Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by Jabba-wocky, Aug 1, 2013.

  1. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    No need. Under Christianity we are forbidden to engage in such practices. We can plead with you to ask forgiveness as well as pray for you, but that is all. And if you do say your sorry then all is well.

    Albeit this is what Christians are SUPPOSED to do, not what many ACTUALLY do.

    You keep claiming a need for 'evidence'. You operate on an assumption that you can understand and prove things in this world by observation with your senses. But you have no way of proving what you are seeing or experiencing is true. You have no way to prove anything you see is not just some illusion or dream. There is not one sense you have that is not free from the possibility of being completely false.

    Therefore every belief or assumption you have is based on blind faith that what you see is what you see and is real. There is no 'credible evidence' to rely on your senses for determining reality.

    The only reason I do so is because I have faith that God created and me, and as He said, gifted me with the ability to reason. And has told me He loves and cares for me so he would not deceive me with some lie of a reality.

    I believe in science and trust the scientific method only because I believe God is at the source providing the assurance that what I see and study is true and real and not false. Without God at the basis I have no reason to assume or believe anything is real or valid.
    Sarge likes this.
  2. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    okay so if we took a time machine back to 1 BC and coveted you could stone me?
    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Aug 3, 2013
  3. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    assuming we both had part of our **** chopped off, of course

    What the hell, man?
    Last edited by JoinTheSchwarz, Aug 3, 2013
  4. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    @GenAntilles, what evidence have you seen that indicates the existence of a god? You say our senses are unreliable, and this could all be an elaborate illusion. What if the senses you detected this god with are also unreliable? There is the same level of uncertainty here as you claim there is in science without god.

    I'm calling your bluff. Please show your cards.
  5. MandaloreYak Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 29, 2004
    star 5
    Romans 1 says that the earth itself, and indeed the universe, proves a divine creator. And that is actually all the evidence necessary. Sin blinds humanity to that, as "even though they knew God, they neither glorified him as God, nor gave him thanks," and it goes on from there to say that humans "suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

    So, the only way that you or anyone can come out of this sinful estate which blinds you to God's existence is for God to open your eyes. Apart from that, it won't get done.
  6. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    oh my god... i love calvinism so much
  7. CrazyOldHermit Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 2007
    star 4
    Strange how half the people on this thread seem to have forgotten that the very first post said this was not the place for discussions on the VALIDITY of religion.
  8. MandaloreYak Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 29, 2004
    star 5
    Providing further evidence toward humanity's inherent hatred toward God.
  9. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    i hate the **** out of god. i suspect most of the others itt dont hate god because they dont believe in her and its hard to hate something you dont believe exists
    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Aug 3, 2013
  10. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    i dont believe in god either but im better at hating than most
  11. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. Just like you can't use Batman movies to prove Batman exists. You need empirical, non biased evidence in order to prove the existence of a thing. That's how it works.
  12. CrazyOldHermit Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 2007
    star 4
  13. JoinTheSchwarz Comms Admin & Community Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Nov 21, 2002
    star 8
    Chill out, everyone. Next edit I have to make and I'm kicking you out of the forum.
  14. MandaloreYak Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 29, 2004
    star 5
    Not really. And certainly not on a thread that explicitly stated that the validity of religion isn't on debate here.

    Furthermore, the Bible would instruct me not to even argue at this point against hardened hearts. Not personal at all, but I've had enough of these kinds of debates to see the practical wisdom of that. And I'm tired. So, goodnight.
  15. CrazyOldHermit Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 2007
    star 4
    No disrespect intended to the others or to you JoinTheSchwarz. Things were getting off topic is all.
  16. Sarge Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 1998
    star 4
    The universe is evidence of God. Where did it come from? The big bang? OK. Who set off the big bang? Did it just happen all by itself? There was nobody and nothing and for no reason this nothing exploded and made everything? Watch out, I've got a big handful of nothing here; it might explode! No, if there's a big bang, there must be a big banger. Einstein and Stephen Hawking both refer to God as the originator of the universe, even though they don't claim to know who God is.
  17. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7

    sorry i forgot that was a banned word. its so mild in US parlance
  18. JoinTheSchwarz Comms Admin & Community Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Nov 21, 2002
    star 8
  19. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    Science doesn't pretend to know everything. How could it? But just because there isn't a concrete explanation for something isn't justification for saying "God did it."
  20. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    As said, the beliefs of many other religions are compatible with Christianity, just not all of it is compatible. Studying Hinduism and Taoism and Confucianism has even strengthened my Christian beliefs. Most religions share the same core.

    As for why I'm a Christian, I've told the story of my own subjective experiences before. I never said I had objective proof. But I did have that image from a dream, that later turned up on that website several months later... and many other experiences (that one is just the best story to share, I think I already told you). But most importantly, it was reached through inner reflection and intuition. I believe love is the essence of life, and Christianity comes closest to this truth out of all the religions, and combining that with my experiences, and my intuition, it was an easy choice.

    Also, everything we "know," if you go deep enough to the roots, is based on faith in our subjective beliefs and assumptions, such as your faith that you're not actually dreaming right now, or that any reality at all exists outside your mind.

    And even if you're an atheist, you can't say all these religions are completely false and nonhistorical. And what about religions, like Buddhism, without God?


    Ok, I forgot about those others mentioned in Revelation, but it is still those main 3 that are the only ones every mentioned as certainly going in the fire. And there's also the possibility that the book isn't even a metaphor for the future, but for what was going on under the Romans (preterism). My main point, what I said about it being "aionian" (for ages, not eternal), is true.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Aug 3, 2013
  21. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    It does when it asserts as a positive conclusion that there is no God. Omniscience necessarily would be the only means of establishing that without doubt, at which point one is God or very much like it.
  22. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    when has "science" in any meaningful sense ever claimed that?
    Lord Vivec likes this.
  23. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    Science has never definitively claimed that there is no god. However, there is no objective evidence for the existence of a god, so for all intents and purposes, gods do not exist. Science (and I) will certainly change stances if sufficient evidence is discovered. Ancient books that were written by misogynists and bigots that have been repeatedly translated, edited, retranslated, and reedited do not qualify as objective evidence.
  24. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    Allow me to explain. If I hold the belief that there is no God then I have no reason to assume any of my senses are true and have no reason to believe any evidence I see or experience by my senses are valid or true. All of my senses could be deceived by some meas. I have no ability to prove you exist and aren't simply some figment of my imagination, or that this entire conversation isn't taking place in some dream I'm having. Or even if we are real and not just some SIMs characters in someone's video game. I have to way to prove anything is true.

    Everything therefore I believe is at the core based on faith. I have faith that I really am real and a human being and that the world is as I perceive it. I have faith you are real and that I am having this conversation. I have faith that those things are true, I have no valid evidence to support them but I hold onto them nonetheless.

    Now why do I hold to those beliefs without any sort of evidence? Either I hold that the world is impossible to know, even if there is really a world to know and I'm not simply imagining all of existence, or I accept that there is some force or being who guarantees to me that I can know the world, that I can be sure the world exists, and that I can be sure I can rely on my senses to experience it and make valid observations from it.

    I hold such a being is God, and I hold that such a being has good intentions for me and would not deceive me with a false world or senses that would not be valid. Now granted such a being could also be malicious, perhaps he exists but still does not grant me the ability to perceive reality as it really is, or perhaps there is no reality and everything I think I perceive is not real.

    Therefore I am left with three options.
    1. I can hold there is no God, and therefore have no reason to believe anything I see or experience is true.
    2. I can hold there is a God, but he is malicious and creates a world that is a lie or makes me think I am in a world that does not exist.
    3. I can hold there is a God, and he has my best intentions in mind and therefore would not create me without the ability to experience his creation and see it for what it really is, and that he would desire communion with me and would therefore allow me to be able to reason and comprehend the world around me.


    Now only option three allows me to do anything scientific. With options 1-2 I have no reason to believe experimentation has any validity as evidence. I have no reason to believe there is any evidence at all of anything. Only with option 3 do I have the the assurance that the scientific method is a valid form of testing and observing the world, as it is the only option that enables me to believe what I see is what is.

    Now what evidence do I have that option 3 is the correct option? None at all. 1 and 2 may very well be true. But I choose to believe that option 3 is the case, I have faith that there is a God with my best intentions in mind. And I hold that that God was revealed through the Old and New Testaments. I believe that is the case because God matches my hopes of what such a being would be, God corresponds with my faith in a being who holds my interests at heart and allows me to perceive and understand the world.

    The God of the Bible made man in His image, therefore we have the ability to reason, the ability to understand and seek our Creator and study His creation. The God of the Bible instructed man to oversee his creation, to study and categorize it's life and fauna, therefore the God of the Bible intended us to use science and reason to understand our world. The God of the Bible shows he has our best interests at heart by His actions, in sparing us time and time again as a species and ensuring our continued survival. And most importantly by paying the price for our transgressions and allowing us to be saved from suffering for those transgressions. Do I understand all His actions? No, I would not assume anyone could. The thought process God uses for his actions would dwarf any thought I had in such a way as to make any comparison disrespectful to his intellect.

    Therefore I hold that as the God of the Bible matches the assumptions and hopes I would have for such a being I conclude he is the being for whom I assume is real. A God who seeks man to learn and understand his creation, a God who would not deceive mankind with a false world, and a God who hold's my best interests at heart.

    Do I have any physical evidence? No. But it wouldn't matter. If there was no God then physical evidence would be meaningless to begin with as I have already stated. The only way I can hold any evidence as valid is if I already hold that God is real.
    Last edited by GenAntilles, Aug 3, 2013
    Sarge likes this.
  25. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    Po-tah-to, po-tay-to. That's a pretty disingenuous get-out clause you got there. Get some balls and admit that science is often used in support of the positive assertion that there is no God. Dawkins has spent half his career doing just that. And whether you get to your assertion by positive assertion or the same process one uses to evacuate their bowels, it still is giving science too much credit.
    Last edited by Saintheart, Aug 3, 2013