Can you look at religion scientifically, and still believe God exists?

[John 6:29]

Here is a video I found about people requiring scientific proof against the big bang, etc.

http://freehovind.com/watch-4308235066145651150

he also uses a different technique about the 1 billionth argument, but he proves a lot through science as well.

it's two hours but a good watch.

[Annoni]

Originally Posted by onion

Here is a video I found about people requiring scientific proof against the big bang, etc.

http://freehovind.com/watch-4308235066145651150

it's two hours but a good watch.

OH YES.
I love that guy.

EVERYONE MUST WATCH!

I had totally forgotten about that video.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by onion

Yes my first sentence is redundant. It's imposing the same question the author of this thread asked, because their question is also redundant. If you read my passages, God said He made the foolishness of the world, the wise of the world. And because people seek earthly wisdom, they reject God. The other passages warn us of science, and the folly of man's ways. Look. I am not here to argue. So This WILL be my last post, just to clarify somethings up; not to impose more arguments.

Then it seems rather pointless for you to make such a long post if this will be your last. But I see that you did continue to post anyways don't you, haha.

And just to clarify for you, those aren't your passages. Those are passages from the bible that you've copied and pasted.

Originally Posted by onion

Let me clarify: I was saying, anything that I say in word's cannot change your mind on God. The Bible and God are the only people who can change anyone's mind.

So if you quote some passages from the bible, then that isn't anything that is able to change someone's mind? That doesn't make any sense, now does it? You're essentially saying A can change your mind but if I take many parts of A then that doesn't change your mind at all. If that is so, then that begs the question, can A change one's mind in the first place?

Originally Posted by onion

The Bible is "sharper than any two edged sword".

Do you have any reasoning for that?

Originally Posted by onion

But in the same token, believing in God is a process having faith isn't something that is one day there. So by "planting" the seed of God's word into the people who read it, God will use it to grow in them, and maybe one day they will come to Salvation. I have no mean's to convert people, only offer what I feel is truth, and if anyone becomes saved, I would like to pray for them so they aren't tempted to stray from God. My argument of nothing I say will change your mind stands firm because I can say something to plant the seed but ultimately God will change it, and the reason I can't change your mind is because I am not a credible source, but the Bible is because it has been around for a long period of time, but ultimately takes faith to believe it.

Wait... did you actually say that the bible is a reliable and valid source? In terms of reliability and validity, as much as you may hate to hear it, it's one of the worst. The bible is by no means a credible source.

Originally Posted by onion

Much like science takes faith in human observations in order to believe it and because I have little faith in humans, science does not have many credible sources in my eyes.

So if the bible was written by humans and since you have little faith in humans, then you must have little faith in the bible. You cannot say that the bible was written by humans, you have little faith in humans therefore you have little faith in something humans do (i.e. science) but somehow have high faith in something that humans have written (i.e. the bible). You've managed to make an argument that goes against yourself, good job on that one, haha.

Originally Posted by onion

Let me say, I find it funny that a few of you argue that the Bible has no power to change anyone's mind. If this isn't the truth than religion is worthless, the millions of people in any religion wouldn't need their Bible, Koran, or whatever it is they study, and could find their religion on their own without their Bible. If you have attended and known people who were "deep in sin" and showed them passages in the Bible, and watch their lives completely change, I think you would agree with me on the fact that the Bible has a divine power.

Not really. All they would have done was simply change their lives as a result of believing in a certain religion. It's quite possible that in doing so they would have never read the all the bible. However, I find it incredibly hard to believe that you can show someone a few passages and just with a snap of the fingers, presto, their life changes. If that were true, then I could show them some other random religious book and presto, their life changes. If that is true, then you've found a sucker, keep a list of them.

Originally Posted by onion

Truthfully I am a testimony to that because I was deep in sin and the Bible completely turned my life around. If the Bible doesn't change mind's then this whole argument is pointless and you would have people like Richard Dawkins writing books to influence minds of others away from religion.

Don't put words in people's mouths especially if you have very little knowledge of that person.

Originally Posted by onion

People wouldn't be so offended over the Bible and it's teachings. Simply put, if the Bible doesn't effect anyone's life then why is it such a big deal for you to repute it? If it has no effect or affect, on anyone's life, then please by all means, stop arguing with me, because you know that what I am saying will not effect anyone including you or myself.

Then apparently you fail to realize the reason for debates. It's not simply to refute the bible. It's to engage one's mind, help them possibly change their views, become more philosophical, etc... . It's not simply about refuting one side. If that is what you think these debates are always about, then it shows you apparently don't understand the reasons why people engage in these debates, yet despite you not understanding that, you continue to assume you do understand something about the debates and their debaters.

Originally Posted by onion

I never said the core purpose of the bible changed, I said the core meaning of it never has. Science is always finding out new observations, and new things that they once believed to be false. The Bible's beliefs, verses, etc, have NEVER changed their meaning. Irregardless of what people deem to be contradictions in the Bible, it has always stayed the same.

Yes, science does make new discoveries, however, does the meaning of science change? No. Does the purpose of science change? No. The core purpose and philosophy of science remains the same.

Originally Posted by onion

As I've stated Science and Religion both take faith. As I've quoted the Bible states that the foolishness of man has become the wisdom of the world, and the foolishness of God is much wiser than the wisdom of the world.

Excellent, you're quoting the side you support in order to support your side. Poor debating tactics. It's called the bare assertion fallacy among other logic fallacies you're committing.

Originally Posted by onion

Therefore you say that one is blind faith and the other is faith. I'm assuming you consider science faith; and religion blind faith. Well I guess that's all a matter of opinion. Is putting your faith in the wisdom of man or the wisdom of God more foolish? Consider the verse I mentioned I'd say I'd rather put my faith in the wisdom of God.

This is even more laughable. Not only are you now quoting texts from your side to support your side but now you're being biased and using your biases to support your side. You have said already you have little faith in science yet you have strong faith in god, so you simply repeat that all over again. I can say the exact same thing in reverse. Either way, even poorer debate tactic.

Originally Posted by onion

In the end science is all observations of man, and I don't want to know how often man's calculations are wrong. I am not saying that science doesn't provide great technology, and great advances in our world today, but looking at Creationism vs Science, whichever you believe is purely off faith. If this weren't so then the big bang theory wouldn't be starting to get over ruled by a creationist theory by scientist all over. Again this comes back to science changing their core beliefs once again.

No, this comes back to you not understanding science. The core belief of science and the purpose of it have not changed. With advances in technology the philosophy of science remains the same. What good would it be if as technology advanced, the philosophy of science did change? Then science would be fairly worthless as it's constantly changing every minute.

As for the big bang theory, I'm not sure what your argument is.

Originally Posted by onion

I am not trying to disprove you. I am simply asking, if you are athiest, or believe that this life is all we have to live then... Say in the end of the world I am wrong about God, but I lived a happy life serving Him, and others. And I die, to find out that my 80 or so years on earth, was all there was to live. Big deal, right? It won't matter because I am dead, and there's nothing after. I lived a good life, and now I'm gone, everything earthly is gone, and I'm in a grave. Now we turn the tables, in the end you live your 80 years happily serving yourself, in whatever it is you like to do whether that be drinking, hanging out with friends, education, WHATEVER it is you like. And you die, and you find out you were wrong, and God is very much real. Then what? Were you're 80 years happily on earth worth the eternity of hell? It's just a question, I am not trying to disprove anything I am just asking you... what if? I think viewing life on earth 80 years and that is it is a very sad take on this world. But by all means if that's what you believe, well I hope you squeeze all this world has to offer you. And make your time here worth it, whether your wrong or I am wrong.

What you've just mentioned is nice and summed up in Pascal's Wager. Suppose that a god does exist in the end and suppose I don't believe in that god. Well, my time on earth was well spent as I lived it in happiness. However, this then brings up another question. Suppose I lived my life in happiness, would the god really punish me for not believing in him? Suppose I have done little to harm humanity but done much to benefit it. Would the god still condemn me? You're assuming the god will. What basis do you have for this assumption?

The way the question works is, if there is a god, then will that god still punish you for not believing in him/her despite the fact that you lived your life in happiness and peace? Many religious beliefs are about teaching forgiveness, compassion, etc... . If you do all that but you don't believe in the certain god/goddess, then think about it, would the god/goddess really punish you for eternity?

Originally Posted by onion

I never once addressed anyone as an athiest.

Really? So then the quote below was said by someone else who ironically has the username of onion?

Atheist you say believe there is no God

Unfortunately, you did address someone as atheist. Either that or I'm suddenly unable to read properly.

Originally Posted by onion

I am simply stating that in order to be an athiest, you conclude there is no God. Yet to conclude there is no God, you must know everything there is about the world, to come to the SOLID fact that there is no God. You may not believe in God, but either way you do not know for SURE that there is not God.

You do realize that this argument actually works against you right? You don't know for sure that there is a god, you have no solid fact that there is a god. That argument works both ways [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Nick/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG].

Originally Posted by onion

So my example of the one billionth of everything is to show, that it is impossible for one person to know everything, let a lone 1 percent of everything. So if an athiest concludes, "I know there is no God", how can he know that for certain, if there is still 99% of the world to know for sure?

Once again, how can you be sure that there is a god? Your argument works both ways, for and against you.

Originally Posted by onion

It is not saying that we have a One in one billionth chance to know something it is simply saying that, God is one of these topics that by human standards, we will never know truly exists until the end of time, because since GOD is invisible, you cannot conclude FOR A FACT that he does not exist. Yes there are certain things we can conclude for sure, but concludding there is not God, is the same a concludding that in a universe so large that there is no life on another planet. We do not know if there is life on another planet, and we don't know if there is no life on another planet. All we have are theories. Much like it is with God, but if you have Faith in Him there is a sense of knowledge that He does exist. And in MY opinion there are many things in this world that I don't believe science will ever explain, and truthfully in MY eyes can only be concludded by a creator. Take a wrist watch for example, you can look at the complexity of it and conclude that there is a creator. Now look at the human brain, it processes colors, images, temperatures, pressures on your body, the taste in our mouth, the dryness of our mouths, it takes in sounds, and the feelings of different objects. It can process over 1million messages in any given second. It produces feelings, relates us to people, and tells us what actions to take. It sends electric signals between brainwaves that computes all this information. For me, the complexity of a human body is enough evidence for me that God exists, now science can say this is why our body reacts this way when this happens etc, but it cannot explain how it developed every aspect that our body contains, through evolution, and how it all so happened by accident. You can continue believing all you want, whatever you want, but for me... this is just astounding, and it is only ONE part of the human body, not to mention everything else in this world and how if certain species were to disapear off the planets, life would cease to exist. It's all to complex to conclude that it all happened without a creator, and again that is just my opinion.

So that's your argument, it's too complex for it to have developed on its own therefore something else must have made it? It's essentially a way of saying "I don't know what did this so let's attribute it to something/someone else". By that logic, it then serves to say that if something is very simple then it wasn't made by god. After all, your argument is that it's too complex so someone else made it. Well, if something is very simple, then god mustn't have made it.

Originally Posted by onion

You question about God being a judge... it all comes back to the wisdom of the world. Our view of what is right, and what is fair, is far different from a being that had the intelligence just to speak and it came into existence, it wasn't a process, creation was a finished product of God's word's. The repentance we give to God, is a change of life style, we are punished in court in order to correct behavior. When we are not saved, we have already been judged by God into hell. When we repent, we have corrected our behavior. And God views us as SINLESS. He views us just as He viewed Jesus, perfect.

You do realize that in saying this you automatically have said that we are equal to god in power. I think there are a few biblical verses that go against that. But, if we are equal in power in terms of perfection, then why isn't is possible for us to have developed just as god did? After all, he's perfect and he can do it. If you say we're also perfect then surely we can do it.

Originally Posted by onion

We are called to repentance, because man hated God. We sinned against Him, were made to have a relationship to Him, and because Jesus died on the cross we have a responsibilty to put our Faith that Jesus will save us from Hell, by chosing to obey God, so that we can be reconciled back to Him, and have the relationship we were meant to have. As far as the 99% of people being good people. I would disagree. Yes, by earthly standards, they may be genuinely nice, which is why I wish no one to go to Hell. Even people that hate me, I wish they'd come to Salvation. But by saying generally people are good and don't deserve Hell, we deserve Hell because of sin.

You just said we don't deserve hell yet we then do deserve it. Tell me, if we don't deserve hell because of sin then what do we deserve it for? You're flip-flopping back and forth.

Originally Posted by onion

I mean even by earthly standards, open your history books, look how much hate people have in this world. Or read about the crucifiction and beating of Christ, I know you do not believe in God, but Jesus was a man and there is historic proof Jesus was a live and killed, I believe Jesus was God in Human form... you may chose not to believe this, but none the less He existed, and people beat Him and crucified Him, and put Him to death, for CURING people, for HEALING lepers, blind people, and even raising dead people to life. Maybe you chose not to believe these miracles, but eventually Christ claimed to be the Son of God, an Equal to God. Mankind HATED Him for this, I mean just watch the passion of the Christ, if you don't feel like reading about it.

Haha, you're now citing a movie that isn't a documentary yet was someone's interpretation of a belief?

But before you continue with saying how much hate people have, look in your book, your bible. You cannot for a second deny that especially in the Old Testament, god was pretty damn hateful and bloodthirsty.

Originally Posted by onion

You are telling me these are good people? Our sin, your sin, my sin, those people's sin is what crucified and killed that man. He died for EVERYONE, not just those people who crucified Him. And as He hung on the tree, and they put viniger in His cuts, He forgave them. I think your speculation of people being generally good people is far from the truth.

I'm not sure if you're talking to me in particular but nowhere did I say that I view people as being good in nature. But if you were talking to me, then let me tell you my view before you continue putting words into my mouth. I do view people as generally not being good. If someone tells me that they are absolutely good and great, I call them a liar. So now that you know a bit more about my view, you can hopefully put more accurate words into my mouth.

Originally Posted by onion

If that were truth, there would be no wars, there would be no greed, there would be no anger, there would be no jealousy, there wouldn't be people cheating on their wives. Look around you, this world is corrupt.

And you think that your god in your bible is not jealous, isn't angry at times, isn't hateful, etc...?

Originally Posted by onion

I am not preaching. I am offering advice, and explaining why we need forgiveness, and why we need God. And what exactly sin is, and why the world is where it is today. You don't have to read any of that if you chose not to. I am not looking to convert anyone, I just have a general sorrowness for the people who chose to reject a free gift from God, in order to escape Hell. It's very saddening to me. All I do is show what I believe and you just argue it, after saying that the Bible has no influence over lives, because it has no facts. Well then why even argue with me, isn't it a waste of time? I guess I can't expect any different, considering that too is includded in the Bible, and just as Jesus was persecuted so are Christian's for following Him. It's not that I personally am offended, I just feel sorry for you. Again what would you do if you died today and found out God was real? Once you die, God will judge you. There is no turning back and saying, I'm sorry, I believe in you now. Because you had no Faith in Him on earth, He will not be gracious to save you at death. And for that reason I feel bad. Especially for people such as Dawkins.

Once again, if you feel that you have no impact, why do you continue writing posts about it? Why?

Before you play the "I'm saddened" card, perhaps you should take a step back. I'm arguing against your beliefs and guess what you're doing? THE EXACT SAME. So don't pull out that card, you're arguing just in a similar manner as I am.

If god is real, then I ask you yet again, if I live my life in peace, compassion, forgiveness, etc... to the best of my abilities, which ironically enough is what your religion tries to teach, then it makes no sense for god to punish me just because I don't believe in him yet I live my life obeying what he teaches.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Just to clarify, this is a double post because not all of it could fit in one post.

Originally Posted by onion

Like I said this is my last post, if you have further questions, PM me. I do not wish to cause a huge flame on the forums. Even if you wish to rebule this post. Just PM me, and I will respond. I hope you all find favor with God.

Seeing as how you reposted in this thread, there's no need to PM you over it. I PM people when I have a personal issue with the person. I have no personal issue with you so I'm not going to be PMing you. Instead, if you have a personal problem with me, you can PM me.

Originally Posted by Annoni

Why must a few of us more radical Christians constantly get stuck answering your questions?

Oh please, and atheists and agnostics don't get questioned from Christians and other believers?

Originally Posted by Annoni

We answer them, you do not take them. Why do you bother asking?

The same can be said for members of your side.

Originally Posted by Annoni

Sure, if the answers raise questions, we'll answer them, but when we pour our hearts into an answer for you, addressing everything you can think of, and still say, "I don't believe you" when we answered, in truth, it feels exasperating. We've done all we can and more, through the word of God, through the Holy Spirit, we're all trying to answer you here.

Because we differ in our paradigms that we follow simple as that.

Originally Posted by Annoni

Honestly it's making quite a few people feel used on here. We answer, and answer, we find our comfort in God after but you seem to only mock us and the Bible.

There is a reason for that. You support your side by quoting a book that has very little reliability and validity. In fact, that same book happens to say that is was made by the person whom your view is centered around, in other words, your book commits logical fallacies such as circular reasoning, bare assertion fallacy, etc... .

If you use biblical quotes to support your side then you continue to commit these and possibly other logical fallacies. That is why myself in particular have a hard time with your answers. If you answer them without spitting biblical verse after biblical verse after biblical verse and if you answer without referring to the bible, then I can actually hear your view. I'm interested in your view, I'm not interested in your ability to quote verses to me. The more you are able to do that, then the more I and many other atheists like it. But spitting biblical verses just commits those logical fallacies and your argument is laughable.

Originally Posted by Annoni

I know there are some of you, I'm not going to say names, but some of you go through these debates either to laugh at us or mock us. That is definitely not respectful, especially when we are answering all your questions out of a selfless love! We don't mind the time it takes, the sore fingers and wrists we may get, we stick to here and answer you, in all the truth we can know.

Oh please, don't cry that your wrists hurt. I'm typing a long post here, what do you think my wrists are feeling right now?

Originally Posted by Annoni

Yet none of it has ever affected your beliefs or views. I constantly think about everyone here, why you even ask... but I know there is a reason I cannot fathom, so I leave it to be and pray, and we all continue to answer you all, in selfless love, no matter if we're mocked or laughed at.
Makes you wonder if there's really something to what we say, when we do all this, no matter what.

Yes, yes, yes, you answer us but don't play the pity card. We answer you to and what happens, you reject what we say (refer to Onion's posts). The pity card applies to both parties.

Originally Posted by Annoni

I guess I'm just asking for a bit more respect. When one of you asks a question regarding God, Christianity, or God's views, and we answer you with the Bible's words, which is the Word of God, there should be no further question on the subject. If you are talking of our God, the Bible is His word to us. It's our little book of answers if we choose to use it that way. Instead you choose to say, "I don't count the Bible, so tell me what God really thinks." How do you think we know of God? Through prayer and the bible, and since none of you will trust the Voice of God that we hear within our own hearts, we can only show you the bible.

And that will lead to a long list of logical fallacies. If you can answer still within your religious beliefs but just put the bible aside, don't quote it endlessly, give your answers not the bible's answers, then you'll find many people are more accepting. But the moment you said "according to passage...." then instantly the logical fallacies begin piling up.

Originally Posted by Annoni

We gave you what you asked for. We showed you what is, in a way, God's journal. There is no better way to know His opinion on a subject other than talking with Him. If you discount the Bible, then why are you even asking of God's opinion? It is said in Revelation 22, the very end, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.". You have all heard portions of it, yet you deny it with no different thinking.

Many people here aren't asking for God's opinion. In fact this whole thread is about the individual users' opinions, nothing about god's opinions. So why you then begin to include god's opinions is beyond me. They're irrelevant, they're not part of the debate yet you then include them and wonder why they become discredited so fast. Give your opinion without quoting the bible every other sentence, that's all that's asked for.

Originally Posted by Annoni

So sum it all up quickly...
Yes, in ways, you can believe in God while looking at religion scientifically. But only if you take the word of God and apply it to the scientific findings you see.

Excellent, then you've managed to distort both the religion and science.

Originally Posted by Annoni

Remember God is unfathomable to us, and we know so little of science to begin with. God has given us all we need to know about Him through a book. Where is science getting you? At knowing 0.000000001% of everything, we can still know God a whole lot more than that. Science can lead some people there. Science can lead others away. It all depends on how you look at it.

If humans though no so little, then I question you, how can you then know that your religion is the truth? As onion said, humans know so very very little yet despite that, you seem to be very dedicated in your belief. If we know so little of everything, then how can you say that your belief is the truth, that it is the right way?

[John 6:29]

Watch the video, unfortunately there is only so much I can say. I've offered truth and you rebuke it. Religion is by Faith, not by knowledge. But if you watch the video you will see several errors in science that or proven through the Bible.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by onion

1) I'm not arguing. I posted what I believe and why. The topic is can you believe in religion basing it off of science, and being that I believe in religion I am including my opinions.

Nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by onion

2) My argument isn't that everything is too complex, therefore a designer needs to be there. This is my belief. If you tell me a wrist watch formed from an explosion, and evolved into a ticking piece of matter over billions of years, and now keeps track of time, I wouldn't believe you.

I wouldn't believer that something exploded and randomly made something to keep track of time either.

Originally Posted by onion

3) I'm not playing the saddened card, I want everyone to be saved. Every post I've made is an offer for someone to come to Salvation. You're rebuking me for telling how I fee, when the topic is again "Can you look at religion scientifically, and still believe God exists". I've said NO. Believing in God is off of Faith and Faith a lone. You can however take science and conclude an intelligent design, and assume there is a Creator, but you cannot take science and prove that the God of the Bible is God. However, because of personal experience, and my Faith I know who the true God is. And these arguments are illegitimate because nothing in the Bible is based off of a feeling you have towards God, it's a knowledge and a Faith. If you can show me a reference where you "feel" like God is real, or you "feel" changed, or "feel" saved. Please direct me. Believing in God, isn't about making yourself feel better, as the authors posts assumes. It is about bringing Glory to God.

If you take science and conclude that there is a Creator then you're starting to distort science. Concluding that there is a creator isn't a scientific because it's not falsifiable, you cannot test for it. You can conclude that there is a Creator but not through science. Why you then say you cant prove the god in your bible is real through science is beyond me as that's essentially the same thing as saying there's a creator.

Originally Posted by onion

4) I did not cite a movie. I said read about the crucifixion and for those who hate reading the Bible simply watching a movie imposing the same concept, because the things portrayed in the movie, are in the Bible.

You mentioned for people to watch the movie if they wish. Perhaps you didn't cite it, however, you did encourage it.

Originally Posted by onion

5) Human's know so little, yes. This is why we believe science is wrong. When you become saved your spirit is replaced with a Holy Spirit, which in essence is God. He makes Himself known to us and we to Him. When you become saved something changes inside of you where you know God is real.

This is dancing away from my question. If humans know so little, then how do you know your god indeed is the real god, is the truth, etc...? You said you have so little faith in humans and yet, you have so much faith in a book the humans wrote. That is not what I'm understanding.

Originally Posted by onion

6) My responds weren't only to you. Please read other people's post before you assume too much.

I did read other people's posts. To make it easier on others, could you mention the user you're referring to? Otherwise it's ambiguous as to who you're responding to.

Originally Posted by onion

7) You keep asking me God isn't angry? I've said it over and over. GOD IS AN ANGRY GOD; GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD. HELL IS DIVINE PUNISHMENT AND SEPARATION OF AND FROM GOD. Fortunately He offered a way out of it.

Fine, then he isn't a fair and just judge.

Originally Posted by onion

Now, as I've said please. Message me. It seems your questions are not even providing any theory or fact on anything science or why you believe what you do, simply just rebuking my statements by common fallacy of man. And in turn trying to talk down upon what I believe. So if you in turn do have something other than statements that aren't turning this topic into a joke; please ask. I give my sincere and honest answers. But I am not going to respond to these remarks, that are simply redundant, and have been answered several times, just to receive the same answer back.

In all fairness, you haven't answered all the questions I posed to you. I can simply refute your posts and don't need to formally say what I believe.

However, to be fair, I'll do it anyways. I was a former Christian, turned to Theistic Satanism (briefly) then to LaVeyan Satanism. At this point, I adhere to atheism with some philosophies drawn from LaVeyan Satanism and Christianity. I don't worship any god and I'm not planning to in the future. I dabbled a bit with and still do dabble a bit here and there learning more about demonaltry, however, I would not by any stretch of the imagination consider myself a formal demonaltrist.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by onion

Watch the video, unfortunately there is only so much I can say. I've offered truth and you rebuke it. Religion is by Faith, not by knowledge. But if you watch the video you will see several errors in science that or proven through the Bible.

^^^^^^^^^^

[Dasha]

Originally Posted by onion

Watch the video, unfortunately there is only so much I can say. I've offered truth and you rebuke it. Religion is by Faith, not by knowledge. But if you watch the video you will see several errors in science that or proven through the Bible.

This is an debate between us at TH. I can't go and watch a two hour video at this time. Is there a transcript somewhere so that I can read over it? or that you can quote from if it is that good?

[Noctis]

Originally Posted by onion

We can go on and on all day about the flaws of evolution and the big bang theory, but I know nothing I can do will change your mind on it; because the only thing that can do so is God's word. I suggest reading Genesis 1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1-2 it goes into great detail about how the world was created. In fact the Bible tells us the world was a sphere. It tells us the world was expanded over empty space. It gives descriptions that no other doctrine has ever provided of creation, and all have been proven true through science.

Funny, it almost sounds like you're also suggesting that everyone made aware of science and chose another religion(say, Buddhism) did so only because of "God's" word.

I don't know what mockery of science you've been practicing, but anyone with a basic understanding of the speed of light can tell you that the universe is a lot older than 10,000 years old.

Atheist you say believe there is no God. Well let's put it this way.... Science has said that man knows 1 billionth of everything there is to know, which in my opinion is a very generous estimate. So just to see this number it is

0.000000001% of everything

The universe is infinite(or as close as it'll get), that number shouldn't discourage anyone. Also, we're learning new things everyday. In reality, that number is constantly going up.

now let's be even more generous and assume ONE atheist on this world knows 1% of everything. There is still a 99% chance they are wrong.

I see you failed math in school.
If one atheist knows 1% of everything, then I suppose the fact that there are millions of atheists in the world means that we know over 100% of "everything"?

But that's not my point. In our lifetime, we will learn very little about the world that we didn't know yesterday. Only few people will ever make any great number of discoveries(Einstein, Stephen Hawkings). Yet even if one person only makes a small contribution to that 0.0000000000000001%, the fact that there are MILLIONS of people over many generations making such contributions certainly help the odds.

So you say God is good? He is in a way that humanly is inconceivable. But if you deny Him in this life, He will deny you in the next. I suggest reading Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards and tell me what you think after that. And here are some passages that show that even though God is a good God, He is also a Just God. We have sinned against Him, which is breaking God's law. If someone were to commit murder, would you want them punished for it? Or would you just say, you know what, it's okay. You disobeyed the Law, but I'll let it pass, you're free to go..?

God is a judge. We deserve Hell.

How about this for an analogy?

You're guilty of a crime that someone says you've committed.
Only thing is, everyone's guilty.
The goofball who wrote the law made it so that simply by existing, they are guilty of a crime.

Wouldn't you accuse this person of being a retarded psychopath?

Now because this person is very powerful and has threatened to do very bad things to you if you don't go through with his psychotic demands, you happily kiss his ass to save your own.

Congratulations, I can see that you're truly deserving of Heaven. [/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by onion

Yes my first sentence is redundant. It's imposing the same question the author of this thread asked, because their question is also redundant. If you read my passages, God said He made the foolishness of the world, the wise of the world. And because people seek earthly wisdom, they reject God. The other passages warn us of science, and the folly of man's ways. Look. I am not here to argue. So This WILL be my last post, just to clarify somethings up; not to impose more arguments.

Ridiculous, it's in human nature to ask questions and to seek answers. You may as well punish an apple for falling down because of gravity.

It seems to me that you believe science is "evil" and that everyone on earth should remain ignorant peasants living in the Stone Age.

Let me clarify: I was saying, anything that I say in word's cannot change your mind on God. The Bible and God are the only people who can change anyone's mind. The Bible is "sharper than any two edged sword".

Just to clarify, the Bible is not a person and should not be referred to as such.

Second, my Spyderco Endura folding knife with ZDP-189 Powder Metal steel would like to challenge the claim that the Bible is sharper than it. I'm pretty sure that I can use it to shave with. I'd like to see the Bible do that.

But in the same token, believing in God is a process having faith isn't something that is one day there. So by "planting" the seed of God's word into the people who read it, God will use it to grow in them, and maybe one day they will come to Salvation. I have no mean's to convert people, only offer what I feel is truth, and if anyone becomes saved, I would like to pray for them so they aren't tempted to stray from God. My argument of nothing I say will change your mind stands firm because I can say something to plant the seed but ultimately God will change it, and the reason I can't change your mind is because I am not a credible source, but the Bible is because it has been around for a long period of time, but ultimately takes faith to believe it. Much like science takes faith in human observations in order to believe it and because I have little faith in humans, science does not have many credible sources in my eyes.

The crazy man screams at me that I'm on fire and that it needs to be put out. I tell him that I'm fine and that I don't need to be "saved". Naturally, neither one of us can convince the other to believe otherwise. The question we need to ask ourselves is: Which one of us is sane, and which of us is crazy?

I find your views on science to be amusing.

Science says that if you jump off a bridge, you will fall because of gravity. Would you care to test your faith in science by jumping off a bridge? How about going 5,000 feet under the ocean without a pressure suit? In space without a space suit? Perhaps you'd like to hold a block of sodium in your hand and pour water over it?

Our modern world is built on science. Without it, you wouldn't even be typing on this forum, much less living in your own home.

Do not mock it.

I never said the core purpose of the bible changed, I said the core meaning of it never has. Science is always finding out new observations, and new things that they once believed to be false. The Bible's beliefs, verses, etc, have NEVER changed their meaning. Irregardless of what people deem to be contradictions in the Bible, it has always stayed the same.

The Bible has been "translated" multiple times. This is why you have so many "versions" of the same book(King James Version, New International Version, etc.)
Even with a word for word translation, the concepts and meanings can be lost.
There are also an infinite number of "interpretations" for the passages and verses.

Math and science at least have just one way to read it. 1+1 will always equal 2. Try to read it another way and you'll be dead WRONG.

As I've stated Science and Religion both take faith. As I've quoted the Bible states that the foolishness of man has become the wisdom of the world, and the foolishness of God is much wiser than the wisdom of the world. Therefore you say that one is blind faith and the other is faith. I'm assuming you consider science faith; and religion blind faith. Well I guess that's all a matter of opinion. Is putting your faith in the wisdom of man or the wisdom of God more foolish? Consider the verse I mentioned I'd say I'd rather put my faith in the wisdom of God. In the end science is all observations of man, and I don't want to know how often man's calculations are wrong. I am not saying that science doesn't provide great technology, and great advances in our world today, but looking at Creationism vs Science, whichever you believe is purely off faith. If this weren't so then the big bang theory wouldn't be starting to get over ruled by a creationist theory by scientist all over. Again this comes back to science changing their core beliefs once again.

Yeah, God's wisdom did great for us. I mean, where did we get with that wisdom?

Bows and arrows? Wood and brick houses with shoddy construction? Raping conquered people? Forcing raped women to marry their rapists? Genocide? The Crusades? Having everyone say "God Bless you" everytime someone sneezed in order to try and stop the spread of the Black Plague? Exorcisms that kill people and don't solve their obvious psychological disorders?

Feel free to stop me anytime.

I am not trying to disprove you. I am simply asking, if you are athiest, or believe that this life is all we have to live then... Say in the end of the world I am wrong about God, but I lived a happy life serving Him, and others. And I die, to find out that my 80 or so years on earth, was all there was to live. Big deal, right? It won't matter because I am dead, and there's nothing after. I lived a good life, and now I'm gone, everything earthly is gone, and I'm in a grave. Now we turn the tables, in the end you live your 80 years happily serving yourself, in whatever it is you like to do whether that be drinking, hanging out with friends, education, WHATEVER it is you like. And you die, and you find out you were wrong, and God is very much real. Then what? Were you're 80 years happily on earth worth the eternity of hell? It's just a question, I am not trying to disprove anything I am just asking you... what if? I think viewing life on earth 80 years and that is it is a very sad take on this world. But by all means if that's what you believe, well I hope you squeeze all this world has to offer you. And make your time here worth it, whether your wrong or I am wrong.

Well there's the major flaw that seems to pop up in nearly every argument between two people. Nobody ever considers the possibility that BOTH sides are wrong. Maybe we'll both go to hell because "God" is a psychotic maniac who gets off on people suffering. Maybe neither of us will go to hell because God's a swell guy who cares more about who we are as people rather than the less important fact of whether or not we believe in him.

Personally, I think that you don't value your time here on earth, at all. Even IF there's an afterlife, you'll still only live just once(assuming reincarnation is false of course).

[John 6:29]

Re-read the statement, people know 1 billionth of everything. Not 1 person.
Watch the video's it'll provide proof for a 6-10K creation.
Again, I said that science cannot prove the God of the Bible, only Faith can do this. But Science can prove a creator.
The thing is, I am valuing my time here on earth. I love living for God, more so then I did when I was living for myself.

Yet it seems people.

Again the Bible says God allowed for this Wisdom to occur, everything evil is a result of sin, again watch the video and you will see as a nation that drifts from God, these issue rise. It seems as if you are imposing God is the cause of genocides, and suffering. If you believe this then your generally basis and knowledge of God is far to little to even argue in this aspect of the holy vs evil war. This is the general consensus of the world but the world also tends to believe good people get to Heaven. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I encourage you to find a verse in the Bible that says God causes suffering. And I say the Bible, not a human concept, because anyone can say "look at what Hitler did", and I can say, "yes but prove that was God" and you can't, because you don't even believe in God so how can you prove something you do not believe in the first place. And ultimately it is the Bible that we are arguing about so provide me with proof in the Bible that God causes suffering, and I will show you the meaning of the verse, and I can show you that man, sin, and Satan are the result of what is happening today.

The translations have not changed any core meaning of the Bible, if you believe this provide me a verse and I will disprove it. Again watch the video.

No offense, as I do encourage the criticism, but it seems you are responding to my arguments without thoroughly looking at them. But please watch the video.

Now if you want to argue about scriptures instead of logics, or if you want to argue logics of passages in the Bible, by all means, show me a verse. But it seems this argument has turned into an argument of logics, rather than the intended purpose. IF you want proof against science look no further than the video.

[Dasha]

Originally Posted by onion

IF you want proof against science look no further than the video.

Again I say, This is an debate between us at TH, not the guy who made the video. The same as this is a debate between us at TH, not the guy who wrote the bible. I want YOUR views on this. If you believe the same thing as the guy who made the video, then QUOTE him. Don't ask us to go and watch some two hour video. Quote the video as you do the bible. Then give us YOUR perspective on it. You can't come into a debate and then say, "go watch this," or "go read this," it just doesn't work that way.

[John 6:29]

Of course it works that way. People referred me to a book by The God Delusion by Dawkins. Someone said if I had resource that could challenge the theories of science, they would gladly take it into account, and I provided one. I do not have to time to quote a two hour long message, of which I think the majority of his message contains viable information

You can very well watch the video, quote him, and say "I do not believe this because of that". The fact of the matter is, he has a way with words, and is much smarter when it comes to science than I am. The reason I cannot quote him, is simply because one event leads to another, and another to another, and so on and so forth. One argument, proves several other distinctive about science wrong, and a literal 6 day creation, and viable evidence that the earth is around 6,000 years old.

You say you don't have time to watch a 2 hour movie, I can tell you that as much as I'd like to, if I had the patience and the time to sit through the movie and type what he says word for word, I would. But that would take much longer than two hours. If you truthfully want evidence against science, it shouldn't matter who's mouth it comes from.

For example, anonni and I have been the main people imposing the arguments against science. Anonni and I have relatively the same arguments, and thus you can assume that if I am giving a source, that I have the same beliefs has him. The difference is that he already compiled the information I believe into several seminars, and if you want to watch it feel free.

But if you are simply concludding that Religion can't be proven scientifically just because I am not sitting here quoting a man who already has the evidence elsewhere is simply ludicrous.

It makes no difference whether I quote it, or someone else provides the information. If you would guide me to a video on why Evolution is true, and why the world is billions of years old as opposed to 6,000, and that has logical proof behind it, I would gladly watch it, because I would assume these would be beliefs that you have for yourself.

The evidence is there, whether you want to spend the time diving into it is completely up to you. I cannot sit here and force you to watch the video, but it seems that post after post there is just impeding arguments because someone is failing to read thoroughly, or examine the proof I have provided. It's a two hour video, I'm sure you can find time, perhaps disect it, maybe 20minutes a day.

My Faith is in God. Now, I do not expect to move you completely to the conclusion that there is a God, because I believe only God has that capability. But I do believe if you watch this video, you will question several scientific theories that are out there today. And if not, well then I guess all this discussion has gone to waste. Although our overall goals are indefferent. I hope that through this video atleast one person will be saved. And you hope that through your arguments that there will be proof that God is non-existant. Well there's one problem with this.

You cannot prove something exists without physically seeing it. This is compliant to the big bang theory or creation theory. Someone had to of been there in order to prove it. This is a argument that has been going on since forever. I'm sure if there was viable proof that either one of the two is wrong, that the other would be obsolete.

Take for example the Earth, the Bible says the earth is round, yet hundereds of years ago scientist, and various people believed the earth was flat. Well through observation, studies, and a common mistake, we have proven that the earth is round, as the Bible says. So in this instance the Bible prevails, and the idea that the earth is flat is obsolete.

If you truthfully want science to back up a Creationist view, just watch the video. If not then I guess you can come to conclusion off of whatever you want, simply because you do not want to watch a 2 hour video. To me that just shows a lack of observation, which if you are to come to a fact about anything it is through observation, am I wrong?

Well anyways. If you want proof the videos there. If not, I guess you truly don't care to find out the answer to your own topic.

[Dasha]

Originally Posted by onion

Well anyways. If you want proof the videos there. If not, I guess you truly don't care to find out the answer to your own topic.

But your forgetting that this topic is NOT about how the earth was created or how old it is. This topic is about weather one can, fully believing in natural science, still believe in God.

Many scientists believe Jesus was in fact a real person whom did real things, they just find no PROOF besides the bible of Jesus being the son of God. They don't believe in the earth being only a few thousand years old because there is MORE proof for the earth being older than the bible suggests. Science is not about disproving the bible but finding the truth of the matter.

You can not walk up to someone, and tell them to read the bible so that they might believe. No, that is not how it works. You sit, and you talk to them with YOUR knowledge of the bible so that they might understand better. I don't think any atheist will go and read the bible with the wish to be converted. They must be shown and taught through the words of your own mouth.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Dasha

But your forgetting that this topic is NOT about how the earth was created or how old it is. This topic is about weather one can, fully believing in natural science, still believe in God.

Many scientists believe Jesus was in fact a real person whom did real things, they just find no PROOF besides the bible of Jesus being the son of God. They don't believe in the earth being only a few thousand years old because there is MORE proof for the earth being older than the bible suggests. Science is not about disproving the bible but finding the truth of the matter.

You can not walk up to someone, and tell them to read the bible so that they might believe. No, that is not how it works. You sit, and you talk to them with YOUR knowledge of the bible so that they might understand better. I don't think any atheist will go and read the bible with the wish to be converted. They must be shown and taught through the words of your own mouth.

The video disproves what scientists say about the earth being older than the bible suggest, using science, logics, the bible, and the Laws of Science.

See, I have provided verses in the Bible, and you put out the argument "I don't care what the Bible says, I care what you say". My knowledge of the Bible consists of what the Bible says. Just like your beliefs are based on what science says. And everything you say is quoted from a book, or a belief based off a book.

For example, all your ideas, everything you consist of, all your beliefs are based off of another mans observations and studies. And you adopt these ideas, because of what you are lead to be true. As is the same of mine. Although I believe mine comes from God, and you believe yours comes off observations by man. But whenever we make a statement it is off of our beliefs from what we are told.

If you disagree with this then, say you believe in evolution, you are simply stating that you created the idea of evolution, and I came up with the idea of the Bible.

Based off studies we need sources that are credible. I am not credible, but a professional as in the video is. The bible is credible. Science books are credible. Why? Because they have been around for time, they have been studied and examined. Although you may believe the bible isn't credible because you don't have faith, much like I don't have faith in man. But either way both must have credible sources.

You can say I believe that man evolved. I'll say great, provide me with evidence. So ultimately you will have to have credibility through other sources, which would be through a science book, or dawkins, or other scientists that prove your theory, in attempt to prove God doesn't exist.

I can say I believe God created man. You'll say great, provide me with evidence. Ultimately I will need credible sources, and my sources are based on the the Bible, and Christian Scientist who argue the point that Evolution couldn't possibly exist.

No matter who you are, you need sources. And this is a source I am using. I provided you with the words of another man, whether it's words coming out of my mouth or not it is irrelevant I am providing you with evidence against science.

And this is your argument:

"Well because you aren't saying the words yourself I can't believe it".

[Dasha]

Originally Posted by onion

And this is your argument:

"Well because you aren't saying the words yourself I can't believe it".

That is not my argument. I find no argument valid without credible sources. But I am not here to listen to HIS argument, I am here to listen to YOURS. If I want to debate with the man, I will send him an email. If you can't sum up his video, or high points of it in a few sentences, then maybe you don't know exactly what he is saying. Just because you can link a video does not mean you fully understand what is in it. People can say, "read this verse or chapter of the bible," but they don't fully understand it. If I am going to debate with someone, I want to hear them quote that verse AND then talk about what they believe it means.

Again, I am not here to debate with him, I am here to debate with you. When I debate with others, I don't use purely their knowledge in my arguments. I use mine as well.

If there is only so much you can say in a debate, then there is only so much you can say. Study more and come back when you can say more, don't refer someone to something else because you can't articulate what you mean. I can do the same thing and send you off to watch other people's videos and read other people's books. But its not my argument anymore, it becomes theirs. I can not argue or debate with you about someone elses views, because they are simply someone else's views. Even if you understand their argument does not mean you fully understand their view on things unless you are truly them.

[John 6:29]

I am sorry if I came off rude. It's not my intention. But let me also throw this out there. You say that no atheist would read the Bible to be converted. I agree with you. But such is the same for a Christian. Christian's do not look at evolution to become converted. But is not studying both cases needed in order to understand one another? In order to understand evolution, a Christian needs to read about it, and examine evolution in according to the Bible to see it's flaws. Just like an atheist needs to study and read the Bible in order to impose arguments against the Bible.

People do convert in the process. Even if that wasn't their intention, but none the less you have to be studied in both to make arguments, and come to your own conclusions about God and science by our own beliefs, not others.

E.G. Studies show that the more you are around a particular belief the more you tend to adopt the idea.
(this is all hypothetical for arguments sake)
So say I was raised conservative. My friends are conservatives. I only watch Fox news. My teachers were all conservative. When I get to vote, studies say I will vote conservative. Which they would be right. BUT now say all of this is true but I begin watching liberal news, I blend with liberal friends, and I start having liberal teachers, and I blend the two together, now I understand both sides of the table and I am able to make my own decisions.

It's the same with education, we are taught only evolution. And "billions and billions of years" we never examine for ourselves, but we need to because without it, we will only believe one side of the table. Growing up I didn't care about God, but as I started examining, and studying it, I found truth to God's word and now I am a Christian.

This thread isn't a debate anymore. It's an argument of fallacies against scripture.

I provided scriptures, you say you don't want scriptures.
I provided my view, which is based of scriptures. And make remarks, instead of imposing questions.
I provided sources, which you don't want.

I understand fully what he is saying. I am not the one questioning whether religion can be proven by science. You are. And I've provided evidence.

I cannot sum up a 2 hour video because he makes direct arguments against specific points of evolution, and science in general. And each piece of the video has importance. Minus perhaps the first 10minutes.

[John 6:29]

More evidence if you wish to read:
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm
http://www.newcreationstudies.org/Ne...htm#archeology
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.godandscience.org/

Again I am not the one questioning whether God is provable through science, you are.

It should make no difference whether these arguments are from my mouth or others. Because the evidence is there none the less. Saying you only want my opinion is this:

"I only believe the teachings of Richard Dawkins, and if he quotes other sources or gathers his information from others subjects then I guess I believe those too, but only in the context that Dawkins presents them. If he doesn't present it in his books then it either a) must not be true or b) doesnt understand it".

Scientist, Religious leaders, teachers, all recommend people to books. Just because they don't present the information doesn't mean they don't understand it. It simply means they don't have the time to present information that has already been presented.

[Khadra]

I just wanted to jump in and say something to those claiming that the earth is only 4000-6000 years old. Scientists have placed the age of the earth at over 4 BILLION years. They have used radiometric age dating, which is very accurate, along with other tests to confirm their results. This is science, which means it has been tested over and over and over again. I have to ask, how can scientists be responsible for getting man to the moon, mapping out our DNA, and finding vaccines to cure deadly illnesses, yet be off by so much when it comes to the age of the earth?

I would watch the video that's been posted, but I have no sound on my computer. I also have a feeling it is just propaganda put out by religious fundamentalists. I have seen things produced by religious zealots. It can be very convincing, but usually if you dissect it and fact check everything, you'll find it's all just a bunch of lies! Not having seen that particular video I can't say for sure if that is or isn't the case, but please watch out. You have to be very careful where you get your information from, and you need to question everything.

EDIT: I just took a look at the site the video is on. It is definately a religious site. While that doesn't automatically discount the video, it does show it is coming from a highly biased source. Please keep that in mind. Also, an argument is always stronger when it is supported by an unbiased source.

[Dasha]

Originally Posted by onion

I provided scriptures, you say you don't want scriptures.
I provided my view, which is based of scriptures. And make remarks, instead of imposing questions.
I provided sources, which you don't want.

I understand fully what he is saying. I am not the one questioning whether religion can be proven by science. You are. And I've provided evidence.

I cannot sum up a 2 hour video because he makes direct arguments against specific points of evolution, and science in general. And each piece of the video has importance. Minus perhaps the first 10minutes.

Actually you notice I never verbally(or textually if you prefer) said I did not want your scriptures. I do want them, BUT I don't want your scriptures that do not pertain to the actual question. I don't want more scripture than your words. Did that two hour video have 75% of just scriptures? I doubt that.
Because if you are debating, especially when trying to convince someone of the bible's validity. You can't fight with only the bible. What is the weapon given to you by God? The Sword of the Spirit, not the bible itself. The Spirit is within you, and you must articulate with mostly of your own words if you want you yourself to be viewed as a credible debater. If you are not credible, why should we believe you or your links?

I also never asked weather religion can be proven by science. I asked if God can be Disproven by science, though you find God in religion. Your evidence had nothing to do with the question. You only proved that a part of science was faulty, which does not mean science as a whole is faulty. The same with the bible, if a piece of the bible is proven wrong, that does not mean the whole thing is considered faulty. Neither of them should be thrown out because of that.

When you first posted with all your verses and views, all it heard was you trying to convert me(to a faith I am actually already interested in). Personally, you dissuaded me from the faith BECAUSE the only thing I heard from you was "You are a sinner, you must repent," Nothing about the question that was actually asked. Also, it was more full of bible verses than your own words.


If you want to know my view on the subject. No, I do not think God can be disproved with science, why? Because I believe he is outside of Natural Science. As are miracles.

So why do I ask this question? The same reason I do will all questions I ask here, to cause people to think and question life. To learn and grow. You are correct, we as humans learn and act based on what we think and hear. Debates are an excellent way to see both sides of arguments in one place. Many people read over these debates and never input their own side, but instead are able to learn more about the situation. I myself sometimes are able to learn a new point of the other side of the debate that I've never encountered before.

I am also pretty sure that the video CAN be summed up. Based on what was said here, you should pick out what points you most feel applies to the debate or argument at hand and sum it up. If not, then you can't use the video, simple as that. I mean you can, but most wont view it and its going to be a waste of a post. I mean, I might have wanted to view it if you had posted a few high points from it with the link, not with just a, "watch this and believe."

[John 6:29]

Very well. I will sum the video up later tonight as time allows; and may be posted tomorrow.

The Holy Spirit is in us, yes but we get our answers through His Word, the Bible. As far as accreditation goes, no buddy has credibility, you learn this throughout school. This is why teachers want citation. You need to provide sources where you acquired your information because as you start citing sources you begin attain credible answers and people are more inclined to believe you.

Let me sum up your answers to be more clear. And please allow me to apologize for getting frustrated, as I shouldn't have.

I believe the Bible, cover to cover, word for word. I believe that it is the infallible and inerrant word of God, all of it written by men through the breath of God Himself.

I believe God Created the world, sin rules the world, because of sin we are separated from God, God provided a Savior so we can be reconciled back to Him and fellowship with God like we used to, we have an opportunity to be saved, I believe Jesus will judge the world, destroy the world, remake the world perfect, and I believe everyone will go to Heaven or Hell, there is no in between and most people will not go to Heaven. (I can provide references if you want them, just ask)

1) God has revealed Himself. And we CAN know He is real. And is not a figment of our imaginations.
Romans 1:18-21, Psalms 19:1-6, Romans 2:14-15, Romans 8:14-16

2) Everyone has faith in something, even though it may not be God. Many people believe in God but do not trust Him as their savior.
James 2:19

3) There is only one God. Faith in anything else results in condemnation, because we can only be saved through Jesus.
Acts 4:12, James 2:19, Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 46:9, 1 Corinthians 8:4

4) We know which God is real by faith, and when we have faith in the God of the Bible our adoption is confirmed.
Romans 8:14-16

This is what I believe. If you do not, that is up to you. I am not here to argue these points just show what I believe, and those are the answers to your questions.

The verses I referenced also show a warning about science, and the wisdom of man (maybe you didn't read all the versus I provided).

You see the Bible is divided by Old and New testament, the old testament was written hundreds of years before Jesus came, and Angels in the old testament, and even God, came to men and would talk to them, and these books prophesied of a Man named Jesus. It gave descriptions of where He would be born, by whom He'd be born, what His name would be and the meaning of it, that He would sacrifice our sins, be risen again, and reconcile us back to God. All of this written hundreds of years before it even happened! And then the New testament comes into play where all of these prophecies come true. This is how we know Jesus is God. Now these are all HISTORICALLY accurate, and Biblically accurate. Meaning both studies out side of the bible prove all of this, and the bible also confirms it.

You see all of these are proven historically accurate by other accounts that all of this did happen, but the old testament talks about it before it happens. And the new testament tells that it happened, and why it happens.

When you take the Bible and dissect it, whether you chose to believe it or not, it is quite a remarkable piece of work.

If you wish I can provide versus of the prophecy being predicted and then coming true. There is also archeology evidences that things that occurred in the Bible, really happened. I know you're not a fan of looking things up, but here's a website with some examples: http://www.newcreationstudies.org/Ne...htm#archeology

Anyways. I have some things to do. I will post some of that video tonight or tomorrow, but I will get around to it.

Again forgive me for coming out wrong. I'm sorry for getting angry with you. Hope this provides some answers for your questions, if not you did say you are curious to what I believe, and this is what I believe.

[edit]

As for the poster above, yes it is a religious site. The speaker used to be a scientist, and when he became saved he started a ministry with arguments towards what he used to believe.

[Noctis]

Originally Posted by onion

Re-read the statement, people know 1 billionth of everything. Not 1 person.
Watch the video's it'll provide proof for a 6-10K creation.
Again, I said that science cannot prove the God of the Bible, only Faith can do this. But Science can prove a creator.
The thing is, I am valuing my time here on earth. I love living for God, more so then I did when I was living for myself.

First, I would like to impress on you just how much of "everything" there is:

The earth is big yes? I think everyone could agree with me after a nice world tour(which would take several months to visit all the nice vacation spots and attractions like the Grand Canyon and Mt. Everest).

Well about a million earths could fit inside the sun, making it very large indeed. There are roughly 400 billion stars in a single galaxy, and there are 80 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

That is the extent of all there is to "know". Even one billionth of a percent is quite an accomplishment. You'd think that throwing a rocket into space would make you a tad more appreciative of science.

Again the Bible says God allowed for this Wisdom to occur, everything evil is a result of sin, again watch the video and you will see as a nation that drifts from God, these issue rise. It seems as if you are imposing God is the cause of genocides, and suffering. If you believe this then your generally basis and knowledge of God is far to little to even argue in this aspect of the holy vs evil war. This is the general consensus of the world but the world also tends to believe good people get to Heaven. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I encourage you to find a verse in the Bible that says God causes suffering. And I say the Bible, not a human concept, because anyone can say "look at what Hitler did", and I can say, "yes but prove that was God" and you can't, because you don't even believe in God so how can you prove something you do not believe in the first place. And ultimately it is the Bible that we are arguing about so provide me with proof in the Bible that God causes suffering, and I will show you the meaning of the verse, and I can show you that man, sin, and Satan are the result of what is happening today.

To be equally fair, prove that God is actually responsible for any of the "good" things that happen in life(which can range from your boss giving you a raise, survivors of a tragic event, to someone meeting the love of their life).

If you can't accuse God of being the cause of "bad", you can't credit him for "good" either.

If God lets Hitler into Heaven because he believes, but condemns a saint to hell for disbelief, then this isn't exactly a God that I want to spend an eternity with, and further supports my theory of the "ass-kissing" believer.

The translations have not changed any core meaning of the Bible, if you believe this provide me a verse and I will disprove it. Again watch the video.

I think Deuteronomy is a crowd favorite for "bad literature" in the Bible:

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

No offense, as I do encourage the criticism, but it seems you are responding to my arguments without thoroughly looking at them. But please watch the video.

I could say the same about you. I also love people who keep pointing to excessively long videos as though it were a lifeline to avoid imminent death.

The fact that you can't simply quote a piece from the video to directly counter an argument goes to show that while you watched it, you have no understanding of what the guy said.

Now if you want to argue about scriptures instead of logics, or if you want to argue logics of passages in the Bible, by all means, show me a verse. But it seems this argument has turned into an argument of logics, rather than the intended purpose. IF you want proof against science look no further than the video.

That's a video of a guy who's full of himself, talks too much, and makes a mockery of science with every other breath he takes.

But I'll humor you.

First, his question on the origin of matter and energy is indeed challenging. But like you said, man only knows a billionth of all there is to know about "everything". The origin of the universe is what I would like to consider as the ultimate discovery of science, it is the most difficult and most challenging question to answer, if not the last mystery of the universe to be answered. Kent seems to be under the delusion that because science can't answer everything, everywhere, right now, it's automatically wrong. Just because there's a question that science can't answer YET, that doesn't make it wrong.

Second, evolution takes millions of years to occur, there's no way to observe it happening. Similarly, star formation also takes millions of years, thus there is equally no way to actually observe it happening within our lifetimes, and the process can only be observed within our own galaxy, which severely limits the "trillions of stars each person on this planet can personally own".

His mention of angular momentum is amusing and horribly misleading, as angular momentum isn't the only force that exists in the universe. The children on the merry-go-round do not have sizable gravitational fields, nor do they generate powerful magnetic fields. At least one of which can have an effect on the rotation of a planet, star, or galaxy. The Big Bang is also more like 10,000 kids crammed in one merry-go-round. When one kid with a clockwise spin hits another kid also with a clockwise spin, which direction do you think they'll go next?

I also like his comment on the ACLU, referring to them as the "American Communist Lawyers Union", actual definition is the "American Civil Liberties Union". He had a nice little picture of the founder, Roger Balwin, with a quote above the picture stating, "Communism is the goal". That quote was no doubt taken out of context from a book he wrote, which CONDEMNED Communism(yes, he was against it and made efforts to purge the Communist Party from the ACLU).

He also made various claims that Creationism can be legally taught in science classes, almost as though it were the truth. No, they can't, or else we'd be seeing it taught everywhere(76% of the United States HAVE identified themselves as Christians after all).

When the guy warps the truth THAT much, it's a pretty safe assumption that most of what he says is a lie, and it's designed to fool the average joe who won't know the truth until he digs through 15 layers of bullsh*t.

I'll be happy to look through the rest of his video and surgically take it apart for everyone to look at when I'm done with work.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Noctis

First, I would like to impress on you just how much of "everything" there is:

The earth is big yes? I think everyone could agree with me after a nice world tour(which would take several months to visit all the nice vacation spots and attractions like the Grand Canyon and Mt. Everest).

Well about a million earths could fit inside the sun, making it very large indeed. There are roughly 400 billion stars in a single galaxy, and there are 80 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

That is the extent of all there is to "know". Even one billionth of a percent is quite an accomplishment. You'd think that throwing a rocket into space would make you a tad more appreciative of science.


To be equally fair, prove that God is actually responsible for any of the "good" things that happen in life(which can range from your boss giving you a raise, survivors of a tragic event, to someone meeting the love of their life).

If you can't accuse God of being the cause of "bad", you can't credit him for "good" either.

If God lets Hitler into Heaven because he believes, but condemns a saint to hell for disbelief, then this isn't exactly a God that I want to spend an eternity with, and further supports my theory of the "ass-kissing" believer.



I think Deuteronomy is a crowd favorite for "bad literature" in the Bible:




I could say the same about you. I also love people who keep pointing to excessively long videos as though it were a lifeline to avoid imminent death.

The fact that you can't simply quote a piece from the video to directly counter an argument goes to show that while you watched it, you have no understanding of what the guy said.


That's a video of a guy who's full of himself, talks too much, and makes a mockery of science with every other breath he takes.

But I'll humor you.

First, his question on the origin of matter and energy is indeed challenging. But like you said, man only knows a billionth of all there is to know about "everything". The origin of the universe is what I would like to consider as the ultimate discovery of science, it is the most difficult and most challenging question to answer, if not the last mystery of the universe to be answered. Kent seems to be under the delusion that because science can't answer everything, everywhere, right now, it's automatically wrong. Just because there's a question that science can't answer YET, that doesn't make it wrong.

Second, evolution takes millions of years to occur, there's no way to observe it happening. Similarly, star formation also takes millions of years, thus there is equally no way to actually observe it happening within our lifetimes, and the process can only be observed within our own galaxy, which severely limits the "trillions of stars each person on this planet can personally own".

His mention of angular momentum is amusing and horribly misleading, as angular momentum isn't the only force that exists in the universe. The children on the merry-go-round do not have sizable gravitational fields, nor do they generate powerful magnetic fields. At least one of which can have an effect on the rotation of a planet, star, or galaxy. The Big Bang is also more like 10,000 kids crammed in one merry-go-round. When one kid with a clockwise spin hits another kid also with a clockwise spin, which direction do you think they'll go next?

I also like his comment on the ACLU, referring to them as the "American Communist Lawyers Union", actual definition is the "American Civil Liberties Union". He had a nice little picture of the founder, Roger Balwin, with a quote above the picture stating, "Communism is the goal". That quote was no doubt taken out of context from a book he wrote, which CONDEMNED Communism(yes, he was against it and made efforts to purge the Communist Party from the ACLU).

He also made various claims that Creationism can be legally taught in science classes, almost as though it were the truth. No, they can't, or else we'd be seeing it taught everywhere(76% of the United States HAVE identified themselves as Christians after all).

When the guy warps the truth THAT much, it's a pretty safe assumption that most of what he says is a lie, and it's designed to fool the average joe who won't know the truth until he digs through 15 layers of bullsh*t.

I'll be happy to look through the rest of his video and surgically take it apart for everyone to look at when I'm done with work.

The one billionth of everything is just a statistic. It is not proven. And none the less only serves as an example. I am also lead to believe it would be far less of a number of what we actually know, so what you have basically concluded is that it is even more irrational to conclude that there is no God.

Satan is the one who caused the "bad" and is a result of sin. If you read through Genesis, God saw that everything was good. Satan spawned evil from His heart and desired to build a throne above God, and thus sin was started. But either way this is another discussion that is debatable, and we are talking about science. If you read through the book of Job, God allows for bad things to happen in order that people can be made right with God. He uses trials to bring people to Salvation. Don't believe this? It's even evident just by examination. During natural disasters, when 9/11 happened, when hurricane Katrina happened, the aspects you did not see on the news was how many people drastically turned to the Churches, and to God. The Bible says that there will be more rejoicing for 1 person who repents than 99 people who have already repented. God will cause disasters even if it is to save 1 person. Again if you argue about God being the cause of evil and sin read: Genesis 3, Job 1, Ezekiel 28, Romans 8:20-22, James 1:13-17 and allows these things because of Romans 8:28.

If you would have read my post above, you would see that just because someone believes in God does not mean they are saved. Salvation comes through repentance, and Faith. In James 2:19 it says that even the devils believe, but we all know devils are not in Heaven, God cast them out.

I do not see what you are trying to prove through Deutoronomy, but I will respond to this in 1 second. Let me point out that my statement was as follows: "The translations have not changed any core meaning of the Bible, if you believe this provide me a verse and I will disprove it. Again watch the video." So you're argument with Deut. proves no argument against this. The Bible, though has many translations, has not changed the context of the core meaning of the Bible. Again, as an example with the world being flat. Science believed the world was flat, had they read the Bible they would have found out the earth is round, and upon discoveries they changed to believing that the earth was round and not flat. Science also used to believe that if you were sick you have bad blood, so they would cut people to make them bleed out their "bad blood" which eventually lead to deaths. If they would have believed Leviticus 17:11 that says that a creatures life is in their blood, maybe that would have prevented this belief in science, but none the less they found out blood is good upon discoveries so they have changed their general concepts and belief throughout time, and the Bible has not.

I am assuming you are trying to prove that God is evil in this passage. Perhaps you did not read the rest of this story in Deutoronomy these people God is talking about were enemies of Israel and they made false idols instead of worshipping God. Even in the first verse it say's to offer them peace, but they didn't... they chose war. Labor and slavery back in these times was different then when Jesus came into existence and far different from slavery as we have seen it progress. Slaves in these times were actually taken care of. They were more like employees, then slaves, and they were payed. But God was furious with them because they had made false idols. Which in Matthew 22:36-48 we see that God says the most important commandment is to love God, it doesn't say love things of this world or false idols, but to love God. And in Leviticus 19:4, Exodus 20:23, Exodus 34:17, Leviticus 26:1, Psalms 96:5, Psalms 115:4, etc God warns everyone about having idols and false gods. These people were in direct violation with God's number 1 law. If God's wrath is so divine and Hell is separation from God, and people who do not obey God's commands are going to hell, which is far worse than anyone can imagine... well then, I think this picture is just a small glimpse of God's anger, because of direct disobedience to Him. But luckily He sent His son so that we can escape His eternal wrath.

Now in correlation to your responses on the video:

You're sitting here telling me that I took nothing away from this video, yet one of your statements, is incorrect.

You said that he stated that creationism was allowed to be taught in public schools. Apparently you did not listen very well yourself, because he was talking PRIOR to 1963, when evolution first started being government funded, and creationism was erased from text books.

I think something that is very important to take out; if nothing else from this video is the fact of what science is.

Science is knowledge that is acquired through observation and studies.

If you truthfully believe the big bang to be a fact, that is illegitament because no body was there to observe it actually happen.

If you continue watching the video, however, he provides examples of why the earth cannot possibly be millions of years old, and uses science to prove so.

I will draft up information, I need to get going for now though.

[Dasha]

Originally Posted by Noctis

If you can't accuse God of being the cause of "bad", you can't credit him for "good" either.

If God lets Hitler into Heaven because he believes, but condemns a saint to hell for disbelief, then this isn't exactly a God that I want to spend an eternity with, and further supports my theory of the "ass-kissing" believer.

I think Deuteronomy is a crowd favorite for "bad literature" in the Bible:

Actually God created Man and gave him free will. Everything was good UNTIL man was tricked by the devil(whom was evil) and ate the fruit. Technically man created bad(on this earth), which I think is quite the accomplishment, aye?

Originally Posted by Noctis

If God lets Hitler into Heaven because he believes, but condemns a saint to hell for disbelief, then this isn't exactly a God that I want to spend an eternity with, and further supports my theory of the "ass-kissing" believer.

God also has rules as well. Think of it like this, that saint may have been good all his life, but by not accepting God(according to the faith), he broke the only rule and can not be accepted into heaven. Plus, even the most saintly person sins. That would be like a person cheating on a test but saying, "well I got all the right answers, why wont you give me my score." If Hitler at the very last moment went ahead and completed the test without cheating, then he gets in, no matter how many other tests he cheated on before. Same with the saint. Up until your last moment you have until you can accept him. If you can't follow one simple rule, why should God let you into his heaven?

God had not forced anyone to follow him. He has made us with our own free will and our own free choices. If we do not choose to follow him, well that's all fine and dandy. But if you don't follow the rules then I don't see why should he let you in.
Parents love their children, but that don't mean they aren't to be punished when they break the rules. Some actions just bring much worse punishment then others. That does not mean when they are punished that God hates them, no.
He already gave people free will, he gave them a rule book, he told them what they can and can not do, gave them the pros and consequences. Now what kind of a parent would he be if he did not follow the rules he set himself? He said he would bring those who accepted him into his home, and only those. And that is what he will do.

Originally Posted by Noctis

I think Deuteronomy is a crowd favorite for "bad literature" in the Bible:

Just like you said the man quoted something out of context, so have you.
God may love all, but he protects HIS people first. He was saying that if they wanted to attack X people whom had sought to harm them or blasphemed God, then that is how they would have to do it. God would not fight their battles for them, but show them how to do it in order to win.

15Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

source

[Dasha]

Originally Posted by onion

I believe the Bible, cover to cover, word for word. I believe that it is the infallible and incoherent word of God, all of it written by men through the breath of God Himself.

But see, this still is not an argument about disproving all of science or all of the bible, about disproving parts of them. It is about one single thing. God. One can disprove all of the bible and still believe God exists. Because there are arguments for the exsistance of God outside of the bible.

Otherwise you might be making quite the argument. Whether or not someone can look at religion or God scientifically, AND still believe God exists. That is what we are trying to find out.

Originally Posted by onion

The Holy Spirit is in us, yes but we get our answers through His Word, the Bible. As far as accreditation goes, no buddy has credibility, you learn this throughout school. This is why teachers want citation. You need to provide sources where you acquired your information because as you start citing sources you begin attain credible answers and people are more inclined to believe you.

Answers may be gotten from the Word sure, but the same way you can't parrot off a part of the dictionary without explaining it for those that might not understand, the same way you can't parrot of the bible without explaining it.

Well of COURSE you need sources. I am not arguing against sources, but against solely using sources. For the same exact reason your teachers don't want you to copy and paste another's work and just turn it in with sources. Your last post had what I considered proper amount of sources and your words. It was good, I just did not like your first post or so that had the majority of it quotes from the bible without explaining/talking about them.

[Noctis]

Originally Posted by onion

The one billionth of everything is just a statistic. It is not proven. And none the less only serves as an example. I am also lead to believe it would be far less of a number of what we actually know, so what you have basically concluded is that it is even more irrational to conclude that there is no God.

I like how you shoved that conclusion down my throat.
I can understand if you arrive at random conclusions through no chain of logical thought, but please don't insult me by implying that I ever suggested it, you decided that on your own.
Unless concluding that there IS a God imparts us with the other 99.999999999999999999999999999999% knowledge of "everything", it won't have any effect whatsoever on one's decision to believe in God or not.

Satan is the one who caused the "bad" and is a result of sin. If you read through Genesis, God saw that everything was good. Satan spawned evil from His heart and desired to build a throne above God, and thus sin was started. But either way this is another discussion that is debatable, and we are talking about science. If you read through the book of Job, God allows for bad things to happen in order that people can be made right with God. He uses trials to bring people to Salvation. Don't believe this? It's even evident just by examination. During natural disasters, when 9/11 happened, when hurricane Katrina happened, the aspects you did not see on the news was how many people drastically turned to the Churches, and to God. The Bible says that there will be more rejoicing for 1 person who repents than 99 people who have already repented. God will cause disasters even if it is to save 1 person. Again if you argue about God being the cause of evil and sin read: Genesis 3, Job 1, Ezekiel 28, Romans 8:20-22, James 1:13-17 and allows these things because of Romans 8:28.

Satan is a pathetic attempt by the religious to free themselves from taking responsibility for their own faults by simply saying that "Satan did it", "Satan made me do it", or "Satan tricked me into doing it". I fail to see how free will is supposed to exist if one can be so easily mislead. It also sounds like you're suggesting that humanity isn't capable of doing either good or evil on their own, instead it's either God or Satan that decides whether they do good or evil. If this is the case, I don't believe that anybody can be held responsible for good or evil.

The ends justifies the means? The lesser of two evils? Sacrifice one to save many? If this is the case, using that very same logic, I can end all evil on earth by completely and utterly wiping out all of humanity, and it would be justified. There will be no future atrocities, no further evils, no World War III.

If you would have read my post above, you would see that just because someone believes in God does not mean they are saved. Salvation comes through repentance, and Faith. In James 2:19 it says that even the devils believe, but we all know devils are not in Heaven, God cast them out.

I suppose this is the part where you tell me that the wicked will only be saved if they "truly regret" their actions?
If this is the case, I believe that only a very small number of the 76% of Christians in America will ever get to Heaven.

And what of the deluded? I'm quite certain that the Crusaders did believe, they did have great faith, and they will repent for any sins they committed. People will kill in God's name, and I see no reason why they won't get in Heaven, according to the vibe I'm getting from you anyways.

Sin is sin in God's eyes, there is no small nor large sin. Stealing as equally as much of a sin as murder. It does not matter if one man lies and the other kills, both are sinners in God's eyes.

To repent, they must believe in Jesus, they must put their faith in him that they shall be saved.

Thus following that logic, those who kill, rape, and torture can get in Heaven so long as they have genuine belief and genuine faith. Devils may believe in God, but do they have faith in him, do they believe that they can be saved?

I do not see what you are trying to prove through Deutoronomy, but I will respond to this in 1 second. Let me point out that my statement was as follows: "The translations have not changed any core meaning of the Bible, if you believe this provide me a verse and I will disprove it. Again watch the video." So you're argument with Deut. proves no argument against this. The Bible, though has many translations, has not changed the context of the core meaning of the Bible. Again, as an example with the world being flat. Science believed the world was flat, had they read the Bible they would have found out the earth is round, and upon discoveries they changed to believing that the earth was round and not flat. Science also used to believe that if you were sick you have bad blood, so they would cut people to make them bleed out their "bad blood" which eventually lead to deaths. If they would have believed Leviticus 17:11 that says that a creatures life is in their blood, maybe that would have prevented this belief in science, but none the less they found out blood is good upon discoveries so they have changed their general concepts and belief throughout time, and the Bible has not.

I would like you to quote an actual source(not a religious fanatic's site or Mr. Hovind's twisted version of the "truth") for the claim that science itself was responsible for the "bad blood" practice.

As for the comment about the Bible saying the earth is round, I'd like to direct your attention here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PS...Schneider.html

Not a 2 hour long video, but instead several pages of text. I believe it more than sufficiently refuted the claim that the Bible talks about a spherical Earth, as "a circle is no more a sphere in scripture than it is in geometry".

Another prime example of a petty human "interpreting" the Bible in whichever way he so pleases, made all the more pathetic by the failed attempt to make it seem "ahead" of science.

I am assuming you are trying to prove that God is evil in this passage. Perhaps you did not read the rest of this story in Deutoronomy these people God is talking about were enemies of Israel and they made false idols instead of worshipping God. Even in the first verse it say's to offer them peace, but they didn't... they chose war. Labor and slavery back in these times was different then when Jesus came into existence and far different from slavery as we have seen it progress. Slaves in these times were actually taken care of. They were more like employees, then slaves, and they were payed. But God was furious with them because they had made false idols. Which in Matthew 22:36-48 we see that God says the most important commandment is to love God, it doesn't say love things of this world or false idols, but to love God. And in Leviticus 19:4, Exodus 20:23, Exodus 34:17, Leviticus 26:1, Psalms 96:5, Psalms 115:4, etc God warns everyone about having idols and false gods. These people were in direct violation with God's number 1 law. If God's wrath is so divine and Hell is separation from God, and people who do not obey God's commands are going to hell, which is far worse than anyone can imagine... well then, I think this picture is just a small glimpse of God's anger, because of direct disobedience to Him. But luckily He sent His son so that we can escape His eternal wrath.

In a parallel with the Sabbatical Year system, the Covenant Code institutes automatic manumission of male Israelite slaves, after they have worked for six years[51]; this implicitly excludes non-Israelite slaves, and explicitly excludes female Israelite slaves from such automatic 7th-year manumission[52]. However, the later[53][54][55][56][57] Deuteronomic Code directly contradicts[58][59] elements of this instruction, extending automatic 7th year manumission to both sexes[60]. But this only applies to people who have sold themselves into slavery (i.e. indentured servants).

Although the Holiness Code instructs that during the Sabbatical Year, slaves and their masters should eat food which the land yields, without being farmed, it does not explicitly forbid the slaves from the farming itself, despite restricting their masters from doing so, and neither does it grant slaves any other additional rest from work during these years.[101]

Indeed, unlike the other law codes, the Holiness Code does not mention explicit occasions of respite from toil, instead simply giving the vague instruction that Israelite slaves should not to be compelled to work with rigour;[102][103] Maimonides argues that this was to be interpreted as forbidding open-ended work (such as keep doing that until I come back), and that disciplinary action was not to include instructing the slave to perform otherwise pointless work.[104][105]
A special case is that of the debtor who sells himself as a slave to his creditor; the Holiness Code instructs that in this situation, the debtor must not be made to do the work of slaves, but must instead be treated the same as a hired servant.[106] In Jewish tradition, this was taken to mean that the debtor should not be instructed to do humiliating work - which only slaves would do - and that the debtor should be asked to perform the craft(s) which they usually did before they had been enslaved, if it is realistic to do so.[107][108]

Now in correlation to your responses on the video:

You're sitting here telling me that I took nothing away from this video, yet one of your statements, is incorrect.

You said that he stated that creationism was allowed to be taught in public schools. Apparently you did not listen very well yourself, because he was talking PRIOR to 1963, when evolution first started being government funded, and creationism was erased from text books.

Apparently you didn't listen at all.
He constantly used present-tense terms such as:
"No, you don't have to teach this evolution theory." (correct past tense term = "didn't have to")
"Teachers can teach Creation theory in public schools if they want."(correct past tense terms = "used to be able to" and "if they wanted to")

Also, he quoted this, "no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before and it can be taught now". The date was listed as July 19, 1987.

Perhaps in addition to "practice what you preach" you should also KNOW what you preach.

I think something that is very important to take out; if nothing else from this video is the fact of what science is.

Science is knowledge that is acquired through observation and studies.

If you truthfully believe the big bang to be a fact, that is illegitament because no body was there to observe it actually happen.

If you continue watching the video, however, he provides examples of why the earth cannot possibly be millions of years old, and uses science to prove so.

I will draft up information, I need to get going for now though.

You obviously never took science class nor performed any experiments.

Science does indeed include observation, but did you forget that you can observe things other than the actual event itself?

I ask you this:
You find a large blackened spot on the ground. Rock and dirt are thrown out in an expanding pattern from one focal point in the middle of the blackened ground. There is considerable structural damage all around that is consistent with a large amount of concussive force and heat. Would it be logical for you to conclude that an explosion occurred, even though nobody witnessed it?

If Mr. Hovind actually "proved" that the earth isn't millions of years old using the scientific method, the entire scientific community would be in an uproar, and I'd be watching this guy on the news.

Instead when I wake up tomorrow morning, I'll be spending my time observing how Wikipedia has quite literally dissected Kent Hovind and all his "claims" and "challenges":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_hovind

I would suggest that everyone do the same.

[TakeTheLeap]

Onion, I think what wey're getting at is that we want YOUR view, in your OWN words. Not just requoting scripture. We don't want to watch a 2 hour video, we want to know what your viewpoint is, spoken out of your mouth, choosing your own words.
I understand that your viewpoint is based on scripture, but say it a different way. Explain why the scripture is your view. Not just that it is.

[Noctis]

Originally Posted by Dasha

Actually God created Man and gave him free will. Everything was good UNTIL man was tricked by the devil(whom was evil) and ate the fruit. Technically man created bad(on this earth), which I think is quite the accomplishment, aye?

Technically it sounds like the Adam and Eve tale accuses humanity of being guilty of learning. It almost sounds like the "right" thing to do would be to remain ignorant and live like dumb animals.

God also has rules as well. Think of it like this, that saint may have been good all his life, but by not accepting God(according to the faith), he broke the only rule and can not be accepted into heaven. Plus, even the most saintly person sins. That would be like a person cheating on a test but saying, "well I got all the right answers, why wont you give me my score." If Hitler at the very last moment went ahead and completed the test without cheating, then he gets in, no matter how many other tests he cheated on before. Same with the saint. Up until your last moment you have until you can accept him. If you can't follow one simple rule, why should God let you into his heaven?

And I suppose that doesn't sound WRONG in any way to you? The saint carries no malicious intent, he isn't exactly "cheating" as you so describe it. It would be in fact more accurate to say that he was ACCUSED of cheating, and nobody believed him. The saint does not conspire to cheat.
Hitler on the other hand would be a 100% cheater even to the end. He cheats, but he believes he's doing the right thing, and because of that belief, he is rewarded for cheating.

God had not forced anyone to follow him. He has made us with our own free will and our own free choices. If we do not choose to follow him, well that's all fine and dandy. But if you don't follow the rules then I don't see why should he let you in.
Parents love their children, but that don't mean they aren't to be punished when they break the rules. Some actions just bring much worse punishment then others. That does not mean when they are punished that God hates them, no.
He already gave people free will, he gave them a rule book, he told them what they can and can not do, gave them the pros and consequences. Now what kind of a parent would he be if he did not follow the rules he set himself? He said he would bring those who accepted him into his home, and only those. And that is what he will do.

Let me tell you what God and his "rules" are.
God is sort of like my mother.
She beats me, at 6 years old, for CRYING. The harder I cry, the harder she beats me until I shut the **** up. Yet what 6 year old doesn't cry? Especially when beaten with the belt buckle?

That is God. God makes rules that is simply physically and psychologically IMPOSSIBLE to abide by. It's like saying that if you're over 6 inches tall, you're guilty and I'm going to condemn you to an eternity of suffering, but you can get out of it easy by kissing my ass.

Just like you said the man quoted something out of context, so have you.
God may love all, but he protects HIS people first. He was saying that if they wanted to attack X people whom had sought to harm them or blasphemed God, then that is how they would have to do it. God would not fight their battles for them, but show them how to do it in order to win.

source

15Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

Hmm, no matter how you look at that, it sounds like God is suggesting that we should utterly and mercilessly wipe out anyone with a different religious belief. It seems like everyone is to be wiped out, and that the entire city itself is guilty. Which is irrational of course.
Even if a SMALL group of fanatics from one city attacks them(or the governing body that rules over them), it's not like 100% of the city is responsible for it.

But if you feel the urge to go on a crusade for religious genocide, feel free.

[Annoni]

Originally Posted by ~Emily~

Onion, I think what wey're getting at is that we want YOUR view, in your OWN words. Not just requoting scripture. We don't want to watch a 2 hour video, we want to know what your viewpoint is, spoken out of your mouth, choosing your own words.
I understand that your viewpoint is based on scripture, but say it a different way. Explain why the scripture is your view. Not just that it is.

His own words are a reflection of the bible. There is nothing wrong with that.

Also, when he speaks his own words, you say he has no credit. When he speaks the bible, you say it is not his own words. There is only so much a man can do for you.

[John 6:29]

Noctis, you are quite an interesting person. As I read through what you write; you constantly turn the table onto blaming me. I support evidence for what I believe and you rebuke it with another question, or another claim. I have compiled a general outline of the video, for anyone interested, you can PM me. I will respond to a few of these replies because as I can see, it does not matter what claims I make, what evidence I provide, how I quote it, whom I quote, or even share what I believe. The fact of the matter is you resist God. Just like the Bible says you would. I have provided information, and you reject it. The thing that is interesting about this argument, is that Science cannot prove the existence of God, and it cannot disprove the existence of God.

See the interesting thing about what you believe is that you believe everything was just there. That matter came from no where, and you cannot explain how this matter got there, or why these events happen. Yet the Bible written thousands of years ago, provides all the answers for which science can't, and people still reject it. Truly fascinates me. As I read these arguments it is as if you are trying to reinforce for yourself that God is non-existent, and not providing even logical responses to the information provided. Instead you argue that I am an idiot, or you use my arguments against myself, because you simply cannot answer them, and I provide the answers based off the Bible which is what I believe, and you say that it is wrong for me to quote the Bible. So I give you a scientist, studied in the field and converted to religion, and supposedly makes a mockery of science, when in reality it is science that has made a mockery out of itself.

Putting aside the arguments of the age of the earth, or the arguments of God being evil, and numerous other arguments amongst this thread, something that I have failed to be answered on your end is: Prove that science can disprove God. You can't because if you could, I would not have my Salvation, I would not have my faith, and in all said, if you could prove God doesn't exist, this discussion would not be going on right now. You make it seem like I am an idiot for believing a book, that provides all the answers science cannot prove, or even answer to a slightest degree. I have provided arguments of why science points to a Creator, whether being God or not, and you simply rebuke them with no evidence that proves there is no Creator. Instead you say rebuke my comments, by calling me and idiot for believing in a divine being, instead of some ball that absorb dust and blew up, and created everything. Instead of me believing that I came from NOTHING. Instead of believing that one day, all of mankind was a blob that evolved into species, and turned into a human? Sorry, I prefer my book that provides answers to all the questions science can't answer. I prefer my book that tells of the future. I prefer my book that speaks of current events. I prefer my book that gives me hope in Christ. Not a book that tells me I came from nothing, that I am meaningless, that I have no hope, that I am my own author of right and wrong, that doesn't provide answers to everything. Call me insane for believing my book over your book.

I love how you tell me not to shove answers down your throat, which I didn't but you have been doing this to me this entire argument, to be quite honest... just re-read all of your posts. By your post, you concluded that we do not know as much as I suggested. By concluding this you simply concluded on TOP of this, that there is an EVEN GREATER chance that God may exist. And made it even more IRRATIONAL to believe that there is no God, because there is so much more to consider on the fact that we know much less then I stated we knew. And again, no offense, but argument here proves an absolute flaw. You are saying here that even though we do not know "99.999999999999999999999999999999% of 'everything'" that it effects no ones belief in God. Is that a joke? This whole argument is based on proving if God exists or not. If we KNEW there was NO GOD then we would not be having this discussion because people would not be curious if there was a god. With out being curious if there is a god, there would be no religion. If there was no religion no one would believe in God. So therefore the "99.999999999999999999999999999999%" that we don't know has raised questions in peoples mind's if there truly is a God, and because they have questioned if there is a God, many people have come to faith in God, therefore many peoples beliefs have been affected by this number. Please, if you do not question God or the existence of God, then why are you so determined to argue with me? Are you not satisfied that you are the ultimate determiner of your life? I am happy with my belief in God, and you are happy with your belief in no god, right? Well then why are you so determined to move my belief? If there is no God in the end, then this discussion is redundant. There is no point. In fact, if there is no God in the end our lives our pointless because 80 years on this earth is absolutely nothing, and we will all die, to remember nothing, and we will be forgotten. What a sad end, what is the point of life then? Have fun? Well go have fun, just remember eternity is a lot longer than 80 years, and wherever we go or don't go when we die, is going to be a very long time that we are there, or not there in your case because we just rot away and die, right?

Oh wow, this is my favorite argument, and misinterpretation of the Bible, or Christian faith that you have included, yet. Since when do Christian's blame Satan for sin? Have you not read Genesis 3 yet? You tell me to know about what I preach, well the same goes for what you preach against, you need to understand both sides to provide a legitimate argument. Read Genesis 3, the whole reason we are separated from God is because man LIED to God, instead of asking for His forgiveness. We LIED. If we had ate of the tree, and ask for God's forgiveness instead of lying and trying to hide the sin, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Any TRUE Christian faith based religion (not Catholicism, Judaism, Mormanism etc.) teaches that WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR SINS, NOT SATAN OR GOD. If Satan was responsible for us sinning, then only Satan would be in Hell, because the rest of us would be perfect. In fact read these verse's right here:

James 1:13-18 (New American Standard Bible)

13Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
14But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
16Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
17Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
18In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.



You know I find your illustration of wiping the world out would solve all evil, quite hilarious. This is why we call God loving. Because He does not do this. Instead we are living in a time of grace. And just so you know, God does do this. Read Revelation, and the events in Revelation, are happening right now, we are leading up to the end times. In fact Baghdad in Revelation and prophesied in Isaiah, Baghdad in the end times will be the control point of the world, before Christ returns. If you read about the Muslim faith, they are waiting for a new "Messiah" to proclaim himself, which in Revelation is the anti-Christ, when you compare the scriptures side by side you can see that the Muslim faith has the Christian faith all backwards. Anyways this is besides the point, I just think it's funny how before you were saying generally people are good people. Yet in this one you say killing everyone would solve everything, yet I believe that Hitler was against Christianity much like you. Yet he did use quotes saying that he was doing the "work of the Almighty" etc, etc. But the Jew's are God's chosen people, so who really is the Almighty he is referring to? However, many quotes show he is an atheist, in fact check out one of my favorite Hitler quotes:


"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

Kind of interesting. Sounds to me like if you believe in evolution, that you have the right to do whatever it is you please, in a sense if you disagree with this, you are saying that morals are defined some where? Who defines morals? You might say the government defines morals, yet Hitler was government, therefore Hitler defined morals, therefore it is concluded that ALL people would agree with what Hitler was doing. Yes, he did brainwash many people, but many people disagreed with him, because of what? Because of MORALS. Now where did these morals come from? I believe God. Romans 7:7 shows the ten commandments help guide our morals in Exodus 20:2-17. And in Romans 2:14 God gave us morals. But this is not to say the more we commit a sin, the more we practice in something, the less guilty we feel about it. The more we are exposed to sin, the more willing we are to accept it, and it begins to not phase us. But you can realize this by common examination, and personal experiences. When you were just a kid, you didn't know what lying meant. But your mom asks you "did you clean your room", you say, "yes", but you didn't. The second you say this lie, even before knowing what a lie is, you know you did something wrong. There is no man made law in the USA against lying to your parents, in fact, many people encourage it, which is why many people don't care about it anymore, because they have grown used to it. Yet, it is LAW by God's standards in Exodus, in fact you are disrespecting your parents, and you are "bearing false witness", you are lying. You committed two sins, right then, and you felt guilty, right then, even without knowledge of sin, or lying, without any man made law, you knew you did something wrong. We were born to know right from wrong because God imputed these things in us. And when we sin, we commit every sin, James 2:10.

Another misconception you have of the Bible yet again. Even though I have provided this answer previously, I will again. First, let me say you are correct. The 76% of "professing Christians", the majority of them will most likely not make it to Heaven. Why? If you examine this 76%. 60% of these Christian believe they are saved by works. If you read Ephesians 2:8-9 works does not save you. They believe "I am a good person, I am going to Heaven". And of this 76% of Christians, only 30% believe that Jesus is the reason they are saved. And if you were to examine this 30% I am sure many of them believe that just because Jesus died, that the majority of them are going to heaven. Which is also not true. The Bible also says that many people who believe they are saved, will not make it in (Matthew 7:22-23) and this is because they were not saved to begin with. Hence why many people you believe to be "Christian" are hypocrites is because they are not saved. Also if you look at this 76% many of them believe just going to Church will save them. You see many people are deluded these day's because Pastor's are not doing their job. We are not training people properly, and also you have to take into account many of these 76% also fall away from the faith, which is a sign of a unbeliever. The Bible's says in Matthew 7:13 that the path to Heaven are narrow, and few will enter in, and the gate to destruction is large because many will enter through it. Meaning that more people are going to hell than to heaven. And you may say "well why is that"? Well take this board for example, me and anonni are the only two professing Christians on here. Now I do not even know if anonni is saved, and he doesn't know if I am saved. But based off statistics, it is very possible that one of us will fall away from the faith, and thus are unbelievers. But it is also not likely that either one of us would be standing this firm in our faith if we were not save, as examined in 1/2 Peter, and 1 John, a.k.a. the tests for a true believer. Despite us being the only two professing believers look how many here hate Christ, hate God, do not know if God exists, wants evidence to believe in God. Yet as I said it is by faith we believe in God, also shown through Ephesians 2:8-9. So assuming that the gates are narrow to Heaven, and wide to hell. The majority of you I would say are not saved, because of your lack of faith, and disbelief in God all together. It would take a larger doorway for the people on here who do not believe in God walking through the doorway at the same time. Than to a doorway to fit the two professing Christians on here, walking through the door at the same time. Wouldn't you agree? You know in Matthew 18:7-9 it talks about what is better than going to Hell. This verse is not to be taken literal it is saying to cut these things away from your life spiritually, whatever it is causing you to sin, STOP. Because in the end whatever it takes to stop sinning is better to get rid of it, then to go to hell. And based off what He says is better than going to hell, gets me thinking how can someone examine this verse and simply not care about their eternity, and where it is going to be spent?

Anyways as I've provided repent is Greek for metanoia, which mean's "to change your mind; reconsider; or, to think differently". Remember Proverbs 1:7, which says if we fear God, we are beginning to have wisdom. If you fear God, you begin to realize that God is gracious. You realize this because you realize He died for your sins John chapter 1 explains that God is Jesus. You continue to read through any of the gospels and see that Jesus went through suffering, was hung on a cross, because He took the weight of the worlds past, present, and future sins. He then rose again on the 3rd day like He said He would. He did this so that we could be reconciled back to Him. This is all explained in:

2 Corinthians 5:18-21 (New American Standard Bible)

18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

All these versus explain what I just stated above. Reconciliation means brought back to God. We were meant to have a relationship with God, but man ruined that in the Garden of Eden. But besides this, once we have fear of God, we then have Faith in God, once we have Faith that God did all this for us, and we have the realization that everyone has sinned, and everyone will go to hell unless we have Jesus (Romans 3:23, and Romans 6:23), we then have a repentance toward Jesus. We WANT to do better, we WANT to love God. And loving God is being obedient to His word. (Both Faith and Repentance is necessary, Mark 1:14-15) Repentance is a turn from selfish desires (sin), into selfless desires, serving the Lord and obeying His commands, and loving others, because if we obey His commands, we love God (John 14:21, 1 John 2:5, 1 John 4:20-21), but we are not perfect as Christians until we die, and then we are resurrected to Him (Philippians 1:21-26), and we have the relationship with God we were meant to have, unless you continue lying about and trying to hide your sins, which is what you are doing unless you repent, which is what Adam and Eve needed to do but didn't. You can only have repentance by Faith that Jesus will save you when you die. And when you have true repentance and realize how evil sin really is, which comes by fear of God's judgment and faith that Jesus will save you from this judgment, you will call upon the Lord, through prayer, and beg for His forgiveness (Romans 10:13). So repentance is not faith, but a result of faith which leads to salvation. Again, for someone who argues with the Bible, I kind of would think you'd at least grasp the general concept and ideas of it, instead of quoting references out of context and using them for something else, hence what you did in Deuteronomy, either you didn't know the full story, or you purposely did that.

Devils do not have Faith in Jesus, they hate Jesus, and when you study about the fall, the demons, are fallen angels, not decedents of Abraham are us, humans. The devils/demons decided to follow Lucifer to "rise above the Most High", and there was a war, and God cast them out. But the Bible also says this:

Hebrews 2:16-17 (New American Standard Bible)

16For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.
17Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Therefore, no. Demon's cannot be saved.


Now, in regards to the Spherical earth matter. Back in this time, there was no Greek or Hebrew word to describe a sphere, thus they said it is a circle. But also know that the Hebrew word, which is what "circle" is in the verse of Isaiah 40:21-22, which described the world as a circles, the Hebrew word is chuwg which means in this is translated to "a circle, circuit, compass". Now a circuit, if you don't know, is "beginning and ending at the same place" or "roundabout", and if you read your dictionary and read what a circle is, or http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circle definition #16 "16. a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.", the definition of a compass, again referring to a dictionary or, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compass "6. a passing round; circuit: the compass of a year. "

If you would like to read more about this in a lot less material then which you provided, and a lot less than a two hour video please go here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

As far as science goes, yes I agree with you that you can conclude something by examining it. However, there is no real evidence, that the earth was caused by a big bang. HENCE, the Big Bang (are you ready for this?) THEORY.

Now, referring to the video, I listened again, and I do stand corrected. Please forgive me, it was a mistake on my part. However, I think you would agree that you make mistakes as well. And to prevent further argument on my mistake, let me just say, that although I was mistaken about one thing, does not mean that I have made mistakes on everything else said. Just like you have made mistakes, not everything you have say is completely void just because of a mistake. If you chose to challenge this statement, please examine science, and how many mistakes scientist have made and corrected. Yet you still believe their theories and facts. Much like Hovind can make mistakes as well, and can exaggerate, so do you, so do I, so do scientist, and so does all man kind. You see, although I think Hovind makes great points in the flaws of science, he is still a man. Nothing more. Nothing less. But a man, although maybe billions and billions of years ago, his ancestors were frogs, he isn't now.

Luckily for us, God does not exaggerate or make mistakes, even though you claim he does, therefore are claiming you are a better God... so if you are would you be so kind as to make a "perfect" human in your eyes? You see God loved us and allowed us to choose Good or Evil, He allows us to make decisions. If you were to make what you consider a "perfect" human, I would assume you would get rid of evil, yet how do you define evil? Oh, and BTW, if you were to get rid of evil, and force us to be good, then we would have a dictating god, hmmm... how loving of you. Oh but I forgot, STD's are because of God, not because man decided to sleep with several creatures, which God warned us about doing. Oh I forgot death is because of God, not sin like Romans 6:23 says.

You see all the suffering is because of sin that man has decided to do, because God allowed it. He allowed free will. God is loving. Mankind are just idiots. But wait, it get's better, God died for us, so that we can be reconciled back to Him. Would you allow us to kill you, in the same fashion Christ was, if you were a god? Hmmm....

[...continued...]

[John 6:29]

[...continued...]

The post was too long it had to be divided into 2 parts (sorry)

Just to be clear read the post above this before hand ^^

Originally Posted by ~Emily~

Onion, I think what wey're getting at is that we want YOUR view, in your OWN words. Not just requoting scripture. We don't want to watch a 2 hour video, we want to know what your viewpoint is, spoken out of your mouth, choosing your own words.
I understand that your viewpoint is based on scripture, but say it a different way. Explain why the scripture is your view. Not just that it is.

AGAIN READ THE POST ABOVE THIS FIRST IF YOU HAVE NOT; THIS IS A CONTINUATION

Emily, I have provided all of these things you asked for. Perhaps you skipped through some of my posts. I have provided my view, I have provided my own words. The thing is, my words are based on Scripture because it is what I believe. Just like people use science, to apply what they believe to this thread. There is no difference. I suggested the two hour video, because if you truly want scientific proof that points to a God as opposed to science, this video already provides information that you require me to present that is already presented. I've shared my view point, on several accounts, and in my words. I base my views off scripture, because I have faith in them, just like people here have faith in science, and the big bang theory. I however, believe that the scriptures, when examined properly are historically accurate, scientifically accurate, they are prophesied accurately, and they provide for me answers that science cannot. If you chose to disagree with me, well that is great. I disagree with the big bang theory. Our lives are all based on decisions. You see disproving or proving science or God cannot be and will NEVER be proven, completely or 100% of the way. There may be indications that lead to one or the other, but there will always be questions you can ask. For example, if you believe the big bang theory, well there was a ball and dust, and other particles, well, okay... but where did those come from? And I believe in God? Now you ask where did God come from? Well, I don't know but the Bible says that He was always there, He will always be there, and is currently there. He is never changing because He does not have age. Now, what is more irrational? Believing in a God, or believing in some particles that were always there? Basically what is more absurd, nothing created everything? or a Creator created everything? You see, I am on the side of logic, and believe a creator made everything. Simply because, I can examine a car, I look at a car, I know a car needs a creator. Whether mechanical or not, if a car was a living creature, I would still believe in needed a creator. Just like I believe trees needed a creator, planets needed a creator, the earth needed a creator, I needed a creator. And if you believe the big bang theory, well that ball, and that dust, and those particles, and those elements used to create the planets or the planets used to create the elements, even though in the big bang theory only hydrogen and helium were made, and some how fused past iron and made several other elements, you still need a creator. You look at a human body, it is far more complex then a car, if I can assume a car needs a creator, would it be absurd to believe a human being needs a creator, being more complex then a car? Or did I just evolve from a blob that was created by an explosion in space? I guess I'm just on the side of logic, as I said, and this is why I believe the Bible. And because, like I said, have had a extreme change in life style since I have become saved. And before I didn't believe in God, and I didn't believe someone truly knew they were a Christian wen they became saved, and I wanted nothing to do with God, yet some how I ended up a Christian, and now I know it my heart, that God exists, and "te spirit confirms with my spirit" (Romans 8:14-16) that I am saved, and I know my faith rest securely with God (John 10:28). You see I have provided all these answers. Yet you all still say the same thing. And is clear as the Bible says that none of you have a problem with me but you have a problem with God (John 7:7), and no matter what I say, I cannot convert you. I can plant the seed, and God does the rest. And I trust He will, just as He did with me. And if not, when you stand before God at your judgment, you have no excuse before Him on why you didn't believe, because I have provided these verses and all this information before you, and when you meet Him, He will bring you back to this day, when you rejected His word, and if it has been presented to you before this, He will show you that day. And I have and will continue to pray for all of you, that you will see the truth, and at least one of you will become saved...


It has been an interesting discussion, or argument, whichever you prefer. And you have grown my faith tremendously, and I thank you all for this. If anyone has more question's about becoming saved or anything else, I will be glad to answer, as I hope even one person realizes their need for God through this, and I trust He used me wisely, and if anything else I have planted the seed, and God will allow it to grow as He wishes (Mark 4:1-20). If it is to rebuke me, I will not reply. I hope at least some of this caught your attention. And maybe as I can see that you are already interested in finding things wrong with Hovinds arguments, I am glad to see I have at least provoked your thought on this matter, and hopefully Christ will lead you to Salvation. I will not be posting on this thread anymore as I have provided on several accounts of references to the Bible, and how to become saved, which is my duty as a believer. Again, please forgive me if I have come of rude, or angry through out this process. I trust God will do His work in someones life through this. However, the Bible says in:

Ezekiel 3:27b
"'Thus says the Lord GOD.' He who hears, let him hear; and he who refuses, let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house."

God Bless.

[Dasha]

Originally Posted by Noctis

Technically it sounds like the Adam and Eve tale accuses humanity of being guilty of learning. It almost sounds like the "right" thing to do would be to remain ignorant and live like dumb animals.

Not guilty of learning, guilty of disobeying. They could have easily asked God for answers to questions.

Originally Posted by Noctis

And I suppose that doesn't sound WRONG in any way to you? The saint carries no malicious intent, he isn't exactly "cheating" as you so describe it. It would be in fact more accurate to say that he was ACCUSED of cheating, and nobody believed him. The saint does not conspire to cheat.
Hitler on the other hand would be a 100% cheater even to the end. He cheats, but he believes he's doing the right thing, and because of that belief, he is rewarded for cheating.

It is called a second chance. If he was TRULY sorry for what he had done in the end, what is the problem with forgiving him? God is a loving and forgiving God.
aren't Saints God's followers anyways? So why was the saint chosen for this argument? Plus, if the Saint was not accepting of God, then why was he doing all good works anyways? For selfish reasons most likely. "You get into heaven by faith and not by works alone."

Originally Posted by Noctis

Let me tell you what God and his "rules" are.
God is sort of like my mother.
She beats me, at 6 years old, for CRYING. The harder I cry, the harder she beats me until I shut the **** up. Yet what 6 year old doesn't cry? Especially when beaten with the belt buckle?

That is God. God makes rules that is simply physically and psychologically IMPOSSIBLE to abide by. It's like saying that if you're over 6 inches tall, you're guilty and I'm going to condemn you to an eternity of suffering, but you can get out of it easy by kissing my ass.

"Let me tell you what God and his "rules" are." Excuse me? You apparently hate and/or don't believe in God, how are you to know what his rules are? The rules are not impossible to abide by, Jesus did it(and even many scientists agree he lived). Adam and Eve did it for a short while. Sin is doing something bad. Sinning gets you into hell. God forgives sinners and saves them from hell. Where are you getting he is evil from?

Originally Posted by Noctis

Hmm, no matter how you look at that, it sounds like God is suggesting that we should utterly and mercilessly wipe out anyone with a different religious belief. It seems like everyone is to be wiped out, and that the entire city itself is guilty. Which is irrational of course.
Even if a SMALL group of fanatics from one city attacks them(or the governing body that rules over them), it's not like 100% of the city is responsible for it.

But if you feel the urge to go on a crusade for religious genocide, feel free.

Again, you just completely took that out of context. That was not God telling them to go take out people because they believe in something different(though that is what you are doing, verbally taking out God and us because you don't agree with us. Stop being a hypocrite). "That was him saying, if you are going to war(because I know you are), if you want guaranteed victory, this is what you do." Like cheat codes if you will. Back then, if you were going to attack someone. Would you leave any warriors alive to come back and attack you? At that time all Men were most likely warriors or whatever. This was a SMART way to go about war. and again, God protects HIS people, the ones whom have accepted him. Why should he not help them in war, even if it is bloody business.

[Noctis]

onion, I'd like to enlighten you to the facts of your idol taken from his very own Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_hovind

His "education" was in the Patriot Bible University in Colorado. If the name itself isn't hint enough, it was accused of being a diploma mill. In other words, a place where you can get your degree in just a few months, for as low as $25 a month, where even a grade school child can get a master's degree with little to no effort.

From the picture, this "university" appears to be a single building with just three rooms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pa...niversity2.jpg

His $250,000 offer is accused as being "merely a publicity stunt designed to be impossible to win".

His dinosaur land theme park is a ridiculous mockery of nature, as it would suggest that man and the T-Rex lived side by side.

Even other Creationists accuse him of persistantly using discredited or false arguments.

More interesting is his debates with non-Creationists:

In Shermer's online reflection while explaining he won the debate with intellectual and scientific evidence he felt it was "not an intellectual exercise," but rather it was "an emotional drama."

I believe this quite accurately portrays Kent Hovind. He's not exactly an educated authority, instead he comes across more as an "As-Seen-On-TV" infomercial.

As for his legal history, he seems to have most of it involving tax evasions. He claims that he is not a citizen of the US and does not earn income, yet he has made bank deposits of up to 2 million per year.

Not only has he broken the commandment of "Thou shalt not lie", but he encourages others to do the same by also claiming to not be citizens of the US.

Oh, and more fun facts:

Hovind was charged on September 13, 2002, for failure to observe county zoning regulations with respect to Dinosaur Adventure Land.[27] Despite arguments that the owners did not need a permit due to the nature of the building, the park was found in violation of local regulations.[121]
After a 5-year misdemeanor court battle over the $50 building permit, on June 5, 2006, Hovind pled nolo contendere as charged to three counts: constructing a building without a permit, refusing to sign a citation,[122] and violating the county building code.[123] Hovind was ordered to pay $225 per count. That month Hovind complied with the county law.[124] Hovind estimated he spent $40,000 in legal expenses on this case,[125] but in a 2002 CSE newsletter Hovind requested donations stating that the costs approached $100,000.[126]

In 1996 Hovind unsuccessfully filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying federal income taxes claiming he wasn't a citizen of the US and did not earn income.[131] Hovind was found to have lied about his possessions and income.[132] He claimed that as a minister of God everything he owns belonged to God and he is not subject to paying taxes to the United States on the money he received for doing God's work.[133]

On June 3, 2004, the IRS filed notices of Federal tax liens of $504,957.24 against Hovind and his son and their businesses due to previous legal maneuverings to evade taxation by moving property between himself, his son, and other legal entities.[138]

On July 11, 2006, Hovind was charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola with twelve counts of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over Federal income taxes and FICA taxes, forty-five counts of knowingly structuring transactions in Federally-insured financial institutions to evade reporting requirements, and one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws.[139][140] Twelve of the charges were for failing to pay employee-related taxes, totaling $473,818, and 45 of the charges were for evading reporting requirements by making multiple cash withdrawals just under the $10,000 reporting requirement (a technique known as "smurfing"). The withdrawals, totaling $430,500, were made in 2001 and 2002.[140] Jo Delia Hovind, his wife, faced 44 charges.[141]

Hovind was sentenced on January 19, 2007 to ten years in prison and ordered to pay the federal government restitution of over $600,000. After his prison term finishes, he will serve another three years of probation. A tearful Hovind had hoped to avoid prison, telling the court, "If it's just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach."[154] But Hovind's court room behavior was in stark contrast to phone calls he made while in jail.[155] One conversation with Eric Hovind, Kent Hovind's son, showed the two plotted to hide a motor vehicle title and property deeds to prevent the government from collecting the property to pay for owed debt.[156]

Quite an inspiration there. [/sarcasm]
It seems to me that, instead of being anyone great or upstanding, Kent Hovind is nothing more or less than a scumbag using religion to further his own ends(in this case, money). He is a hypocrite, he does NOT practice what he preaches, and he is no different than David Koresh who used people's religious beliefs in order to coerce young girls to have sex with him.

More information at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

See, Kent Hovind has a gift. That gift is nothing divine and has little to do with God. That gift is the ability to manipulate the dumb, ignorant masses. A gift once shared by David Koresh as well.

It's almost funny in a sadistic way that he also managed to drag his wife and son into the mess he made.

Your hero is currently residing in the Federal Correctional Institution in Edgefield, South Carolina. His wife is in the Federal Correctional Institution in Marianna, Florida.

In the battle of Science VS Creationism, it looks like the IRS won. Go figure.

[John 6:29]

I must just point out this:
1) His website tell's us he's been arrested for 10 years.
2) You are using wikipedia for a source of information? lol. Did you every go to college? Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source of information, even though he was arrested for tax fraud.
3) You still ignore my post and say because he has 1 thing wrong in his life therefore everything else in his life is wrong.
4) Are you saying that every scientist in every book is perfect by the laws standard and none of them are in jail? Because I disagree, and if they've gone to jail, clearly they aren't credible.
5) In order to teach you need an accredited degree, therefore if he went to this school, he would not have been allowed to teach.
6) You still ignore my post, and what exactly does this post have to do with the topic? Oh right, nothing.
7) You ignore Hovinds and my arguments to simply say, "Look everyone he lied to he IRS, he's no scientist!"
8) 50% of LEGAL American's do not pay all their taxes, and 38% pay no taxes.
9) Hovind is not my hero, there are several other creationist out there
10) Get your facts straight and don't use wikipedia.
11) Actually read my posts and maybe stay on topic instead of examining what someone did wrong, I do not go to wikipedia and look at scientist who have commited several crimes, and say "look these books aren't credible because they commited a crime" we're all human.

Anyways I just wanted to straighten things up. But I give you credit for trying, again lack of research on your part. And I even admitted that a lot of Hovinds arguments are irrational. However, if someone is truly interested in examining his arguments, you can see a lot of them are true. Hence why you chose to examine his personal life, instead of dispprove his arguments. But anyways I said I wouldn't post anymore, so I'm sorry for posting again. Also, if your post is only directed to me, why post it here? Especially when it has nothing to do with the thread? Just curious anyways I wrote a enormous post above this and it'd be nice if you read it, and maybe talk about that instead of something not relating to this post. But hey, apparently it's okay for you to go off topic, but not for me.

[edit]
I also must say this before I stop posting. You're correct the IRS won, and Hovind did do wrong by this. Although I do believe the IRS did win, because as a Christian we are required to cheerfully pay our taxes and tithes, and as a result God disciplined him, with jail because he did not do what he was supposed to be doing in the first place. Also, I do not believe Hovind to be saved, simply because he brags through out his video, but he may very well be, it is not my place to judge. But the Bible does not like man to brag, even though he may be right. I just think that through reading your post you come to conclude everything he says to be false, because he is a man, and did something wrong, that many American's are doing as well. If you read my post earlier, I think you can conclude that just because someone is a Christian does not mean they are perfect, they should set an example, even though they don't and many of these "professing Christians" are not truly saved, and some are even pastors and religious leaders. No one is perfect, Christians never claim to be perfect. But thanks for imposing that thought.

Again you are imposing that he is saved, when in reality we have many people professing christians, and aren't saved. Proven in my earlier post. Hovind is one that I believe not to be saved, but it is God's judgment that matters not mine.

You say Scienve VS Creationism, IRS won, they did not win in this discussion. They proven that Hovind is a man just like everyone else. And if you say the IRS/Government won, well look at the other things they have won in. They eliminated religion and prayer from schools, they managed to put us trillions of dollars in debt. Did you know even if we were to tax all the illegals, we would still be in debt? I mean you are upholding government higher than creationism, yet when we were a religious country, we had far less problems, which the argument you are presenting here is called a "red herring" fallacy:
Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

2. Topic A is under discussion.
3. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
4. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

If you want to bring fallacies into the picture, you just committed one.

Again, sorry for any sarcasm, etc, I have provided or any anger that I have shown through out this post's.

Good luck and God bless, I hope you see the truth, but it seems to me that you truthfully don't care what I believe, none the less even what God says. But best of luck to you in this life, and whatever happens in the next. It's been fun.

-onion

[Noctis]

Originally Posted by onion

I must just point out this:
1) His website tell's us he's been arrested for 10 years.

After much digging, I've managed to find just the one article which made any mention of it.
The article fails to mention his attempts to avoid paying taxes by making claims that he was not a citizen of the US.
The articles fails to mention his statement that everything he owns "belongs to God" and so he is not subject to paying taxes.
The article fails to mention his repeated cash withdrawals JUST under the $10,000 reporting requirement, which totaled $430,500 made in 2001 and 2002.
The article fails to mention his phone call in prison with his son where they both plotted to hide a motor vehicle title and property deeds to prevent the government from collecting the property to pay for owed debt.

2) You are using wikipedia for a source of information? lol. Did you every go to college? Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source of information, even though he was arrested for tax fraud.

I find Wikipedia to be more reliable than most people would think, because they actually quote sources. Wikipedia would be no different than actually doing the research on a search engine. It would actually be more reliable because Wikipedia also quotes things on printed articles, whereas search engines only show online sources, some of which are quite biased.
And what part of Kent Hovind's life on Wikipedia do you find to be unreliable? Point it out for me and I'll gladly dig around on a search engine for it.

3) You still ignore my post and say because he has 1 thing wrong in his life therefore everything else in his life is wrong.

No, I'm saying that everything you idolize about him is connected to that "1 thing wrong" and his motivation for doing all those things is also connected to that "1 thing wrong".
We also know it's not just "one" thing wrong and that he makes a habit of lying to other people's faces.

4) Are you saying that every scientist in every book is perfect by the laws standard and none of them are in jail? Because I disagree, and if they've gone to jail, clearly they aren't credible.

I fail to see how simply being in jail has any effect on their intelligence, methods, research, or credibility. The only possibility I see for a prison sentence discrediting a scientist would be if that scientist used his grants or research funds to buy himself a home entertainment system.

Hovind's education comes into question because the "school" in which he was taught is a single building with 3 rooms and ridiculously low graduation requirements.

His credibility comes into question because his arguments are illogical and shows evidence of his ignorance in science and evolutionary theory. Not to mention the fact that he repeatedly uses discredited or false arguments.

His legal troubles are related to his credibility because he is obviously motivated by greed. All his debates and arguments are motivated by it. He makes a practice of lies and deception. Convincing people to believe him and gaining a mass of followers obviously gets him a lot of money, as the majority of his income is from sales from his dinosaur adventure land and donations.

5) In order to teach you need an accredited degree, therefore if he went to this school, he would not have been allowed to teach.

It's funny you should mention that:

In 1971 he graduated from East Peoria Community High School in East Peoria, Illinois. From 1972 until 1974 Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education (B.R.E.).[3] In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado which no longer offers this program).[7]

Starting in 1975, Hovind became an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools.[3] Then, in the 1980s, he opened a Baptist school and church at which he taught and pastored.[3] As these were private schools, Hovind did not require any teaching credentials or accredited qualifications.[4][5]

Next.

6) You still ignore my post, and what exactly does this post have to do with the topic? Oh right, nothing.

This post is a response to yours. You obviously aren't used to having people disagree with you if you make a remark and you don't expect people to refute it.

7) You ignore Hovinds and my arguments to simply say, "Look everyone he lied to he IRS, he's no scientist!"

And you completely ignored MY responses to your arguments(I've already responded to his false claim that public school teachers can teach Creationism, his twisting of the facts of the ACLU, his remark on angular momentum, and his mention of the lack of observation on star formation). I fail to see how you missed all that, unless a response that doesn't agree with you doesn't count as an actual response in your eyes.

8) 50% of LEGAL American's do not pay all their taxes, and 38% pay no taxes.

I'd like to see your source for that.
Also, there are people in Africa who cut other people's heads off with machetes. Because it happens so often there, does that mean that it's fine to do it? If that's your belief, I'll give you a machete(I'll even sharpen it for you) and you can swing away.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

9) Hovind is not my hero, there are several other creationist out there

Well, you kept pointing at that video, and it was getting kind of annoying.
Considering your observed behavior, I would've thought you'd at least idolize the man, so I figured I would go out of my way to point out that this man isn't worthy of your admiration.

10) Get your facts straight and don't use wikipedia.

If you actually read this post up until this point, I wonder if you can still feel the same way without coming across as a hypocrite(not that you use Wikipedia, just that you don't have your facts straight).

11) Actually read my posts and maybe stay on topic instead of examining what someone did wrong, I do not go to wikipedia and look at scientist who have commited several crimes, and say "look these books aren't credible because they commited a crime" we're all human.

Unless you pointed out every single scientist who abused their research funds, I doubt you would be right in any sense.
If Kent Hovind was arrested for assault, I would have nothing to say on the matter. But tax evasion and all his other activities suggests that the existence of his ministry only serves to put money in his pocket.

Anyways I just wanted to straighten things up. But I give you credit for trying, again lack of research on your part. And I even admitted that a lot of Hovinds arguments are irrational. However, if someone is truly interested in examining his arguments, you can see a lot of them are true. Hence why you chose to examine his personal life, instead of dispprove his arguments. But anyways I said I wouldn't post anymore, so I'm sorry for posting again. Also, if your post is only directed to me, why post it here? Especially when it has nothing to do with the thread? Just curious anyways I wrote a enormous post above this and it'd be nice if you read it, and maybe talk about that instead of something not relating to this post. But hey, apparently it's okay for you to go off topic, but not for me.

Speaking of "lack of research", what sources have YOU quoted so far for your arguments? Other than that video of course.

Even if it's seen as a "bad" source, you can at least see where I got the general facts and ideas from. If anyone at anytime doubts its validity or objective viewpoint, simply do your own research to refute it. I doubt anyone will turn up much though.

As for why I do this publicly...let's just say I like being right.
I make it a point to be right all the time, and it's not enough that I'm right, I want everyone to know that I'm right. Call me egotistical if you like, you wouldn't be too far off the mark.

[edit]
I also must say this before I stop posting. You're correct the IRS won, and Hovind did do wrong by this. Although I do believe the IRS did win, because as a Christian we are required to cheerfully pay our taxes and tithes, and as a result God disciplined him, with jail because he did not do what he was supposed to be doing in the first place. Also, I do not believe Hovind to be saved, simply because he brags through out his video, but he may very well be, it is not my place to judge. But the Bible does not like man to brag, even though he may be right. I just think that through reading your post you come to conclude everything he says to be false, because he is a man, and did something wrong, that many American's are doing as well. If you read my post earlier, I think you can conclude that just because someone is a Christian does not mean they are perfect, they should set an example, even though they don't and many of these "professing Christians" are not truly saved, and some are even pastors and religious leaders. No one is perfect, Christians never claim to be perfect. But thanks for imposing that thought.

If "many Americans" are using false logic and a parody of science to amass followers for monetary gain in the millions, I must've missed the news.
I don't recall making the accusation that Christians believe themselves to be perfect, but thanks for shoving that down my throat sir.
However, Kent Hovind certainly seems to have a very high opinion of himself, and I doubt I extended my reference beyond him.

You say Scienve VS Creationism, IRS won, they did not win in this discussion. They proven that Hovind is a man just like everyone else. And if you say the IRS/Government won, well look at the other things they have won in. They eliminated religion and prayer from schools, they managed to put us trillions of dollars in debt. Did you know even if we were to tax all the illegals, we would still be in debt? I mean you are upholding government higher than creationism, yet when we were a religious country, we had far less problems, which the argument you are presenting here is called a "red herring" fallacy:
Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

2. Topic A is under discussion.
3. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
4. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

If you want to bring fallacies into the picture, you just committed one.

I sure as hell did. I expected the two final words following that statement("go figure") would've been enough to clue everyone in on the attempt at internet humor. As in, I wasn't making a serious statement, but merely making fun of the fact of the stereotype in America that the IRS will always "get" you if you cheat on your taxes. I think it was blatantly obvious that I brought up a completely unrelated reference between two subjects, as the IRS has generally nothing to do with the old debate of Evolution VS Creationism.

I may be wrong here, as I have made no attempts to look further on this topic and I have no interest in doing so, but I thought it was Bush and the invasion of Iraq that put the country into debt? Where exactly does the IRS fit into it?

Why is removing prayer and religion from public schools a bad thing? I personally don't endorse brainwashing children. I also resent the fact that, as a child, I had Christianity shoved down my throat instead of a different religion that I might have chosen(say, Buddhism or Wicca).

"Far less problems"? Brainwashing of children aside, I suppose racism and discrimination against other minority groups(say, homosexuals) don't count as problems in your eyes do they? Witch burnings? The Crusades? The ridiculous tradition of having a man swear an oath with his hand on the Bible as though it has any impact whatsoever on his honesty?

Religion and government don't mix, much like religion and science. Certainly one can have a religious belief and still be a good scientist, and one can have a religious belief and be a good politician. But when the two mix together, it only invites stupidity and an opportunity for abuse. Science becomes a tool for religion to make it seem real. Religion becomes a tool for politics to get people to vote for you. Politics becomes a tool for religion to further the agenda of the religion(trying to teach Creationism in public schools for example). The interesting thing is that when I try to think of how science could use religion as a tool to further its own ends, I come up with a blank, how curious.

With that said, GOOD religious scientists will know to keep their religion separate from science, and GOOD politicians will also know to keep their religion out of politics.

I believe that addresses the original topic. You can certainly look at religion scientifically and still believe in God, it's just that you'll be wrong and you'll be inviting stupidity either on yourself or spreading it to others.

Oh, and I apologize if it seems like I'm ignoring your responses. I happen to work 40 hours a week, I have 13 different windows open on my desktop with about 3 tabs each, and as I am wrapping up this long post, it is currently 2 AM in the morning. As such, I don't have the time to read and reply to each and every little bit of what you posted in the exact order in which you posted them.

[Lugez]

I'm a bit lazy to read through those gigantic posts, so I'll just answer the question.

When you look at RELIGION scientifically, then yes, I believe they are certaintly against each other. Science can prove some religious beliefs wrong...

However, just because it disproves religion alot of the time doesn't mean that it disproves GOD. People need to understand that "religion" and "God" may not go hand in hand all the time. Humans made up the whole religion structure, so of course theres going to be some mistakes in it.

Science can disprove religion, but it can't disprove God.

[formerly chevyguy350]

my explenation for God is this; heaven and hell are 2 parallel universes and God is able to move through time which also allows him to be in 2 places at once by for instance at this point in his time, he goes to this point in our time and the next day in his time,. he goes to the same point again in our time. and death creates a black hole that takes you to heaven or hell