Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The courts are FILLED with fornicators and adulterers, lots of children that become criminals. I went to court with a minor who needed help and saw juvenile court. Sad. Parents who were single mothers, worked so hard some of them they couldn't take care of their children well. Sad. No fathers around who cared. Many of them drug addicts.
Nobody need prove any religious belief wrong to reject it. Most are unfalsifiable, meaning they cannot be known to be either right or wrong, a condition commonly referred to as "not erven wrong."
What the critical thinker says is that there was no reason to believe that David existed before archeological evidence provided empirical confirmation (scripture is not evidence of anything except that somebody wrote it). Scientific narratives are the simplest explanations that account for all relevant evidence. Before we had evidence that required positing a historical David, there would be no reason to do so, as that idea would not correspond to any aspect of known reality. It's the same with dark matter. It didn't appear in scientific narratives until discoveries were made not explainable without positing a source of gravity (that's the matter part) that doesn't emit or reflect photons (that's the dark part).
The believer needs to provide evidence that the stories are correct if he wants a critical thinking empiricist to believe them, whose claims others are free to reject if he cannot or do not. And he's got his work cut out for him, since several of those many myths have already been falsified by scientific discovery, so the believer needs to demonstrate why he's correct and the scientists are wrong where the two narratives contradict one another.
It a common creationist trope, often in association with mentions of Pasteur and false claims about what his work on spontaneous generation actually demonstrated, which was NOT that life only comes from other life. Naturalistic abiogenesis remains not just a possibility, but a likelihood.
You have repeated several times that you consider God the giver of life, but that answer evades his likely point, which is that even creationists believe in abiogenesis. They believe that there was a first life not created by prior life. Some call their god alive. They believe that the first life was God, and that it didn't come from prior life. Some say that their god is not life - just mind and power that created the first life. They're describing supernaturalistic abiogenesis (biological creationism).
That ship has sailed. It's already been shown to be incorrect in several places.
It an unbelief because he needs a reason to believe something more than a hunch, a gut feeling, or the will to believe by faith. He needs compelling evidence.
Science studies reality. Supernaturalism is fiction about the unreal. When you describe something as being outside of time and space and being undetectable, you're perfectly describing the nonexistent. I like to compare wolves to werewolves. Wolves are real. They can be studied empirically. You can look at one in a given time and place, and it will interact with you even if it doesn't see you if you can see the photons reflecting off of it into your eyes or hear it howling.
Correct. Tests for what exists identify real things when the right detector is in the right place at the right time, and tests for the nonexistent consistently reveal nothing always and everywhere.
What dismissed is your trying to link those events to biblical prophecy. Biblical prophecy is unconvincing except to the person who accepts it all as correct by faith, and all he sees is what he wants to see.
It's not even close to Jesus. From Isaiah 7:
No, they don't. Nobody knows anything about any gods. They make bold claims, but their claims are incredible. You wrote, "I made it my aim to know God my Creator and enjoy fellowship with Him." Sorry, but I don't believe that. Why would I? I know why you do, but I don't decide what's true the way you do.
Most Christians are not literalists. They reject much of the Bible even though they NEVER say that this part or that part is wrong. I haven't ever heard a Christian call any part of the Bible wrong. They just reinterpret the words to make it right, or say that this part or that one no longer applies, or call myths metaphor and allegory instead of what they are. Myths are neither of those things. They're best guesses as to why the world is the way we find it, and biblical myths assume the existence of a tri-omni god. Allegory and metaphor aren't speculation about the past like myth is, and this can't be correct or incorrect. "She was the apple of his eye" is metaphor, but not myth, and cannot be wrong if she is precious to him. It's a statement of fact in poetic form. But God created Adam and Eve is myth, not allegory or metaphor, and it can be and is incorrect.
If you had matured without religion, you wouldn't think in those terms. It was decades ago that I accepted that there may be no afterlife, and I'm perfectly at ease with that. I don't hope for an afterlife, but if I find myself conscious in one, I'll check it out. But the believer has been trained to think that the purpose of life is to get to the right afterlife. He's been taught to hope for an afterlife, without which he has learned that life would be pointless. I've read those words on these threads many times, and your words above say the same.
I'll bet that you think that others admire people living such lives.
None of this thinking appeals to me. Slave? Flesh? Perversions? I don't want my head filled with such thoughts. If I'm a slave, it's to my conscience and my commitment to empiricism and critical thought.
Then you lived unwisely. I lived that life, full of wine, women, and song, as well as traveling extensively, eating in restaurants often, flying to several concerts a year, and collecting art which surrounds me now without any of those complications you named. Although it frequently does, living such a life doesn't have to lead to ruination.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
Yeah, God became a man, lived a perfect, sinless life, was crucified, died, was buried, rose from the dead so our sins could be forgiven and we could be reconciled to God, be with Him for eternity, anyone rejecting the gift of God will be be separated forever from God in a place of torment that was meant and reserved for the devil and the other rebellious angels.
I did give up on religion it never did make sense that’s why I rejected it. I do agree with the Bible definition of religion though.
Really? That would be a horrible justice system,
When I sang in church I was astounded at the choir members and instrument players that were homosexual and fornicators. At the time I didn't believe in the Bible but I took note of it.
That is for sure.
If the system itself is unjust, there can be no equity. To say anyone who doubts is deserving of punishment is unjust.
Abrahamic religions are all sex-negative. That is one of the evils they propagate. Homosexuality should not be a crime. Nor should sex outside of marriage. Adultery is an issue between the spouses and nobody else.
What I dislike is hypocrisy. Those that say others should be heterosexually monogamous while playing the field themselves are a problem. Better to simply stand up for what they do.
The USA should adopt a nikah mut'ah system.
The Bible says fornicators and adulterers will not inherit God's kingdom. I wonder how many who claim to be Christian here believe that.
They are sex positive and a blessing when you do things Gods way and a curse when you don’t.
