Pipit

Hmmm... more cut and past Christianity. This time, Jesus as a enlightened philosopher who has a good plan that you should follow to get a better life---joy and happiness and blessing and wealth (hmm... kinda like Buddha, without the suffering). I guess they are not making much mention of sin, judgement and death, or of repentance of sin (of course, we can't have those in Christianity--it makes people feel guilty and convicted about their lifestyles!). Few things in the article that stood out: Nice definition this athiest has of religion: pious people who don't behave in a way that's consistent with piety. I think he strongly equated religion with hypocracy--that, or he really needs to read a dictionary. If we took that stance... would we ever learn? The gospel is to be presented not just to those who already know a little bit, but to everyone, especially to those who don't know at all. I am curious if anyone knows about this program in Canada. The article made mention of it, and I'd like to know. We have a few churches around here (in Northern Ontario) that have a watered down, its all about Jesus you'll be blessed with health and wealth and you don't have to worry about your sins gospel... wondering if they are using that program... p.s. yea, he guy kinda looks freaky... almost as if he would spring horns and a pointy tale and pull out a pitch fork as soon as you sign a deal with him.

Hey Crystal, Thank you for sharing your struggle, and also expresssing your desires and your doubts and your questions. The fact that you are here sharing this is awesome. It shows that you are searching, and Jesus told us that if we seek we will find. It is a difficult place when you are seriously questioning your faith and are finding it difficult to believe God hears you. It is difficult to see events happen that really shouldn't and which make you wonder if God is in control, or if He is real. You don't know what to pray, and when you do try to pray, you don't know if there is anyone to hear you. There are many here who know the place you are in because we have been in similar places. My prayer is that we can help you. You have asked the question "Have I been abandoned for abandoning God?" I would say 'No' to that a thousand times over. If you have been abandoned by Him, then I doubt my heart would ache for you, or that God would send people here to pray for you and encourage you. Yet more then that, we know we have a God who loves us so much that He sent His Son to die on a cross for us (John 3:16), that He loves us with an everlasting love (Jeremiah 31:3-4), and who desires that none should parish but that we all come to repentence (2nd Peter 3:9). He will not abandon you, but like a Father waiting for a child to come back home He will wait for you, longing for you to turn around and come back to Him (and He will send people to you to help you turn around and to come home running). I do not know what it is that you went through that left you so hurt, and I understand that you may wish to keep those things private. Yet I want to encourage you to know that in your hurt it is alright to bring those things, your angerness, your bitterness, your questions and your feelings to God. It's alright to do that. It's alright to rage and shout and pour your hurt and anguish out to God--even your wrong feelings and thoughts. David did it many times as he poured himself out in his psalms. Let Him know you feel abandoned, that you are in doubt, that you hurt, and that you have no clue where to turn. I also encourage you to seek fellowship. As said, there are many here who know the place you are in. My hope is that you will be able to find someone whom you can open your heart to and share your experiences with, and who can understand and relate where you are, and encourage and guide you as you seek restoration. And I also pray for you...

1-Christ makes me worthy and deserving 2-Christ took the punishment I deserve 3-Through the blood of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit we are given a new mind, which reflects Christ, and which is good 4-Our God is greater then he who is in the world 5-I am blessed, so I can bless others. 6-Christ will overcome all evil 7- My God is in control, and through Him I can overcome all things! hehe... posted this before I read Fiosh's reply

Here's a question: How is it that we are able to determine what is damage and what is natural within a gene, since we do not have any copy of an original cell or DNA strand-- all we have are products of, in your words, millions of years of evolution. What if cells had many of these apparently useless genes to begin with? Now, I know that I am treading of difficutl ground, because in making such a statement one can ask 'Why would God make imperfect genes? Wouldn't He have made His creation perfect?' It is a fair question. Yet this can be explained in what happened when man sinned. Creation was transformed, and death became a reality (Genisis 3). Can it be presumed that with the fall DNA and genes became corrupted--damaged-- so that death could take place? Of course, this would be rejected as a possiblity by most of the athiests reading it, because you do not believe in the creation account to begin with. But please think of it as a possibility.

just a quote: An athiest seeks proof of God just as a criminal seeks a police station. It sometimes happens, but not that often.

hey Ian... not much time to reply... just one thing: I know you probably didn't intend it to sound this way, but you make it sound as if without the theory of QM that such things wouldn't exist. It is like saying gravity did not exist until Newton developed a theory about it. But remember that radioactivity and electron tunelling microscopes don't require the theory of QM to exist or work. In fact, radioactivity existed long before the theory was developed and still holds to the same laws that it did before. Theories are developed to attempt to explain how things work or to try to make sense of them, and even when demonstratable, unless they prove highly reliable, highly consistent, and repeatable (with the same results) they remain theories. I am not saying that theories cannot give us a deeper understanding or provide possible explanations, but we should be cautioned against applying theory as fact, even if well established (though I would say, sometimes dabbling in the possiblility of certain theories being true can lead to some interesting thoughts that are worth discussing... such as we have here) As for your understanding of these things such as QM, it is most likely greater then mine. I be just a lowly history and english graduate... hense why I am asking mostly questions....

WOO-HOO!! I think the guys who come to my place for Bible study (where we drink alot of tea and eat alot of chocolate) will love to hear that news. And the garlic and wine thing... well, that's great news! We stuff so much garlic in our chilis and roasts we'd never have to worry about vampires... and to have a good glass of red wine with your garlic pepper steak... As for fish... I'm not sure that it would be good for me... I have allergies...

I think that the modern notion of religion and the stigma that comes with the word has tainted its traditional meaning. It has gone from meaning to have a fearful and worshipful relationship and communion (not the bread and wine communion, but that intimate and spiritual connection) with God to meaning following the rules and doctrine of a belief system, with things such as having to go to church and having to sing worship songs and having to go through the motions of being part of that belief. Christianity, and our relationship with Christ, is religion in its traditional meaning (fearful and worshipful communion and fellowship and devotion to and with God). Sadly, because its meaning changed, but we still use the word, when people think religion and Christianity, they don't think of that communion and devotion and fellowship with God--they think of the duties and practices of following the doctrine and rules of Christianity. So, skyla, you are right in saying that Christianity is not a religion--at least in the modern use of the word. We do not go through the motions of following doctrine and obeying the Bible for the doctrines and Bibles sake. Yet also remember the traditional and original meaning, and when you hear people say they dislike Christianity because of religion, explain to them what religion really means, and the relationship with Christ and with God that comes with it.

Now, has it been demonstrated that matter can spontaneously appear (beyond of course your claim that it did so spontaneously at the begining--with no one there to see it or observe it or measure it)? If not, then it remains merely a theory... which you believe on faith. Second, a theory based around the idea of uncertainty sounds rather suspect. I want to say that it sounds like a cop-out (much like you 'may' say that we must take some things purely by faith is a cop-out). Cetainly it does allow for unpredictable things to occur, yet it can also lead to far fetched notions and theories as science tries to explain the universes existence outside of there being a divine being. Thirdly, there is a difference between you saying matter suddenly and spontaneously appeared, and me saying that there is an all powerful, supernatural being. Never said there wasn't. What I am comparing there is how the notion that matter can spontaniously appear and believing that notion demands the same aspects of faith for one to believe there is a God out there. So what is that force? What is it that determines the laws and physics that makes it possible? There are laws involved in this, are there not? Or is this just some random, chaotic force that appeared from nowhere? If it is vacuum energy which you refer to, where did the vacuum come from, and where did the energy come from? Can energy spontaneously appear as well? In regards to your comments on gravity, if it is neutral in that at any point in the universe--or in the circle to follow your analogy--it exerts equal force in all direction, then shouldn't everything either be in static in its position (neutral gravity--it just kinda floats there) or tossed to the edges of the expanding universe. Of course, this thought--or at least the first one-- does neglect that vacuum energy may have effect on matter in a neutral gravity system, like wind blowing a helium balloon. Of course, you are still looking into that, so I will let you better explain what you mean. As for anything suggesting that you think we are stupid, its not meant to suggest that. It was to highlight that sometimes when we make a comment or a remark to refute another idea, but we are unable to explain that idea ourselves, we need to express that our understanding of it is only teriary and not adequate--and check mark to you for expressing such a point! (hey, for an athiest... you're alright! )

Wow... reading this makes me realize how the church has lost the meaning of the word revival. Nothing against 'revival' services or anything, the intent behind them is great (when they seek to allow God reign), but I think they are better described as an outreach service then revival services. See, a Revival is meant to be a continuous thing. It is suppose to be a sustained and encompassing spiritual reawakening, a restoration of the church or of the body of believers. It is more than an evangelical service where some people accept Christ (though such things are awesome in themselves), or a one night thing. However, God can use those to start a revival, and use them to spark a sustained and encompassing awakening of the church, and of seeing many come to Christ. Thinking of Revival, I encourage you to search up on the Asuza Street revival at the beginning of the 1900s, or the Argentinan revival in the 1980s. I also pray that the service you go to would be one that brings a genuine and powerful move of God to that area, and that it awakens the church to be bold in Christ, and that it draws those who are not yet saved into the arms of the Savior!

My plans for this Halloween.... hand out the best candy on the block, include a nifty tract, be nice to everyone who comes to my door, and allow people within the neighbourhood to get to know me and me to know them. I will do so to bless those who come to my door, and to bless my community, and to build relationships and to let those who meet me know that Christians are all boring stuffy and reclusive. And I may even pull out the super soaker and drench some university students who go out

Firstly, thank you for the compliment. Also thank you for describing atheism and agnosticism and your positions. So, esentially, in reading your claims, you are stating that you choose not to believe in a God or god or gods, yet you accept that somewhere, in your ignorance (your lack of knowledge regarding all things), there may be a God/god/gods out there, yet even if there is, you choose not to believe in that deity. Correct? Now, there is a problem with such a statement. You are saying with it "There is no deity out there, maybe, but if there is, I choose not to believe in that deity." It has a dualistic ring to it... to some reading it it may almost sound as if you are not even concerned if there is a deity out there. I am pointing this out because I know alot of the arguments people will try to make and why they will try to make them. Yet you have the word reason in there. And that begs the question: What reasons, or what evidence, do you need to accept that there is a God? How many questions must be answered before you are satisfied? And even more so, what kind of answers are you seeking? And this last one is a big one... because if we set to discover something or learn of something, and we set ourselves to wanting specific answers that met our specific concept or though of what things should be like, we may find ourselves hard pressed to accept answers which are really the true ones, because we have automatically set ourselves up to disbelieve them. I say this as something that both yourself as an atheist should consider and what we as Christians should also consider, because sometimes we too think we should get a certain answer, and we refuse to accept something because we don't. Yet I also write this knowing that there are many things that must be accepted by faith---not just for us Christians, but for yourself as a atheist. Science falls short of answering many many important questions, and some of the theories they use to fill in the gaps are just as disbelieveable as some of the things found within the Bible. So, if you are willing to share, what would it take to convince you that there is a god, and more so, that God as found in the Christian Bible is that God?

I haven't red all the posts here, so I don't know if this has been brought up or not: In regards to the ideas of mutations and such, if we are to truly demonstrate if there is a connection between humand and chimps, then we should be able to look a genome structures from thousands of years ago (yes, I do understand that time would have broken them down, and that it is actually unreliable) and note that farther back we go, the closer the relation between on genome, as there is less time for mutation. Of course, as noted, it is unlike that we will find stable chimp and human genome that is thousands of years old. So, what we will have to do is wait a thousand years and do another study to see if the gap in differences has increased as more mutations and changes and 'evolutionary developments' occur. Such a test will demonstrate either a) that both humans and chimps are continually evolving father apart from each other or b) that there is no change in the genome of the chimp or human and thus no evidence of mutation or evolution. Yet, until such a test is done, the only thing that the genome study shows is that there are similarities between the chimp DNA and the human DNA. Yet just because there are similarities, there is no logical ground to delcare it as proof of evolution unless future tests demonstrate that there is a continuence of change and increases differences. Now, even such a study if it were undertaken is suspect: unless we are able to get a sample from a chimp and a human who are ancestors of those used in this test, we may not get accurate resultes. It also brings up another question: does the genome test demonstrate that there are notable differences (or a lack of) between different humans? How different is a persons genome in Australia then that of someone in Canada? How different is my genome then that of my brothers? If there are notable differences, what does this suggest? Even more, if there is little notable difference what would that tell us? Again, what we have simply reveals that in regards to genome we are similar to chimps. It doesn't prove that we are related to them or that we evolved from a common ancestor. Unless much more tests are done well into the future, there are no grounds to really debate otherwise.

Question for the athiests out there: Do you believe that saying there is no God is an absolute statement? If no, then you are not really an athiest, but an agnostic... because your statement that there is no God is a 'maybe' statement. To make an absolute statement, you need to have absolute knowledge. For me to say there is no gold in China, I have to know what is under every rock, what is in every China man's mouth, and what is in every piece of jewelry. If there is even a little bit of gold, my statement is false. Now, if you are to make the statement that there is no God, you will have to have absolute knowledge of the universe. Knowledge about everything, from the thoughts of Alexander the Great when he was three years old to the number of hairs on a Tibetian Yak to even more difficult questions. Now, lets say you have an incredible 1% knowledge of everything there is to know. Would it be fair to say that in the 99% of the knowledge you haven't yet come across that God could exist? If so, you are not an athiest, but an agnostic. If you don't believe that God can exist in the 99% of knowledge you don't know, it begs much of your intellegence and... now, please understand that i am not in any way suggesting that athiests or those who claim to be athiests are ignorant. I have many really intellengent friends who I enjoy speaking to who are athiests. I do want to give you something to think about though, as you make the statement that there is no God, or as you attempt to prove that He does not exist.

I find it amusing that you can believe that matter just spontaniously appears, yet you seem to hold the idea that there can be a creator behind matter as contemptable. What faith you have to believe that something comes from nothing... it must rival our faith in God as the creator of all things! And your statement of it being complex but you making no effort to explain it stands as a sign that a) you hold us in centempt in regards to our intellegent (which would make us ask you why are you bothering to debate with people you consider stupid? You already labelled us thus, why make yourself stupid by wasting your time) or b) you really don't know how to explain it yourself. Hmm.. things were moving away from each other, yet, gravity pulls things together. Hmmm... space is still expanding, but there is gravity, so things in space are being pulled together. It sounds like the equivalent of a legless man trying to walk up the escalator that goes down... especially when one considers that if things started at one point, densely all packed together, then gravity would have been confined to that one point, and everything (because everything emits a gravitational pull) would have stayed together and never have spread apart to begin with... unless there was something to cause it to spread apart. So, gravity should have actually kept the universe from expanding in the first place. Kind of suggests that the universe started already spread out...

So, Islam, like atheism, like Christianity, like all other world views, must answer the questions posted above. Now, I am not an expert on Islam, so I invite others to add to or question what is here. As well, please note that i am not endorsing Islam in this post, but simply attempting to provide Islam's answers to these questions.... So, where did we come from? Islam follows a similar creation narative as Christianity. Allah (God) created everything in six days, and that it was in harmony and balanced. Yet unlike the Christian account of creation, Islam claims that life appeared gradually: "What is the matter with you, that you are not conscious of Allah's majesty, seeing that it is He Who has created you in diverse stages? See you not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (glorious) lamp? And Allah has produced you from the earth, growing (gradually)" (71:13-17). There are other passages in the Qur'an (or Koran) that say life happened in stages, over a period of time. However, Adam and Eve were special creations made directly by Allah, with the purpose of living life to please Allah. As with the creation narrative in Christianity, one can easily hold this as myth. Yet it completely explains the origin of things and does reflect the reality around us in the universe we see. Why is are we in the condition we are in? Why is there evil in the world? Islam claims that man kind was created with free will. When Adam and Eve sinned (though Islam does not hold to the idea of orinigal sin), they begged Allah for forgiveness. He punished them by giving them a mortal life (meaning that they would die) but promised that in the end man would be reunited with Allah. Islam also claims that all are born in natural submission to Allah (20:122-123). The reason why evil still exists, even though Allah forgave Adam and Eve of their sin, is because of man's pride and rebellion. Sin exists became man tries to partner himself with Allah and make himself equal. Pride is the cardnial sin of Islam, and because of pride there is rebellion against Allah. Yet, there is a serious flaw: if all are born into natural submission to Allah, then where did pride come from? Was it Adam and Eve's first sin that spurred pride into being not just in them, but into everyone, so that despite their natural submission (which would also be perfectly submitted) to Allah they are naturally prone to rebel? This itself brings further questions: if pride is naturally a part of ourselves, then can we be naturally submitted to Allah? The only answer is this: that pride enters us sometime after birth. But where does that pride come from? When does that pride, that rebellion against Allah, manifest itself? Though Islam states that at the age of puperty, we must start giving an account of ourselves, yet beyond this, no answer to when and how pride enters is offered. So, Islam has some difficulties in explaining sin (and the origin of pride). Again, I write this without a complete understanding of Islam, so I invite others to attempt to better answer this question. What is the solution to the problem of sin? Submission--which is what the word islam means. Islam states that harmony with Allah can only be achieved with perfect submission, and with perfect submission comes true repentence, in which one is declared perfect. This means that the solution to sin lies in man's efforts to submit themselves to Allah. Allah does not actively provide a solution to the sin problem. Instead, Allah stands over and watches man's actions, and judges man accordingly. Where are we going? Where is history leading to? Islam holds that there is a purpose to life, to please Allah and live for him. It also believes that there is life after death, and for those who have submitted themselves to Allah and have shown themselves faithful there is heaven and reward. For those who don't, there is eternal fire. Heaven and hell are determined on deeds... This adds something to Islam.. it makes it a religion of fear and fanaticalism. One lives in constant fear that they are not good enough, and that they must seek to fulfill Allah's will and be obedient to the extreme. Hense why muslims often seek martyrdom and are willing to die for their cause--they deem it as a sure way ticket to paradise. ------------------ Yet if Islam does have any one serious problem, it is that it attempts to claim itself as exclusive and the only way, while at the same time it attempts to accept Christianity and Judism as faiths that also provide a way to heaven. It claims the God of the Jews and Christians is the same God as Allah. Yet we know by looking at the Bible and comparing the portrayal of God in both religions that there are some powerful fundamental contradictions. God in Christianity seeks to have an active relationship with man, Allah seeks that man submits to him. God has provided a means of grace and redemption that is not dependend on man's efforts, but on faith alone in Christ; Allah judges man based on his efforts and on his submission. Christianity holds Jesus as the Son of God, and that his death on the cross was to redeem man from sin, Islam holds Jesus as a prophet who died as a martyr, but not as a savior or as the Son of God. Christians believe in the Holy Spirit, Islam doesnt. Christianity also believes that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three different manifestations or beings of God, each individual and unique, yet all united as one (unibus pluribus deux, unity in the diversity of God, if I may say it) And there are other differences. So Islam flaws itself in its lack of exlusiveness and its failure to recognize the fundamental differences it has with Christianity, a religion it attempts to claim has the same God has it does. This means that in its efforts to hold Christianity and Judism as equal religions, it either has to make exceptions to its own religion (and thus its ideology is suspect and questionable) or it must lie (though we say Christianity and Islam are mutually acceptable, we don't believe it). This also makes its ideology suspect. Why believe a religion that attempts to claim something that is demonstratably not so in its relation to other religions? ----- I'll attempt to address Hindusism and Eastern Religions later... as other things demand my attention!

Lets see. Question: Why do Christians deem other religions as false? To answer that, we have to ask more questions, because each belief system has to both logically and consistently answer four questions to stand as valid, and the answers it gives must reflect reality and not be contradictory to the other answers it gives. It must answer the questions: 1)Where did we come from? (who or what created us, and is there purpose for life?) 2)Why are we in the state or condition we are in (ie: why is there 'sin' or 'suffering' or 'wrongness' in the world?) 3) Is there a solution to the problem or condition we are in? (is there salvation from our condition?) 4) Where are we going? Where is history leading? (is there something beyond life?) So, lets start with Atheism. The religion of those who trust that science has the answers. Firstly, most athiests don't agree on the same things. Some claim aliens started the human race, others say everything started with a big bang, and some just don't care. I'll answer the more common and scientifically accepted beliefs. So, the Big Bang. The belief that long ago there was nothing then BANG, the universe exploded into existence. Of course, the realization that they were saying that something came of nothing had science throwing around theories such as the expand and collapse theory (the universe is in flux, with all matter expanding and collapsing, expanding and collapsing, and the Big bang was a result of it having collapsed and expanding again...but it does nothing to answer the origin of the universe). So there is the delima of answering the questions 1)where did matter come from and 2)why did it 'bang.' The question on matter has two answers: it always existed, or something created it. Regardless, it 'banged' (though we don't know why, and we don't know where the material came from to make it bang) and the universe was formed and eventually the gases coalesced into starts and planets (though science is baffled in regards to how... gravity is too weak of a force unless you have a really large mass, and it is difficult to think of any masses large enough any time after the Big bang that would stop matter from moving outward and start to clump together to form stars and galexies), and our earth was formed and things started to happen... life began to appear. Atheism claims that we evolved with no creator or influence, but through a scientifically measurable and observable process, advancing from one life form to another. There are three basic flaws or problems for this. One is that science has not demonstrated that one spieces can evolve or transform into another. Yes, it has shown that there are variances within the same spieces, and that the manipulation or change of the environment can bring these variances, but these variances revolve around a norm and the spieces generally return back to the norm (for example, Darwin's finches. There beaks grow or shrink depending upon the climate of the island--dry seasons it was shorter, to eat harder seeds, rainy season it was longer, because the seeds were softer). Never within these variances is there genetic change which produces a new spieces. In fact, ask someone who breeds dogs or cows. Yes, they will tell you that breeding to healthy and large animals will produce a healthy and large animal, but you can only breed to a certain point before the you end up with a generation of animals you are breeding develop serious health issues (all those prefect traits seem to end in a mess). And if you stop forcing the excellent animals to breed, eventually, within a few generations, they would be back to a norm. No horses produced from your cow breeding, no new animal that never existed before pops out. Even within the fossel record there is no support for the evolutionary process. There is evidence that clearly shows that creatures existed that are now extinct. There is evidence that some of these creatures were terrific is size. There is no evidence to suggest or show that one creature transformed into another. Even in science's efforts to reproduce the building blocks of life--protient--it has failed to show that it can successfully happen. Yes, Protiens have been successfully created by scientists who carefully mix and measure their amino acids and impecably control their experiment's environment, yet their method in itself shows how difficult it is to create the protients. It required a carefully controlled environment with a scientific mind behind it to produce the results. Such conditions are not found in a natural world, let alone one that is in chaos. Add to this that protients are either left handed or right handed and that DNA is made up of only one type of protient, either completely right handed or completely left handed. The protient produced by the experiments is both, all jumbled together. Finally, there is little prupose to life. Science and athiesm must hold to the idea that we are merely living to do, and that life is nothing more then random chance with no meaning behind it. It faces difficulty is clearly answering the questions of 'where did we come from' and to have answers that conform to the reality around us. There is much more to say about atheism and its problems answering the 'where did we come from' question. But as you can see, answering the questions takes much space. So, onto question two: 2)Why are we in the condition we are in? Why is there evil in the world? Firstly, science really isn't equipped to give answers for moral questions. Good and evil in a random, meaningless world were things happen by chance and chemical reaction and stimuli means nothing, because its definition is nothing more then a product of that change and chemical reaction and stimuli. So the question of good and evil is hard to answer. Yet they still demand answers for it, and attempt to give answers. Marx believed evil existed because of the economic conditions and the class system--remove the class systems and make everyone equal and you will have a eutopia. Jean Jaque Rousseau believed that we are born good, but that society and institutes corrupt us--reform society and the system and you will have a eutopia (some of these hint towards question 3: What is the solution ). Others point to our genes and DNA and blame them as the culprit for evil. Yet in blaming DNA, science suggests one of two things: DNA is able to 'think' and decide action, or that DNA is simply acting to the stimuli around it. The latter ties in nicely with the random meaningless chemical world science must claim we live in, yet it really doesn't answer why we think or deem things as evil--it fails to tell us why we say one thing is good and another bad. Evil and good thus go undefined and one really cannot proclaim things and evil and good (because their determination is nothing more then chemcial sparks in their brain). The second one creates DNA into a sort of demigod. Not that this is a problem for science to do, as in the way science preceives DNA as a building block for like, controling and mapping out and determining how cells come together and are structured and formed--kinda like a man building a deck. Yet does this idea of DNA line up with the scientific theory that ours is a world of chance, of action and reaction? And does it really address the evil issue? What is the solution to evil? Science itself is. Science will solve all our problems. We will reform our systems so that they create a social eutopia (but then, our DNA will mess it up, or some random spark in someone's mind will set off everything into a mess again). We will drug the body until everyone conforms to the same thought patterns. We will create test tube babies that will grow up thinking everything we want them to think (but since our DNA is firing off a random, can we really do that?). We will let evolution bring us to a higher level of intellegence and eventually we'll transcend into a greater level of awareness and conscienceness (but we still have the random chemcial reactions in our being that influence our thoughts and actions). Hmm... maybe we will continue to be stuck in a world where evil cannot be resolved or answered or addressed.... Where are we going? Well, the answers are a)no where, as we live a meaningless randomly chanced life or b)evolving to a higher spieces, to live a meaningless randomly chanced life with a higher level or awareness... I know these answers sound a bit trite and incomplete... but sadly, given space and time, its difficult to address them fully. Also, knowing that the answers i give will not be enough to really satisfy you anyways, even if I wrote a book with all the evidence showing it, you would still want more... its difficult to give you the answers you want to hear. Next post... Islam....

I am not sure if I should be amused or saddened at this conversation. The irony of some of the comments and accusations made towards others, and how they apply just as strongly if not more so to the person making them amusses me. Yet that also saddens me. It saddens me because the person making them has some interesting insight and thoughts regarding God's law, yet as soon as someone dares question or challenge these insights and thoughts, it is as if the person cannot bear having his ideology (or particular parts of it) questioned or proven wrong (and more so, in pointing fingers and making accusations and not providing a defense denying himself of any opportunity to prove it truthful). Jake, if you ever read this, firstly you have a good head on your shoulders, and some interesting insights that are worth discussing, yet it saddens me that you show a lack of maturity when it comes to responding to the challenges of others. Secondly, you yourself should know that having thoughts and ideas challenged provides an opportunity to prove if they are true or false, to test them. No one here is a know it all, and no one here will pretend to be one (because most of us here have had our butts kicked and our thoughts and ideas proven wrong more then once as we seek to ground ourselves in true and strong doctrine, and we all know that what we know falls what short of all that there is to know about God's Word and we still have much to learn). We also accept the fact that people will challenge our doctrinal ideologies, and most of us will graciously and carefully examine those challenges against God's Word. Sadly, it seems you fail to undertake this. Yet we encourage you and challenge you in Christian love to take time to examine what others say, to see if their challanges align themselves with God's truth, just as you take time to challenge your own thoughts and ideas against God's Word to prove it as true or as flawed. This is how we grow and mature in Christ, and how we encourage and spur one another on. As said, Jake you show wisdom, and there are some wonderful insights there that speak much about the Law, and I am confident in saying that you may have much wisdom on other things as well. Yet I encourage you to take time to examine both what you are saying and what others are replying against God's Word, and to accept the challenges and remarks others make as an opportunity to grow and deepen your understanding of Scripture and God's Truth. And for everyone, take time once in a while to entertain the possibility that what you are saying is wrong... and see if you can prove it wrong. Its one good way of finding out what is truly right.

Hey Louise, I know the difficulty of seeking out or pinpointing what God's will for one's life is. And even when I think I may have found it out, sometimes it seems God throws in His nifty little twists. Currently in my life, as a recent university grad looking for where God is leading me, I am in a place of having absolutely no clue what God's will for my life is, or where He is taking me in life. Yet I am okay with that... because God has taught me something on this journey... It's that we need not know where the road goes in order to travel on it, nor do we need to know the destination for us to get there. But we need to dare step out into the unknown at times, trusting that our Guide will steer us with His gentle hand. I believe there is a problem in the church today where people think they need to know exactly what God is calling them to do before they do anything, which is why there are so many people in the church who are doing nothing or who do very little. If you have a desire to please God and to bring glory to Him with your life, and you desire to obey His commandments, then do something, even if you do not know what God is calling you to do! Do something, and do it with a desire and mind and passion to please Him while doing it. Do it prayerfully seeking to hear God's voice as you go. And God will take your desires and your efforts and He will use them to turn you and direct you to fulfill the calling He has for you--He will close the doors that do not lead to where He desires you to be, and He will open the doors that will allow you to go down the path He has set before you. And as you go, as you live out a desire to please Him, He will reveal His will to you. In this, remember Abraham. All God told him at the start of his journey was to go to a land that was promised to him... and Abraham went without knowing exactly where he was going or really knowing why he was going there--but he went with faith that God had purpose in it, and in time God revealed that purpose! And that is how it is with many of us...we know we are on a journey, and that God has something at the end of it, but we can't see it yet. We just have to take the steps in faith, with that desire to obey and please Him. I pray blessings on you as you journey, that God will direct your steps, and that He will reveal to you His call on your life, and that awesome things will be accomplished through you in Christ Jesus' name!

So, back to the question "Would Jesus Really say that?" Regardless if Jesus would really have said that or not, there is nothing in the Bible that says he did. However, there are alot of things in the Bible he did say, and I think we should start remembering those things, things such as "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes unto the father but through me" and "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture" and "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not parish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that through him the would may be save. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe stands condemned already." And I confident that we all can find other writings and teaching throughout both the Old and New Testaments that supports the fact that salvation is through Christ alone, and that salvation is available to all who call on the name of the Lord and believe. As for this debate regarding Jews and if God has forsaken them may go well in another thread. Certainly it is a good topic and worth discussing, but it is NOT the topic this thread is intended to be about.

I think even if Christ died back then, sin would have stilled reigned. People would have still denied Him, and people would still live in the flesh, which is sinful. Yes, there would have been many who recieved His grace, but many more would have denied it. So His death back then would not have 'fixed' it... just as His death 2000 years ago did not fix it. It only made the grace open for the sinner. It will be fixed when He comes back again, and this sinful world passes away.

Well said SJ. I think John 3:16 says alot here regarding this question: "For God so loved the world (that's everyone) that whosoever (that's anyone, even if one person, or a million) believes in Him will not parish but have ever lasting life." But Jesus died not just for those who accept Him, but also for those who don't and won't. His death was for all, regardless if they/we accept Him or not. Yet, for those who do not humble themselves and trust in Him, and who deny that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, deny the grace made available through His death on the cross.

The joys of discussing wether or not the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation really is a Doctrine of Salvation that finds itself as Scripturally founded and framed, or if it is a doctrine of salvation based on works, or on faith, or on faith expressed in works, or on wearing blue socks (meaning, whatever other claim there is on what the catholics teach). The problem firstly in such a discussion is to make certain everyone knows what is being discussed-- tossing two sections of the Canon from the Council of Trent and letting people haggle over it is not the way to start: hense why there are so many confused posts and misunderstandings and why it took 20 posts to finally dig out the point that is trying to be made. Secondly, tossing to parts of the Canon out for us to haggle over does little to really reveal the full Doctrinal ideology of salvation held by the Catholic Church--it provides us just enough to be ignorant of what we are being asked to discuss. It is like picking a page out of a book, and trying to discuss the whole book with just that one page. So, lets take a moment and read a fairly standard and easy to understand definition of Salvation held by the Catholic church. Go to edit*** and read the definition provided (and if you want, you can also look up the Canon indocrinated by the Council of Trent on the website). Then, go back to the two exerts from the Canon posted by HC, and in light of a fuller definition of Salvation as understood by the Catholic Church, use the Bible to show both the aspects of TRUTH and FALLACY found in the Catholic definition, and how they are TRUTH or FALLACY. p.s. I put this all in bold in hopes it will actually be read....

One thing that needs to be remembered is that though Islam does not hold Jesus as God's Son or the Savior, they do hold him highly as a prophet and a martyr, and also uphold his character and his teachings (to a certain degree). It may be that they uphold Jesus as a prophet and martyr is partly why they are disbanding the Da Vinci Code (which obviously defames who Jesus is, both in the Christian and Islamic traditions). Add to this more then a few things that Muslims will find disagreeable within the book, and you have logical grounds for restricting it. As well, Jordan, though it hold Islam as its state religion, has fairly strict laws which prohibit religious discrimination and defamation (ie: you risk prosecution defame Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism or Judism or any other religion. Of course, the law works mainly in favor of Islam). So, take the above reasons to restrict the book, add to it laws that allow you to, and hey... no Da Vinci Code sales in Jordan. Which is, really, a good thing. Last thing we want to see is someone deciding to buy the Da Vinci Code over the Bible because they can only afford one or othe other...

No offense taken! There is a big difference between telling someone they are going to hell and showing them the reason why, and I do agree that having someone come up to you and say 'you are going to hell' is annoying and offensive when they don't explain why (beyond saying 'because you don't believe in God'). Yet I think there is some misconceptions regarding the underlying principles used by WOTM. For someone to understand their need for grace, they must realize they are a sinner, that they have fallen short of God's requirments, and are under His wrath. All who sin shall die. But most people see sin as a trival thing, and think they are good enough for Heaven because they do not think sin is serious. Paul speaks about how the law revealed to him what sin was, and how it leads to Christ and grace (Romans 3:9-31, and Romans 7 and 8). To show someone they are sinners, to show them that their conception of good falls short of God's standards, allows them to not only see themselves as sinners, but also to understand both God's justice and even more so God's grace found in Jesus on the cross. As for their methods (scripted or not), they are effective, and I have seen people come to Christ thru them--just as I have seen people offended by them (but, when as the message of the Cross not offended people?). Am I saying it is the only way to witness? Certainly NOT! It is a way to witness, and is effective when used properly. As for my answers to those questions, actually, taking myself through the Ten Commandments and realizing truly how far I have fallen short of God's requirements humbled me alot, and really allowed me to understand what Christ's death on the cross was really about, and what the verse 'While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us' means. finally, I do totally agree that if you don't have a passion or heart to witness, and you can't show love or concern, don't bother witnessing, regardless if it is off a script or not. But remember this, the quality is not in the sower, but in the seed... meaning someone without any passion can still effectively share the gospel... (and Paul even encouraged those who spoke the gospel in order to mock him to go on speaking it, so long as the message of Christ was proclaimed). Now, in regards to your statement 'It breaks the very commandments they preach', please explain that one, and show how it does so...