Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Collapsing in the next 100 years? Why not the next decade or within your lifetime? I know, you would be too dead to be embarassed by then. You are too optimistic. Anyway, the death knell for the Bible and Christianity has been sounded for hundres of years but those who made the most noise have all perished but still the Bible remains and Christianity remains.
wat the...?
go take yr med
Originally posted by White Dust:That's cool! So what is your position on this matter?
As for original sin, I'm opposed to the idea that God made the world to suffer because of the 1st man's 1st mistake.
Its is inevitable that the fruit would be taken, perhaps Satan just wanna hasten the process. I mean, its there in the garden of Eden, well within reach of the duo. Why else its there? Its meant to give the eater the knowledge of good and evil. This could
well be the answer to the missing link of human's evolution from apes.
The 1st thing the original duo realized after taking the fruit is that they were naked when they were for as long as they remember. It wasn't wrong before but now it became wrong after having the idea of good and evil.... so the sin spreads from there.
All was well and things were meant to be, became either good or bad with the judgement of self and others. There is no "good" without the "evil" and vice versa.
As for free will, its just an easily believable idea that one has the choice to be good or bad.
Personally, I make choices based of what I know(or not know) and experienced at that moment. My choice could change if what I know(or not know) or experienced was different. Even with seemingly random events, the causes and effects can be determined. With enough foresight, the course of actions could be determined.
Also, free will would be meaningless if someone else has the final say if one is eligible for the next stage.
However, the above does not discount the responsibilty of consequences. It just mean one has to be more informed, emphathetic, rational, controlled and sure before acting. Once acted, the consequences are inevitable.
As for the topic "who created God?", it boils down to the definition/s of God and the belief of the questionee. Else, it just a pretentious effort to take a shot at the religulous.
Originally posted by White Dust:That's cool! So what is your position on this matter?
As for original sin, I'm opposed to the idea that God made the world to suffer because of the 1st man's 1st mistake.
Its is inevitable that the fruit would be taken, perhaps Satan just wanna hasten the process. I mean, its there in the garden of Eden, well within reach of the duo. Why else its there? Its meant to give the eater the knowledge of good and evil. This could
well be the answer to the missing link of human's evolution from apes.
The 1st thing the original duo realized after taking the fruit is that they were naked when they were for as long as they remember. It wasn't wrong before but now it became wrong after having the idea of good and evil.... so the sin spreads from there.
All was well and things were meant to be, became either good or bad with the judgement of self and others. There is no "good" without the "evil" and vice versa.
As for free will, its just an easily believable idea that one has the choice to be good or bad.
Personally, I make choices based of what I know(or not know) and experienced at that moment. My choice could change if what I know(or not know) or experienced was different. Even with seemingly random events, the causes and effects can be determined. With enough foresight, the course of actions could be determined.
Also, free will would be meaningless if someone else has the final say if one is eligible for the next stage.
However, the above does not discount the responsibilty of consequences. It just mean one has to be more informed, emphathetic, rational, controlled and sure before acting. Once acted, the consequences are inevitable.
As for the topic "who created God?", it boils down to the definition/s of God and the belief of the questionee. Else, it just a pretentious effort to take a shot at the religulous.
... Pardon the above double posting.... I edit and cleared everything and saved but somehow that did not work....
Originally posted by White Dust:That is true. In fact, I think there are actually good reasons to think that God does not exist. The plethora of evils in the world is a good case against the concept of an omnibenevolent/onmipotent God. Even if it doesn't amount to a complete disproof, it is strong evidence against the existence of such a deity.
lots of westerners in the west have left christianity even though they are brought up. even scholars have left christianity because they found the bible to be too incoherent and illogic, not to mention arrogance and the existence of god is yet to be established.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:lots of westerners in the west have left christianity even though they are brought up. even scholars have left christianity because they found the bible to be too incoherent and illogic, not to mention arrogance and the existence of god is yet to be established.
I was trying my best not to LOL at your self deluded reply.
Sam Harris on "Free Will"
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:I was trying my best not to LOL at your self deluded reply.
Sam Harris on "Free Will"
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Interesting. In what capacity and setting were you teaching the Bible for 12 years? Did you give up Christianity? Why?
I used to teach Bible studies and apologetics in a church, and yes. I think our discussion has yielded some reasons for my non-belief. I wanted to talk more about the Urey-Miller experiment...
I think you've misunderstood the argument. The argument from evil is not to prove that God does not exist. The arguments tries to show that an omnipotent/omnibenevolent God does not exist. If one professes one's God to be non-omnibenevolent (such as William Lane Craig, and I suspect Alvin Plantinga), then the argument from evil will not be a suitable disproof as an non-omnibenevolentl God is perfectly compatible with the existence of evil in the world.
Theodicy, God and Suffering - A debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isg6Kx-3xdI&feature=related
Bart Ehrman is a former christian and pastor and studied trinity and scholar.
I hope besides listening and reading the views of others' , you all have your own opinion.
If your belief is based on what you read and heard, then you would be no different from those who believe in holy books.
Some of Sam Harris views corresponds with mine, though not all. And I have not heard of him until that link.
Originally posted by mancha:I hope besides listening and reading the views of others' , you all have your own opinion.
If your belief is based on what you read and heard, then you would be no different from those who believe in holy books.
Some of Sam Harris views corresponds with mine, though not all. And I have not heard of him until that link.
I been thinking of the religion for over almost 20 years le. Religion was invented by primitive people, because they were ignorant of the natural phenomenon, like sun, moon, wind, earthquakes etc. They thought they must be a god, so worshipping and sacrifises begun. the rest as they say, is history.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:I been thinking of the religion for over almost 20 years le. Religion was invented by primitive people, because they were ignorant of the natural phenomenon, like sun, moon, wind, earthquakes etc. They thought they must be a god, so worshipping and sacrifises begun. the rest as they say, is history.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I see that you have been thinking about animism for 20 years, and confusing it with Christianity! Duh.
beats you than believing in a imaginery god that commands people to kill people who worked on sundays lol. seriously how can one take the beliefs seriously with a command like that
Originally posted by White Dust:I used to teach Bible studies and apologetics in a church, and yes. I think our discussion has yielded some reasons for my non-belief. I wanted to talk more about the Urey-Miller experiment...
I think you've misunderstood the argument. The argument from evil is not to prove that God does not exist. The arguments tries to show that an omnipotent/omnibenevolent God does not exist. If one professes one's God to be non-omnibenevolent (such as William Lane Craig, and I suspect Alvin Plantinga), then the argument from evil will not be a suitable disproof as an non-omnibenevolentl God is perfectly compatible with the existence of evil in the world.
Interesting that you taught Bible study and apologetics for 12 years in a church. So I presume you had been a Christian for more years than that? If so, then I assume you will not have much trouble following my arguments.
Please feel free to speak your mind on the Miller experiment. My earlier point was that had they been successful they would not have proved that abiogenesis happened, but that life required intelligent design. They would only have proven that life could be formed in a lab, but not in a primordial soup millions of years ago which they assumed they knew how it was like.
But why would the existence of evil means that the Christian God does not exist? Clearly you must have added some other premises to come to that conclusion.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:beats you than believing in a imaginery god that commands people to kill people who worked on sundays lol. seriously how can one take the beliefs seriously with a command like that
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It would be worst to take your anti-Christian rantings seriously.
if asking a question such as that is anti christian rantings, so be it.
even a 3 year old kid would find it hard to accept beliefs that require people to kill people who worked on sundays. by the way there are millions of people who worked on sundays. so why wouldnt you take up god command to kill them lol
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:I been thinking of the religion for over almost 20 years le. Religion was invented by primitive people, because they were ignorant of the natural phenomenon, like sun, moon, wind, earthquakes etc. They thought they must be a god, so worshipping and sacrifises begun. the rest as they say, is history.
My first introduction to religion was through history lessons in secondary school. The origins of various major religions were in the syllabus. Beyond the academics I have no interest in them other than analyse the cause of the belief of the various people.
Originally posted by mancha:My first introduction to religion was through history lessons in secondary school. The origins of various major religions were in the syllabus. Beyond the academics I have no interest in them other than analyse the cause of the belief of the various people.
yes what I find odd was the belief in an imaginery god and holy book which was written by ancient primitive people who doesnt have our knowledge now. the people in that era was illiterate and science was rudimentary. when you tell them it was acts of god then, people who not challenge you, but if you ask a modern man that earthquake as an act of god, to hell with your act of god.
"A Universe From Nothing" - Lawrence Krauss
The books were written thousand or hundreds of years ago. In the language and vocabulary of that time. Previous to that the records were handed down by word of mouth. So there is distortion and limited vocabulary.
Those writings are then translated into English, using the current vocabulary. So the translations was fitted and refitted with present day vocabulary until it made the best sense. Then attribute it to God and that finalise it.
If all options are left open, then there is a possibility that extra terrestrial aliens introduced life on this planet and and created humans, thereafter evolution took its course.
They may return, but the strong possibility is that they could no longer do so.
We don't know, but as we progress, we will be able to formulate more theories and get closer to the truth.
would you believe in evidence based on observations, experiments, scientific instruments/apparatus, calculations/deductions than a book written by ancient primitive men? same with medicine isnt it. you want medications that is based on evidence than hearsay or hypothesis isnt it.
imagine the world, where we are all christians, believing in god. whatever we dun understand, we will say, it is god's work. there will never be improvement in society and critical thinking. when one dies from a new diseases, that must be god's will.
to believe in god is impediment to knowledge and curiosity.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:if asking a question such as that is anti christian rantings, so be it.
even a 3 year old kid would find it hard to accept beliefs that require people to kill people who worked on sundays. by the way there are millions of people who worked on sundays. so why wouldnt you take up god command to kill them lol