Go on then, discuss it.

Do you have a recognised religion? Do you believe that Faith can answer all the questions that non-believers ask?

Personally, I am a confirmed athiest. I believe that Jesus existed, was a powerful leader and teacher with a huge following and an sound ethical code. However, I also believe that John Lennon had similar attributes. I believe that neither were the son of God, mainly as logically and scientifically I cannot believe in the existance of such a being.

I believe the big bang theory as to how the world began, I believe that human beings are simply another species of creature that have evolved on this planet, and that organised religion in whatever form is a means of giving a populus a set of laws by which to live, with an eternal punishment for not abiding by them.

I am totally happy with my own personal set of beliefs, I see the many of the evils of the world being perpetrated in the name of religion, and frankly, I have no time for it.

I was bought up a Roman Catholic and have witnessed the comfort that being part of such a group can give to many many people. I have no grudge with those who do believe in a God of some kind, but I fail to understand the Faith over Logic argument.

On your marks, get set.....

I am very religious Floopy, but I also believe in the big bang theory, in the fact that it could have been controlled by God. He had to create the world somehow. I am able to think logically about it and I am also able to feel it as well, and both sides add up for me. I am a member of an organised religion and do see the good that it can do.

It is so easy to blame the world's problems 'in the name of religion' but really it's not the religion or the leaders of that religion that cause it, it is people who are members of that religion using it as an excuse. So no, in effect, I don't blame the world's problems on religion.

Go........

Well, I'm unsure as to what I believe.
I do think there was this man, Jesus around and he did alot of preaching and teaching. But whether he was the son of God, and the miracles were actually perfomed, I'm not sure of.

I do take the kids to Sunday school, but to me, religion for me is a way to live. Treat others as you would yourself, love others etc.

I am going to pick up a book tomorrow that one of our local vicars has written. From what I understand, he is saying that the bible shouldn't be taken to literally, and should be a guide as how to live life.
That is my way of thinking. I will let you know more of what he says when I read it.
But suffice to say, he has apparently upset alot of his parishioners with his words.

I am totally happy with my own personal set of beliefs, I see the many of the evils of the world being perpetrated in the name of religion, and frankly, I have no time for it.It strikes me as odd that people often talk of evils commited in the name of religion, or in the name of God, or whatever, but very little about evils commited in the name of, say, greed, a lust for power, intolerance. Those seem to me to be far more likely motivations for acts of evil.
logically and scientifically I cannot believe in the existance of such a being.Plenty of people however DO manage to believe in God. Logically, and scientifically.

Yes, scientifically. If it can be called "scientific" to hypothesise a Big Bang, then it can be equally scientific (and indeed a smaller leap of faith) to hypothesise a God.
I fail to understand the Faith over Logic argument.It might be too late to suggest to you that they need not be mutually exclusive...

It strikes me as odd that people often talk of evils commited in the name of religion, or in the name of God, or whatever, but very little about evils commited in the name of, say, greed, a lust for power, intolerance. Those seem to me to be far more likely motivations for acts of evil.Suicide bombers for example - without their belief in martyrdom, less people would be dead. Is it a defence to say it's okay to kill in the name of religion as long as other people are killing in the name of something else?

Plenty of people however DO manage to believe in God. Logically, and scientifically.How can one believe in Darwen and Genesis at the same time?


It might be too late to suggest to you that they need not be mutually exclusive...Much too late I'm afraid

Go on then, discuss it.

Do you have a recognised religion? Do you believe that Faith can answer all the questions that non-believers ask?

Personally, I am a confirmed athiest. I believe that Jesus existed, was a powerful leader and teacher with a huge following and an sound ethical code. However, I also believe that John Lennon had similar attributes. I believe that neither were the son of God, mainly as logically and scientifically I cannot believe in the existance of such a being.

I believe the big bang theory as to how the world began, I believe that human beings are simply another species of creature that have evolved on this planet, and that organised religion in whatever form is a means of giving a populus a set of laws by which to live, with an eternal punishment for not abiding by them.

I am totally happy with my own personal set of beliefs, I see the many of the evils of the world being perpetrated in the name of religion, and frankly, I have no time for it.

I was bought up a Roman Catholic and have witnessed the comfort that being part of such a group can give to many many people. I have no grudge with those who do believe in a God of some kind, but I fail to understand the Faith over Logic argument.

On your marks, get set.....
Well, apart from the fact that I have never committed myself to being a confirmed atheist, I have to say, this is about spot on for what I believe.......as far as God and Jesus are concerned - Im afraid I dont have the same view for the Roman Catholic faith though, through personal experience I found them to be little comfort when most needed!

I also agree with what Floops is saying about evil being committed in the name of a God, I also feel that this stems from GREED and POWER, and certain Gods are used to justify the actions of some..... hope this makes sense!??!?!

Bottom line here, you have got more chance of convincing me we come from aliens than a devine being........infact I would go as far to say that every living creature on planet earth MAY have originated from other planets and settled here on earth as it was the only habital planet left in the solar system after the "big bang".............

And then I start thinking about the ancient civilisations and how advanced they were for their time, while "we" in Europe were still living in our caves and hunting wooly mammoths, they were settled into communities and building amazing buildings which many of still stand today.................think the Egyptians, Incas, Romans, Aztecs etc .......

We just DONT KNOW - and I dont think we will....until we die!

I really MUST get out more and switch off SKY telly........

I see the many of the evils of the world being perpetrated in the name of religion, and frankly, I have no time for it.
I believe that there's a God, but I've no idea what form He takes. I'm not a Christian or a follower of any organised religion for that matter.

I agree with Blink that rather than blaming the evils of the world on religion it'd be more correct to blame them on greed, hatred, stupidity, etc.

In any case, what do you mean by "evil"? What defines Good and Evil if there isn't a God?

What defines Good and Evil if there isn't a God?
I can recognise and reward my child's good behaviour without God becoming involved.

I can call a peadophile evil without a biblical definition.

I agree with Blink that rather than blaming the evils of the world on religion it'd be more correct to blame them on greed, hatred, stupidity, etc.


They evils of the world ARE based on GREED, HATRED, INTOLERANCE and STUPIDITY......along with other "bad" traits......

but I am not stupid enough to think that it stems from God/Gods - the infuriating thing as far I as I am concerned is when the actions are JUSTIFIED by the LUNATIC who carried out the atrocities who PREACH that its in the name of their God.....usually the same God who preaches that taking the life of another person is wrong.......

the scarey thing is, that something that is supposed to be GOOD is being used as a veil to hide the BAD!!!

I can recognise and reward my child's good behaviour without God becoming involved.

I can call a peadophile evil without a biblical definition.
Why?

Put it another way - do you think that people have souls? Here's where I'm coming from: if life started as a bunch of atoms (carbon, oxygen, whatever) floating about in some kind of soup, randomly bumping into each other until they happened to form some ultra-simple amoeba, and by evolution that ameoba changed to a bacterium, changed to a plankton, changed to a lizard, etc all the way to humankind then what ARE we? Are we nothing more than a jazzed-up array of atoms? Or is there more to it than that???

the scarey thing is, that something that is supposed to be GOOD is being used as a veil to hide the BAD!!!
I agree with you. But sometimes religion achieves good things too, or reduces the effect of the bad.

Suicide bombers for example - without their belief in martyrdom, less people would be dead.Considerably more people die from poverty than from suicide bomb attacks. Poverty can be overcome with the help of the more fortunate (and yet that help is rarely forthcoming, or only in tiny measured doses). The evil of poverty generally has nothing to do with religion. Just one example.

How about China? Communist Russia? Mass persecution, opression, torture, state-initiated killings, and all in the name of atheism.

People very readily blame religion for evils, overlooking all the other things that motivate people towards general acts of sh**tiness...
Is it a defence to say it's okay to kill in the name of religion as long as other people are killing in the name of something else?No! But we need perspective. When people talk about why they do not believe in God, they frequently cite "evils in the name of religion". How is that logically defensible, when so many more evils are committed in the name of no religion? What I mean is, if you're turning away from the "evil religious lot" towards the "evil irreligious lot", how is that a rational choice, or a "better" choice?

Simply put, there are bad people out there, religious and non-religious alike. Religion is not the cause of evil, people are. This so-called "reason" for turning against religion is in fact a "reason" for dropping out of the human race altogether.
How can one believe in Darwen and Genesis at the same time?Your question presupposes:

(a) that one should believe in Darwin
(b) that the only interpretation of Genesis is a strict, literal interpretation.

I presume by "believe in Darwin", you mean believe in natural selection and cross-species evolution. Not everyone believes in that - at least not on the scale proposed by Darwin. And I have to sympathise with them, when there simply isn't the evidence to support the scale of evolution proposed by Darwin. So some people simply choose to believe the Genesis creation account, and consider Darwin irrelevant.

Other people read the Genesis account as allegorical, and do not see a conflict between the "Creation order" and Darwin's evolutionary model. I would submit that both classes of people have made a rational, defensible decision in their belief systems.
I can recognise and reward my child's good behaviour without God becoming involved.How? Where does your moral framework come from? "Good behvaiour" might simply be "the behaviour that causes me the least discomfort, irritation and social embarrassment". Or it might be based on a fundamental rule "don't hurt anyone". But is that a moral rule or is it a utilitarian rule? In the latter case, goodness has nothing to do with it. If the child behaves the way we want her to behave, let us call that "good". But is it really good? As Mick says, how do we know? Where does our definition of "good" come from? What standard do we use? Should each person use his or her own personal, internal standard? In which case, could Hitler be justified in thinking of himself as "good"? Who decides?
I can call a peadophile evil without a biblical definition.Same comments, really.

Considerably more people die from poverty than from suicide bomb attacks. Poverty can be overcome with the help of the more fortunate (and yet that help is rarely forthcoming, or only in tiny measured doses). The evil of poverty generally has nothing to do with religion. Just one example.
You see here I have a problem. The organised church is one of the wealthiest establishments in society, yet in times of drought, famine, disaster, I see the church sending unpaid volunteers to help out. I'm not knocking the work done by those volunteers in any way at all, but I rarely see the church putting its hand in its pocket. In my experiences, charitable donations and government aid are the primary donors in any worldwide emergency, not the church.


People very readily blame religion for evils, overlooking all the other things that motivate people towards general acts of sh**tiness...
Again this smacks of "it's not just us". I'm not condemning religious killings in a greater or lesser way than killings motivated by any other reason. All are wrong. This is a thread about religion though.

Your question presupposes:

(a) (b) that the only interpretation of Genesis is a strict, literal interpretation.
Ah that old chestnut again - I'm always flummoxed by that way the Church can use the word of the bible as law, when it suits, and then blur over the edges that don't stand up to closer analysis by citing "interpretation".

How? Where does your moral framework come from? "Good behvaiour" might simply be "the behaviour that causes me the least discomfort, irritation and social embarrassment". Or it might be based on a fundamental rule "don't hurt anyone". But is that a moral rule or is it a utilitarian rule? In the latter case, goodness has nothing to do with it. If the child behaves the way we want her to behave, let us call that "good". But is it really good? As Mick says, how do we know? Where does our definition of "good" come from? What standard do we use? Should each person use his or her own personal, internal standard? In which case, could Hitler be justified in thinking of himself as "good"? Who decides?
I decide. :) I am my daughter's god, as her parent it is my job to teach her values and rules which will enable her to survive/live happily in society. When she becomes an adult she will then chose her own set of beliefs/rules by which to live.

I don't believe that there is a fundamental "good" or "bad", values, like behaviour, are learnt and taught. Before the bible, mankind still learnt that certain behaviour made for tolerable communal living, and other behaviours would cast him out of the tribe. Society develops its own set of laws to protect the greater good of the community. We all agree to live by those laws, regardless of our god, or face being removed from our society.

I may not think every law in this country is a "good" law, but it is a law, and I will abide by those laws if I wish to live in my chosen society without reprisal.

could Hitler be justified in thinking of himself as "good"?
A lunatic may believe he is Napoleon. In his mind he is Napoleon, in my mind he is not. I cannot speak for Hitler for much the same reaon.

Why?

Put it another way - do you think that people have souls? Here's where I'm coming from: if life started as a bunch of atoms (carbon, oxygen, whatever) floating about in some kind of soup, randomly bumping into each other until they happened to form some ultra-simple amoeba, and by evolution that ameoba changed to a bacterium, changed to a plankton, changed to a lizard, etc all the way to humankind then what ARE we? Are we nothing more than a jazzed-up array of atoms? Or is there more to it than that???
I definately think there is more to it.
After watching the program "Anatomy for beginners" last week, and having seen many things in my nursing career, our bodies are pretty much the same as each other.
But somewhere, in our brain, we recognise we are different. We do have a soul (or something of that nature) our bodies are shells, and I believe there is something else.
Don't ask me what though.

The organised church is one of the wealthiest establishments in society, yet in times of drought, famine, disaster, I see the church sending unpaid volunteers to help out.Yes, along with lots of relief packages! The more people volunteer, the more money is available to support aid projects.
I rarely see the church putting its hand in its pocket.Unless you're actually in a church, you're not going to are you? :devil: Seriously, you're just making unsupported claims here. I don't know which "church" you're referring to, but every church I've ever belonged to has contributed heavily and tangibly to overseas aid.
In my experiences, charitable donations and government aid are the primary donors in any worldwide emergency, not the church.You forget how many charitable donations are church-driven then.

Ah that old chestnut again - I'm always flummoxed by that way the Church can use the word of the bible as law, when it suits, and then blur over the edges that don't stand up to closer analysis by citing "interpretation".It's simple. The bible is a book that contains laws and other things. Actually it's the closer analysis that enables people to tell the difference. However, please feel free to cite an example of something that doesn't stand up to closer analysis.

I decide. :) I am my daughter's god, as her parent it is my job to teach her values and rules which will enable her to survive/live happily in society.So actually what you're saying is "I know what 'good' is because I know what 'good' is." That circularity is fine (albeit unsupportable) if post-modern self-determinism is your choice, but perhaps if you choose to determine morality in this way, you must at least accept that it is valid for others to determine morality by reference to an external source.
Before the bible...Let me just stop you there. I presume you're about to make some claim which you can't support with evidence?
mankind still learnt that certain behaviour made for tolerable communal living, and other behaviours would cast him out of the tribe.Thought so!
Society develops its own set of laws to protect the greater good of the community.Not necessarily. Society may well develop its own set of laws to protect the greater good of the entrepreneur, or the greater good of the ruling class, or the greater good of the natural world. I don't think that legal/ethical/moral soicetical development can be defined so narrowly.
A lunatic may believe he is Napoleon. In his mind he is Napoleon, in my mind he is not. I cannot speak for Hitler for much the same reaon.Methinks you duck the question.

Methinks you duck the question.
Not at all. Hitler was a Catholic wasn't he? That makes him one of your lot, not mine, so you defend him. :laugh:

every church I've ever belonged to has contributed heavily and tangibly to overseas aid. I have seen no evidence of this. Out of interest, is that relief tax-deductable?

However, please feel free to cite an example of something that doesn't stand up to closer analysis.
A virgin birth.

I presume you're about to make some claim which you can't support with evidence? Are you saying you don't believe that mankind had learnt to live in tribes, before the advent of the bible?

I can't prove the laws of gravity to you, I dont have the knowledge. That wouldnt stop an apple from falling on my head though.

However, please feel free to cite an example of something that doesn't stand up to closer analysis.

Sorry Blink.....but I have to do it.......

here is my example - ADAM and EVE and the VIRGIN BIRTH - proove it and I will convert!

I cannot see how anybody could honestly believe humans are anything other than a bunch of atoms.

We all have a different personality because different neural pathways are formed in the brain as a result of genetics and our experiences. These pathways determine how we think and what we are good and bad at.

There is no evidence to support claims of an afterlife, or to suggest there is retribution for "sins" committed on Earth. That is not the same as saying there is proof these things DON'T happen. There is no evidence to suggest that a secret society of pink elephants living at the bottom of the ocean DOESN'T exist, but neither does it mean it DOES.

When I speak of evidence, I am talking of the kind that would win a Court case. I am not really interested in woolly accounts of someone believing they had a spiritual experience or that their life was saved "by the will of God". I believe life is a random thing and sometimes "miracles" will thus occur. More often than not, they won't. Some people will survive apparently terminal illnesses, and many more will not. I can't see how any of these things can be attributed to anything other than luck of the draw.

I find it sad that some choose to live their life in a certain way because of what might happen when they die. I think that's rather a large gamble to take, bearing in mind you could just die and that's it...you have wasted your life on a set of someone else's moral standards.

Oops, forgot one :wink2:

So actually what you're saying is "I know what 'good' is because I know what 'good' is." That circularity is fine (albeit unsupportable) if post-modern self-determinism is your choice, but perhaps if you choose to determine morality in this way, you must at least accept that it is valid for others to determine morality by reference to an external source.
I believe I know what behaviour will ensure a happy and peaceful life for my child, yes.

I am quite happy for anyone to determine their own morality, I do object to having that morality thrust at me though, with promises of eternal damnation if i don't abide by them - or for my life/liberty/safety to be compromised by those with differing views.

Determine your morality with an external source if you lack the ability to do so by your own judgement, by all means.

Since adulthood, I have always maintained that the Bible was written by MAN for MAN, to instil MORALS and STANDARDS by which to live your life.......I believe that this was done to create a better society when "man" settled into groups after hundreds of years of being nomadic......

Adam and Eve were invented as no-one KNEW where we came from.........its a nice folk story to pass down......

the Virgin Birth bit - well, it would have to be a Virgin Birth if Jesus was the son of God wouldnt it......the son of Joseph the Chippie doesnt quite have the same implications and ring to it does it!

I am a Christian, I believe the Bible is the Inspired word of God and take every word literally. I believe that God created the world in 7 days. I believe that God breathed life into Adam (the first man) and that Science goes hand in hand with the Bible. I believe that the Bible has an answer for everything.

Did you know that Darwin became a Christian toward the end of his life and refuted all of his theories.



Below is something I've copied and pasted... have a read, it pretty much sums up a lot of what I believe...

All religions are not the same — Biblical Christianity is absolutely unique among all the religions and philosophies of mankind. Its claim to be necessary for salvation is based squarely on the uniquely powerful evidences for its truth and finality. Actually, true Christianity is not a religion, but a person, Jesus Christ.

"By Him, and for Him, were all things created" (note Colossians 1:16, 17).

Thus, Christianity is unique in the following fundamental respects, among many others.

1. Only in the Bible is God revealed as the one eternal, personal Creator, who brought the entire universe into existence by His own Word.

All other religions start with the material universe as the only eternal reality, with their "gods" being essentially personifications of the natural forces which develop the universe into its present form.

On the other hand, the Creator-God of the Bible has all power and is Himself, therefore, not only the One who created the universe but also the One who establishes the basis for human salvation.

2. Christianity alone is centered in the historical events associated with a Person - the birth, death, resurrection, and imminent, glorious return of Jesus Christ.

Other religions are invariably based on the teachings, rather than the acts, of their founders.

3. Jesus Christ alone, of all men in history, has conquered man's greatest enemy - death.

The founders of other religions are all dead and their tombs venerated. The tomb of Christ is empty, and His bodily resurrection from the grave is the best proved fact of all history. The fact that He alone could overcome death demonstrates that He alone has all power. He Himself said,

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (John 14:6).

4. All other religions of the world are fundamentally just one religion — one of salvation by works. Each religion sets up a particular set of religious rites, of commands and restrictions, and of ethical principles to follow, and then teaches that if a man does these things he will be saved. The human origin of each of these systems is indicated by the fact that each is humanly attainable.

The Bible, however, sets its moral and ethical standard as the very holiness and perfection of God Himself, and demands nothing less than this for salvation. Obviously, no man would invent a standard which was utterly impossible for any man to keep.

5. The man Christ Jesus, alone of all men who ever lived, maintained in every respect a life of perfect holiness and full obedience to the Father, thus demonstrating that He was the God-Man. He then died for the sins of all men and thus can offer full pardon and His own nature of perfect holiness to anyone who receives Him.

Christ alone offers salvation by grace alone, to be received only through faith in Him.

To the one who truly believes on Him, He then gives through the Holy Spirit a new nature, enabling that one to live a life pleasing to God.

There is no mere "religion" in all the world like this. Jesus Christ is the world's Creator, and its only true Redeemer.

"Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Not at all. Hitler was a Catholic wasn't he? That makes him one of your lot, not mine, so you defend him. :laugh:You ducked it again.

The problem I see with a postmodern approach is that it borders on existentialism. Anything - literally anything - is acceptable behaviour. Nothing is wrong. Everything is "right".

There can be no scope within such an approach for moral outrage. You could have no justification for calling a paedophile "bad". At best, you could say, "He has harmed someone, and it is legitimate for society to inhibit his ability to harm again." There's no point calling either the man or his behaviour "evil", since such a word (along with "good") becomes meaningless.

How, within this postmodern framework can you begin to assess what is "for the good of society"? Who decides what society's "good" is? Is society's good whatever makes people happy? Well how about that paedophile? Wasn't he happy? How about the man who committed fraud? He's happy, and if his victims never realise they've been conned, they are too.

From now on, all the postmodernists must stand in the corner and recite after me, "Nothing is good. Nothing is bad. Everything is valid. Everything is meaningless."
I have seen no evidence of this.Well you won't will you? Where would you go to see the evidence?

(Just as an aside: do the words, "Christian Aid", "Tear Fund", "The Salvation Army" or "CAFOD" mean anything to you? ;) )
Out of interest, is that relief tax-deductable?Of what relevance is that to a non-profit-making organisation?
A virgin birth.Okay, well your problem here is that you are presupposing that there is no God. I agree that if there is no God, then lots of the bible will defeat close scruity. But that is not an intellectually honest starting point for analysing a book about God! Rather, you have to ask, "If there is a God, could the virgin birth happen?" Answer: if God is omnipotent then yes, rather obviously.

I'm sure you can come up with something trickier than that. :)
Are you saying you don't believe that mankind had learnt to live in tribes, before the advent of the bible?I wasn't commenting on my beliefs. Since you appear to draw so many conclusions so readily from your assertion, I am merely inviting you to present evidence for your claims.
I can't prove the laws of gravity to you, I dont have the knowledge. That wouldnt stop an apple from falling on my head though.The falling of an apple is demonstrable. The social behaviour of groups of people who existed over 6,000 years ago is not; and yet you are drawing conclusions about that behaviour.

I am inclined to think that the tribes you refer to probably had superstitious or spiritual beliefs of some kind or other, which informed their social rules and patterns of behaviour. But this is only based on modern observation of "uncivilised" peoples. They tend to have beliefs in God/spirits/etc.

Determine your morality with an external source if you lack the ability to do so by your own judgement, by all means.That's not how it is, Floopy. If you define morality by reference to yourself, you are going in circles. By what do you measure good or bad? By yourself. So how do you know what is good or bad? You ask yourself. How do you know if you're wrong? You don't and can't.

By using an external source, all I am doing is admitting that there are some things I cannot define internally - they are bigger than me. Those who think they can, might be deceiving themselves just a little. Circular morality can never result in truth about the essence of morality.

The problem I see with a postmodern approach is that it borders on existentialism. Anything - literally anything - is acceptable behaviour. Nothing is wrong. Everything is "right".

Re Existentialism - I wouln't agree with your description and apparent dismissal of it. It is more a case of individuals making their own choices and using their own judgement. This choice brings with it responsibility. Those who do not choose, but base their lives on pre-arranged moral and philosophical systems are said to be acting in bad faith.

It may be that some people here don't know what we mean by existentialism.

I pasted this very basic guide:

# they believe there are certain questions that everyone must deal with (if they are to take human life seriously), and that these are special -- existential -- questions. Questions such as death, the meaning of human existence, the place of God in human existence, the meaning of value, interpersonal relationship, the place of self-reflective conscious knowledge of one's self in existing. Note that the existentialists on this characterization don't pay much attention to "social" questions such as the politics of life and what "social" responsibility the society or state has. They focus almost exclusively on the individual.
# By and large Existentialists believe that life is very difficult and that it doesn't have an "objective" or universally known value, but that the individual must create value by affiriming it and living it, not by talking about it.
# Existential choices and values are primarily demonstrated in ACT not in words.
# Given that one is focusing on individual existence and the "existential" struggles (that is, in making decisions that are meaningful in everyday life), they often find that literary characterizations rather than more abstract philosophical thinking, are the best ways to elucidate existential struggles.
# They tend to take freedom of the will, the human power to do or not do, as absolutely obvious. Now and again there are arguments for free will in Existentialist literature, but even in these arguments, one gets the distinct sense that the arguments are not for themselves, but for "outsiders." Inside the movement, free will is axiomatic, it is intuitively obvious, it is the backdrop of all else that goes on.

For my own point of view, the things above I believe in are:

Life doesn't have a "point" or meaning.
No act or person is in itself definitively "evil" or "good", it is only evil or good from the individual's perspective. Obviously some things will be considered "good" or "evil" by a greater number of individuals than others; but there is no ultimate guide to wrong and right.
You are not your potential; you are only what you are. Statements such as, "I know I could write a novel" or "I could have been really successful if only I had been discovered..." do not impress me.
There is no such thing as fate; you can change your life through your own actions and beliefs.

I do not necessarily subscribe to every Existentialist value or belief. However my beliefs do obviously negate the possibility of me believing in a God.

I find it sad that some choose to live their life in a certain way because of what might happen when they die. I think that's rather a large gamble to take, bearing in mind you could just die and that's it...you have wasted your life on a set of someone else's moral standards.
Ceri why do you find it "sad"? If we are nothing but bundles of atoms then what does it all matter anyway? If a "person" "chooses" to "live" their "life" it's all just illusory anyway - from atoms we came, and to atoms we will return.

I can't deal with the idea that, for example, my kids are nothing but dust.

Life doesn't have a "point" or meaning.
No act or person is in itself definitively "evil" or "good", it is only evil or good from the individual's perspective.
This kinda scares me. If everyone took this for real, and everyone just made up their own personal morality, then we'd be in hell IMO.

Re Existentialism - I wouln't agree with your description and apparent dismissal of it. It is more a case of individuals making their own choices and using their own judgement. This choice brings with it responsibility. Those who do not choose, but base their lives on pre-arranged moral and philosophical systems are said to be acting in bad faith.
How does one make one's own judgement without reference to any kind of external moral system? I'm not even sure it's possible - almost everyone is somehow conditioned by the environment they grow up in. Or do you mean that morality can be somehow innate???

do you mean that morality can be somehow innate???

-------Yes

I believe you make your own judgement based on your experiences and also your social conditioning.

I don't believe it is necessary to make your judgement on the basis of religion, membership of a gang, the profession you are in, etc, but of course many people choose that route. It is probably the easiest way, and also allows you to feel part of a group, which in turn makes you feel safe.

I can't deal with the idea that, for example, my kids are nothing but dust.

This kinda scares me. If everyone took this for real, and everyone just made up their own personal morality, then we'd be in hell IMO.

I think that's really the point. Most people are too scared to follow these beliefs, as they believe it would render their life meaningless. To me, it is very liberating - my life means everything to me because I believe I make my own destiny, and only get one chance to get it right.

Incidentally, the "if x happened, then we'd end up at y" argument is one frequently rejected by philosophers, as y doesn't necessarily follow x. We all make up our own morals any way, to a large extent. You aren't forced to accept other people's beliefs. It's just that most people keep their more extreme views quiet, in order to be accepted by the greater part of society.

In general, animal societies maintain their own order, i.e. they reach equilibrium anyway, as we all have an in-built desire to survive. Clearly it would be unnatural for us to accept behaviour that ultimately threatened our own survival.

3. Jesus Christ alone, of all men in history, has conquered man's greatest enemy - death.

The founders of other religions are all dead and their tombs venerated. The tomb of Christ is empty, and His bodily resurrection from the grave is the best proved fact of all history. The fact that He alone could overcome death demonstrates that He alone has all power. He Himself said,

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (John 14:6).


Where is this prooved? I am very interested to hear about proven facts - my biggest problem with the Christian God is the lack of proof........ I used to have great discussions with my local vicar back in Leamington, he has a degree in biblical archaology so I found him fascinating to talk to about it all, and he never FORCED his view on to me, just answered my questions....

Ah, but Queeenie you are missing the point!

All the Christians I have argued with over the years (and yes, there have been quite a few) argue that I cannot hold my belief, as their theory hasn't been disproved.

And I have to point out that:

If I said there was a creator called Zog, and he made black people black because they had sinned, and he condemned them to a life of slavery as punishment, would that allow me to start a racist regime where black people were continually oppressed? After all, you can't prove Zog DIDN'T exist, and DIDN'T do those things can you - and if I believe it, it must be true!

I am sure I could find some writing somewhere to prove my theory if I really tried, then when it was argued with say it was all open to interpretation!

I just dont "get" how anyone can beleive in something that cant be proven - I like facts and proof and no one seems to be able to give them to me, so if they cant prove it, how the **** am I supposed to believe it????

I think I will retreat to my black and white world Ceri....its quite nice here to be honest :wink2:

Black and white? Mine has more than a hint of pink! :laugh:

Black and white? Mine has more than a hint of pink! :laugh:
:laugh: mine has a few purple tinges truth be told :D

I've just started reading a book called "The thoughtful guide to Faith" by Tony Windross, he is a local Anglican minister around here.

here is what the back of the book says....

"This book is for anyone who would like to take faith seriously but finds their intelligence getting in the way. It outlines many of the objections raised to formal Christian religion, and suggests ways of dealing wiht them which do not compromise people's intellectual integrity.
The claim made here is that Christianity is far more about the way we live than the way we think, that faith can work for all of us, and that what we may or may not believe must never be allowed to get in the way of faith."

I have just read a few chapters so far and it is a very interesting read.
One excerpt about the bible..."It's obviously not possible to be a Christian and not take the Bible seriously, but it is possible to be a Christian and not take the Bible literally."


Edited to say, thanks Ceri for that explanation.

I think this is really my point Andrea....my feeling is that all religions are essentially a moral code we are expected to live by, and in that respect I can see the sense behind them. When they are embellished to include the performance of miracles, virgins giving birth, woman being created from a man's rib, talking serpents etc, they lose credibility and have as much in common with real life as the people who claim they were abducted by the aliens or say they have fairies at the bottom of the garden.

I think it is time to question the logic of some of these wilder claims, but accept that if you enjoy the Christian morality or Buddhist morality, or whatever...use it, but beware of lazy thinking. For every person who lives a "good" life and gets "good" in return, you can find another example of someone who lived a "good" life and had something awful happen that made them really unhappy. As I've said before, it's the luck of the draw really. Taking the attitude that you can be forgiven come what may, or that if you go to Church you're a "good" person and should command respect, seems a little lazy to me...and negates the need to take personal responsibility for anything!

This is a long post so I've had to cut it into 4 parts. Im sure you won't all read it all but I just wanted to cover all angles... :bye:


1.

Q:Where is this prooved? I am very interested to hear about proven facts - my biggest problem with the Christian God is the lack of proof........

A: Hi Queenee, Im don't know all of the answers and don't ever like to argue with people about spiritual beliefs. I have respect for people no matter what they believe and try not to judge as Im certainly not perfect and never will be.

Below I have found a very thorough explanation as to how we know that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. This in effect answers your question. It is very long, so I don't expect anybody to read it all, however if you just read one of the first sections titled: "TWELVE WIDELY-ACKNOWLEDGED HISTORICAL FACTS", it may help.


How do we know that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead?

The most powerful sign of all that Jesus is who he claims to be, namely the Son of God, is his resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4). This is a question with huge implications: Did it happen? Is the Resurrection story the great exception to the "usual dreary end of human life?"

Many now consider the Resurrection to be one of the most sure and certain events of history. A critical debate on the question "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" took place recently between world-renowned atheistic philosopher, Dr. Anthony Flew, and New Testament scholar and Christian, Dr. Gary Habermas. A panel of five philosophers from leading universities judged the outcome. What was the conclusion? Four votes for Habermas. None for Flew. And one draw. Flew was judged to have retreated into philosophical sophistry while evading the widely-acknowledged historical facts cited by Dr. Habermas.

TWELVE WIDELY-ACKNOWLEDGED HISTORICAL FACTS

These facts (per Habermas) include:

1. Jesus died due to the rigors of crucifixion.

2. Jesus was buried.

3. Jesus' death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

4. Many scholars hold that Jesus' tomb was discovered to be empty just a few days later.

5. At this time the disciples had real experiences that they believed to be literal experiences of the risen Jesus.

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify with Jesus, to bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection, even being willing to die for this belief.

7. The resurrection was central to their message.

8. The resurrection was proclaimed in Jerusalem where the empty tomb was. As a result...

9. The church was born and grew...

10. ...with Sunday the primary day of worship.

11. James, Jesus' skeptical brother, was converted by the Resurrection.

12. Paul, the great persecutor of Christianity, was converted by the Resurrection.

So momentous was this single event in the First Century that its effects have been described as a "widening circle of ripples" from a "boulder crashing into the pool of history." In one of the oddest turns in history, a message centering on a dead "criminal" (1 Corinthians 1:23) came to be proclaimed as "good news." Equally amazing was the extent of the Empire-wide transformation following its proclamation. The impetus for this message was the conviction that the same Jesus who was crucified was now alive again. These facts are admitted even by knowledgeable skeptics.
The Resurrection story of course has had its critics, even from the very beginning. From the account of the first guards in Matthew 28:11f, all the way to the present, there have been efforts to explain away his resurrection. Each new attempt, however, is more perverse than those which came before, while still failing to account for the range of indisputable facts.

2.

Let us now consider...Here are the SIX SKEPTICAL OBJECTIONS most frequently used by critics of Christ's resurrection.

Some say that Christ's resurrection was a myth, not history. Is this possible?

Some critics charge that the Gospels have obscured the historical Jesus of Nazareth by cloaking Him in layers of legend and myth. They claim that the Bible's stories of Christ's resurrection are myth, not history. There are at least FOUR REASONS why the mythological interpretation fails.

1. Comparative literature demonstrates that myth takes a number of generations to develop. There are no parallels in other literature of myth developing and being believed in the presence of eye-witnesses and within the short timeframe in which the New Testament was formed.

Historical research is on the side of an immediate belief in Jesus' resurrection. An early apostle's creed includes the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-9) and has been dated by many scholars to within 3 to 7 years of Christ's death and resurrection. This implies prior public belief. Scholars agree that the first letters by St. Paul appeared within 25 years or less of Jesus ministry, and the four Gospels within 21 (and no later than 65 years). The preaching of the apostles always centered on the Resurrection. In a very short period of time, devout Jews throughout the Roman Empire who had formerly faithfully worshiped God on the seventh day of each week, converted to Christianity and began meeting on the first day, in celebration of Christ's resurrection.

Hundreds of witnesses saw Christ alive after his death. Once he appeared to 500 people at once (1 Corinthians 15:6).


2. Many of these eyewitnesses to Christ's public ministry were hostile toward the Jesus the Gospels describe (Matthew 12:22f). These opponents had both motives and means to correct falsehoods about Him had the first disciples attempted them. Yet their opportunity did not produce a serious correction.

3. The Gospels don't resemble either Greek myth or Jewish legend. In contrast to those, the Gospels understate and lack embellishment, yet contain details counterproductive to the invention of legendary heroes. For example, the following six factors in John chapter 20 are at odds with the tendency of legendary material:

-With great restraint, no attempt is made to describe the resurrection itself.

-Mary neither initially recognized the risen Jesus (the "hero") (John 20:14).

-nor even considered that there was anything special about Him (John 20:16).

-Indeed, even by the end of the day, the disciples (the secondary "heroes") were still in hiding "for fear of the Jews" (John 20:19).

-And, were the Gospels the free creation of paternalistic bias, as feminists charge, it is incredible the writers would have chosen women to be the first witnesses of the risen Jesus. The testimony of women didn't even count legally.

-Yet, it was their courage the morning after the Resurrection that put the men's contrasting cowardice to shame.

4. Jews were the poorest of candidates for inventing a mythical Christ. No other culture has so opposed mythically confusing deity with humanity, as did the Jewish.


Is it true that the Bible's accounts of Christ's resurrection are full of contradictions?

The Gospels admittedly take a little effort to reconcile. But this "problem," as it is typically framed, is vastly overstated.
It is commonly held that, since the Gospels differ from one another in emphases and detail, there must have been invention somewhere. Yet such an interpretation is not required! Reporters to any event (secular or religious), following all standards of accuracy and integrity, will each edit their stories differently with their eyes on what is relevant to their readers. Therefore, the rigid demands of the hyper critics that all four Gospels be exactly alike are arbitrary and artificial. Dr. Sayers states:


"One is often surprised to find how many apparent contradictions [in the Gospel Resurrection accounts] turn out not to be contradictory at all, but merely supplementary... Divergences appear very great on first sight... But the fact remains that all of [the Resurrection accounts], without exception, can be made to fall into a place in a single orderly and coherent narrative, without the smallest contradiction or difficulty and without any suppression, invention, or manipulation, beyond a trifling effort to imagine the natural behavior of a bunch of startled people running about in the dawn-light between Jerusalem and the garden."


"Miracles are not possible," some claim. Is this true?

The success of modern science in describing the world in terms of cosmic regularity has led some to rule out miracles as an outmoded and impossible concept. This is an unwarranted philosophical assumption and not a scientific conclusion. Philosophy cannot dogmatically forbid miracles apart from proving that there is no reality outside of nature.
Once God's existence is granted as a possibility (and there is abundant evidence provided for it at this site), miracles can't be dismissed out-of-hand. Rather, whether or not a given miracle has occurred becomes a historical matter that calls for investigation.

What I have never understood about the Resurrection is this...

If we are saying the person has a soul, why did Jesus' body disappear? Surely that was just His flesh and blood, and thus scientifically impossible to resurrect? Or are we saying He was not dead?

Would it not be more logical to say it was His spirit that contined on?

I have always found the Resurrection a little odd I'm afraid.

3.

Was Jesus Christ's body stolen from his tomb?

There is no question that Jesus Christ's tomb was mysteriously empty. As Paul Althaus has said, the resurrection message "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact..." Dr. Craig observed that, "Conflicting traditions [to the empty tomb story] nowhere appear, even in Jewish polemic."
At least one skeptic (Dr. John Dominic Crossan) has wrongly asserted that Roman law automatically forbade Jesus' burial, and that he must therefore have been thrown anonymously into a common pit. This is not sustainable. Raymond Brown has shown that Roman burial policy varied with circumstances and did allow the possibility of personal burial of some of the crucified. This scenario would also contradict the consistent Jewish protests that the body had been removed. Furthermore, the Gospels could not have successfully invented as owner of the tomb one so specific as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin named Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43). Had the Gospels been false on this matter they would not have been able to withstand the swift correction and ridicule from the Jews.

How have doubters of Christ's resurrection responded? Some skeptics have claimed that someone must have stolen Jesus' body from the tomb, and that this led to the stories of miraculous resurrection. Is this possible?

THE JEWS AND THE ROMANS

Neither the Jewish nor the Roman leaders, who guarded the tomb (Matthew 27:62f) would have taken the body. Rather, both had every motive to produce the body publicly in order to humiliate the disciples and nip their movement in the bud. And since the scene in question was right at Jerusalem, it was completely within their power to locate the corpse should it still have existed. Yet to their dismay, no such body was ever produced. If the Jews had the body, they would have wheeled it in at the day of Pentecost when all Jerusalem was in an uproar because of Peter's sermon on the Resurrection of Christ.

CHRIST'S FOLLOWERS

[Read the account from Matthew of what really happened]

Likewise, is highly unlikely that Jesus' followers could have removed the body with a Roman guard protecting the tomb, plus a large stone door. And it won't work to charge them with inventing the account of the sleeping guards in Matthew. 28:11f. That story would only have served as apologetic propaganda had the guards stayed awake.

Why would the disciples (or anyone else) want to risk their lives to steal Christ's body? The biblical record shows the disciples were scared, discouraged and disheartened. Their only motive could have been to deceive. But everything we read about these men indicates they were good and honest. How could they have gone out the rest of their lives and daily preached that Christ had risen from the dead when they knew all along it was a lie? Would they have sacrificed and suffered so greatly for something that they know was an outright deception?

It would have been foolish to hide the corpse and fake a resurrection. The consequences of their loyalty to Jesus included beatings, imprisonments, and even death. No sane person chooses these for what they know is false. Under such pressures, liars confess their deceptions and betray their cohorts.

The explosive growth of the Church is strong evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Significantly, it wasn't the powerful, but commoners, burdened with every cultural strike against them (1 Corinthians 1:26f), whose Resurrection message peaceably transformed the Roman Empire. Who would ever have predicted such an "impossible" feat? Yet it actually did happen!

That Christianity originated in Judaism is further evidence for his resurrection. Renowned archaeologist William F. Albright observed, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D." Jewish bias against the Jesus of the New Testament was massive. What else would have led Jews to accept a shamefully hung (Galatians 3:13) "criminal", as their promised Messiah when they had longed for a military deliverer? And what else would have moved Jews to break their monotheistic convictions to worship Jesus as God the Son (John 1:18), or change their worship day from Saturday to Sunday (Acts 20:7)? A mere invented myth would have been powerless to overthrow such hopes and traditions.


"Jesus was so unlike what all Jews expected the Son of David to be that His own disciples found it almost impossible to connect the idea of the Messiah with Him."
-Millar Burrows

It is, as the New Testament states, Jesus' resurrection that singly overcame that "impossibility" (Acts 2:24).
CONVERSION OF SAUL

In addition, the conversion of Saul of Tarsus points to a momentous miracle. Beginning as a violent enemy of the Church (Acts 8:3; 9:1, Galatians 1:13), he was utterly turned around into becoming Jesus' servant. Choosing suffering for Christ's sake (2 Corinthians 11:23f), Paul gave up all he had, endured persecution, and preached the Gospel in city after city all the way to Rome, where he died a martyr's death. He is credited with having had greater influence over the course of the Roman Empire than any other figure of the First Century apart from Christ. Nothing short of Christ's resurrection has remotely explained his major transformation.

THE OTHER APOSTLES

The other Apostles too, overcame fear to brave suffering, imprisonment, and even death, as they proclaimed the good news of the risen Christ across their world. Is it thinkable that these people would die so willingly for a mere myth? "Each of the disciples, except John, died a martyr's death... because they tenaciously clung to their beliefs and statements," observes researcher Josh McDowell.

In contrast to others who have died for an unverifiable hope beyond the grave (e.g., mystics seeking reincarnation or Moslem militants expecting reward from Allah), Jesus' disciples lived and died for the historically verifiable claim that the grave was empty and that he was seen alive again.

Legal scholar Dr. Simon Greenleaf, founder of the Harvard Law School, notes:


"Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, [early Christians received] contempt, opposition... and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate, and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only [continued] their work with increased vigor and resolution... The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage... If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. From these [considerations] there is no escape but in the perfect conviction and admission that they were good men, testifying to that which they had carefully observed...and well knew to be true.

Dr. Greenleaf is considered by many to have been one of the greatest legal minds we have had in the U.S. He was formerly an outspoken skeptic of Christianity and who set out to disprove the deity of Christ. In the end he concluded that the Resurrection was true "beyond any reasonable doubt." Greenleaf became a Christian after studying the evidence for himself. Many top legal minds agree with Greenleaf that if the case for Christ's death and resurrection were taken to a court of law, it would undoubtedly win. The claims are very well established and verified by independent and converging proofs.

4.

Is it possible that Jesus did not die, but only fainted on the cross, later recovering from His wounds?

Crucifixion was an excruciating experience -- indeed, these two words are clearly related. The cause of death by crucifixion was multifaceted and torturous! These factors included exhaustion asphyxia, dehydration, and congestive heart failure.
That Jesus could have survived such agony on a Roman cross, to limp out of the tomb by His own power, is improbable enough! That His bruised and grievously wounded appearance could have been hidden, so that He could deceive despairing disciples into believing He was "The Risen Lord of Life" and conqueror of death, is absurd! A man in such a condition could hardly have inspired his disciples. Jesus would have been incriminated as a fraud. Only a supernaturally raised Jesus was capable of healing the broken hearts of the disciples.

The Roman soldiers pronounced Jesus dead, and He was dead. The mixture of blood and water that poured out of the wound they made in his side is clear evidence of this.


If the writers of the Gospels had been inclined to exaggerate, they would have been restrained from doing that by the fact that a great many people were still living who had witnessed the events of which they were writing. Many were foes. If the disciples had put in errors or exaggerations, they would have been challenged by people in a position to know.

Some today might naively assume that the First Century was an age of extreme childish credulity - that people in those days were willing to attribute supernaturalism to almost any unusual occurrence. But this is an unfair way to describe that time. Jerusalem was a crossroads of the world. Educated men had been reading Aristotle for over three centuries. Epicureanism was the prevailing philosophy of the day (eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die). Many in the Greek and Roman world barely recognized the existence of a real God and held in utter contempt the idea of God intervening in the affairs of men. The Jews also were skeptical and reasoned people, and had absorbed Roman philosophical ideas. (They were part of the Roman world with Roman laws and Roman courts.)

Some claim that witnesses to Christ's resurrection must have been hallucinating or experiencing mass hysteria, is this possible

On one point virtually all scholars of every description agree, the first disciples were themselves utterly convinced they had seen the risen Christ.
The Christian gospel message about the death and resurrection of Christ breathes through virtually every New Testament document. So the real question is, how do we account for their obvious conviction? Were they just hallucinating?

While perhaps at first sounding plausible, many factors contradict such a notion. To name a few:


The large number of witnesses (hundreds) (1 Corinthians 15:5-8)...

Covering the spectrum of personality types (e.g., John 20 -- Peter, Thomas, the two Marys, etc.), contradict the theory of hallucinations which, by definition, are not shared experiences.

There is no such thing as a vision appearing to a crowd. It's generally received only by one person at a time, and that person must be expecting the vision and be in a highly emotional state. As the Bible shows, none of Jesus' followers expected him to rise from the dead. Luke said that when Jesus appeared to the disciples, "They were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit" (Luke 24:37).

Mistaken identity can not be the explanation, either. Certainly the disciples would recognize the person they had been with every day for more than three years.

The substantial, permanent, and positive change in lifestyle of many of the converted overthrows any theory of hallucination. Jewish scholar Dr. Pinchas Lipide, has written,

"When this frightened band of apostles suddenly could be changed overnight into a confident mission society... Then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation."

Although Lipide is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who does not accept Jesus as the Messiah, he concedes the inescapable evidence that Jesus must have risen from the dead.

So what does it all really mean?


Ok Im doubting anybody got this far!! :laugh: but perhaps? :bye:

It still doesn't really address the issue Claire! It simply is not possible for a person, who is genuinely dead, to simply heal themselves and get up and walk off is it? Anybody knows that - it's a proven, scientific fact and it isn't open to debate!

How can anybody honestly believe this happened when there is irrefutable proof that it's impossible?

And BTW - if we're saying it's possible for it to happen to one person, then why not other scientific impossibles? Such as a human that could fly? Or a real mermaid?

Surely you can see this is just a legend - an enduring one, but a legend nonetheless?

I suppose its not really my job to convince anybody. However, to me- if it is true that if you do not accept Christ as your saviour you will spend an eternity in hell, it is pretty important. Eternity is forever. If its not true or you don't believe it, then what the hell, live your life, enjoy it as best you can, do all the things you want to - eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die!

Personally, I believe that there is a lot more to myself than just a body that came together by chance. I believe I was created and that I have a spirit which will go to heaven when I die. I just cannot believe that this is it. When I read the Bible, it becomes more than just a book to me. It opens my eyes to things and its not a book of rules, its a book about Gods love and intentions for us, written for every one of us here - today.

Why are people so afraid of believing that "this is it"?

If you are living your life to the full, if you are true to your beliefs, and you have a clear conscience - why would you NOT be happy to believe this is it? Are we all saying there is no point getting out of bed in the morning unless we have an all-seeing "Creator" watching our every move?

Can't you just be happy to be yourself?

Why are people so afraid of believing that "this is it"?




I can see what you're saying but I am not afraid of believing that "this is it", I sincerely don't believe that this is it.

The Bible makes sense to me, and God is real to me, he isn't just some creator that makes me feel safer about life or a crutch. God has been very real in my life.

Do you know that there were over 300 prophecies in the Bible foretold about Jesus Christ himself and his life. Every one came true. Can you imagine the chances of that? It is virtually impossible, unless the Bible is a book inspired by God. There are so many prophesies in the Bible that have come true and are being fulfilled at this very moment. Nothing has ever been disproved. We are not talking about one little fact that we rely on where we say "Oh well you cannot disprove it so it must be true"... We are talking about a big thick book full of stuff, history, answers to every question about life that you could have, answers about every spiritual aspect of life, prophesies about our day and age... None of this has ever been disproved.

But it hasn't been proved either!

And IF there were prophecies that came true (and I wonder whether they, too, were simply things that could be interpreted in a number of ways), it doesn't make it true that there is a God.

I am glad that you are comforted by your belief Claire, and don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge you or anyone else for having it! It just isn't the way I see it.

But that's what we're all here for - a good debate! :)

Going back to what you were saying Ceridwen that it's not possible for a man to die, his soul leave his body and then be resurrected (which is a joining of body and soul). It is possible if you believe in God, but I can understand that if you don't believe in God then you wouldn't regard it as a possibility.

I wonder if people are less afraid of this being 'it' rather than a feeling of knowing that there is something more. IMO I think we are given a God given instinct to feel there is more. I know I do, and maybe some people just need to look harder than others.

As for doing good in this life, I don't do it to get a reward, because the reward I get is that it helps me develop love for other people and just knowing that I may have made someone's life a bit better or happier is good enough for me. And I think that goes for all of us if we believe in God or not.

I have philosphied many times over the issue of why do I feel this, why do I feel there is good and bad in people and in the world, and my instincts go back to their being a higher law that we all are following, whether we are aware of it or not.

Going back to proof, there are a lot of things that cannot be proved, but are accepted anyway. There are a lot of things that we can't see, such as the wind, but we can see the influences of it that makes us believe there is a wind. Same as with God for me, I can't see him, but I see a lot of what is around me that makes me believe he exists. Therefore I choose to believe in him.

This is copied and pasted, however it is really good, if you have a moment, read it, it may enlighten you on things you were not aware of.

There have been hundreds of books written on the subject of the evidences of the divine inspiration of the Bible, and these evidences are many and varied. Most people today, unfortunately, have not read any of these books. In fact, few have even read the Bible itself! Thus, many people tend to go along with the popular delusion that the Bible is full of mistakes and is no longer relevant to our modern world.

Nevertheless the Bible writers claimed repeatedly that they were transmitting the very Word of God, infallible and authoritative in the highest degree. This is an amazing thing for any writer to say, and if the forty or so men who wrote the Scriptures were wrong in these claims, then they must have been lying, or insane, or both.

But, on the other hand, if the greatest and most influential book of the ages, containing the most beautiful literature and the most perfect moral code ever devised, was written by deceiving fanatics, then what hope is there for ever finding meaning and purpose in this world?

If one will seriously investigate these Biblical evidences, he will find that their claims of divine inspiration (stated over 3,000 times, in various ways) were amply justified.

Fulfilled Prophecies

The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.

For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.

There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.

There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.

Unique Historical Accuracy


Learn more about Archaeology and the Bible

The historical accuracy of the Scriptures is likewise in a class by itself, far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. Archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:


"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

Scientific Accuracy

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:


Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)

Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)

Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)

Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)

Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)

Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

and many others.
These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.
It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible -- in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.

Unique Structure

The remarkable structure of the Bible should also be stressed. Although it is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 or more different men over a period of 2,000 years, it is clearly one Book, with perfect unity and consistency throughout.

The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each nevertheless fits perfectly into place and serves its own unique purpose as a component of the whole. Anyone who diligently studies the Bible will continually find remarkable structural and mathematical patterns woven throughout its fabric, with an intricacy and symmetry incapable of explanation by chance or collusion.

The one consistent theme of the Bible, developing in grandeur from Genesis to Revelation, is God's great work in the creation and redemption of all things, through His only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Bible's Unique Effect

The Bible is unique also in terms of its effect on individual men and on the history of nations. It is the all-time best seller, appealing both to hearts and minds, beloved by at least some in every race or nation or tribe to which it has gone, rich or poor, scholar or simple, king or commoner, men of literally every background and walk of life. No other book has ever held such universal appeal nor produced such lasting effects.

One final evidence that the Bible is true is found in the testimony of those who have believed it. Multitudes of people, past and present, have found from personal experience that its promises are true, its counsel is sound, its commands and restrictions are wise, and its wonderful message of salvation meets every need for both time and eternity.

Ultimately, I think some people need to feel there is a "higher" law, and others do not.

When I have been in really bad situations, I have found comfort from my belief that it's nothing personal or pre-ordained, it's just the way life is. I know others would not find that belief comforting at all.

I suppose it just comes down to what you feel happy with doesn't it?

For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.

Isn't this an example of a self fulfilling prophecy? How can we know for certain when the various books of the Bible were written?

More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.

Prophecies fulfilled by Christ himself cannot be proven, as we were not there.

The spread of Christianity? That was the idea wasn't it? If it hadn't spread, this would have been forgotten about. The fact that it DID spread proves nothing - the author had a 50% chance of getting that right!

False religions? Ah, of course. If they're not Christianity, they must be false. Let us call them that, and then make the (not very surprising) claim that there will be some. Of course there will!

Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.

So what about mediums who say they have made shatteringly precise predictions?

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally.

It is mooted by historians that several ancient civilzations understood more about the way the world worked than we ever realised. Look at Stonehenge and the astonishing way it was built and what it does!

The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book

But whose word do we have for that?

One final evidence that the Bible is true is found in the testimony of those who have believed it. Multitudes of people, past and present, have found from personal experience that its promises are true, its counsel is sound, its commands and restrictions are wise, and its wonderful message of salvation meets every need for both time and eternity.

We will ALL find evidence to support our beliefs, no matter what they are.

WOW, a lot to take in!!!!

Claire you talk of Prophacies in the Bible, I was wondering if you believe in Clairvoyants and the like?

Also, it has been discussed that Jesus died and rose from the dead - Claire, you say that there is no way he would have survived crucifiction, yet you accept that there was a resurrection, I am baffled by this to be honest!

It is MY belief that Jesus didnt die from the crucifiction but escaped because he was a "dead man walking" the "authorities" wanted rid of him, he had no choice but to flee......

the other thing I struggle with, is, believers tend to say that the Bible is true, yet when I question certain aspects, usually the more unbelievable ones that is, the standard answer tends to be "its about interpretation"........ I can accept that its about interpretation, "a guide to life" so to speak - but I cant accept that Jesus was the son of God - an important figure in history YES, but the rest, no!

I do respect your faith Claire, it fascinates me too, and I hope I dont/havent offended you in any way with my comments.....that is the last thing I would want to do I assure you :)

I think it's an excellent debate! :)

There's so much I could say after reading this whole thing, but I'll stick to the most recent trend of the thread...

Jesus and the Bible....Did you know that all accounts of Jesus were written 30-60 years after Jesus' death? There is certainly room for discrepencies to occur in what actually happened and what was perceived to have happen.

Second, Jesus was said to have an eschatological outlook...which means he felt the world was soon coming to an end. Now, would the son of GOD really think the world was coming to an end during his time, which we now know is obviously false since the world is still here.

I used to be a Christian, am not anymore. However, I find religion and specifically the history of Christianity to be fascinating, and have been reading a lot on it recently. Each new piece I read takes me further from believing in God, whether it is from a Christian or non-Christian point of view. There are so many things about the so-called "facts" of Christianity that just do not seem to fit.

I also am curious about what y'all think of other religions? Doesn't the sheer fact that there are so many religions in the world lower the chances of any one religion being THE correct religion? Early religions can be quite proven to serve specifically as a functional aspect of culture. They help regulate the lives of a community, and help create certainty in areas where one has no control over their fate. Why would modern day religions be any different?

I think it is perfectly logical to believe in a higher being, and I think it is pretty much ingrained into our minds to believe this way (there are always exceptions to the rule tho I'm sure). But whether there is actually a higher being is a completely different story, which I have difficulty believing.

I think it's an excellent debate! :)
and me Ceri, its usually poor old Blink having to "educate" me on such matters and answer my questions so its nice to hear Claires point of view too.....

as I have probably said before, there are many stories in the Bible that probably DID happen, that there are now "reasonable" explainations for the "stranger" things in there, and I do believe that there was a man called Jesus who had outstanding infulence on people......but I believe that IF he didnt die from the crucifiction, then he had to live, no resurrection, he escaped..........

then we have the likes of Holy Blood, Holy Grail - every one is quick to dismiss the ideas in this book, as having no proof, yet they are prepared to accept that there was a Virgin Birth and that Jesus rose from the dead......without proof!

Going back to the issue of whether Christ fainted on the cross. Even if he did, the Romans would have finished him off with the spear that they pierced through his side. That was their way of making sure the person whom was being crucified was surely dead. There is no way the Roman's would have let him off that cross alive.

But that's assuming you can prove the event ever happened in the first place - which of course, you cannot.

It's an example of circular logic...I believe in God, therefore I believe what was written in the Bible...why do I believe in God...because it was written in the Bible.

But I don't just believe in God because of what is written in the Bible. I don't believe things just because I read them, I have to 'feel' that what I am reading is real. I am a gut instinct person and therefore make a lot of decisions based on what I feel. We all use our gut instinct from time to time, and my gut instinct tells me there is a God.

As for a lot of the religions in the world, a lot of them do stem from the God of Abraham.

Yes, I can see where you're coming from Tiggs!

Some researchers claim that what we call our "gut" instinct is actually based on real experience that is buried in our subconscious somewhere. So it is possible that external influence has more to do with it than we think.

Whatever the reason is, my experience/gut instinct plus copious amounts of study has led me to my own conclusion!

I am a Christian, I believe the Bible is the Inspired word of God and take every word literally.

May I ask your view on Genesis Ch7 v6 which says that Noah was 600 years old when he entered the ark?

SF! I am so pleased to see you!! :hug: Sorry for that brief diversion :offtopic:

Hi all, Im not offended at all as I welcome challenges to my beliefs. That is how we find out the truth isn't it?

I am in a big rush though as Im going out right now (2 minutes and have no make up on!!), so I will write later...

xx :bye:

I believe in God cos I think for me it is the easiest way to make sense of a lot of things. And I do know that in times of crisis is when I most believe in God.

However, religion has been used in the past and is still being used to keep the downtrodden down and the poor poor. You only have to look at poor countries such as Mexico to see that Religion is used to keep the poverty stricken masses under control and to accept their lot whilst the rich stay rich and the religious leaders are on some massive ego trip.

There is little doubt in my mind that things have gone sour and corrupt in religion and it's been happening for centuries.

I don't take the bible literally cos a helluva lot of it makes no sense and has no sensible reasoning behind it. I need facts man, just the facts!

May I ask your view on Genesis Ch7 v6 which says that Noah was 600 years old when he entered the ark?

Hi Survivofan, yes I do take every word in the Bible literally and believe it is just as it says it was. Here are some articles by Scientists on decreased lifespans. I hope the links work, if not, I will copy and paste again, let me know. :bye:

Link 1 Living for 900 years
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/years.asp

Link 2 Decreased lifespans
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/lifespans.asp

Usually when one asks about anything to do with my faith, I tell them of the love of God and the fact that there is a way that we can KNOW we will go to heaven when we die. This to me is wonderful news. I don't know all of the answers and don't presume to. I have however asked a lot of questions myself and never ever found there to be contradictions in the Bible. Sometimes people think they have found something but when you go into the correct interperetation of what was written, there is no confusion. A lot of Bible translations have lost a lot of meaning along the way, which is why most pastors study Greek at Bible College so that they can look into the original Scriptures for the original meanings. They also study the culture of the time of the Bible.

Claire you talk of Prophacies in the Bible, I was wondering if you believe in Clairvoyants and the like?



I believe that the spiritual world is very real. There is God and Satan.

Im not too sure that I want to go here as I don't want to offend others, but here is my belief on the matter. I know it is copied and pasted once again, but I couldn't put it like this- writing is not my speciality!


THE OCCULT
What does the Bible say about it?

Today, many people dabble in the mystical, occultic arts. Is there anything wrong with being involved in these practices? Yes, the Bible takes a clear position on this subject, strongly denouncing these practices. God created us and therefore owns us. He has a right to set the rules for our lives. Gods Word indicates that these practices are part of Satan's strategy of evil tricks and deception, designed to lead us astray. Satan and his demons are real beings set on our destruction. Christians are warned to "put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:11-12).

What is the occult?
The word "occult" is generally associated with secret knowledge and practices dealing with the supernatural or "psychic" phenomena often for the purpose of obtaining personal power. Some occult practices rely on demons or "spirits" to achieve their goals. Occultism is rapidly increasing throughout the world. There are now thousands of publishers of occultic books and magazines (not to mention Web sites). Interest in the occult has been promoted by the New Age movement, the rise of neo-paganism and some movies.


Please understand that the terms "occult" and "cult" refer to completely different things - although there can be crossover in some specific instances. That is, some cults have occultic practices.

The following practices are considered to be occultic:
(partial list, in alphabetical order:)

Alchemy
Animism
Astrology
Automatic speaking (through spirits)
Automatic writing (spirit-guided)
Cabalistic knowledge
Calling up the dead
Candomble
Celtics (the religion, not the Celtic "race")
Channeling
Chaos Magic
Chiromancy
Clairaudience
Clairvoyance
Crystalmancy
Demon worship and consultation
Discordianism
Divination
Eckankar
Enchantments
Fetishism
Fortune telling
Freemasonry
Glass looking
Gnostic wisdom
Hermetic Traditions
Horoscopes
Hydromancy
I Ching
Illuminated organizations
Illuminati
Incantations
Kabbalah
Knights Templar
La Regla Lucumi
Lukumi
Lycanthropy
Macumba
Magic, magick (magical arts)
Mediums
Mirror gazing
Necromancy
Neo-paganism
Omens
Oracles
Ordo Templi Orientis
Ouija boards
Paganism
Palmistry
Prognostication
Psychometry
Qabalah
Quimbanda
Radiestesia
Rosicrucianism
Runes
Santeria
Satanism
Scrying
Secret societies
Sevi Lwa
Shamanism
Soothsaying
Sorcery
Spells (casting, conjuring)
Spirit-guides
Spiritists
Spiritualism
Tarot cards
Tea cup reading
Thelemite
Umbanda
Vedic astrology
Vodun (Voodoo)
White witchcraft
Wicca
Witchcraft
Wizardy


Concerning occult practices, the Israelites were told:

"When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire [an ancient occult practice], or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination [detestable] to the LORD..."
-Deuteronomy 18:9-12a

Astrology (predictions by the planets or moon; horoscopes; sometimes referred to as "observing times" in the Old Testament)
Although the Bible does go into great detail about astrology, it certainly makes its position clear. We should never trust in astrological beliefs or predictions. Astrology is an ancient, heathen practice that leads to disaster. Our lives are not determined by the stars or movement of planets. The Bible warns against the false predictions of astrology (Jeremiah 10:2; 27:9-10; Daniel 2:1-4; 4:7; 5:7-9) and repeatedly condemns the associated practice of worshipping the sun, moon and stars (or "deities or demons associated with them") (Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:2-5; 2 Kings 21:3, 5; Zephaniah 1:5; Job 31:26-28; Jeremiah 8:1-2).

In Isaiah, God sarcastically rebukes Israel for practicing astrology,


...For you have trusted in your wickedness... Therefore evil shall come upon you... trouble shall fall upon you... Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, And the monthly prognosticators stand up and save you from what shall come upon you. Behold, they shall be as stubble, The fire shall burn them; They shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame..."
-Isaiah 47:10-14a
Magic, Spells, Enchantments, Charming, Sorcery, Wizardry, Witchcraft
Research has shown that occult magic is often fraudulent and deceitful illusion - counterfeit miracles. Many books have been written on this subject. In some instances, occult magic or divination are a manifestation of demonic powers or the result of demon possession (Acts 16:16). Of course, the power of Satan and his demons is extremely limited compared to God's power.

Those who follow the path of the magic arts are on the wrong path - a road that leads away from God, not toward Him. In one way or another, the end will be disaster. The evil Queen Jezebel practiced witchcraft (2 Kings 9:22) bringing catastrophe on herself and all Israel. Over and over, God denounces those who "conjure spells" (NKJV) and those who practice witchcraft and sorcery. The Bible says that anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord (Deuteronomy 18:10-12; 2 Kings 21:6; Micah 5:12; Isaiah 47:12; Ezekiel 13:18, 20; Acts 8:11-24; Leviticus 20:27; Exodus 7:11; Revelation 9:21; 22:15).

God warns of the ultimate punishment. Revelation 21:8 says of "...those who practice magic arts ...their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur... the second death" (NIV). Those who practice witchcraft (sorcery) will not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21). These practices are anti-God and are in rebellion against Him.

Many of citizens of ancient Ephesus practiced the magic arts. Those who became Christians realized the foolish error of their former lives and burned their expensive books of magic as the trash they were (Acts 19:19).

The Bible tells how the apostle Paul once dealt with one of these deceivers, a sorcerer and false prophet who led people astray. "Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, ‘O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.' And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand" (Acts 13:9-11).

Divination, Fortune-telling, Mediums, Spiritism, Necromancy, Familiar Spirits, Wizardry, Seances, Channeling, Clairvoyance, Spirit-guides

The Bible strongly warns people not to consult mediums and spiritists for the truth, but to inquire of God (Isaiah 8:19). Clearly, if those who practiced these arts have any power (beyond being great deceivers), it is not a gift from God (as some falsely claim). The Bible condemns and forbids these practices several times (Deuteronomy 18:9-14; Isaiah 44:25; Jeremiah 27:9; 2 Kings 21:6; 23:24). Divination and Spiritism were despised practices of the heathens (Ezekiel 21:21; Isaiah 19:3; 1 Samuel 28). Scripture says that one of the reasons King Saul died was "because he consulted a medium for guidance" rather than God (1 Chronicles 10:13-14).

The Bible provides examples showing the folly and failures of those who claimed the ability to predict the future based on their own powers or those of spirits (Daniel 2:27, etc.). God calls the word of diviners "nonsense," "lies" and "deception" for foolish people (Ezekiel 13:8; Jeremiah 14:14; Isaiah 44:25). God said, "Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!" (Ezekiel 13:3). If an Israelite lived the deceitful practice of being a medium, it was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:27). The presence of a medium or spiritist among God's people of Israel was considered a defilement (Leviticus 19:31). All these practices take people further from their Creator, the true and living God.

Following omens or signs

We are not to look to omens or "signs" to direct our lives. The Bible reprimands people for doing this. It is an "abomination" and foolishness (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Look to God and His instructions for life as provided in the Bible. To do otherwise is to foolishly deceive yourself, or allow Satan and others to deceive you.

I find this a really interesting thread too:)

I want to explain how I feel but I'm not very good with words so bear with me.
After reading some of this book, I feel that Christianity for me is all about love.
I think, as Queeenie has said before, that there was this man named Jesus, but as to the stories of the bible being true, I'm not so sure.
The context of the stories are different to today, the multiple translations make it easy to change meaning, and the multiple handing down of the stories by many generations before they got written down also make it easy for the words to change.

I really think the bible shouldn't be taken literally, but as a code of conduct.
I take my kids to church, but I think the reason I go is that alot of my social/community life around here has had a lot to do with the church.
I've found friends, happiness within the church, and I just want to say thanks for what I have. Not to a specific being as such, but just to reflect on my life and all that I am grateful for.

Er....

How can paganism and witchcraft possibly be deemed to be the work of satan, when the evidence shows these were the original religions and when Christian festivals are set on pagan festival days and Christian churches built on sacred pagan sites?

Hi Survivofan, yes I do take every word in the Bible literally and believe it is just as it says it was. Here are some articles by Scientists on decreased lifespans. I hope the links work, if not, I will copy and paste again, let me know. :bye:

Link 1 Living for 900 years
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/years.asp

Link 2 Decreased lifespans
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/lifespans.asp

I had a look at these articles but to be honest I didn't fully understand them. Have you read them yourself, if so would you be able to briefly summarise the
main points are that are being made so that I can undestand?

Have found an interesting site re: Christianity and Paganism...

http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/

blimey, so many words.

Guys, can I ask a favour?

I'm a busy working mum, could you try and limit your replies to 3 or 4 paragraphs cos otherwise I just can't be arsed to read them. And like SF says, if you've got shedloads to say, rather than cut & paste, could you summarise the points?

Ta

Blink - I've not forgotten you, but my brain doesnt start working properly until I'm in the office.

Gawd that sounded really pompous, sorry. :D

"I can't be arsed to read them"????!! :eek:

Well that's a fine attitude bearing in mind you were the one who decided to start a thread on such an emotive and complex subject young lady!! :laugh: :laugh:

yeah well, there's always been one rule for me and one for everyone else :D .

Ah, the God of Floopy!! :laugh:

that's why I have a problem with organised religion - how can they all be right, when I'm so clearly correct in all matters.

that's why I have a problem with organised religion - how can they all be right, when I'm so clearly correct in all matters.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I had a look at these articles but to be honest I didn't fully understand them. Have you read them yourself, if so would you be able to briefly summarise the
main points are that are being made so that I can undestand?


I have read them myself (I wouldn't put a link up if I hadn't read it all). I found it involved but the guy is a Scientist. Have a look around the whole site, he speaks a lot of sense. We have DVD's covering a lot of hard to answer Scientific Questions all by him. He lectures. It has explained a lot to me.

Sorry... :mellow: If I thought I could cover it briefly then I probably would have but I can't. I didn't expect everybody to read through everything I've copied and pasted, however if you have the time, you may gain deeper understanding into the questions that have been asked.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


As the saying goes... isn't it hard to be humble when your'e perfect in every way!! :) :boxing:

I have read them myself (I wouldn't put a link up if I hadn't read it all). I found it involved but the guy is a Scientist. Have a look around the whole site, he speaks a lot of sense. We have DVD's covering a lot of hard to answer Scientific Questions all by him. He lectures. It has explained a lot to me.

Sorry... :mellow: If I thought I could cover it briefly then I probably would have but I can't. I didn't expect everybody to read through everything I've copied and pasted, however if you have the time, you may gain deeper understanding into the questions that have been asked.

To be honest Claire, if I can't understand it and you can't summarise it, then it doesn't really explain anything!

Well there is not much more that I can say. There are far too many co-incidences in the Bible for me to find it one big co-incedence. I cannot convince everybody of my beliefs. The Bible is available for everybody to read and God says in the Bible “he who seeks me will find me”.

Christianity is not about a set of rules. It is about accepting God’s free gift of Salvation (going to heaven) which was made possible and available to us when he died on the cross. From then on it is a relationship with him. He makes it clear in the Bible that we are all sinners and none of us can live perfect lives but once he has forgiven us, he forgives us past present and future. Nothing can take us out of his hand.

When you accept him and trust in him your spiritual being becomes alive. You do not become perfect, but you do change slowly but surely because he lives inside you and speaks to you through the Bible. Many people think that from then on you have to try be perfect and perform for God, but that is not the way it is!

Read the Bible for yourselves and accept or reject. I didn’t write it but I’m happy I have the peace of knowing I will not spend an eternity in hell… not because I’m a good person, but because I have trusted in him to forgive me. I believe he loves me and everybody more than anything! A love that we cannot understand or comprehend! And yes Andrea, Jesus is all about love. Read through his life story, he loved sinners, prostitutes, everybody who was rejected by society. The people he was furious with were the self righteous Pharisee’s which in our day would be the proud religious leaders who claim to know everything and follow all of the rules but have no understanding of God. Often they have the respect of man, but not the respect of God. Jesus had compassion on people, he always had time for people and loved us all so much that he was prepared to come down to earth with the sole for the purpose of dying a painful and excruciating death. He was sinless but this was the only way that he could pay for our sins. We could not get to heaven any other way. It says that he sweated blood (has been proven scientifically possible if a person is under the most intense pressure) shortly before the crucifixion. He knew what he was about to go through, but it was his love for us that made him go through with it.

Accept him or reject him, its your choice. To me it's the most important choice you will ever make.

Another thing I don't understand Claire....

If we are supposed to follow the Ten Commandments, why does God forgive us no matter what we do? What is the point? And does that mean He will forgive those that don't believe in him?

I am not being sarcastic, I just genuinely do not understand it!

What mystifies me a bit is why someone would automatically assume that everything written in the Bible is true, rather than assuming it is a mixture of fact and myth, which seems to be what most religions are as far as I can tell.

To say that some of the Bible is myth is not to demean it in any way, as quite often myth and allegory are powerful ways of describing the human condition - you need look no further than Aesop's Fables for proof of that.

Suppose a few thousand years in the future someone unearthed a copy of Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings' as a product of mankind in the 20c - would they be right in assuming it was all factual?

Organised religion is necessary in any society. It is the decline in the belief of god that is causing many of the problems in our society today. The law and the justice system are not enough on their own.



To explain: all religions have a heaven and a hell - simple rule. Obey the rules and you go to heaven, don’t and you go to hell.



Control over a populous. Imagine that you are living 2000 years ago in a remote village. You are a man big and strong but you are starving, your spouse and your children are starving and your neighbour has lots of food. What stops you from taking the food from your neighbour and killing him so no one would know that you did it? Nothing except one thing - God is all seeing he will know what you did and you will go to hell.



It is not possible to debate the existence of god - the closest that you can come is -

If god is a figment of mans imagination then man should be able to imagine some thing more powerful than god- he can’t ergo God is not a figment of mans imagination therefore God must exist.



The reply to this is that we imagine the power of God to the limit of our imagination which is why we can’t imagine anything more powerful than God which means he could be a figment of mans imagination.



The alternative to God is big brother and I for one will take religion every time

So long as the masses believe in God, control will be maintained, society will be a better place to live in. It’s when they stop believing that the trouble begins, because if you believe that you can steal or kill or cheat on your partner and get away with it, you will.



I look at it like this

It is a big universe you only have to look up to see that it is big

It is so big in fact that it is beyond mans imagination to comprehend just how big it is.

It would be like a frog that lives in a garden pond understanding the size of the seven oceans of the world.



I don’t believe in God myself, when we die does something go on? I don’t know but I like to think that it does. Maybe to the next level? Maybe we have to go through this corporeal stage to get to the next? Or maybe when electrical activity stops in the brain, that’s it. I don’t know, and I don’t believe that anybody does.



The thing is, its such a big universe why is it here?

:blush:






.

floopy?? just a thought :devil:
oooh I was just trying to type that when Cockney whisked away the post!

oooh I was just trying to type that when Cockney whisked away the post!


and I just deleted my posted that you quoted.......good here innit..

As the saying goes... isn't it hard to be humble when your'e perfect in every way!! :) :boxing:
Which saying is that?

To whom should I show humility? If I don't belive in pride being a sin, in fact if I don't belive in the concept of sin, to whom should I cowtow? To whom am I answerable?

and I just deleted my posted that you quoted.......good here innit..
that's it I'm not playing anymore! :mad2: :wink2:

I was logged in as him, sorry girls, off you go.

What are you two doing in the clever bit anyhow?

To whom am I answerable?

Gigi?? just another thought......and I couldn't put Cockney cos that would just be toooooo stupid... :laugh:

stop heckling in the cheap seats

What are you two doing in the clever bit anyhow?

just watching and learning.....watching and learning Floops...you cheeky cow


edit to say gone seriously off topic and I apologise. I will now sit down and listen careully and no more butting in....promise

I was logged in as him, sorry girls, off you go.

What are you two doing in the clever bit anyhow?
ooooh aint she cheeky Buzz!

I've got a feelign we're going to get chucked out at an