I just finished reading the epic 10 page thread about the history of the universe. Very interesting stuff. I was going to add this at the end, but instead I'll start a new one.

I don't want to offend anyone's belief system here, but I ask a simple question: Why do so many people in an educated society still find the need to believe in a book that was written 5000 years ago? What is so special about it? It's a bunch of stories created by nomads to justify their own existence and create law and order and a moral standard.

How can anyone with sound mind and logic actually convince themselves that just because it's written in a book then it really happened? In a time when communication didn't have the luxery of technology to spread news around the world, most people never even left their village and would believe any story a traveler told them. Isn't it logical to assume that rumors and gossip could easily get out of hand when there's no way to confirm it? Thus the spread of religion. That's why there are so many different kinds of religions. How can anybody possibly convince themselves that 'THEIR' religion is the 'one and only correct' religion. IN reality, all religions are an attempt to answer the question: why are we here and what happens when we die?

This simple truth is: NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING. We willl never know what happens when we die, UNTIL WE DIE. Period. Everything else is speculation and imagination. (Near Death Experiences are interesting to hear about, but again, no one can truly say what they are: the brain slowly turning off consiousness or the actual entrance into a higher dimension of spirits?)

5000 years from now our ancestors will find many books and stories written by us, will they hold them up as holy?

Perhaps they will. Imagine a situation where all society is destroyed in a war. (hmm...wonder how that could happen?)
All their books, their history, their technology, gone.
If the only thing that's left is a TV with Star wars playing in it, then those future people who figure out how to work it will think of this story they see as holy and the truth and will believe in the force. (not such a bad thing come to think of it, lol)....or they may find a book written in 1979 by someone who's convinced they were abducted by aliens, and then believe that person as a prophet! They'll have battles about faith and belief in this person, but no one will ever be able to verify it as the truth...(just as we can't with alien abductions today lol) It all sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? So why can't we apply that ridiculum to 5000 years ago? I mean come on, Moses went up to the mountain and God spoke to him the 10 commandments. God spoke??? why doesn't that happen now? Why could people part the red sea 5000 years ago, and turn water into wine and rocks into bread 2000 years ago, but no one can do anything remotely like that today? Anyone who goes up to a mountain and claims to hear god's voice will be considered crazy today. Just apply logic. Why would all this happen back then? What made those times so special? THe answer is what I said above: Without technology and communication to verify the truth, people in villages believed in anything. People believed that stuff happened, so they wrote it down, and now we believe it because they wrote it down, when the truth is nobody knows anything!

I understand the need to believe in SOMETHING. It's too mind boggling for many people to CONSIDER THE INFINITE POSSIBILITES of what the three dimensional universe really is and where human and animal life have purpose in that. But please, if there's a heaven, we're all going to it. Whatever creator there may be does not care about petty earthly disputes like money, stealing, infidelity, lying, or doubting the existence of something we have no proof of. One can even debate whether the creator cares if we kill each other or not. The creator lets animals in all walks of life kill each other, and bacteria kills us, so why should he care if we do it as well? Regardless, simple moral sense tells us that ending another life is wrong. Period. Our laws should always reflect that and we don't need the threat of hell to convince us. I don't want to be killed, therefore I don't want anyone else to be killed. End of story. Life in Jail or the death penalty is enough of a punishment in my mind. It would be nice and cool to think that murderers are also punished in the afterlife, but again, there's no proof. Any beliefs we have should be prefaced with "IT WOULD BE COOL IF...." because they're just beliefs. Not dogmatic truth.

Sorry for the rant, but in a world where religion continually starts wars and even our president believes God is on his side, thereby promising which soldiers go where when they're killed (a subtle form of jihad) this is relavent. Ideas and beliefs should be fun to talk about and speculate upon but never be worth killing over.

--dust

That was one hell of a bomb to drop for a first post, Dust. Welcome to the forums.
I agree with almost everything you said, except for the part where you said the universe is 3 dimensional. According to Einstein, it's 4-D. :D
Who can say why people choose to believe what they believe? Religious folk are nice people, even if they are a bit inflexible with their beliefs sometimes, and the vast majority of them are very tolerant of other beliefs and viewpoints. I think that religion has had as much of a positive impact on the world as it has negative, and its intentions are generally good - teaching folks how to treat others with respect, moral values, etc. For most people, religion provides hope and helps them to cope with the possibility that we are alone, and that there's another reason we're here other than a freak accident billions of years ago.
Neither science nor religion have yet been able to answer humanity's 2 main questions (the ones you brought up): What happens after we die? Why are we here?
Religion has provided several different answers for the first question, but has no proof that any explanation is correct. Anyone could make up any explanation they like, and it'd be no more or less likely to be true because we just don't know.
Science has been working on the second question, and they don't have an answer either. Right now it just seems to be a random series of events that resulted in our being here, but they're still working on it.
Religion would have us believe that there's some higher purpose for our being here, and I think that's due to our egos - we want to have purpose, and we seek any explanation we can for it. Religion provides that explanation, which clearly resulted in it's popularity (especially in ancient times). Now that we live in a more secular age, it becomes harder and harder to rationalize putting faith in a story which has many qualities of a children's fairy tale.
But like I said, for better or worse, religion provides hope and a reason for being for many people - and I think that is worth something, misguided as it may seem at times.
[/rant]

Thank you for welcoming me. I've only posted on Medal of Honor sites before. A friend who plays on my medal of honor server recommended I take a look at your forum. Great stuff. Right up my alley, being a science and spiritual buff. Science + Spirit is an equation I learned from the first movie I ever saw, which was Star Wars. The whole star wars mythology has meant more to me and taught me more than any religion under which I was raised with. I learned all the basics I need to know from those movies, as many in my generation have. Anyway, it appears I'm preaching to the chior with my thread...lol.....

And although there are who knows how many dimensions to the universe, the current physical one we can observe has just 3, the 4th being perhaps TIME, which as of right now is non-physical, although will probably prove to be otherwise in due... time...? lol :)

Anyway I just bought jedi outcast for my mac, and am loving the game. But I love all things Star Wars because of the IDEAS that existed in this galaxy so long ago and far away.

welcome to the forums, you'lle find that its really great here!:)

Before I begin I would like to say how glad I am that this has not turned into a sort of degrading argumentative, malicious conducted thread (thus far) and of the simple question absent of malevolent motive presented by dust. Moreover, in efforts to continue such an environment I present this:

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience…" - 1 Peter 3:15-16 NIV

So thus I hope the integrity of this thread be retained by all with gentleness and respect for all views.
To state first I am a Christian and would like to put in my perspective and comments. I hope to present what I know and understand to my fullest ability although I am no "Bible scholar". Also I think I'm pretty sound in logic and mind ;)

Dust you have presented many good questions and to those good questions I hope I can provide some good answers. My algebra teacher was one of the most brilliant people I have ever met. He dove in the deepest realms of mathematics, physics and all other sciences. Now being a man of mathematics he was a Christian. In addition, in the world there are many scientists who are Christians, who are rational, who believe the Bible. In the notion which your opening question states is of why such people "still find the need" to believe in such a thing as the Bible. I will break that up into two parts of "Why believe in the Bible" and "Why people still believe it". Thumbing through the Bible, we can find numerous miracles and "impossible" and incredible things from water to wine to resurrection of Jesus. To the "rational" mind, how can one believe that this stuff is true? It contradicts science… Water cannot just "magically" turn into wine. No one can walk on water. That is physically impossible. It denies the laws of physics. Let us just focus on one "miracle" of Jesus' resurrection to begin. Jesus historically was a real person and his disciples were real. Christianity has a foundation that Christ was the Son of God and that he died for us and was resurrected. Now in the Bible, after Christ's resurrection, his disciples went out after witnessing that their Christ was alive and began to preach the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection. Excluding Judas, I think all 11 original disciples were martyred for their faith. Now let us think "logically". These disciples were going around telling the good news until one day for one of them, they were given this choice. Either deny your faith or die. Now if these disciples "made up" Jesus' resurrection, that it was all a lie… Why would they die for a lie? All eleven of them…Miracles do not "deny" science or contradict it. It is just that science cannot explain it. The famous duality of wave and particle properties is just non-intuitive. Science cannot explain why, but it happens. So why do people of this era still believe in the Bible? Even with all this science, etc. It is because it is the Word of God.

Now one of the harder questions is why only one way to Heaven? I will use the wonderful example a visitor pastor once preached (sorry I forgot who you were, but I still remember your message :)). Let us say one and only cure was discovered for AIDS. Now who in the world would go and complain…"What? There is ONLY one cure? Bah…" No one would do that. The kicker here is though that in reality we do not deserved heaven, there should not have been a way to heaven, and Christ should not have died for us. However, because of God's amazing grace, compassion and love, He gave us a way to Him, because we could never do it on our own.

In addition, sorry to burst bubbles, but not everyone is going to heaven and just "good works" or being a "good person" does not get you there. By faith alone, as Paul says. Only through Christ. In addition, God's is not apathetic to our lives. He cares and is always there.

Finally to dust and others who are interested, I suggest getting a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith", if you really want to investigate further upon these realms and maybe try and contacting a pastor in the area. In addition, Christianity is really about faith; there is nothing I can really do to "prove" this or that. Only if you give Jesus a chance will you see with a truly seeking and repentant heart.

Well I guess that is it for now. I guess my execution was a little winded, but I did not have too much time to edit this baby.

"I believe in God like I believe in the sunrise. Not because I can see it, but because I can see all that it touches" ~ C.S. Lewis

Wow. What are the odds that we get 2 new people to the Forum, each with opposing viewpoints? Maybe it has something to do with our quota. Welcome to the forums, Vahn. Enjoy your stay. And since you presented a number of good points, I would like to present what I hope are equally good counter-points. :D
Originally posted by Vahn_Fanelia
My algebra teacher was one of the most brilliant people I have ever met. He dove in the deepest realms of mathematics, physics and all other sciences. Now being a man of mathematics he was a Christian. In addition, in the world there are many scientists who are Christians, who are rational, who believe the Bible.
There are indeed many scientists who believe in the bible. However, to be a true scientist, you cannot be nailed down to any one belief, especially in the absence of proof. The nature of science is to examine all things and take into account all possibilities, then determine which are likely to be true based on empirical evidence. Without such evidence, no scientist would believe in the biblical account of creation or it's various other "miracles."
Thumbing through the Bible, we can find numerous miracles and "impossible" and incredible things from water to wine to resurrection of Jesus. To the "rational" mind, how can one believe that this stuff is true? It contradicts science… Water cannot just "magically" turn into wine. No one can walk on water. That is physically impossible. It denies the laws of physics.
You said it, pal. I've got no objections here.
Let us just focus on one "miracle" of Jesus' resurrection to begin. Jesus historically was a real person and his disciples were real. Christianity has a foundation that Christ was the Son of God and that he died for us and was resurrected. Now in the Bible, after Christ's resurrection, his disciples went out after witnessing that their Christ was alive and began to preach the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection. Excluding Judas, I think all 11 original disciples were martyred for their faith. Now let us think "logically". These disciples were going around telling the good news until one day for one of them, they were given this choice. Either deny your faith or die. Now if these disciples "made up" Jesus' resurrection, that it was all a lie… Why would they die for a lie?
Since we're looking at it from a historical perspective, it might interest you to learn that historically (i.e. backed by evidence) the Apostles had nothing to do with the writing of the New Testament, including all the gospels and such. They were written almost 100 years after the death (and supposed resurrection) of Christ. What this means, obviously, is that what they did and/or saw is not a first hand account, but at best is second hand and more realistically third or fourth hand. Just like with folk/fairy tales, a story can begin rooted in the truth and end up being magical or even miraculous. So we cannot trust what the Bible tells us as historical fact - after all, it's a bit biased, eh?
Miracles do not "deny" science or contradict it. It is just that science cannot explain it. The famous duality of wave and particle properties is just non-intuitive. Science cannot explain why, but it happens. So why do people of this era still believe in the Bible? Even with all this science, etc. It is because it is the Word of God.
Miracles do contradict science. You said it yourself - it denies the laws of physics. Science cannot explain many things, but that doesn't stop it from seeking an explanation. Religion (Christianity specifically) just says, "Well, it's the word of God," or "It's God's design," and never seek further clarification. Many people in this era still believe in the Bible because it's easier than waiting for science to figure out something not understood.
Now one of the harder questions is why only one way to Heaven? Let us say one and only cure was discovered for AIDS. Now who in the world would go and complain…"What? There is ONLY one cure? Bah…"
I think that's a bit of a oversimplification. That's totally based on somehow knowing for sure that your way is the right way. What are you basing that on? The Bible? If there is ever one cure for AIDS, there would be evidence that the cure works. It'd be based on proof, not faith.
No one would do that. The kicker here is though that in reality we do not deserved heaven, there should not have been a way to heaven, and Christ should not have died for us. However, because of God's amazing grace, compassion and love, He gave us a way to Him, because we could never do it on our own.
Again, this is based on Christianity somehow knowing it's right and all the other religions of the world are wrong. It's not the oldest, nor is it the most original (half of it, after all, is based on Hebrew Scripture... what you Christians call the Old Testament). I'm wondering how you know you're right.
In addition, sorry to burst bubbles, but not everyone is going to heaven and just "good works" or being a "good person" does not get you there. By faith alone, as Paul says. Only through Christ. In addition, God's is not apathetic to our lives. He cares and is always there.
I commented on this in other threads before, but I'll say it again. God cannot have unconditional love for all mankind, as has been written many times, and then place a condition on entering Heaven (i.e. - through Christ). And somehow I doubt that God would forsake the Jews... the ones who he made a covenant with, the ones who received the commandments, the ones who are the chosen people of God, the ones who he led out of Egypt... forsake them all suddenly because some people created a new branch of Judaism that he liked more? It just doesn't fit, and it goes back to the question of "How do you know you're right?"
Finally to dust and others who are interested, I suggest getting a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith", if you really want to investigate further upon these realms and maybe try and contacting a pastor in the area. In addition, Christianity is really about faith; there is nothing I can really do to "prove" this or that. Only if you give Jesus a chance will you see with a truly seeking and repentant heart.
The majority of religions are about faith. How do you prove that you're right and others are wrong? If I choose the wrong one to have faith in, the compassionate God of the Christians will smite me into hell after my death.

Whew. Well, I'm eagerly awaiting your reply.

Very, very nice post vahn. Thank you for putting it the way you did.

I respect all that Jesus stands for. My mother raised me Roman Catholic, and being the first religion I was exposed to, it always has a soft spot in my heart. However, as i grew older, and started to explore the simple questions I had as a child, such as 'what was going on in the rest of the world during and before the time of Jesus, what did people in other cultures worship?'....So I studied the other religions, many of which are older than Christianity.

My question to you Vahn is were you raised a Christian, or did you come to find it through a divine experience, or did you choose it after studying it's roots and where it came from?

I'm just curious to know more of where you're coming from.

For myself, the logic of "just because I was raised a Catholic" doesn't mean it should be any more true to the universe. There are many others who are raised Bhuddist, or Hindu, or Hari Krishna, and the idealogies that were compounded into their young brains as children will forever effect how 'valid' the religion is to them and the world. My mother is and Italian American who was raised in New York by her immigrant parents, who instilled in her all that their culture revolves around the Catholic Church. She passed this down to me, and it all seemed to be 'the way things work' in my young malleable mind.

But again, if I was born in China, or Iran, or on a Native American Reservation, my initial lessons on god and religion would be completely different and feel just as 'true', based on my hypothetical 'chinese' or 'arabic' or 'native american' heritage.

Do you see what I'm saying? I know that many eschew this logic and simply say that 'faith' overrides all boundaries, pointing out the countless conversions to Christ that many cultures have taken to. (But remember that most mass cultural religious conversions were successful only through inquisitions, colonializations, and 'missions' that were more about conquest of land and money than about faith. particularly the horrific methods of conversion, through torture, or maiming, slavery...etc... But that is another topic, that does not need to be gotten into here. I am fully aware that those are gross abuses and misinterpetations of the core positive messages of religion)

I think that Faith and Truth are two very different things. Just because you believe something doens't mean it's 'true'. And I mean True in it's most objective sense. Santa Claus was true to me as a child, because I believed him. But was he the 'truth' to reality? (Reality is probably not even true to reality, because who's to say what the hell reality even is?)

I hope I'm in no way demeaning Jesus by comparing him to Santa (but hey, put a little weight and age on him, and they sure do look alike...lol) :)

But you see my point? I'm just trying to show you where I'm coming from, since you were grateful enough to post your view. I'm not trying to convince the converted, but my mind is open as I think everyone else's should be.

If Jesus were to physically come down to Earth tomorrow and said: "Okay enough screwing around you idiots. I'm here. Let's DO THIS!" I'd be right there ready and willing to give him all my faith.

But in this day and age, I see the chances of Extra Terrestrials landing on our planet are slightly more probable. So let me put a hypothetical out there for you. If, as i said, tomorrow E.T.'s landed on your lawn and said..."Humans are the product of our genetic experiments. We left you behind 5000 years ago and now we're back to see how you're faring."

What would you do? If they asked you to get on their ship and they'll show you the answers of the universe, would you believe them? Would you give them the chance?

All I'm saying is, all things being equal, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. My mind is as open to Jesus coming down as it is to Aliens or Bhudda or Bacteria.

If the fact that I have an open and creative mind means that I'm not getting into heaven, then God is simply not being fair. I'd say that to his face if I saw him. How could he give me a mind and expect me not to have fun by using it?

--dust

p.s.

I look foward to your reply. :)

p.p.s.
I must have posted this as Eldritch was posting his....(I pretty much seem to have reiterated his points....OPEN MINDS THINK ALIKE :) lol...)

actually to the water to wine thing i once heard a very plausable theory to that. i cant remember it but it was very very possible. also people stop calling it the word of god. how do you know it's his word and not just some pcp addict writing down things after a trip? not saying they are just saying do you know god spoke to the authors while they wrote or have you heard god tell you yourself all these stories? if so if you are catholic or baptist you should ,according to the bible of your denomination, be put to death for hearing it before the pope, catholics, and the minister, baptists. isnt religious education fun ;)

Originally posted by InsaneSith
how do you know it's his word and not just some pcp addict writing down things after a trip?Phencyclidine was first synthesized in 1926. That would be a clear indicator as to how you know it's not the writings of a pcp addict.

Originally posted by munik
Phencyclidine was first synthesized in 1926. That would be a clear indicator as to how you know it's not the writings of a pcp addict. well a drug addict of some sort then ;P

hmmm, I've alreayd debated my religious views TOO many times on this forum to even think about reading to uber long posts....sorry

Originally posted by ET Warrior
hmmm, I've alreayd debated my religious views TOO many times on this forum to even think about reading to uber long posts....sorry

Though ours are different, I couldn't agree more. For NooB, this guy was bold for starting ANOTHER one of these. Hope he dosen't wig out like some one ELSE who made a thread like this...

Originally posted by ET Warrior
hmmm, I've alreayd debated my religious views TOO many times on this forum to even think about reading to uber long posts....sorry

Hehehe.. that goes for me as well. But it's cool to have fresh faces with fresh opinions debating. :thumbsup:

I'll just watch. :)

Well dust and vahn those were both good posts!

I am a Christian and I try real hard to be the right one to but... I've written at LEAST 2 pages of religious response in all the other threads so I'm spent. :D

I just hope nobody, you know, deletes the thread?

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Well dust and vahn those were both good posts!

I am a Christian and I try real hard to be the right one to but... I've written at LEAST 2 pages of religious response in all the other threads so I'm spent. :D

You could make a link/reference to them......

Well, he COULD, if somebody hadn't deleted the thread that had all his long well-thought out responses in it ;)

Your still going on about that deleted thread.:p



Well I know why people believe what may seem as foolish stories to you. It's because science cannot explain our existence.

when you see a book you know it was written by someone, it didn't just come into existence. A scientific FACT is that somthing cannot come out of nothing.

Actually, science has done more of job than Genesis has. Tell me, Mandalorian. If God is everbeing, how did he become everbeing. Something cannot merely come into existance. Enlighten me as to how one all powerful being can come into being?

Originally posted by MydnightPsion
Actually, science has done more of job than Genesis has. Tell me, Mandalorian. If God is everbeing, how did he become everbeing. Something cannot merely come into existance. Enlighten me as to how one all powerful being can come into being? yeah what was here for this god to be here? *suddenly ceases to exist* son of a bitch! ;P

Originally posted by MydnightPsion
Actually, science has done more of job than Genesis has. Tell me, Mandalorian. If God is everbeing, how did he become everbeing. Something cannot merely come into existance. Enlighten me as to how one all powerful being can come into being?

En garde!

But then, I'm likely being ignored...

Originally posted by ShockV1.89
En garde!

But then, I'm likely being ignored...

by whom, might I ask?

Mydnight, the very idea of an all powerful being who has always been here means that there was no one to create him/her. An eternal being would've always been here... It's a tough concept for some to get, but that's all there is to it - no one is needed to create the eternal being because they already existed, see?

And let's not be foolish about this and attack the other side as a way of prooving our own point(s). Don't mock the other side. Just argue your side - for example...
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
Well I know why people believe what may seem as foolish stories to you. It's because science cannot explain our existence.
I'd agree with that, but that doesn't stop science from trying to explain it. Just because they haven't solved it yet and religion thinks it has (without any hard evidence) isn't a good reason to throw it away.

A single being that existed since eternity was but a flicker of space and time? Excuse me if it sounds a bit...I dunno...childish? not that I mean to call anyone here childish. The existence of one omnipotent and supreme being just seems more along the lines of fantasy or hallucations of a race aspiring to cope with what couldn't be explained at the time. Heathens, heretics, all made by a church who wanted power. Sadly, they did get power through the kings of old times. And what happened to those who said 'The earth revolves around the sun and the earth isn't the center of the universe'? I'd say religion is a way to keep order in an otherwise chaotic world, which isnt a bad thing by any means. But even in the most eutopian society, you'll have that one person who dosen't believe God casts lightning at us from above, but its an electrice attraction, and lighting dosen't even come from above. I'd trust theories and fossils before I trust a 5000 year old manuscript that's seen more change than a chameleon running through a city.

Originally posted by MydnightPsion
by whom, might I ask?

It was a dig at M54. If you could read the huge thread that he deleted, you'd see he chose to ignore everything I said because I didnt try to prove every point I made with biblical verses. It's old news, and I probably shouldnt even bring it up. But I dont like him for it, and you asked. :D

Something had to start the universe, right? Maybe it was a god or supreme being of some sort, who knows?

But was it the christian/muslim god? I dont know. Like Mydnight said, the only real thing we could go by is a 5000 year old book. I, quite frankly, dont trust that book, especially when you consider the fact that it was written by man, who is inherently imperfect. Whats thatn you say? They were inspired to write by God, you say? In that case, I refer you to Muniks sig. Think God said that to me? Prove he didnt.

Nuff said.

Originally posted by MydnightPsion
A single being that existed since eternity was but a flicker of space and time? Excuse me if it sounds a bit...I dunno...childish? not that I mean to call anyone here childish. The existence of one omnipotent and supreme being just seems more along the lines of fantasy or hallucations of a race aspiring to cope with what couldn't be explained at the time. Heathens, heretics, all made by a church who wanted power. Sadly, they did get power through the kings of old times. And what happened to those who said 'The earth revolves around the sun and the earth isn't the center of the universe'? I'd say religion is a way to keep order in an otherwise chaotic world, which isnt a bad thing by any means. But even in the most eutopian society, you'll have that one person who dosen't believe God casts lightning at us from above, but its an electrice attraction, and lighting dosen't even come from above. I'd trust theories and fossils before I trust a 5000 year old manuscript that's seen more change than a chameleon running through a city.

Could science have been considered fantasy? We are still trying to figure out ways to do things that, to us as humans, seem impossibel and only a fantasy.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Could science have been considered fantasy? We are still trying to figure out ways to do things that, to us as humans, seem impossibel and only a fantasy.
"Any smoothly functioning technology gives the appearance of magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Many things that are now commonplace to us would be perceived as magic or miraculous by people from the past. However, nowadays we are intelligent enough that we would know the difference between technology and fantasy. The majority of things today that science is trying to figure out are things that are not fantasy, but feasible.
So to answer your question more directly, science could have been considered fantasy in the past, but is much less likely to be confused now.

On another note, I notice that no one from the religion side has answered the questions I asked in my second post on this thread, which could mean a couple of things:
1 - You don't have an answer for the questions I asked. If this is the case, you've proved my point.
2 - You're ignoring my questions because you know the answer and you're afraid of it. This also would prove my point.
3 - You just haven't read it. I have a feeling this is the most likely case. :D

Sience may not prove God exists, but it is the only explenation for our existence. To me it seems silly to believe we can funcion in an orderly way in this complex galaxy by a simple cell evovling into evrything. An All Powerfull Being seems more realistic than a tiny cell. Which do you think is more capable of producing life?

If man did indeed evolve, and this one cell did indeed multiply, then why is it that it seems the opposite today? the cells in our body produce a new cell with the death of two. Gravity weakens, man ages. Evrything degenerates, nothing gets younger it only gets older.

What could cause a cell to evolve? Why is it not demonstrateable?

You may ask why God is not demonstratable, but were Jesus' miracles not enough? The Bible's preservation is a miracle in itself.

The more I learn about science, the harder it seems for me to understand why people can believe somthing so contradictory to it.


A fairy tale is when a frog turns into a prince in an instant. Evolution is when a frog turns into a prince over millions of years.

To me, evolution seems like a fairy tale.

But believe it if you want, there are still people who believe the world is flat.

Okay, wait, as I wrote my piece, Mandalorian posted his, so I'm changing this to respond to him.

I agree, there is much unexplained about the core energy of life that 'makes' us evolve and 'makes' stars form and, hell even gravity is still mysterious to us. Newton and Einstien could still both be wrong. There probably is a God-like energy or being who, like an artist, dips his brush in the cosmic paint and creates existence.

But the Bible is not apart of that. It's a book that was written by man who was speculating his own existence, just as we're speculating here.

For what we know about earth and societies and history and how mankind keeps records of his actions, we all know too well how fallable and fragile this is.

As far as technology and magic and fantasy go-- if a nuclear war destroyed all of society, most survivors would have no idea how to build a car or a computer or even a telephone from scratch. In fact, i'd wager that no one would be able to do much of anything, save build a few shelters. Perhaps Fire is the only thing we could muster up on our own. We'd be stuck riding horses stabbing fish with spears and roasting them over burning leaves. All our records and plans that are digitally stored, would be destroyed and erased. All the libraries, incinerated.

In a few generations the legend of a "technological society" would grow and would seem magical and god like. But we would know that they weren't gods, they were men who acheived great feats but somewhere went wrong and destroyed themselves. Maybe these future earthlings however would shun technology, calling it the destroyer of a great civilization. They would consider technology evil. It would be a new religion of sorts, whose sole purpose is to avoid the thing that tempted and destroyed us before. It's easy to see where this goes. 2000 years after that, something that was once concrete and man made as technology would be built into mythical religious proportions. When the reality of those of us who live in it now know that it's not.

The point is, NOBODY KNOWS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED two or five thouseand years ago. For all we know the Tower of Babel could have been a nuclear melt down or a spaceship or just a tall building that fell.

That's why for millenia the ruling bodies of all civilizations knew that the written word was the ultimate power, they knew that whoever wrote history had the power to change it make it suit whatever needs or wants they had. That's why they only taught the few privledged how to read and write, because the masses were the ones to be manipulated.

The Bible is no exception.

Say what you want about God giving the words to the Prophets to write them down, as likely as it sounds to you and as unlikely as it sounds to me, we can't prove either way what happened so long ago. But stories definitly change through time and through who tells it and who remembers it. Exaggerations, dramatic lisences, anything to make a story compelling and fit whatever agenda the teller has in telling it. One should look at the history of Catholicism, and see just how and why Constantin adopted it for the Roman Empire. There is a definite agenda there, in a falling Empire, to bring Eastern and Western Philosophy together in a monotheistic belief system. Rome was spreading itself thin at the time, this was it's last hope to Unite all the different cultures and lands they conquered.

You all know what I'm saying. I wish a religious person would speak up and counter my point....

Originally posted by Eldritch
On another note, I notice that no one from the religion side has answered the questions I asked in my second post on this thread, which could mean a couple of things:
1 - You don't have an answer for the questions I asked. If this is the case, you've proved my point.
2 - You're ignoring my questions because you know the answer and you're afraid of it. This also would prove my point.
3 - You just haven't read it. I have a feeling this is the most likely case. :D

Your forgot number 4 - We read it but are not responding because we don't feel like writing a long post ;)



Although I actually haven't read it....:D

If man did indeed evolve, and this one cell did indeed multiply, then why is it that it seems the opposite today? the cells in our body produce a new cell with the death of two. Gravity weakens, man ages. Evrything degenerates, nothing gets younger it only gets older.

Well, as far as the cells in our body go, the human body, while still in the womb, grows by cells splitting (I forget the term for this). So, in fact, humans coming from one cell does still happen. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the gravity and age thing...

You may ask why God is not demonstratable, but were Jesus' miracles not enough? The Bible's preservation is a miracle in itself.

Again, we have the assumption that the Bible is 100% correct and can be taken as a historical text.

And it's no miracle it survived. We have various Roman and Greek legends and myths that are in their original form. The fact that the bible is so widespread is more a testament to its status as the central religious document in the worlds predominant religion. But this says nothing to its authenticity.

A fairy tale is when a frog turns into a prince in an instant. Evolution is when a frog turns into a prince over millions of years.

To me, evolution seems like a fairy tale.

Erm... exactly how, in that analogy, does evolution become anything like the fairy tale you cited?

Come now, Mandalorian. You look foolish with your post above. I'd nit-pick at it, but Shock beat me to it. How do we know that the Bible wasn't just a story to people 5000 years ago as Star Wars is a story to us? If within the next 5000 years, the world ends up like it did in Fallout, i.e. Humans hiding in giant vaults until the fallout recided until they rentered the world, making small tribes, and perchance one of these tribes finds a Star Wars-The Phantom Menace book. Well, wouldn't you think that they'd think this really happened by simply reading the text 'A long time ago...'. Its kinda like 'In the beginning...'. My point is, the book could have been some guys fantasy that he wrote down and then it was inherited by the Hebrews, then the Christians who added to it, and finally the Mulims who added to it. We can't prove this is wrong, but we can't prove its right, which is why religion goes on because all they have to say is 'Prove HE dosen't exist' and then we(non-religious) say 'Prove he does'. Its alot like abortion, but I'll leave it at that.

It all goes back to my one question that no one has addressed yet - how do you know you're [meaning religion in general] right?

And don't say the Bible - that's been updated so many times and edited and has so many different versions (aside from not even being written by the people the stuff was supposedly happening to) that it doesn't count as proof. And even if it were historically accurate (which it's not), it'd be circumstantial evidence at best.
Science has put forth its theories based on evidence and/or observation... i.e. this is what we believe, and this is the hard evidence we have to back it up.
And for all of you religious types that find it so hard to put faith in science... I don't see you doubting and not using other forms of technology (read : science). You're all at least using a computer, or we'd never even read what you had to say. Many of you also probably use cars (or will sometime in the future) or ride in them. You're also likely to have flown on a plane or have watched a movie or a videotape/dvd.

You're so ready to accept and put faith into your religion without proof, yet you don't want to accept certain facets of science even when the proof is being put in your face? That's not only extremely selective, it's hypocritical.
"I won't put faith in science because it's not certain. But I'll put faith in religion, even when it's equally uncertain because some guys wrote a book about it thousands of years ago. And even though other people wrote books explaining the same thing, I don't like what they said so they're wrong."
Can you see how absurd this argument looks to a rational mind, let alone a logical one?

Originally posted by ET Warrior
Your forgot number 4 - We read it but are not responding because we don't feel like writing a long post ;)



Although I actually haven't read it....:D
That falls under number 1 or 2 in my book. :D

Originally posted by Mandolorian54
If man did indeed evolve, and this one cell did indeed multiply, then why is it that it seems the opposite today? the cells in our body produce a new cell with the death of two. Gravity weakens, man ages. Evrything degenerates, nothing gets younger it only gets older.
You do not get one new cell from two old ones dying. If we did that, we'd eventually waste away to nothing, essentially eating ourselves. You're right though... nothing gets younger, it gets older. Can you name anything that grows younger? I don't understand your point here.
What could cause a cell to evolve? Why is it not demonstrateable?
Stimuli. To the environment, to other cells, to anything. Just like you yourself will adapt to new conditions. It's not demonstratable because we don't have the power to reproduce millions of years of evolution in a single lifetime. However, science finds hundreds of thousands of new pieces of evidence for the fossil record each year, which includes some of the so-called "missing links," that are strong proof that evolution has taken place.
You may ask why God is not demonstratable, but were Jesus' miracles not enough? The Bible's preservation is a miracle in itself.
Consider the source. Shock countered this point best, so read his post.
The more I learn about science, the harder it seems for me to understand why people can believe somthing so contradictory to it.
You've made the case for science with that statement. How can so many people believe in something so contradictory to science?
A fairy tale is when a frog turns into a prince in an instant. Evolution is when a frog turns into a prince over millions of years. To me, evolution seems like a fairy tale.
Not according to the definition you just gave. If evolution happened in an instant, then it would be a fairy tale. The fact that evolution takes millions of years because the process is slow seems proof enough of that.
But believe it if you want, there are still people who believe the world is flat.
Those people have never seen an image of the Earth from space... :lol:

P.S. - Sorry for 3 posts, but there was just so much to say and so many excellent arguments to counter! Good job, guys... keep those synapses firing! :)

Ok, hope ya like this one Eldritch. :D

Originally posted by Eldritch
On another note, I notice that no one from the religion side has answered the questions I asked in my second post on this thread, which could mean a couple of things:
1 - You don't have an answer for the questions I asked. If this is the case, you've proved my point.
2 - You're ignoring my questions because you know the answer and you're afraid of it. This also would prove my point.
3 - You just haven't read it. I have a feeling this is the most likely case. :D

Maybe if you'de go back and read the epic 10 pager, you'll see why we don't want to post such huge things AGAIN. :D


Originally posted by Eldritch
It all goes back to my one question that no one has addressed yet - how do you know you're [meaning religion in general] right?

Wait wait WAIT!!!! Here we go again. You're stereotyping ALL Christians under the assumption that we believe that ALL science is false. We do not. Some might, others (like myself) don't.

Its called faith. The ability to believe in something that I have not seen with my own eyes or touched, is amazing to me. Faith. Am I forcing upon you that my religion is correct? No, I BELIEVE that it is correct but I would never go so far as to say that ALL of science is incorrect. I admit, there are some parts of science that I do not agree with.

Originally posted by Eldritch
And don't say the Bible - that's been updated so many times and edited and has so many different versions (aside from not even being written by the people the stuff was supposedly happening to) that it doesn't count as proof. And even if it were historically accurate (which it's not), it'd be circumstantial evidence at best.

Why do you say its not historically correct? Because you have other records from THAT SAME TIME PERIOD that state otherwise? And what right makes these historically correct? How do you know that the records weren't altered in order to keep a revolt from occuring? Your "proof" that the Bible is historically inaccurate is circumstancial evidence.

Originally posted by Eldritch
Science has put forth its theories based on evidence and/or observation... i.e. this is what we believe, and this is the hard evidence we have to back it up.
And for all of you religious types that find it so hard to put faith in science... I don't see you doubting and not using other forms of technology (read : science). You're all at least using a computer, or we'd never even read what you had to say. Many of you also probably use cars (or will sometime in the future) or ride in them. You're also likely to have flown on a plane or have watched a movie or a videotape/dvd.

Ahhhhh... you said this i.e. this is what we believe. I thought science doesn't believe in anything? I thought it was all hard proven facts, not beliefs. You're entering the realm of religion when you say believe, which you seem to hate. :D

Once again, you are putting forth a stereotype about all Christians when you say that we don't put faith (Ah wait, I thought people who trust in science and not religion don't HAVE faith. I thought they have hard facts. Once again, saying faith enters you into the realm of religion.), into science? Just because I am a Christian and believe in God with all my heart means that I cannot think science is correct? Evolution and God could have gone hand in hand. God could have started it, then partially controlled its course when the time arose but otherwise it could have been let free. I don't know. I don't know what God thinks, noone on this earth does, so who can say that He didn't do this?

The Bible is NOT a scientific tool? Does it tell people how to make DVD players? No, it tells them how to live their lives, therefore, comparing it to technology is impossible.

Originally posted by Eldritch
You're so ready to accept and put faith into your religion without proof, yet you don't want to accept certain facets of science even when the proof is being put in your face? That's not only extremely selective, it's hypocritical.

Once again, you stereotype the Christian believers as a WHOLE by saying that we disregard science completely. And once again, this is not true. And may I remind you that, no matter how much "evidence" evolution and everything has, it is STILL A THEORY!!!

Originally posted by Eldritch
"I won't put faith in science because it's not certain. But I'll put faith in religion, even when it's equally uncertain because some guys wrote a book about it thousands of years ago. And even though other people wrote books explaining the same thing, I don't like what they said so they're wrong."

Ever heard of dark matter? That is needed to complete the THEORY of the Big Bang. Ever heard of a scientists or spaceshuttle finding, seeing, bumping into or coming back with dark matter? I think not.

Originally posted by Eldritch
Can you see how absurd this argument looks to a rational mind, let alone a logical one?

Are you calling me non-rational or non-logical because I believe in God?

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Wait wait WAIT!!!! Here we go again. You're stereotyping ALL Christians under the assumption that we believe that ALL science is false. We do not. Some might, others (like myself) don't.
My question there has nothing to do with science. I'm simply wondering what makes you believe so strongly that your religion is right and others are wrong. And don't say faith, because other religions have just as much faith as yours, if not more.
Why do you say its not historically correct? Because you have other records from THAT SAME TIME PERIOD that state otherwise? And what right makes these historically correct? How do you know that the records weren't altered in order to keep a revolt from occuring? Your "proof" that the Bible is historically inaccurate is circumstancial evidence.
Because it's not a history book. It's a written version of the beliefs of a Jewish sect that was later called Christianity. There are no dates, unlike other historical documents from that time. And while I can't prove that the historical documents from that time weren't altered, many Christian scholars who have written about the history of the bible seem to think they are genuine. If you'd like a listing of books I suggest on the history of the Bible, i'll be more than happy to post them. The Bible was not written to educate people in the history of the time, it was written to teach lessons.
Ahhhhh... you said this I thought science doesn't believe in anything? I thought it was all hard proven facts, not beliefs. You're entering the realm of religion when you say believe, which you seem to hate. :D
Then you're not aware of what science truly is. Science is most simply the pursuit of truth. Pursuing that truth means that you never EVER stop questioning. The beauty of science is that it evolves as new information comes in. It's not all hard proven facts, and any scientist that says so is no true scientist. However, a little faith is required now and then, but it's never blind faith - it's always backed up with evidence. And all possibilities are considered... science just tends to go with the one that makes the most sense with the evidence.
Once again, you are putting forth a stereotype about all Christians when you say that we don't put faith (Ah wait, I thought people who trust in science and not religion don't HAVE faith. I thought they have hard facts. Once again, saying faith enters you into the realm of religion.), into science? Just because I am a Christian and believe in God with all my heart means that I cannot think science is correct? Evolution and God could have gone hand in hand. God could have started it, then partially controlled its course when the time arose but otherwise it could have been let free. I don't know. I don't know what God thinks, noone on this earth does, so who can say that He didn't do this?
I'm not putting forth any stereotypes, i'm simply responding to the viewpoints expressed in this thread. I happen to agree with you on part of this - I think, like any good scientist, that it's possible God exists and that he set in motion the Big Bang, evolution, etc. But I don't see any reason to believe in God over anything else without proof. And no one can say definitively that he didn't do this, but there's certainly no proof that he did.
The Bible is NOT a scientific tool? Does it tell people how to make DVD players? No, it tells them how to live their lives, therefore, comparing it to technology is impossible.
I'm not comparing the Bible to scientific tools or technology, so i'm not quite sure where you got that from. I agree that it's main purpose is to teach people how to live their lives (and that's it). I wasn't comparing the Bible to technology, I was saying that it's odd that people can attack science and try and prove it wrong when it comes to their faith, but love it when science/technology does something for their benefit (e.g. dvd players).
Once again, you stereotype the Christian believers as a WHOLE by saying that we disregard science completely. And once again, this is not true. And may I remind you that, no matter how much "evidence" evolution and everything has, it is STILL A THEORY!!!
As I said earlier - I'm not stereotyping, I'm responding to views expressed in this thread. I don't think you understand what 'Theory' is in the scientific sense. Theory (specifically, the Theory of Evolution) is not just someone's educated guess. It's a possible explanation based on the gathering of evidence. To date, Evolution has gathered millions of pieces of evidence; Creation doesn't even come close in that department. What I wonder is how many pieces of evidence will be required before religious folk stop dismissing it. I bet it'll be right around the time science turns it from theory into fact, or law.
Ever heard of dark matter? That is needed to complete the THEORY of the Big Bang. Ever heard of a scientists or spaceshuttle finding, seeing, bumping into or coming back with dark matter? I think not.
:lol: If you actually knew what dark matter was, you'd understand why it's impossible for scientists or a spaceshuttle to bump into any. And it's not necessary to capitalize 'theory,' as everyone knows it's just that. No one's accepting it as truth yet, but just like with evolution, the evidence is mounting and religion has yet to provide evidence for its explanation.
Are you calling me non-rational or non-logical because I believe in God?
No, I'm saying that this argument is irrational and illogical:"I won't put faith in science because it's not certain. But I'll put faith in religion, even when it's equally uncertain because some guys wrote a book about it thousands of years ago. And even though other people wrote books explaining the same thing, I don't like what they said so they're wrong."
Now that is a generalized, stereotypical Christian argument. ;)

Hahahaha! I love these threads. I love the stuff Mandalorian says regarding cellular degredation and cellular evolution. Makes you think about such things as an appendix. What did it do? I know that people who do not have one are more prone to sickness but it had a more valuable attribute earlier before CELLULAR EVOLUTION went into effect and made the thing mostly obsolete. Same with the tail bone. What is up with that. It serves no purpose as far as I know besides knocking out our quarterback all year my Junior year. Those things couldn't have been part of a few million years of evolution could they?

There are many great articles on CELLULAR EVOLUTION and if you want to learn about them just go to a search engine.

Here is something to throw in the mix. Someone or some people have said that God is God and he is just there. Who said God did not evolve? Who says God is not an alien? Who said that God was not created in the supposed big bang? I don't recall anywhere in religious articles where it tells the origins of God.

Not as good as the other one but still fun to read.

According to Homer Simpson, when he took the crayon out of his brain, he found the formula that proved there was no God. Flanders immediately burnt it.

To answer your question there are a few parts: 1. People feel the need to have a reason to live. Most people don't want to accept that they are here for approx 65 years and then are nothing. Most religions provide an afterlife. 2. Humans are stubborn. Our forefathers died and lived their lives by this and so will we. 3. The Bible does try to teach most of the positive aspects of humanity and has consequences for failure.

People can convince themselves that their religion is the best because that is human nature. Religion is a BIG THING. It is one thing you don't want to get wrong. Also, most religions say they are the only right ones. Another aspect is ignorance. 95% of all Americans only know little of more than 3 religions. They might know Mormons can't have caffine or JW come to thier houses but do they know what the ultimate goal of Buddhism is? What about Catholic cardinal sins? Most don't. They are raised to believe in one religion and not others because they are right and people hate to admit that they might even be wrong.

Gone for a few days and look what happens at the Senate. 13 more hours and 43 minutes until hockey! Woot. It is 2 AM. I have to get up early. Night all.

I will reply to almost everyone and I am pretty sure I made some errors in there.

Have fun!

BigTeddyPaul

The existence of one omnipotent and supreme being just seems more along the lines of fantasy or hallucations of a race aspiring to cope with what couldn't be explained at the time

Have you read Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality. A bit fanatic but you may like it

Humans are gods...
Morihei Ueshiba


Why do so many people in an educated society still find the need to believe in a book that was written 5000 years ago? What is so special about it? It's a bunch of stories created by nomads to justify their own existence and create law and order and a moral standard


First Point. Upbringing. It's stupid but it's the clue


First 5 years of your life you're out of free will. That's when the worst thing happens. You're told that god's everything and he created you instead your mommy having sex with your daddy on the back seat of their Ferrari and so on. You do not feel it till you're put to the extreme (for example forwarding an suggestion or a new theory). I was forced to memorize some passages from Bible at that age and I cryed at 11 after assuring myself that god doesn' exist. You grow up and you're told that the world wasn't created in 6 days and you feel embarrassed in school for saying that. You only then learn words like metaphor or myth and of course History of the Universe Forums.
And from that position Bible is so simple. It says you what to do while in science you have to do everything on your own. It is as simple as that. You can do mistakes and Bible says there are sins for which there's a death penalty. You see a man making mistakes while seduced by The Evil One (Darth Vader? No dear...) and wins at last earning his reward and salvation of his precious soul on the heavens. From this point of view there's no such thing as mistake or sin in science. It is always in move. One miscalculation leads to a new method or even creation of a brand-new idea.

Second point. Group Implement. Isn't that obvious.

Every human wants to feel that he belongs to something, that is more important than anything else for him: not to feel lost, not to be alone. In our daylife we all find some comunication circles: a job, our home, our hobby, Lucas Forums etc.. Belonging to any of these circles requires understanding of rules on which it all stands. I saw for example a sort of jealousy when I tryed to enter some groups that were unfamiliar with me. They hold a club. You partcipate, you must pay. They do not notice you, you try hard, you learn the rules and finally you succeed. Then you see another Bantha Fodder trying to catch up. You fight your own jealousy to this rookie and then you become best friends. (positive thinking)

The competion drives us to fight like our far far away ancestors (bacterias, toads, monkeys, grandpas and ofcourse clowns) did.
A very strong human stays alone and feels alright (for a shirt time), others go mad almost instantly.

And there is another thing here I'd like to talk about.


Extremism (It's not about arabic terrorists).

Let's go back to our upbringing and inheretence. If your father was great mathematician or astrophycisit and you've got his genes you're probably to become a matheatician (or a serial killer or anything else). Then if your mommy visitted a sunday church and after spent 10 years in the monastery and then was expelled for homosexual affair and finally got married your father then you're probably to have religious upbringing. In normal situation you would become a mathematician with simple religious beliefs. But your mommy was homosexualist that's why you won't.
Something has happened and you were forced to live as a priest. You would live this life with understanding that somehow you're truely good at something else. You would never say it to yourself directly. That's why you go to the library and find near the Bible a small esoteric book hidden. You start to read it and other books and see that these texts about emanations contain some number implications. Then (so many then) you read Tritemiy, become a kabbalist and try to find a way to control the world with some mystique powers of alchemy. That's an extremism resulted from your inheretence, group implementation and ofcourse upbringing.


Now think of it and try to change attitude to clowns for the time being

first i have mormon friends they can't have coffee they are allowed caffine. now about the tail bone, it is there from evolution. previous stages had little tails, kind of like a hamster or a baboon. in the next stage it will most likely be gone or near being gone.

A couple of weeks ago I went to make a copy in my University and got acquainted with 2 professors who were working on the creation of some highly sophisticated diving maschine project and for an instant were discussing the way whales dive on a great depth and stay there for hours. After that these professor were never seen again. I suspected that they work on the government and they mouthed too much to me and were anihilated for that by some alien force.
They stopped me and asked if I had a minute to listen, so I did. They said that when was counted the possible depth and time a whale can support the result wasn't original: WHALES CAN'T DIVE. So they spoke about all mammals of this type (dolphins killer whale). The essence of the talk was in the way whale breathes, that there was something than just cellular acidification and there is another way whale actually breath. They also pointed that not only whales were having such anomalies: that yoga can be burried alive and then digged up alive.
The body of yoga can outlive by hibernating itself because of their mental control or anything but the brain is in need of oxigen constantly. That's the prolem because I had no time listen the answer to this

Can anybody help me in answering? Or just those suckers for me

Originally posted by Homuncul
...You're told that god's everything and he created you instead your mommy having sex with your daddy on the back seat of their Ferrari and so on...

Um... what model Ferrari has a back seat?

About the mormons and caffeine I could be wrong. I know they aren't supposed to have soda and coffee so maybe it has something to do with liquids. Mormons are not my strong suit. Maybe you could ask them the rule so I could know for my own person.

And about the tail bone just something I throw out there to screw with people's minds. Not neccessarily true or even what I believe in. It is more just something to think about.

BigTeddyPaul

faith doesnt say God creates us instead of sex, it says we wre created in spirit and put here by God. and most christian religions eccept the theory of evolution.

Ohhhh. Most Christians believe in evolution. Bold statement. Must be a regional thing because I have found quite the opposite. People refute evolution in Christianity as far as I know. Some believe that God uses evolution to help create us but bunches still believe we have always been like this.

I am interested to see responses to that comment.

BigTeddyPaul

If any non-believers are here, then you should pick up a copy of the book by C.S Lewis Mere Christianity it is a book by an educated man with an interesting approach to the Bible and Christianity

Shouldn't you recommend that to believers or at least tell people that it is more of a Christian book? Atleast tell them you are trying to help convert them instead of tricking them into it.

BigTeddyPaul

Here t is like THrawn studying pictures of races before he engages in military action, it is just a way to learn more about are religion,


faith doesnt say God creates us instead of sex, it says we wre created in spirit and put here by God. and most christian religions eccept the theory of evolution

Christians dont believe in evolution , and maybe he could get a better view if he reads this book

And that is where the problem lies. To him he probably honestly feels that most Christians believe in evolution. You don't believe that. I don't know percentages on what the beliefs are but I am sure there is a fair percentage to both or atleast most believe in the possibility of both.

I do also believe in learning about most religions to better understand your own but you just told non-believers to read it. That implies to me that you want them to read it and maybe think about it and turn to Christianity. It is just you directed it toward non-believers when it is a pro-christian book.

BigTeddyPaul

Allright I had debated putting that and I guess I should have put everyone, but I just thought that Christians would allready know the stuff, forgive me.