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

mikesguitar · May 2008

dissidentman wrote:

A must read:

http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion

If I'm not mistaken, Hank Hanagraaf and/or his staff
have answered Richard Dawkin's criticism. I'm not sure
if they answered it in book form or in a CRI
journal/news letter (some of these can be read for
free online). Dawkins had no understanding at all of the
certain scriptures he criticized in his book. You could always research Hank's
rebuttals for a comparison to see for yourself.

I'll briefly explain one of the main reasons why Dawkin was fighting an imaginary battle while writing his book. As controversial (symbolic and
mysterious) as the subject of eschatology (book of
Revelation/end times) is, Dawkins seems to have
foolishly based most of his argument against one of
several eschalogical systems of interpretation,
futurism/pre-millenialism, which I believe is a false
system of interpretation to begin with. In other
words, even if Dawkins was correct, which I believe he
wasn't (even premillenialists have a solid case
against his misunderstanding of scripture) he would
have no argument against my method of eschalogical
interpretation, since I follow Orthodox preterism. You
could read Hank Hanagraaf's "The Apocalypse Code" to
gain a correct understanding of the statement about
"this generation" made by Jesus. Dawkins has an
incorrect understanding of the statement because it
seems that Dawkins has no clue at all about the
complicated subject of eschatology. I wonder if he
even understands that there are Christian
interpretations other than futurism and premillenialism.
The beginning chapters of a book by Steve Gregg, Revelations/Four Views, would give anyone interested an understanding of the many 'isms' (methods of
interpretation) of eschatology.

mikesguitar · May 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

An observation noted on both sides.

Probabilities in science close the gap on this more than anything man has come up with thus far.

At a certain point, the law of probabilities becomes substantially more than a guess.

I don't have time for a long technical discussion, but I'll explain a bit of where I'm comming from. I use the law of probability for an understanding of why the earth is in this one optimum position in the milky way with the corresponding laws of the universe supporting it. I can't consider this obvious, pinpoint accurate design for sustenance of life as a mere coincidence. When asked about this subject, most Darwinists sidestep the issue with 'there must be millions of planets like this out there somewhere'. The DVD, ThePrivileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe by
Jay W. Richards, is a good place to start on this topic, IMO. It can be found at http://www.equip.org/store/topical.asp?Div=Types&Da=y&Author=&TopID=&Keyword=&K2=&DeptID=204&SubID=&List=all .

I have no real problem with the idea of an old earth, as many Christians hold to a day/age, old-earth belief. It's spontaneous generation and macro-evolution that I see no shred of evidence anywhere for. It's a shame those two doctrines were forced upon students for a number of years. The DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life (can be found at http://www.equip.org is excellent. The DVD does a great job in showing how evolution gives no account for the origin of genetic info for either protein or the flagellar motor assembly. It seems clear to me that a law of probability points to creation being the cause of such sophisticated life. I challenge any evolutionist to view the DVD with an open mind.

On the subject of archeopteryx, the following info is definately worth a read.
From Hank Hanegraaff's book, The Bible Answer Book
Vol. 1:

"Is Archeopteryx The Missing Link Between Dinosaurs
And Birds?Whenever I say (during my radio show) that there are
no transitions from one species to another, someone
inevitably brings up Archeopteryx. This happens so
frequently that I've decided to coin a word for the
experience: pseudosaur. Pseudo means false and saur
refers to a dinosaur or reptile (literally lizard).
Thus, a pseudosaur is a false link between reptiles
(such as dinosaurs) and birds. Myriad evidences
demonstrate conclusively that Archaeopteryx is a
full-fledged bird: not a missing link.First, fossils of both Archaeopteryx and the kinds
of dinosaurs Archaeopteryx supposedly descended from
have been found in a fine-grained German limestone
formation said to be Late Jurassic (the Jurassic
period is said to have begun 190 million years ago,
lasting 54 million years). Thus, Archaeopteryx is not
a likely candidate as the missing link, since birds
and their alleged ancestral dinosaurs thrived during
the same period.Furthermore, initial Archaeopteryx fossil finds gave
no evidence of a bony sternum, which led
paleontologists to conclude that Archaeopteryx could
not fly or was a poor flyer. However, in April 1993 a
seventh specimen was reported that included a bony
sternum. Thus, there is no further doubt that
Archaeopteryx was as suited for power flying as any
modern bird. Finally, to say that Archaeopteryx is a missing link
between reptiles and birds, one must believe that
scales evolved into feathers for flight. Air friction
acting on genetic mutation supposedly frayed the outer
edges of reptilian scales. Thus, in the course of
millions of years, scales became increasingly like
feathers until, one day, the perfect feather emerged.
To say the least, this idea must stretch the credulity
of even the most ardent evolutionist.These and myriad other factors overwhelmingly
exclude Archaeopteryx as a missing link between birds
and dinosaurs. The sober fact is that Archaeopteryx
appears abruptly in the fossil record, with
masterfully engineered wings and feathers common in
the birds observable today. Even the late Stephen Jay
Gould of Harvard and Niles Eldridge of the American
Museum of Natural History, both militant
evolutionists, have concluded that Archaeopteryx
cannot be viewed as a transitional form. For further study, see Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The
Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, Calif.: Institute for
Creation Research, 1995); and Jonathon Wells, Icons of
Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington D.C. Regnery,
2000).Genesis 1:25
God made the wild animals according to their kinds,
the livestock according to their kinds, and all the
creatures that move along the ground according to
their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

sponger · May 2008

redmosquito10 wrote:

Where did religion originally come from then if everyone is born an atheist?

The answer lies in obedience theory.

According to obedience theory, a vast overwhelming majority of people will obey a perceived "authority" even when it means sacrificing their own personal beliefs.

This was proven in the Milgram experiments, whereby volunteers were coerced into committing what they believed was serious, deadly, bodily harm to an unwilling individual simply because they were being "instructed" to by an authority figure.

It proved that the holocaust could happen anywhere because it is human nature to follow orders in spite of there being a moral conflict involved.

People are naturally social beings. That is, we survive by being social. We learn from birth that we need a family to survive, and we insinctively "admire" our parents because they are the caregivers who know what's best for us.

And that is how the concept of a god is born. God is merely the manifestation of our need to admire something. Our need to admire something is derived from our need to seek a sense of safety within a society.

Religion capitalizes on that need to admire a "greater" thing by creating the ultimate caregiver (aka parent), which is god. God is anything that is "good" for society.

And thus is the dichotomy of our sense of morality. On the one hand, we respect life. On the other, we need the lives of others to sustain our own.

In the process, we lose sight of what it is that truly makes us compassionate human beings. While we recognize individual human beings as possessing characteristics similar to ourselves, we also recognize the "greater good" that is achieved by putting the needs of our "neighbors" before ourselves.

That "greater good" is a concept which at times can dilude our own sense of self. That is also the birth of culture. It is why people, rather than identifying with their own individual characteristics, would rather identify with the culture in which they were raised.

This lost sense of self leaves a question mark in the backs of their minds, and that question mark is answered with "God."

Religion is, essentially, immoral. It is for those who lack beliefs -who lack a solid foundation for the appreciation of life and the development of the individual human will.

And that's why I always say...the question is not whether or not there is a god. The question is why people need to believe in one in the first place.

You'll find that the types of personalities that look to religion for answers generally happen to be extremely naive and overly simplistic when it comes to understanding human nature and the intricacies of societal behavior.

mikesguitar · May 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

But here's the thing: what makes you believe there is a god? I don't want to get into a full-on god/no-god debate here, because it's futile and will just get locked after 9 pages of crap, but I don't think atheists have to justify a lack of faith. If you asked people why they don't believe cars exist, I could see your point, but it's not like there's undeniable proof that there is a god.

I doubt you will see God's face in the sun one day while hearing a ground shaking command to accept Christ as your savior. Here are some (not all) of the ways He has made Himself known:

Creation: The earth in all it's complexity has
design written all over it. If a basketball needed created
then how much more the earth and beyond? Put a
watch in a paper bag and then take a sledge hammer
to it. The pieces aren't going to go into place and
function no matter how much time passes. There is nearly an infinite amount of scientific creation evidence extant for anyone who's interested to check it out.

Darwinism is teetering and it's inevitable demise is
foreseen by a rapidly increasing number of scientists worldwide. Darwinism is outdated in an advanced scientific era. Scientists
today know he had no clue of the complexity of a
single human cell (stretch one out and the genetic
information reaches for miles) when he spoke of
spontaneous generation. Why doesn't SG happen
today within or outside of a lab? Billions of normal
fossils and skeletons have been found but nothing at all
transitional. Darwin himself said if this missing
link wasn't soon found (which has long passed) then his theory would be debunked.

Archaeological evidence: Cities, specifics like
monuments, buildings, artifacts, etc. match O.T.
history.

Fulfilled Bible prophecy: The O.T. prophecy of the
temple to be destroyed was fulfilled in N.T. times.
There are many other similar examples.

Fulfilled messianic prophecy: More than a hundred were listed
in the O.T. and Jesus fulfilled them all, including
many he couldn't have possibly controlled: his leg was
not broken by Roman soldiers despite that being the
customary norm for anyone on a cross, a crown of
thorns was placed on his head, his clothes were
gambled for, etc. etc.

Bible harmony: There were close to a hundred authors involved
in writing the Bible who were from different races, linguistic barriers,
time periods, regions, and cultures, but a common
gospel theme and total harmony is found from cover to cover. Each book
totally harmonizes with the whole in each aspect. No
claimed Bible contradictions have ever been proven.

The empty tomb and evidence of the gospel accounts:
Jame's, the brother of Jesus, abrupt turn from his
pre-resurrection adamant rejection of Jesus' claims
of being the messiah to dying for his faith after
witnessing the resurrected Christ, Peter's and the
disciples' cowardice and rejection of Christ pre-resurrection
but post-rez being bold as lions and dying for their
faith (Peter, with humility, even requested to die upside down rather than be hung upright on a cross like Christ) , God choosing Mary Magdalene to be the first eye witness of the resurrected Christ despite the fact
that womens' testimonies weren't even allowed in
court in that day (she would have been the worst candidate
to be used for a hoax story. She was not only a
woman but a former prostitute), God's sovereignty which
insured the rise of Christianity despite severe
government persecution by both the Jewish and Roman
governments, etc. etc. See Lee Strobel's book "Case for Christ" for much more.

For anyone interested in finding a good church or Christian advice, good examples can be found at the following link. I'm not an affiliate. I'm just a listener.

http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231013

mikesguitar · May 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I think it's equally important to be informed about what you're accepting. I find it pretty depressing knowing there are people going to church just cos it's what they do on a Sunday, or saying that god exists just cos they never took the time to consider other possibilities.

Then there are many others who go to church to worship God because of who He is and the eternal life they have through Him.

sponger · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

because of who He is and the eternal life they have through Him.

"because they admire power and want to live forever"

that is, after all, what you're saying.

It's just hard for a lot of people to act like decent human beings without being able to associate such behavior with something "greater" than just being a decent human being. That's why they need religion.

They lack a natural sense of morality. They are empty, belief-lacking shells of people they may have once been before being brainwashed by...whomever. Religion is immoral. Churches are houses of self-deception.

mikesguitar · May 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I'll put it to you this way: if you were born into a proverbial vaccuum, with no religious influence from parents, schools, churches, etc, would your first instinct be to say "Oh yeah, God's work. All of it"?

Two cents for ya, even though you weren't typing to me. Yeah, that would be the first instinct, along with the instinct to say "but who cares". Unless God draws someone, the desire to have an intimate relationship with Him isn't there. The real question is, do people have to be completely rewired to have this desire. In other words, does God throw out a lifeline and lead us to grab it. Or, as the calvinist would believe, does God see a lifeless body at the bottom of the ocean and breath life into it.

mikesguitar · May 2008

Cosmo wrote:

...
Have you ever heard of that saying... where God is like a mountain, which can be approached by many paths... which all reach to the top? Yeah, some paths are easier to ascend, while others are rough and trecherous. But, in the long run... they all end up at the same place.
to me... religions are the different paths. The God of the Bible, the Quran and the Torah are the same thing. He is also the same thing Buddhists, Hindus and native American Indians believe in... and the spiritualists. It's all the same and your way works for you. Just accept it and move on.
No need to worry about me. Just because I do not choose to folow in your footsteps, doesn't mean i'm looking for the same thing.
I have no problem with God... and my grievences with Religion is waning. I usually have problems when God's fans... who have time and time again shown me... act and say things that are in complete opposition of what they claim to be.
So... if i decide to take a more adventerous route to find God... that's on me. Let me be.

The Bible teaches a gospel that is totally at odds with the messages of the other religions you mentioned.

mikesguitar · May 2008

[quote But, as far as I can tell, that is not a true sense of humility. The fact that we suddenly "behave" because we've discovered a "higher" being that is all powerful and is capable of laying down supreme consequences does not make us humble.."[/quote]

A mature Christian doesn't follow God because of fear. Also, we don't "behave" on our own. God is responsible for the gradual changes.

[quoteWhat makes us humble is our ability to see ourselves who for we really are, not for who we'd like to believe we are and acknowledge in other people the parts of ourselves that we see in them [/quote]

That is part of it. I agree.

[/quote]Often I hear of the religious talking as if they know something about humility just because they recognize that a god exists and follow his supposed wishes.[/quote]

So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being humble due to the fact that they've read about humility in the Bible?

.[/quote]Even the simplest pattern of thinking that we all exhibit, the hierarchy of needs, was discovered in relatively recent history.

The concept of a god and religion steps in and fills the holes of understanding for which people yearn to be filled. That's why we see comments like this:

They refuse to acknowledge the HUMBLE nature of our simple existence..[/quote]

Our existance is anything but simple though. Ask any scientist, atheist or Christian. So if a person believes it's wise (benificial to himself and others) to ponder the origin of life, it's somehow his/her pround yet insecure crutch?

[/quote]If "God" was not a "higher" "supreme" being who is "all-powerful", then there would be no appeal. .[/quote]

If "God" was not a "higher" "supreme" being who is "all-powerful", then He wouldn't be God and wouldn't have the ability to create.

.[/quote]Religion is, in fact, immoral. It teaches people to take on an immoral style of thinking towards their fellow man and to other living things..[/quote]

Since you don't believe in God, who changes the heart which leads to change of behavior, then ok. I believe otherwise. Are there also instances of Christian immaturity and failure? Yes, of course.

[/quote]A most recent example that I can think of is something I saw on Animal Planet the other day. A veterinarian was saving the life of a stray cat, and she goes, "This cat deserves to live because it is one of god's creatures."
In other words, she did not have any true sense of compassion for this cat. Instead, she used her desire for a sense of "greatness" to motivate her to save the cat's life. Instead of, "I feel compassion for this cat because it is another living thing, and therefore I feel an emotional connection," she essentially went, "Because a supreme, all-powerful being wants me to keep this cat alive, it therefore deserves to live."[/quote]

So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being compassionate due to the fact that they've read about compassion in the Bible?

."[/quote]Sad, really, that religion does nothing more than suck any chance of a true humanitarian sense of well-being from a person's good-naturedness, and replaces it with a desire to fulfill the supposed wishes of a supreme being.."[/quote]

What 'need' would there be to feel a sense of well-being after doing a good deed? Would there be pride and/or insecurity involved in that? Isn't the good deed all about the need of the person on the receiving end?

sponger · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being humble due to the fact that they've read about humility in the Bible?

The bible doesn't really address humility in its true form. You have delivered a loaded question.

Our existance is anything but simple though. Ask any scientist, atheist or Christian. So if a person believes it's wise (benificial to himself and others) to ponder the origin of life, it's somehow his/her pround yet insecure crutch?

Your statement is in contradiction to the OP quote that I posted. The OP quote stated that an understanding of life should not be available to a select few who study for many years.

Also....you mention pondering the origin of life. Christians do not ponder the origin of life. Rather, they claim to know it. Huge difference...

Since you don't believe in God, who changes the heart which leads to change of behavior, then ok. I believe otherwise. Are there also instances of Christian immaturity and failure? Yes, of course.

This is what I'm talking about...you believe that a change for the better can only be derived from an outside influence.

The truth is that morality lies within. We find our sense of morality by looking into our own ability to be compassionate human beings.

Otherwise, it is a coerced behavior, and coerced moral behavior simply isn't moral.

So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being compassionate due to the fact that they've read about compassion in the Bible?

Nice...another loaded question. You assume that the bible teaches compassion. It teaches an obedience to God. That is the foundation for christianity, is it not?

It's not whether or not God's will is compassionate; it's that God will is the will of a being who created the universe, and therefore deserves our allegiance. Do you honestly stop and question whether God's will is truly compassionate?

The concept is called Divine Command, and it represents a cold and immoral approach to acts of compassion.

What 'need' would there be to feel a sense of well-being after doing a good deed? Would there be pride and/or insecurity involved in that? Isn't the good deed all about the need of the person on the receiving end?

If that were true, then it wouldn't matter if a creature was that of God's making or not.

According to the veterinarian in my example, the cat deserved to live not because there is a natural sense of well-being to be derived from doing a good deed, but because a supreme being commands it so.

Alas, I am disappointed once again in religion's ability to persuade me that God's will represents a true sense of morality.

It seems that you, mikesguitar, couldn't respond without loaded, rhetorical questions that side-stepped the points that I was making. Why am I not surprised?

The answer is that religion is simply an instrument of control for people who lack a natural sense of morality. I'm very sorry to put it that way, but I do BELIEVE that it is in your best interests if there is any hope for you to eventually discover the good within you that exists without the crutch of religion.

mikesguitar · May 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesguitar
because of who He is and the eternal life they have through Him

sponger wrote:

"because they admire power and want to live forever"

that is, after all, what you're saying..

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I know a lot of Christians who thoroughly researched religions (atheism and Christianity included) before comming to their conclusions. They believe in Christianity as a result of their research. They believe there's a hell because they believe the Bible accurately represents the words Jesus spoke about the subject. They don't like the idea of eternal seperation from the loving God they've experienced throughout much of their lives. I'm sure the idea of escaping "eternal torment" is fine with them also.

..[/quote]It's just hard for a lot of people to act like decent human beings without being able to associate such behavior with something "greater" than just being a decent human being. That's why they need religion. ..[/quote]

In other words, it's hard for them to take credit for their good deeds. Genuine humility often has that effect on people. I see nothing wrong with it.

They lack a natural sense of morality. They are empty, belief-lacking shells of people they may have once been before being brainwashed by...whomever.

Or maybe they see themselves in hindsight and appreciate the positive changes God has brought to pass in them, without dwelling on themselves and those changes, but instead focus their attention on doing good for the benifit of others.

..[/quote]Religion is immoral.quote]

I don't know whether or not you were also speaking in general terms with that statement. I don't even need to argue on behalf of Christianity's world-wide outreach to the basic physical needs of millions.

sponger · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I know a lot of Christians who thoroughly researched religions (atheism and Christianity included) before comming to their conclusions. They believe in Christianity as a result of their research.

That's called an appeal to authority. You suggest that these people are right simply because they've done research. Very simplistic thinking....

They believe there's a hell because they believe the Bible accurately represents the words Jesus spoke about the subject. They don't like the idea of eternal seperation from the loving God they've experienced throughout much of their lives. I'm sure the idea of escaping "eternal torment" is fine with them also.

Evidence to god's power...as I was saying.

Also...you mention their wanting God's "love." The truth is that if God not was not an all-powerful being, they wouldn't care much for it. What they really want is acceptance from a perceived authority figure.

That's why I mention obedience theory. Statistically, it has been proven that people will value acceptance from an authority figure over their own personal beliefs.

God is that authority figure.

In other words, it's hard for them to take credit for their good deeds. Genuine humility often has that effect on people. I see nothing wrong with it.

Wow, you completely twisted my words. Well, that's your style of writing it seems.

My point is that they would not be committing those good deeds were it not for religion, and religion allows them to commit good deeds because it lends them the glory of the greatness of god, and also keeps them out of hell. That's not humility. That's fear and vanity.

After all, Christians believe that good deeds are the result of a belief in God...fear and vanity.

Or maybe they see themselves in hindsight and appreciate the positive changes God has brought to pass in them, without dwelling on themselves and those changes, but instead focus their attention on doing good for the benifit of others.

Like you said earlier...it's a fear of going to hell. Now you're changing your story. Again...it's what I'm beginning to expect from you.

I don't know whether or not you were also speaking in general terms with that statement. I don't even need to argue on behalf of Christianity's world-wide outreach to the basic physical needs of millions.

In the name of avoiding hell and living in the greatness of god.

Simply put, coerced moral deeds are not moral deeds no matter what the result.

Your logic is that the ends justify the means. Such logic is immature and lacking in a moral foundation. Such is the plight of those who find solace in religious doctrine.

mikesguitar · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

Quote:
So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being humble due to the fact that they've read about humility in the Bible?

The bible doesn't really address humility in its true form. You have delivered a loaded question.

You assume that the bible teaches compassion.

Jesus, during meetings with Pilate and others, had plenty of opportunities to avoid any kind of punishment. The humility He displayed in living a completely selfless life for strangers, being severely punished (having his flesh torn to shreds by a cat of nine tails, etc.), the extent of the mental torture, and an excruciating death was humility and compassion at it's best. The events were even documented in the work of well-known non-christian historians. I recall one of the names being Josephus. You can just say you don't believe any of it. That's fine.

Quote:
Our existance is anything but simple though. Ask any scientist, atheist or Christian. So if a person believes it's wise (benificial to himself and others) to ponder the origin of life, it's somehow his/her pround yet insecure crutch?

Your statement is in contradiction to the OP quote that I posted. The OP quote stated that an understanding of life should not be available to a select few who study for many years.

Deep theology isn't the topic we're on. Even a child can be influenced by reading simple acts of kindness. You didn't grow up in a bubble, so you were influenced by hundreds of people, directly and indirectly.

Also....you mention pondering the origin of life. Christians do not ponder the origin of life. Rather, they claim to know it. Huge difference...

Again, I personally know many Christians (and have heard testimonies of many I don't know) who have explained how they have researched atheism, christianity and other religions, which involved pondering science and the orgin of our existance. For them, their conclusion, which they're very confident about, is a case that has many aspects.

Quote:
Since you don't believe in God, who changes the heart which leads to change of behavior, then ok. I believe otherwise. Are there also instances of Christian immaturity and failure? Yes, of course.

This is what I'm talking about...you believe that a change for the better can only be derived from an outside influence.
My point was that through the reminders (I don't know how else to put it) of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Triune God, Christians behave 'better' than 'they' otherwise would without Him. Christians are also given a new nature to work with, so not all good behavior is a result of the Holy Spirit's guidance.

Children become better sons and daughters, poor behaving students become better behaving students, dishonest employees become honest employees, etc. Various people, christian and non-cristian, go through various stages in life. And yes, I do believe pride toward acknowledging God can be an ultimate (eternal) stumbling block for many.
The truth is that morality lies within. We find our sense of morality by looking into our own ability to be compassionate human beings.

I guess in the end you'll find out whether compassion and humility toward God, encompassed by faith, was necessary.

Otherwise, it is a coerced behavior, and coerced moral behavior simply isn't moral.

I didn't say I was convinced that people were incapable of doing truly genuine good deeds before becoming Christians. I'm undecided on this.

Quote:
So are you arguing that a Christian (with God's help) isn't capable of actually being compassionate due to the fact that they've read about compassion in the Bible?

It teaches an obedience to God. That is the foundation for christianity, is it not?

No. Faith in Christ/God is the foundation of Christianity. The Bible teaches that we're not saved by good works but that good works result from our faith.
The concept is called Divine Command, and it represents a cold and immoral approach to acts of compassion.

It's not whether or not God's will is compassionate; it's that God will is the will of a being who created the universe, and therefore deserves our allegiance.

God communicated in His Word that his instruction is what is truly best for us. God (the Father/The first person of the Trinity) does deserve reverence. I have no problem with that. Christ (Jesus, the 2nd person of the Trinity) deserves our allegiance because of who He is, but most importantly because of what He did on our behalf.

Do you honestly stop and question whether God's will is truly compassionate?

I did plenty when I was much younger. I don't now.

Quote:
What 'need' would there be to feel a sense of well-being after doing a good deed? Would there be pride and/or insecurity involved in that? Isn't the good deed all about the need of the person on the receiving end?

If that were true, then it wouldn't matter if a creature was that of God's making or not.

You would have to elaborate more on that. I missed your point.

According to the veterinarian in my example, the cat deserved to live not because there is a natural sense of well-being to be derived from doing a good deed, but because a supreme being commands it so.

I don't have a problem believing a non-christian, a pre-christian, and a christian can all help animals for completely genuine reasons.

Alas, I am disappointed once again in religion's ability to persuade me that God's will represents a true sense of morality.

There are different levels of Christian maturity. Some Christians do good deeds only (or partly) because they think they should. Some Christians do good deeds because it feels natural to them. Other Chrstians do good deeds because they are promted to by the Holy Spirit sometimes and other times it feels natural to them. There's too many variances to list.

It seems that you, mikesguitar, couldn't respond without loaded, rhetorical questions that side-stepped the points that I was making. Why am I not surprised?

I'm sorry you feel that way.

The answer is that religion is simply an instrument of control for people who lack a natural sense of morality.

I'm not trying to control anything. I created this thread with the hope that it would somehow benefit someone.

I'm very sorry to put it that way, but I do BELIEVE that it is in your best interests if there is any hope for you to eventually discover the good within you that exists without the crutch of religion.

At this point in life I don't seperate my faith from any good thing I might do. I don't bother keeping score. To be honest, I don't even think about the deed itself.

Rhinocerous Surprise · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

I doubt you will see God's face in the sun one day while hearing a ground shaking command to accept Christ as your savior. Here are some (not all) of the ways He has made Himself known:

Creation: The earth in all it's complexity has
design written all over it. If a basketball needed created
then how much more the earth and beyond? Put a
watch in a paper bag and then take a sledge hammer
to it. The pieces aren't going to go into place and
function no matter how much time passes. There is nearly an infinite amount of scientific creation evidence extant for anyone who's interested to check it out.

Darwinism is teetering and it's inevitable demise is
foreseen by a rapidly increasing number of scientists worldwide. Darwinism is outdated in an advanced scientific era. Scientists
today know he had no clue of the complexity of a
single human cell (stretch one out and the genetic
information reaches for miles) when he spoke of
spontaneous generation. Why doesn't SG happen
today within or outside of a lab? Billions of normal
fossils and skeletons have been found but nothing at all
transitional. Darwin himself said if this missing
link wasn't soon found (which has long passed) then his theory would be debunked.

Gimme a break. If you want to believe that evolution is all tripppy science junk, have at it, but don't use your misinformation to prove a point to anyone else.

Archaeological evidence: Cities, specifics like
monuments, buildings, artifacts, etc. match O.T.
history.

Yes, and Star Wars was filmed in Death Valley, Texas. Are you saying Jawas exist?

Fulfilled Bible prophecy: The O.T. prophecy of the
temple to be destroyed was fulfilled in N.T. times.
There are many other similar examples.

A lot of Nostradamus' prophecies have come true too. Should I worship him as some sort of god? Or is it possible that if you make enough stabs in the dark, some of them happen eventually, in some form or another? Besides, when it comes to proving the Bible's points, another book of the Bible isn't where I'd turn.

Fulfilled messianic prophecy: More than a hundred were listed
in the O.T. and Jesus fulfilled them all, including
many he couldn't have possibly controlled: his leg was
not broken by Roman soldiers despite that being the
customary norm for anyone on a cross, a crown of
thorns was placed on his head, his clothes were
gambled for, etc. etc.

Bible harmony: There were close to a hundred authors involved
in writing the Bible who were from different races, linguistic barriers,
time periods, regions, and cultures, but a common
gospel theme and total harmony is found from cover to cover. Each book
totally harmonizes with the whole in each aspect. No
claimed Bible contradictions have ever been proven.

The empty tomb and evidence of the gospel accounts:
Jame's, the brother of Jesus, abrupt turn from his
pre-resurrection adamant rejection of Jesus' claims
of being the messiah to dying for his faith after
witnessing the resurrected Christ, Peter's and the
disciples' cowardice and rejection of Christ pre-resurrection
but post-rez being bold as lions and dying for their
faith (Peter, with humility, even requested to die upside down rather than be hung upright on a cross like Christ) , God choosing Mary Magdalene to be the first eye witness of the resurrected Christ despite the fact
that womens' testimonies weren't even allowed in
court in that day (she would have been the worst candidate
to be used for a hoax story. She was not only a
woman but a former prostitute), God's sovereignty which
insured the rise of Christianity despite severe
government persecution by both the Jewish and Roman
governments, etc. etc. See Lee Strobel's book "Case for Christ" for much more.

I think it's great that you're willing to put your faith in this. I really do.

kh65 · May 2008

After seeing this it seems to me that science today is not open minded and has replaced Darwin with God.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

eyedclaar · May 2008

kh65 wrote:

After seeing this it seems to me that science today is not open minded and has replaced Darwin with God.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

I have no problem with that. I'll place my faith in the science and research of a highly educated individual over the Easter Bunny any day. Oh, and science isn't supposed to be open minded per se, so much as it focuses on facts and figures.

kh65 · May 2008

eyedclaar wrote:

I have no problem with that. I'll place my faith in the science and research of a highly educated individual over the Easter Bunny any day. Oh, and science isn't supposed to be open minded per se, so much as it focuses on facts and figures.

Fascist

mikesguitar · May 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesguitar
I doubt you will see God's face in the sun one day while hearing a ground shaking command to accept Christ as your savior. Here are some (not all) of the ways He has made Himself known:

Creation: The earth in all it's complexity has
design written all over it. If a basketball needed created
then how much more the earth and beyond? Put a
watch in a paper bag and then take a sledge hammer
to it. The pieces aren't going to go into place and
function no matter how much time passes. There is nearly an infinite amount of scientific creation evidence extant for anyone who's interested to check it out.

Darwinism is teetering and it's inevitable demise is
foreseen by a rapidly increasing number of scientists worldwide. Darwinism is outdated in an advanced scientific era. Scientists
today know he had no clue of the complexity of a
single human cell (stretch one out and the genetic
information reaches for miles) when he spoke of
spontaneous generation. Why doesn't SG happen
today within or outside of a lab? Billions of normal
fossils and skeletons have been found but nothing at all
transitional. Darwin himself said if this missing
link wasn't soon found (which has long passed) then his theory would be debunked.

Gimme a break. If you want to believe that evolution is all tripppy science junk, have at it, but don't use your misinformation to prove a point to anyone else.

I'm not claiming to be a genius in regards to science, but I feel like I understand it. What part was misinformation? For starters, can you mention a source of orininal matter and motion or a legitimate transitional missing link? What exactly then are you putting your faith in?

Quote:
Archaeological evidence: Cities, specifics like
monuments, buildings, artifacts, etc. match O.T.
history.

Yes, and Star Wars was filmed in Death Valley, Texas. Are you saying Jawas exist?

Archaeological evidence is one small peice of the puzzle. Specific cities and artifacts have been unearthed from specific depths, which have lead scientists to believe in the miraculous. If a person has trouble believing an all powerful God wasn't able to perform miracles then at least the cities, buildings, artifacts, etc. being the same as described in the Bible should be worth something.

Quote:
Fulfilled Bible prophecy: The O.T. prophecy of the
temple to be destroyed was fulfilled in N.T. times.
There are many other similar examples.

A lot of Nostradamus' prophecies have come true too. Should I worship him as some sort of god? Or is it possible that if you make enough stabs in the dark, some of them happen eventually, in some form or another? Besides, when it comes to proving the Bible's points, another book of the Bible isn't where I'd turn.

Bible prophecy is specific. There wasn't any stabbing in the dark before getting it right. Nostradaumus' prophecies were generalized to the max. I studied the Nostradaumus prophecies. Can you name a Nostradaumus prophecy that you believe is legitimate? Non-Biblical sources (Josephus, etc.) have some of the prophecies and miracles of the Bible recorded.

Cosmo · May 2008

mikesguitar wrote:

The Bible teaches a gospel that is totally at odds with the messages of the other religions you mentioned.

...
So?
My point is that there are many paths towards God... not just yours. You happen to choose the path as outlined in the Bible as interpreted by the doctrine of the Church. It works for you... which I happy for.
It does not mean your way is the only way and it does not mean anyone else has to follow you.

eyedclaar · May 2008

kh65 wrote:

Fascist

Is that all it takes to be considered a fascist these days. Awesome! I thought I might have to actually initiate a dictatorial philosophy that placed nation and race above the individual... or something. I didn't know it was so easy. Woo-hoo! I'm a fascist! This whole time I thought I was heavily armed environmental nut job. Who knew?

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

Comments

Categories