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!
Not a derailment. Very few progressive Christians have come forward anyway. I think you are bang on correct. Sin is just a way for reliion to create a problem for which religion then offers the solution.
1. The intricacy and complexity of a single living cell which shows it could not have arisen from non-living matter by chance, but points to an intelligent Creator.
2. The technological intelligence of modern humans beings over a billion other species point to an intelligent Creator and show we couldn’t have evolved by chance.
3. The earth and universe appears to be fine tuned and purposely designed for life.
4. The New Testament has one coherent theme concerning Jesus Christ, though written over 50 years, by at least nine authors who wrote 27 books, without a common editor. This points to inspiration by an intelligent God orchestrating the text and message.
Why would he need to offer more evidence against your claims,than you provided for them?You didn’t go over the points with any real information. All you basically said was…No, No, and No.
Thanks for sharing. I find that to be a sad story, though.That is what happened with me. I decided that I had been lax and needed to become more serious and invested in my faith (National Baptist). So I buckled down, studied the Bible, attended VBS and Bible Study, discussed with my fellow church members and theologians, and read the works of the prominent apologists of the time. And I prayed a lot. I loved it. And the more I learned the further I was driven into non-belief. Until I got to the point where it was clear that there is no reason to be convinced that anyone has a good reason, or is capable of having a good reason, to come to the conclusion that God exists.
Okay. I have known a lot of people who take that view. But that only sets the stage for my questions. It does not address them.Like my priest who taught me Catechism?
He taught us kids that Adam and Eve is just an allegory.
It's not the scientific truth.
Yes, he was a Christian, and if you ask me, a very good, holy priest.
So are you saying then that a single cell is not complex? Is that a bald assertion? Isn’t that something we do know to be true?Why would he need to offer more evidence against your claims,than you provided for them?
I am not being glib or dismissive. Look at your statements. They are just bald assertions. Nothing else.
There are Muslims in this country and they believe in a literal resurrection. Perhaps some Jews do too. I seem to recall in a Gospel the Sadducees among the Jews believed in resurrection.I thought the same thing. Believe it or not, I read elsewhere that there are Americans who are not Christians yet they believe in the resurrection.
Talk about odd. But this is how brainwashing works.
That is what happened with me. I decided that I had been lax and needed to become more serious and invested in my faith (National Baptist). So I buckled down, studied the Bible, attended VBS and Bible Study, discussed with my fellow church members and theologians, and read the works of the prominent apologists of the time. And I prayed a lot. I loved it. And the more I learned the further I was driven into non-belief. Until I got to the point where it was clear that there is no reason to be convinced that anyone has a good reason, or is capable of having a good reason, to come to the conclusion that God exists.
I am not responsible for your feelings.Thanks for sharing. I find that to be a sad story, though.
It is one of the reasons that the RCC fought the common language versions of the Bible so hard.If one is a serious believer the biggest mistake is to try to read the Bible literally. If one is honest that only leads to atheism.
Please, you did not make your claim with any "real information". Your claim was refuted since I used the same "standards" that you did. Support your claim better and I will support the refutation better.You didn’t go over the points with any real information. All you basically said was…No, No, and No.
I am aware of Bible history. There are no contradictions with regard to foundation teachings. It was not the church fathers who decided the books of the Bible. The teachings of Christ, the letters of Paul and the other Apostles, and Gospels were already being circulated amongst the early believers/churches. Later in the fourth century the church fathers just officially recognized what was already being used as biblical scriptures. Anything that was contrary or deviated from the already accepted orthodox, foundational teachings were not included.
The thing is that I have heard all of these bogus claims before. Over half of his arguments were just arguments from ignorance, but if needed I could refute those better. It was just a list of PRATT's.I am not responsible for your feelings.
My point being that @Subduction Zone was correct.
It is one of the reasons that the RCC fought the common language versions of the Bible so hard.
It's too complex to explain.Okay. I have known a lot of people who take that view. But that only sets the stage for my questions. It does not address them.
For those of you who don't take the story of the Fall literally. Adam, Eve, Tree, Serpent, etc, how do you envision the Fall of Man happening? And if it didn't happen, what use is Jesus?
So are you saying then that a single cell is not complex? Is that a bald assertion? Isn’t that something we do know to be true?
I am saying that your "which shows" is the bald assertion. You have done nothing at all to demonstrate that complexity requires an an intelligent agent. Not. One. Thing.1. The intricacy and complexity of a single living cell which shows it could not have arisen from non-living matter by chance, but points to an intelligent Creator.
That was vague. What exactly did I say that was bogus?The thing is that I have heard all of these bogus claims before. Over half of his arguments were just arguments from ignorance, but if needed I could refute those better. It was just a list of PRATT's.
Thanks. But if it is too complicated to explain, then it is not worthwhile to read on.It's too complex to explain.
"How much complex", depends on the knowledge and prejudices of that person. For you, perhaps Chemistry does not exists, it is all your God's doing, he makes it work. For lay people with some knowledge of science, it is not complex. We know the basic principles. Scientists who are engaged in research in that field and want to know exactly what is happening, down to a single atom, it is difficult. I do not think Biology has given up all its secrets. But the scientists are picking at it piece by piece, and have traveled far as in Stem-cell treatment (correcting all the mistakes made by your God).So are you saying then that a single cell is not complex? Is that a bald assertion? Isn’t that something we do know to be true?
Nice, enjoy your new birth with all sins washed away.And overcome with a new rebirth from sin.
Muslim resurrection takes place in heaven and not on earth. Otherwise how would they enjoy their palatial mansions in heaven, the wonderful drinks that will be offered in heaven and the companionship of 72 houris (the maximum reserved the martyrs, others will not get as many). Tell me if that is wrong.There are Muslims in this country and they believe in a literal resurrection.
or so they believe.... Atheists know better, right?Otherwise how would they enjoy their palatial mansions in heaven, the wonderful drinks that will be offered in heaven and the companionship of 72 houris (the maximum reserved the martyrs, others will not get as many).
There is no "fall of man" in the Garden of Eden story ─ as you'd know if you'd ever bothered to read it.For those of you who don't take the story of the Fall literally. Adam, Eve, Tree, Serpent, etc, how do you envision the Fall of Man happening? And if it didn't happen, what use is Jesus?