who will you worship God or Satan?

[Taramere]

its your choice not mine.since its not my computer anyway

 

That's a pretty good answer to give 123321. I'm sure he'll appreciate it too.

[Taramere]

,do u believe that you have brains?have you smell it?taste it?hear it?have you seen it?have you touch it.if were going to use your principle of using 5senses just to prove something exist then we got to conclusion that you have no brain.simple as that.

 

I have seen a brain. Not mine, as it's inside my head and therefore not visible. In this particular case I'm willing to take the word of scientists who have examined human brains, and documented at great length (and with pictures) what it looks like, how it works and how essential it is in human functioning.

 

I'm not a neurologist, but if I wanted to obtain a lot of information about brains, there would certainly be no shortage of material out there to assist me.

 

Do u believe that your mother is really your real mother?have you taste her?have you seen her giving you birth?have you smell her that she is your mother? Again using your principle,we come up to conclusion that the one you are believe is your real mother is not.

thanks anyway for readin my explanation

 

There's no reason not to believe she is my mother. There's nothing magical or supernatural about childbirth. From an early age, I witnessed animals giving birth. It doesn't take a great leap of faith to believe that my mother gave birth to two children, and that I was one of them.

[Taramere]

To me, giving in to our animalistic nature is not what is fun. I don't see anything fun in becoming stoned and doing something stupid, or drunk and feeling incredibly lousy afterwards, or have sex with random people that are meaningless.

 

Wait a minute...who says that everything animalistic is also self destructive? What's sinful about being engaged with one's senses?

 

I don't see animals getting drunk (other than a couple of youtube videos of monkeys). I don't see them getting stoned. I don't see animals engaging in a lot of the behaviours that are almost exclusively confined to human beings - but that, for some reason, are termed animalistic.

 

As for the implication that people who are in touch with their animal side must be promiscuous drunks who have random sex with strangers and then regret it...that's quite a judgement to make.

 

A bit of both - animal and spiritual (or intellectual) - is, I should think, what most people realistically aspire towards.

[Gulf-Delta]

,y many people just cant accept God in their hearts?do they have to use their 5 senses just to prove that something exist?

 

Yes. That's how existence works. Everything that exists can be sensed somehow, and everything that can be sensed exists.

 

It's not too difficult to grasp I tihnk.

 

Basically, if it can't be seen, smelt, heard, felt or tasted, it doesn't exist.

[TaraMaiden]

,do u believe that you have brains?have you smell it?taste it?hear it?have you seen it?have you touch it.if were going to use your principle of using 5senses just to prove something exist then we got to conclusion that you have no brain.simple as that.

so presumably you do not believe you have a brain then?

Is that what you are telling us?

If you are telling us you DO believe you have a brain, how have you reached that conclusion?

 

Do u believe that your mother is really your real mother?have you taste her?have you seen her giving you birth?have you smell her that she is your mother? Again using your principle,we come up to conclusion that the one you are believe is your real mother is not.

I believe my mother is really my mother because documentary evidence produced at my birth, together with several photographs, spanning 55 years, would seem to bear this out.

Also, our similarities are too close to be dismissed. We are uncannily alike, and when in the past, I have met people who knew her, but did not know me, it is a matter of less than 5 minutes, they would say to me, "Goodness, you must be *my mother's name's* daughter! you are so like her!"

 

I have never actively sought to prove whether my mother is indeed my mother, but circumstances surrounding my upbringing bear out the certainty of this being so.

 

thanks anyway for readin my explanation

I really don't think you thought it through though, did you....? Because tell me, in your opinion, if you cannot - or should not - rely on your 5 senses to prove something to you, how do YOU verify something as true, for yourself?

Edited June 3, 2012 by TaraMaiden

[The Blue Knight]

theres different denominations from catholic to protestant to episcopalian and within denominations theres a lot of varitions. some are more conservatve and some less. neither should have a monpoly.

Denominations are the work of man. The Bible is God-inspired and is the final arbiter of God's purpose and His values. Needless to say that hasn't stopped liberal churches from embracing homosexual marriage or other anti-biblical positions; or left-wing churches from bowing at the alter of social justice and socialism rather than the Gospel message; or the Catholic Church from making pretty much all of it up as they go (purgatory, limbo, papacy, mary worship).

 

Mankind has always done a good job of putting HIS values ahead of God's values. And that's the greatest sin of all.

[The Blue Knight]

And that's where you argument fails. It is the responsibility of the CLAIMANT to prove their claim. You claim Satan exists. Show evidence to support your claim.

 

The claim that Satan doesn't exist is backed up by it not being perceivable in any way, shape or form.

The proof is in the condition of the world. Just check the news on a daily basis. I doubt that's sufficient for you, but for the Christian, that is the proof.

 

Why would KathyM need to prove to you or anyone that Satan exists? I believe he does. I have no interest in proving it to someone who already has an entrenched position that he doesn't. What's the purpose? Those who don't believe in him, will in due time.

[The Blue Knight]

KathyM, while I respect that you are an active Christian, I have to disagree that there is any proof that God or Satan exist. They can't exist because they are fictional characters. They're not real. Heaven and Hell don't exist. They are just supporting details to the story of God and Satan. Every religion creates fictional characters around their story arc to explain the creation of life and rules meant to govern human behavior.

 

Who creates these stories with characters like God and Satan? People do. And since people need something external to believe in, for Christianity the two poles of Good and Evil are God and Satan. God the creator, and Satan the destroyer. But every culture's religion has a creator and destroyer figure.

 

I believe in science because you can prove or disprove something. Religion is based on hearsay. The philosophy of religion is to find the answer without having proof but with logical arguments instead.

 

I was raised Catholic but I just don't believe in the story of Heaven and Hell and God and Satan anymore because it's not plausible to me. Just as I don't believe in the existence of aliens the way Hollywood portrays them like Spielberg's ET.

 

Writergal, you have every right to believe as you wish. But to believe in science is also a form of faith but nobody who claims that they believe in science will ever admit that. Evolutionary theory has countless gaps that are filled with one theory after the other in order to make it work.

 

Science always leaves itself an out. It states what it believes to be supported by evidence as factual, but once it becomes unfactual at some point, science conveniently treats the former as a theory which leaves it an out. I have no particular issue with much of modern-day science and what strides they've made in space, or technology, or medicine. I just find the entire "fill in the gaps" approach to evolution to be rather ridiculous and disingenuous because on it's face it takes considerable faith to believe much of what they are selling you.

 

My belief in the Bible is also a form of faith, but the Bible never denies that. Hebrews says, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

Like you, I was also reared as a Catholic, and to me it was a dark dreary place with little sign of God, and a redundantly boring form of worship week after week. I wondered often, is this really where God dwells?

 

But when I saw the dire differences between what I learned growing up Catholic and what I saw in the witness of the Bible, I never looked back. Catholicism has done to many what it's done to you unfortunately. It has destroyed any potential for a Godly faith and turned you in the other direction, and for that I think Roman Catholicism has been a determent to mankind. Not to mention its blatantly bloody, murderous, and dark history.

[The Blue Knight]

The reason I use the word "filter" is because its how we take in information and how we inform our lives' purpose. All incoming information we receive is "filtered" through a lens like a camera lens. By age six, our belief systems are pretty much formed (the basics anyway). So we spend the rest of our lives adding information to our belief system that can enhance it, damage it or change it. So, religion is a filter in that sense. I don't define religion as a crutch or coping mechanism, although many people choose to define religion that way. I think that people's belief systems alter the information taken in to fit the truth as we know it or interpret it to be. And everyone interprets the world based on their belief system, and not everyone has the same belief system. Religion is a mental filter, not a belief system in that sense.

Writergal, as KathyM says, God isn't a filter or paradigm for what we believe. Your material sounds very new age which doesn't surprise me. The new age has been spinning the Biblical God now for a good 30 years going back to Shirley Maclaine's book where she claimed to be god.

 

Moreover, no true Christian defines their belief in God as a "religion." Religion is a man-made vehicle to reach God. God instead sought a "relationship" and therein lies the difference.

[Engadget]

Satan because God's an *******.

 

God really was an *******, but I vote neither because the judeo-christian god is a fabrication.

[TaraMaiden]

Writergal, you have every right to believe as you wish. But to believe in science is also a form of faith but nobody who claims that they believe in science will ever admit that.

The big difference between science and faith is that Science either admits it's a theory, or proves it's a fact.

There are no hazy theoretical areas in science that require you to suspend investigation, and merely put your faith in the untested theory.

Quite the opposite in fact.

 

Evolutionary theory has countless gaps that are filled with one theory after the other in order to make it work.

Evolution relies on more than just science. It relies on archaeology and biology, which are both investigative and ongoing in their discoveries. Where have you found these gaps?

 

Science always leaves itself an out. It states what it believes to be supported by evidence as factual, but once it becomes unfactual at some point, science conveniently treats the former as a theory which leaves it an out.

For example?

 

I have no particular issue with much of modern-day science and what strides they've made in space, or technology, or medicine. I just find the entire "fill in the gaps" approach to evolution to be rather ridiculous and disingenuous because on it's face it takes considerable faith to believe much of what they are selling you.

They're not selling you anything.

And at least they have an 'out' because they admit that further investigation may be required and such matters are ongoing.

Where does religion admit to that?

 

 

My belief in the Bible is also a form of faith, but the Bible never denies that. Hebrews says, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

So while science is eager - not to say founded upon the prerequisite factor of providing visual and tangible evidence, you think that the Bible stands up better to scrutiny because it requires you to have faith in evidence of things NOT seen....?

You're kidding - right?

 

 

Like you, I was also reared as a Catholic, and to me it was a dark dreary place with little sign of God, and a redundantly boring form of worship week after week. I wondered often, is this really where God dwells?

was raised as a Catholic and it was never like that for me.

I just couldn't bring myself to give it any credence whatsoever.

 

But when I saw the dire differences between what I learned growing up Catholic and what I saw in the witness of the Bible, I never looked back. Catholicism has done to many what it's done to you unfortunately. It has destroyed any potential for a Godly faith and turned you in the other direction, and for that I think Roman Catholicism has been a determent to mankind. Not to mention its blatantly bloody, murderous, and dark history.

Catholicism also depends upon the bible as its central tenet of Faith.

Which bible did you study that was different to the bible you read as a Catholic?

How did they differ?

Catholicism may have its faults, but you cannot lay all blame at their feet....

Name me any Religion that has not had a 'bloody, murderous and dark history'. Protestants, Puritans and members of other faiths have all done their share of persecuting others.

[pureinheart]

For most people, if they ask god something, they wont get an answer.

 

LOL, I always get an "answer", although:

 

it's usually what I don't want to hear, and sometimes never in "my" timing:D

[pureinheart]

Satan because God's an *******.

 

God really was an *******, but I vote neither because the judeo-christian god is a fabrication.

 

E, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel...

 

Come on E, why do you think God is a (insert bad word)?

[KathyM]

Wait a minute...who says that everything animalistic is also self destructive? What's sinful about being engaged with one's senses?

 

I don't see animals getting drunk (other than a couple of youtube videos of monkeys). I don't see them getting stoned. I don't see animals engaging in a lot of the behaviours that are almost exclusively confined to human beings - but that, for some reason, are termed animalistic.

 

As for the implication that people who are in touch with their animal side must be promiscuous drunks who have random sex with strangers and then regret it...that's quite a judgement to make.

 

A bit of both - animal and spiritual (or intellectual) - is, I should think, what most people realistically aspire towards.

When people refer to "giving in to their animalistic nature", they are meaning giving in to their impulses without regard to its long-term effect on oneself or others. When people get drunk, gamble, get high, have a ONS, beat up someone, they are giving in to their impulses, which can lead to long term negative consequences for oneself or others. God has created rules for His creation that are meant to keep us out of trouble. That are meant to help us live in harmony with others. Giving in to your animalistic side is usually not a good thing. It's reacting or indulging your impulses without regard for others or the long-term consequences for yourself or others. I'd say most people have higher aspirations for themselves than just giving in to their impulses.

[zengirl]

51% of all scientists believe in God or a higher power.

 

If you actually look down at the questions of the survey that I believe you're citing, study by a Catholic organization suggests 51% of scientists believe 'Some form of a higher power' is possible or probable. And that's in America, not in the world, and it certainly doesn't mean they believe what you believe or in the Rapture, etc. There are many people who find that stuff ridiculous and believe in some form of a higher power! Most scientists I know are not necessarily atheists, but that doesn't mean they have any belief in the Bible and I've yet to see ANY study that suggests any significant percentage of scientists, even American scientists, believe in a literal translation of Biblical scripture. Good luck finding a source on that.

 

When they poll Christians, the majority of Christians do not even significantly believe in the literal version of the Rapture you're citing. Hardly half of Christians do in some polls. Almost no college-educated people believe in the Rapture; I assume that includes most scientists and therapists, who would all have degrees: http://www.good.is/post/more-than-40-percent-of-americans-believe-the-rapture-is-coming/

Edited June 6, 2012 by zengirl

[zengirl]

But to believe in science is also a form of faith but nobody who claims that they believe in science will ever admit that. Evolutionary theory has countless gaps that are filled with one theory after the other in order to make it work.

 

No one 'admits' it because it's not true --- it's taking totally different versions of words. This happens quite often with the word 'believe.'

 

No one "believes" in the Theory of Evolution as an act of faith; they simply recognize the many ways that it stands up as a well-substantiated explanation of phenomenon, which is what a scientific theory is. Theories are testable, including much of what makes up the Theory of Evolution, and require evidence to support it---actual hard evidence, not merely words written in a text.

 

Scientists don't "believe" in science. They practice it, question it, probe it, wonder at it, examine it, and constantly pick it apart. That's their job, and that's how you honor science: with rigorous skepticism towards conclusions and dedication to a process that allows you to seek the truth, not declare the truth and then support it later. Science is empirical in nature, and Faith is exactly the opposite. If you approach science with devotion to a pre-existing belief, you can never truly practice science. However, presenting non-scientific evidence or "feelings" against a scientific theory is what most people take umbrage to. If someone actually found a "crack" in Evolutionary Theory, from a scientific, factual, empirical perspective, the theory would either be busted or re-written. That's actually what happens in science -- science changes over time, quite willfully, to accommodate new information and facts.

[KathyM]

If you actually look down at the questions of the survey that I believe you're citing, study by a Catholic organization suggests 51% of scientists believe 'Some form of a higher power' is possible or probable. And that's in America, not in the world, and it certainly doesn't mean they believe what you believe or in the Rapture, etc. There are many people who find that stuff ridiculous and believe in some form of a higher power! Most scientists I know are not necessarily atheists, but that doesn't mean they have any belief in the Bible and I've yet to see ANY study that suggests any significant percentage of scientists, even American scientists, believe in a literal translation of Biblical scripture. Good luck finding a source on that.

 

When they poll Christians, the majority of Christians do not even significantly believe in the literal version of the Rapture you're citing. Hardly half of Christians do in some polls. Almost no college-educated people believe in the Rapture; I assume that includes most scientists and therapists, who would all have degrees: More Than 40 Percent of Americans Believe the Rapture Is Coming - Culture - GOOD

Actually, no, I'm taking this figure (51% of scientists believe in a higher power) from The Pew Forum, which is a Washington-based nonpartisan, non-advocacy organization that doesn't take positions on any of the issues or policies it covers. Another non-Christian source that says 66% of all scientists believe in God is a publication called Live Science, which reports that two studies done showed 66% believed in God, and came to the conclusion that the notion that science and religion are incompatible can be debunked. It's not just Christian or religious sources that are coming up with these figures. And I didn't say that all scientists who believe in God are Christians. Obviously, there are various religious faiths that believe in God, and scientists who believe in God are not necessarily Christian, although the majority of those that believe in God are Christian.

 

As far as the Rapture, not all Christians interpret that event in the same way. All Christians do believe that Christ will return and we will be reunited with Him. A good percentage of Christians believe that will happen prior to the Tribulation, some believe it will happen during the Tribulation, some believe it will happen after the Tribulation, but they still all have the belief that Christ will return and we will be reunited with Him for all eternity. That is a basic principle belief of Christianity. But as I said, the Rapture is interpreted in different ways.

[The Blue Knight]

If you actually look down at the questions of the survey that I believe you're citing, study by a Catholic organization suggests 51% of scientists believe 'Some form of a higher power' is possible or probable. And that's in America, not in the world, and it certainly doesn't mean they believe what you believe or in the Rapture, etc. There are many people who find that stuff ridiculous and believe in some form of a higher power! Most scientists I know are not necessarily atheists, but that doesn't mean they have any belief in the Bible and I've yet to see ANY study that suggests any significant percentage of scientists, even American scientists, believe in a literal translation of Biblical scripture. Good luck finding a source on that.

 

When they poll Christians, the majority of Christians do not even significantly believe in the literal version of the Rapture you're citing. Hardly half of Christians do in some polls. Almost no college-educated people believe in the Rapture; I assume that includes most scientists and therapists, who would all have degrees: More Than 40 Percent of Americans Believe the Rapture Is Coming - Culture - GOOD

 

Actually there are plenty of scientists who believe in a literal Bible but none of those things mean a darn thing Zen. incidentally, I have several college degrees and I believe in the rapture. But that's not even the point.

 

If it's a popularity contest to determine what is "true" and what "isn't true", then the Christian faith means very little. When I stuck up for a kid in grade school who was being picked on for a birth defect, I was in the minority (him and me), and as a result of siding with him and trying to protect him, I wasn't very popular with many of the alpha males in the class. I did what I believed was right and what I believed to be true. I didn't follow what was popular.

 

Moreover, consider that our academic institutions are staunchly liberal think tanks, and therefore, any notion of God or belief in the Bible would of course be dismissed. Hardly the best place to draw conclusions from.

 

If popular belief meant anything, then Obama's "hope and change" sales pitch would have actually gained us much more than $5 trillion more in debt, a higher cost of living, 8.2% unemployment, and $3.50 per gallon gas prices. So just because something is popular or everyone is "doing it" doesn't make it right or true. It just means everyone is jumping on board.

 

What's popular effectively means nothing or I'd be watching highly rated idiot TV like Jersey Shores.

[The Blue Knight]

No one 'admits' it because it's not true --- it's taking totally different versions of words. This happens quite often with the word 'believe.'

 

No one "believes" in the Theory of Evolution as an act of faith; they simply recognize the many ways that it stands up as a well-substantiated explanation of phenomenon, which is what a scientific theory is. Theories are testable, including much of what makes up the Theory of Evolution, and require evidence to support it---actual hard evidence, not merely words written in a text.

 

Scientists don't "believe" in science. They practice it, question it, probe it, wonder at it, examine it, and constantly pick it apart. That's their job, and that's how you honor science: with rigorous skepticism towards conclusions and dedication to a process that allows you to seek the truth, not declare the truth and then support it later. Science is empirical in nature, and Faith is exactly the opposite. If you approach science with devotion to a pre-existing belief, you can never truly practice science. However, presenting non-scientific evidence or "feelings" against a scientific theory is what most people take umbrage to. If someone actually found a "crack" in Evolutionary Theory, from a scientific, factual, empirical perspective, the theory would either be busted or re-written. That's actually what happens in science -- science changes over time, quite willfully, to accommodate new information and facts.

Short of having someone around several dozen million years ago who saw evolution taking place and recording it, it remains pure speculation with many, many problems that it can't explain. Meanwhile the New Testament was written 1900 years ago by men who witnessed Jesus' life on earth. I'll put my stock in the witnesses who all died martyrs deaths for what they believed.

[TaraMaiden]

Short of having someone around several dozen million years ago who saw evolution taking place and recording it, it remains pure speculation with many, many problems that it can't explain. Meanwhile the New Testament was written 1900 years ago by men who witnessed Jesus' life on earth. I'll put my stock in the witnesses who all died martyrs deaths for what they believed.

 

Your ignorance is actually breathtaking.

I can't believe you just 'said' that.....

 

Never be prepared to die for your beliefs. You may well be wrong, so why waste a perfectly good life on hypothesis...?

 

I really think at this stage that you should stop ignorantly posting claims that you've clearly heard second hand, at best, and do some of your own research into these topics because you have shown yourself to be sadly misinformed about nearly every topic you have tackled.

 

QFT. I' have to say, I'll drink to that....

[black_shemer]

The big difference between science and faith is that Science either admits it's a theory, or proves it's a fact.

There are no hazy theoretical areas in science that require you to suspend investigation, and merely put your faith in the untested theory.

Quite the opposite in fact.

 

 

Evolution relies on more than just science. It relies on archaeology and biology, which are both investigative and ongoing in their discoveries. Where have you found these gaps?

 

 

For example?

 

 

They're not selling you anything.

And at least they have an 'out' because they admit that further investigation may be required and such matters are ongoing.

Where does religion admit to that?

 

 

 

So while science is eager - not to say founded upon the prerequisite factor of providing visual and tangible evidence, you think that the Bible stands up better to scrutiny because it requires you to have faith in evidence of things NOT seen....?

You're kidding - right?

 

 

 

was raised as a Catholic and it was never like that for me.

I just couldn't bring myself to give it any credence whatsoever.

 

 

Catholicism also depends upon the bible as its central tenet of Faith.

Which bible did you study that was different to the bible you read as a Catholic?

How did they differ?

Catholicism may have its faults, but you cannot lay all blame at their feet....

Name me any Religion that has not had a 'bloody, murderous and dark history'. Protestants, Puritans and members of other faiths have all done their share of persecuting others.

 

back to 5 senses principles,i dont believe in that f u have misunderstood me taramaiden. The thing that makes me believe i have brain and the things around me is my 'faith in God'. I dont know about you,but me,i believe He exist.how could u explain the things around you?is it just because of your 5senses?so well wer did u got ur 5senses?from ur mother?wer dd ur mother came from?from ur grandmother?fast forward,wer dd ur grndmother came from?God is the answer to all that question.

[black_shemer]

Yes. That's how existence works. Everything that exists can be sensed somehow, and everything that can be sensed exists.

 

It's not too difficult to grasp I tihnk.

 

Basically, if it can't be seen, smelt, heard, felt or tasted, it doesn't exist.

 

well,I felt God therefore he exists. I feel Him everyday by my side. Satan exist also,i always hear him on the inside hearts of my neighbors shouting at each other.I always hear him in the news making people snatch someone's bag,rape a girl something like that.so i guess i believe that 5sense principle is true dont u think so?

[zengirl]

Actually, no, I'm taking this figure (51% of scientists believe in a higher power) from The Pew Forum, which is a Washington-based nonpartisan, non-advocacy organization that doesn't take positions on any of the issues or policies it covers.

 

"A higher power" is not the same thing as "God." I believe in a higher power, but do not believe in God, as you mean it.

 

The Live Science study percentage includes 'social scientists' (which aren't really scientists - a psychologist is not a scientist to most people who use the word, etc), as well as engineers, doctors, etc; hell, it even includes political scientists! Poli sci is hardly science! The percentage for people who work in the hard sciences is much lower. Again, those people aren't saying they believe in Christianity, the Bible, or the Rapture, but a higher power. At any rate, I don't disagree that many scientists are spiritual -- however, spiritual is not the same thing as religious. Even those studies show that while those people may believe in a higher power, they do not believe in the kind of religious fundamentalism you're stating. *I* am spiritual and believe in a higher power, but most people who believe in any kind of religious fundamentalism --- statistics bear out --- are the less educated.

 

And I didn't say that all scientists who believe in God are Christians. Obviously, there are various religious faiths that believe in God, and scientists who believe in God are not necessarily Christian, although the majority of those that believe in God are Christian.

 

Right, but you were refuting FF's point that people who believe in the Rapture and literal translations of Satan etc are ignorant and ill-educated. Generally speaking, statistically, that bears out to be true. The vast majority of the better educated people in our nation and elsewhere tend not to statistically believe in that. My point was that your statistics fail to refute that or paint an accurate picture.

 

As far as the Rapture, not all Christians interpret that event in the same way. All Christians do believe that Christ will return and we will be reunited with Him. A good percentage of Christians believe that will happen prior to the Tribulation, some believe it will happen during the Tribulation, some believe it will happen after the Tribulation, but they still all have the belief that Christ will return and we will be reunited with Him for all eternity. That is a basic principle belief of Christianity. But as I said, the Rapture is interpreted in different ways.

 

And over 1/3 of the Christians in America, based on many polls, including the one I posted don't believe in the Rapture AT ALL. And hardly any of the Christians anywhere else believe in it. It's not just a matter of interpretation as to when --- many actually don't believe it's got any validity whatsoever.

 

Actually there are plenty of scientists who believe in a literal Bible but none of those things mean a darn thing Zen. incidentally, I have several college degrees and I believe in the rapture. But that's not even the point.

 

Then you're among the 19% in the U.S. and even smaller amount world-wide. I didn't say none --- I posted a survey with statistics.

 

If it's a popularity contest to determine what is "true" and what "isn't true"

 

I cited statistics because Kathy had. I actually think using beliefs, faith, or opinion to decide what's "True" or not to be a terrible idea. That's why I like science, which never claims truth --- just facts, empirical data, and the summation of the experiments, observations, and evidence.

 

Short of having someone around several dozen million years ago who saw evolution taking place and recording it, it remains pure speculation with many, many problems that it can't explain. Meanwhile the New Testament was written 1900 years ago by men who witnessed Jesus' life on earth. I'll put my stock in the witnesses who all died martyrs deaths for what they believed.

 

Simply not true. There are many things we can empirically examine without literally being there.

 

As to The Bible, I consider the writing in it about as reliable as the Iliad and Odyssey. It's the same type of text.

[The Blue Knight]

Your ignorance is actually breathtaking.

I can't believe you just 'said' that.....

 

Never be prepared to die for your beliefs. You may well be wrong, so why waste a perfectly good life on hypothesis...?

 

QFT. I' have to say, I'll drink to that....

I have a degree in the field and 35 years of study as a Christian. I might have a bit more knowledge than what some of you seem to believe you have for credentials. I have no problem with where you put your faith Tara. You can put it in a rock if that pleases you. That's the beauty of being free to believe as you like. But the bottom line remains the same. You weren't there, and you can only speculate about what you believe to be the truth just as I have to speculate about what I believe to be the truth.

Paul addressed those who like yourself don't accept God when he wrote to the Corinthians: "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them."

Sound familiar?

The Gospels were written by men who knew Jesus or who knew his apostles / disciples and of course Paul penned 27 books of the New Testament and had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, and admitted that he never knew him in Jesus' lifetime on earth.

 

Peter himself addressed those who doubted when he wrote: "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

 

John wrote in very similar language emphasizing again the eyewitness account: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you."

Again, I'll take these men's testimony and many others in the Scriptural accounts over some half-baked theory that assumes all life on earth happened by chance to arise from a single living cell.

 

And the "ignorance" statement is preciously why I don't bother with these conversations with evolutionists and atheists. Each of you assumes a very superior posture during these conversations and toss insulting remarks despite not having a very good handle on Christian Apologetics or Hermeneutics.

 

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

[The Blue Knight]

"

I cited statistics because Kathy had. I actually think using beliefs, faith, or opinion to decide what's "True" or not to be a terrible idea. That's why I like science, which never claims truth --- just facts, empirical data, and the summation of the experiments, observations, and evidence.

Well it's amazing to me that any scientist can claim as "fact" how the entire evolutionary process occurred spanning millions and millions of years, but that hasn't stopped them from stating it as factual or from having it taught in our schools as factual despite it being nothing more than a theory.

 

If you ever have the desire since you're speaking of evidence, read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" sometime.