Evangelism Options

[datass]

I don't have to be Christian to care about others, do I?

[sdingfelder]

Your point is very well made. In no way would I ever imply that you have to be Christian to care about others. Even worse, I'd have to be blind to say that all those who call themselves "Christian" do care about others.

But, being a Christian is first-and-foremost about caring about God and the things that are important to Him. And what's important to Him is that people turn from that which takes them away from Him -- their sin -- and that they turn to Him.

I have nothing to gain from writing these words. I'm certainly not winning a popularity contest. In fact, if you want to win a popularity contest do NOT do what I'm doing.

I don't know if you're married, but if your spouse were to write you a bunch of love letters and you never even opened the envelopes, how unkind would that be ? God could have left us all guessing as to what He requires to be with Him, but He didn't. He gave us 66 Books that tell us how loving, kind, good, and righteous He is. The Bible says He takes no pleasure in the death of the those who reject Him.

[NoSex]

Since we're in the realm of the philosophical: What if God does exist ? What if you are to be judged by The God who shows Himself through the fact that we have Creation itself showing His existence ?

Creation? Where the hell is the evidence for creation?
What are you talking about? The burden of proof is on you, not those who lack belief in God.
In all likelihood, God doesn't exist. And, we have no reason to believe otherwise. The possibility of any god, let alone just the God of Abraham, existing is so minimal and rediculous it barely even demands consideration. But, when given consideration, it just becomes that much more laughable. I'll believe when I have a reason to believe, a real reason. Until than, I'll remain an athiest. If you want to take a crack at proving your creation myth or positing that God surely does exist, I'm sure you can find the appropriate threads for such a discussion, they are here.

[bad mood] As for Evangelism, I only have one serious gripe. Lay off the f**king kids. They're too impressionable and young to take any of what you are telling them into serious thoughtful consideration. Stop raping their minds. Stop pressuring and ruining them. Let them live you sick fucks. [/bad mood]

[kimmytree]

Creation? Where the hell is the evidence for creation?
What are you talking about? The burden of proof is on you, not those who lack belief in God.
In all likelihood, God doesn't exist. And, we have no reason to believe otherwise. The possibility of any god, let alone just the God of Abraham, existing is so minimal and rediculous it barely even demands consideration. But, when given consideration, it just becomes that much more laughable. I'll believe when I have a reason to believe, a real reason. Until than, I'll remain an athiest. If you want to take a crack at proving your creation myth or positing that God surely does exist, I'm sure you can find the appropriate threads for such a discussion, they are here.

[bad mood] As for Evangelism, I only have one serious gripe. Lay off the f**king kids. They're too impressionable and young to take any of what you are telling them into serious thoughtful consideration. Stop raping their minds. Stop pressuring and ruining them. Let them live you sick fucks. [/bad mood]

Ahhh. I wouldnt go as far as saying that God doesnt exist, but I agree with what you say about believing what he's trying to tell us.

Are we the f**king kids you're talking about? o_O

[sdingfelder]

I can only assume that since you mention "the kids", that you're not one. Interesting that the most foul language has come from an adult instead of a kid. For example, insomniac & happykmd (I'm not sure if they're "kids" or not, though) showed much more maturity in their response. You should be proud of yourself.

You're right. They are impressionable -- as everyone can be. Good thing you leave such a good impression. Good job giving "kids" / "young adults" the benefit of the doubt that they can think for themselves.

Certainly having role models like you around to make sure their minds aren't tainted with your own flavor of beliefs is clearly the right thing -- since you obviously have no slant towards a particular side. I can see your desire to not lean one way too far.

Again, why not let them make educated decisions by hearing both sides without denigrating what you don't believe ?

As for Creation: note that both Creation and evolution have the same fossils, same data, same overall evidence. Evolutionists choose to look at the evidence from their slant -- not even agreeing within their own ranks. Creationists look at the evidence from the view that it happened exactly the way it's written in the Bible.

If you were willing to consider looking at the same evidence without your preconceived notions against God, you might actually see something worthwhile. I used to be a fully indoctrinated evolutionist because I never questioned what I was taught in public school. Why not look at truly scientific & measurable data points to support your beliefs ?

Remember that Darwin himself said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Of course, there's more that Darwin had to say in this quote, but he prefaced it with "Reason tells me, that if..." and he goes on. That "if" has never been changed to a "because" or a "since." "If" is not science -- it's science fiction.

Here are some interesting quotes:
"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first ‘missing link’ to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England’s Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man’s apelike ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax." U.S. News & World Report, February 14, 2000

"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict." David Berlinsky

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977

"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing." G. K. Chesterton

[kimmytree]

I very much appreciate you both bringing out good points in kindness. I've seen where differences of thought and theology have brought people to harsh words and I'm glad y'all are willing to make valid points in a kind way.

Same to you. I appreciate you being kind about what you're saying, even if I dont agree.

There is still only one God in Messianic Judaism. If you're truly interested in looking into this further, please don't hesitate to let me know. If you honestly seek the Hebrew Scriptures, you'll see that He shows throughout Tanach that He is One, but as each one of us is body, mind and soul we were made in His image.

As a Jewish person, Deuteronomy 6:4 should sound familiar. It's called the "Shema Y'israel". I don't know, insomniac, if you're familiar with it. "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one". Please study the word "one" in this verse. It is the Hebrew word "echad" which is also used in Genesis 2:24. Ask yourself how "echad" can possibly mean "one and only one".

I've specifically tried to not come off as someone who only uses Bible verses to back up what he says. The Bible says that He is not a God of confusion -- there's logic to His Truth. So, in such a forum as this I simply use things that are easily grasped and which can be used as examples of real-life experiences.


First, remember that my comment was that "I don't believe in Christianity" -- the religion. The Christian religion is wrought with factions -- Baptists, Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc. Each one of these factions stresses one thing over another as opposed to stressing what the Bible teaches ONLY AS MUCH AS the Bible teaches it. These are man's divisions. Man will often look to something that sounds good and stress that. What separates me from believing in the relgion is that I look to the Bible and not to man. I look to Messiah as my teacher. Read Psalm 118:8 and Proverbs 3:5. I can't put my trust in man because like all men, that man's going to be wrong. Just like I'm going to be wrong.

Yeah - there are numerous sects of the Protestant faith. If you know Christ as your Savior, believe in the New Testament, and Evangelism, you are a Christian. You're still Jewish, but you're a Christian. If you're into being taught about what the Bible actually says, instead of someone of a certain Protestant sect twisting things, thats basically Non-Denominational.

A bad mother would, yes. But if you wanted to see if someone truly loved you, would you force them to follow you ? Or, rather, would you allow them enough breathing room to see if they love you enough to seek you out and stay by your side ?

As for God condemning His "children": Please understand that the Bible never says that everyone is the "child" of God. It actually says the opposite. Please read Colossians 1:21 and John 3:18.

Ok, but if you knew in advance that someone was going to get by a car, wouldnt you tell them? Wouldnt you stop them from being in that situation? Christians claim that God / Jesus knows everything. He knows what we're going to order for lunch tomorrow, who we're going to marry, all the details of our life. So doesnt he know if we're going to accept him or not? Wouldnt he make sure that every person accepted him? Sounds to me like its predetermined then.

Please don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that you need to go to a man to ask for forgiveness of God. You can ask forgiveness of God in your own private location -- room, mind, heart, where ever.

Then how is that any different that what I said?

I clearly need to ask for your forgiveness for a poor choice of words. Please do forgive me. One example of my poor choice of words is that you read my statement as what you believe is evil. I said "Since He loves righteousness, He must hate evil." I was trying to make a statement that God cannot be ALL love. If He were, He would contradict Himself and sound like some sort of multiple personality disorder being. He is not. The Bible teaches that He is unchanging. He cannot love and one thing AND love the opposite of that thing.

Thank you. Hopefully I dont sound rude either. I just felt as if you were attacking me. Why cant he? That doesnt make sense. Just because he isnt "all love", doesnt mean he cant love. Once again, please stop throwing out things "the Bible teaches". You're just making things worse - its not going to make me or anyone else automatically agree with you, just because the Bible says something. Yeah, all that is in the Bible, but just because something's in a book doesnt make it true.

As for the Commandments, please see Exodus 20 (specifically Exodus 20:4 for the Second Commandment). As for proof to completely back up the Bible, that would be a good conversation to have if you're really interested.

Once again, see above.

I agree that He did claim to be the Son of God. If you really believe He made that claim and you don't believe He is who He says He is, please realize that you're calling Him a liar. By Biblical definition, if a prophet lies, he is a false prophet and should not be followed. The jesus you know would have died in vain. His lie would have led countless numbers of people to their deaths believing in a lie. Consider the apostles. Secular, historical documentation shows that all but John died horrific and painful deaths. What you're saying is that they died trying to promote a lie.

Bottom line is that there's never been anyone who's ever come close to satisfying even 3 Messianic prophesies from the Old Covenant. Jesus Christ satisfied over 300.

We talked about being God's "children" above.

Not necesarrily. Many parts of the New Testament were written HUNDREDS of years after his death. Just like anything else, after the story being retold over and over again over the generations, things change. You really dont believe that God really spoke to the authors? If he did, why hasnt he spoken to anyone else since?

He claimed to be the Son of God. According to parts of the Old Testament, as believers in God we are all his children. (I'll edit this later with the reference). So in a sense, he is a son of God just like we are all his sons / daughters. He created us, making him in a sense our Father.

Why would his lie necessarily led to other's deaths? Chances are, when the NT was written hundreds of years later, the story was twisted. I think he claimed to be the son of God just like we are his children, and he preached / taught the Old Testament, and died for believing in it.

I can only assume that since you mention "the kids", that you're not one. Interesting that the most foul language has come from an adult instead of a kid. For example, insomniac & happykmd (I'm not sure if they're "kids" or not, though) showed much more maturity in their response. You should be proud of yourself.

I agree with you on that one. According to his/her profile, they're only 18. I'm 17, so I dont see how that makes him any more of an adult that myself.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? A college student?

[NoSex]

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
I can only assume that since you mention "the kids", that you're not one.[/quote]

I'm talking about very young children. Younger than ten years old or so.
It was just a comment on the trends within Evangelism in getting them when they're young. That's all.

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
Interesting that the most foul language has come from an adult instead of a kid. For example, insomniac & happykmd (I'm not sure if they're "kids" or not, though) showed much more maturity in their response. You should be proud of yourself.[quote]

Argumentum ad hominem?
Are you serious? I think you're confused as to what exactly maturity is. Last time I checked, the value, quality, and reality of my premises and propositions have absolutely nothing to do with my character or how many "foul" words I use in getting them across. Talk about maturity? Let's focus on the arguments, shall we?

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
You're right. They are impressionable -- as everyone can be. Good thing you leave such a good impression. Good job giving "kids" / "young adults" the benefit of the doubt that they can think for themselves.[quote]

You can convince a six year old of just about anything. As an adult, you should recognize that and take a bit of responsibility and tact in dealing with something as important and careful as spirituality. Ever heard of Santa Clause?

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
Certainly having role models like you around to make sure their minds aren't tainted with your own flavor of beliefs is clearly the right thing -- since you obviously have no slant towards a particular side. I can see your desire to not lean one way too far. [quote]

Way to try to neutralize the possibility of a real debate by trying to target me as inherently close minded. Wow, you're no good at this. Let's focus on the arguments at hand, shall we?

By the way, what exactly is objective about taking a six year old to a church?

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
As for Creation: note that both Creation and evolution have the same fossils, same data, same overall evidence. Evolutionists choose to look at the evidence from their slant -- not even agreeing within their own ranks. Creationists look at the evidence from the view that it happened exactly the way it's written in the Bible.

If you were willing to consider looking at the same evidence without your preconceived notions against God, you might actually see something worthwhile. I used to be a fully indoctrinated evolutionist because I never questioned what I was taught in public school. Why not look at truly scientific & measurable data points to support your beliefs ?
[/quote]

The difference is creationists have held onto the same creation story since as long as their theology has proposed it. Science moves from observation into theory. Creation moves from "theory" to observation. That's called a methodological problem.

Further, creation isn't scientific. There is nothing about it that is reasonable or logical. It is a preconcieved conclusion supported only by selective analysis, misconception, deception, flat out lies, and awful displays of what someone thinks is a "logical demonstration." f**k, the cosmological argument denies itself. It's a joke.

You seem to just be making a ton of assumptions on my character, and you are largely ignoring and avoiding any kind of real debate. Lets see your affirmative case for creation, I'm dieing for it.

[quote name='ScottD' date='Dec 5 2006, 6:30 PM' post='2365795']
Remember that Darwin himself said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Of course, there's more that Darwin had to say in this quote, but he prefaced it with "Reason tells me, that if..." and he goes on. That "if" has never been changed to a "because" or a "since." "If" is not science -- it's science fiction.
[/quote]

Why do creationists love to repeat this quote so much? Yeah, of course he has more to say, he goes on for nearly an entire chapter describing exactly how he believes the eye could have evolved, and... it isn't that far from how scientists understand early eye developement today. The evolution of the eye isn't near as complex as creationists like to make it, we have perfect living and dead examples of transitional eyes. "If" is science. Ever heard of a hypothesis, they tend to begin with "If." Augh.

Further, what would this prove? Even if Darwin didn't believe so strongly (which he certainly did) in his theory, how would that at all detract from the reality of evolution? What's your point?

Fossil record is exactly as we imagined it. Fossils aren't exactly the most common thing in the world. It's not like every creature ever was fossilized. Get over yourself, f**k.

[sdingfelder]

Ok, but if you knew in advance that someone was going to get by a car, wouldnt you tell them? Wouldnt you stop them from being in that situation? Christians claim that God / Jesus knows everything. He knows what we're going to order for lunch tomorrow, who we're going to marry, all the details of our life. So doesnt he know if we're going to accept him or not? Wouldnt he make sure that every person accepted him? Sounds to me like its predetermined then.

This is a great scenario. I do know that something's going to happen: We're all going to step out of time and into eternity. No one knows when that'll happen except the Lord. He does know all the things that you mention. He even knows the number of hairs on your head. He does know who's going to accept His Son and who isn't. That doesn't mean that He doesn't give each person a chance to show that they love Him more than their sins.

If He were to "make sure that every person accepted him" as you say, that would be very similar to the following: My wife loves for me to tell her that I love her. Since I write software, I could write a routine to play a prerecorded clip of me saying "I love you", say, every half hour. But which means more: me feeling love enough for her to tell her or her hearing it very often with no feeling ?? God wants you to love Him more than anything and for you to love Him with your heart, mind, soul, and strength.

Then how is that any different that what I said?

I'd previously mentioned that there has to be turning away from the sin that's separated you. I can't remember where I wrote it, but if you were standing in a courtroom and were found guilty, asking the judge to just forgive you wouldn't be enough. He's still got to sentence you.

Jesus paid the fine for anyone who will humble themselves and ask Him to cover their sins. It means that you realize you can never pay the fine yourself -- it's only through His suffering death and resurrection that the payment for your sins can be made. This is true for everyone -- I'm not trying to single you out by using "you".

That doesnt make sense. Just because he isnt "all love", doesnt mean he cant love.

Sorry. I must have once again used the wrong words. I didn't mean to say that He can't love. He most certainly does. He just doesn't love a thing AND the opposite of that thing. For example, I love babies so I cannot love the killing of them through abortion.

Once again, please stop throwing out things "the Bible teaches". You're just making things worse...

I realize that. I'm trying my hardest not to use it since I know you don't believe it. I understand that it's like someone using the holy book of Hinduism to tell me some truth that there's no way I'm going to believe. I understand. I'm trying.

I had to prove to myself that the Bible is a Book written outside of time. If you ever start to really study, I'd love to be of any help possible.

Many parts of the New Testament were written HUNDREDS of years after his death...

Actually, not only is there no proof for this, there's counter-proof to this statement. There are secular writings from Roman leaders as of the early 100s (A.D.) talking about this religious sect that is willing to lay their lives down for the beliefs. In fact, they have enough actual documents dated no later that 150 A.D. in order to fully reconstruct the New Covenant.

I making a guess here, but you may be talking about the Gnostic writings out of Alexandria that were written hundreds of years after His death. There's plenty of documentation on the Gnostic writings if you're interested in looking at that.

You really dont believe that God really spoke to the authors?

Which writes a note: the pen or the penman ? God used the prophets and apostles to speak His Word.

If it were just men writing, how do you explain fulfilled prophecy ? Man cannot see into the future. Are you familiar with any of the 300+ prophecies of Jesus to show that He is who He said He is ??

According to parts of the Old Testament, as believers in God we are all his children. (I'll edit this later with the reference).

I look forward to that reference -- esp. since in the Old Covenant only the Jews were the chosen of God except for those that chose to forsake their pagan gods and follow the One, True, Living God of Israel.

Why would his lie necessarily led to other's deaths?

They died for their faith in Him. Paul was beheaded for his witness for Christ. Peter was crucified upside-down. Stephen was stoned to death. The list goes on. These men walked with Him. These men would've gone to their deaths believing and promoting a lie.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? A college student?

Actually, I'm a card-carryin' old guy. I'm a 38 year old, very happily married man, with 3 beautiful little girls that are a complete joy. As for college: I was in college for way too long.

[Spirited Away]

This is relevant to the original discussion, how one Christian thinks Christianity should be practiced:

"Everybody thinks of changing humanity and nobody thinks of changing himself."
--Leo Tolstoy

[sdingfelder]

Acid Bath Slayer
How many grains of sand make up all the islands of Hawaii ?

What is the average number of hairs on a full-grown Tibetan yak ?

Clearly, you cannot answer these questions because you do not have absolute knowledge. Did you know that Thomas Edison said, "We do not know one-milliionth of one percent about anything" ? You can agree or disagree with this, but clearly you know nowhere near all there is to know.

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you know a whopping 1% of ALL there is know. Wouldn't you agree that in the 99% of what you don't know and haven't come across yet, that this could be where evidence resides that proves God's existence ? Wouldn't you agree that the 1% of absolute knowledge you hold onto so tightly has kept from seeing the other 99% ?

I hope you'd agree that you have nowhere near absolute knowledge. Therefore, you're left with less-than-absolute knowledge. So, instead of saying your an atheist (there is no God), you must be an agnostic (just not sure).

More quotes:
Sir Isaac Newton said, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Scientist Stephen Hawking is his book, A Brief History of Time said, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Albert Einstein didn't believe in the God of the Bible, but he wasn't a fool. He knew that there was a Creator. He said, "God does not play dice [with the universe]." "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is
manifest in the laws of the Universe--a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble." (The Quotable Einstein, p. 152).

Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research so rightly stated: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Sir Arthur Keith (Sir Arthur Keith wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species) said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."

Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous British journalist and philosopher said, "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future." (The End of Christendom, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1980, page 59).

Dr. T. N. Tah-misian of the Atomic Energy Commission said, "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."

"Paleontologists have discovered a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry that is likely to force science to revise, if not scrap, current theories of human origins." USA Today March 21, 2001

Reuters reported that the discovery left "scientists of human evolution…confused," saying, "Lucy may not even be a direct human ancestor after all."

Bottom line is that I fear for you. You might not care about that, but I see you jumping out of an airplane with no parachute cursing God and the law of gravity for taking you down. Please don't continue along the path of self-righteousness (seeing yourself as right and not seeing yourself the way God sees you) and rejection of the God that gave you life. I certainly don't expect you to respond saying, "Yes !! I see now !! You're right !!" But, consider that every day that He gives you breath is a chance for you to call out to Him and ask Him to forgive you for your anger toward Him and to repent and give your life to Him.

You can't guarantee that you'll wake up tomorrow. Please don't put your head on your pillow tonight without getting right with God.

Spirited Away

This is relevant to the original discussion, how one Christian thinks Christianity should be practiced:

"Everybody thinks of changing humanity and nobody thinks of changing himself."
--Leo Tolstoy

Interesting quote. I'm not sure if you're just asking for my opinion on it, though.

Do you believe that this quote indicates something significant to someone who calls himself / herself a Christian ?

To me, it immediately implies humanism. Since I hold to a Biblical worldview, I see little truth to Tolstoy's statement. The little bit of truth I do see is that everyone does want to change others before changes occur within themselves. Jesus Himself said this in that people will always look to the speck in someone else's eye before looking to the log in their own.

As for "changing himself", I don't believe anyone can change themselves. Deep down to the core, people will lean toward doing that which is unacceptable to the Lord. You don't have to teach a little child to lie. They do it simply because it seems right. Only God can truly change someone. I know men who've had $300 a day cocaine habits that stopped and turned on a dime because they repented and put their trust in Jesus Christ. I know others that have similar victories over alcohol, smoking, pornography, etc. They will immediately tell anyone that they'd tried to change themselves before, but it never "stuck".

So, I don't believe anyone can change themselves for a lasting change. It's a temporary patch, if that. Only the God who calls Himself "The Beginning and the End" can do an everlasting work in someone since He always was, is, and always will be.

For anyone else reading
Please don't get lost in the details here.

The important thing is your eternal destiny.

Do you think you're going to Heaven when you die ? Are you 100% sure you'll make it ? What does it take to get there ? Do you think it's based on being a "good person" ? Are you a "good person" ? If you've lied, stolen, used the Lord's Name in vain, looked at someone with lustful thoughts, then you're a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. This is how God sees you and you will be found guilty of breaking just those 4 of His Ten Commandments. Please consider your eternal destiny. Where would a guilty sentence send you ? That answer should fill you with fear, but knowing that God didn't want that for you and knowing what He did so that wouldn't happen to you should fill you with tears. He sent His Son to die on a cross to pay your fine and He raised Him from the grave and defeated death so that you could escape the wrath to come. Please don't let your pride in thinking that you can merit your way into Heaven keep you from humbling yourself and looking to Him for something you can't do yourself. Please.

[NoSex]

Acid Bath Slayer
How many grains of sand make up all the islands of Hawaii ?

What is the average number of hairs on a full-grown Tibetan yak ?

Clearly, you cannot answer these questions because you do not have absolute knowledge. Did you know that Thomas Edison said, "We do not know one-milliionth of one percent about anything" ? You can agree or disagree with this, but clearly you know nowhere near all there is to know.

No shit.

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you know a whopping 1% of ALL there is know. Wouldn't you agree that in the 99% of what you don't know and haven't come across yet, that this could be where evidence resides that proves God's existence ?

Yes. But the likelihood of such evidence existing is rather minimal. Not to mention, such evidence has no yet been found, until such, should we not suspend our belief? In the same vain, could there not be, within that 99% an irrefutable proof against the existence of all gods whatsoever? Further, could there not just as easily be proof that any other number of god/goddesses/etc exist? How exactly is any of this relavent to your argument, and why have you ignored all my questions and propositions?

Wouldn't you agree that the 1% of absolute knowledge you hold onto so tightly has kept from seeing the other 99% ?

I would love to ask you the same, and I would further love to point out how meaningless this question is to the whole of the debate. Way to be irrelavent always.

I hope you'd agree that you have nowhere near absolute knowledge. Therefore, you're left with less-than-absolute knowledge. So, instead of saying your an atheist (there is no God), you must be an agnostic (just not sure).

Uhhmmm. No. Your ignorance is boundless and your arrogance could serve as a monument to human failure. Are you serious? Learn some etymology, lets work at not defining things so narrowly. Further, your argument from denotation is just a distraction, a boring one at that.

The "privative a" means "without." Atheism literally means, without god. In it's oldest and most pure forms it meant a simple lack of belief. This meaning remains with the active denial in all gods because of etymological importance and practicality. Agnostic means, literally, without knowledge. It's an epistemological theory, it posits what man can not know. Atheism and theism posits what we believe. Big difference, learn it. They are not mutually exclusive.

Further, your argument, so short sighted and recycled, has clearly never been closely analysized by yourself. In the most embarrassing application, it defeats the theory of agnosticism quite swiftly. How could we ever possibly know that we could never know a spiritual truth? Skepticism hasn't always been the most perfect epistemological position, I prefer rationalism, what about yourself?

So, I'll ask you this, why should I take you seriously?

[P.S. What exactly do you think your quotes prove?]

[kimmytree]

Acid Bath Slayer
How many grains of sand make up all the islands of Hawaii ?

What is the average number of hairs on a full-grown Tibetan yak ?

Clearly, you cannot answer these questions because you do not have absolute knowledge. Did you know that Thomas Edison said, "We do not know one-milliionth of one percent about anything" ? You can agree or disagree with this, but clearly you know nowhere near all there is to know.

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you know a whopping 1% of ALL there is know. Wouldn't you agree that in the 99% of what you don't know and haven't come across yet, that this could be where evidence resides that proves God's existence ? Wouldn't you agree that the 1% of absolute knowledge you hold onto so tightly has kept from seeing the other 99% ?

I hope you'd agree that you have nowhere near absolute knowledge. Therefore, you're left with less-than-absolute knowledge. So, instead of saying your an atheist (there is no God), you must be an agnostic (just not sure).

More quotes:
Sir Isaac Newton said, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Scientist Stephen Hawking is his book, A Brief History of Time said, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Albert Einstein didn't believe in the God of the Bible, but he wasn't a fool. He knew that there was a Creator. He said, "God does not play dice [with the universe]." "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is
manifest in the laws of the Universe--a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble." (The Quotable Einstein, p. 152).

Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research so rightly stated: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Sir Arthur Keith (Sir Arthur Keith wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species) said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."

Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous British journalist and philosopher said, "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future." (The End of Christendom, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1980, page 59).

Dr. T. N. Tah-misian of the Atomic Energy Commission said, "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."

"Paleontologists have discovered a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry that is likely to force science to revise, if not scrap, current theories of human origins." USA Today March 21, 2001

Reuters reported that the discovery left "scientists of human evolution…confused," saying, "Lucy may not even be a direct human ancestor after all."

Bottom line is that I fear for you. You might not care about that, but I see you jumping out of an airplane with no parachute cursing God and the law of gravity for taking you down. Please don't continue along the path of self-righteousness (seeing yourself as right and not seeing yourself the way God sees you) and rejection of the God that gave you life. I certainly don't expect you to respond saying, "Yes !! I see now !! You're right !!" But, consider that every day that He gives you breath is a chance for you to call out to Him and ask Him to forgive you for your anger toward Him and to repent and give your life to Him.

You can't guarantee that you'll wake up tomorrow. Please don't put your head on your pillow tonight without getting right with God.

Spirited Away

Interesting quote. I'm not sure if you're just asking for my opinion on it, though.

Do you believe that this quote indicates something significant to someone who calls himself / herself a Christian ?

To me, it immediately implies humanism. Since I hold to a Biblical worldview, I see little truth to Tolstoy's statement. The little bit of truth I do see is that everyone does want to change others before changes occur within themselves. Jesus Himself said this in that people will always look to the speck in someone else's eye before looking to the log in their own.

As for "changing himself", I don't believe anyone can change themselves. Deep down to the core, people will lean toward doing that which is unacceptable to the Lord. You don't have to teach a little child to lie. They do it simply because it seems right. Only God can truly change someone. I know men who've had $300 a day cocaine habits that stopped and turned on a dime because they repented and put their trust in Jesus Christ. I know others that have similar victories over alcohol, smoking, pornography, etc. They will immediately tell anyone that they'd tried to change themselves before, but it never "stuck".

So, I don't believe anyone can change themselves for a lasting change. It's a temporary patch, if that. Only the God who calls Himself "The Beginning and the End" can do an everlasting work in someone since He always was, is, and always will be.

For anyone else reading
Please don't get lost in the details here.

The important thing is your eternal destiny.

Do you think you're going to Heaven when you die ? Are you 100% sure you'll make it ? What does it take to get there ? Do you think it's based on being a "good person" ? Are you a "good person" ? If you've lied, stolen, used the Lord's Name in vain, looked at someone with lustful thoughts, then you're a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. This is how God sees you and you will be found guilty of breaking just those 4 of His Ten Commandments. Please consider your eternal destiny. Where would a guilty sentence send you ? That answer should fill you with fear, but knowing that God didn't want that for you and knowing what He did so that wouldn't happen to you should fill you with tears. He sent His Son to die on a cross to pay your fine and He raised Him from the grave and defeated death so that you could escape the wrath to come. Please don't let your pride in thinking that you can merit your way into Heaven keep you from humbling yourself and looking to Him for something you can't do yourself. Please.

Now you're just trying to scare people into thinking "omg - I dont want to go to Hell! I better say I believe that then".

To me, thats one of the major flaws in the Christian faith. So many people are witnessed to, and come out of the situation scared to death that they're going to Hell. And usually, they end up "accepting" Christ out of fear, instead of truly believing in him.

And you cant deny thats not true. I go to a Christian school, and I sit in Chapel (which is basically a church service) every single day. Every day the same thing is preached - salvation. And every day at the end of the service, we spend a good 5 minutes praying, and the preacher wanting kids to raise their hands. You wouldnt believe how many new kids are scared into raising their hands the first day of school. Its pathetic.

Even more pathetic, people end up targeting children. I know so many kids that are Christians, and have been since they were 3 and 4 years old. They dont know any different. You can make a little kid believe anything.

[Spirited Away]

Spirited Away
Interesting quote. I'm not sure if you're just asking for my opinion on it, though.
Do you believe that this quote indicates something significant to someone who calls himself / herself a Christian ?
To me, it immediately implies humanism. Since I hold to a Biblical worldview, I see little truth to Tolstoy's statement. The little bit of truth I do see is that everyone does want to change others before changes occur within themselves. Jesus Himself said this in that people will always look to the speck in someone else's eye before looking to the log in their own.
As for "changing himself", I don't believe anyone can change themselves. Deep down to the core, people will lean toward doing that which is unacceptable to the Lord. You don't have to teach a little child to lie. They do it simply because it seems right. Only God can truly change someone. I know men who've had $300 a day cocaine habits that stopped and turned on a dime because they repented and put their trust in Jesus Christ. I know others that have similar victories over alcohol, smoking, pornography, etc. They will immediately tell anyone that they'd tried to change themselves before, but it never "stuck".
So, I don't believe anyone can change themselves for a lasting change. It's a temporary patch, if that. Only the God who calls Himself "The Beginning and the End" can do an everlasting work in someone since He always was, is, and always will be.
For anyone else reading
Please don't get lost in the details here.

The important thing is your eternal destiny.

Do you think you're going to Heaven when you die ? Are you 100% sure you'll make it ? What does it take to get there ? Do you think it's based on being a "good person" ? Are you a "good person" ? If you've lied, stolen, used the Lord's Name in vain, looked at someone with lustful thoughts, then you're a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. This is how God sees you and you will be found guilty of breaking just those 4 of His Ten Commandments. Please consider your eternal destiny. Where would a guilty sentence send you ? That answer should fill you with fear, but knowing that God didn't want that for you and knowing what He did so that wouldn't happen to you should fill you with tears. He sent His Son to die on a cross to pay your fine and He raised Him from the grave and defeated death so that you could escape the wrath to come. Please don't let your pride in thinking that you can merit your way into Heaven keep you from humbling yourself and looking to Him for something you can't do yourself. Please.

I was not fishing for your opinion alone, ScottD, as I stated that the quote was relevant to the original discussion, anyone can have their say about it. That, and I'm don't know who you are, nor have I read through this thread to see what you have to say so far, so I'll just reply to what it is you have to say to me.

Humanistic views from a Christian, I suppose it bothered you. The "little bit of truth" you saw, that everyone wants to change others and not themselves, was the whole point of the quote. What else did you see in it? Where is the big untruth?

Tolstoy is not suggesting for a person change himself, so there is no need to worry about whether or not man can change, though I would argue that he can in the same way that a dead beat Dad finds that his children are his life and returns to them, and a rebellious kid matures into reliable family man. Children do not lie because it seems right, they lie out of fear, anger, curiosity, or mischievousness, because they do not know what is right and what is wrong. Older children who do lie because "it seems right" are, obviously, very troubled.

As you know troubled men who turned to Christ and become less troubled, I know men who achieved the same simply because they believed in themselves or in those who loves them. You may attribute these men's success to God's love, but I, as someone who wants to believe in man, will give their strong wills and passion for life the credit. To each his own.

What Tolstoy is conveying here can be parallel to the proverbial "practice what you preach", and that a person should not implore a change in others while he has yet to change. The Christian faith teaches that God is the only one who can judge man. Yet, by asking people to accept/evangelizing God and His laws is an act of judgement in itself. Why ask someone to convert if a Christian is not judging that the person is believing in untruths?

If God sees me as badly as you have said (blasphemous... etc), I see that because He designed me with the weakness to become those things, He should have no grounds complaint.

-----
I didn't mean for this response to be so long, sorry. I get bored with long posts, too, so bear with me people/whoever's reading.

[kimmytree]

If God sees me as badly as you have said (blasphemous... etc), I see that because He designed me with the weakness to become those things, He should have no grounds complaint.

Wow, very well said.

[sdingfelder]

Acid Bath Slayer, you had mentioned earlier that there other locations on this website that deal specifically with Creation vs. evolution. Could I trouble you to give me the link to it, please ?

Now you're just trying to scare people into thinking "omg - I dont want to go to Hell! I better say I believe that then".

To me, thats one of the major flaws in the Christian faith. So many people are witnessed to, and come out of the situation scared to death that they're going to Hell. And usually, they end up "accepting" Christ out of fear, instead of truly believing in him.

And you cant deny thats not true. I go to a Christian school, and I sit in Chapel (which is basically a church service) every single day. Every day the same thing is preached - salvation. And every day at the end of the service, we spend a good 5 minutes praying, and the preacher wanting kids to raise their hands. You wouldnt believe how many new kids are scared into raising their hands the first day of school. Its pathetic.

If someone had no concept of gravity and had no clue what would happen if they jumped out of a plane at 25,000 feet, what would be the best way to get them to put on a parachute ? Would you simply discuss the concept while within the pressurized cabin drinking your soda and eating your peanuts ? Would you tell them that the parachute will improve their flight or make it, somehow, more comfortable ? Or, rather, would you open the door, hang them outside for a few seconds, and let them understand what would happen if they were to step out of their comfortable surroundings ?

"Hell-fire" preaching is one thing. It produces those you mentioned ("I don't want to go to Hell") -- fear-filled converts. This kind of preaching simply presents someone with the desire to jump out of the line going to Hell and into the line going to Heaven. They have no problem with going to Heaven. They most likely, though, still don't want to be around God.

Then there's the kind of modern evangelical preaching that simply says that you should "accept Jesus into your heart" because only He can provide true peace, happiness, joy, etc.. No mention of what would happen without the parachute on. Jesus is used simply as a means to make the flight more comfortable. This is in no way Biblical and the fruit borne of it is false converts. They say they're Christians, but there's no commitment to the One who has done so much for them. Once they perceive hard times (their flight gets some turbulence), they reject the jesus that was supposed to make their flight smooth and say, "Yeah. I was a Christian, but it just didn't stick." They rip the parachute from their back feeling offended that the person who told them about it was a liar. They'll certainly never put THAT thing back on again.

Biblical Evangelism is always Law to the proud, Grace to the humble. This is how the Old Covenant and the New Covenant show it to be done. Since I know you don't believe the Bible, I guess this probably doesn't mean much. But, as a Bible-Believer, my desire is to do things the way the Bible says to. So, when sharing the Truth about Christ with others, the Law is used to show people of the "jump" to come -- off this Earth and into eternity -- only one of two places to go according to the Bible. Once this is understood and there's a desire for someone to turn away from those sins that have led them away from the Lord, the gift that God has made available can be presented. At that point, the person who truly understands that they deserve judgment is going to come to the cross as a tear-filled convert knowing what God did in order to allow them to be with Him.

The first brings people who just want to avoid judgment. The second brings people looking for some sort of spiritual guarantee of their life here on Earth. The last brings people who have humble gratitude and want to thank the One who makes it possible to be with Him.

Even more pathetic, people end up targeting children. I know so many kids that are Christians, and have been since they were 3 and 4 years old. They dont know any different. You can make a little kid believe anything.

Do you make a distinction between the following: (1) "targeting" other people's children and (2) raising your own children with your own beliefs ?

If God sees me as badly as you have said (blasphemous... etc), I see that because He designed me with the weakness to become those things, He should have no grounds complaint.

But, don't you see that His "design" for you also included the ability to know not to do those things ? It included a conscience that should lead you to grieve that you've done a countless number of things to offend and deny the God that gave you life. In performing those acts of rebellion against Him, you actively reject Him. The "design" was that you would have a choice either to follow what you know to be right or to make a choice against the One who wants you to follow with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.

Years ago, there was a case of rape in South Florida and the judge literally ruled that it was the woman's fault for dressing the way she did. How unconscionable is that !!?? Because the guy who got away with it was "made" with that weakness, do you think that the judge should have no grounds for convicting ? Clearly, this judge's rule was flat-out wrong. There's no excuse for that to happen to anyone. No judge worth his appointment would ever allow for a crime to occur without due penalty. As a good and righteous Judge, He will bring right justice.

Have you ever been given a ticket for speeding and you just didn't know the speed limit ? Even ignorance of the law is no excuse. But in His Mercy, He did give each person a conscience to know that they've gone against His Will.

[Spirited Away]

But, don't you see that His "design" for you also included the ability to know not to do those things ? It included a conscience that should lead you to grieve that you've done a countless number of things to offend and deny the God that gave you life. In performing those acts of rebellion against Him, you actively reject Him. The "design" was that you would have a choice either to follow what you know to be right or to make a choice against the One who wants you to follow with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.
Years ago, there was a case of rape in South Florida and the judge literally ruled that it was the woman's fault for dressing the way she did. How unconscionable is that !!?? Because the guy who got away with it was "made" with that weakness, do you think that the judge should have no grounds for convicting ? Clearly, this judge's rule was flat-out wrong. There's no excuse for that to happen to anyone. No judge worth his appointment would ever allow for a crime to occur without due penalty. As a good and righteous Judge, He will bring right justice.
Have you ever been given a ticket for speeding and you just didn't know the speed limit ? Even ignorance of the law is no excuse. But in His Mercy, He did give each person a conscience to know that they've gone against His Will.

You said, and I quote, that if I've lied, stolen, used the Lord's Name in vain, looked at someone with lustful thoughts, then I am a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. While He instilled in me the the ability not to do those things, He also gave me the weakness to be tempted and seduced by them. Put a cookie in front of a child and he/she will reach for it. He created us in His image, but we do not inherit His Perfection, therefore, He should not fault us for the sins that we were too weak "at heart", too imperfect, to reject.

There is no excuse for that to happen to anyone, you're absolutely right, but there is reason for it. Note that reasons do not excuse, they simply explain. The rapist, in his weak, troubled mind, rejected his conscience, plain and simple. What made him weak if not his own imperfections?

If God is a good and righteous Judge as you say, He will indeed grant true justice, taken all things in consideration, including our deficiencies.

Ignorance of the law is not excusable, but it is a reason why I would have been caught speeding. Who made me ignorant? Myself, perhaps, but my imperfections guided me.

[sdingfelder]

Note that reasons do not excuse, they simply explain.

I couldn't agree with you more.

If you tell a child not to touch a hot stove, the reason they touch it is because of their temptation -- their desire to "see for themselves". Having that reason doesn't mean they don't get burned.

In the same way, standing in front of a judge and giving the reason/reasons for breaking the law doesn't take away the penalty for breaking those laws. In fact, explaining to a judge any reason for breaking a crime is simply an indictment that you actually did perform the crime. In effect, saying that to a judge is almost as good as saying, "Yes, Judge, I did break the law, but let me tell you why." You make the judge's job that much easier in admitting guilt.

While He instilled in me the the ability not to do those things, He also gave me the weakness to be tempted and seduced by them.

If you truly believe this, then the weaknesses you've given into could've been overcome if you'd looked more to the God-instilled ability to not do them. It's easier not to listen to your conscience, though. The conscience (unless it's been seared into an inaudibility) has been given as an early warning system -- it goes off as you're about to give into some form of weakness. It sounds off to try to keep you away from those temptations.

If God is a good and righteous Judge as you say, He will indeed grant true justice, taken all things in consideration, including our deficiencies.

...and please remember that in taking all things into consideration, He did give each person an internal alarm that goes off when we're about to give into something that may require a reason or an excuse.

Does anyone ever regret doing the right thing ? How about looking back and thinking they shouldn't have done something like lie or steal ? Speaking for myself, of course, there are many things I wish I could've done differently. And each one of them boils down to not esteeming the other person as much as I did myself (which Jesus said was the 2nd greatest Commandment). I regret those things because my conscience tells me it was wrong to have done them.

[Mulder]

ahh, i missed a page. i'll try to catch up as best I can.

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one". Please study the word "one" in this verse. It is the Hebrew word "echad" which is also used in Genesis 2:24. Ask yourself how "echad" can possibly mean "one and only one".

i said i was lazy, not stupid. ive been at some form of jewish education since...birth. i just don't go to synagogue, or pray... or be jewish. let's just say i'm athiest.

Even more pathetic, people end up targeting children. I know so many kids that are Christians, and have been since they were 3 and 4 years old. They dont know any different. You can make a little kid believe anything.

i completely agree. that's how i ended up as an...athiest. I was raised as jew, and never questioned it until after my batmitzvah. I don't regret having one... but I do regret knowing that it meant absolutely nothing to me, and probably never will.
the same goes for anyone raised as an evangelical...christian or messianic jew. Children don't question whether God is there or not, because they are innocent, and trusting. And sometimes people take advantage of the trusting nature of children. I myself have been corrupted by my parents. I still spout sayings that I know to be false only because my mom told me they were true. Doesn't the same go for a child and a religion?

I'm just curious (because the Jewish community considers jews for jesus taboo), were you raised in a jewish environment or a messianic one? I wouldn't question your beliefs if you were raised in a jewish environment, but I definitely would consider your family's effect on you if it's the latter.

I myself have decided, after visiting Israel and feeling no faith whatsoever, to take 2 years off of religion, and see where I end up. I think thats the only way to separate your beliefs from your parents.

[sdingfelder]

Good morning, insomniac.

In no way did I mean to imply that you were stupid. If it came off that way, please forgive me. The reason I mentioned the Shema is because we were talking about how you can believe in Messiah and still believe that God is One.

The Hebrew word "echad" means "composite one". God uses this word to describe Himself in the Shema, but the same word is used to describe a husband and wife after being married in Genesis 2:24. If "echad" means "one and only one", there's no way that a husband and wife could ever become "echad".

I'm just curious (because the Jewish community considers jews for jesus taboo), were you raised in a jewish environment or a messianic one?

I was definitely not raised with any knowledge of Messianic Judaism. The name "Jesus" was worse than a 4-letter curse word in my home. My father had no tolerance for anything Christian. He was the president of our synogogue (a Conservative one) for a number of years (this was a political position and not a religious one -- he wasn't a rabbi) but something happened that got him so angry that we simply stopped going to shul.

Really, all we ever did growing up was hold Passover and Channukah. In those, though there was zero opening of Tanach - zero reading of Scripture. It wasn't until I was much older that I actually started reading Tanach for myself -- this only after realizing that it was not authored by men. When I actually read the Exodus for myself, I realized that these were MY people that had to sprinkle the lamb's blood on their doorposts and walked on dry land after the Red Sea was parted. Your people, too.

Being Jewish growing up never meant anything except that I was separated from 95% of my friends because they had no idea why I couldn't eat bread for 8 days. My parents never even explained to me what being Jewish meant. It was hollow tradition.

I coudn't encourage you enough to please read Tanach for yourself. Read Isaiah (Yeshayahu) 53 (written over 700 years before Messiah's birth) and see who it clearly refers to. Read Zechariah 12:10, Zechariah 9:9, Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6. After you're done with those, there are plenty more to follow -- if you're at all interested.

Prove to yourself why the first people who followed Christ (which is simply Greek for Messiah) were Jewish people. Please.

[Spirited Away]

Yes! Haha, they will get burned and they will learn from it. We are curious creatures "at heart". I still don't understand how, if God gave us the ability to be curious (among other things), and to learn, that He would punish us for the bad things that result from our learning. Isn't that like, making me to learn to cook and try out recipes and even mixing them, and then yell at me or punish me** when the food tastes bad.

If you can hold off responding to me until the next time I post in here, I'd appreciate it. I'm not done with my thoughts on your latest response yet, but I am pressed to study for three impending finals this week. I always like to be thorough with debates.

Until then, have a good week.

**In some cultures, and even in mainstream thought, if a girl can't cook, she isn't "wife" material. <-- a kind of punishment, in my opinion.

--------------
Cont'd.

If you truly believe this, then the weaknesses you've given into could've been overcome if you'd looked more to the God-instilled ability to not do them. It's easier not to listen to your conscience, though. The conscience (unless it's been seared into an inaudibility) has been given as an early warning system -- it goes off as you're about to give into some form of weakness. It sounds off to try to keep you away from those temptations.

Is it really easy to not listen to conscience? If my conscience exists to tell me the right things, and I know they are right, why would it be hard to listen? Because of weakness. What else? Weakness that comes from our imperfection. To overcome imperfection, to be perfect? No one can be perfect except God.

Does anyone ever regret doing the right thing ? How about looking back and thinking they shouldn't have done something like lie or steal ? Speaking for myself, of course, there are many things I wish I could've done differently. And each one of them boils down to not esteeming the other person as much as I did myself (which Jesus said was the 2nd greatest Commandment). I regret those things because my conscience tells me it was wrong to have done them.

Actually, I did regret doing the right thing once. My conscience agreed with me at the time, that I should tell the truth about my Aunts' feud to my niece so that she can be prepared to face their rivalry. Keeping quiet when she asked would have been 1) lying, 2) putting her in a situation where she doesn't know where she stands, and 3) confusing the shit out of her. Now she's pulled into this crazy game of tug-o-war, and what's worse, she's taking sides. I thought that was the right thing at the time, but I guess what's "right", even by our conscience standards, is questionable at times. "Right" and "conscience", is rather subjective, and can be fickles things.

Your point is very well made. In no way would I ever imply that you have to be Christian to care about others. Even worse, I'd have to be blind to say that all those who call themselves "Christian" do care about others.

But, being a Christian is first-and-foremost about caring about God and the things that are important to Him. And what's important to Him is that people turn from that which takes them away from Him -- their sin -- and that they turn to Him.

I have nothing to gain from writing these words. I'm certainly not winning a popularity contest. In fact, if you want to win a popularity contest do NOT do what I'm doing.

I don't know if you're married, but if your spouse were to write you a bunch of love letters and you never even opened the envelopes, how unkind would that be ? God could have left us all guessing as to what He requires to be with Him, but He didn't. He gave us 66 Books that tell us how loving, kind, good, and righteous He is. The Bible says He takes no pleasure in the death of the those who reject Him.

I actually read this from a Harvard Case Study about an Ophthalmologist in India who devoted his life to helping as many blind people in India as he can. I did not have time to go back and read the title nor look for the author as it was a case study we had to read before answering a series of service related questions for my Service Operations final.

The Ophthalmologist said "You do not have to be religious to serve God, you can serve humanity and serve God." He is a devoted Christian who believes that God gave him the purpose and the means to help people, yet he can say that we do not need to be religious to be useful to God. He summed up my beliefs in one sentence, that man.

The love letters may be left unopened. True unconditional love for a person need not to be returned in kind. If I am a mother and my children hates me for whatever reason and I love them even in their hate and with their flaws, wouldn't you call that unconditional love? Yes, it would be nice if they reciprocate my feelings, but my love for them shouldn't change if I can say I love them unconditionally.

If there are conditions to by loved by Him, then who is the one not being fair here?

[sdingfelder]

If you can hold off responding to me until the next time I post in here, I'd appreciate it. I'm not done with my thoughts on your latest response yet, but I am pressed to study for three impending finals this week. I always like to be thorough with debates.

Until then, have a good week.

I look forward to your additional thoughts, Spirited Away.

I hope you do well on your finals...

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Post edited: 12/28/06 (after Spirited Away's continuation)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Is it really easy to not listen to conscience? If my conscience exists to tell me the right things, and I know they are right, why would it be hard to listen? Because of weakness. What else? Weakness that comes from our imperfection. To overcome imperfection, to be perfect? No one can be perfect except God.

How many times have you heard someone say that they believe they're going to make it Heaven because they "did the best they could" ? Your understanding of "weakness" here is the exact reason that people don't do the "best they could" because they could ALWAYS have done a little better. They could always have turned away from something their conscience told them to. Instead, they reject their conscience by giving an excuse that they're weak and that they're not perfect. They succumb to that which their conscience tells them to reject.

You're right that there none perfect except God. But unless you understand the due judgement coming to each person who's broken His Commandments, then you cannot understand His boundless Mercy and Grace in paying the fine for those transgressions that we've all committed.

The only Book to show itself to be archeologically, historically, and prophetically accurate gives details about the One, True God and His requirement for perfection. If anyone thinks that the good works they perform are "good enough" to warrant His approval, then they're looking to self-righteousness and not His righteousness.

Actually, I did regret doing the right thing once. My conscience agreed with me at the time, that I should tell the truth about my Aunts' feud to my niece so that she can be prepared to face their rivalry. Keeping quiet when she asked would have been 1) lying, 2) putting her in a situation where she doesn't know where she stands, and 3) confusing the shit out of her. Now she's pulled into this crazy game of tug-o-war, and what's worse, she's taking sides. I thought that was the right thing at the time, but I guess what's "right", even by our conscience standards, is questionable at times. "Right" and "conscience", is rather subjective, and can be fickles things.

That is unfortunate that it didn't work out the way you wanted. Even though the outcome wasn't as you'd have liked, though, would you have appreciated someone preparing you for a confrontation that they knew was coming and you didn't ? You showed that you cared for someone.

I actually read this from a Harvard Case Study about an Ophthalmologist in India who devoted his life to helping as many blind people in India as he can. I did not have time to go back and read the title nor look for the author as it was a case study we had to read before answering a series of service related questions for my Service Operations final.

The Ophthalmologist said "You do not have to be religious to serve God, you can serve humanity and serve God." He is a devoted Christian who believes that God gave him the purpose and the means to help people, yet he can say that we do not need to be religious to be useful to God. He summed up my beliefs in one sentence, that man.

Interesting. I hadn't heard about this guy.

The word "religious", though, is so relative. What does it mean to you ? We can all check the dictionary for what Mr. Webster thinks, but I would agree with this guy ("You do not have to be religious to serve God...") since I don't see myself as religious based on my definition based on how I've seen the word used. To me, religion is defined by the outward tradition made by man in order for him to make himself pleasing to God. I don't believe there's anything I can do to make myself pleasing to God. I've broken His Commandments and am a transgressor of His Laws. The only way I'm pleasing to Him is because of the fact that He did something to allow me to approach Him.

"[Y]ou can serve humanity and serve God." What good would it do for me to build Habitat for Humanity homes during every work day and at night burn down the homes of neighboring communities so that there's more room for Habitat homes ? Of course, it wouldn't do any good. My evil deeds would immediately put a black spot on my "good deeds". In the same way, doing nice things for others is great for those it helps, but it means nothing to God as I continue to break His Commandments which He gave along with the knowledge not to break them.

The love letters may be left unopened. True unconditional love for a person need not to be returned in kind. If I am a mother and my children hates me for whatever reason and I love them even in their hate and with their flaws, wouldn't you call that unconditional love? Yes, it would be nice if they reciprocate my feelings, but my love for them shouldn't change if I can say I love them unconditionally.

If there are conditions to by loved by Him, then who is the one not being fair here?

First, who ever said that God gave unconditional love ? Even when He gave the Commandments to Moses, there were conditions. He specifically said that IF you keep these Commandments, you'll be blessed. He also said that if you do not keep them, you'll receive His judgment.

Unconditional love is a wonderful and beautiful concept, but it doesn't apply to a Holy and Righteous God.

Second, any parent who wants to bless their child with gifts would find themselves creating a monster if they continually give those gifts without expecting the child to be pleasing to them. How can a parent expect the child to come back to a right relationship if wrong behavior supplies the child's desires ? There's no incentive for the child to end that which is displeasing the parent. The logical conclusion is that the gifts must stop until the child turns away from that which is not pleasing to the parent.

Please don't forget that the parent's job is to protect and raise the child. When I say that the child must do that which pleases the parent, I mean that the fundamental and foundational desire of the parent is to do what's best for the child. I tell my children not to run in a parking lot NOT because I don't want them to enjoy the gift of being able to run, jump, and play. I tell them not to run in the parking lot because I know there's danger. In the same way, God's Commandments tell us not to do things that He knows are hurtful and dangerous.

Remember, also, that the parent that has the child that "hates them for whatever reason" has got to be broken-hearted that they don't have a loving relationship with their child. That parent's greatest desire is to bless their child with awesome gifts, but (again) how can disobedience be rewarded ?? This is more like how God looks to those who have rejected His Son and do not repent of the transgressions they've committed.

[kimmytree]

If you can hold off responding to me until the next time I post in here, I'd appreciate it. I'm not done with my thoughts on your latest response yet, but I am pressed to study for three impending finals this week. I always like to be thorough with debates.

Same here.

[NoSex]

Acid Bath Slayer, you had mentioned earlier that there other locations on this website that deal specifically with Creation vs. evolution. Could I trouble you to give me the link to it, please ?

Here are a few threads you might be interested in (Sorry to be slow on this.):

The Problem of Free Will
Did Jesus Exist?
Creation or Evolution?
Does God Exist?

Have at it.

[Spirited Away]

I edited my post to keep it all in one place for easy reading. I thought I would have finished in a couple of days time, but school is a scary place. =] I apologize for the wait and the intermission to this thread.

happykmd, if you meant you had finals, too, how did you do?!? I'm still waiting on my grades.

[kimmytree]

^ Eeeeep. All but two kids out of 23 failed the Eng/Lit, so I definately have a F in the class now. I'm not sure about math yet, but I think everything else is okay.

Hopefully you did ok on yours!