09 Mar 07
4 edits
Originally posted by ckoh1965The Christian religion has nothing to do with earning your way to heaven via good works. The Bible says that faith is accounted as righteousness. Faith is what God is looking for. It says in the good book that all good things come from God. All that we are and have come from God. He gives us the ability to love and the will to do so as well as other giving us other people to love in our lives. In fact, we crave love and our lives are meaningless without it, however, never forget its source. We were created in the image of a God that says he is a God of love. What then do we have to contribute in terms of "good works" when God is source of such good works? It is then merely a question of us deciding to go along with God's plan of doing good things for mankind. However, if God is all knowing and all good and we are off doing our own thing in terms of what we think is "good", are we really doing "good" or just what we think is good? Have you ever heard the phrase, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"? You may be doing good, however, if you do it on your own you may not be. For example, you may think it good to give a $100 to a homeless man until he takes the money and goes to drink himself to death.
What is so wrong with that? Why can't we be good people on our own accord? God should be happy if we are being good all on our own, without the need of threatening us with the fires of hell? Isn't his priority to see us all being good to each other, living in harmony? Why must our good deeds be the result of 'listening' to god in order to be valid? If we do good, we do good, period.
Having said that, the reason faith is such a vital lesson for God's creation is that God sees and knows all things and we do not. At times we may see the rational for what we are commanded to do but if God be God there MUST come a time when his reasoning eludes us based upon our finite limitations to understand his infinite reasoning abilities. It is at that time that he does not need you to go around and do what you think is best if it conflicts what he says is best. If you do so, it may throw a wrench in what he is trying to accomplish. It is akin to a General in the army giving orders to his troops based on years and years of schooling in terms of strategy and then having a private come up and spit in his face and say that he knows better.
BTW: Could you imagine being a good God and trying to work through a billion plus people who are all going around doing what they want to do and who care nothing about what you are trying to do other than trying to benifit themselves for the most part? If you ask me, he is doing a pretty good job.
09 Mar 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedTrying to prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as offensive as any concept one can introduce. The whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is belief without scientific proof. That's what faith means. There's no reason to try and prove it - either you believe or you don't, and if you need 'proof', then your faith isn't very strong at all.
09 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think there is a difference between having evidence for your faith and having proof. I do not have proof but I have evidence like the evidence I provided earlier in this thread and I see nothing wrong with exploring such evidence. I don't view my faith as "baseless" as it would be in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Trying to prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as offensive as any concept one can introduce. The whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is belief without scientific proof. That's what faith means. There's no reason to try and prove it - either you believe or you don't, and if you need 'proof', then your faith isn't very strong at all.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by whodeyExactly, although consider the view of someone who DOES believe in the FSM. They too would consider their belief to be supported by evidence and view yours as 'baseless'.
I think there is a difference between having evidence for your faith and having proof. I do not have proof but I have evidence like the evidence I provided earlier in this thread and I see nothing wrong with exploring such evidence. I don't view my faith as "baseless" as it would be in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by amannionAnd I would be all ears in regards to them presenting such evidence.
Exactly, although consider the view of someone who DOES believe in the FSM. They too would consider their belief to be supported by evidence and view yours as 'baseless'.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by whodeyAnd I'd be all ears hearing you present yours, which, as yet, comes down to nothing more that I can see than "I want it to be true", or "I got told it was true", or "the bible says it's true", all things that the FSM believer could also say.
And I would be all ears in regards to them presenting such evidence.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by whodeyWhich of course doesn't exist, as you well know.
And I would be all ears in regards to them presenting such evidence.
The FSM is a construct to ridicule other religious belief.
It works too - but only really for those who don't already believe, or who's belief is in no gods.
09 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWe were created in the image of a God that says he is a God of love.
The Christian religion has nothing to do with earning your way to heaven via good works. The Bible says that faith is accounted as righteousness. Faith is what God is looking for. It says in the good book that all good things come from God. All that we are and have come from God. He gives us the ability to love and the will to do so as well as other givi o benifit themselves for the most part? If you ask me, he is doing a pretty good job.
I was just reading in the papers the other day, about this poor guy who was appealing for public help to raise money for a complicated surgery to separate his siamese twins children. They were joined at the abdomen downwards. I wonder if that guy is convinced that we are created in God's image...
However, if God is all knowing and all good and we are off doing our own thing in terms of what we think is "good", are we really doing "good" or just what we think is good?
Exactly my point! I never said that I trusted god. The so-called 'good' things I'm doing may not agree with the 'good' that god expects. I disagree with god's killing of unborn infants in the great flood; I disagree with god's toying and tempting Adam and Eve; I disagree with god causing tsunamis, killing thousands in the process. I trust myself to assess what is good and what is bad. Of course I may be wrong, but hey, I'm just human, I'll try to live with it.
If god, for example, orders me to kill my child, I would not behave like that joker in the bible who, without question, was prepared to sacrifice hiw own flesh and blood. I would not move until god can give me a very, very good justification for his order. But I suppose people like you would readily submit to god, because obviously he knows best! The 'faith' that god requires of us is just too much. Maybe if we were brainless beings, he would have a better shot.
For example, you may think it good to give a $100 to a homeless man until he takes the money and goes to drink himself to death.
Yes, I think that would be a good thing to do. As far as I am concerned, I have done a good deed by giving the poor man that $100. Just because the jerk goes and drink himself to death, that doesn't make my deed a bad one. I am satisfied that I have done my part to make this world a pleasant place, well in a very small way. If this guy wants to kill himself, he can do that whether or not I gave him the $100.
BTW: Could you imagine being a good God and trying to work through a billion plus people who are all going around doing what they want to do and who care nothing about what you are trying to do other than trying to benifit themselves for the most part? If you ask me, he is doing a pretty good job.
I think you should have some, if only very little, faith in us humans too. Not all of us are selfish and only trying to do things for our own benefits. Quite a number of us actually are good people trying very hard to make the best of this cruel world. And what's even more surprising to you, we are trying to do all these good stuff not because we're afraid that we'll end up in hell.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by ckoh1965I did not mean to offend you. I was mostly talking in regards to my own experiences. I have found that when I go off on my own to try and do "good" I am not as successful as when I devote myself to prayer and seeking God's will. That has been my own experience.
[b]We were created in the image of a God that says he is a God of love.
I was just reading in the papers the other day, about this poor guy who was appealing for public help to raise money for a complicated surgery to separate his siamese twins children. They were joined at the abdomen downwards. I wonder if that guy is convinced that we are created ...[text shortened]... do all these good stuff not because we're afraid that we'll end up in hell.[/b]
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by Kindred SpiritStill waiting.
Assertion: The existence of God is PROVABLE TODAY. Just as it was in Jesus' time...and even prior to his mission.
I have good reason to believe this is true.
Is there anyone who might be interested in exploring this critical topic?
All are welcome.
This proves one of 2 things:
either:
1. You are dead.
or
2. The existence of God is NOT PROVABLE TODAY.
09 Mar 07
The existence of God is not provable as in a mathematical proof. That is why we have faith. The existence of God can be inferred by looking closely at his creation. Examples: life supposedly arose from a primordial soup of amino acids. These acids are right and left handed. The theory goes that the molecules in this soup gradually became more complex until life resulted. The problem is that both types of amino acids would have existed naturally. Only one type is used by living creatures (help me out biologists). When both types are put together in the same reaction vessel, all reactions tend to cease. A naturally occuring catalyst has been proposed but never found. Then there is the RNA / DNA conundrum RNA is needed to produce DNA which produces RNA. So how did life get started? Theory goes that a system using just RNA evolved and was later supplanted by DNA systems. As hardy as life is I would think that some form of RNA life would still exist somewhere.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by Ruppster1Left Handed
The existence of God is not provable as in a mathematical proof. That is why we have faith. The existence of God can be inferred by looking closely at his creation. Examples: life supposedly arose from a primordial soup of amino acids. These acids are right and left handed. The theory goes that the molecules in this soup gradually became more complex until ...[text shortened]... stems. As hardy as life is I would think that some form of RNA life would still exist somewhere.
Zinc.
Nothing particularly God-like here. All you've shown is life is complex, and we already knew that. All you've done here is tagged on a "so it must be God" which is a non-sequiter.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by Ruppster1Big bang, hydrogen condenses into clouds. Stars form, which produces higher elements. After stars burn out, they go supernova and explode, releasing higher molecular weight atoms. Planets form, life forms through abiogenesis, and evolves to humans.
I stated that the existence of God could be inferred, not proved and cited examples. I f you have a better explanation, I would love to hear it.
There, logic, established science backed by empirical evidence, and probability, nothing more.
09 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm ignorant about the theory of evolution. I want to ask this question for quite a while now. All this evolution stuff happened over billions of years. But I am having difficulties to fathom the very specific nature of the process. For example, why not a crab evolves into a man; a crocodile evolves into a dog?
Big bang, hydrogen condenses into clouds. Stars form, which produces higher elements. After stars burn out, they go supernova and explode, releasing higher molecular weight atoms. Planets form, life forms through abiogenesis, and evolves to humans.
There, logic, established science backed by empirical evidence, and probability, nothing more.
I can only guess that lifeforms started from different sources. So, for example, a dog's formation started from a dual-cell molecule and it was that molecule that slowly changed to become increasingly complex to form dogs as we know today. Similarly, a different set of dual-cell molecule was formed and then evolved into monkeys as we know today. And yet different sets of many more molecules were the beginning of many more species in this world. In other words, we are not descendents of monkeys. Monkeys are monkeys; humans are humans. We didn't come from the same source. Is there any scientific evidence of this?