Kadin

True, it could be lion, a donkey, or something else. However, should it be a representation of Samson and the lion that doesn't prove the Biblical account. Archeologists might find a representation of Romulus and Remus, but that does not mean they have found evidence that these individuals are historical. It remains, nonetheless, a very interesting find. Sorry Jacob. To quote the article, "Now I'm not saying that Samson is depicted here but definitely the myth or the legend is depicted here," Lederman said. It could be Samson. Possibly the artifact was made by someone who heard of Samson, or someone who heard the story of Samson, or some who heard the myth of Samson. It could be that a man called Samson existed, and over time, retelling of the stories, the facts became exagerated. I don't take exception with Samson, but I do have concerns about people who would assume this proves the validity of the Old Testiment, and it proves that supernatural events occured. I think proof should be held to a much higher standard, and we should not be so easily swayed or our beliefs so easily forged. Kadin

I suppose it depends on where you set the bar and the definition of Christian. If Christian only means you believe, then I would say yes. To me a better question, is can you be rich, refuse to share your wealth and still be an honorable person. If Christianity is defined by a simple act of proclaimation, then I would pose that it is not a significant recommendation. In a Revival meeting I once heard a Minister ask, "If you were put on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" Kadin

Wow, 100% agreement. How could anyone agrue with statistics like that. Must be true huh. All those people couldn't possibly be wrong. I didn't see anyone who asked for the criteria. If someone did and I missed it, I apologize. Was Jesus all powerful when on Earth and is that a critera for Godhood? Was he completely omniscient? I'm not argueing. I really don't know. I have heard some say that if Jesus were Omniscient he could not have been tempted, but of course that's silly, because we know he was tempted. If Omnipotent, he could not have suffered. And if he were not able to experience what it was to be human, he could not be the judge at the end of days. I don't know, probably just dogma. I think some believe that because he was born of a human mother, and a divine Father he was enough God to live a perfect life, and enough human to redeem mankind from the fall. Well, I'm not smart enough to vote on such a question, but I do have to ask, is it possible that it might just be more complicated than our very finite minds can understand, and God has had to simplify it beyond recognition so that we can try to get through life. Kadin

Well, I'm an old guy too, and I remember when the world was different. I suppose when the bigoted and self-righteous drove all people with unique sexual motivations into hiding, it was more comfortable for us hetero-sexuals, but I very much doubt it was "better" for everyone. As I say, I'm old, but not so old that I have forgotten how my libedo drove me during my youth. I remember well the uncontrollable lust, the inability to pull my eyes away from women's breasts and legs and hips and the fantasies that invaded my mind and dreams, and I remember the ensuing shame. I remember the promises I made to God and to myself, and I remember the urges overpowering my will again and again. I remember the prayers and years of failure to live up to commandments both real an imagined. I couldn't talk to anyone. I was too ashamed and I hid in my own kind of closet. Those memories make it hard for me to sit in judgement of other people, possibly those struggling with the same over powering urges, and pleading the same prayers and the same promises and the same shame. If a homosexual man or woman, or someone with an attraction to shoes or porn or woman's clothing has it even half as hard as I did, then I offer only sympathy. Also, I am glad that in this decadant era these struggling souls have someone to talk too, clergy, or just friends, or maybe someone like me who cringes at the thought homosexual acts, but can rise above my personal bias and remind them that Jesus is there for all of us. I think maybe I will let God decide about homosexuals, and people addicted to porn, and cross dressers and even self righteous. Maybe I will Jesus come back when the time is right and not try tell God his business. I've got arthritus in my shoulder from carrying my own sins. Not very good at throwing rocks.

Having said that many believers might hold the general view that God could make it hail if he wanted to but I am certain most take the view that the vast majority of hail storms are natural events. If someone wanted to take the position that a particular storm was a direct result of God’s activity they would have to hold that view as a matter of faith. There would be absolutely no way to prove God’s involvement. Thank you all who commented on this topic. Your insights have given me much to think about. I think the Bible suggests we should see the "Hand of God" in all things. I fear this; The idea that we would see divine intervention even when it may not be there. Does nothing happen without the intervention of God? Much of what we can learn of Diety from the Bible, involves seeing God as a being of power. One who can warp natural law and cause anything to happen to support His chosen and blessed people. One who stands beside us and vanquishes our enemies with natural and supernatural occurances. Sadly, not one who usually engages wisdom and diplomacy to resolve differences. Sending hail from the storehouse, or wherever it comes from, killing the wives and slaves and children of Job certainly demonstrated power, but not compassion, or mercy. Is it beyond the power of God to reason with Satan? To reach some sort of compromise. Humans, on occasion, have been able to resolve differences without resorting to war. Is that totally impossible even for God? I don't suppose an all powerful being has to negotiate, but nevertheless, negotiation is often the ethical course of action, even if you don't have to. Over and over again in the OT, God (the Prophet actually) sent armies to wipe out people who were living in one place or another. Would it have been so completely futile to negotiate a peaceful settlement. Ask them politely to move, even make a reasonable settlement offer. Even in the NT we see examples of when violence is the first and only option. Possibly my biggest problem in life is that I respect wisdom. I find virtue in being able to avoid violence, find amiable compromise using super human acts of intellect and diplomacy. The ablility to see a path to peace through a seemingly impenatrable maze of discord. I respect this. All powerful beings capable of eradicating whole civiliations with a single word.... Not so much. Kadin

I know of none at all. I don't know of any examples of this either. I do know of one non-scientist who has made it his life's work to expose psychic charlatans. His name is James Randi and he is a professional magician. Randi offers a $1 million prize to anyone who can give proof of paranormal activity. That's up from the $10,000 prize he started with. So far no takers. He has exposed some big-tent evangelists who employ deception in their shows. Although, I think most of us would agree there must be absolute truth out there. Don’t you think so? If you read Job it is clear the writer thought hail and snowfall were both supernatural events. He came to the conclusion that God must have storehouses in Heaven and presumed snow and hail were then tossed down by God as needed. We now understand, absolutely, that there are no storehouses in the sky. We understand in great detail how both snow and hail form. No need for God anymore to account for these things. Having said that many believers might hold the general view that God could make it hail if he wanted to but I am certain most take the view that the vast majority of hail storms are natural events. If someone wanted to take the position that a particular storm was a direct result of God’s activity they would have to hold that view as a matter of faith. There would be absolutely no way to prove God’s involvement. We may understand, absolutely, that certain things are no longer true (ie. “storehouses” in Heaven), but absolute understanding still eludes us in most things. I agree with you, “real science” does not claim to hold absolute truth. My belief is that the universe, wondrous though it is, is fully natural in all its aspects, including its beginning. I am convinced of this because I have not a scrap of evidence to think otherwise. I may not understand how the universe or life began, but I don’t have any reason to jump to the conclusion that those beginnings must be supernatural.

The problem with debating with scientism from a Christian, creationist, or intelligent design perspective is, they always try to reduce our arguments to faith, psychological/physiological. They say we can't prove God through scientific method, so He doesn't exists. Who said He wants to be proven by scientific method Actually, I don't know of any real science that tries to prove or disprove the existence of deity. The science that I am familiar with often tries to explain, and tries to predict probabilities. Science might well try to expose fraudulent claims of religious charlatans attempting to inspire the beliefs of others by deception. It might suggest that some claims are improbable, but I don’t thing real science actually claims to have any absolute truths. It is not as a scientist therefore that look for a foundation upon which to build a belief. Sadly, in my lifetime, I have not found one, but I keep seeking. Kadin