who will you worship God or Satan?

[d'Arthez]

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.

So is the Periodic Table and Chemical theory. No one knows WHY elements behave as they do. Want to go back to the four element theory of the Greeks?

 

So is Optics. Want to go back to constructing watch towers and signaling "danger" with a few gestures?

While you are at it, cast away your television since no one actually knows WHY things are as they are, and why a television set is actually working as it does?

 

Why are people so selective in agreeing with science?

[black_shemer]

You're not using any of your sensory inputs in order to project some mythological being onto events that occur around you. Your ears just detect soundwaves and relay that information to the brain to do with as it sees fit.

 

To answer your earlier question, our senses are a product of our physiology. Our eyes contain a bunch of light-sensitive cells, our ears detect vibrations in the air, taste and smell are complex chemical reactions. That's it. If you want to know the origins of these abilities, do some investigation into evolution.

 

if ever i would go through investgation,based on science still i am just relying on what other have observed.sense of hearing is still a sense isnt it?and i just dont use it.i felt it.another sense ryt? I felt that satan exist since the earth are getting worst.who urge people to do things bad?on the other way,i felt God too exist because of the miracles and happenings that just cannot be explained by science.and the few people who are devoted to spread christianity despite of the people who shoo them away.who urge them?God. I may not have evidences on the miracles God created but only Faith is all i have.

 

still 5senses applied.

[zengirl]

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.

 

They claim it because they've found evidence that proves it factually true. The fact that you cannot understand that evidence doesn't really say anything about science. Perhaps it wasn't taught properly when you were in school and you'd understand why we can have evidence on a process that spans millions of years, the same way we can say why mountains are formed or volcanic islands, despite not 'being there,' if you had been in a school that had allowed for real scientific teaching. Hard to say.

 

Again, I don't think you understand what a Scientific Theory is. Certainly, scientific theories --- which is the body of science, though there are Scientific Laws, which are different --- can be re-written or proven false at times, though it happens rarely because it takes rigorous scientific evidence for something to become a Scientific Theory.

 

Religious assertions wouldn't even qualify as a hypothesis, as they are untestable. All of science must be testable and Theories are things that have been tested, time and time again, and proven reliable and factual. They are not considered "absolute truth" because science deals in facts, not absolute truth, and is always looking for new and better evidence and empirical data.

 

Scientific Theories ARE factual. That's all they are. There are no beliefs, no hopes, no faith, etc. There is only facts and the interpretation of data. Is the interpretation of data perfect? Probably not, as it's done by man, but that is why science is always asking new questions and seeking out new data and re-testing and so forth.

 

Whereas the kind of religion you're speaking of is AGAINST being tested or questioned at all and asks you to take it at face value as truth, based on "belief". Science doesn't operate on "belief." All of these things ARE facts. As d'artnez says, there are many times we don't know 'why' something is. We are merely recording that it is.

 

The nature of science is to question. The nature of most organized religion is to shut down questioning. As such, they are diametrically opposed. That's not to say that science and spirituality are diametrically opposed at all. I think science and spirituality get along fine, but not all spirituality looks like religion. That's not even to say that individual scientists can't make their lives work with organized religion (though they don't tend to be fundamentalists and rather pick and choose their tenets, as they'd have to go with a facts-first attitude towards their work).

[black_shemer]

Out of curiosity, black_shemer, what sense are you using when you "feel" god and the devil? Because if it's not taste, smell, touch, sight or hearing then it's not sensory. I suspect your thinking is muddled on this because you're using the wrong words to describe it.

dont be mean.haha

what i felt means using my sense of sight and sense of hearing. mix sense i guess what u can call that. I never i would explain things to someone who really dont want to listen and undertand me,but who is willing to contradict what am trying to say.its really hard being a christian,some will need hard evidences on u just to prove u wer right despite of the things happen around us.

[The Blue Knight]

They claim it because they've found evidence that proves it factually true. The fact that you cannot understand that evidence doesn't really say anything about science. Perhaps it wasn't taught properly when you were in school and you'd understand why we can have evidence on a process that spans millions of years, the same way we can say why mountains are formed or volcanic islands, despite not 'being there,' if you had been in a school that had allowed for real scientific teaching. Hard to say.

 

Again, I don't think you understand what a Scientific Theory is. Certainly, scientific theories --- which is the body of science, though there are Scientific Laws, which are different --- can be re-written or proven false at times, though it happens rarely because it takes rigorous scientific evidence for something to become a Scientific Theory.

 

Religious assertions wouldn't even qualify as a hypothesis, as they are untestable. All of science must be testable and Theories are things that have been tested, time and time again, and proven reliable and factual. They are not considered "absolute truth" because science deals in facts, not absolute truth, and is always looking for new and better evidence and empirical data.

 

Scientific Theories ARE factual. That's all they are. There are no beliefs, no hopes, no faith, etc. There is only facts and the interpretation of data. Is the interpretation of data perfect? Probably not, as it's done by man, but that is why science is always asking new questions and seeking out new data and re-testing and so forth.

 

Whereas the kind of religion you're speaking of is AGAINST being tested or questioned at all and asks you to take it at face value as truth, based on "belief". Science doesn't operate on "belief." All of these things ARE facts. As d'artnez says, there are many times we don't know 'why' something is. We are merely recording that it is.

 

The nature of science is to question. The nature of most organized religion is to shut down questioning. As such, they are diametrically opposed. That's not to say that science and spirituality are diametrically opposed at all. I think science and spirituality get along fine, but not all spirituality looks like religion. That's not even to say that individual scientists can't make their lives work with organized religion (though they don't tend to be fundamentalists and rather pick and choose their tenets, as they'd have to go with a facts-first attitude towards their work).

I'm not sure why you assume I don't understand science or scientific investigation. I do. I just don't think it isn't without it's biases and it's agendas . . . particularly in relation to such subjects as global warming. So explain to me how global warming is scientifically testable when we've only been keeping track of global temperatures since what . . . 1870? It's certainly talked about by those scientists and politicians as factual. Anyone who disagrees is considered an out of touch moron for not drinking the kool aid.

 

Moreover, if you remember the 70s, the scientific community was talking about another ice age on it's way throughout that decade.

 

And you want me to buy into evolutionary theory when we went from the doom and gloom of the ice age to 25 years later, the fear of global warming? If that's the science you wish to put your faith in, be my guest.

 

I have no illusions science is necessary and I strongly support science despite your comment that people of faith "shut down questioning." That's hardly true of me or any other Christian that I know. I'm sure you have fundamentalist Muslims who might take issue with it.

 

My issue isn't science. My issue is the agenda's that science tries to fulfill. Evolution is just one example.

 

This snippet from Christian Answers probably better explains where I'm at.

 

_________________

 

Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIIA's Resource Associate for Science and Origins, says this:

 

Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.

 

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.

 

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:

 

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

 

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:

 

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

 

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled “The Biologist,” that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and “J” (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

 

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

 

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

 

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

 

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

 

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

 

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.

 

G: What elephant?

 

G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!

 

Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research:

 

[scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself.

[The Blue Knight]

35 years of study and you still somehow think that the New Testament was written "by men who witnessed Jesus' life on earth"? I call BS.

 

Whine all you want, but it's true. You say things that are fundamentally wrong about basic details of science (and theology). I, and others, have called you on it, asked you to explain some of your vague assertions and you're running away with your tail between your legs.

 

Thank you for playing. Next!

I forgot Joe. You were there so obviously you're the authority.

 

I'm hardly running away. I just happen to have a lot of experience in these round-and-round conversations with atheists and evolutionists and given the hours I could spend debating this stuff, it will effectively change nothing about your position or mine. So what's the point? Believe as you wish, and allow me to believe as I wish. I really have no particular interest in changing your mind.

[black_shemer]

,i wish i am like you,great in explaining things.

[black_shemer]

I forgot Joe. You were there so obviously you're the authority.

 

I'm hardly running away. I just happen to have a lot of experience in these round-and-round conversations with atheists and evolutionists and given the hours I could spend debating this stuff, it will effectively change nothing about your position or mine. So what's the point? Believe as you wish, and allow me to believe as I wish. I really have no particular interest in changing your mind.

 

do u mind if i ask are you a preacher before?u seem have a lot of knowledge as a christian

[M30USA]

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

 

"You have not because you ask not. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (James 4:2b-3)

 

Thankfully God doesn't answer many of our prayers because the Bible says our hearts are wicked and seek selfish gain. In fact, contrary to what celebrity pastors teach, the Bible has many cases where God grants the desires of the wicked and withholds the desires of his chosen. Look at Jacob and Esau. Jacob was loved by God yet suffered immensely; Esau was hated by God yet became rich and powerful.

[The Blue Knight]

So is the Periodic Table and Chemical theory. No one knows WHY elements behave as they do. Want to go back to the four element theory of the Greeks?

 

So is Optics. Want to go back to constructing watch towers and signaling "danger" with a few gestures?

While you are at it, cast away your television since no one actually knows WHY things are as they are, and why a television set is actually working as it does?

 

Why are people so selective in agreeing with science?

And Darwin's book Origin of Species was published in 1859. And yet, all evolutionists have to start there.

 

I don't recall myself or anyone suggesting that science and human advancements were bad. So this idea that I'd trade my car for a horse and buggy is a rather stupid analogy.

 

I just happen to believe that the answers are found in an intelligent designer.

[The Blue Knight]

do u mind if i ask are you a preacher before?u seem have a lot of knowledge as a christian

 

Nope, never a preacher I'm afraid.

[The Blue Knight]

"You have not because you ask not. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (James 4:2b-3)

 

Thankfully God doesn't answer many of our prayers because the Bible says our hearts are wicked and seek selfish gain. In fact, contrary to what celebrity pastors teach, the Bible has many cases where God grants the desires of the wicked and withholds the desires of his chosen. Look at Jacob and Esau. Jacob was loved by God yet suffered immensely; Esau was hated by God yet became rich and powerful.

 

 

Good points M30. My guess however is anything "Biblical" will fall on deaf ears. I kind of suspected this thread would steer off in this direction when it first got posted. Hardcore atheists and evolutionists are always drawn to any "God subject", with the apparent goal of educating the uneducated and uninformed.

[KathyM]

"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.

 

Just to be accurate, the first source I mentioned stated 33% of scientists believe in God. 18% of scientists believe in a higher power, however they define that term. That makes 51% who believe in either God or a higher power.

 

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.

 

33% of scientists believe in God, with another 18% who believe in a higher power. Since a greater percentage of those who believe in God are Christians as opposed to some other religious faith, that would mean that there are many scientists who are Christians. Why is that so hard for people to accept--that there are Christians who are scientists, mathematicians, engineers, college graduates, etc. Highly intelligent people who are Christians. In fact, some of the most highly educated people I know are very firm in their Christian faith. A man who has a college degree in advanced math and statistics. A man who was studying to be an aereonautical engineer, and who left that career path to join the Christian ministry. A woman with multiple college degrees in medicine, biology, etc. Most of the Christians I know personally have college degrees. I have a Bachelor's Degree and am working on my Master's Degree, and I'm a Christian. Why is it so hard for people to accept that others have beliefs and are still educated? Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean that others can't be both highly educated and Christian at the same time. Some people have more than just their book knowledge--they also have faith, and they don't find those two things to be contradictory.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

That not really true, that most Christians don't believe in the Rapture. Most Christians do believe in the Rapture, they just have a varied opinion of what the Rapture entails. All Christians believe that Christ will return and we will be reunited with Him. That is a fundamental belief of the Christian faith. Someone who does not believe that fundamental Christian principle is not really a Christian. That would be like saying most Christians don't believe in the resurrection. If there are such people, they are not Christians.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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 Bible reports accounts of actual men who lived at the time of Christ. Who witnessed, and documented.

[sally4sara]

Unfortunately I often see a correlation between lower education or intelligence and adherence to religious dogma. While I get that what a person does not know is not an accurate measure of their potential for intelligence, knowledge grows exponentially.

 

Many times growing up in a highly religious family, certain subjects were deemed "against god". These things were shunned by the adults and the children were discouraged by the church and their parents from learning about them. Much of it had to do with science, medicine, current events and history. When a religion fears they will lose believers if they are exposed to information, especially factual information, you end up seeing a larger instance of that religion's followers being less intelligent.

 

So while I don't worship god, it doesn't imply that I worship Satan or any other mythological character either. I'd have to believe in a god to believe in its enemy or opposite. It isn't a choice forced by an either/or condition. You can choose to not worship god or Satan or anything else and be free to learn and become more and more intelligent without guilt.

[zengirl]

KathyM, the Bible documents its time period just as Homer documented in the Iliad, and as such, is the same kind of story. Fantastical stories poised as history or explanations of the world are found all throughout literature. We generally call them myths, though they would've been considered just as true at some times as your Bible is today by you.

 

As far as "most Christians" believing in the Rapture, the study I posted clearly says otherwise and I've not seen one that does suggest they do. Even in America, where the idea is more common.

[KathyM]

KathyM, the Bible documents its time period just as Homer documented in the Iliad, and as such, is the same kind of story. Fantastical stories poised as history or explanations of the world are found all throughout literature. We generally call them myths, though they would've been considered just as true at some times as your Bible is today by you.

 

As far as "most Christians" believing in the Rapture, the study I posted clearly says otherwise and I've not seen one that does suggest they do. Even in America, where the idea is more common.

Your "study" is from a highly questionable source, but what I'm saying is that the Rapture is not defined in the same way by Christians. But all Christians do believe that Christ will return and we will be reunited with Him.

 

In any case, I am done with this debate. I've answered the OP's question, and I see now that one of my posts refuting a untrue statement about the existence of Nazareth was deleted for no reason, which did not violate any TOU. So there's no point in continuing this discussion.

[M30USA]

The rapture and the second coming are two different events, separated by an unspecified period of time. Christians will be raptured in a fashion that we are not told, except that it will be in the blink of an eye. Biblically, my understanding is that no further events must take place before the rapture occurs. There are, however, events which must precede Christ's return: the rapture, the armageddon, and the repentsnce of the nation Israel into accepting Christ. It's important to realize that, in order for the saints to be with Christ upon his return (as Bible says), they must have been taken to him before (ie, raptured).

 

The key trait of the end times, according to Jesus, will not be what most people expect. Even though there will be wars, famines, natural disasters, etc, the distinguishing characteristic will be DECEPTION. Jesus warned, "Take heed that noone deceive you." He warned of such widescale deception that even his chosen people would come to the verge of being sucked into it. Without complete humble surrender to Gods word and reliance on the Holy Spirit, a person stands no chance of deciphering truth during this coming time.

[wuggle]

so when is this end of the world, rapture stuff going to happen ??

 

would be nice to know so that I can rack up loads of debt having a good time first ...

[KathyM]

The rapture and the second coming are two different events, separated by an unspecified period of time. Christians will be raptured in a fashion that we are not told, except that it will be in the blink of an eye. Biblically, my understanding is that no further events must take place before the rapture occurs. There are, however, events which must precede Christ's return: the rapture, the armageddon, and the repentsnce of the nation Israel into accepting Christ. It's important to realize that, in order for the saints to be with Christ upon his return (as Bible says), they must have been taken to him before (ie, raptured).

 

The key trait of the end times, according to Jesus, will not be what most people expect. Even though there will be wars, famines, natural disasters, etc, the distinguishing characteristic will be DECEPTION. Jesus warned, "Take heed that noone deceive you." He warned of such widescale deception that even his chosen people would come to the verge of being sucked into it. Without complete humble surrender to Gods word and reliance on the Holy Spirit, a person stands no chance of deciphering truth during this coming time.

Some Christians believe the Rapture will happen before the Tribulation, as I stated earlier. Some believe it will be during the Tribulation. Some believe it will be after the Tribulation, when Christ returns, basically simultaneously with Christ's return we will be reunited with Him. I, personally, believe the Bible demonstrates that it will be before the Tribulation, but exactly when is really subject to interpretation of Bible passages.

[Crusoe]

so when is this end of the world, rapture stuff going to happen ??

 

would be nice to know so that I can rack up loads of debt having a good time first ...

 

I'd like to know too. I plan to be wearing a nuns habit and balls deep in a black eyed goat.

 

OP, I worship neither but they're both welcome to kiss my ar*e.

[TaraMaiden]

......

 

In any case, I am done with this debate. I've answered the OP's question, and I see now that one of my posts refuting a untrue statement about the existence of Nazareth was deleted for no reason, which did not violate any TOU. So there's no point in continuing this discussion.

 

OK, bye....

 

And hello again.....

 

Some Christians believe the Rapture will happen before the Tribulation, as I stated earlier. Some believe it will be during the Tribulation. Some believe it will be after the Tribulation, when Christ returns, basically simultaneously with Christ's return we will be reunited with Him. I, personally, believe the Bible demonstrates that it will be before the Tribulation, but exactly when is really subject to interpretation of Bible passages.

 

.... the whole Bible is subject to interpretation, even among Christians, so no surprise there, really.

The day I meet 2 Christians who have the same opinions as each other, I'll have a little private rapture of my own.

[thatone]

I forgot Joe. You were there so obviously you're the authority.

 

I'm hardly running away. I just happen to have a lot of experience in these round-and-round conversations with atheists and evolutionists and given the hours I could spend debating this stuff, it will effectively change nothing about your position or mine. So what's the point? Believe as you wish, and allow me to believe as I wish. I really have no particular interest in changing your mind.

 

because you're wrong.

 

we don't advance by letting wrong people teach children wrong things. knowledge is amassed over the generations.

 

every time a child is taught the religious hoodoo voodoo of his/her parents and believes it as an adult, our advancement as a species is stagnated.

[black_shemer]

Nope, never a preacher I'm afraid.

 

i wish i were like you,great in explaining things about the bible and God.

[black_shemer]

so when is this end of the world, rapture stuff going to happen ??

 

would be nice to know so that I can rack up loads of debt having a good time first ...

 

no ones know even Jesus.the Father only knew.

[M30USA]

because you're wrong.

 

we don't advance by letting wrong people teach children wrong things. knowledge is amassed over the generations.

 

every time a child is taught the religious hoodoo voodoo of his/her parents and believes it as an adult, our advancement as a species is stagnated.

 

Is that a fact?

 

Here is another fact:

 

If you total up all the deaths caused by wars and genicides in the 20th century, LESS than 1% were caused by nations identified as predominantly religious or lead by religious leaders. Atheist leaders take the crown by a long, long shot. Take that fact home and chew on it. I DARE you to challenge that fact. I DARE you.

 

You think the world would be better of without religion? The world leaders who espouse your view have a great track record, eg? Such peace and brotherhood of man, eh?

Edited June 8, 2012 by M30USA