Jesus Christ

Originally posted by robsta i think that anyone trying to bring people closer to god are good people.

Originally posted by robsta Again It's funny to me that so many people try to get rid of god in society. I just read a poll that said 93% of Americans and 96% of the world believe in god. How can you say that 9 out of 10 people in the world are irrational, delusional people? The cyncism that comes from atheists is always way over the top. Simply saying you don't believe in god is enough.

But they don't all believe in the SAME god? And when you break it down further, some people may believe in the same god but in totally different ways. Muslims thinks Christian are lost children in their way they practice, and vice versa. What makes your God more valid then the others?

Originally posted by athousandmonkeys I don't think it purely coincidental that out of the meanings for the word "bemusement", you chose one implying a "failure" on my part "to understand".

Actually, I found more than one. My source, www.thefreedictionary.com, gave these definitions:
1. To cause to be bewildered; confuse.
2. To cause to be engrossed in thought.
3. Confusion resulting from failure to understand
4. A mental state characterized by a lack of clear and orderly thought and behavior; "a confusion of impressions"
It was your word choice, not mine. I thought it was coincidentally humorous, because, after all, you consider yourself rational and intelligent. If you have another definition that you think is more appropriate, state it. And please cite your source, if you don't mind.
   Bottom line: Even by other definitions (Webster's- wry or tolerant amusement) I've since found, I don't think that you are in any way bemused by Christians, or anyone else who believes in a deity or deities.  You referred to those who "believe the God of Abrahamic religions", which includes Christians, as "God-botherers", "Nutbags", and "seriously gullible/deluded/brainwashed whack-job". (Was I incorrect to think that you were referring to the same group of people when you called some "Gullible, irrational imbeciles" and "so easily brainwashed"?)
   Now, as to your being rational and intelligent, which of your comments on this forum have shown either of those qualities? What is rational and/or intelligent about name-calling and stereotyping?
   I can understand the thinking of most people.  The questions, doubts,and disbelief. (My own conversion took place over many years, and without the aid of anyone to "brainwash" me) I don't understand the anger and hostility and arrogance of people like you. Where does that come from? What is the rationality and intelligence of your ridicule? Your disbelief is just as irrational as my belief. You cannot disprove the existence of God anymore than I can prove his existence.

Originally posted by pipecode ... And Kirk Cameron.

Originally posted by myungsup hm i was hoping this topic would become a debate instead of personal lashes. but i guess here's my next installment to the topic. why do people keep stating that religion is irrational? and don't state "because it is. because you can't prove God". quite frankly, you cannot disprove Him either.  40% of evolutionary biologists happen to be followers of SOME SORT of religion. if these people are truly irrational, you should start considering to cut 40% of all new evolutionary articles out the window.  i happen to like reading articles off JSTOR, and finding good articles are hard enough; having to potentially cut 40% of those articles sucks.  i'm gonna take my chances and say that these biologists know exactly what they're thinking.  i chose christianity not because it's the majority. i admit i was born into a christian family, but that had no true bearing on my decision to be a christian. as a matter of fact, i can say i left the faith during my first 2 years of college, when all the BME info SEEMED to contradict what i learned in church.  i did some reevaluation during my summer off, read through some other religions, and to be quite frank, christianity happened to just make sense for me. YES.. i said it made SENSE. i thought it out rationally. there's no reason for me to delve into that decision, but i did it from a very agnostic point of view.  i say agnostic because i posted earlier some very basic probabilities, and it honestly seems more probable to me that some deity caused our universe to form rather than an extensive chain of Heisenberg uncertainties.  i believe in God and i believe in science. believing in one never has meant the rejection of the other. where would we be without darwin and his amazing hypotheses and theories, ESPECIALLY pertaining to the great evolutionary debate? he was a believer in God.  where would we be without CALCULUS.. or newtonian physics without sir isaac newton? he was a believer in god.  where would we be without the amazing astrological discoveries of galileo? he was a believer in god.  all three of these guys stirred up a lot of trouble within the church, and i blame HUMANS for it, not God.  humans can only interpret sacred text as well as the next sinner. and God's word is also... written by sinners. i'm not going to say that explains the contradictions because i think that's a whole other topic on its own, but i digress.   the problem within the scientific and the religious community is that they think there's only one path to knowledge. i think science and religion happen to reveal very different truths. one describes physical truths and the other describes spiritual truths. aside from explaining certain facets in life, i don't think there really is much else that they have in common. i'm not going to say "this is the spirit.. etc etc" but if you put a human in a vacuum with adequate oxygen flow before they die and weigh the vacuum, the room will weigh about 2 grams less after they die. science has been unable to explain it. just curious what people think about that phenomena.  p.s. seeing how this topic has led in a certain direction, don't flame me for misspellings or misuse of words. i'm sure you understand the gist of the sentence.

Finally, a well articulated argument.  While I may not agree entirely with what you said, I respect it since it was well though out and presented.

Originally posted by myungsup hm i was hoping this topic would become a debate instead of personal lashes. but i guess here's my next installment to the topic. why do people keep stating that religion is irrational? and don't state "because it is. because you can't prove God". quite frankly, you cannot disprove Him either.  40% of evolutionary biologists happen to be followers of SOME SORT of religion. if these people are truly irrational, you should start considering to cut 40% of all new evolutionary articles out the window.  i happen to like reading articles off JSTOR, and finding good articles are hard enough; having to potentially cut 40% of those articles sucks.  i'm gonna take my chances and say that these biologists know exactly what they're thinking.  i chose christianity not because it's the majority. i admit i was born into a christian family, but that had no true bearing on my decision to be a christian. as a matter of fact, i can say i left the faith during my first 2 years of college, when all the BME info SEEMED to contradict what i learned in church.  i did some reevaluation during my summer off, read through some other religions, and to be quite frank, christianity happened to just make sense for me. YES.. i said it made SENSE. i thought it out rationally. there's no reason for me to delve into that decision, but i did it from a very agnostic point of view.  i say agnostic because i posted earlier some very basic probabilities, and it honestly seems more probable to me that some deity caused our universe to form rather than an extensive chain of Heisenberg uncertainties.  i believe in God and i believe in science. believing in one never has meant the rejection of the other. where would we be without darwin and his amazing hypotheses and theories, ESPECIALLY pertaining to the great evolutionary debate? he was a believer in God.  where would we be without CALCULUS.. or newtonian physics without sir isaac newton? he was a believer in god.  where would we be without the amazing astrological discoveries of galileo? he was a believer in god.  all three of these guys stirred up a lot of trouble within the church, and i blame HUMANS for it, not God.  humans can only interpret sacred text as well as the next sinner. and God's word is also... written by sinners. i'm not going to say that explains the contradictions because i think that's a whole other topic on its own, but i digress.   the problem within the scientific and the religious community is that they think there's only one path to knowledge. i think science and religion happen to reveal very different truths. one describes physical truths and the other describes spiritual truths. aside from explaining certain facets in life, i don't think there really is much else that they have in common. i'm not going to say "this is the spirit.. etc etc" but if you put a human in a vacuum with adequate oxygen flow before they die and weigh the vacuum, the room will weigh about 2 grams less after they die. science has been unable to explain it. just curious what people think about that phenomena.  p.s. seeing how this topic has led in a certain direction, don't flame me for misspellings or misuse of words. i'm sure you understand the gist of the sentence.

Also, it should be noted that there is no problem with having religion AND science.  The problem comes in when there are people claiming Creationism and pushing it into science classrooms when it is a purely theoretical or philosophical subject, meaning there is no proof behind it, yet evolution has tons of scientific proof.

Originally posted by myungsup hm i was hoping this topic would become a debate instead of personal lashes. but i guess here's my next installment to the topic. why do people keep stating that religion is irrational? and don't state "because it is. because you can't prove God". quite frankly, you cannot disprove Him either.  40% of evolutionary biologists happen to be followers of SOME SORT of religion. if these people are truly irrational, you should start considering to cut 40% of all new evolutionary articles out the window.  i happen to like reading articles off JSTOR, and finding good articles are hard enough; having to potentially cut 40% of those articles sucks.  i'm gonna take my chances and say that these biologists know exactly what they're thinking.  i chose christianity not because it's the majority. i admit i was born into a christian family, but that had no true bearing on my decision to be a christian. as a matter of fact, i can say i left the faith during my first 2 years of college, when all the BME info SEEMED to contradict what i learned in church.  i did some reevaluation during my summer off, read through some other religions, and to be quite frank, christianity happened to just make sense for me. YES.. i said it made SENSE. i thought it out rationally. there's no reason for me to delve into that decision, but i did it from a very agnostic point of view.  i say agnostic because i posted earlier some very basic probabilities, and it honestly seems more probable to me that some deity caused our universe to form rather than an extensive chain of Heisenberg uncertainties.  i believe in God and i believe in science. believing in one never has meant the rejection of the other. where would we be without darwin and his amazing hypotheses and theories, ESPECIALLY pertaining to the great evolutionary debate? he was a believer in God.  where would we be without CALCULUS.. or newtonian physics without sir isaac newton? he was a believer in god.  where would we be without the amazing astrological discoveries of galileo? he was a believer in god.  all three of these guys stirred up a lot of trouble within the church, and i blame HUMANS for it, not God.  humans can only interpret sacred text as well as the next sinner. and God's word is also... written by sinners. i'm not going to say that explains the contradictions because i think that's a whole other topic on its own, but i digress.   the problem within the scientific and the religious community is that they think there's only one path to knowledge. i think science and religion happen to reveal very different truths. one describes physical truths and the other describes spiritual truths. aside from explaining certain facets in life, i don't think there really is much else that they have in common. i'm not going to say "this is the spirit.. etc etc" but if you put a human in a vacuum with adequate oxygen flow before they die and weigh the vacuum, the room will weigh about 2 grams less after they die. science has been unable to explain it. just curious what people think about that phenomena.  p.s. seeing how this topic has led in a certain direction, don't flame me for misspellings or misuse of words. i'm sure you understand the gist of the sentence.

Your response is interesting but ultimately you are still trying to justify the bible.  The bible is not the word of any god, and that is the truth.  Debating agnosticism vs atheism vs deism is a whole other debate, but the bible has little to no bearing on it.  As for your implication that the soul has some dicernable weight in the human body, that is beyond ridiculous.  The experiment you are referring to was done over a century ago, and is unproven. 

Originally posted by BudAshes Originally posted by myungsup hm i was hoping this topic would become a debate instead of personal lashes. but i guess here's my next installment to the topic. why do people keep stating that religion is irrational? and don't state "because it is. because you can't prove God". quite frankly, you cannot disprove Him either.  40% of evolutionary biologists happen to be followers of SOME SORT of religion. if these people are truly irrational, you should start considering to cut 40% of all new evolutionary articles out the window.  i happen to like reading articles off JSTOR, and finding good articles are hard enough; having to potentially cut 40% of those articles sucks.  i'm gonna take my chances and say that these biologists know exactly what they're thinking.  i chose christianity not because it's the majority. i admit i was born into a christian family, but that had no true bearing on my decision to be a christian. as a matter of fact, i can say i left the faith during my first 2 years of college, when all the BME info SEEMED to contradict what i learned in church.  i did some reevaluation during my summer off, read through some other religions, and to be quite frank, christianity happened to just make sense for me. YES.. i said it made SENSE. i thought it out rationally. there's no reason for me to delve into that decision, but i did it from a very agnostic point of view.  i say agnostic because i posted earlier some very basic probabilities, and it honestly seems more probable to me that some deity caused our universe to form rather than an extensive chain of Heisenberg uncertainties.  i believe in God and i believe in science. believing in one never has meant the rejection of the other. where would we be without darwin and his amazing hypotheses and theories, ESPECIALLY pertaining to the great evolutionary debate? he was a believer in God.  where would we be without CALCULUS.. or newtonian physics without sir isaac newton? he was a believer in god.  where would we be without the amazing astrological discoveries of galileo? he was a believer in god.  all three of these guys stirred up a lot of trouble within the church, and i blame HUMANS for it, not God.  humans can only interpret sacred text as well as the next sinner. and God's word is also... written by sinners. i'm not going to say that explains the contradictions because i think that's a whole other topic on its own, but i digress.   the problem within the scientific and the religious community is that they think there's only one path to knowledge. i think science and religion happen to reveal very different truths. one describes physical truths and the other describes spiritual truths. aside from explaining certain facets in life, i don't think there really is much else that they have in common. i'm not going to say "this is the spirit.. etc etc" but if you put a human in a vacuum with adequate oxygen flow before they die and weigh the vacuum, the room will weigh about 2 grams less after they die. science has been unable to explain it. just curious what people think about that phenomena.  p.s. seeing how this topic has led in a certain direction, don't flame me for misspellings or misuse of words. i'm sure you understand the gist of the sentence.  Your response is interesting but ultimately you are still trying to justify the bible.  The bible is not the word of any god, and that is the truth.  Debating agnosticism vs atheism vs deism is a whole other debate, but the bible has little to no bearing on it.  As for your implication that the soul has some dicernable weight in the human body, that is beyond ridiculous.  The experiment you are referring to was done over a century ago, and is unproven.

Well stated.  The fact is that although people claim it is the word of God, it was written by man, who according to the bible is fallible, so you can't take it at it's word.

Originally posted by myungsup . . . pro religion and pro science . . .

It doesn't seem like you 'picked' Christianity at all myungsuo. As you said you were born into a Christian family and I'm sure you know that young children are very impressionable (hence the problems with pedophile priest and children not speaking out). If you were to grow up in a middle eastern or Asian country, do you still think you would be a Christian?

Religion and science to the core don't mix. Because quite frankly, there is only one science vs many many religions created by a man or men. Look at the Church trying to tell Galileo he was wrong all those years.

Originally posted by athousandmonkeys Originally posted by sgreen Originally posted by athousandmonkeys I don't think it purely coincidental that out of the meanings for the word "bemusement", you chose one implying a "failure" on my part "to understand".  Actually, I found more than one ... Ummmmmm, yeah, no kidding - that's what I was saying. Of course you "found more than one" - yet the ONLY one you originally mentioned was the one implying a "failure" on my part "to understand".  The fact that you now choose to resort to petty semantic pedantry simply reinforces my opinion.

There was no implication of anything in quoting that definition and I wasn't trying to be insulting. I simply thought that it was funny that you would choose to flatter yourself with a word that has a couple of less-than-flattering possible definitions. I could have picked a worse-sounding definition from that list. (EDIT)
  
What is your purpose for coming on here and being a bully? What's going on?

My apologies to anyone who read this post before I edited it.

Originally posted by sgreen Originally posted by athousandmonkeys ... The only way religion and science genuinely go hand-in-hand, is if hypocrisy is holding the other one. Who's hand is hypocrisy holding? Religion's or science's? Maybe hypocrisy is holding one hand from each and they form a circle.

Oops, my bad. I should have said 'triangle'.

i don't see why someone cannot be religious and scientific. they have nothing in common and they don't denounce each other. the only real reason why people say that is because back in the old days religion was used as a way to explain natural phenomena.  i don't use religion in that way. it helps me spiritually rather than explain natural phenomena. i don't use religion to explain science and i don't use science to explain religion. i mentioned galileo earlier, who happened to be a christain himself.  the church tried using religion to explain natural phenomena, which i personally don't think religion is meant to do. if any god wanted to explain these things to mankind, he/she/they would explain the human genome, map out the brain, etc etc. people are too engrossed in gap theories and lose their faith or try to steer people from faith using this theory.  just because evolution goes against what the church is saying doesn't mean it goes against christianity. it's just how people are interpreting their religious texts. people get all flustered when a scientific discovery shakes their faith. it doesn't shake mine because i don't use religion to explain NATURAL phenomena. there's no line, triangle, circle, or square connecting religion and science. people just like to pretend that there is.

Originally posted by E13   Each and every single thing within this post can be proven.  Prove to me what happens when you die.  Show me the proof of your god, your heaven and your hell.  Don't tell me of the myths and stories that have been created and perpetuated through society by man.  Drop a penny off a table and you can prove that it will travel at 9.81 m/s.  You don't have to see it for there to be proof of its existence.  Your logic is tired and novice.

Can someone prove why there are stars in space? Why there is space and where it came from?

I tried googling it, nothing really showed up.

I'm not "just throwing around a bunch of insults" at all. I genuinely believe that "to be a god-botherer is to be a seriously gullible/deluded/brainwashed whack-job" is a statement of FACT. If you consider this to be an insult, you evidently have doubts about your religion, and need to reassess your own conviction.

Yay! Jesus!!!!!haha
God is with me every day, whether i'm at home or whether i'm droppin in on a black....enough said.

Originally posted by athousandmonkeys I'm not "just throwing around a bunch of insults" at all. I genuinely believe that "to be a god-botherer is to be a seriously gullible/deluded/brainwashed whack-job" is a statement of FACT. If you consider this to be an insult, you evidently have doubts about your religion, and need to reassess your own conviction.

For me finding truth means I must be a complete Truth seeker.  I've searched for other Gods and even for a no God, but i had no answer other than nothingness.  But, when i searched for the Christian God I got an answer.  I was searching for ultimate truth.  With this sort of faith in finding truth that i could not see nor feel came understanding.    What also came along was love.  Ofcourse, in the first place I was willing to take the leap of faith in order to find a power greater than myslef, knowing that it was not me who created this universe and beyond.  Nor did i create the complexities of love and hate.  

Originally posted by pipecode Originally posted by MadAnthony81 Originally posted by athousandmonkeys I'm not "just throwing around a bunch of insults" at all. I genuinely believe that "to be a god-botherer is to be a seriously gullible/deluded/brainwashed whack-job" is a statement of FACT. If you consider this to be an insult, you evidently have doubts about your religion, and need to reassess your own conviction. For me finding truth means I must be a complete Truth seeker.  I've searched for other Gods and even for a no God, but i had no answer other than nothingness.  But, when i searched for the Christian God I got an answer.  I was searching for ultimate truth.  With this sort of faith in finding truth that i could not see nor feel came understanding.    What also came along was love.  Ofcourse, in the first place I was willing to take the leap of faith in order to find a power greater than myslef, knowing that it was not me who created this universe and beyond.  Nor did i create the complexities of love and hate.     I choose love, the greatsest love I can find.  That love I've found is the creator, Jesus Christ, God.    It wasn't some guess that led me to believe this,  it was faith and understanding.  I believe choosing faith as a way to discover something can be a scientific method.  Since science is the the state of knowing, and I now know that Jesus christ is the man who he claims to be through faith in him and being a full blast Truth seeker.    Galations 5:22   - 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.     1 Tim 2:5   5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.         Woah, you found him?  I figured he would be better at hide and seek.

I'm reading a great book on all of this and  there is surprising evidence against Darwinism. It is I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. A great read if you are open to information and not, as the author put it, "ornery." He even claims that materialism is self defeating because it is an idea... something that is clearly immaterial.

Why do all christians try to convert everybody? Its the only thing I want to know. Im a catholic and they talk crap about me and label me based on my religion. Why do they do that?

Originally posted by FumblesOBrian Why do all christians try to convert everybody? Its the only thing I want to know. Im a catholic and they talk crap about me and label me based on my religion. Why do they do that?

Originally posted by ty I'm reading a great book on all of this and  there is surprising evidence against Darwinism. It is I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. A great read if you are open to information and not, as the author put it, "ornery." He even claims that materialism is self defeating because it is an idea... something that is clearly immaterial. Also, Lee Strobel is another author who is great to read. He was an atheist who decided to investigate the the claims of Christianity and was overwhelmed by the evidence for its legitimacy. He's written The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, The Case for the Real Jesus, The Case for a Creator.  If you don't want to read the "Case for" books, then Netflix the DVDs. They are about 45 - 60 minutes long.

Maybe he was an atheist that realized people would buy lots of his books if he pretended to become christian.

Originally posted by pipecode If you really want to learn what you believe in, then I suggest "The Year of Living Biblically". http://www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp  Its about a guy that, well, spends a year living his life truly according to the bible, instead of pretending to do so as 99.9% of Christians claim to.  At least look at the site and read a little bit that is on there.  Might at least make you question if you truly live according to the bible.

Don't you think a better way to "learn what you believe in" is to go straight to the source of your beliefs?

Btw, I checked out your link, and from what I've read so far, it sounds interesting. Especially what he said he learned about stereotyping and making generalizations. Maybe you already understand this, but living "biblically" in the way he approached it is not what Jesus taught. From what I've read, he (AJ Jacobs) lived like an Old Testament Jew, not a New Testament Christian. Thanks for the link.

SS.com will not solve this, the Crusades didn't solve this, creation of Israel made it worse, and I won't solve this.

I agree with many of you that my issue with religion is this "i'm right, you're wrong, let me SAVE you!"

Do your thing, harm none, enjoy life.  It being part of a religion does it for you, bless you.  But kindly leave me the shtook alone. 

Originally posted by zakk SS.com will not solve this, the Crusades didn't solve this, creation of Israel made it worse, and I won't solve this.

Is this a riddle?