A path to faith with science

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie

Just to elaborate...

Anyone who believes in an all powerful being should also believe that "anything is possible". If God wanted it to rain donuts tomorrow, we'd have a tasty surprise. can it rain donuts? Most people would say "no", but if you believe in an all powerful god, and god wanted it to rain donuts, it would happen.

This is what I believe Imitator means when he says "anything is possible"

We have no reason to believe that it would ever rain donuts, but "anything is possible".

---

Exactly, in an existance that has an all powerful being in it that can do anything, anything would be possible.

If God is above all the laws and rules in regards to this universe, then he can break them with no regard, logically, no? So God could make you poo rainbow flavored sherbet, or make unicorns run the white house, or any number of other things. That is the problem with an all powerful being. It can do anything, because its all powerful.

This is as close as I will come to stating a fact here... or a belief, but its my personal belief that:

Quote:

---

If God exists, then anything is possible. If anything is not possible, then God can not exist.

---

Imitator,

you're blowing up my thread! Please, slow down. You post and post and post. It's starting to feel like spam!

I like to split up my posts so that they are easier to digest. That way you dont have to worry about remembering what spot you stopped at in a post, and it means you know that whatever I say there is it, and it makes it harder to mistakenly think something else later in a post was related to something else.

I you prefer, I will put everything into one big post from now on, I just figured it made thigns easier. Its the same amount of text either way, so I dont care how I go about it in the end.

Imitator:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie View Post
Just to elaborate...

Anyone who believes in an all powerful being should also believe that "anything is possible". If God wanted it to rain donuts tomorrow, we'd have a tasty surprise. can it rain donuts? Most people would say "no", but if you believe in an all powerful god, and god wanted it to rain donuts, it would happen.

This is what I believe Imitator means when he says "anything is possible"

---

We have no reason to believe that it would ever rain donuts, but "anything is possible".

Exactly, in an existance that has an all powerful being in it that can do anything, anything would be possible.

If God is above all the laws and rules in regards to this universe, then he can break them with no regard, logically, no? So God could make you poo rainbow flavored sherbet, or make unicorns run the white house, or any number of other things. That is the problem with an all powerful being. It can do anything, because its all powerful.

This is as close as I will come to stating a fact here... or a belief, but its my personal belief that:

Quote:

---

Quote:
If God exists, then anything is possible. If anything is not possible, then God can not exist.

---

---

You can't say or assert God is a possibilty without proof. And you say there is no proof for GOD. You can't say God is a possibility without evidence to back it up. But then you may find yourself helping me .But that's not a bad thing.

teatime

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Imitator:





You can't say or assert God is a possibilty without proof. And you say there is no proof for GOD. You can't say God is a possibility without evidence to back it up. But then you may find yourself helping me .But that's not a bad thing.

---

Im saying you havent shown me any proof of God.

Once again, Im not picking sides on this. I am asking questions, and pointing out things that dont seem to correspond with the logical arguement you are laying out.

I am saying, that if God does exist, IF, then anything would have to be possible. And I am saying that if you state that "anything is possible" is incorrect, then logically God could not exist.

I have to cook up some pancakes for tomarrow. It's the sabbath.

bbl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

I have to cook up some pancakes for tomarrow. It's the sabbath.

bbl

---

I have to drink Jesus' blood and eat his body tomorrow. Yum!

Haha, good times. But I give this thread another day or so until everyone gets tired of attempting to make valid points, only to find that they fall on dumb ears.

If someone could convert a devout Christian into an Atheist or Agnostic, I think that qualifies as a miracle, right? That's when I might believe that there is a God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kai as a kite

Haha, good times. But I give this thread another day or so until everyone gets tired of attempting to make valid points, only to find that they fall on dumb ears.

If someone could convert a devout Christian into an Atheist or Agnostic, I think that qualifies as a miracle, right? That's when I might believe that there is a God.

---

Lol, what? But God wouldn't let that happen. Anyway, I have seen people stop believing in God. And I used to be a christian, but I stopped believing, because I realized it was all bullshit. :thumbsup:

Yeah, good for you. I know somebody else who's like that. It's funny how much you change after you start realizing things from a different viewpoint.

Oh, and my last post didn't really come out right, because Mary Jane wouldn't let me think straight. But I know that wouldn't happen, 'twas a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imitator

Let me be the one to tell people what I mean when I say things, mkay?

I state nothing more then for you to understand what they believe in, so that you can know why they do what they do. You dont have to like it, you dont have to agree with it, and you can condemn it if you want... but the key is not to be an ignorant fool who is condemning something that you dont even begin to comprehend.

---

He did just that to me. He understands NOTHING about the deepest teaching in scripture, nor did he back up his accusations with a single scripture, and then started condemning me about going to hell? He ignorantly stated that even the pagans with minimal study know that the Son of God has a father but yet there isn't A SINGLE SCRIPTURE to support this private interpretation!

Everyone has their opinion, and mine is that natureisawesome is a FRAUD!

If he's serious about keeping the sabbath, he's WAY OFF BASE!

Keeping the sabbath, is putting Jesus back on the cross. What happened nature? Jesus fulfilling the law was not good enough for you? Are you trying to fulfill the law yourself? Are you not aware that if a man keep the whole law and yet offend it in one point, he is guilty of the entire law? If you live under the law, you'll be judged by the law. And under the law, the penalty for one sin is death. Why would anyone put themselves in that situation? I'm glad that the handwriting of requirements, the law of ordinaces, which was contrary to us, has been nailed to the cross. He has taken it out of the way.

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome

You can't say or assert God is a possibilty without proof. And you say there is no proof for GOD. You can't say God is a possibility without evidence to back it up. But then you may find yourself helping me .But that's not a bad thing.

---

Quote:

---

Imitator:

Im saying you havent shown me any proof of God.

Once again, Im not picking sides on this. I am asking questions, and pointing out things that dont seem to correspond with the logical arguement you are laying out.

I am saying, that if God does exist, IF, then anything would have to be possible. And I am saying that if you state that "anything is possible" is incorrect, then logically God could not exist.

---

---

It's interesting how you kept on denying over and over and now all the sudden your objection has changed.

If we can assert that God exists (or may exist), then ultimately It must have been revealed to us by the understanding he has given us in our hearts and in our minds, and by this proof : that If God is all knowing and all powerful, then he cannot have any imperfection in him. And hatred and evil go against the way of perfection. And all of his creation show his eternal nature. If we knew God exists, then it would be by his Spirit, because you can only percieve Spirtiual with Spiritual. It is with an understanding deeper than any understanding, we recognise his eternal nature, and it encompasses all. Love is perfect. And if we know that Love is perfect, then God must be perfect, because God in his omnipotence and ominscience must surely be perfect. He would indeed be the standard for all righteousness. And since God would sustain the universe, and be the source of all things, then He himself must be love.


4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not (M)arrogant,

5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,

6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but )rejoices with the truth;

7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8Love never fails;


If God were evil, we still exist. And we know that this universe exists also by the same consciousness and mind (it doesn't matter how, nevertheless we are here, whereever here is) , and that it cannot sustain itself according the the laws of this universe. Once we follow this logical path as I laid down in my original post, then we come to go beyond merely the knoledge of God's existence but
go on to determining if there is evidence for us to find out who God is. So there is both scientific and Spiritual evidence.

If God were a liar, or deceitful, or psychotic we're still here, even if here is part of a trick that is meant to give us a misunderstanding of his nature. We know we exist somehow, whether in a dream, or a delusion, we exist and the universe exists whether in a dream or what and so do the laws in it exist. And the laws in effect point to a creator. Once we go further along we can learn more about God's nature. But do not forget there is also Spiritual evidence. I know I explained this twice but it's really important.

Quote:

---

pass that stuff:

He did just that to me. He understands NOTHING about the deepest teaching in scripture, nor did he back up his accusations with a single scripture, and then started condemning me about going to ***? He ignorantly stated that even the pagans with minimal study know that the Son of God has a father but yet there isn't A SINGLE SCRIPTURE to support this private interpretation!

Everyone has their opinion, and mine is that natureisawesome is a FRAUD!

If he's serious about keeping the sabbath, he's WAY OFF BASE!

---

I have answered your foolish arguments. Stop harrasing me and misusing this thread. You are not a Christian. You do not keep his righteousness. I am done talking to you. If you don't stop harassing me I will report you to the moderator.

Quote:

---

Keeping the sabbath, is putting Jesus back on the cross. What happened nature? Jesus fulfilling the law was not good enough for you? Are you trying to fulfill the law yourself? Are you not aware that if a man keep the whole law and yet offend it in one point, he is guilty of the entire law? If you live under the law, you'll be judged by the law. And under the law, the penalty for one sin is death. Why would anyone put themselves in that situation? I'm glad that the handwriting of requirements, the law of ordinaces, which was contrary to us, has been nailed to the cross. He has taken it out of the way.

---

You're a fool, and you don't understand what you're talking about.

The law that was nailed to the cross was not the ten commandments. What was nailed to the cross is what Paul called
"the shadow of the good things to come". Now in the old testament their were two parts, the ten commandments that were spoken directly by God to the Hebrews and later written on tablets. The there was the levitical law, which was given to Moses and written down and spoken to the Hebrews. The ten commandments for placed inside the ark. The other law were placed on the outside of the ark . This was what Paul refers to when he says shadow of the good things to come. That old law was abolished. But Christ himself said that the commandments were not abolished:


Mathew 5

Quote:

---

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

---

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."[/QUOTE]


I am saved by Grace, and through that Grace I am given the power to overcome sin and not sin any more. He has paid the price for my past sins. It is then not works but grace. To abide in God's love you must keep his righteousness.

Jesus commands us to be perfect:

Quote:

---

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

---

You are the one still in sin. You are the fraud. You don't understand the bible.

So why don't you clarify for me and others that are listening?

God is ONE (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

If you say that they are ONE, but you also deny ONE being the other, do you really believe they are ONE?

And I'm the fool?

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

Were there two manifestations? Are there two Spirits? NO! The scriptures DON'T contradict themselves. You lack wisdom and understanding of him. You saying that the Son of God has a father, is the same as saying that God has a father.

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Why would you say that I'm not a christian? I'm the one preaching christ to you and you're the one denying him.

If Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, explain this verse to me?

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

How can Jesus be present if he is not the Holy Spirit?

If you don't testify of him = FRAUD!

But then again, as long as you don't curse and keep the sabbath, you'll go to heaven right?

from now on whenever you do this I'll just refer you to the post I responded to you in. Please go to this thread to see my answer:

http://boards.cannabis.com/spiritual...ng-word-3.html

Now please stop harrasing me. You've had your say, now leave me alone. I'm not convincing you any time soon, and you're not convincing me, so let it go.

What are you doing posting on the sabbath? :D

BTW, you never answered there, that's why I asked you here. It's funny how you say that even a pagan knows but yet you CAN'T COME UP WITH ONE SCRIPTURE! Don't come accusing me if you can't back it up!

Please don't report me to the mods. :(

What a hyprocrite. Do you think you're convincing anyone on this thread with those LOOOOONNNNGGGGG Posts? Why don't you let it go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

I understand. I didn't mean for it to get like this.

---

It doesn't matter, beats talking about weed anyday. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

It's easy to discredit. Especially when Prigonine himself addmited it was not an obstacle to the second law.

---

In what way is it an obstacle to the second law? So far as I understand it is not in conflict with the 3 laws of thermodynamics whatsoever, rather thermodynamics failed to accomodate the phenomenon within the boundaries of the rules it laid forth. These laws failed to describe or explain the existence of life within the universe, they pertained to the idea that at sometime in the future the workings of the organism would eventually be explained through mechanics at a level of complexity not yet surpassed by the human mind, and things transpired they were right!, only the scietific community seems thus far largely dismissive of Prigogine's theory since (as yet) there seems to be no way to capitalise on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

There is order, and then there is complexity. Randomness, order, and compexity are three seperate things.

---

No they aren't, you fail to realise the subjective and paradoxical nature of science. This is where the real beauty and spiritual side of scientific study lies, the realisation that we are in fact intrinsically incapable of fully understanding ourselves because basically we are the process of understanding. There is arguably no such thing as randomness, as Einstein once said prophetically, God does not play dice".

All I can say at the moment....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

It's interesting how you kept on denying over and over and now all the sudden your objection has changed.

If we can assert that God exists (or may exist), then ultimately It must have been revealed to us by the understanding he has given us in our hearts and in our minds, and by this proof : that If God is all knowing and all powerful, then he cannot have any imperfection in him. And hatred and evil go against the way of perfection. And all of his creation show his eternal nature. If we knew God exists, then it would be by his Spirit, because you can only percieve Spirtiual with Spiritual. It is with an understanding deeper than any understanding, we recognise his eternal nature, and it encompasses all. Love is perfect. And if we know that Love is perfect, then God must be perfect, because God in his omnipotence and ominscience must surely be perfect. He would indeed be the standard for all righteousness. And since God would sustain the universe, and be the source of all things, then He himself must be love.


4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not (M)arrogant,

5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,

6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but )rejoices with the truth;

7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8Love never fails;


If God were evil, we still exist. And we know that this universe exists also by the same consciousness and mind (it doesn't matter how, nevertheless we are here, whereever here is) , and that it cannot sustain itself according the the laws of this universe. Once we follow this logical path as I laid down in my original post, then we come to go beyond merely the knoledge of God's existence but
go on to determining if there is evidence for us to find out who God is. So there is both scientific and Spiritual evidence.

If God were a liar, or deceitful, or psychotic we're still here, even if here is part of a trick that is meant to give us a misunderstanding of his nature. We know we exist somehow, whether in a dream, or a delusion, we exist and the universe exists whether in a dream or what and so do the laws in it exist. And the laws in effect point to a creator. Once we go further along we can learn more about God's nature. But do not forget there is also Spiritual evidence. I know I explained this twice but it's really important.

---

No. Again, I deny that you have valid proof to convince me of God's existance.

I do not deny that he exists, but I do not acknowledge his existance either. I acknowledge the possibility of his existance, but nothing more. No one has given me proof on either side to ever fully convince me of this, and considering what we are talking about, I am not going to just willy nilly place my belief into it. Until I find proof to convince me, I am merely a bystander observing.

And I think that God and Jesus would acknowledge and understand my wariness. No one wants to be tricked into worshiping a false god, and iirc, there are scriptures speaking to this, and that to search for proof of God is not wrong.

You have your evidence, and your faith, which give you YOUR truth of God existing. Having read through a decent amount of religious texts for a few religions, I see your evidence, and see it lacking, because other evidence for other religions exists as well. If there was nothing at all that could be corresponded with said religion, then it would have been discredited and discarded long ago.

There are holes in your arguement, holes in your proof. Holes in the entire basis of the religion in some sections, that are convienently ignored or "fixed" with a line or two in scriptures saying, "yeah, that was the word of the lord, but the perfect creature decided that he was wrong, or didnt like those rules, so he made some new ones". Thats a problem with the entire thing... a perfect creature would not need to revise his rules or what he said, because he is perfect. You cant completely remove the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is at odds with the New Testament in a few important areas.

In my eyes, you have just as much evidence as every other person who has tried to convince me of the error in my ways, and convert me into something else. You have enough that it makes perfect sense to you, which is great, and I am happy for you. I just happen to look at religion itself as a tool made by man, for the benefit of man. Faith, and the existance of gods are independant of religion itself, at least in my eyes.

And I am still curious what you have to say in regards to the idea of a pantheon-esque setting?

God doesnt mis-speak, and God does everything for a reason. What was his reason for specifically stating "other gods" and not "false gods"? Its such a drastic difference in what that commandment means.

Quote:

---

Do you personally feel that a good action done by someone of a one religion or belief system is any more or less good then the exact same action being done by another religion or belief system? If so, why?

---

That question was from the Christians on Board? thread that was closed prematurely.

Just curious nature, on what you think about the subject? Is a good action by a christian more or less good then the same good action by someone else of a different religion? Assuming a person who lived a life just as good, or possibly better then a christian.. would they be accepted into heaven? If they followed all of God's laws and teachings, without following God, or having ever known of God, would they still be sent to hell, or purgatory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Quote:

---

It's easy to discredit. Especially when Prigonine himself addmited it was not an obstacle to the second law.

---

Staurm

Quote:

---

In what way is it an obstacle to the second law? So far as I understand it is not in conflict with the 3 laws of thermodynamics whatsoever, rather thermodynamics failed to accomodate the phenomenon within the boundaries of the rules it laid forth. These laws failed to describe or explain the existence of life within the universe, they pertained to the idea that at sometime in the future the workings of the organism would eventually be explained through mechanics at a level of complexity not yet surpassed by the human mind, and things transpired they were right!, only the scietific community seems thus far largely dismissive of Prigogine's theory since (as yet) there seems to be no way to capitalise on it.

---

Scientists had hoped that â??chaos physicsâ?? would have somehow allowed the universe to be seen as â??creativeâ?? of its own complexity in spite of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the law of universal decay), but no such fulfillment ever occured. We recognise the type of information contained in living things and it is subject to the second law. The fact is that the type of order that is recognised by chaos theory is totally unrelated to the information contained in life.

It looks like chaos theory may become a useful tool in weather forecasting.

The laws of thermodynamics were never meant to show a materialistic mechanism for the existence of life. A person with a materialistic bias may refuse to consider an creator and organizer outside of the universe, which the second law points to because of the universes inability to form life on it's own. We observe the formation of life all around us. There are many examples to point to that show that it uses a special "path of least resistance" that cannot otherwise be made through natural laws, rather by itself information and life are subject to degredation and there is no more evidence needed to make a conclusion. It's a straw man arguement saying that choas theory is not in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics. Of course it's not because chaos theory has nothing to do with the formation of life. It has to do with (one of the things it has to do with) the discovery of unsuspected patterns of harmony in apparently chaotic systems. It actually follows a path of entropy and does the opposite that life does. For example, there is believed to be a superstructure of some predictability in the otherwise unpredictable behaviour of water flowing turbulently. Scientists use the word â??chaosâ?? to indicate simple things that behave in complicated and unexpected waysâ??things that surprise us and confound our ability to predict how they will behave in the future.

Evolutionists argue that life is nothing but chemicals, but then they claim that living things are exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics that describe the behaviour of chemicals. I believe this shows the inconsistency of this materialistic belief .

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
There is order, and then there is complexity. Randomness, order, and compexity are three seperate things.

---

Staurm:


No they aren't, you fail to realise the subjective and paradoxical nature of science. This is where the real beauty and spiritual side of scientific study lies, the realisation that we are in fact intrinsically incapable of fully understanding ourselves because basically we are the process of understanding. There is arguably no such thing as randomness, as Einstein once said prophetically, God does not play dice".

All I can say at the moment....

---

Hey look whatever you want to call them, they are three different concepts that can be scientifically differentiated.

Life is characterized by high specified complexity. The leading evolutionary origin-of-life researcher, Leslie Orgel, confirmed this:

Quote:

---

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.

---

When it comes to life's complexity, it has specifc semantic characteristics that wholly set it apart from the order we otherwise find in the natural universe. Proteins and DNA are non-random aperiodic (irregular) sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures or other fractal patterns recognized by chaos theory , which are caused by the properties of their constituents.

This is why I wanted you to study that book or the movie, I pointed out. Information theory is not simple. the basic point is that there is a quantative measure of information, and also a qualative measure of information. As to the qualative, there are 5 levels neccesary to understand it's nature : statistical, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

It will help very much to recognise the difference between information and randomness once the attributes of information are.

Here is a summarizing portion in this article which I insist you read at least to understand the nature of information.

The most important empirical principles relating to the concept of information have been defined in the form of theorems. Here is a brief summary of them:

Quote:

---

1.No information can exist without a code.

2.No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.

4.No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

5.No information can exist without a transmitter.

6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

7.No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

8.No information can exist without a will.

---

Information, science and biology


I also recognise that what we see as randomness may be also in fact ordered by a creator. In fact, if God exists it would have to be. But there is a great difference between the order in nature and the order and complexity in living things.

I think somebody needs to check out God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs and see how they can refute that.

kai as a kite:

Quote:

---

I think somebody needs to check out God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs and see how they can refute that.

---

That's not what this thread is about and that's very unreasonable. It's not my purpose here to disarm every single objection there is to God. I don't have a problem with dealing with objections as long as they are directly relevant to this thread, but otherwise forget it.

All I have to do is show a single valid logical path to God. It's not necessary for me to disprove all of those.

And how would you like it if somebody did that to you, elephant hurler.

Imitator:

Quote:

---

And I am still curious what you have to say in regards to the idea of a pantheon-esque setting?

God doesnt mis-speak, and God does everything for a reason. What was his reason for specifically stating "other gods" and not "false gods"? Its such a drastic difference in what that commandment means.

---

This is just totally rediculous. He never says "actual living Gods that I don't want you to worship". He only says " Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ". And from this you read into it to mean he's referring to actual other Gods. If he's telling people who worship dumb idols as Gods, then this makes perfect sense. And in the next verses, he actually does refer to these graven images:

Quote:

---

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

---

There is absolutely no place of inference to assert he was in any way referring to actual Gods. The context does not allow it not only in this passage, but throughout this book and the whole bible he consistantly refers to these Gods as false gods, abominations constructed by the hands of men which have no life in them. He also clearly states there are no other Gods beside him numerous times throughout scripture:

Quote:

---

Deuteronomy 4:35
35Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

Deuteronomy 4:39
9Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Deuteronomy 32:39
39See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

2 Samuel 7:22
22Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

2 Samuel 22:32
32For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

1 Kings 8:60
60That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.


Isaiah 43
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Isaiah 44:6
6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.


Isaiah 44
8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

---

etc. etc. etc. etc.

I already went over a "pantheon-esque" setting in my original post. If you have any objections, feel free to post them with references.

Quote:

---

Imitator:

Quote:

---

Quote:
Do you personally feel that a good action done by someone of a one religion or belief system is any more or less good then the exact same action being done by another religion or belief system? If so, why?

---

That question was from the Christians on Board? thread that was closed prematurely.

Just curious nature, on what you think about the subject? Is a good action by a christian more or less good then the same good action by someone else of a different religion? Assuming a person who lived a life just as good, or possibly better then a christian.. would they be accepted into heaven? If they followed all of God's laws and teachings, without following God, or having ever known of God, would they still be sent to hell, or purgatory?

---

first of all, without faith noone can please God:

Quote:

---

Hebrews 11
6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

---

Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. But his faith was proven through his obedience, and faith without works is dead.

Noone can follow all of God's teachings without faith. The most important commandment also, is to Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind,soul, and strength. How can you love someone you do not recognise, or do not believe in? You can't. THis is the most terrible crime, to not love God.

But some might say they do love God. But Jesus points out that if you love God's commandments, that is his righteousness, then you will in effect be drawn to God by your acceptance of his eternal nature.

Quote:

---

John 14

21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

---

This is actually the only way you can come to God. It always begins with his righteousness. If they really did love his righteousness, then they would be drawn to him and become Christians.

furthermore, yes non Christians can do good works with an outward appearance. They can even feel good about them by the recognition of their conscience. But just like a beautiful woman with an evil heart can give a gentle and tender hug and feel good about it, the unsaved person cannot bear the true Spiritual fruit of righteousness. Without God their Love is incomplete, a mere superficial and tainted reflection of the nature of God. To bring forth Spiritual fruit, you must have God's Spirit working in you and have a true and perfect recognition of his nature.

Quote:

---

4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

---

To a Truth, God's Love is not the Love of this world. God's righteousness is not the righteousness of this world. In feeling, in power, in nature it is greater than that which is of this world, which is in the corrupted minds of men. That is why they are called "dead works". Because they are not done in the Spirit of love, and are worthless to both the purpose of righteousness and sanctification.

And besides that,

You can't go to heaven unless your sins are accounted for. There is no other way for this to happen except through faith in Jesus Christ. The same Faith which saves, is the same faith which brings access to the grace which works in those who are saved to bring forth spiritual fruit and perfection. Sinners are under the power of the devil, and they cannot overcome the lusts of the flesh on thier own.

So it's just as Jesus says:

Quote:

---

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

---

Noone can live any more perfectly than a Christian. A sinner cannot even externally live up to the Christian standard. Thier whole being is continually drawn into sin. A True Christian does not sin . When they stumble, it is because this body is sold under sin, and we fight and war against it until we are given new Spiritual bodies.


Oh, and there is no purgatory.

NatureisAwesome I don't have time to read your last retort but I just watned to add have you ever considered that the dissipative structures which organisms adopt in order to harness energy from somewhere might in fact trascend 4 dimensional space and time? Its all based on topology and strange attractors. I dunno I think we are probably both arguing the same toss of the coin. Are you aware also that Capra, someone you seem to also dismiss readilly, has written a paper on the parallels between science and christianity? (I've not read it though)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

I already went over a "pantheon-esque" setting in my original post. If you have any objections, feel free to post them with references.

---

We did, and then you said No, it's not the case. You have no reason to believe it.

We have shown evidence which you choose to reject, but when we disagree with your evidence, it's because we refuse to see the truth.

If you blast us with a lot of information, it's the truth. If we blast you with a lot of information, it's unfair and elephant hurling.

When you make assumptions, yours are correct. When we make assumptions, we need to back them up.

When we question your sources, you say it's because the creation scientists are being discriminated against in biased evaluations. When you question our sources, it's because our sources are corrupt, and we believe in them like bland religion.

Have fun with the thread.

Hardcore Newbie:

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome View Post
I already went over a "pantheon-esque" setting in my original post. If you have any objections, feel free to post them with references.

---

Quote:

---

We did, and then you said No, it's not the case. You have no reason to believe it.

---

I'm not sure what your referring to. The logical path I explained in my original post to show a pantheon scenario as invalid was never actually adressed.

Quote:

---

We have shown evidence which you choose to reject, but when we disagree with your evidence, it's because we refuse to see the truth.

---

I reject it because it's shown to be invalid.

Quote:

---

If you blast us with a lot of information, it's the truth. If we blast you with a lot of information, it's unfair and elephant hurling.

---

I don't post "50 reasons why God is true". People bring up objections which require more than a few sentences to respond. That's not elephant hurling.

Quote:

---

When you make assumptions, yours are correct. When we make assumptions, we need to back them up.

---

I do back up my assumptions. and Axioms are far from being any everyday asumptions that people make. You can call anything an assumption. In reality, axioms such as "you are thinking" are only remotely called assumptions for the sake of arguement. Nomatter how well you know something you can always deny it, even when it doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

When we question your sources, you say it's because the creation scientists are being discriminated against in biased evaluations. When you question our sources, it's because our sources are corrupt, and we believe in them like bland religion.

Have fun with the thread.

---

I havn't discredited anyones sources like mine have been. I disccredit information because it is proven to be fallacious.

I'm being attacked with so many false accusations there's no room for me to justifiy myself. I suppose people will think what will.

Nature, I am not going to respond point for point in regards to the pantheon thing, because I dont see a point in it.

To put it simply, I find it humorous that you say we need to look at texts in the bible to clarify one of God's laws. I didnt see anything next to that commandment that said, (see such and such). Its a law, it stands on its own, and its very clear. He says worship no other gods. The next commandment is seperate from the others. They are all seperate from each other, otherwise that commandment wouldnt be a commandment, but a subsection of the one before it.

God said dont worship any other Gods before me. I want to know what other Gods those might have been.

He also says dont make any idols, of him or anyone else, and worship them. He doesnt want them worshiping any idols, including those of him, because he wants all the worship to go directly to him himself. He doesnt even want to compete with images of himself.

And since we have shown, in a round about way, that this God is what some might consider a jealous and petty God, and you need look no further then the Old Testament for proof of that, I dont think it would be a stretch to think that he would try to ensure that people didnt believe in anyone but him by claiming he was the one and only god.

Thats just going on all the documented things that were written in the bible. Do I think God is those things? Idk, but if he really is, I would have to question if he isnt just something much more advanced then us, and not an actual god.

And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.

And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

And they shall answer, Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil

Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.

This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.

Then they shall answer, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD their God, and worshipped other gods, and served them.

And go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt

The LORD will be terrible unto them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth; and men shall worship him, every one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case and point. Natureisawesome believes in his God, which clearly is a different God than the ONE I worship.
If his God exists, then there are many gods, but there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD!

"For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever."

Quote:

---

Nature, I am not going to respond point for point in regards to the pantheon thing, because I dont see a point in it.

To put it simply, I find it humorous that you say we need to look at texts in the bible to clarify one of God's laws. I didnt see anything next to that commandment that said, (see such and such). Its a law, it stands on its own, and its very clear. He says worship no other gods. The next commandment is seperate from the others. They are all seperate from each other, otherwise that commandment wouldnt be a commandment, but a subsection of the one before it.

---

You havn't the slightest clue as how to go about exegesis. It doesn't matter that it's seperate from the others. The fact that the very next verse refers to graven images (i.e. false Gods) clarifies the meaning. And there's no room for inference to take it to mean he's referring to real Gods. It a simple statement : Have no other Gods before him. If he was talking about false Gods that's a very normal way to say it. to He says himself over and over again that there are no other Gods. You argue God "cannot have made a mistake", so is he making a mistake there? Your interpretation is in trouble now. "no other Gods" can also refer to Gods which have no idol such as Allah. I just can't believe you're arguing this. It's so obvious that you're heart is hardened and you bicker about foolish things. If you argued that before any Hebrew scholar he wouldn't take you seriously. He would very likely laugh at you, even if he wasn't a Christian. You're wasting my time.

Quote:

---

God said dont worship any other Gods before me. I want to know what other Gods those might have been.

---

There are none, like He says, there are no other Gods. You're going to to twist scripture like that and say God cannot lie so thus and thus, but he clearly states there's no other Gods multiple times and you don't take it as evidence at all. Oh he couldn't have been lying before, but he's lying now is he?

Quote:

---

And since we have shown, in a round about way, that this God is what some might consider a jealous and petty God, and you need look no further then the Old Testament for proof of that, I dont think it would be a stretch to think that he would try to ensure that people didnt believe in anyone but him by claiming he was the one and only god.

---

He might seem like a foolish and petty God to someone who is a fool and has no understanding. There is one type of love given to animals, one type given to children, another type given to men, another variation given to your wife, and there's a special type of Love for God. He deserves our worship. He deserves our dedication to him as God only, and it's great sin and blasphemy to worship some false God that cannot save. It's personally insulting and a great sin. It's a lack of love to God, and that's a greater sin than anything else. I completely understand how he is "jealous", and that is not petty, that is righteous. A man would be "jealous" if his wife went off with another man. A mother would be "jealous" if her children disregarded her who raised them and went off and honored some other woman. How much more then should, we give honor and Love and worship to God who created all things and has given us life?

Quote:

---

Thats just going on all the documented things that were written in the bible. Do I think God is those things? Idk, but if he really is, I would have to question if he isnt just something much more advanced then us, and not an actual god.

---

There are more than a few examples of idol worship in the bible and God condemning it in the books of Moses. I already showed one verse in Deuteronomy (actually more than one) where God claimed there is no other God. And you have no argument to choose one book or chapter and discriminate against the other books. Actually you have no reason to disregard any of them, they are all authentic historical records by all standards.

There are however, false living Gods. Paul talks about these. I don't suggest you try to "know" them to well at all, especially since they are demons.

1 corinthians 10

Quote:

---

19What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

---

Is it neccessary to insult me and my views with every post you make?

Its either lying about what I said, which you still have yet to ever address, or insulting me in some manner or another.

I am now a waste of your time, because you dont like the questions. Poorly a savior would look upon you, for so easily giving up on someone who might be saved.

You seem to take this stance that anything I bring up must be my personal opinion or belief in some manner or another. But that is not the case, nor has it been throughout this entire thread. My stance is of no importance to this conversation. I am merely bringing up points, some of them from that very link you claimed was elephant hurling, in an individual context related to what you are discussing, so that you might address it.

And what standards are they considered completely factual historical record? Can you show me a reference where it states such? A non-biased source would be best.

And as I said before, and you did not respond to at all, a petty God such as the one described in The Old Testament would not be beyond lying to those around him, as such an act is also petty. Someone who is fighting to try to gain belief with a large number of people is better to claim that he is the only, then to claim he is one of many.

And to claim that god is actually jealous speaks leagues. You admited it. You even attempted to justify it. And jealousy is a trait of those who are imperfect. Which is it? Was/Is he a jealous god, or is he a perfect being?

Quote:

---

for he will famish all the gods of the earth

---

Nature, how exactly do you famish something that is made up? Fake dieties can not be fanished, but real ones can. Deny a god all of his worshipers, so that no one exists that believes in it, and some have said you will have destroyed said god. That sounds similar to that idea right there.

There are just as many scriptures making hint to other gods existing as there are of God stating that he is the only god. There is a reason for this... if your God is infallable, then what was written there was not a mistake, and there are alot of references that just dont apply to imaginary gods.

I'm done talking about that Imitator. If you want to strive with the potsherds you can go find pass that --- . I've already adressed this and I feel my response was more than adequate. If you refuse to recognise poetic language, I'm really sorry. I'm very sorry you think that selfish or evil jealousy is the kind that God has, even when I've plainly explained it's not, and the bible shows it's not. I'm really sad that you get hung up on such things. Rightly divide the word of truth, Imitator.

I think I'm also very sorry that my thread has been totally abused and repeatedly brought off topic, that I've been pushed to repeatedly deal with side issues that are not necessary for the purpose of this thread.

At first, I had no problem answering peoples other questions, and I have been slow to anger. But I am sick and tired of this kind of bickering. If people listen to you and they fall into the ditch, it serves them right.

No more about that Imitator. I'm done. Adress the logic in my orignal thread or do not post in here any more. I'm sick and tired of it. Please. And that goes for anybody else either. This is not for you to throw up every little objection you can think of to God. No.

The next person who posts off topic, I am reporting to the moderator.

By the way, natureisawesome. With the so-called "elephant hurling" website that I posted. I didn't expect you to answer all of them. I simply expected you to answer the ones that are of the most significance. Here, I'll pick a couple out for you and then it won't be "elephant hurling," okay?

1. God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs - read it to its full extent, and answer it well. I don't want any beating around the bush and stupid justifications like "oh well god made it that way so that is how it must be" kind of bullshit.

2. God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

3. God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

4. God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

Four simple questions.
I also wanted you to read the whole website, and see the other side of the story. Remember, there's not always one side. That especially goes for religion.

I can't wait to hear about how these questions are invalid, or contribute to "elephant hurling."

You might also want to watch the videos on that site, too. Such as the "The Bible is Repulsive" video. In fact, watch them all. Religion is bullshit. I have nothing wrong with people turning to the bible to clean their lives up from drugs or something, but anyone that seriously lives their life to the bible is obviously brainwashed. At least the drug addicts have a reason other than "that's the way it is." It's a system of control.

And by the way, with the crusades... the Bible DOES support the crusades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

I'm done talking about that Imitator. If you want to strive with the potsherds you can go find pass that --- . I've already adressed this and I feel my response was more than adequate. If you refuse to recognise poetic language, I'm really sorry. I'm very sorry you think that selfish or evil jealousy is the kind that God has, even when I've plainly explained it's not, and the bible shows it's not. I'm really sad that you get hung up on such things. Rightly divide the word of truth, Imitator.

I think I'm also very sorry that my thread has been totally abused and repeatedly brought off topic, that I've been pushed to repeatedly deal with side issues that are not necessary for the purpose of this thread.

At first, I had no problem answering peoples other questions, and I have been slow to anger. But I am sick and tired of this kind of bickering. If people listen to you and they fall into the ditch, it serves them right.

No more about that Imitator. I'm done. Adress the logic in my orignal thread or do not post in here any more. I'm sick and tired of it. Please. And that goes for anybody else either. This is not for you to throw up every little objection you can think of to God. No.

The next person who posts off topic, I am reporting to the moderator.

---

Report me then. At this point, with your insulting tone, and your insulting of anyone elses viewpoint, I think you wouldnt like the results on your end either. The ONLY reason I havent reported you myself is because you were continuing the conversation, which interested me.

I have yet to bring up something that didnt have to do with the subject at hand. You just dont like the questions, so you are trying to limit what can be asked, and what can be said, in some sort of facist way.

But you want to stick to easier subjects, with yes or no answers and no challenge on your part? Stuff that you can get your answers from AiG? How about this one then.

It is against God's laws to worship any idol, even if it is of himself. Yet in almost every church you go to, you will find Christ upon the cross in the center of the church. Every person who goes there and worships is worshiping a false idol, and that much is comfirmed by the Church, since it was not allowed for a long time by one of the Popes, for that exact reason.

So do you, natureisawesome, have a crucifix anywhere? Do you wear a crucifix? What do you think of those who blatantly and willing defy one of God's laws by owning one of these idols, or going to a church which proudly displays one?

Quote:

---

I can't wait to hear about how these questions are invalid, or contribute to "elephant hurling."

---

Dont even bother, its not worth your time. Its obvious, yet again, that this is someone who didnt want to actually have a conversation about anything but exactly what he believed in, with people who agree with him. The second that we started bringing up questions in regards to things we saw as a problem with his theory and such, we met immediate resistance.

I will say I enjoyed what came of this, I truely did. I learned a decent bit of information that I had not known before, and for that I am thankful.

But nature wasnt looking for a conversation in regards to this. He was looking for people to look at his arguement and go "oh my god, I never looked at it like that, you are so right, im a christian from now on." Every time he had to explain something that he felt was self evident in regards to a topic or question we brought up, it was with condescendence, and insults. We were foolish for this, or ignorant for that, or playing stupid, in almost everything that he posted.

He has displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of basic philosophy and Buddhism, and general logic in quite a few cases. The fact that he states that his perceptions have to be correct is probably the most hilarious statement I have ever heard, considering human perception is probably THE most flawed way to try to find facts, as we can be fooled in so many ways. Optical illusions anyone?

He attacked the Four Noble Truths, without obviously having ever read them, because what he stated was completely incorrect if you take even a short period of time to read them and the scripture they come from.

He claims that science is wrong on any aspect that might disprove or cause him a problem in regards to his subject, but then uses science to try to prove what he is talking about. His science is always right, our science is always wrong.

At this point, and Id almost argue from the start although I may be being a bit too cynical, its like arguing with a 7 yr old child who is plugging their ears and just repeating themselves to try to win the arguement. Even worse, its a child repeating copy-paste stuff.

But I am done with this thread. Congratulations nature, you ran out someone who was probably one of the more enthusiastic of this thread, and one who never once ridiculed your beliefs and really only said anything negative of you once you started doing the same to me. You turned a conversation into a pissing contest, you turned a conversation into a means for you to insult everyone who didnt agree with your viewpoint, and you turned a conversation into nothing more then another typical thread by ignorant small minded religious people. Also, please note, I am not saying all religious people are ignorant or small minded, just some.

The fact that you wouldnt even begin to entertain any other possibilities, while the entire time chiding us for not entertaining your possibility, is hilarious, and hypocritical at best.

Also, you still have never disproven the Dreamer theory, therefore, its still a possibility. And Id recommend really learning what a fact, theory, possibility, and how to identify a statement of any of those apart from the other. You seem to be lacking that right now, and I think it will help you convey your point a bit better next time.

Have fun with the rest of your thread, I am unsubscribing to it. Report me if you wish.

Peace

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks NatureisAwesome. If there is one person who is abusing this thread the most it seems to me to be you yet you are calling out others on your own thread. Since your posts are soooooooooo long it is hard to read this whole thread without getting a headache. It seems that you are more upset with people not agreeing with you and you are looking for reasons to get people in trouble based on that or you are baiting them into breaking the rules. We have a word for that and it is trolling. This is not the only thread you have done this is so if anyone is pressing the rules to the edge of the limits it is NatureIsAwesome. I'm not saying everyone else is innocent but you make it hard with your baiting and your extremely long posts to see past your own role in this but from what I see the responders have been quite respectful for the most part. I'm not going to close a thread just because people don't agree with NatureIsAwesome because no one is breaking the rules and that would be extreme censorship.

I would like to see less statements like Screw Religion or Religion is BS ,etc. Say something a little more profound people.

If people want to carry on with this thread then carry on but this thread may have steered a little off the original topic but not by much. Try to return it to center and keep it respectful!