Is there really a god?

[a4a]

This debate could go on for over 20 years ........oh wait it has been going on longer than that.

 

Believers answers are: It is in the bible, I believe what I feel, so it is true..... not many have mentioned that it is their family tradition to "believe". blah blah blah

 

Non-believers: There is physical evidence which points to evidence that evolution is the correct belief and that we were not all spawned from Adam and Eve. blah blah blah.

 

I think we can all agree that the Egyptians did exist? Are they not mentioned in the bible and we have physical evidence? Of course you do have people that deny the holocaust ever took place.

 

What is the real basis for the debate about God? Do you care if I believe chocolate is better than vanilla? Why are so many so trying to defend their belief?

 

a4a- going hunting for a biscotti

[Moai]

This debate could go on for over 20 years ........oh wait it has been going on longer than that.

 

Believers answers are: It is in the bible, I believe what I feel, so it is true..... not many have mentioned that it is their family tradition to "believe". blah blah blah

 

Actually, most believers don't believe that the Bible is literally true. Fundamentalists do, but they are a small minority within the larger group of Christians. Most Christians haven't read the Bible.

 

Non-believers: There is physical evidence which points to evidence that evolution is the correct belief and that we were not all spawned from Adam and Eve. blah blah blah.

 

Most scientists, no matter in which field they work, believe in god. Evolution is the same as gravity, fluid dynamics, or light waves/particles. The fact that there is gravity in no way has anything to do with evidence for or against god.

 

One doesn't "believe" evolution the way someone "believes" in god. Believing in god is an act of faith, while belief in evolution (and every other physical aspect of reality) is not. And as I have mentioned, one has nothing to do with the other.

 

The problem arises when the realities of the physical world bump into the claims of the Bible. The phsyical world around us shows that the Bible cannot be literally true. But there are those that worship the Bible, and as such cannot accept what is right in front of them. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. I have heard it argued that Fundamentalists actually worship the Bible and not the god described therein, and in many ways that makes sense.

 

I think we can all agree that the Egyptians did exist? Are they not mentioned in the bible and we have physical evidence? Of course you do have people that deny the holocaust ever took place.

 

Good point. Yes, the Egyptians are mentioned in the Bible, and we have phsyical evidence that they existed. They exist now, in fact. We have no evidence that they enslaved the Hebrews, though.

 

There are many things that are not mentioned in the Bible that we know exist, like black holes and dark matter.

 

People believe weird things. There are Holocaust deniers, people who maintain that we did not land on the Moon, and that aliens are abducting people and probing them.

 

What is the real basis for the debate about God? Do you care if I believe chocolate is better than vanilla? Why are so many so trying to defend their belief?

 

a4a- going hunting for a biscotti

 

Another good question. Sometimes it seems to me that those who would deny reality in favor of their book have the weakest faith of all. They seek to demonstrate that their book is true and real by psuhing it into the realm of science, where it doesn't belong. Who does that?

 

I just got around to reading your post, and you raised some interesting points I wanted to respond to. Having read your posts, I would guess that you know everything that I have written, but I responded to you because some of these ideas haven't yet been brought up.

 

So, thanks!

[a4a]

Actually, most believers don't believe that the Bible is literally true. Fundamentalists do, but they are a small minority within the larger group of Christians. Most Christians haven't read the Bible.

 

 

 

Most scientists, no matter in which field they work, believe in god. Evolution is the same as gravity, fluid dynamics, or light waves/particles. The fact that there is gravity in no way has anything to do with evidence for or against god.

 

One doesn't "believe" evolution the way someone "believes" in god. Believing in god is an act of faith, while belief in evolution (and every other physical aspect of reality) is not. And as I have mentioned, one has nothing to do with the other.

 

The problem arises when the realities of the physical world bump into the claims of the Bible. The phsyical world around us shows that the Bible cannot be literally true. But there are those that worship the Bible, and as such cannot accept what is right in front of them. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. I have heard it argued that Fundamentalists actually worship the Bible and not the god described therein, and in many ways that makes sense.

 

 

 

Good point. Yes, the Egyptians are mentioned in the Bible, and we have phsyical evidence that they existed. They exist now, in fact. We have no evidence that they enslaved the Hebrews, though.

 

There are many things that are not mentioned in the Bible that we know exist, like black holes and dark matter.

 

People believe weird things. There are Holocaust deniers, people who maintain that we did not land on the Moon, and that aliens are abducting people and probing them.

 

 

 

Another good question. Sometimes it seems to me that those who would deny reality in favor of their book have the weakest faith of all. They seek to demonstrate that their book is true and real by psuhing it into the realm of science, where it doesn't belong. Who does that?

 

I just got around to reading your post, and you raised some interesting points I wanted to respond to. Having read your posts, I would guess that you know everything that I have written, but I responded to you because some of these ideas haven't yet been brought up.

 

So, thanks!

 

 

You are welcome Moai, and I enjoyed your answers and thoughts on my points. I would tend to agree with you on the majority of your views. Thank you for further insight on some of the thoughts I had. Which I too agree with your above thoughts on those.

 

Belief in evolutions and scientist belief in a creator. ect. good points I left out.

 

 

Y

[wizdom]

Moia i don't know what christians you were talking to because we do believe the Bible but we do not worship it.

[Moai]

Moia i don't know what christians you were talking to because we do believe the Bible but we do not worship it.

 

Most Christians don't, but there is a small percentage that do.

 

Bibliolotry is what it's called, I think. Basically, when someone rejects objective reality in favor of what is written in a book they are idolizing the book and not the god described therein.

[wizdom]

Moai it clear you really do not understand what being a Christian is all about and frankly it is sad.

[Moai]

Moai it clear you really do not understand what being a Christian is all about and frankly it is sad.

 

I don't think that it is as clear as you think it is. I actually understand what being a Christian is all about quite well--whether Catholic, Protestant, Fundamentalist, or even Mormon. You must know that all Christians do not believe the same things, right?

[Toni_no12002]

What is being a christian all about?

[quankanne]

Christian --->>> willingly following Jesus as you navigate through life. About being a lovemonger because you try to do right by your fellow man as you're following God's command to love one another. Because when you show that love, you're mirroring the love you have for him.

 

going back to your previous post, about the Bible, many of us see it as a tool of guidance and support as we make our spiritual journey, hence our belief that it's based in spiritual truth. And most of us can more easily cope knowing that we can identify with someone else's experiences – heck, just look at all the letters from the lovelorn in these forums, and all the excellent advice that's given – and the Bible gives us role models of people who kept the faith. Job, Elizabeth, Mary, the apostles, Ruth, Esther.

 

I really believe before you responded you asked the question what would Jesus do and you were lead by the Holy Spirit in your response. It was not judgemental or condesending at all. God bless you.

 

thank you, wizdom -- but it's really Him at work, not me. I don't consider myself the brightest of crayons in even the best of times!

 

Bibliolotry is what it's called, I think. Basically, when someone rejects objective reality in favor of what is written in a book they are idolizing the book and not the god described therein.

 

that makes a certain amount of sense, because sometimes it seems more important to thwack someone across the head while making your point than it is to reach out in belief and modeling the very God you're trying to share with others.

[wizdom]

Moai all people who call themselves Christians are not Chrisitans. Infact a lot of people are just plain religious. I am going to break down why I call myself a Christian. I am not speaking for anyone else. Being a Christian means having a personal relationship with God. It means that I believe in my heart and confess with my mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and that he died on the cross for my sins. I believe in the Holy Spirit who makes him known to me. Once I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart he sent his Holy Spirit to dwell in me. Thus the term Christian was coined. He tells us to be like Christ walking as he walked and living as he did. Jesus Christ is the only sinless human being that ever walked the face of this earth. God does not expect us to be perfect but he does expect us to strive to be like him, to spend time with him. I have to go home now but I will finish explaining tomorrow.

[Moai]

Moai all people who call themselves Christians are not Chrisitans.

 

Actually, anyone who claims to be a Christian is one. To suggest otherwise is a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

 

Infact a lot of people are just plain religious. I am going to break down why I call myself a Christian. I am not speaking for anyone else. Being a Christian means having a personal relationship with God. It means that I believe in my heart and confess with my mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and that he died on the cross for my sins. I believe in the Holy Spirit who makes him known to me. Once I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart he sent his Holy Spirit to dwell in me. Thus the term Christian was coined. He tells us to be like Christ walking as he walked and living as he did. Jesus Christ is the only sinless human being that ever walked the face of this earth. God does not expect us to be perfect but he does expect us to strive to be like him, to spend time with him. I have to go home now but I will finish explaining tomorrow.

 

Christians of all sects would agree with the above.

[barfool]

God does not expect us to be perfect but he does expect us to strive to be like him, to spend time with him.

 

Sorry for butting in but this just occured to me. If god truly loves everyone so much then wouldn't he/she rather see us happy in our lives regardless of whether we believe in him/her? If I am happy and do not hurt others and god loves me then why would he/she send me to burn for eternity upon death? This doesn't seem like unconditional love to me...

[a4a]

Sorry for butting in but this just occured to me. If god truly loves everyone so much then wouldn't he/she rather see us happy in our lives regardless of whether we believe in him/her? If I am happy and do not hurt others and god loves me then why would he/she send me to burn for eternity upon death? This doesn't seem like unconditional love to me...

 

 

I would agree with you Bar. Kinda contradicts the whole love and free will and the rest of the song and dance. But what do I know I am from Idaho.

 

a4a- today I proclaim myself a russet

[Admiral Thrawn]

Sorry for butting in but this just occured to me. If god truly loves everyone so much then wouldn't he/she rather see us happy in our lives regardless of whether we believe in him/her? If I am happy and do not hurt others and god loves me then why would he/she send me to burn for eternity upon death? This doesn't seem like unconditional love to me...

 

The way that is resolved is in the fact that God does not send people to hell, but people, following the devil, send themselves there. That goes on a directional concept. If you are on a road, you go in one direction, that leads to a destination. If you go in another direction, that goes to another destination.

 

The Bible describes the road to hell as being a broad road, and the way to heaven as being straight and narrow. God can not be liable for a decision from a free-will moral agent to choose to go on the wrong road. So, unconditional love in preventing people from going to hell is limited by respect and honour of the free-will of the moral agent.

[barfool]

The way that is resolved is in the fact that God does not send people to hell, but people, following the devil, send themselves there.

 

Interesting, Admiral.

 

How about this hypothetical situation:

Say that on an island where there is no christianity there is a person who leads as perfect of a life as a human can. This person inadvertantly does everything the bible says you should do to be a good christian but he/she just never actually "accepted Jesus" or prayed to a god because no one told him/her about all that.

You're telling me this person would still go to hell and burn for all eternity?

[Admiral Thrawn]

Interesting, Admiral.

 

How about this hypothetical situation:

Say that on an island where there is no christianity there is a person who leads as perfect of a life as a human can. This person inadvertantly does everything the bible says you should do to be a good christian but he/she just never actually "accepted Jesus" or prayed to a god because no one told him/her about all that.

You're telling me this person would still go to hell and burn for all eternity?

 

Judgement depends on how much revelation people have of God. You can only be liable for something on the degree in which you know better.

 

People who do not know God in the Bible have an understanding based on nature, their own concience, the sky, and they seek after God. In your case, an example of a revelation of God was some sort of 'love' preventing you from committing suicide. If you had committed suicide, you would have rejected that manifest 'love', and therefore have rejected whatever light you had of God. God reveals Himself in different ways to people and it is usually reflecting a concept of love. How God reveals Himself to someone else, I would not be sure, and/or how they respond to that. So, God is love.

 

People who desire to have more 'light' or truth, simply will get it. If they cant or are unable to, as in your hypothetical situation, then they are judged on how they treated any 'light' or revelation of God in their life. If the Gospel were presented to them, and they are accepting 'light', then it is fair to assume they would have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior because that is their heart.

[wizdom]

to post a quick reply to you barfool. God said that ever body will hear about Jesus Christ before they die. That's why we have missionary's to go tell them about christ. God is not a man that he should lie so he will make sure they have a chance to hear about God before they die. Most people that live in remote areas like that they believe in one God that has the power to save them. i don't think God cares what you call him as long as you believe that their is one God that created you. But to answer you question everyone who goes to hell made a conscious effort to reject God.

[quankanne]

You're telling me this person would still go to hell and burn for all eternity?

 

I say 'no,' because only God knows the true heart of man, whether or not man knows of him. There's an innate goodness that we're conceived with because we are created in the image of God, and if, for some inexplicable reason, a person steers around things and situations he senses as "wrong" (for whatever reasons), he's still following the light of God. He doesn't have to necessarily know God to chose to be a good person, just simply submit himself to those graces as they unfold before him.

 

one man cannot say 'heaven' or 'hell' for another, he doesn't know the final act, only God does. This theorectical person on the deserted island will be judged by his creator on his own merit, not through our own limited understanding of how things work.

[wizdom]

quankanne and admiral your replies were right on!

[Admiral Thrawn]

to post a quick reply to you barfool. God said that ever body will hear about Jesus Christ before they die.

 

Where is that said in the Bible?

 

That's why we have missionary's to go tell them about christ. God is not a man that he should lie so he will make sure they have a chance to hear about God before they die.

 

There is no records of the Apostles going into India, or across the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean to talk to the native Indians in the Americas, or in other small islands not discovered yet. How was the Gospel presented to them?

[wizdom]

Where is that said in the Bible?

 

in matthew 24:14. you should read the whole verse b/c it is Jesus speaking to his disciples.

 

There is no records of the Apostles going into India, or across the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean to talk to the native Indians in the Americas, or in other small islands not discovered yet. How was the Gospel presented to them?

 

That's a good question. Are there any records that people even lived in those areas yet?

[Admiral Thrawn]

That's a good question. Are there any records that people even lived in those areas yet?

 

First, Matthew 24:14 was reviewed. The Gospel preached all over the world is actually a condition precedent before the end coming. Since the end has not occurred say for example, in the year 1500 A.D., then it follows, not all the world, in 1500 A.D. has heard the Gospel, unless you wish to say the end has occurred in 1500 A.D.

 

The records are based on the fact that Christopher Columbus 'discovered' the Americas in 1492 AD and enslaved the indigenous people there. Prior to the European discovery of americas, these indigenous people did not have anyone come over by boat to see them, and they had their own type of religion which had nothing to do with Christianity.

 

So, going back to barfool's hypothetical example, what is the account of the eternal destination of indigeneous peoples say, between 1400 AD to 1475 AD, or indigenous people there who died within those years, who never heard the Gospel? Is that fair? Then, when they saw the European people, who may have had missionaries and claimed to be 'Christian', they were enslaved, worked to death with their women raped and virtually descimated so they had to enslave Africans to take their place.

 

In other words, the indigenous peoples did not have any form of Christianity before the European settlers, and the version of Christianity they were exposed to from the Europeans were cancelled out by their barbarious atroceties, so they had no true exposure to the Gospel.

 

What is their account?

[quankanne]

There is no records of the Apostles going into India, or across the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean to talk to the native Indians in the Americas, or in other small islands not discovered yet. How was the Gospel presented to them?

 

through oral tradition. Documentation doesn't take place through written record, but through stories about the faith that teaching missionaries shared as they evangelized in foreign lands. The Jesuits and Franciscans came to the New World to evangelize; church history teaches that St. Thomas himself evangelized in India, and we've got Indian priests working in this country who can trace the roots of Christianity in their country back to his presence.

 

the indigenous peoples did not have any form of Christianity before the European settlers

 

Sister María Jesús Agreda, a 17th century Franciscan nun, evangelized by bi-locating to the New World in the early 1630s by telling the indigenous peoples about Christ. shell.amigo.net/~tmv/Special_Inv4.html

 

according to the link, the nun was at the center of controversy because of this, but at the height of her 1635 trial by officers of the Inquisition, "a newly returned expedition of conquistadors and friars" arrived back in Spain with tales of encountering different Native American tribes in what we know as the American Southwest who'd already been converted to Christianity, taught "by a white-skinned 'Blue Lady'" who evangelized natives in their own languages, helping "them to build crosses and places of worship, and even handed out rosaries and religious objects."

 

the version of Christianity they were exposed to from the Europeans were cancelled out by their barbarious atroceties, so they had no true exposure to the Gospel.

 

does this mean the work done by televangelists and other "fallen" representatives of Christianity is discredited as well?

[Admiral Thrawn]

Sister María Jesús Agreda, a 17th century Franciscan nun, evangelized by bi-locating to the New World in the early 1630s by telling the indigenous peoples about Christ. shell.amigo.net/~tmv/Special_Inv4.html

 

according to the link, the nun was at the center of controversy because of this, but at the height of her 1635 trial by officers of the Inquisition, "a newly returned expedition of conquistadors and friars" arrived back in Spain with tales of encountering different Native American tribes in what we know as the American Southwest who'd already been converted to Christianity, taught "by a white-skinned 'Blue Lady'" who evangelized natives in their own languages, helping "them to build crosses and places of worship, and even handed out rosaries and religious objects."

 

However, that is outside of the period between 1400 AD - 1470 AD, indeed, is outside of any period prior to 1492 AD, which is really the time-line issue of contention. This is in support of the fact that the Gospel was not preached to indigenous peoples.

 

Is that a fact that you wish to contest? I've never heard the indigenous people were reached by anyone prior to 1492 AD.

 

the version of Christianity they were exposed to from the Europeans were cancelled out by their barbarious atroceties, so they had no true exposure to the Gospel.

 

does this mean the work done by televangelists and other "fallen" representatives of Christianity is discredited as well?

 

On a case-by-case basis, no generalisations. Since you are making a generalisation, I respecfully disagree. If you want to refer to a specific televantelist or a specific representative of Christainity, then build a case on that.

 

I am making a case, however, of the European settlers, because they were out for gold and enslaving and raping the indigenous peoples. The institutions that they created there were not Christian.

[Admiral Thrawn]

However, that is outside of the period between 1400 AD - 1470 AD, indeed, is outside of any period prior to 1492 AD, which is really the time-line issue of contention. This is in support of the fact that the Gospel was not preached to indigenous peoples.

 

Is that a fact that you wish to contest? I've never heard the indigenous people were reached by anyone prior to 1492 AD.

 

The reason is, these indigenous people, all of them were not seeking after the true God, except maybe one person, who may have done so just around 1492 AD, and that is why the European people and missionaries discovered America around that time. Since we do not know what is in these people's hearts, then this is a possible scenerio that would reconcile that dillemma.

Everyone who is truely seeking God will hear the Gospel.

 

I am making a case, however, of the European settlers, because they were out for gold and enslaving and raping the indigenous peoples. The institutions that they created there were not Christian.

 

Most of the people may have been bad examples of Christianity, but that does not preclude honest missionaries who may have been called to go there along the bunch as well.