Forum Home | Login

A Critic's Mind Changed

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

A Critic's Mind Changed

built on solid evidence

As a student of the bible, I love to hear about the discoveries that have over the years only given much credence to this book. There have been many stories of brilliant minds that have attempted to disprove the scriptures only to succumb to the realization that the bible is truly a magnificant piece of literature unlike any other.

William Albright, known for his reputation as one of the great archaeologists, said: "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition."

He also said: "The exessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th & 19th centuires, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognititon to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

Millar Burrows of Yale observes: "Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. it has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artifical schemes of historical development."

He also exposes the cause of much unbelief: "The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."

This is still true today. How many of us are coming to the table with our predisposed beliefs based on what we've just picked up along the way? I hear alot of repititon from those that have no idea where they've heard such and such. It's like gossip. They are picking up and passing on what they have had whispered in their ears. I did this myself for a while until I realized I really had nothing to back myself up on other than what I heard from another.

He adds: "On the whole, archaelogical work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine". :

Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He was a student in the German historical school of the mid 19th century. He believed the Book of Acts was a product of the mid 2nd century AD. He was very convinced of this belief. In his research to make a topographical study of Asia Minor he was compelled to consider the writings of Luke, the physician. As a result he was forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He said this about his change of mind:

"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. it did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recenly I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topgraphy , antiquities and socieity of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a 2nd century composition and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations."

Ramsay concluded after 30 years of study that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy......."this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Ramsay also says: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."

To even consider this book coming from an all powerful God it MUST meet certain requirements. It has to be transmitted to us accurately from the time it was originally written so we have exactly what God wanted us to have. Next it must be correct when it deal with dates, events and places. A book that has these things mixed up has no right to claim it comes from an infallible God.

If you test the NT documents with the same standard of tests applied to any of the Greek classics, the evidence overwhelmingly favors the NT. If someone states that we have a reliable text of classics, then that same person would be forced to admit that the NT is also just as reliable.

Actually many don't realize that the original NT copies were in better textual shape than the 37 plays of Shakespeare written in the 17th century, after the invention of printing. In every one of his plays there are gaps in the printed text where we have no idea what originally was said. Textual scholars were forced to make good guesses to fill in the blanks. With the abundance of existing manuscripts of the NT we know nothing has been lost through the transmission of the text.

Those who contend that the Bible is unreliable historically are not historians or archeologists. While I can't prove the bible is inspired or written by the very hand of God, (although I believe it to be true,) I do believe the evidence supports the claim the Bible certainly is the very word of God.

"

history

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

If you would have went to the wbsite about irreducible complexity, I think you would have stopped using the term by now. Please, visit the site.

You said:

it is impossible for one species of animals to evolve into a completely different one with new and different DNA.

If you are relying on IC to make the above statement, again visit the website.

DNA differences in one species compared to another are very slight, someone in a forum once posted our dna has %50 in common with a carrot, I don't know if this is true or not, even if it is only 10%, it makes it interesting.

One of the species wih the highest amount of DNA, is a Fern, YES A POTtED PLANT! Probably because it has been around the longest. So, do you think the DNA of the fern, started out that complex, or did the DNA evolve over time?

Successfully updated karma reason!

And suggesting that I do more research on the other side of the argument doesn't fly either. As far as I'm concerned only the Creator God could have made something as complex as DNA and Godless Evolution Theory can't back up their claim that we humans descended from apes.

So the Irreducibie complexity thing, DNA, etc.. must be somewhere in the bible, right? It can't be a scientific argument, because you are only concerned about the Creator God has to say.

You can't use science only when it is convienent, and then blow it off in the next sentence when it doesn't support your view. IC is not a scientific theory, it did not pass any significant peer reviews (again visit the website, to see this).

Successfully updated karma reason!

telling me that mouse traps aren't alive and don't evolve, while amusing, isn't a rebuttal if you disagree.

I thought your original argument about a mouse trap was amuzing too. That is why I included it in my counter argument. I thought you had a little bit of a sense of humor, I now realize that you were serious when you refered to a mouse trap in your argument...Sorry my bad.

In the future, if you don't want someone to use a mouse trap in a rewbutal, it is probably best not to use it in the inital argument.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The process in Evolution of a new spieces arising is called Speciation.

Now this time look it up....please come on do the christian thing, as a favor to me, please look it up, just because I said please. It will make up for some of the hostility I detected in some of your posts.....PLEASEEEEE, PRETTY PLEASE. It is not that long, just read the first few pages, you don't have to read it all. I will have to admit, I did not read it all, my attention span isn't long enough. But it was enough to convince me of the possibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Successfully updated karma reason!

lula posts:

it is impossible for one species of animals to evolve into a completely different one with new and different DNA.

If you are relying on IC to make the above statement, again visit the website.

I am relying on the study of genetics and the new and greater understanding that we now have on the complexity of the design of cells as related to the basic units of heredity and transferring that information from the two parents to an offspring..

The reality of irreducibly complex systems in the molecular level cannot be ignored. [B]Absence of any one interdependent part causes the system to cease functioning.[B]

The cell is the basic structure, it's built up from molecules which in turn are comprised of atoms. Atoms are incredibly small and in a drop of water there are billions of atoms. Atoms have a nucleus of varying number of protons and neutrons around which the electrons revolve. The cell contains many separate components which work together harmoniously. If one part (like the mouse trap) does not work just right or is missing, then the whole thing doesn't work...no reproduction, no heredity information being passed on; no Evolving from one animal to a completely different one..as Evolution theory postulates...

DNA differences in one species compared to another are very slight,

True, but so what? Humans have 46 chromosomes and primates have 48, and the possibility of them emerging from a common progenitor is definitely ruled out.

Modern science has shown that each species has its own DNA code structure and complementary protein molecules. Each has an inherent specification which ensures that the basic kind remains unique. Two apes cannot produce a human. A human person and an ape cannot produce an offspring. The genetic system of each offers resistance.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Modern science has shown that each species has its own DNA code structure and complementary protein molecules. Each has an inherent specification which ensures that the basic kind remains unique. Two apes cannot produce a human. A human person and an ape cannot produce an offspring. The genetic system of each offers resistance.

which goes back to the subject at hand. The bible is true in the scientific sense in saying that everything is procreated "after its own kind."

Successfully updated karma reason!

True, but so what? Humans have 46 chromosomes and primates have 48, and the possibility of them emerging from a common progenitor is definitely ruled out.

Please visit the website on speciation, it gives an example of this happening.
I strongly suggest you visit the two websites, you are not coming across as a credible person. No insult intended, just trying to help your side out. Please...

Micheal Behe, the guy who created the Irreducibly Complex Argument, might disagree with some of your arguments. A failure in one part of a cell does not make the whole cell fail, it is often a source of disease, but not always.

Here is a website that counters the Irritable Christian argument...oops, I mean Irreducibly Complex argument, please visit it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

You at the very least mis represented his argument, in case you don't want to visit the site, here is his argument
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)

You seem to be hung up on biochemical IC, here is one site that refutes Behes claims on this subject http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

Successfully updated karma reason!

The concept of genetic variation shows the immense variety which exists in the genes of each kind or type. It recognizes that there are limits or boundaries which prevent change into a higher entity with a radically new genetic structure. Cats will always be cats, and dogs will always be dogs. Each kind has its own specific DNA code structure which effectively precludes the possibility of Evolution. Neither do recombinations or mutations result in Evolution.

Oh please, please, please link me to a study where genetics refutes evolution. Strangely enough I seem to only encounter more evidence to support it.

I could go on and on and on with a crapload of proof...and I believe I did at one point. Frankly I get tired of doing so. However, if you could link me to the crazy study that says "Genetics proves God did it." I'd love to read it.

By the way, I've glanced up there and saw "irreducible complexity." It's be debunked, quite effectively. The mousetrap example: It can still function as a clip if not a mousetrap...so it doesn't have to have all parts. Take everything away but the spring, the board, and the metal bit that kills and you have a clip...not pretty, but still useful. DNA really isn't all that complex...it contains 4, just 4 base pairs that can be arranged in an infinite amount of ways.

True, but so what? Humans have 46 chromosomes and primates have 48, and the possibility of them emerging from a common progenitor is definitely ruled out.

Wrong. Human chromosome number 2 is a fused chromosome...i.e. 2 became one at some point and thus our little line of the evolutionary tree was born.

Quick and dirty Wikipedia search yields this:
"The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B. At the site of fusion, there is approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B prior to the fusion event. It remains to be determined if these inserted genes confer a selective advantage."

Basically those two fused and little extra something was thrown in there as well.

I could go on...but I think that's enough considering you won't listen to reason in the first place. Faith and rationality were never good bedfellows.

~Zoo

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Faith and rationality were never good bedfellows.

There are plenty of Christian Scientists out there that refute evolution that might have a problem with your statment zoo. My son is a Scientist working on his Ph.D and is a strong believer in Creation Science. He's both a young man of faith and rationality. He's already been asked to consider being a professor at Liberty in Molecular Biology when he's done this final year of his lab work.

You know what he told me? He said working at a Christian College, even as big and popular as Liberty will kill his career. Just for the reason you quoted. To be a Christian in the science world is not a good thing. The bias is unbelievable and very political.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Zoo posts:

Oh please, please, please link me to a study where genetics refutes evolution. Strangely enough I seem to only encounter more evidence to support it.

Zoo,
Nice to have one of JU's true blue believers in Evolution Theory join the discussion.

It certainly would be "strange" to encounter true evidence to support it...when you think about it, they've been trying to come up with some ever since Darwin and his followers dished up Evolution theory. Have they explained how life came from non-life yet? How did intelligence enter in?

Last I knew there was no one in the science community who has come up with verifiable, scientific, or observable evidence to prove that life and its diversity arose by chance with no outside intervention over billions of years.....in other words....that one species (kind) evolved into a completely different and new one with different DNA. Nope, the scientific data that is coming in instead of confirming Darwin seems to confute him.

However, if you could link me to the crazy study that says "Genetics proves God did it." I'd love to read it.

For good genetic studies that refute Darwin's "aboema to man" ET, read Michael Behe's latest book, The Edge of Evolution: The search for the limits of Darwinism. Your local library should have it. It provides just what you asked for (but it doesn't PROVE Creation, just brings the debate into new territory bigtime.) He draws on the most extensive and detailed genetic studies available in order to subject Darwin's theory to rigorous testing and in the process Behe proves that life does develop, but not in the way Darwin and his followers thought it did.

Yep, life is complex and irreducible...and ET is a theory in crisis!

By the way, I've glanced up there and saw "irreducible complexity." It's be debunked, quite effectively. The mousetrap example: It can still function as a clip if not a mousetrap...so it doesn't have to have all parts. Take everything away but the spring, the board, and the metal bit that kills and you have a clip...not pretty, but still useful. DNA really isn't all that complex...it contains 4, just 4 base pairs that can be arranged in an infinite amount of ways.

Biochemistry, the study of the molecular basis of life, provides particularly strong support that life is the result of Intelligent Purpose and I understand well how this does not sit well with true blue ET believers.

Behe writes "in the past 50 years science has made stunning progress in elucidating the molecular and cellular basis of life. In particular we have learned that the cell is run by machines---quite literally, molecular machines." He said that cellular systems are "irreducibly complex" which means that they require several different components to work. Such systems are major headaches for Darwinian theory. They apparently cannot be put together in the gradual fashion Darwin anticipated becasue they only function when the system is essentially complete. Such systems are so recalcitrant to Darwinian explanations that few scientists even try to account for them."

Instead of trying "to shoehorn complex cellular systems into a Darwinian framework, Behe proposed a more compelling explanation..."that such systems were designed--purposely designed by an intelligent agent". He contended that this wasn't a religious conclusion, but rather one based firmly in the physical evidence.

Faith and rationality were never good bedfellows.

Wrong. Faith and reason go hand in hand. As far as I'm concerned you can't have one without the other. You can't dismiss people like me and KFC as mere idealogues driven by impulses that are only religious rather than empirical and rational. I take that back, you can, but it won't ring true anymore.

And don't forget, you are a true believer in ET and it takes greater faith to believe in it than it does in Biblical Creation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And don't forget, you are a true believer in ET and it takes greater faith to believe in it than it does in Biblical Creation.

I disagree. I think that the faith to believe either is equal. Why in the world do you think that it takes more to believe the one that has basis in science?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lulapilgrim, again with the biochemistry argument?

Did you visit the following site?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

Maybe if I say something religious sounding....
....Nothing Behe has said has ever held true when put under the fire of science.
....Science shall srike down the unworthy theories of the scoffers of science.

There, how was that? I mean if someone ever said something like that to me, it would put th4e fear of almighty Ignorance into me, I would have to check it out.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

I disagree. I think that the faith to believe either is equal. Why in the world do you think that it takes more to believe the one that has basis in science?

Lots of reasons SC. I mean besides just looking out your window or witnessing the birth of a baby and all the other unexplained miracles in our universe. Even some hardened Atheistic Scientists have gone so far as to admit there seems to be some sort of intelligent design behind all of this.

I would also point you the the law of first and second thermodynamics. Evolution runs contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which describes this universe as a wound up clock which is slowly running down.

I mean we all know that everything runs down, not up. If I put a brick out in the sun, it's slowly going to crumble and turn to dust. A house has to painted and repainted every so often. It doesn't get better it slowly runs down. Evolution has all life being built up from simple to complex.

Another interesting thought is the number of people who face death in the face all of a sudden become believers. I know of a story of a pilot who ran into some problems. It looked like he was going down and he was a goner. He found himself praying to a god he didn't belive in. How many times have we heard that. How many times have we heard of foxhole conversions? Too numerous too count.

Why is that? Because God put it in us that we are to worship Him but instead we take the little piece of our heart and worship anything and everything else but the true God who created us and loved us enough to die for us. We get caught up in a decaying world instead of the eternal God who offers us something much better beyond what we see now.

I look at our world and the complexity of it all right down to the way the birds fly in formation and know there has to be a master designer behind all this.

So yes, I too believe it takes alot more faith to believe in Evolution than it does in a God who designed, put into motion and watches over his creation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC, What the heck do you know about thermodynamics and how it applies to the universe? As you suggest, it is a science, it is not in the bible, it can't be true, right?

You need to do more then say 'Even some hardened Atheistic Scientists'...throw out a scientific term...then say 'see god must have done it'

You said EVERYTHING winds down, not up. Almost everything I know winds up. A seed, becoms a sprout with roots leaves&stem. Sprout becomes small tree with bark, and branches. Hydrogen turning into helium?

You really like to use analogies, they are neat, but don't base your whole argument on an analogy. Analogies NEVER represent the real thing you are talking about.

This one is just mind boggeling to me, you said:
I mean besides just looking out your window or witnessing the birth of a baby and all the other unexplained miracles in our universe.
Of course there are unexplained things in the universe, IT IS REAL BIG.
Name something that science does not have at least a partial understanding of?
If it could be easily observed, how long would it take to get a descent understanding of?

Is it a mircle you can flip a switch to 'let there be light'?

I really don't understand you, you blow off science one minute, then use it when it is convienent, someone points out your improper use of science, you ignore it and just call it a miracle.

You have to agree that if everything is a miracle, then who cares if it is a miracle?

KFC, you are wearing blinders, that only have pinholes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

You said EVERYTHING winds down, not up. Almost everything I know winds up. A seed, becoms a sprout with roots leaves&stem. Sprout becomes small tree with bark, and branches. Hydrogen turning into helium?

but it eventually dies right? Just like a baby to an adult? Everything begins to die after it's born. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that when energy is being transformed from one state to another some of it is turned into heat energy which canot be converted back into useful form. In other words, this universe may be looked upon as a wound up clock that is slowly running down. This law is actually expanded in the bible. We read:

"And you Lord in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the works of your hands. They shall perish but you remain, and they all shall wax old as does a garment. And as a vesture shall you fold them up and they shall be changed; but you are the same and your years shall not fail."

The complexity of life calls for more than a source of energy. It also demands a purposeful direction of that energy. For instance.....a builder might expose bricks, sand, nails, paint, wires,, wood and other building materials to the heat and energy of the sun and to the rain. But these objects would never by themselves unite and form a house. That's what evolution believes. Creationism believes there is a master builder behind the materials. That's why I'm saying it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation.

When I drive past a home with a snowman built in its yard.....I don't say....."Wow look at that nice snowman. I wonder how long it took to evolve." NO NO NO. I say, "wow, the owners (designers) of that home built a nice snowman."

There are statements of science scattered all throughout scripture. I believe in Science. You seem to think that we believe in EITHER OR but you can have both beliefs intact. It's not either or with me.

What I DON"T believe in is scientific theory. When it's proven to be true, then fine. But EVOLUTION is only a THEORY therefore I can't believe it and it does contradict scripture. Not science, but evolution. So with Evolution in one hand and Creationism in the other, the scales tip in favor of creationism.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Behe writes "in the past 50 years science has made stunning progress in elucidating the molecular and cellular basis of life. In particular we have learned that the cell is run by machines---quite literally, molecular machines." He said that cellular systems are "irreducibly complex" which means that they require several different components to work. Such systems are major headaches for Darwinian theory. They apparently cannot be put together in the gradual fashion Darwin anticipated becasue they only function when the system is essentially complete. Such systems are so recalcitrant to Darwinian explanations that few scientists even try to account for them."

There are 4 basic components to every cell in the entire world. Least common denominators if you will.

A plamsa membrane(selectively permeable of course)
Chromosomes(i.e. DNA and/or RNA)
Ribosomes(for protein synthesis)
ATP synthase(for ATP production, energy in other words)

You have those things, you have life.

It's not really all that complex. The trick is figuring out how those things clumped together in the first place. In this case and this case only I will allow for possible creationism. However, once you get one single cell down...it's all gravy from then on out.

I will try and find this book and give it a read, though, to be fair.

The complexity of life calls for more than a source of energy. It also demands a purposeful direction of that energy. For instance.....a builder might expose bricks, sand, nails, paint, wires,, wood and other building materials to the heat and energy of the sun and to the rain. But these objects would never by themselves unite and form a house. That's what evolution believes.

*cough*...*cough* *cough*....No.

Evolution describes the development of living things. Bricks don't live...far as I know. Life is able to change, able to learn, able to reproduce, able to mutate...rocks and metal...not so much.

Never do we compare evolution to materials leaping into a house. That is one hell of a jump. Nor does it come close to describing the actual model. In fact, spontaneous materials coming together to form a house is what outlines creationism in my mind. First there is nothing then...*poof* a house.

I allow for the existence of God. I don't see exactly how evolution can really upset that whole belief system. Oh wait...yeah I do. Human arrogance- the "we're specially made" mentality. Why is so uncomfortable to think that we evolved? From apes we came into being and were able to grow beyond that and become what we are...for good or ill. Is that really such a stretch rather than believe that we're made from spit and dirt or a bloody bone for you ladies out there? To me that seems like it takes way more faith then thinking...well, maybe the process was gradual and we've been built up from a single foundation...much like every other thing in the entire world.

~Zoo

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh, Zoo, don't you know that you're too smart for us church-goers?

If we were created, who created us? The Creator. And for what purpose did He create us? For His own purpose, which is to say, His glory. Which is to say, if we are not spending our lives living for His glory, we are living the wrong way. Which is to say, we have sinned.

That God makes sense to me, maybe not so much to you.

Or, you know, maybe there's no creator and no purpose. So we're just junk. Sounds rather depressing, and doesn't really make sense. Why is there a world if nobody created it? Why is their time and thermodynamics and matter and anything, if nobody came up with it? It just was? Maybe, but even scientists say there was a time when it wasn't. The time frame is a little different, but how did it go from no-world to world? Someone controlled that, it couldn't just happen without going beyond the scope of the world as we know it.

So, there is a creator, and we are part of the creation. So then we're left with having a purpose, and with having sinned, and with exactly everything else the Bible says. So it stands to reason, for me, that there is a God, He revealed himself to us, through us, in limited form because He wanted us to know Him. And He also had some people write down who He was, and what He wanted for us. All to further the purpose of His glory.

Without His glory, the only glory left for you to live for is your own glory.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Why is it that people who think there is a god think the following:
God loves us.
God is aware of us as individuals.
God created us so that we may glorify him.
God wants us to further his glory.
etc....

Isn't it more likely that the real answer is
We exist, because god took a dump one day.
God isn't even really aware of us.
If an entity had the powers you sway he had, why would he waste time with us?
Isn't it more likely that we are just a painting on a wall, an ant farm on a shelf, a pizza in the refrigerator. Do we expect those things to glorify us?
Why would he even want us to know he exists?

]

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

Why is it that people who think there is a god think the following:
God loves us.
God is aware of us as individuals.
God created us so that we may glorify him.
God wants us to further his glory.

Because it's truth. That's why.

Isn't it more likely that the real answer is
We exist, because god took a dump one day.

That's a crappy thought (pun intended)

If an entity had the powers you sway he had, why would he waste time with us?

Because one of God's attributes among many is that he is a God of Love. In order for him to use this attribute he desires a people to love and to love him.

Do we expect those things to glorify us?

It's not about our glory but his glory.

Let me ask you this........you can see we have a purpose in life...but what is yours? Why are you here?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Let me ask you this........you can see we have a purpose in life...but what is yours? Why are you here?

I guess I am not conceded, I don't think there is a purpose, other then to live it. I sure dom't think the universe was created just so that I can live on earth for 60-80 years. If you scoff at my response, I would say that your purpose is to worship your imaginary friend. If you want to know what I believe in, I believe in myself, I am not perfect, but hay when that happens, lets say I am just testing myself.

Let me reword one of my questions, When we create a a painting on a wall, an ant farm on a shelf, a pizza in the refrigerator. Do we expect those things to glorify us? Why would an intellegent god design on organism (us), that is capable of thought, understanding, maybe at be reveal himself to a handful of people, then expect or even want us to glorify him, is he conceded? does he have god complex (I mean like a Jim Jones god complex). I don't expect my dog to worship or glorify me, be friendly, yes, but not woriship me. If you say god is as powerful and as great as you say he is, you have to admit that we are just an antfarm on the shelf.

Please don't respond with something corney like because GOD IS LOVE, that absolutly has no meaning what so ever.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC Kickin For Christ

Join Date 11/2005

+93

If you scoff at my response, I would say that your purpose is to worship your imaginary friend.

who's doing the scoffing here? Certainly not me.

If you want to know what I believe in, I believe in myself, I am not perfect, but hay when that happens, lets say I am just testing myself.

and if you did read scripture you'd realize that what you just said comes from the spirit of the anti-christ (See Isaiah 14) and is precisely what we were warned about all thru the NT. It's all about me. Notice the "I's" in your statement. Did you know that I is the center of PRIDE? Pride is the opposite of humility.

When we create a a painting on a wall, an ant farm on a shelf, a pizza in the refrigerator. Do we expect those things to glorify us?

Some do. Many do what they do to glorify themselves. They crave man's affirmation. God says we are to give him the glory in all that we do. Our very breath comes from him. That's why you see on occasion an athlete point to heaven or thank God for their accomplishments. They are giving God the glory for their talent.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Isn't it more likely that the real answer is
We exist, because god took a dump one day.
God isn't even really aware of us.
If an entity had the powers you sway he had, why would he waste time with us?
Isn't it more likely that we are just a painting on a wall, an ant farm on a shelf, a pizza in the refrigerator. Do we expect those things to glorify us?
Why would he even want us to know he exists?

God is more powerful than you can imagine. We exist because God wanted us to exist for His purpose - why would God do anything without a purpose for it? He doesn't just do things, he does things for a purpose. Always.

He would not waste time with us at all, of course. One, because time is something that He created. Two, he is so powerful, that he can be with all of us at once. Look at all of our hearts at once. He doesn't have to pick and choose who to bless, he has the power to bless ALL at the same time. He is everything, can do everything, knows everything.

He created us to bring glory to Him. How He accomplishes that through us is beyond me, but that's the purpose. And, if we did not know he existed, how could we bring him any glory?

The Bible spells it out for us, but the beauty of creation shows us better than any book could.

Successfully updated karma reason!

God is more powerful than you can imagine.
Even god had to take a rest on the seventh day, so I can imagine a god that doesn't need to take a rest (imagination is easy). So I guess that 'blows that statement out of the water'

He doesn't just do things, he does things for a purpose. Always.
Always? that is a pretty strong statement. What exacty was the purpose for creating the devil?

Successfully updated karma reason!

If we were created, who created us? The Creator. And for what purpose did He create us? For His own purpose, which is to say, His glory. Which is to say, if we are not spending our lives living for His glory, we are living the wrong way. Which is to say, we have sinned.

So...you're saying we live to worship...and that's all? That's all there is to life is singing praises on high to some being that we can't hear or see? What kind of life is that? What kind of arrogant God creates people because he feels the need to have someone praise him? Isn't that a little shallow?

That's no different than a tyrant. "Love me or suffer for eternity! Don't question me for I know what's best for you! Sing my praises and offer me tribute while I cause you pain and strife and reject any call for help you send me! Praise me when things are good, but do not blame me when things are bad!"

I like to the purpose of life is a little more complex. As in finding out mysteries to things on your own, finding love, living well and developing meaningful relationships. That's the kind of God I like to believe in...not some moody child that needs constant attention. I can't live in perpetual adoration of someone I've never met and who dishes out more bad than good in this world. You may say Satan's responsible...*psh* never heard a peep from him either. I just try to be moral...that's all. I'm not intentionally evil and I'm not wholeheartedly good...I just live and make do. I think that's what life is about. Living your life solely and only to worship makes it an empty life. Sure, you can worship here and there...but every second of the day is absolutely impossible and will take the sheer pleasure out of everything else you could experience.

Keep in mind, dear Christian JUers, I've never once said I was an atheist. However, I don't buy into the entire institution that is/are the Christian Church(es). I do have some belief in a God...but I have so many conflicts with the so-called "wisdom" that the Bible hands down. Some things are fine, some things not so much. I prefer to believe what I can see and what makes sense to me and have faith in those things of which I cannot.

Then we come to the term of purpose...what is my purpose? what is my place? It's whatever I make it. There is no universal purpose...to each his own, so to speak. You find a niche where you're happy and then you live there...fulfilled.

I'll find my own purpose and perhaps I'll find God along the way...we'll have to see.

Blech...that was longer than I thought it would be...

~Zoo

Successfully updated karma reason!

KFC, I guess if your prupose in starting this thread was to convert me, you had the opposite effect. Looking up some of your facts, I found a lot of things that just reinforced my disbelief in your imaginary friend. Including the complete debunking of Behe, and a much better understanding of evolution. I unfortunatly did not run across any new info about creation, except for what Behe said, I did start to doubt evolution after my first looks at Behe, but then I looked at the counter arguments.

There were several other websites, that didn't have anything to do with what you were talking about, but I ran across them by accident. Here is a good one, you will like it, lots of scripture being quoted.
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp

Have a nice life.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: