tribeofjudah's Bible study

[Cappster]

Cappster, just out of curiosity, do you believe people have a soul (that is a non-physical part of their existence)?

I am not sure if I would label it a soul, but it does seem we have some sort of energy that keeps us going. I've been on a few ghost adventures before and picked up some audio that is undoubtedly paranormal. If there is only a heaven and a hell, energy from people who have passed on shouldn't be hanging around allowing people to record evidence of its existence.

Why does there have to be only a heaven and a hell?

I am not saying there has to be only the two; however, I am referring to the majority protestant view of what happens when a person dies. This is a thread about the bible so I didn't include any other religious/spiritual views in the discussion. Unless, of course, one wants to include the Catholic purgatory view which LPJ has interjected into the discussion. If purgatory did exist, it seems like all of would have the privilege of going to heaven after our time is served.

OK, so you acknowledge that there is some form of spiritual aspect (no need to label it) to human life. Where does this "energy" come from? Do you believe in reincarnation?

It seems to me that there is some form of energy that resides within us. Energy cannot be destroyed so could it be possible that our "energy" stays intact after we die? Sure. Is it possible that our energy spreads out back into the universe? Sure. Do I believe in reincarnation? No, I do not see any evidence for reincarnation at least in the physical sense. The spiritual sense, I am not sure. In the religious sense, my answer would be no.

[Deadskins]

Cappster, just out of curiosity, do you believe people have a soul (that is a non-physical part of their existence)?

I am not sure if I would label it a soul, but it does seem we have some sort of energy that keeps us going. I've been on a few ghost adventures before and picked up some audio that is undoubtedly paranormal. If there is only a heaven and a hell, energy from people who have passed on shouldn't be hanging around allowing people to record evidence of its existence.

Why does there have to be only a heaven and a hell?

I am not saying there has to be only the two; however, I am referring to the majority protestant view of what happens when a person dies. This is a thread about the bible so I didn't include any other religious/spiritual views in the discussion. Unless, of course, one wants to include the Catholic purgatory view which LPJ has interjected into the discussion. If purgatory did exist, it seems like all of would have the privilege of going to heaven after our time is served.

OK, so you acknowledge that there is some form of spiritual aspect (no need to label it) to human life. Where does this "energy" come from? Do you believe in reincarnation?

It seems to me that there is some form of energy that resides within us. Energy cannot be destroyed so could it be possible that our "energy" stays intact after we die? Sure. Is it possible that our energy spreads out back into the universe? Sure. Do I believe in reincarnation? No, I do not see any evidence for reincarnation at least in the physical sense. The spiritual sense, I am not sure. In the religious sense, my answer would be no.

I don't understand the different senses to my reincarnation question. What I'm asking is, does this energy from one human life then occupy another human life at some point? That ties into my question about where this energy comes from, which you never answered.

[Cappster]

Cappster, just out of curiosity, do you believe people have a soul (that is a non-physical part of their existence)?

I am not sure if I would label it a soul, but it does seem we have some sort of energy that keeps us going. I've been on a few ghost adventures before and picked up some audio that is undoubtedly paranormal. If there is only a heaven and a hell, energy from people who have passed on shouldn't be hanging around allowing people to record evidence of its existence.

Why does there have to be only a heaven and a hell?

I am not saying there has to be only the two; however, I am referring to the majority protestant view of what happens when a person dies. This is a thread about the bible so I didn't include any other religious/spiritual views in the discussion. Unless, of course, one wants to include the Catholic purgatory view which LPJ has interjected into the discussion. If purgatory did exist, it seems like all of would have the privilege of going to heaven after our time is served.

OK, so you acknowledge that there is some form of spiritual aspect (no need to label it) to human life. Where does this "energy" come from? Do you believe in reincarnation?

It seems to me that there is some form of energy that resides within us. Energy cannot be destroyed so could it be possible that our "energy" stays intact after we die? Sure. Is it possible that our energy spreads out back into the universe? Sure. Do I believe in reincarnation? No, I do not see any evidence for reincarnation at least in the physical sense. The spiritual sense, I am not sure. In the religious sense, my answer would be no.

I don't understand the different senses to my reincarnation question. What I'm asking is, does this energy from one human life then occupy another human life at some point? That ties into my question about where this energy comes from, which you never answered.

I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest a transfer of some form of spirit energy from one human to another. So, my answer is no.

[Deadskins]

I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest a transfer of some form of spirit energy from one human to another. So, my answer is no.

Then where does the energy come from?

[Cappster]

I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest a transfer of some form of spirit energy from one human to another. So, my answer is no.

Then where does the energy come from?

The Big Bang

[Deadskins]

So, human spirit energy was created in the big bang, but it took billions of years before our bodies evolved to the point where they could house such a cohesive spirit energy. And then these spirit energies crossed the expanse of interstellar space and began occupying bodies as they became available, here on Earth. And over the last few hundred thousand years, billions more spirit energies came and occupied the new humans that were born. Do I have this right?

[Cappster]

So, human spirit energy was created in the big bang, but it took billions of years before our bodies evolved to the point where they could house such a cohesive spirit energy. And then these spirit energies crossed the expanse of interstellar space and began occupying bodies as they became available, here on Earth. And over the last few hundred thousand years, billions more spirit energies came and occupied the new humans that were born. Do I have this right?

I answered your question in that energy itself was created during the big bang. You are trying to create a straw man argument and I won't be your huckleberry to that. I've stated my stance here:

It seems to me that there is some form of energy that resides within us. Energy cannot be destroyed so could it be possible that our "energy" stays intact after we die? Sure. Is it possible that our energy spreads out back into the universe? Sure.

Our bodies are like batteries and we do have some electrical current going through us. What happens when we die? The energy goes somewhere. After all, we all are made of star stuff.

[Deadskins]

So, human spirit energy was created in the big bang, but it took billions of years before our bodies evolved to the point where they could house such a cohesive spirit energy. And then these spirit energies crossed the expanse of interstellar space and began occupying bodies as they became available, here on Earth. And over the last few hundred thousand years, billions more spirit energies came and occupied the new humans that were born. Do I have this right?

I answered your question in that energy itself was created during the big bang. You are trying to create a straw man argument and I won't be your huckleberry to that. I've stated my stance here:

It seems to me that there is some form of energy that resides within us. Energy cannot be destroyed so could it be possible that our "energy" stays intact after we die? Sure. Is it possible that our energy spreads out back into the universe? Sure.

Our bodies are like batteries and we do have some electrical current going through us. What happens when we die? The energy goes somewhere. After all, we all are made of star stuff.

I'm not trying to create any argument. I'm trying to clarify your beliefs. I still have questions. Even though energy can't be destroyed, it can, and was, created in the big bang? Our bodies are like batteries. When do they get charged with the spirit energy? At conception? At birth? These energies are cohesive, because they remain intact after death to produce sounds on recording devices? But you said they don't get recycled into other people, so there must be huge amounts of them, correct? Do all life forms have a spirit energy, or is it just humans? Just sentient beings? Are there aliens who share this quality of having a spirit energy? That's probably enough for now, but I may have follow-ups based on your responses.

[Cappster]

So, human spirit energy was created in the big bang, but it took billions of years before our bodies evolved to the point where they could house such a cohesive spirit energy. And then these spirit energies crossed the expanse of interstellar space and began occupying bodies as they became available, here on Earth. And over the last few hundred thousand years, billions more spirit energies came and occupied the new humans that were born. Do I have this right?

I answered your question in that energy itself was created during the big bang. You are trying to create a straw man argument and I won't be your huckleberry to that. I've stated my stance here:

It seems to me that there is some form of energy that resides within us. Energy cannot be destroyed so could it be possible that our "energy" stays intact after we die? Sure. Is it possible that our energy spreads out back into the universe? Sure.

Our bodies are like batteries and we do have some electrical current going through us. What happens when we die? The energy goes somewhere. After all, we all are made of star stuff.

I'm not trying to create any argument. I'm trying to clarify your beliefs. I still have questions. Even though energy can't be destroyed, it can, and was, created in the big bang? Our bodies are like batteries. When do they get charged with the spirit energy? At conception? At birth? These energies are cohesive, because they remain intact after death to produce sounds on recording devices? But you said they don't get recycled into other people, so there must be huge amounts of them, correct? Do all life forms have a spirit energy, or is it just humans? Just sentient beings? Are there aliens who share this quality of having a spirit energy? That's probably enough for now, but I may have follow-ups based on your responses.

If you want to have a serious conversation then I am all for it. If you just want to act like a self righteous child then do so by yourself. If you believe that god created the totally unforgiving universe then go for it. If you want to believe that god created man on a spec in a far remote corner of the universe then by all means do so. On a side note, do you know that men and women both have the same number of ribs? Ironic, isn't it?

[HTTRRG3ALMO]

So, human spirit energy was created in the big bang, but it took billions of years before our bodies evolved to the point where they could house such a cohesive spirit energy. And then these spirit energies crossed the expanse of interstellar space and began occupying bodies as they became available, here on Earth. And over the last few hundred thousand years, billions more spirit energies came and occupied the new humans that were born. Do I have this right?

I answered your question in that energy itself was created during the big bang. You are trying to create a straw man argument and I won't be your huckleberry to that. I've stated my stance here:

It seems to me that there is some form of energy that resides within us. Energy cannot be destroyed so could it be possible that our "energy" stays intact after we die? Sure. Is it possible that our energy spreads out back into the universe? Sure.

Our bodies are like batteries and we do have some electrical current going through us. What happens when we die? The energy goes somewhere. After all, we all are made of star stuff.

I'm not trying to create any argument. I'm trying to clarify your beliefs. I still have questions. Even though energy can't be destroyed, it can, and was, created in the big bang? Our bodies are like batteries. When do they get charged with the spirit energy? At conception? At birth? These energies are cohesive, because they remain intact after death to produce sounds on recording devices? But you said they don't get recycled into other people, so there must be huge amounts of them, correct? Do all life forms have a spirit energy, or is it just humans? Just sentient beings? Are there aliens who share this quality of having a spirit energy? That's probably enough for now, but I may have follow-ups based on your responses.

If you want to have a serious conversation then I am all for it. If you just want to act like a self righteous child then do so by yourself. If you believe that god created the totally unforgiving universe then go for it. If you want to believe that god created man on a spec in a far remote corner of the universe then by all means do so. On a side note, do you know that men and women both have the same number of ribs? Ironic, isn't it?

Forgive the interruption, but I don't think Deadskins is being self-righteous or anything of the likes; seems that he's asking some inquisitive questions about your beliefs. I know a lot of folks wouldn't even have the patience to inquire this deep.

Just an observation; so far this has been a very well thought out dialogue between the two of you.

Without being specific to one religion, let me take a moment to explain my logical belief in the existence of God.

Everything in this world is a result of cause and effect. One of millions of examples: I'm here because of my parents, they're here because of their parents, and so on...

Eventually there needs to be a First Cause. Now, because this first cause is a "cause" and not an "effect", that means it had no beginning...if this cause had a beginning, then it actually is an effect of a cause before it. This isn't possible. There needs to be a First Cause.

Something that has no beginning means that it exists outside of the realm of time; making this cause eternal by definition.

Now this First Cause must have the ability to create "something out of nothing". As far back as Genesis write many many years ago it says that God created the universe "eex nihilo"...meaning "out of nothing". I just can't accept that primitive human beings were able to figure out something some complex that many years ago...Someone told them about it (God).

Creation is only half the battle. One can argue the explosion of one enormous explosion of energy and light, but there's a serious problem here: 1. What causes light to be light? 2. What causes energy to be energy? 3. Where did the light and energy come from...because if it came from somewhere, it had a beginning; if it had a beginning its an effect, not the first cause.

So with creation being half the battle, the second half of the battle is sustenance. Sustaining the effects/creation in the universe.

The "rules" of the universe (can't think of a better phrase at the moment) have been sustained. Let's just take a quick look at our planet...

Many scientists say that energy can't be created, nor destroyed. However, I think anyone who owns a cellphone can agree that energy can be depleted, and within that entity, it is no more (ex. a cellphone with a drained battery).

So assuming existence has been around for a very long time, this energy is immense, absolutely immense. Somehow something (or Someone in my opinion) is governing this energy...keeping it from destroying all matter.

We've all seen in one context or another what unharnessed energy can do (or simply energy that's not properly controlled by something outside of itself). Examples include Power plant explosions, the atom bomb, people getting electrocuted by touching a wire who's sheathing is damaged; exposing the wire.

In other words the answer can't be energy sustaining and controlling itself, because energy needs something outside of itself to control it and sustain it. In the winter I'd love for my fireplace to sustain itself, but unfortunately I have to constantly kindle it to sustain it.

What I'm getting at is whatever started the universe had to be a First Cause (eternal, no beginning or end), and it has to be all-powerful (in order to contain energy/sustain creation). If this First Cause has the ability to sustain creation and the universe hasn't exploded from the immense energy within it, that would mean that this First Cause is an intelligent Being. In fact, this Being would need to omniscient (all-knowing) in order know/understand how to sustain all things. Yes the universe is slowly deteriorating, but that is being of the introduction of the Fall of Man and sin...we're not ready to go there yet because this is merely a case for the existence of God.

This Being would need to be omnipresent in order to be able to sustain all things.

Also, this Being is loving...He's given us all that we need to survive in this world and a free will to do "good" or "evil". I put these in quotes because without a this Being giving us any instructions for life, there is no such thing as "right" nor "wrong" nor "good" nor "evil". This is impossible for anyone to practically believe...so this being put within us a moral code and a free will to act on it or be destructive.

Sorry for the novel...grateful for the chance to share my heart.

[Cappster]

Forgive the interruption, but I don't think Deadskins is being self-righteous or anything of the likes; seems that he's asking some inquisitive questions about your beliefs. I know a lot of folks wouldn't even have the patience to inquire this deep.

Just an observation; so far this has been a very well thought out dialogue between the two of you.

Without being specific to one religion, let me take a moment to explain my logical belief in the existence of God.

Everything in this world is a result of cause and effect. One of millions of examples: I'm here because of my parents, they're here because of their parents, and so on...

Eventually there needs to be a First Cause. Now, because this first cause is a "cause" and not an "effect", that means it had no beginning...if this cause had a beginning, then it actually is an effect of a cause before it. This isn't possible. There needs to be a First Cause.

Something that has no beginning means that it exists outside of the realm of time; making this cause eternal by definition.

Now this First Cause must have the ability to create "something out of nothing". As far back as Genesis write many many years ago it says that God created the universe "eex nihilo"...meaning "out of nothing". I just can't accept that primitive human beings were able to figure out something some complex that many years ago...Someone told them about it (God).

Creation is only half the battle. One can argue the explosion of one enormous explosion of energy and light, but there's a serious problem here: 1. What causes light to be light? 2. What causes energy to be energy? 3. Where did the light and energy come from...because if it came from somewhere, it had a beginning; if it had a beginning its an effect, not the first cause.

So with creation being half the battle, the second half of the battle is sustenance. Sustaining the effects/creation in the universe.

The "rules" of the universe (can't think of a better phrase at the moment) have been sustained. Let's just take a quick look at our planet...

Many scientists say that energy can't be created, nor destroyed. However, I think anyone who owns a cellphone can agree that energy can be depleted, and within that entity, it is no more (ex. a cellphone with a drained battery).

So assuming existence has been around for a very long time, this energy is immense, absolutely immense. Somehow something (or Someone in my opinion) is governing this energy...keeping it from destroying all matter.

We've all seen in one context or another what unharnessed energy can do (or simply energy that's not properly controlled by something outside of itself). Examples include Power plant explosions, the atom bomb, people getting electrocuted by touching a wire who's sheathing is damaged; exposing the wire.

In other words the answer can't be energy sustaining and controlling itself, because energy needs something outside of itself to control it and sustain it. In the winter I'd love for my fireplace to sustain itself, but unfortunately I have to constantly kindle it to sustain it.

What I'm getting at is whatever started the universe had to be a First Cause (eternal, no beginning or end), and it has to be all-powerful (in order to contain energy/sustain creation). If this First Cause has the ability to sustain creation and the universe hasn't exploded from the immense energy within it, that would mean that this First Cause is an intelligent Being. In fact, this Being would need to omniscient (all-knowing) in order know/understand how to sustain all things. Yes the universe is slowly deteriorating, but that is being of the introduction of the Fall of Man and sin...we're not ready to go there yet because this is merely a case for the existence of God.

This Being would need to be omnipresent in order to be able to sustain all things.

Also, this Being is loving...He's given us all that we need to survive in this world and a free will to do "good" or "evil". I put these in quotes because without a this Being giving us any instructions for life, there is no such thing as "right" nor "wrong" nor "good" nor "evil". This is impossible for anyone to practically believe...so this being put within us a moral code and a free will to act on it or be destructive.

Sorry for the novel...grateful for the chance to share my heart.

Thank you for your sincerity, RG3ALMO. You represent your religion well and I commend you for that. Now to the discussion! haha If you want to use the creation theory, something had to create the creator. Some will say that the creator has always been, but even the creator itself had to begin at some point. I see no more plausibility that there is a creator more so than the universe creating itself.

Take Earth for example. If Earth was made for us, why is so much of it uninhabitable? Why are the oceans made of salt rather than drinking water? Now, if we look at it from the evolutionary standpoint, we can see that the Earth is a brutal place and we are fortunate enough for our ancestors to have survived so that we may live. There are fossils that show the evolutionary process of our primate species. As more are found, the more evidence there will be that is hard to just dismiss and not believe. Science has been and is slowly repealing the mysteries that were previously unexplainable other than "god did it."

Lets say that god did exist. Do you really think, by all of the atrocities written in the bible, that god is loving much less all powerful and all knowing? I mean, if said deity did create an Adam and an Eve, he already knew they would mess up so he already condemned them before they even existed. So much for free will, huh? haha That just doesn't make sense. And lets not forget Noah and his ark. God supposedly drowned everyone on Earth except for a select few. Would a loving god do such a horrific thing? Not to mention he failed, again, in wiping out people who would do bad on Earth. The one thing I think of is if we are made in his image, well, that would explain a lot of why we act they way we do: Jealousy, envy, malevolence, malice, etc... I could go on and on about how god, if it does exist, is not loving and having a relationship with such an entity is abusive.

[Deadskins]

I could go on and on about how god, if it does exist, is not loving and having a relationship with such an entity is abusive.

I'd rather you answer the questions I posed of you. Rather than hearing your views on others' beliefs, I'd rather find out what you believe.

[Cappster]

I could go on and on about how god, if it does exist, is not loving and having a relationship with such an entity is abusive.

I'd rather you answer the questions I posed of you. Rather than hearing your views on others' beliefs, I'd rather find out what you believe.

I believe in evidence, logic, and reason. Some things we do not yet know the answer, but to say that sky daddy did it is not the right answer. We should strive to know more about the universe in its entirety. Are there aliens? Don't know, but it could be plausible. What happens when we die? I don't know, but no one truly does. See, the difference between a person of faith and non-faith is that we, non-believers, don't say with 100% certainty that something is a certain way on bad evidence and that if you don't believe the way we do you are going to go to a very bad place for eternity.

[Deadskins]

But if someone of faith says they have evidence of God's existence, you don't accept that. You say with 100% certainty that they are wrong. How do you reconcile this?

[Cappster]

But if someone of faith says they have evidence of God's existence, you don't accept that. You say with 100% certainty that they are wrong. How do you reconcile this?

Where have I said with 100% certainty that they are wrong? If someone can provide solid evidence of a god existing then I am open to changing my view that one does not likely exist. The bible, a book that contradicts itself many times over, is not evidence of a god existing. How do you reconcile believing in such a fallible book?

[DarthMonk]

Cappster, just out of curiosity, do you believe people have a soul (that is a non-physical part of their existence)?

This is a crucial question.

The Christian answer is a clear yes.

For my brother, a teacher at a Jesuit school, true consciousness is something unique to humans and exists outside space and time.

My answer would be "I don't know." Thought, especially self-referential thought, can feel as if it is outside space and time. Of course, it could also merely be a chemical reaction that takes place inside my brain now.

I'm keeping an open mind on the topic. Is there a "seat of consciousness" or is what we call consciousness simply an extremely complex pattern?

There is a line of thought among the evolutionists concerning a concept called quantum consciousness that posits the first self-referential thought (Moses?) as being so shocking it was perceived as having come from without, i.e., that God was speaking to the person.

[Mississippiskinsfan2]

Does the Universe Need God?
If we can make it work with out him does that mean there is no god?

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

In many religious traditions, one of the standard roles of the deity has been to create the universe. The first line of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, is a plain statement of this role. Much has happened, both in our scientific understanding of the universe and in the development of theology, since that line was first written. It's worth examining what those developments imply for the relationship between God and cosmology.

In some ways of thinking about God, there's no relationship at all; a conception of divinity that is sufficiently ineffable and transcendent may be completely separate from the workings of the physical world. In addition to the role of creator, God may also be invoked as that which sustains the world and allows it to exist, or more practically as an explanation for some of the specific contingent properties of the universe we observe.

Each of these possibilities necessarily leads to an engagement with science. Modern cosmology attempts to come up with the most powerful and economical possible understanding of the universe that is consistent with observational data. It's certainly conceivable that the methods of science could lead us to a self-contained picture of the universe that doesn't involve God in any way. If so, would we be correct to conclude that cosmology has undermined the reasons for believing in God, or at least a certain kind of reason?

This is not an open-and-shut question. We are not faced with a matter of judging the merits of a mature and compelling scientific theory, since we don't yet have such a theory. Rather, we are trying to predict the future: will there ever be a time when a conventional scientific model provides a complete understanding of the origin of the universe? Or, alternatively, do we already know enough to conclude that God definitely helps us explain the universe we see, in ways that a non-theistic approach can never hope to match?

Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement. This conviction necessarily falls short of a proof, but it is backed up by good reasons.

[Cappster]

Does the Universe Need God?
If we can make it work with out him does that mean there is no god?

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

In many religious traditions, one of the standard roles of the deity has been to create the universe. The first line of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, is a plain statement of this role. Much has happened, both in our scientific understanding of the universe and in the development of theology, since that line was first written. It's worth examining what those developments imply for the relationship between God and cosmology.

In some ways of thinking about God, there's no relationship at all; a conception of divinity that is sufficiently ineffable and transcendent may be completely separate from the workings of the physical world. In addition to the role of creator, God may also be invoked as that which sustains the world and allows it to exist, or more practically as an explanation for some of the specific contingent properties of the universe we observe.

Each of these possibilities necessarily leads to an engagement with science. Modern cosmology attempts to come up with the most powerful and economical possible understanding of the universe that is consistent with observational data. It's certainly conceivable that the methods of science could lead us to a self-contained picture of the universe that doesn't involve God in any way. If so, would we be correct to conclude that cosmology has undermined the reasons for believing in God, or at least a certain kind of reason?

This is not an open-and-shut question. We are not faced with a matter of judging the merits of a mature and compelling scientific theory, since we don't yet have such a theory. Rather, we are trying to predict the future: will there ever be a time when a conventional scientific model provides a complete understanding of the origin of the universe? Or, alternatively, do we already know enough to conclude that God definitely helps us explain the universe we see, in ways that a non-theistic approach can never hope to match?

Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement. This conviction necessarily falls short of a proof, but it is backed up by good reasons.

Logic and reasoning are tools that science uses to help support its claims. This is why I have the mentality that makes me ponder if there is a god, it is nothing like that of which is written about in ancient texts. Example: Religion cannot disprove evolution (Pope John Paul II even endorsed evolution as scientific fact) which, I think, pretty much decimates the story of Adam and Eve. If the story of Adam and Eve isn't true in the literal sense, there was no need for some guy named Jesus to die for original sin. If there was no need for Jesus to die for our "sins," there is no purpose for the existence of Christianity.

The way I look at it, if one can present evidence that is scientific fact and that which comes into direct conflict with religious mythology, "faith" alone is not a reasonable counter argument to defend one's claim.

[Deadskins]

Why are you always trying to force the Bible as a literal document onto people of faith? Almost no one who has done any serious religious study, considers the Bible's (particularly the Old Testament) stories to be absolutely factual accounts of events that happened thousands of years ago.

[Cappster]

Why are you always trying to force the Bible as a literal document onto people of faith? Almost no one who has done any serious religious study, considers the Bible's (particularly the Old Testament) stories to be absolutely factual accounts of events that happened thousands of years ago.

I find it rather amusing that you are offended by me using the bible and its biblical claims, which is the basis of Christianity, to challenge the validity of Christianity when people use the same texts to disapprove of such things as gay marriage. This is why Christianity is very well known as quite possibly the most cherry picked religion of them all. Some areas of the bible christians want to take literally and others, well, all that is just figurative nonsense... I mean, its only the "HOLY" bible so why shouldn't it be filled with fallacies and inconsistencies in addition to literal and figurative meanings of the word of the almighty?

The easiest way to become a non-believer is to actually take what the bible claims, on face value, without sugarcoating the bad parts (or ignoring them altogether) to say that "god is a loving god...unless you don't love him back then he will torture you forever."

[Deadskins]

I find it rather amusing that you are offended by me using the bible and its biblical claims, which is the basis of Christianity

Um, no, it isn't. And, I'm not offended in the least. I'm just trying to help you see where your misconceptions are keeping you from understanding.

[SkinsJock]

I call myself a Christian but to me that does not have a whole lot to do with the Holy Bible ...

basically, I believe:

God sent His Son to earth

He was crucified for a reason

He will come again

I also believe in the Holy Trinity


I do not believe that everyone that does not believe in God is "damned for eternity" ....



the Holy Bible is not what I base my faith on and being a Christian does not mean I have to believe everything that is written in the Holy Bible

[Cappster]

I find it rather amusing that you are offended by me using the bible and its biblical claims, which is the basis of Christianity

Um, no, it isn't. And, I'm not offended in the least. I'm just trying to help you see where your misconceptions are keeping you from understanding.

Please, do so help me, understand the misconceptions I have about this bible of yours. What have i misconceived? Stoning someone to death for working on the sabbath? The first three commandments being all about god and nothing about morality? Maybe its the whole Adam and Eve having two sons and somehow now we have people all over the world? I am all ears.

[DarthMonk]

BTW ... here's a link to the stuff below:

http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

Does the Universe Need God?
If we can make it work with out him does that mean there is no god?

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

In many religious traditions, one of the standard roles of the deity has been to create the universe. The first line of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, is a plain statement of this role. Much has happened, both in our scientific understanding of the universe and in the development of theology, since that line was first written. It's worth examining what those developments imply for the relationship between God and cosmology.

In some ways of thinking about God, there's no relationship at all; a conception of divinity that is sufficiently ineffable and transcendent may be completely separate from the workings of the physical world. In addition to the role of creator, God may also be invoked as that which sustains the world and allows it to exist, or more practically as an explanation for some of the specific contingent properties of the universe we observe.

Each of these possibilities necessarily leads to an engagement with science. Modern cosmology attempts to come up with the most powerful and economical possible understanding of the universe that is consistent with observational data. It's certainly conceivable that the methods of science could lead us to a self-contained picture of the universe that doesn't involve God in any way. If so, would we be correct to conclude that cosmology has undermined the reasons for believing in God, or at least a certain kind of reason?

This is not an open-and-shut question. We are not faced with a matter of judging the merits of a mature and compelling scientific theory, since we don't yet have such a theory. Rather, we are trying to predict the future: will there ever be a time when a conventional scientific model provides a complete understanding of the origin of the universe? Or, alternatively, do we already know enough to conclude that God definitely helps us explain the universe we see, in ways that a non-theistic approach can never hope to match?

Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement. This conviction necessarily falls short of a proof, but it is backed up by good reasons.

[Cappster]

I call myself a Christian but to me that does not have a whole lot to do with the Holy Bible ...

basically, I believe:

God sent His Son to earth

He was crucified for a reason

He will come again

I also believe in the Holy Trinity


I do not believe that everyone that does not believe in God is "damned for eternity" ....



the Holy Bible is not what I base my faith on and being a Christian does not mean I have to believe everything that is written in the Holy Bible

So, you fit my description of one of those Cherry Picking christians who ignore all of the hell and damning that the bible has to offer. If it is HOLY, as in its entirety, I am of the ilk that say either believe everything in the wholesomely divine book or don't believe any of it as it mustn't be divinely written by the hand of said god.