@unknownuser said:
@solo said:
Regurgitate your versus somewhere else, the adults are talking now.
Hello, adults!
To be “born again” is not enough tu believe in God, but you have tu REPENT, with sincere sorrow for past, and with grateful devotion for the future...!
Define repent.
@solo said:
Funny thing is if he was around today the exact folk that worship him would hate his social liberal ways and he'd be dismissed and persecuted...oh wait he was back then also.....hmmmm.
A point that most believers tend to miss.
When you critique the current North American view of Christianity you are critiquing a caricature of what following Christ really means.
@unknownuser said:
‘Dropout’ is confused, because “[most people already have the "good deeds".]”
Voila the difference:
Who thinks that through their good deeds will be saved, deceive themselves... (this it's not the way...)
Who are saved (were born again), demonstrate this by their good deeds.
No I am not confused. You are misunderstanding me. Not once did I even suggest that good deeds will save anyone. I said that everyone, no matter what, does some good things. From an eternal perspective, good deeds have no value unless there is also faith. My point was that for most people the acceptance of Christ means little or no change in lifestyle.
@unknownuser said:
’Dropout’ wrote: “[The Bible teaches that salvation is dependent on only one thing: belief that Jesus is Saviour. That's all.]”
You are wrong, mister ’Dropout’..., because of this:
“You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the DEMONS believe this, and they tremble in terror. How foolish! Can’t you see that faith without good deeds is useless?” (James 2:19-20)
That is true BUT the intent here is to say that we cannot use faith as a "get out of jail free" card.
Also, most people already have the "good deeds". Everyone, no matter how depraved, does some things that are good.
When believers fight over theology Satan laughs because it means we're not doing what we need to be doing which is showing God's love to the world.
And solo, I'm Canadian too. 
@unknownuser said:
@ ’Dropout’. Expression „version of the truth” ia an absurdity...
We find the TRUTH revealed in God's Word (in the Bible), so, study it carefully, if you want to know in what world you live!
Oh, I have studied it carefully for many years.
There are two things, faith and theology. Faith is that Jesus died for our sins. That's not negotiable. Theology is everything else, how long did it take for God to create the world, are all unbelievers going to Hell, women in ecclesiastical office, homosexuality etc. These are subject to study and negotiation.
The Bible teaches that salvation is dependent on only one thing: belief that Jesus is Saviour. That's all. There are no other catches, secret handshakes, financial requirements. Nothing else. To suggest otherwise is in error. You may believe in a young earth, I don't. It doesn't matter since it's not a salvation issue.
As we go into the world, we need to bring only one message and that is that God loves everyone no matter what, not beat people over the head with our particular brand of theology.
@unknownuser said:
‘Alan F’wrote: “Stop talking crap, Cornel. You know no such thing.”
OK, mister, I remain silent, because the truth upsets...
Your version of the truth, you mean.
@unknownuser said:
@alan fraser said:
...But consider the alternative; the traditional view of Heaven...either meandering about with a silly grin on your face, like you've been lobotomised, or singing praises to the Lord all day (why does he need that BTW? Does he have some kind of inferiority complex, in that he needs constant reaffirment of His greatness?)....
Not really 'traditional,' that's more like the hokey television version of heaven (which, I'd agree is hard to get out of our heads and doesn't seem very appealing). The traditional Biblical version is muchmore interesting. In fact our ultimate destination isn't some sort of non-physical heavenly realm at all. Ultimately God restores and renews thisworld and we're resurrected within it (in a very physical sense). There aren't many specifics but it seems to be not terribly unlike this world but without pain, suffering, sin, guilt, boredom, etc. We'll live forever, we'll still have stuff to do and be in charge of, etc.
One analogy I've heard is that of a bird in a cage (us in our present world). The bird not wanting to leave his cage and entire the whole wide world for fear of boredom or monotony would be a bit similar to us having that view of heaven (or more accurately, life after the resurrection).
-Brodie
Jeff, churches ought not to be businesses. Some are though, and they are wrong.
A real church is a collection of Christians who choose to worship together. There are some legitimate expenses incurred, and as long as the church doesn't collect more than is needed, things are OK.
When the pastor lives in a $1M house there are issues 
@unknownuser said:
@ Mike L. I’m trussting in reliable evidences that God left to us, not in sick assumptions emanated by some dubious guys, wrongly called “scientists”. True scientists are honest and true CHRISTIANS/believers...!
As a believer, I take issue with this statement.
Honesty and integrity are not the sole domain of Christians. There are many many many honest and reliable people in the world who are Atheists, Buddhists, Agnostics etc. Carbon 14 dating may give answers that you choose to disagree with or that challenge your faith. That does not mean that the person who gets the results is dishonest.
If you have an issue with the test method, the onus is on you to offer a legitimate alternative, not to slam the method.
@unknownuser said:
@ ’Dropout”. The world wasn’t “created in 7 24 hour days”. The same Hebrew term/word used for “day”, means “TIME PERIOD”...
Guys, I'm sorry for you...
Didn't say it was...
Lots of well read devout Christians think it was, though.
Hi solo
I think the debate is God versus something else. Science is only a tool used to examine the evidence. People interpret the evidence differently, but neither side can ignore science. If I believe that God created an orderly world, i.e. 2+2=4 etc, than I have no choice but to believe what science proves.
At the end of the day, this all comes down to an opinion. I don't believe that science proves that God didn't create the world. Others do.
@solo said:
@unknownuser said:
Remember that God created science
Why do you find that so funny? If I believe that God created the world, of course I believe that God created science. It's not an either/or proposition. I can believe in God AND value science.
There are 4 possible versions of the Creation story in the Christian arena and only one of them argues that the world was created in 7 24 hour days and that the earth is young.
Remember that God created science. That means that for those of us who believe, we need to take science seriously.
Edited:
@escapeartist said:
To those of quiet faith, that do not judge, preach to or disdain, tolerate and even yes - enjoy the company of those around you with differing or even no faiths, I salute you. I personally think that if there were more of your sort faith wouldn't be having such a hard go of it these days. This discussion would have ended quite quickly.
Good points for those of us with faith to remember. While telling the world that God gave everyone free will, we need to remember that we should do the same and allow those who don't agree with us the same courtesy.
I'm surprised it hasn't come up before (or I missed it), but The Case for Creation by Lee Strobel is an interesting read.
To quote from Wikipedia, "Strobel received a journalism degree from University of Missouri and a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School, becoming a journalist for The Chicago Tribune and other newspapers for 14 years. He states that he was an atheist and began investigating the Biblical claims about Christ after his wife's conversion. As a result of the evidence he discovered in his investigation, he chose to become a Christian."
@tim said:
@dropout said:
I find it interesting that Dawkins will state categorically that the world was not created by God but will suggest that life may have been seeded here by extraterrestrials (interview in Expelled - no intelligence allowed) or that it had something to do with crystals. That sounds even more far fetched to me.
If you can quote that farrago of lies with a straight face you've disqualified yourself as any sort of serious commenter.
Did you watch the movie? It's biased, yes, and they obviously want to make him look bad, but these are Dawkins own words.
Pete, almost all major religions have a flood story so it's likely that it did happen.
One of the problems with arguing about things like this is the idea that the Bible is scientific history. It's not. It's redemptive history, the story of the fall and God's desire for reconciliation. To read more than that into it is problematic.
Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant. To many that means that there are no errors in the version that you pick up at the local bookstore. That's not the case though. It's inerrant in the original language to the people it was written to. We don't have the complete context.
For instance, take the phrase "don't drink and drive". We all know what it means. But, imagine someone 2,000 years from now who speaks another language deciphering the phrase. With no idea of the context they will get an inaccurate idea of the meaning of the phrase.
So it is with the Bible. It's about context. Sure there are things that don't make sense to us. But, it's likely that they did make sense to someone at the time it was written.
At the end of the day, Jesus summed everything up when asked "what is the greatest commandment?" He replied, "love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and the second is this: love your neighbor as yourself".
That's it. Nothing else matters. You can believe the world was created over millions of years or in 6 24 hour days, but it doesn't matter.
Mike, the story of the Tree is not about ignorance, it's about obedience. Adam and Eve were allowed to explore anywhere and eat anything except the fruit from the one tree. They had no rules except one, and they broke it.
Again, the popular notion of Christianity misses the point that we're to follow God with our heart, soul AND mind. That means think, test, probe, question etc.
@alan fraser said:
Brodie, my apologies for bad grammar; I meant the chances against intelligent life evolving, not chances of it evolving. It is, of course far less likely than winning the lottery (which is what I meant). Nevertheless the numbers still stand.
Of course there are more factors involved in creating conditions for life than a planet's distance from its sun. When did I say there weren't? It was Spence's Mormon quote that seemed to set such great store in the 'godlike' precision of earth's orbit.
It was precisely in countering that claim...that the earth is somehow a 'chosen planet' that I gave the figures indicating how many other such planets there may be in the universe.How can that possibly by irrelevant, as you claim? Inconvenient, maybe; irrelevant, certainly not. You appear to be rather fond of declaring things to be irrelevant without any obvious justification.
I'm not really interested in what statistics you have seen that counteract my figures. My figures are the most recent available and the ones used by the world's leading cosmologists.
@unknownuser said:
You're the one that pointed out the similarities, not me. You seem to be suggesting that the evolution of the eyes is completely different so the fact that they ended up so similar argues against a common designer. I don't see how. A theist who doesn't believe in macro evolution would simply suggest that the human and the octopus currently have similar systems which perform similar functions and how you want to construct a theoretical evolutionary tree to support a preconceived theory is irrelevant.
There we go with the irrelevant again.
I didn't point out the similarities, I pointed out the superiority, in many ways, of the octopus eye to our ownSo you originally claimed that this supposed similarity (which I didn't point out) could be proof of a common designer. Now you're saying that their dissimilarity could also be proof of a common designer? Is there any condition that wouldn't be proof of a common designer...or is that presupposition built-in?
The fact that you claim that a theist can argue a common designer regardless of the relationship between the two optical systems only goes to prove that theists don't argue at all. They do, indeed, simply claim that God did it....period. That's not an argument.
It's not necessary to construct an evolutionary tree...theoretical or otherwise; close study of the developing young of either species can clearly demonstrate the eye forming as an offshoot of the brain or a hollowing-out of the epidermis.
I'm not sure which preconceived theory you are referring to. If it's evolution itself then that is immeasurably less preconceived than the presupposition of a deity, There is a mountain of utterly conclusive evidence for evolution, there is non whatsoever for the existence of God.
I'm not aware of any serious Christian who would argue against the evolution of a species. Life from nothing is another matter, and even if that were true, I would argue that the step from a single celled organism that evolved from the primordial ooze to male and female is a greater stumbling block to the evolution theory. It is unnecessary, inefficient and too complicated for it to have evolved as the best way to reproduce.
I find it interesting that Dawkins will state categorically that the world was not created by God but will suggest that life may have been seeded here by extraterrestrials (interview in Expelled - no intelligence allowed) or that it had something to do with crystals. That sounds even more far fetched to me.
At the end of the day, there are serious minds on both sides of the issue. There is no proof either way.
@solo said:
@unknownuser said:
Please do not take this as an offense if you are not a believer ,this is just my point of view and was not intended to harm anyone in any way.
No offense at all.
I guess life is easier to just believe in a higher power, pretty much go through life without asking, thinking, questioning.
Only if you do it wrong. If you do it right, you spend a lot of time asking, thinking and questioning.
I would agree though, that 80% of the people in the pew on a Sunday morning are the type you describe. They give the other 20% a bad name.
The primary message of the Bible is generally misunderstood by most "Christians" and just about everyone else.
