Do you really believe in god? From agnostic.

[quankanne]

but numerous times Jesus says "repent and all will be forgiven".

 

well, kiddo, ya gotta look past the obvious act of saying "I'm sorry" to understand what repentence truly is about – of how you pretty much prostrate yourself by reconciling with the ones you hurt by your behavior and truly going about not wallering in that particular sin again – to grasp what Jesus is asking.

 

yeah, it sure looks good when you've got some sinning televangelist crying and confessing on TV, but what is in his heart is revealed to God … if that sinner truly does repent, the slate's wiped clean and he merits forgiveness. But if it's just lip-service, well, that all comes out in the wash the way an unreformed prisoner returns to his bad ways.

[j_hunt_12]

same thing with the "truth" of the Bible. You've got to remember that it's a book that reflects man's spiritual journey and evolution, written in metaphor so that the audience could wrap it's collective mind around these things. Do I believe that the world was created in six days? Yes and no. Yes, because I believe that with God all things are possible, but I also realize that God's schedule isn't mine nor is his concept of time similar to mine (case in point, gestating women, who are told by their doctors that based on the information given them, Baby's gonna arrive on or about X day. But we all know that Baby's gonna arrive whenever he's good and ready to arrive and not a minute before!!)

 

Thank you, that's a more logical answer I want to hear. If I grew up with that maybe I'd be much more righteous today, but I wasn't. I agree with the evolution thing. I've never cited that as a reason. I've always looked at that as a metaphor. It's the other stuff that got me down.

 

Call me an uneducated flamer? buddy let's keep it cool.

Ahh I hate arguing this, and I always do it. It's a bad habit of mine, and now I have to go to sleep... it's late where I'm at. It's been fun, but I'll probably peace out after this post cause I always feel bad after making this arguments, because of my upbringing I still got it in me. I'll read the responses though.. later

[j_hunt_12]

Quankannes last post. I know man. I was brought up Christian. Later... it's been real good.

[Moose]

Oh, are one of those sites yours? Even if one was, what makes you think I was specifically talking about you? Context man, context!

[Rooster_DAR]

Yet the same is true of many who do not believe in a God...there is that hope that if there is no God, then I do not have to answer to a God

 

I think you are a very smart and informed individual JamesM, but this assumption is not correct. Well, perhaps for some skewed individuals this could be the case, but not for myself or many of the other people who believe as I do.

 

To some extent I would prefer to believe in God and his promises, but I just cannot seem embrace the ideas of both modern or ancient scriptures.

 

Cheers!

[Rooster_DAR]

I'd like an entity watching over me and keeping me from getting hurt.

And I really would like to go to heaven and see all my loved ones that passed away. I'd also like that constant spiritual high, that god seems to give (I'm a happy person, but I don't feel like 'Hallelujah' all the time).

 

But it's not real.

 

As a kid I tried to have contact with god, but there is nothing there, no answers, no light, no happy feelings, no joy, no salvation, just you talking to yourself. Also the stories from the bible didn't make sense to me, Jesus walking on water and curing lepers, hell... it's so childish. The worst they could think of back then was burning alive, if the bible was written today they would probably describe hell as eternal loneliness. It's made up. As a child I figured out that much.

Now I study biochemistry and know all about evolution. It makes, as incomplete as the theorie is now, so much sense in biology, pathology, fysiology. From the few religious people in my class, none of them doubt evolution, they all are 'forced' to incorperate evolution into their belief.

And as I see it, if the bible is wrong on one thing, why would I believe in any of it?

 

Exactly!!!!

 

Could not have said it better myself.

[Rooster_DAR]

Been there, done that. Every single solitary one of them are full of non-theologians, intellectual wanna be's, and un educated flamers.

 

I asked you what do YOU mean by contradictions? I'll start another thread just for this topic.

 

 

This is just a plain ignorant response to post. I suppose Charles Darwin and Nicholas Copernicus were wanna-be intellectuals too, might as well throw in anyone who has contributed to mankind with reasoning and critical thinking.

 

This is exactly why 16th century Holland open the enlightenment for mankind and boasted some of the worlds greatest intellects and artists. They were finally free from the governs of religious dogma's that held these kind of assertions.

[Moose]

This is just a plain ignorant response to post. I suppose Charles Darwin and Nicholas Copernicus were wanna-be intellectuals too, might as well throw in anyone who has contributed to mankind with reasoning and critical thinking.

 

This is exactly why 16th century Holland open the enlightenment for mankind and boasted some of the worlds greatest intellects and artists. They were finally free from the governs of religious dogma's that held these kind of assertions.

Charles Darwin and Nicholas Copernicus where pretty fart smellers.....um errr.....smart fellers. But they knew nothing of Scripture.

 

Let me rephrase for those who are taking what I say out of context:

 

"Every single solitary one of them are full of non-theologians, intellectual wanna be's, and Biblically uneducated flamers."

 

There, does that clarify it enough for ya all???

 

I figured most people would see, "flamer" and understand that.....but ya never know.....

[j_hunt_12]

It's such an easy argument that real academics don't even waste their time. Why would they. Because the only counter-argument is "It was a metaphor" or "The Bible is about believing not questioning of faith" or "But it is about TRUE repentance, you just have to repent to understand it". Answer my earlier response. No preacher or preast ever could, those were the easier ones. And sorry I couldn't site where they are in the Bible, but they are there. I've actually read the Bible quite a bit and when I ask, I'm the unbeliever? That was my churches stance.

 

Really going to sleep now.. 2:00

[Moose]

Slavery-obey your masters?

The term is, "servant" and yes we all should obey our masters or "boss". It is also said that, "masters" or bosses should treat their slaves, or servants like they would want to be treated.

I cant even begin to describe how many times I've seen in the Bible passages that secure you a place in hell.

So it should be clear to you that man needs a Saviour, yes? That's what Christ did for us on the cross.

 

We'll always have a sin debt to pay, no matter what! You're completely correct that man doesn't stand a chance.

 

Christ pays your sin debt, past/present and yes even future. If you receive Him with a contrite heart you'll not be perfect, and yes you will still have sin in your life. But now you'd have Christ working in you and through you and as a result your life would be totally changed.

 

Again, not perfect, you will sin, and you will trip up now and again. But Christ will always be there to forgive you if you're sincere about it.

 

Where these the questions you wanted me to answer?

[DutchGuy]

Charles Darwin and Nicholas Copernicus where pretty fart smellers.....um errr.....smart fellers. But they knew nothing of Scripture.

 

Let me rephrase for those who are taking what I say out of context:

 

"Every single solitary one of them are full of non-theologians, intellectual wanna be's, and Biblically uneducated flamers."

 

There, does that clarify it enough for ya all???

 

I figured most people would see, "flamer" and understand that.....but ya never know.....

 

Hah!

Darwin knew the scriptures front to back. He was a christian if there ever was one, when he wrote the origin of species he only doubted the old testament but still believed in god. It wasn't after a long time that he became atheistic.

 

And Copernicus was a catholic cleric!

[j_hunt_12]

I really need to go to bed but I always like to debate. These numerous passages came in the New Testament by the desciples after Christ died on the cross for our sins. Why would there be a passage after this revelation on the cross that says there are unforgivable sins? Shouldn't they have known better than to preach this after Christ died on the cross for all sinners, when salvation can always be reached no matter what you've done in your past? This is a contradiction, and the justification merely comes to beliefs anyways: the belief in Christ's meaning when he died on the cross. You can say that this is merely a pivotal matter in the Bible and as a whole and agree with it, but there ARE contradictions and not all demoninations deny this. Mine did because of that little passage somewhere that says that, if you ignore any part or condemn the Word in any way, you'll will surely meet your fate in eternal damnation. That passage is why people believe so devoutly believe, but a man wrote that, not God.

[Moose]

I really need to go to bed but I always like to debate. These numerous passages came in the New Testament by the desciples after Christ died on the cross for our sins. Why would there be a passage after this revelation on the cross that says there are unforgivable sins? Shouldn't they have known better than to preach this after Christ died on the cross for all sinners, when salvation can always be reached no matter what you've done in your past? This is a contradiction, and the justification merely comes to beliefs anyways: the belief in Christ's meaning when he died on the cross. You can say that this is merely a pivotal matter in the Bible and as a whole and agree with it, but there ARE contradictions and not all demoninations deny this. Mine did because of that little passage somewhere that says that, if you ignore any part or condemn the Word in any way, you'll will surely meet your fate in eternal damnation. That passage is why people believe so devoutly believe, but a man wrote that, not God.

I will address this a little later so you can get some rest. But I'm sure I can clarify this for you.

He was a christian if there ever was one, when he wrote the origin of species he only doubted the old testament but still believed in god. It wasn't after a long time that he became atheistic.

 

And Copernicus was a catholic cleric!

I'll address this too....

[JamesM]

Hah!

Darwin knew the scriptures front to back. He was a christian if there ever was one, when he wrote the origin of species he only doubted the old testament but still believed in god. It wasn't after a long time that he became atheistic.

 

And Copernicus was a catholic cleric!

 

Actually, Darwin was headed for clergy school but doubted the truth of the Bible. When he came back from his trip, he still believed that there was a God. According to his biography which I cannot find a link for, he became an agnostic after the death of his daughter Annie.

 

I did find this link about his life.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF6-00Roberts.html

 

I did not find anything that suggested he "knew the scriptures front to back." Do you know where you read this or can your provide a link that shows this? So many assertions are made about him, but some backing would be helpful.

[quankanne]

According to his biography which I cannot find a link for, he became an agnostic after the death of his daughter Annie.

 

happens quite often, because when there are no instant or gratifying answers to answer the big question people have about loss, it's easier for them to say "I don't believe" than to say "I do"

 

Why would there be a passage after this revelation on the cross that says there are unforgivable sins? Shouldn't they have known better than to preach this after Christ died on the cross for all sinners, when salvation can always be reached no matter what you've done in your past? This is a contradiction, and the justification merely comes to beliefs anyways: the belief in Christ's meaning when he died on the cross.

 

makes sense to me that there are exceptions to the rule; that sins against the Spirit are pretty serious indeed – it's hammering home that if you profess to believe, it must be a profession of heart and mind and soul, not just mouth …

[Moose]

According to his biography which I cannot find a link for, he became an agnostic after the death of his daughter Annie.

 

happens quite often, because when there are no instant or gratifying answers to answer the big question people have about loss, it's easier for them to say "I don't believe" than to say "I do"

 

Why would there be a passage after this revelation on the cross that says there are unforgivable sins? Shouldn't they have known better than to preach this after Christ died on the cross for all sinners, when salvation can always be reached no matter what you've done in your past? This is a contradiction, and the justification merely comes to beliefs anyways: the belief in Christ's meaning when he died on the cross.

 

makes sense to me that there are exceptions to the rule; that sins against the Spirit are pretty serious indeed – it's hammering home that if you profess to believe, it must be a profession of heart and mind and soul, not just mouth …

Wow, I don't think I need to say anything now!

[DutchGuy]

Actually, Darwin was headed for clergy school but doubted the truth of the Bible. When he came back from his trip, he still believed that there was a God. According to his biography which I cannot find a link for, he became an agnostic after the death of his daughter Annie.

 

I did find this link about his life.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF6-00Roberts.html

 

I did not find anything that suggested he "knew the scriptures front to back." Do you know where you read this or can your provide a link that shows this? So many assertions are made about him, but some backing would be helpful.

 

From your site:

As well as studying maths and logic, he read much theology and some of his notes are still in Cambridge Library. The notes show that he completely believed in the historical reliability of the New Testament.

A scholar like Darwin is very likely to actually studie something before agreeing with it.

 

From: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality.

Quoting the Bible as an authority shows both knowledge of the scriptures as believing them.

[Rooster_DAR]

I did not find anything that suggested he "knew the scriptures front to back." Do you know where you read this or can your provide a link that shows this? So many assertions are made about him, but some backing would be helpful.

 

I believe the statement was the he/they did not know a lick about scripture, not whether they were well versed in it.

[JamesM]

From your site:

 

A scholar like Darwin is very likely to actually studied something before agreeing with it.

 

Yes, it does seem he knew the Bible to some degree.

 

From: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

 

Interesting page from his book. It does tell alot about his interest, knowledge, and extent of his belief in the Bible. How much he knew is implied, yet it seems likely that he knew it. This does beg the question that even if one reads the Bible thoroughly, does this mean he or she knows what he or she is reading. Not saying that Darwin did or did not, but this is always a question.

 

I find it interesting to read this part (and yes I have before) with light on the discussions we have had here recently. It seems that natural selection is not his only reason or even main reason for losing his belief in God.

 

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.

 

And this is a damnable doctrine[2]

 

Yes, it is. But it is also a doctrine of hope and joy. Simply not believing in God and His Word does not eliminate the reality of this doctrine.

 

Quoting the Bible as an authority shows both knowledge of the scriptures as believing them.

 

In his case, yes, it does indicate that he had an idea of what he was talking about.

 

Thanks for the link. It helps to have something like this when making assertions. And it is educational to learn. While I do not agree with the conclusions Darwin made, I can see what caused him to lose his belief in a God. Others with the same evidence have drawn exactly the opposite conclusions.

[JamesM]

I believe the statement was the he/they did not know a lick about scripture, not whether they were well versed in it.

 

I agree. Dutchboy made an assertion to the effect that I quoted, and I was hoping he could provide a link that would support it. He did provide a link that showed that Darwin had a good idea of what he was talking about...which is enough.

[AlleyCat77]

Even today, higher education in England requires theology lessons. This was especially true in Darwins time. England is not nearly as secular as the US. They still have a state sponsored religion with the queen at the head. I think.

[D-Lish]

Hah!

Darwin knew the scriptures front to back. He was a christian if there ever was one, when he wrote the origin of species he only doubted the old testament but still believed in god. It wasn't after a long time that he became atheistic.

 

And Copernicus was a catholic cleric!

 

Other important figures to emerge from the "age of reason" , many of which sought to reconcile science and religion.... And some that wished to prove otherwise.

 

1) Kant

2) Newton

3) Hume

4) Pierre Laplace

5) Galileo

 

Just some important figures to take into conisideration that might add further insight to your topic. Google them.... I couldn't possibly go into details on a forum.

[D-Lish]

I agree. Dutchboy made an assertion to the effect that I quoted, and I was hoping he could provide a link that would support it. He did provide a link that showed that Darwin had a good idea of what he was talking about...which is enough.

 

Yes, these men did have Christian backgrounds...

Most of the controversy had to do with Creation and Genesis...

Some of these scientists tried to disprove the Creation story altogether...others tried to reconcile religion with science....and yet others tried to completely seperate the two but still kept their faith.

 

It's all interesting stuff- an interesting period "the age of reason"...

[DutchGuy]

Now it's all blurry, although all Christians are in contact with god (and he knows the rules) they can't come with anything consistent.

 

of course not: Social mores change from generation to generation, as does man's perception of things, hence "no one talking about evolution" before Darwin came on the scene. We're looking at stuff today that would blow Darwin's mind because it would have been unthinkable in his time. But it's not lying, just not possessing a full sense of awareness.

 

same thing with the "truth" of the Bible. You've got to remember that it's a book that reflects man's spiritual journey and evolution, written in metaphor so that the audience could wrap it's collective mind around these things. Do I believe that the world was created in six days? Yes and no. Yes, because I believe that with God all things are possible, but I also realize that God's schedule isn't mine nor is his concept of time similar to mine (case in point, gestating women, who are told by their doctors that based on the information given them, Baby's gonna arrive on or about X day. But we all know that Baby's gonna arrive whenever he's good and ready to arrive and not a minute before!!)

 

This is my whole point.

Since when doen the bible give allegories and metaphores?

And how would you possibly know which parts of the bible are literal and which aren't?

The way I see it, the first christians believed in the bible and therefore in god. The bible is sort of the first 'theory of life'. As time moves on more and more parts of that theory become outdated untill there's nothing left but the idea of a god, omnipotent and omniscient, caring and loving.

Why do we keep believing in god, when the fundament of this belief, the bible, is gradually being discarded as plausible?

 

Is 'god' to be taken litarally?

God is omniscient yet at a certain point he was 'displeased with his creation', why create a situation you know you won't be pleased with? And if it was intended to at first be incomplete, why be displeased then?

Furthermore an omnipotent being wouldn't need 6 days to create life but no time at all. A god that is everywhere wouldn't need to ask Cain where Abel is.

Reason enough to think of 'god' as a metaphor, right?

 

Maybe you'll say that the bible was written by people, and that people are inaccurate, but why not question the god that the bible speaks of?

After all, 'god' was also described by these inaccurate people...

 

PS Actually, babies come when the mother is good and ready.

[quankanne]

The bible is sort of the first 'theory of life'. As time moves on more and more parts of that theory become outdated untill there's nothing left but the idea of a god, omnipotent and omniscient, caring and loving.

Why do we keep believing in god, when the fundament of this belief, the bible, is gradually being discarded as plausible?

 

you're thinking in a literal sense of the Bible, and not looking at it as a record of man's spiritual journey. Because to look at it otherwise is to believe that it has outgrown its plausibility.

 

as for metaphor, the story of fishes and loaves comes to mind. In reality, you and I know that there's no way in hell that five little fish and several loaves of bread are going to feed the multitudes who have made day trips to hear and see Jesus. But we do know from practical experiences of potluck suppers, the dish that feeds four can feed a gathering of 20, of 35, of 60 when there's other food shared – the story of fishes and loaves is about the hospitality fostered by that gathering, when people opened up their hearts and were generous with what little they had, so much so that they had enough leftovers to fill the baskets. Because we know from our own experiences that you don't make a long journey without making sure you've got at least some munchies to take along!

 

Actually, babies come when the mother is good and ready.

 

:D:D try telling that to those mamas who seem like their waiting forever for natural labor to kick in! I'm telling you, little ones are completely on a schedule of their own, even the ones who are planned C-sections and the doctor is waiting for the right moment they can safely deliver.