Creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
While we are waiting on Daws, came across this interesting story about an atheist.

From Skepticism to Worship

An ex-atheist finds faith in God after more than twenty years of skepticism. Learn about the discoveries that led to Jesus Christ.
by A.S.A. Jones

I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES THE GOD OF MY YOUTH
I was raised a Roman Catholic in a home where the name of Jesus Christ and God was never mentioned. I was encouraged to attend catechism and church every weekend, but the concept of God was never made completely real to me. I entertained the notion as any child would, but I just wasn't into the imaginary friend scene and by the time I was thirteen, I had concluded that God was merely a vicious adult version of the Easter bunny. I abandoned the lie, informed my upset parents that I would no longer be attending church, and began seeking truth.

In the absence of a religious belief to answer life's questions, I turned my mental energy to science. Science had an awesome track record of solving many problems and its resulting technology had provided tangible benefits to all of mankind. Science was the answer! I reasoned that if we could educate our populations and continue to make advances in medicine, agriculture and energy production, we would one day have the mythical Eden as our reality.
I threw myself into my studies, determined to become a scientific messiah who would one day deliver people from the bondage of disease. At the age of sixteen, my IQ and my grades made me eligible for my high school's early release program and I began my studies in biology and chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh.

RATIONAL THOUGHT REPLACES MY COMPASSION FOR OTHERS
I graduated from college with high honors and my prized science degree, but I had lost any motivation to apply that knowledge. I recalled staring at a swarming mass of termites one sunny day, thinking that, from a comparative distance, there was little difference between them and us. I smashed a few dozen with my shoe and ground them into the dirt. What did it matter if these died? What did it matter if they all died? People died every day. The end result would always be death for both the individuals and, eventually, the species.

Humanity had become nothing more to me than an organized network of molecules and enzymes. I viewed people as mere organisms going through their daily routines of metabolizing nutrients and expelling wastes, ovulating their eggs and ejaculating their semen. I knew the psychology of humans almost as well as their anatomies. The hidden things that pulled them this way and that were very evident to me. They were like guinea pigs, only more predictable, and my chief form of entertainment was to see how skillfully I could manipulate them. I knew that I was supposed to care about them, but I didn't. I couldn't. If mankind's goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control.

What was the point of prolonging any one life? What difference did it make if a girl didn't live to marry or her mother live to see it? Of what value were temporary emotional experiences? They were simply the biochemistry of the brain reacting to sensory input and, upon that individual's death, any remaining memory of that experience would be thrown away along with the person who had experienced it. My extreme point of view had reduced people into throwaway metabolic units; I had become as cold and indifferent as the logic that I exalted.

If my education would benefit anyone, it would benefit me. I passed up an offer of a low paying research position for a secure and higher paying job in a chemistry lab. My brain rotted there for 40 hours a week for 10 years.

RATIONAL THOUGHT TURNS FROM SCIENCE TO PHILOSOPHY
Science had done nothing to answer the questions that raged in my head. Why should I care? How much should I care? Should I care at all? What is my purpose in life? Is there a purpose? How can I love people? Should I love people? Which people should I love? How can I forgive people? Should I forgive people? Have I done what is right? Have I done what is wrong? Is there a right or a wrong?

I turned to philosophy. I started with Jean-Paul Sartre's "Being and Nothingness". This man had won a Nobel Prize for basically taking white and logically demonstrating how it was really black. I tried several other atheist philosophers who tried to assign meaning to a life created by chance and I decided that they were all full of crap. If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise.

That was fine with me. I was prepared to live my life by this truth and discovered that the prospect of a life without meaning can be a very freeing experience. I set out to take advantage of moral relativism and effectively destroyed any of my remaining conscience. Friends, let me tell you, I fell far, far away, but I didn't know it. I busied myself with one diversion after another, trying to fill my life with meaningless activity in order to forget how meaningless it was. In my desperation, I grew self-righteous and indignant. I was secretly envious of the morons who seemed blissfully unaware of their own meaninglessness. I wanted to shake them awake and get them to see how worthless their lives really were.

MY PHILOSOPHY TURNS ANTI-CHRISTIAN
The worst idiots were the Christians. I hated them because, in their ignorance of naturalism, they failed to see that there was no reason for the rest of the world to believe in their god, live by their standards or give a damn about what they had to say, yet there they were, acting as if they had a copyright on truth. Their pretentiousness sickened me, despite my being equally pretentious toward them. After all, I was justified in my pretentiousness! At least I could give logical reasons for not believing in the supernatural. I would challenge them to give reasons for believing in something that couldn't be seen and they would reply, "You can't see the wind but it's there." I would then try to explain to them that wind was created by differences in pressure and that there was plenty of scientific proof for the existence of wind but none for their god. Even the most intelligent Christians I knew had a difficult time articulating their reason for faith.
Most of the explanations I heard rested on the Bible's authority. "The Bible says... the Bible says... the Bible says." Who cared what the Bible said? I certainly didn't. "It's all a bunch of made up, superstitious baloney. Can't you see?" and I would then go into pagan origins, etc., and try to demonstrate that Jesus was a manufactured myth. I ended up knowing the Bible inside and out just to be able to debate against it.

My anti-Christian arguments became my ultimate diversion to a hopeless life. I learned that religious debate wasn't as much about truth as it was about language and presentation. I began seeing flaws in my own logic while trying to demonstrate certain instances of Biblical errancy, but that didn't keep me on the bench. To justify my desire to destroy Christianity, I had to find reasons to discredit it. I railed against its hypocrisy, the behavior of its followers, the wars fought in its name and I questioned the motives of its bloody god and the religion's effective outcome. In short, I began seeing it as the supreme evil, despite the fact that my own view of moral relativism did not permit a logical defense of the concept of evil.

THE PARADOX OF BIBLICAL JABBERWOCKY
One night, I was very tired and alone in my study. I didn't reach, as I usually did, for a book of religious argument. I grabbed Lewis Carroll's "Through The Looking Glass", plopped myself down in a comfy chair and sleepily began reading. I skimmed through the pages and stopped at Humpty Dumpty's explanation of 'Jabberwocky' to Alice. A thought occurred to me that if I were to read 'Jabberwocky' the same way I read the bible, it wouldn't make any sense at all. I put Carroll's book aside, folded my hands and stared at the wall, lost in thought.

The Bible didn't make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn't? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? It was New Year's Day, 1998. I made a resolution to read the entire Bible again, only this time I was going to read it as I would poetry or fiction, and not as a proposal of fact.

In the months that followed, I kept my resolution and I began noticing a change in my way of interpreting the Bible. Intellectually, I found that my mind could logically accept two very different interpretations of almost everything I was reading. One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical. But the other interpretation allowed the whole story to make sense.

If my mind was capable of accepting interpretations that allowed the whole book to make sense, then what was it in me that wanted it not to make sense? This book was reading me as surely as I was reading it. What was I doing when I condemned this god for commanding Moses to kill? Was I arrogantly making my morality superior to that of the being who allegedly authored all of morality? Was I condemning the actions of an entire nation, which was trapped in a kill or be killed situation? What was it in me that wanted to express outrage at Jesus Christ for telling me that I had to give away everything to be considered worthy to follow him? Was it my own selfishness?

For weeks, I was on a high, the type of high that comes about by feeling that one is on the edge of making some sort of profound discovery. I wasn't sure what I was discovering but my perception of this world was changing. In July, I read these words of Jesus Christ, understanding them for the first time after having read them for years; "Who do you say I am?"

I SEE IT!
What I had to say about who Christ was, said more about me than it did about Him.
At this moment, I saw it. I saw what the truth of the Bible was! And I was humbled. More than humbled, I was broken. The truth wasn't about cud chewing bunnies or how much precipitation fell during Noah's flood. It was the truth about human nature and our efforts to rise above it! It was the truth about human spirit being led by divine spirit! It was the truth about each of us, imperfect in our love for one another, needing to be made complete by the perfect love of God! The truth was about how one man, without sin, had died for us so that we could live! The truth of the Bible was and is JESUS CHRIST!

The moment I was made aware of my despicable nature, I realized that Jesus had died for me. I never had recognized sin and, therefore, thought that Christ had died for nothing. But this man was able to see the horrible nature present in all of humanity and yet he had sacrificed himself to save us from ourselves. In a very real sense, my sinful nature had caused the death of an innocent man. I never believed in hell prior to this, but one of my first thoughts, after seeing how hellish a person that I was, was that I deserved to be in it.
I had been a fool. I had paraded around, thinking myself to be the sophisticate, oblivious to the trail of toilet paper clinging to my shoe. For the first time in my life, I became aware of my soul and how dirty it was when the light of Christ fell upon it. My accusing finger turned around and pointed right back at me. I sucked! Christianity wasn't what was wrong with the world! A lack of education wasn't what was wrong with the world! I was what was wrong with the world. I began praying for forgiveness to a god whose existence I had thought was intellectually indefensible. But He was very, very real.

The more I emptied myself of myself, the clearer the truth became. It had been my own selfish sin that had kept me from seeing it before. Jesus Christ became my God and my grand obsession, and for many months, I spent hours with my mind locked in meditation, trying to connect with Him in a more tangible way. I wasn't disappointed. There is a point that one can reach in prayer where there is nothing at all left of oneself, and it is in that moment that God makes Himself known.

A NEW CREATURE
I had been dead for years but now I was born again! I no longer saw people as a sum of their components or this life as a meaningless exercise, but I now saw both as something more valid than my rational thought had allowed. I had spent most of my years examining life, crouched over and focused on the microscope of logic, incapable of seeing the Big Picture that was going on around me.

For me, Biblical truth wasn't verified through historical accuracy, inerrancy or reliability of the Gospels, because my initial assumptions didn't include these things. I saw divine inspiration in the actual content of the words attributed to Jesus Christ. The fact that I, or anyone, was capable of understanding spiritual matters became my evidence for the soul.

Learning the things of the spirit dramatically changed my attitude and my outlook on life. It wasn't that the information available to me had changed, but that my perception had changed and as a result, I was changed. I was dead, but Christ woke me up! He saved me from my selfish self and I have given myself to Him because I am thankful for that which He has given me and hopeful for that which He has promised.

Sounds like many on this board except the accepting your LORD.

A.S.A. Jones
I wasn't born again yesterday.
09/01/02
http://www.ex-atheist.com

From skepticism to worship
 
Last edited:
By the way Daws, Hollie and NP, this wasn't a rhetorical question.
among other things I am doing a great service to mankind by presents logic and reason when you present paranoid delusional pseudo science and dogma.

Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.

1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.

If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells? :tongue:
 
I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring. :lol: There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc. Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.

That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list. :tongue:

Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions). An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith. When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.
 
I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring. :lol: There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc. Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.

That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list. :tongue:

Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions). An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith. When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.

Your personal interpretation just played a major role in what you just stated. It's funny, because part of the struggle with man and God is man's constant desire to play God. Man puts himself as the god of his own life. Usually this is interrupted by some catastrophic event that forces him back to reality that he has NO Control. It is so weird. What you posted above is a common argument made by atheists. You think religion is bogus because YOU would do it different or better than God. You ask questions like, if God was really real, why does this happen this way or that happen that way. People of the same religion don't agree so God must not exist. This is an incredibly flawed argument basically from the fact that the Bible teaches man is flawed. If we follow what the Bible actually says about man, we wouldn't even expect religious folks to agree as much as they do.
 
Last edited:
Now close your eyes for a second and start to imagine. Can you imagine a time when you will not exist? Can you imagine what it feels like to be fully dead? Not a dream like or sleep like dead, but a "totally ceasing to exist"- like dead? Can you imagine it for yourself? Can you imagine being no more and not even being able to have a thought that you are no more because your brain that could generate that thought is dead? Does the thought of dying make you nervous? Why? Are you afraid of the pain of death? Or is there a little tinge of doubt that you might be wrong about ceasing to exist when you are dead and the unsure feeling of what really happens after you die? If you have given yourself over to the materialistic notion there is no life after death, why does the doubt sometimes haunt you? Why the fear? And just what is consciousness?

Just wondering...
 
Last edited:
Have you ever stopped to ponder what a cruel joke evolution has played on us with our minds? I mean how bogus that natural selection of random mutations resulted in us having this need to belong. I mean, really, why should we be concerned about meaning in life? Why do we wonder what our purpose is? Why is it so hard to accept, deep in are atheistic bones that we have NO PURPOSE? Why does that haunt us so bad? Since we are one in a trillion, we really are just accidental. None of us should be here according to the odds but here we sit, really for no reason other than a neat little process called evolution. It doesn't matter that we are here and it won't matter when we are gone. Another species will take our place. And many years from now, if you are one of the lucky ones, someone might dig up your bones and proudly display them in a museum. But the you that is you will be long gone by then and who cares, really? Nature has truly played a cruel trick on his, evolving us to the point where deep inside we really think it matters if we live or die. It doesn't. In two generations, if you don't do something noteworthy, no one will even remember your name. In 3 generations no one will care at all about you other than being ticked off maybe that you contributed to global warming with your miserable 70 or 80 years belching out the filth that is carbon dioxide. And why should it matter if only matter... matters? So when life starts to get you down, just remember, the pain will be over soon. You will be over soon. And in the blink of an eye later, no one will care whether you lived or died, laughed or cried.

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." Macbeth, William Shakespeare
 
One of my favorite evolutionary movie lines of all time!!! If you don't want to watch the whole thing, slide the cursor over to 2:43

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoAPKt7kbD0]The Unforgiven - Clint Eastwood - We all have it coming Kid - YouTube[/ame]
 
among other things I am doing a great service to mankind by presents logic and reason when you present paranoid delusional pseudo science and dogma.

Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.

1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.

If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells? :tongue:

Well that is an obvious no :razz: But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.

So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.
 
I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring. :lol: There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc. Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.

That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list. :tongue:

Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions). An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith. When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.

That is true, interpretation is a large part of why there are so many different denominations. I guess that God left it up to us to interpret and some day will reveal the complete truth to us all.

I think it is awfully arrogant for someone to claim to know the exact truth. Mans doctrine is mans doctrine period nothing more or nothing less. What unites Christians is the belief in Christ and God.
 
Last edited:
among other things I am doing a great service to mankind by presents logic and reason when you present paranoid delusional pseudo science and dogma.

Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.

1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.

If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells? :tongue:

That kinda reminds me of what the strong atheist and strong advocate for evolution Dawkins said. Things in nature only give the appearance to have been designed. I appeciate him acknowledging that things have the appearance of being designed. The obvious question is how does he know it's only an appearance,how does he know they were not designed ?
 
Last edited:
I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring. :lol: There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc. Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.

That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list. :tongue:

Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions). An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith. When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.

Your personal interpretation just played a major role in what you just stated. It's funny, because part of the struggle with man and God is man's constant desire to play God. Man puts himself as the god of his own life. Usually this is interrupted by some catastrophic event that forces him back to reality that he has NO Control. It is so weird. What you posted above is a common argument made by atheists. You think religion is bogus because YOU would do it different or better than God. You ask questions like, if God was really real, why does this happen this way or that happen that way. People of the same religion don't agree so God must not exist. This is an incredibly flawed argument basically from the fact that the Bible teaches man is flawed. If we follow what the Bible actually says about man, we wouldn't even expect religious folks to agree as much as they do.

First, I am not an atheist, at least in the sense of denying the possibility of god. I'd fall more into the agnostic camp, but an agnostic who disbelieves the major religions of the world.

Second, you misrepresented what I said. I am not talking about what I would do better than god. I am using the claims of Christians about the nature of god, or claims of the Bible about the nature of god, and trying to apply that to other claims about the actions of god. If god is, as so often claimed, loving and merciful, then the idea of eternal hell makes no sense. The idea that people will be punished because they got the wrong impression from a translation of a translation, especially when there are multiple translations of translations to choose from, doesn't make sense. That would not be loving and merciful in the human sense of those words.

Now, if god is loving and merciful by his own standards, rather than humanity's, that is different. However, that would also mean that calling god loving and merciful is meaningless.

The main point is that with many anti-religious arguments the non-believers use the claims from the religion, not some trite 'I can do it better than god' argument. When a religion makes claims about god, it would help if all those claims fit together.
 
I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring. :lol: There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc. Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.

That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list. :tongue:

Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions). An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith. When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.

Your personal interpretation just played a major role in what you just stated. It's funny, because part of the struggle with man and God is man's constant desire to play God. Man puts himself as the god of his own life. Usually this is interrupted by some catastrophic event that forces him back to reality that he has NO Control. It is so weird. What you posted above is a common argument made by atheists. You think religion is bogus because YOU would do it different or better than God. You ask questions like, if God was really real, why does this happen this way or that happen that way. People of the same religion don't agree so God must not exist. This is an incredibly flawed argument basically from the fact that the Bible teaches man is flawed. If we follow what the Bible actually says about man, we wouldn't even expect religious folks to agree as much as they do.

First, I am not an atheist, at least in the sense of denying the possibility of god. I'd fall more into the agnostic camp, but an agnostic who disbelieves the major religions of the world.

Second, you misrepresented what I said. I am not talking about what I would do better than god. I am using the claims of Christians about the nature of god, or claims of the Bible about the nature of god, and trying to apply that to other claims about the actions of god. If god is, as so often claimed, loving and merciful, then the idea of eternal hell makes no sense. The idea that people will be punished because they got the wrong impression from a translation of a translation, especially when there are multiple translations of translations to choose from, doesn't make sense. That would not be loving and merciful in the human sense of those words.

Now, if god is loving and merciful by his own standards, rather than humanity's, that is different. However, that would also mean that calling god loving and merciful is meaningless.

The main point is that with many anti-religious arguments the non-believers use the claims from the religion, not some trite 'I can do it better than god' argument. When a religion makes claims about god, it would help if all those claims fit together.

I have a great deal hope for you my friend. All a person has to do is reach out to God he will reach back and reveal himself to you. I know it sounds strange,but that is what many do and their faith grows.

Does any religious organization have the whole truth absolutely not. We are constantly reading and learning. But some of the major doctrines can be tested against the scriptures to see if it holds up. Still does not mean one can have the absolute truth.

After 40 years of studying the bible I am still being corrected in my views. I don't trust organized religion just don't.
 
I've tried to read the Bible as I would any other book.....it's too damn boring. :lol: There just no enjoyment reading about the lineage of Moses, or the specifications of the arc, etc. Add in the extremely dated language and it is certainly not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon.

That doesn't say anything about it's validity, just that as easy to read, enjoyable literature goes, the Bible is far, far down the list. :tongue:

Oh, and I'd also point out that the story you posted, YWC, is an example of how personal interpretation plays such a major role in Christianity (and, I imagine, pretty much all major religions). An all powerful, all knowing god would, of course, realize this; if that god is a loving god, as the Bible claims, I can't imagine such a being would truly put such stock in the specifics of people's faith. When even adherents of the same religion can vehemently disagree about what that religion means/says/requires, it seems both unreasonable and inconsistent with the idea of a loving god for there to be much in the way of specific requirements to avoid punishment or attain reward.

Your personal interpretation just played a major role in what you just stated. It's funny, because part of the struggle with man and God is man's constant desire to play God. Man puts himself as the god of his own life. Usually this is interrupted by some catastrophic event that forces him back to reality that he has NO Control. It is so weird. What you posted above is a common argument made by atheists. You think religion is bogus because YOU would do it different or better than God. You ask questions like, if God was really real, why does this happen this way or that happen that way. People of the same religion don't agree so God must not exist. This is an incredibly flawed argument basically from the fact that the Bible teaches man is flawed. If we follow what the Bible actually says about man, we wouldn't even expect religious folks to agree as much as they do.

First, I am not an atheist, at least in the sense of denying the possibility of god. I'd fall more into the agnostic camp, but an agnostic who disbelieves the major religions of the world.

Second, you misrepresented what I said. I am not talking about what I would do better than god. I am using the claims of Christians about the nature of god, or claims of the Bible about the nature of god, and trying to apply that to other claims about the actions of god. If god is, as so often claimed, loving and merciful, then the idea of eternal hell makes no sense. The idea that people will be punished because they got the wrong impression from a translation of a translation, especially when there are multiple translations of translations to choose from, doesn't make sense. That would not be loving and merciful in the human sense of those words.

Now, if god is loving and merciful by his own standards, rather than humanity's, that is different. However, that would also mean that calling god loving and merciful is meaningless.

The main point is that with many anti-religious arguments the non-believers use the claims from the religion, not some trite 'I can do it better than god' argument. When a religion makes claims about god, it would help if all those claims fit together.

In a perfect world, they would all fit together. I know folks put up a lot of garbage on here and make alot of suggestions for reading but there is a book that has caused quite the stir in the Christian community. It is a book about hell. I'm not sure I can escape from my baptist roots and get past the eternal damnation thing, but Bell asks some very interesting questions. I'm on the fence on this one.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person/dp/0062049658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341597243&sr=8-1&keywords=love+wins+rob+bell[/ame]

“In Love Wins, Rob Bell tackles the old heaven-and-hell question and offers a courageous alternative answer. Thousands of readers will find freedom and hope and a new way of understanding the biblical story - from beginning to end.” (Brian D. McLaren, author of A New Kind of Christianity and Naked Spirituality )

“It isn’t easy to develop a biblical imagination that takes in the comprehensive and eternal work of Christ . . . Rob Bell goes a long way in helping us acquire just such an imagination--without a trace of soft sentimentality and without compromising an inch of evangelical conviction.” (Eugene H. Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology, Regent College, and author of The Message and The Pastor )

“A bold, prophetic and poetic masterpiece. I don’t know any writer who expresses the inexpressible love of God as powerfully and as beautifully as Rob Bell! No one who seriously engages this book will put it down unchanged. A ‘must read’ book!” (Greg Boyd, senior pastor at Woodland Hills Church and author of The Myth of a Christian Nation )

“One of the nation’s rock-star-popular young pastors, Rob Bell, has stuck a pitchfork in how Christians talk about damnation.” (USA Today )

“Claiming that some versions of Jesus should be rejected, particularly those used to intimidate and inspire fear or hatred, Bell persuasively interprets the Bible as a message of love and redemption. . . . His style is characteristically concise and oral, his tone passionate and unabashedly positive.” (Publishers Weekly )

“Bell fights every impulse in our culture to domesticate Jesus [and] challenges the reader to be open to surprise, mystery and all of the unanswerables. . . . Bell has given theologically suspicious Christians new courage to bet their life on Jesus Christ.” (Christian Century )

“This attention-getter of a book ignited a heated popular conversation about whether God saves people like Gandhi or sends him and billions of other non-Christians to a fiery and painful place in the afterlife.” (Publishers Weekly, Best Books of the Year )

“Love Wins will make Christians re-examine their faith and will help them reclaim a vital and exciting vision of heaven and God’s love.” (Relevant )

“Bell is at the forefront of a rethinking of Christianity in America.” (Time magazine )

“One of the country’s most influential evangelical pastors.” (New York Times )
 
Last edited:
Here is another great book by Bell that gets to the heart of Christianity, and not the fundie version.

Velvet Elvis

This one has the look inside feature so you can get an idea of what it is about by reading a few pages... Make sure you read the Epilogue.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Velvet-Elvis-Repainting-Christian-Faith/dp/0310273080/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341597497&sr=1-1&keywords=velvet+elvis+rob+bell]Amazon.com: Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (9780310273080): Rob Bell: Books[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Your personal interpretation just played a major role in what you just stated. It's funny, because part of the struggle with man and God is man's constant desire to play God. Man puts himself as the god of his own life. Usually this is interrupted by some catastrophic event that forces him back to reality that he has NO Control. It is so weird. What you posted above is a common argument made by atheists. You think religion is bogus because YOU would do it different or better than God. You ask questions like, if God was really real, why does this happen this way or that happen that way. People of the same religion don't agree so God must not exist. This is an incredibly flawed argument basically from the fact that the Bible teaches man is flawed. If we follow what the Bible actually says about man, we wouldn't even expect religious folks to agree as much as they do.

First, I am not an atheist, at least in the sense of denying the possibility of god. I'd fall more into the agnostic camp, but an agnostic who disbelieves the major religions of the world.

Second, you misrepresented what I said. I am not talking about what I would do better than god. I am using the claims of Christians about the nature of god, or claims of the Bible about the nature of god, and trying to apply that to other claims about the actions of god. If god is, as so often claimed, loving and merciful, then the idea of eternal hell makes no sense. The idea that people will be punished because they got the wrong impression from a translation of a translation, especially when there are multiple translations of translations to choose from, doesn't make sense. That would not be loving and merciful in the human sense of those words.

Now, if god is loving and merciful by his own standards, rather than humanity's, that is different. However, that would also mean that calling god loving and merciful is meaningless.

The main point is that with many anti-religious arguments the non-believers use the claims from the religion, not some trite 'I can do it better than god' argument. When a religion makes claims about god, it would help if all those claims fit together.

I have a great deal hope for you my friend. All a person has to do is reach out to God he will reach back and reveal himself to you. I know it sounds strange,but that is what many do and their faith grows.

Does any religious organization have the whole truth absolutely not. We are constantly reading and learning. But some of the major doctrines can be tested against the scriptures to see if it holds up. Still does not mean one can have the absolute truth.

After 40 years of studying the bible I am still being corrected in my views. I don't trust organized religion just don't.

And what is Truth??? I will give you a hint. The answer is right in front of you...
 
Really Daws ? I have a series of questions to ask you I will go one at a time and if you can answer these questions absent of conjecture,I will believe you are a person of science and might even change my mind about evolution.

1.Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans ?
Remember no conjecture ,Explain how these Molecular Machines evolved.

If structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans, does that indicate humans designed cells? :tongue:

Well that is an obvious no :razz: But thanks for acknowledging someone designed these machines.

So I guess daws is not gonna explain the process of how molecular machines evolved.

More reading, less posting.

Evolution of DNA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top