Archived - A thread about nothing....

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by scorpion311
How is this a lottery? Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. The choice is basically believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and repent or believe one of the other three. If you do not believe that he is Lord and Savior and accept him into your heart, then you don't get to heaven.

You know Scorp, that's an interesting statement and one that brought a thought to my mind.

Mankind dies. Period. Our future is death. So each person has an individual choice: believe in God, or don't.

If you don't, then according to the Bible, your end is death. Which is true. That's obvious.

God offers rescue from death. Eternal life. So if you put faith in God and follow his rules (which frankly, are pretty sensible rules) then you live forever.

He does not require that you associate with Catholics, or Protestants, or Lutherans or Mulims or Hindus. He requires that you worship "in spirit and truth".

So it's important to learn the truth and worship to our best ability in that truth. Beyond that, each one is accountable for his own actions.

So if someone doesn't want to believe in God, then as is the way of man, they will die.

If we believe in God, and live our lives by His plan, we have the promise of eternal life.

In other words, mankind is already condemned to death. God offers the way out.

Whether we decide to accept his offer is totally up to us.

[Howard2k]

Assuming that your interpretation is correct and that most others are wrong.

[Jwilker]

A doctor prescribes medicine. You either believe him and take it... or you don't. The choice is yours, and the consequenses. No skin off the doctor's nose.

Well no, we have scientific evidence that the medicine does what it says it does. Doctors aren't making these things up.

I'd just like to see some, any evidence beyond that which comes from the bible.

I would love to see non biblical evidence or something that supports these claims.

You know. we say the same thing about not being able to make christians concede to our arguments. funny how conviction works.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Jwilker
What happenned? why did all of these miraculous types of events stop taking place?
And before I hear "He's active in my life everyday" unless you are parting the potomac I mean real events.

I've often told people, "If you believe you've never seen a miracle.. you're not watching." I've seen plenty. And no, I'm not going to detail them. It was a personal experience that I don't want to throw out and have disrespectfully stomped on a public forum.

However, as a note, the Bible itself foretold that a time would come when miracles would no longer be used by God. There would be a "time of the nations" when man would rule himself unhindered by God, without interference. God would give mankind that much time to prove his point... that he can correctly rule himself without God.

That time would culminate in one major miracle... God taking over again. So it was expected by Christians that miracles would cease. Otherwise, Satan might accuse God of constantly imposing his will on man and never giving us a chance to do things ourselves. So God sent his son who performed miracles bigtime, allowed the apostles to perform them, then shut off the juice. Man had the evidence-- let's see what he does with it.

I think the answer is clear. We can't rule squat.

[Wayfinder]

Ikehiker, thanks for your response to my messages. No insult intended, but I've heard all of these arguments before, many times. There is one however, that I'd like to respond to:

My suspicion is that most of your facts are from reading the propaganda put out by supporters of creationism.

In truth, I was blessed with actually going to grammar school. After that, I had four years of high school. After that, I graduated college. And you can bet your buns that science and evolution was force-fed down my throat, with all its arguments and "proof"... every year that I did so.

I have examined the so-called "proof" of evolution and found it to be severely flawed. I have put evolution to the "scientific test" and found it to be (I state again) a fairy tale. It is a magnificent fairy tale supported by all kinds of supposed data... but that data is incomplete, inconclusive and GREATLY contradictory to itself.

One thing that does bother me is when those who support evolution automatically take it for granted that those who believe in Intelligent Design (ie, creation) are nothing but uneducated dolts who have swallowed the religion propaganda machine. Some of us actually came to our beliefs by comparing data... and making an informed decision.

So again, intending no offense (and none taken), I don't buy evolution because it's bogus, pure and simple.

[Howard2k]

but that data is incomplete, inconclusive and GREATLY contradictory to itself.

Are we still talking about the bible? :)

[Jwilker]

Originally posted by Wayfinder

I have examined the so-called "proof" of evolution and found it to be severely flawed. I have put evolution to the "scientific test" and found it to be (I state again) a fairy tale. It is a magnificent fairy tale supported by all kinds of supposed data... but that data is incomplete, inconclusive and GREATLY contradictory to itself.

One thing that does bother me is when those who support evolution automatically take it for granted that those who believe in Intelligent Design (ie, creation) are nothing but uneducated dolts who have swallowed the religion propaganda machine. Some of us actually came to our beliefs by comparing data... and making an informed decision.

I don't buy evolution because it's bogus, pure and simple.

We don't think you're uneducated, just misguided. :) Kidding of course.

I would dearly love to hear your "proof" and what "scientific test" you applied to completely discount evolution.

The "fairy Tale" seems pretty straight forward to me and much easier to swallow than the idea of a super being who willed us all into being.

[ikehiker]

Originally posted by Jwilker
I would dearly love to hear your "proof" and what "scientific test" you applied to completely discount evolution.

Before I read Wayfinder's last post I read the 'evolution debunked' article in the link he posted earlier. His arguments are a rehashing of what was in that article. Basically, they claim a 'lack of evidence' for certain early events as being proof that certain things couldn't have occurred by accident (like the formation of the first enzymes and the first strands of DNA and RNA).

As I said in my earlier post, you cannot disprove creation because it is not testable. On the other hand, I guess G-d could have thrown all those fossils around just to fool us sinners. Of course making statement like “I don't buy evolution because it's bogus, pure and simple” regardless of what scientific evidence is presented to the contrary may be why they end up being considered “uneducated dolts.”

[Xyress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wayfinder

Originally posted by Xyress
Ah, we finally have two Christians that are quite confident in their beliefs, yet disagree with each other.

Here's my suggestion - why don't you both ask God who is correct? Surely if he is guiding your life and you communicate with him (hnelson said so at any rate), he should be able to sort out this whole mess about whether hell is really fire and brimstone or whether Jesus was crucified on a cross or poll.


Let me ask you: do two scientists ever disagree on something? Because they both disagree, does that mean that science as a whole is bogus? Does it mean that both are wrong... or is there a possibility that one is right and the other is wrong?

Don't allow the imperfection and limited knowledge of man influence your belief in God. That's the problem of mankind in general... they spend so much time listening to PEOPLE that they fail to check things out for themselves.

You want to learn the truth about the cross, RESEARCH it. ;)


(no offense, mind you)

Of course scientists disagree - that's the whole point. In the real world, you're allowed to disagree with one another and come up with your own theories. I see your point though - one theory is the correct theory and the others are wrong ... that's true. However, science is a practice, a methodology - it is not something that can be proved or disproven.

On the other hand, religion can be considered wrong if none of the religions are correct. In your opinion, one religion out of thousands is the right one. Pick it or, more likely, be born into it and you win! Which religion were you born into?

Bottom line is your religion is no more believable than any of the others out there. When you consider that your entire religion is based on the resurrection of Jesus and the Gospels can't even agree on how exactly it happens, it kind of makes your stance a little flimsy.

[Xyress]

I have examined the so-called "proof" of evolution and found it to be severely flawed. I have put evolution to the "scientific test" and found it to be (I state again) a fairy tale. It is a magnificent fairy tale supported by all kinds of supposed data... but that data is incomplete, inconclusive and GREATLY contradictory to itself.

I'm also eager to hear what scientific tests you've put evolution to and how it has failed your tests. What is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory?

Why are the fanciful tales of religion so easy for you to believe, yet something that can be observed in nature hard? Does the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of heaven weigh into your decision? I see a lot of people on the religious side in this discussion that keep citing variations of Pascal's wager ... is that the only thing that keeps you going?

[Wayfinder]

One thing I'll say for this thread... it's getting some real traffic. And for the most part, pretty polite traffic. Fairly decent discussion, all in all.

Originally posted by ikehiker
Before I read Wayfinder's last post I read the 'evolution debunked' article in the link he posted earlier. His arguments are a rehashing of what was in that article. Basically, they claim a 'lack of evidence' for certain early events as being proof that certain things couldn't have occurred by accident (like the formation of the first enzymes and the first strands of DNA and RNA).

As I said in my earlier post, you cannot disprove creation because it is not testable. On the other hand, I guess G-d could have thrown all those fossils around just to fool us sinners. Of course making statement like “I don't buy evolution because it's bogus, pure and simple” regardless of what scientific evidence is presented to the contrary may be why they end up being considered “uneducated dolts.”

Ike... perhaps you missed the fact that I WROTE that evolution debunking article. So my quoting it shouldn't seem like that big a leap. But in ignoring the points made in that article... are you throwing out whatever information doesn't agree with your existing beliefs? A true researcher considers all data, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with existing opinion.

The same thing happens among religionists (possibly even moreso). I can't tell you how many times I've seen people bend the Bible to the beliefs that their parents taught them while they were growing up.

The truth is, people tend to stick with beliefs that they learned while young. Which is why the evolution theory today has such a strangle hold. When children are taught at an early, impressionable age that God doesn't exist and that mankind grew from a one-celled organism... they remain of that opinion and never even bother to check into the possiblity that He does. It's one of Satan's most effective propaganda tools-- get 'em while they're young. Churches do the same thing, mind you.

As for the fossils, there ARE other explanations than the evolutionist interpretation. I see people get way too stuck on THEIR explanation and just ignore all other possibilities. Very, very often I see people accept data that seems to match their pre-formed opinions and ignore other data-- such as facts that are presented in the article on my website. Evolutionists find it very difficult to logically get past the RNA/DNA paradox... so they wind up either ignoring it entirely, or rationalizing their way around it. I've heard it all before and debated with the best/worst. In my opinion, evolution just doesn't hold up under intense factual and logical investigation.

regardless of what scientific evidence is presented to the contrary may be why they end up being considered “uneducated dolts.”

In actuality, I'm not ignoring the scientific evidence. I'm in total disagreement with the evolutionist INTERPRETATION of that scientific evidence. That's a whole 'nuther thing. Because one point that was made in that article is quite valid: while most believers in intelligent design have thoroughly studied the evolutionist concept and can therefore make a rational, informed decision... relatively few (if any) evolutionists have studied the Bible to the extent necessary to make an informed decision. I studied evolution through some 12 years of school, 5 days a week, week after week. After that, I did quite a bit of study on my own. I'd say that at least puts me above the "uninformed" catagory, wouldn't you agree?

If you consider someone a dolt just because he disagrees with evolutionist opinion and interpretation of data... hey, that's not really my problem.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Howard2k
So this is getting personal, but you buy into the whole concept of no sex apart from for procreation?

The Bible states that fornication, adultery and homosexuality (basically, sex outside of marriage) is unacceptable for Christians. "Do not be mislead... neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor men who lie with men... will inherit the Kingdom of God."

In other words, you can do those things if you want... but you're not going to gain eternal life by doing so.

Now, if that sounds like a stupid concept, consider our society. AIDS is the first pandemic since the Black Plague... and it's transmitted primarily by sexual relations outside of marriage. Teenage pregnancy is rampant. The divorce rate in the U.S. is currently 50%... which is a 20% increase over just 30 years ago. That's not to speak of the extreme emotional damage that results from immoral activities.

So, man ignores God's law. Man suffers severe consequences. Repeat scenario throughout history.

[Wayfinder]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jwilker
We don't think you're uneducated, just misguided. :) Kidding of course.

I understand. No offense taken.

I would dearly love to hear your "proof" and what "scientific test" you applied to completely discount evolution.

Well, that could cover another volume. But here's a simple concept that's just the tip of the iceberg:

When an explanation is so improbable that it's considered to impossible... there is most likely another explanation.

The concept of an Intelligent Designer putting together the DNA molecule is not nearly as difficult for me to envision as that same molecule happening just by chance organization of chemicals. I mean, hey, I've written computer programs. I don't care how much time, space and random data you put together, a computer program isn't gonna just happen. (and of something thinks that is possible... may I suggest a serious reality check?)

DNA is likely the most complex "program" in all the universe. For someone to expect me to believe it just "happened" is to me an unreasonable hypothesis-- the stuff of which bad science fiction is made. It makes far more sense to me that a highly intelligent lifeform designed DNA.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Xyress
Why are the fanciful tales of religion so easy for you to believe, yet something that can be observed in nature hard? Does the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of heaven weigh into your decision? I see a lot of people on the religious side in this discussion that keep citing variations of Pascal's wager ... is that the only thing that keeps you going?

Interesting you would mention observation of nature.

You know, you see a leaf, and you see a man, and you consider both and you say, "Hey, these just happened to come about by chance, random circumstance."

I see a leaf, and I see a man, and I say, "Hey, these are so complex they could not have possibly occured by chance circumstance. They have to have had intelligent design."

You think my concept is absurd. I think yours is absurd. So where does that leave us?

I put my faith in God and His observations. You put your faith in man and his observations.

Now you may argue that your opinions are backed by scientific imperical evidence. I make the same argument. The fact is that you interpret the data differently than I do. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong?

People believe what they choose to believe. I have no reason to accept your teachings. I find them illogical and there's nothing to gain in them. According to your evolutionist beliefs, you're going to come to an end and cease to exist. To tell the truth, that doesn't really ring my chimes.

I've studied both sides of the issue. I find the Creationist argument to be more logical, statistically probable and valid than the evolutionist argument. So that's supposed to be a bad thing for some reason?

My firm belief in God offers me the hope of eternal life. Your firm belief in evolution does not present such a hope.

So how is it a problem that I believe in God?

[Wayfinder]

Folks, this thread has been/is very interesting. But I did want to clarify one thing about my position.

There seems to be a misconception here that I need to prove the Bible is true. To be blunt, that's not the case.

The thread started out with an earnest request from a user regarding what happens after we die. I presented to him the Bible's teachings on the subject (not science's, not religion's... the Bible's).

I know others have different beliefs, both scientifically and religiously. The responses were foreseeable and predictable, because I've seen such arguments dozens of times before. I've researched all of them, found them to be lacking, reached conclusions in these matters.

To make my position clear: it is not a necessity upon me to prove the Bible to anyone. I am not required to defend my position. All that I'm required to do by Biblical instruction is to present what the Bible teaches to those who are interested.

If someone chooses to believe in God and the Bible and wants to learn more, I can help. If he chooses to disregard what the Bible says and claims that God does not exist, then that is his choice and doesn't affect me one bit.

If someone is earnestly interested in determining how we know the Bible is true, then I can discuss that with him as well. But if he ignores the evidence I present and clings to his existing beliefs... that's where my obligation ends. Jesus instructs us to not present our valuable things to those unwilling to appreciate them.

So for those here who are challenging my belief in an Intelligent Deigner (God), creation and the Bible... to be frank, I've heard it ALL before. You're presenting nothing new. I'm not a Christian because I was blindly suckered into it. I'm a Christian because I made an intensive study of both science and the Bible... and I discovered that science supports the Bible.

So if anyone is of the opinion that I have to keep answering questions of those who have already refused to accept the Bible... that would be incorrect. I might do so anyway, but I don't have to prove the Bible to those who have already made up their minds otherwise.