Adventism

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Any mystery of the universe doesn't prove that Christianity is true.

Evidence is just that. It gives credibility. It was never meant to remove all doubt.

If the theories opposite to those I proposed are true, accepted and true, they don't change the end from being death. OTOH, those proposed by me and others on this forum lead to life everlasting. Not eternal life in an eternal burning fire, even for the wicked.

Let's see: serve a Master Who is willing to give life eternal. If I'm right, praise God. If I'm wrong I receive the same as those who don't believe in His existence.

OTOH if I choose to disbelieve, there is no hope for life beyond the grave. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Hope you find the same while there is time.

God blesses!

[cardw]

Quote:

Any mystery of the universe doesn't prove that Christianity is true.

Evidence is just that. It gives credibility. It was never meant to remove all doubt.

If the theories opposite to those I proposed are true, accepted and true, they don't change the end from being death. OTOH, those proposed by me and others on this forum lead to life everlasting. Not eternal life in an eternal burning fire, even for the wicked.

I don't think you understand that because there are mysteries in the universe is not evidence at all for Christianity.

Mysteries simply tell us that we don't know everything. To say that we have knowledge because of our lack of knowledge is an oxymoronic idea.

[BobRyan]

Only the atheist has to "explain" how everything could come from some gas and a rock given enough time and volume - and "special chance".

The Christian on the other hand - gets to explain that a wonderful painting came from a painter.

The atheist claims that even the painter can be traced back to random interactions between rocks and gas - given enough time, volume and chance "just so" events.

Thus for the atheist the almighty, know-nothing "Cosmos" of gas and rocks - creates the painting.

in Christ,

Bob

[cardw]

Only the atheist has to "explain" how everything could come from some gas and a rock given enough time and volume - and "special chance".

The Christian on the other hand - gets to explain that a wonderful painting came from a painter.

The atheist claims that even the painter can be traced back to random interactions between rocks and gas - given enough time, volume and chance "just so" events.

Disproving something does not prove another alternative. Most atheists are agnostic to how it started anyway. Evolution only explains how it developed once it started.

The Christian has the same problem of origin because if you are going to attribute all mystery to god then how to you explain who created god? It really becomes a game of semantics.

Both sides eventually come to a place where it can't be explained. Christians simply insert the word god in the place of mystery. And atheists say they don't know, which, to me, has far more integrity.

Like I said in a previous post you can't claim knowledge from a lack of knowledge.

[aldona]

Incarceration distribution in America by religious affiliation

Catholic 29,267 31.432%

Protestant 26,162 28.097%

None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%

Muslim 5,435 5.837%

American Indian 2,408 2.586%

Nation of Islam 1,734 1.862%

Rastafarian 1,485 1.595%

Jewish 1,325 1.423%

Church of Christ 1,303 1.399%

Pentecostal 1,093 1.174%

Moorish 1,066 1.145%

Buddhist 882 0.947%

Jehovah's Witnesses 665 0.714%

Adventist 621 0.667%

Eastern Orthodox 375 0.403%

Latter-day Saints 298 0.320%

Scientology 190 0.204%

Hindu 119 0.128%

Santeria 117 0.126%

Sikh 14 0.015%

Baha'i 9 0.010%

ISKCON 7 0.008%

-------------------- ------ --------

Total 93,112 100.000%

What, no Quakers?

AJ

[JoeMo]

Quote:

What, no Quakers?

No Rastafarians, either.

[LifeHiscost]

Only the atheist has to "explain" how everything could come from some gas and a rock given enough time and volume - and "special chance".

The Christian on the other hand - gets to explain that a wonderful painting came from a painter.

The atheist claims that even the painter can be traced back to random interactions between rocks and gas - given enough time, volume and chance "just so" events.

Thus for the atheist the almighty, know-nothing "Cosmos" of gas and rocks - creates the painting.

in Christ,

Bob

And that makes a lot of sense. Not what or how the atheist calls logic, but how you've helped me to see how they think. Much obliged.

I still can't understand how or why the atheist decides it is better to assume we came from a big bang which gives us a few short years of figuring out how to escape from death, rather than making effort to learn about the Creator Who is willing to give us a wonderful life without end, just for being willing to give ourselves over to His care.

OTOH that is a decision that comes from depending on our own resources instead of a willingness to admit we're not half as smart as we think we are. And then of course we are, as an atheist, without the advice that tells us why we would be willing to accept such minimal reward.

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."Matthew 24:24 KJV

As well as;

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."

Ephesians 6:12 NKJV

God blesses!

[BobRyan]

I still can't understand how or why the atheist decides it is better to assume we came from a big bang which gives us a few short years of figuring out how to escape from death, rather than making effort to learn about the Creator Who is willing to give us a wonderful life without end,

Huxley explained that it is because he did not want to be held accountable to an all-knowing -- almighty, holy and just - God.

in Christ,

Bob

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

The atheist claims that even the painter can be traced back to random interactions between rocks and gas - given enough time, volume and chance "just so" events.

Thus for the atheist the almighty, know-nothing "Cosmos" of gas and rocks - creates the painting.

in Christ,

Bob

And that makes a lot of sense. Not what or how the atheist calls logic, but how you've helped me to see how they think. Much obliged.

The reason you can't understand what atheists think is because you ignore what they tell you about how they think.

What I see done over and over is you telling me how I think and ignoring what I actually post.

When you debate what you state atheists think instead of what we actually think, you are reduced to having a conversation with yourself.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

When you debate what you state (atheists) think instead of what we actually think, you are reduced to having a conversation with yourself.

That not only happens to atheist......either!!!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

you are reduced to having a conversation with yourself.

Which makes a lot more sense than debating, arguing, or talking with someone who believes they already know more than the Creator that made them.

God blesses!

[cardw]

Quote:

you are reduced to having a conversation with yourself.

Which makes a lot more sense than debating, arguing, or talking with someone who believes they already know more than the Creator that made them.

Well, if that's what you want to do then count me out.

[BobRyan]

Only the atheist has to "explain" how everything could come from some gas and a rock given enough time and volume - and "special chance".

The Christian on the other hand - gets to explain that a wonderful painting came from a painter.

The atheist claims that even the painter can be traced back to random interactions between rocks and gas - given enough time, volume and chance "just so" events.

Thus for the atheist the almighty, know-nothing "Cosmos" of gas and rocks - creates the painting.

[cardw]

Which makes a lot more sense than debating, arguing, or talking with someone who believes they already know more than the Creator that made them.

I want to demonstrate that you don't know what atheists think because you keep getting it wrong.

Pay attention here. Atheist don't claim to know what is first cause and that includes the force that originated the big bang. Scientist can only study what is, not what they believe it is. They are agnostic to first cause. They claim to know how it got from first cause to humans. They don't claim perfect knowledge, but the evidence points to evolution as the process, NOT THE ORIGIN of all that is. Once you have something then and only then can you study it.

You are the ones who claim to know. The reason no one can argue with you is that you don't follow the laws of reason. You claim to know something that can't be known. You have no evidence what-so-ever and you have no reproducible test to determine if there is a personal creator. And yet you claim to know.

Atheists generally state they don't know on the issue of god in general, but are non-believers in any gods due to lack of evidence. We are reasonable sure that the god of the Bible doesn't exist.

You're simplistic representation of atheist arguments are limited by your own understanding and your continued insistence doesn't make them any more true.

[JoeMo]

cardw,

Quote:

You are the ones who claim to know.

I can't speak for other Christians here; but I don't claim to know, cuz I don't. I personally have enough evidence from personal experience (or an overactive imagination) to believe it enough to stake my life on it.

Quote:

You have no evidence what-so-ever and you have no reproducible test to determine if there is a personal creator.

This is absolutely true. By the very definition of a supernatural event (which creation would be), science will never be able to reproduce it, because it wasn't a natural process. To my knowledge (and I don't claim my knowledge is complete in this area), there has never been a scientific observation of one species evolving into another species; or life emanating from non-living material, either. So that makes evolution as much of a matter of faith rather than fact as is creation.

[cardw]

cardw,

Quote:

You are the ones who claim to know.

I can't speak for other Christians here; but I don't claim to know, cuz I don't. I personally have enough evidence from personal experience (or an overactive imagination) to believe it enough to stake my life on it.

[JoeMo]

It must be wonderful to be you cardw! A true legend in your own mind!

Some of us are trying to be open-minded and understand your position; but all you do is see fit to put us down as inferior children stuck in a delusional fantasy. I would never condemn you for your beliefs; but I'm not sticking around to be put down by you, either. Eternity will tell who's delusional here.

I'm outta here.

[cardw]

It must be wonderful to be you cardw! A true legend in your own mind!

Some of us are trying to be open-minded and understand your position; but all you do is see fit to put us down as inferior children stuck in a delusional fantasy. I would never condemn you for your beliefs; but I'm not sticking around to be put down by you, either. Eternity will tell who's delusional here.

I'm outta here.

You want to understand my belief and you have. I do think you are in a delusional fantasy. That is not condemnation. That is simply a statement of what I believe to be true. It's up to you to determine if that is putting you down.

You think I'm in a delusional fantasy of my own and yet aren't you being rude by your own definition? I don't consider you rude for having an opinion.

Being nice is not the same a being truthful. I give you the respect of being truthful. I would consider anything less to be lying to you.

[JoeMo]

Fair enough. I apologize for my tantrum.

[cardw]

Fair enough. I apologize for my tantrum.

I understand. We all need to throw tantrums from time to time. I know I've thrown a few myself.

[debbym]

To argue against a personal creator God is like arguing against the existence of love. You cannot scientifically ever prove the existence of love.

You will never reduce it to a mathematical equation, and hold it up in a scientific laboratory as fact. We can scientifically filter out God's existence. The human mind can do all kinds of things.

Same with respect, or any of the abstracts that we hold more dear then life, or rather, may hold more dear then life.

These abstracts pertain to qualities of soul that are beyond the material world. Who cares to prove there is no love, compassion, sincerity, kindness, mercy, honesty, boundaries of good and bad, right and wrong. They cannot be proven scientifically. So do we conclude thy do not exist? what happens when we deny any morality existence?

This is a wearying conversation.

Ecclesiastes chapter 12 verses 12, 13 14.

12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

[JoeMo]

Debjm,

alot

Excellent post; good thoughts. Thanks!

[pegleg bates]

I see so many who grew up run from it.

The turning point for me was when I started interpreting the Bible for myself. In SDA culture, you are required to read a verse through the EGW lens and interpret the words to have some other unbiblical meaning. For example, in SDA doublespeak, "Hell" = "Apart from God", but the Bible is very clear about the existence of a literal realm for the dead. It also bothered me that every "bad" or undesirable event in the Bible is attributed to Satan, even when there is no mention of Satan, and worse, when God himself is explicitly the instigator.

This type of SDA reinterpretation is carried out throughout the entire Bible. I always had major questions about the contradictions between "what we believe" and "what the Bible says" for which nobody could provide a satisfactory answer. I remember one particular event as a teenager when I had gone witnessing with a youth group in downtown Dallas. A construction worker asked us why God had created Satan. I was stunned, because I had also struggled with that philosophical question, and I didn't know that anybody else was critically questioning our faith as I secretly was. My fellow Christians tried to answer his question with vague half-truths as we had been trained to do, but I knew at that moment that I had to get out. When I began my education in science, I couldn't ignore the evidence for evolution as my parents had coached me to do. I found that much of the denial of biology in Christianity is due to a semantic misunderstanding. I later found atheist friends that I could talk to openly about my doubts. I pondered the question of religion very deeply, and I was an atheist by the time I was 16.

[cardw]

To argue against a personal creator God is like arguing against the existence of love. You cannot scientifically ever prove the existence of love.

[BobRyan]

To argue against a personal creator God is like arguing against the existence of love.

Two rocks might wish to argue against the existence of love - if they could wish, and argue.

But once you have complex cultures among humans it is not reasonable to argue against the existence of Love.

in Christ,

Bob