My story
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2011, 03:42 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2011 04:37 PM by BlackEyedGhost.)
RE: My story
@the_observer If I found it to be the truth, then to deny it would be stupid. Of course I would accept it. As for common sense, the very phrase is somewhat of an oxymoron. Sense isn't entirely common, so really I'm in search of an uncommon level of sense such as logical thought and an overall more complete understanding. What I meant there wasn't that I see Jesus as the truth so it must be true, but I see Jesus as the truth so the truth should be important to me. The real objective truth, not just what I believe to be true. If you'll notice, Jesus wasn't what I turned to for truth, simply where I found it and to some extent started my search for truth. I've turned many places in search of the truth, this site is one such place. I think your definition is definitely a part of being irrational. I define being irrational as essentially doing things that don't make sense. It depends on which creation story. This is honestly one thing I've yet to study up on. Sorry about my syntax. Phone limitations.
@Gassy Kitten I appreciate your insight and concern. However, I'm not the type to regret anything. The past happened and I can't change it, so I accept it. Even more than that, I even embrace my past mistakes since they've formed who I am today. I take the mistakes I've made and rather than regret them, I learn from them, so as not to repeat them. Growing is something that should never stop. I was growing then when I was 7, I'm growing now, and I hope to continue growing until the day I die. Thanks for the welcome. God bless.
@nontheocrat I'm glad to have someone like you here. In response to your first argument, no I don't think those things are just as bad as eachothher, but compared to the perfection and holiness of God, the difference in their badness is inconsequencial(sp?). Perfection makes anything else look like it's on the same level as murder. The point being we need to constantly try to better ourselves, no matter how good we may be seen. Do you think God would want me to try excavating a mountain by faith? If not, then it can't be done because it wouldn't be by faith. Faith in God is defined the same way as faith in marriage. You forgot that the next part says "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things will be added to you." Jesus doesn't tell us to ignore our needs, He tells us to focus on more important things. Jesus teaching isn't that those who believe escape torture. It's that those who love who He was escape their rightful punishment and get to live with Him for eternity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2011, 05:24 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2011 05:46 PM by BlackEyedGhost.)
RE: My story
@Filox I've looked into alternatives to Young Earth Creationism and believe me when I say they're worse. They're contradictory to themselves and if I were to accept one of them I'd likely have to toss out the credibility of the Bible anyways. Besides, the real issues here are abiogenesis and evolution. Both of which have the same answer of natural impossibility by irreducible complexity. In evolution even if 50 of the steps are possible, all it takes is the 51st to be impossible for the entirety of the theory to be ruined. And there are far more than 51 steps in evolution required to bring about life as we know it today. There are even steps in evolution that can be pointed out that scream impossibility. Such as the junction of abiogenesis and evolution with the original self-replicating life form that also has the potential for evolution. Even the simplest naturalist theory presents more problems than answers. Do you get now why I can't accept evolution as an answer to how life as we know it arose?
@Filox As for proof of a young earth, there aren't really any super set in stone ways of dating things like that. Dating methods are basically a best guess thing. The radio-isotope dating method requires you to first guess the original amount of starting material, assume that no end product was present at the beginning or added at any point throughout, and assume that no starting product was removed at any point. Other dating methods are generally historical based. You must go to historical documents (like the Bible) in order to place anything in a certain time period. This is also best guess and thus open to bias. Other methods are less common but include things like studying other subjects and comparing it with the theories of origins. Such as linguists looking at the phonemes of various languages and dialects to support the "from Africa" theory or people looking at the characters of the Chinese language to support Creationism. The latter is less of a strictly historical method. I might finish later.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2011, 12:57 AM
RE: My story
And STILL you did not give a single evidence for your theories. And Bible is a religious text, not a history book. And why do you all mention only carbon-dating? What about all the other methods, and there are at least 20 more methods? So they are all wrong? If we put it all on the paper, you only believe in Creationism, you do not follow evidence, because there are none. And it all comes back to you being a believer, a religious person, not a man of science, so what's the point in trying to explain your scientific side, when it is all based on belief?

Here is the best article I've seen in some time. Who sad that Stephen Hawking is religious? You poor souls...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/m...NTCMP=SRCH

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2011, 05:20 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2011 05:28 AM by nontheocrat.)
RE: My story
(16-05-2011 03:42 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  In response to your first argument, no I don't think those things are just as bad as eachothher, but compared to the perfection and holiness of God, the difference in their badness is inconsequencial(sp?). Perfection makes anything else look like it's on the same level as murder. The point being we need to constantly try to better ourselves, no matter how good we may be seen.

While you may agree that lusting after someone is not as bad as adultery, I would say that there is nothing wrong with lust at all. It is what you do with it that could make it wrong. I see beautiful girls all the time that I think are attractive, but I never do anything about it because I love my wife. I don't see that as wrong at all. Yet this silly senseless teaching has caused untold suffering for people who are trying to deny healthy, normal sexual desire.

Considering the biblical god's record of murder, condoning slavery and rape. And considering the fact that that in creating Lucifer (while being all-knowing) being fully aware of the devastation he would cause, god is just as much at fault for all sin as the creatures he is supposed to have created. What I am getting at is that I don't see the Christian god as holy. Only as some vengeful being who makes up rules, creates beings that are unable to obey them and requiring blood sacrifice in order to forgive them, pretending that he has no responsibility for the outcome of his creation.

This sounds much more like a con man's scam to get your obedience and money than anything else to me.

(16-05-2011 03:42 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Do you think God would want me to try excavating a mountain by faith? If not, then it can't be done because it wouldn't be by faith. Faith in God is defined the same way as faith in marriage. You forgot that the next part says "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things will be added to you." Jesus doesn't tell us to ignore our needs, He tells us to focus on more important things.

I think you missed the point of the question. I do not think the writer of the gospel intended that anyone would literally move a mountain, but rather that nothing would be impossible to anyone with faith. I grew up in Pentecostal churches where the believers took this to meant that sick would be healed and miracles would happen all the time. If these were the actual words of Jesus and he is who Christians claimed, then there should be no need for hospitals or clinics. Have you tried laying hands on the sick? According to the bible, they will be healed. When I was a church pastor, I had an entire congregation full of sick people, and none were ever healed. I am absolutely certain that many of them had faith, even if I didn't.

Once again, saying that miracles are possible, but then pulling back and saying that "god may not want them to happen" is exactly what a con man would say when creating a scam. I am trying to get you to study the way the universe works and ask how you could tell one with a god from one without one. I say ours behaves like one without a god, so there is no good reasone to think there is.

(16-05-2011 03:42 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Jesus teaching isn't that those who believe escape torture. It's that those who love who He was escape their rightful punishment and get to live with Him for eternity.

Oh, but it is exactly what he is teaching. The concept of "hell" did not exist in the bible prior to New Testament times, and Jesus was the most clear teacher of it's existence. Call it what you want, but he plainly said that those who do not believe in him would be cast into eternal fire where there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. If that doesn't describe torture, then I don't know what would.

As for your use of the term, "rightful punishment", I want you to think about that term. What you (and the gospels) are saying is similar to saying if you have a child who refuses to obey your rules, that a fitting punishment is to chain him/her in the basement and burn them with hot pokers forever. Of course they can escape if they can prove that they love you, but only by sacrificing their common sense and believe what cannot be proved. That's how I see the 'gospel' story.

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2011, 11:57 AM
RE: My story
@Filox Did you even read my post? I gave 3 categories, none of which were carbon dating. I said radio-isotope dating. Radio-carbon dating is but one of many different radio-isotope methods. Also, I gave two other categories. The last one I gave covers the type that you sent me in that link, which, by the way, didn't prove anything except that Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in an afterlife. Beyond that it was basically theory and opinion. In any case, I'm looking into some more things, so please give me a bit of time to build my case before forcing me to answer with evidence of the Genesis creation account.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2011, 12:02 PM
 
RE: My story


Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2011, 12:52 PM
RE: My story
@nontheocrat There's a difference between lusting after someone and admiring their beauty or finding them physically attractive. As you said, it's what you do with those natural things that can become sinful. It seems you and I come from very different churches. A little while ago I was asked to pray for the church offering. I prayed that people would only give to the offering if they thought it was God's will and that those who don't give to the offering will do so for the same reason. Afterwards many people in the church told me how much they liked my prayer. The reason was because at my church, we really want to do God's will and to do what's right objectively. What we don't want is to steal people's money and squander it away on unrighteous things. My church genuinely loves Jesus just as I do. Not because we fear hell, but because we love who He is and what He taught. What you see as God doing evil is something we see we should help save people from, vis-a-vis judgement. So, where does God condone rape?
@bird If that's a video, I can't watch it here. Could you give me a link?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2011, 05:15 PM
RE: My story
(17-05-2011 12:52 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  So, where does God condone rape?

Take a look at Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Numbers 31:17-18, Judges 21:10-24 where the Israelites are told to take the women of the people they conquer and do as with them as they please. What do you think they had in mind?

Then there is Exodus 21:7-11 where not only is it okay for a woman to be forced, she can actually be used as a sex slave, with Gods blessing.

Finally we have Zechariah 14:1-2 where Israel is told that God will see to it that their daughters will be ravished for their idolatry.

I just mentioned rape, but the atrocities of the Christian god in the Old Testament are so numerous that it would be very hard to count them all. If that is holy, I will compare my holiness favorably to his any day of the week. At least I can forgive my children's offenses without requiring anyone to die.

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2011, 06:36 PM
RE: My story
@nontheocrat I went through every one of those passages and at no time did I see God condoning rape although I do see how such passages could give that impression. Allow me to explain. At the point in time when these passages were written, God had already sent Moses with the 10 commandments. This means that as part of the culture it was already wrong to commit adultery. The word used in the original Hebrew language for adultery is likely a word that also includes sexual things such as rape, beastiality, etc. (I'm not certain on that, so I'll look into it) Now in Deut. 20:10-14 all God says is that the women are part of the spoil. This could be interpreted as you interpreted it, but I think the correct interpretation is that the women may become slaves (not meaning sex slaves) or wives to Israelites. Same basic idea applies to the Numbers and Judges passages. In Judges, however, there's also the next part. This part doesn't mention rape, but it talks about the daughters of Shiloh taking part in the dancing.Tbc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2011, 06:56 PM
RE: My story
Sooooo, when Moses tells his men to "keep all virgin women and children for themselves" in Numbers 31:17-18 ...was it because virgin teenagers are notoriously skilled at carpentry or tilling the fields and thus, would make excellent slaves?

"...that have not known a man by lying with him"

Why would a woman's virginity be the deciding factor, if sex wasn't the reward? Even if it is referring to marriage, forced marriage by your captor is still technically rape, it's just that now your rapist is married to you and in biblical terms, that means he now owns you.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: