed before Mohamad, he and his teachings have become the center of mainstream Islam. This is one man, arguably immoral as they come (I'm not trying to be offensive, so sorry if that is too blunt for anyone), without witnesses, claimed to hear God's special instruction for the world one day while in a cave. This instruction is now lived out word for word through Islam. Now, if you're still openminded to Islam at this point I'll continue with the two contradictions I remember about this religion. The contradictions pertain to both Islam and Christianity. Though Islam claims Jesus was one of their prophets (second in line to Mohamad in importance, if I'm not mistaken), it claims that Jesus was not God. But Jesus did claim to be God (the Jewish pharisees also accused him of this) and He did things only God could do (raised the dead including himself, forgave sin, etc.). Islam can't have Jesus as both prophet and liar. Also, if I remember right, Islam holds to the swoon theory in regards to Christ's crucifixion, which is very easily refuted by history and commen sense.

In regards to Judaism, old testament religion was designed to be temporary. This is why old testament law (blood sacrafices, countless ceremonies, nearly impossible regulations; etc. ) aren't carried out today and were generally replaced by various occult practices (numerology, talismans, amulets, and incarnation of divine names and words) in the Cabala that contradict former OT teachings which Judaism claims as it's foundational beliefs.
More info on the Cabala:
http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2886073/k.B02A/DC040.htm

...
Either you do your own interpretation of the Bible and do not follow any Church... or you don't. You cannot do both without being a walking contradiction. From what you have been saying in this thread... It sounds like you are saying that you have done independent research and have come to the conclusion that Christianity (along with its basic doctrines) is the religion you have chosen to follow.
And it sounds like a contradiction to dismiss the Old Testament as a temporary handshake agreement with God... then, base your belief system on the Old Testament (i.e. Genesis).
I may be mistaken, but, I can only go on what you have supplied.
...
Also, Yes, I am still openminded to Islam... the same openmindedness I hold for Christianity and Judaism.

Cosmo

mikesguitar wrote:

I only quickly scanned through the creationism article you posted. I didn't give much thought to the "dragons" bit. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was referring to dinos when he used "dragons". If this is not the case then I feel sorry for that person.

I was asking you why you thought the idea of dinos and humans living in the same time period was impossible.

...
Because there is no evidence that dinosaurs and Man walked the Earth at the same time. It is a belief that Man and the dinosaurs lived in the same period.
There is evidence that Man and the dinosaurs are seperated by 65 million years.

Cosmo

mikesguitar wrote:

I'm fine with the idea of God creating the world this way but I didn't ever get past the idea of the matter and motion (needed for the bang) not having a way to exist outside of creation.

...
Heat and pressure. That is the scientific explanation, that is known today, that caused the Big Bang.
And matter does not need to have a 'Creator' if it has always existed. For example, I clean and vaccuum my living room and within a week's time, there are dust bunnies under my couch. Those dust bunnies did not exist after I have cleaned and vaccuumed my floors, but the dust particles in the air did exist. God did not create my dust bunnies... that can be explained with simple physics. Your claim is that the dust (matter) needed to be created. My explanation is that the dust was always there.
The Earth, The Solar System, The Sun, The Stars all were created along the same lines. The Earth was formed by cosmic debris that collected and condensed following the basic laws of physics.
...
From what it sounds like, you are trying to disprove Evolution with the basic assumption that there was never any matter in the Universe. If that were the case, then the Universe never existed and somehow appeared... created by God. If that is the case... that everything needs to be created... then, who created God? Where did God come from?
I don't claim to know... I do know that no one knows. We believe. But, belief is not knowledge and belief is not truth. Your belief is based upon the writings of the Bible. I, personally, do not trust the Bible bacause it was written by Man... and for hundreds of years, was only available to the Church (which was also created by Man).
I find more wonder in the world and the stars in the sky... and cast a jaundiced eye at Man made religions.

paige_peach

Cosmo wrote:

...
Personal faith is Personal.
Listen... you have your faith... which I don't have a problem with. Just don't think that your truths (beliefs) apply to me (or anyone else). I'm not going to try to make you doubt your beliefs... as long as you don't try to tell me your Truth.

you know, you didn't have to read his post... he was just opening it up for discussion. And you discussed very well here. I like your points.

The main thing with Christianity is that it is bread to spread. You're not a good Christian if you're not turning souls over to God's side and enforcing your beliefs on everyone. I'd rather calmly read their 'truth' on a forum than get involved with someone trying to stubbornly win over your soul.

Cosmo

paige_peach wrote:

you know, you didn't have to read his post... he was just opening it up for discussion. And you discussed very well here. I like your points.

The main thing with Christianity is that it is bread to spread. You're not a good Christian if you're not turning souls over to God's side and enforcing your beliefs on everyone. I'd rather calmly read their 'truth' on a forum than get involved with someone trying to stubbornly win over your soul.

...
He asked for opinions... well, he got one.
And I suppose I must be mistaken. I was under the impression that a good Christian was someone who took the teachings of Jesus Christ to heart and applied those lessons to his or her everyday life. You know, that whole Blessed are the Peace Maker and the meek stuff. I was not aware that converting others to conform to their belief system was part of the deal.
The center of this specific debate is Evolution versus Creationism. The original post attempts to disregard Evolution as the science it is today and to present Creationism as a legitimate science. I find fault with that because Creationsim is a religious aspect and is not a science. I personally believe that Creationsim belongs in the church, not in the public schools... not in America. We are granted the right to religion... the religion of our choice, not the religion mandated by the state. And with that freedom to choose our religion, it includes the choice of rejecting all religion.
I do not expect anyone to listen to me... I simply express what I feel. I don't expect anyone to adapt my belief nor do I try to disuade someone of theirs. But, I will point out descrepencies in their arguements if they should crop up. I accept other people's beliefs because imagine it comforts them in times of uncertainty, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Jewish.
That's why I believe personal faith as 'personal'. But, if you get bonus points for converting souls... well... I would advise the good Christians that I am not a likely candidate for assimilation. I have my God already. I find Him when I sit on the beach and watch the Sun set to the sound of the surf, not in the pews of a church, mosque or temple or the pages of a book. He loves me and His love for me has no strings attached... regardless of how I fuck things up or question the religions that were created in His name. My God also loves Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists and Atheists... basically all good, descent human beings. He does not discriminate against those who question Him... do not subscribe to Religion X or even do not believe in him. My God is not such a narcissist.
But, that's just me.

mikesguitar

PJ_Saluki wrote:

the whole "son of God" thing is tough to swallow

According to the Bible, God is one God, three persons. The way I see it, He's complicated because He's God. And because of that I'm not surprised by any of the Bible's claims about Him or what He did in the past.

PJ_Saluki wrote:

I would label myself an agnostic. It's the creation of the universe thing I just can't wrap my head around. I sincerely believe there is something out there. I've found myself becoming interested in Judaism, which is strange because I was baptized Catholic, though I don't label myself a Catholic. I guess I have two issues with Christianity -- while I think Jesus was a great prophet and a better guy (from what I've read), the whole "son of God" thing is tough to swallow; my other issue is with free will. I often hear Christians explain that God has a plan for them and guides them. I guess I believe more in free will, which is something Judaism addresses. My main problem with Judaism, however, is its political slant. Practitioners' belief in Israel being the one true state and a one-world Jewish state at some point scares me a little. But then again, I've just started looking into the religion so I'm no expert. Right now I'm content to believe there is something out there, whatever it is, that created everything. I don't think a belief in a higher power automatically means that evolution is bunk. I guess I think if there is a plan it's just part of the plan. A belief in a higher power or creator and a belief in science aren't mutually exclusive, IMO. I guess we'll all find out the answers of an afterlife in whatever form it does or doesn't take when we die.

Cosmo wrote:

...From what you have been saying in this thread... It sounds like you are saying that you have done independent research and have come to the conclusion that Christianity (along with its basic doctrines) is the religion you have chosen to follow.
And it sounds like a contradiction to dismiss the Old Testament as a temporary handshake agreement with God... then, base your belief system on the Old Testament (i.e. Genesis).
I may be mistaken, but, I can only go on what you have supplied.
...
Also, Yes, I am still openminded to Islam... the same openmindedness I hold for Christianity and Judaism

Cosmo wrote:

...



First of all, I do believe in both the old and new testamenst as the inspired Word of God. In regards to Judaism, it also teaches the coming of a Messiah (meaning, God with us). The religious leaders of Jesus' day were aware of His extraordinary miracles, and so were secular historians of that day. The religious leaders wanted to hold onto the religious system and high positions they had. Pride hindered them. Jesus fulfilled every messianic prophecy (70+ if I remember correctly), yet they wouldn't accept it. Jesus' humility, being a messiah yet focused on being a servent to people with spiritual and physical needs, riding into town on a donkey, etc. was disgusting to the religious leaders. They didn't understand the messianic earthly spiritual kingdom concept God had in mind for their day and beyond as a precursor to the future physical earthly kingdom to come. Judaism became financially scandalous and oppressive under the leadership of the pharisees of that day. Judaism, today, is void of the strict foundational practices of the Old Testament. God didn't intend for the Mosaic covenant to be perminent. This is not my idea but it exists in scriptures of New testament teachers and Old Testament prophets. There were various covenants in the Old Testament: Adamic, Abrahamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic, etc. Some of the covenants were temporal and some were perminent. From Pentecost onward Christians have experienced the New Covenant. The creation event in Genesis was not the same subject matter as the Adamic covenant. The creation event was a miraculous display of God's power. The Adamic covenant was an audible promise. Feel free to check out the link I posted about the Cabala.

Cosmo wrote:

...
Either you do your own interpretation of the Bible and do not follow any Church... or you don't. You cannot do both without being a walking contradiction.

Cosmo wrote:

...

I don't see why I couldn't. I simply researched for a number of years until being confident in what I believe. During that time I attended various churches. Now I attend a church where almost everything the pastor teaches is what I already believed. The minor difference he and I have on one non-essiental doctrine, eschatology, is fine with me. For anyone interested, I would strongly recommend a non-charismatic, non-denominational church pastored by a graduate of a highly respected seminary.

mikesguitar

Cosmo wrote:

...
My God also loves Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists and Atheists... basically all good, descent human beings. He does not discriminate against those who question Him... do not subscribe to Religion X or even do not believe in him. My God is not such a narcissist.
But, that's just me.

Surely God loves everyone, and more than likely it's people who reject God, not the other way around. God the Son chose to live out the gospel on earth in order to do away with the Old Covenant and provide an adequate sacrafice for the sins of mankind. Yes, sin is serious. Considering all that Jesus did and suffered through for mankind, I believe it's perfectly reasonable for God the Father to not settle for any less than the religion He designed with Christ's act of compassion at the center. Afterall, this faith is a free gift to those who will receive it.

mikesguitar

Cosmo wrote:

But, belief is not knowledge and belief is not truth. Your belief is based upon the writings of the Bible. I, personally, do not trust the Bible bacause it was written by Man...
.

I did give some of the other reasons for my faith. Anyway, I do find it remarkable what the early Christians submitted themselves to in Nero's day (and other periods) for their faith; having their tongues cut out while their bodies were dipped in tar to burn alive as hanging lamps throughout cities, fed to lions, crucified, beheaded, etc. In addition, Bible manuscript burning campaigns were caried out by armies of various rulers. Despite all these tactics and outlawing of Christianity, in each case the manuscripts were preserved and Christianity continued to spread.

mikesguitar

Cosmo wrote:

...
Because there is no evidence that dinosaurs and Man walked the Earth at the same time. It is a belief that Man and the dinosaurs lived in the same period..

It's seems like I checked into some evidence for the theory in the past. Anyway, I'm still open-minded to old earth creationism.

Cosmo wrote:

...There is evidence that Man and the dinosaurs are seperated by 65 million years.

In the past I read studies which seem to reveal the extreme inaccuracies of carbon dating (with an error margin of well over 100 million years) and other methods. I'm not exactly sure which web pages I read but here are a couple links on the subject: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Here is some info on fossils that I thought was interesting:

Perhaps the classic argument against evolutionary theory comes from the fossilized remains of organisms found to have existed throughout time. If purely natural evolution has actually occurred in the past and all living organisms share a common ancestor then one ought to find the fossilized transitions between one form and another in the fossil record. However, it has been well known since Darwin's time that plausible "transitional fossils" rarely exist:

"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)

Out of tens of thousands of species known from the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be Darwin's missing transitional forms. However, a close analysis of these few fossils (commonly cited ones are Archaeopteryx (a bird), Ambulocetus (a land mammal), and Acanthostega (an amphibian)) reveal that they do not shed any light on the origin of the important features of their respective groups. Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould said,

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould, 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)

Gould proposed a theory called "Punctuated Equilibrium" which is meant to account for the lack of transitional forms, saying we dont find transitional forms because transitions didnt have a chance to be fossilized. But punctuated equilibrium does not fit with the workings of genetics--too much biological complexity must be built with far too few rolls of the dice. The lack of transitional forms remains unaccounted for and is a strong evidence against evolution. See Phillip Johnsons, "Darwin on Trial" for a good account of problems with the fossil record.

PJ_Saluki

mikesguitar wrote:

Surely God loves everyone, and more than likely it's people who reject God, not the other way around. God the Son chose to live out the gospel on earth in order to do away with the Old Covenant and provide an adequate sacrafice for the sins of mankind. Yes, sin is serious. Considering all that Jesus did and suffered through for mankind, I believe it's perfectly reasonable for God the Father to not settle for any less than the religion He designed with Christ's act of compassion at the center. Afterall, this faith is a free gift to those who will receive it.

You're looking at it from a Christian slant. Some of us do not agree that Jesus was the physical form of what we consider God. The exclusivity of religion bothers me. That's why I'm on the metaphorical fence in a lot of ways. (metaphorical was a wasted word...I'm not actually sitting on a fence ) As for the Jesus freebie, there is nothing free in any choice one makes.

PJ_Saluki

mikesguitar wrote:

It's seems like I checked into some evidence for the theory in the past. Anyway, I'm still open-minded to old earth creationism.




In the past I read studies which seem to reveal the extreme inaccuracies of carbon dating (with an error margin of well over 100 million years) and other methods. I'm not exactly sure which web pages I read but here are a couple links on the subject: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Here is some info on fossils that I thought was interesting:

Perhaps the classic argument against evolutionary theory comes from the fossilized remains of organisms found to have existed throughout time. If purely natural evolution has actually occurred in the past and all living organisms share a common ancestor then one ought to find the fossilized transitions between one form and another in the fossil record. However, it has been well known since Darwin's time that plausible "transitional fossils" rarely exist:

"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)

Out of tens of thousands of species known from the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be Darwin's missing transitional forms. However, a close analysis of these few fossils (commonly cited ones are Archaeopteryx (a bird), Ambulocetus (a land mammal), and Acanthostega (an amphibian)) reveal that they do not shed any light on the origin of the important features of their respective groups. Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould said,

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould, 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)

Gould proposed a theory called "Punctuated Equilibrium" which is meant to account for the lack of transitional forms, saying we dont find transitional forms because transitions didnt have a chance to be fossilized. But punctuated equilibrium does not fit with the workings of genetics--too much biological complexity must be built with far too few rolls of the dice. The lack of transitional forms remains unaccounted for and is a strong evidence against evolution. See Phillip Johnsons, "Darwin on Trial" for a good account of problems with the fossil record.

So is this an argument against evolution? Is that what this thread is about? And if it is, who cares? I don't see how those ideas can't come together. Literal interpretation of the bible seems intellectually weak.

mikesguitar

Someone asked why I sent my friend the email (that was part of it). I sent it after I found out he was interested in Dawkins' book. I knew the book was extremely inaccurate. I introduced him to Christianity years ago, so I felt like I should give him advice these days about the subject.


Someone also mentioned Pat Robertson in this thread. I'm not going to doubt his Christianity but there are some Christian morons in the world who dull the image of Christianity... He's way off the deep end about certain spritual gifts existing when they ceased long ago, believing Israel is solely God's chosen people under the New Conenant and the U.S. being judged by God for siding with Pakistan, etc. Respected teachers (though not really theologians) within Christianity would include Hank Hanagraaf, John McArthur, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Micheal Easley, etc.

mikesguitar

PJ_Saluki wrote:

You're looking at it from a Christian slant. The exclusivity of religion bothers me. .

I know what you mean, but it would be a lot of work typing 'this is what I believe' before or after each statement .

PJ_Saluki wrote:

As for the Jesus freebie, there is nothing free in any choice one makes.

Well, it wasn't free for Christ. He paid a price. Christians can't earn salvation though, so it's free to those who have faith in Christ. This is what I believe