TempestTossed

In order to determine whether or not your belong to a religion, ask yourself these questions: 1) Do you adhere to the will of a spiritual entity? 2) Are you part of a community of people who meet regularly and mutually reinforce a centralized spiritual belief system? 3) Do you make decisions and shape your life around this belief system? If your answers are "yes," then you are part of a religion by the common definition. Consult your favorite English dictionary. You go to church, you pray, you tithe, you worship, you listen to a religious authority, you read a religious text, you believe religious doctrines, you evangelize, and you live by a religious moral code. Christianity may be true or have some things that other religions don't have, but that does not make Christianity dodge the definition of "religion." Religions are NOT defined by: A doctrine of salvation by works Harshly-enforced moral strictures Arrogance Hierarchies Impersonal uncaring Gods These are merely the things we don't like about religions. If your religion doesn't have those, then great, but it is still a religion. There may be some negative connotations to the word "religion" that Christianity does not have, but that does not justify living in denial about it. If you want to be true to yourself, go to a mirror, look yourself in the eyes, and say, "I am part of a religion."

I was asked to start a new thread to answer some questions in an old thread that was hijacked by a swarthy band of suicide apologists. I said that Jesus' one day of torture and three days of "death" doesn't add up as a sufficient substitute for sin that would otherwise be paid for by an eternity in Hell. In response, bgoalie said, 1. It has always been my understanding of Christian doctrine that Jesus is the same omniscient omnipresent omnipotent God as God the Father, except in a human outfit. It is conceivable, I suppose, that Jesus was kept in the dark about his own future. Anything is possible in a story like this. I would like to examine those passages that say that Jesus didn't know the future, and we can compare them to all the times Jesus made prophecies about the future--about his own second coming--and we will see which doctrine makes more sense. Supposing Jesus was kept in the dark, why does that matter? Because of the extra agony at the thought, "I'm a goner!"? 2. If someone takes the punishment for someone else, is it supposed to matter how blameless the substitute is? I mean, shoot, if a thing like that is supposed to matter, then maybe Jesus could have gotten away with a thump on the nose. That would have been more than he deserved. Here is the difficulty for Christianity: if you are going to insist on the truth of a highly unlikely story (and the Jesus story can't get any more impossible), then at least the evidence has got to be darn-tootin' good. For fantastic claims of miracles, the evidence should not be just a set of conundrums that are only answered either through miracles or through natural explanations that haven't yet crossed our minds. We don't yet know how it is the pyramids of Egypt were built with the technology of the time. That isn't smoking-gun evidence for the power of the Egyptian gods. 1. I don't know why women were said to be the first ones to observe the resurrection of Jesus. I also don't see much of a problem with it. As far as I know, they never had the obligation to be legal witnesses. The eleven disciples, as the story goes, were to be the witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus throughout the world. 2. I don't know for sure why the specifics of the ressurection are not mentioned, nor do I see much of a problem with that. My guess is that nobody would believe the specifics of an account that nobody could have witnessed. Nobody alive could be inside a closed tomb. 3. People do sometimes die for what they know is a lie. Take Jim Jones and David Koresh. But that may not be relevant since myth may have mangled the truths about the apostles as much as the truth about Jesus. 4. Since Jesus made himself a central pillar to his own religion, and he got publicly killed, the only way for his religion to live on was a resurrection. I don't know how embarassing a resurrection would be if at all (it seems badass to me). But the religion lived on with a resurrection as its main theme regardless.

Tempest, these things are not easilly or immediately arrived at. Why not give Nik the benefit of your doubt? It is curiosity that leads me to ask my questions, not doubt. He asked for questions, and so I have them. Then why not give him time to figure things out a little first? If he needs time, I will accept that. Not every adult makes the decision to change their entire belief system before they know what they are getting into. That is true only for the born-again types that convert at revival meetings and whatnot.

Tempest, these things are not easilly or immediately arrived at. Why not give Nik the benefit of your doubt? It is curiosity that leads me to ask my questions, not doubt. He asked for questions, and so I have them.

I have questions. What series of events led you to your decision? What sort of Christian would you say you are? What sort of Biblical interpretation and belief system do you adhere to?

It is from Edgar Allen Poe's famous poem, "The Raven." One part of it reads, "Prophet!" said I, "Thing of evil! Prophet still if bird or devil, Whether tempter sent or whether tempest tossed thee from the shore."It is descriptive of my character to say that I am tempest tossed rather than tempter sent. I deliver bad news, but not for any evil purpose.

Mr&Mrs Mike Irish, I do not agree with what you say, but I have nothing to argue about, so the best to you both.

Blindseeker, I really do hate to disappoint you. It is not that I have heard that same exact take on Christianity once before. It is just that such things have become somewhat meaningless to me. It is exegesis. It may have significant meaning to Christians. But to me, it is bunch of speculation on things that cannot ever be observed and can never be tested. Imagine with me a moment a religion that believes that The Lord of the Rings is a metaphor-filled message from God. It is supposedly filled with perfect moral lessons, history, prophecy, and the key to eternal life. Scholars of this religion examine each word under a microscope to detect hidden shades of meaning. There are dueling factions of interpretation. The proponents of each interpretation make their arguments by over-emphasizing some words and phrases while dismissing others as hyperbole. Nothing is testable. Anything can be considered important. Anything can be considered not quite the literal truth. All words have multiple meanings. It is a maddening exercise in futility. I grew up in the church. I say it is the same-old-same-old because what you have shown me seems to be just more of the same old jargon. Christianity for centuries has occupied its most devoted followers to puzzling over the meaning of its sacred anthology. More coherant interpretations have been favored, insensible interpretations have been abandoned, scientific knowledge has forced reinterpretations over the generations of churches, and, though a plain reading of the Bible still seems to be utter nonsense, many churches have a somewhat coherent belief system. Perhaps some scholars have actually managed to tack together the hodge-podge doctrines of the Bible to form a fully non-contradictory yet sufficiently-explanatory interpretation of the Bible. If so, it doesn't matter to me any more than LotR adherents plugging up all the holes in their religion. It is all a dazzling performance in hypothesis inside a guess wrapped in red ribbons. Here is what affects me: logic and observations of our physical world. Naturally-occuring events, processes, patterns, and systems systems exposable to human sense--things I can see with my own pair of eyes. It doesn't matter to me if Jesus was justified in the Spirit or whatever the hell you mean. It is meaningless jargon to me. The Bible means whatever the hell you want. Justification occurs however the hell you please. Satan and the Holy Spirit operate in whatever way is convenient for explanation. Heaven and hell is any place you think it makes sense that it might be. Love is expressed in any way that you think God operates. God operates in absolutely any manner he sees fit, regardless of whether or not it makes the dryest lick of logical sense. I am telling you this as an explanation for my lack of response. I feel guilty for not studying what you wrote. It just pains me to read it.

This topic creates some entertaining speculation. What sort of animals are in heaven, and what happens to the rest of them? Are all dinosaurs going to be there in heaven? Trylobites? Saber-toothed tigers? What about the microscopic parasites and cuckoo birds? Cuckoos are the birds that lays their eggs one at a time in another bird's nest, and then the young invading hatchling pushes the rest of the chicks out of the nest while feeding from the unsuspecting foster mother. Surely, such birds wouldn't be allowed in heaven. Such behavior is a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, I have been told. Maybe cuckoo birds and all the predatory/parasitic animals go to Hell. If so, the T. Rex would go to heaven. There is growing speculation that he was never a predator at all, but a scavenger.

The letter T does not work efficiently on his keyboard, I presume.

I have not read the whole post. I have only read a portion of it, and, because it so closely resembles what I have heard before throughout my life, I fear that reading it completely may be too wastefully time-consuming. Restrictions on post length cut off the end of your post. For your service, I have sought out your original post, which you ended with: Friend, it is to our shame that it is so hard for us to endure a little hardship and resist a little temptation. Especially when God has promised no temptation would be so great we could not overcome it or be given a way to escape it. WE should esteem the "reproach of Christ [YahShua] greater riches" than all the riches of the world. We should rejoice and count it all joy when we are considered worthy to suffer for His name. But do we? Come on. Let's pick up our crosses and follow Him. Unlike YahShua, we deserve our cross. Without Him our cross would have only been to our shame, but now, today, it can be to His glory! Let's do as He says we can and "overcome the wicked one by the blood of the Lamb" and the word of our testimony. Pick up your cross! "Worthy is the Lamb which was slain to receive glory and honor and power!" AWAKE! MAKE READY! THE BRIDEGROOM IS COMING! Awake, you sleeper! Awake! Arise and make yourself ready! It's time to put aside those childish pursuits and your endless musing with vanities. Awake, I say! Do you not realize the time in which you are privileged to live? Now more than ever can the sound of the bridegroom's coming be heard. Surely He draws near. The need to purify yourself has grown greater, for the time allotted has grown shorter. The dark of night has already conquered the eastern horizon as the sun glow fades in the west. The king had long ago sent out His invitation. He proclaimed to all, "COME!" Yes come. Make haste! Don't you know that if you refuse to comply with the King that His anger will be kindled against you? Yet in His longsuffering He says, "Come! Come to the greatest of all feasts! There are food and wine and much song and dance. Joyful dance to celebrate the wedding of all weddings. Come and attend My wedding." The bridegroom has long been ready, yet He has patiently waited. He has waited for you! Arise therefore you sleeper! So much remains for you to do. TODAY you must prepare. Set aside simplicity and mature! Strive to increase your knowledge and understanding so you may be completely resolved to live your life solely for the King of kings! Rise up and cast out reservation and hesitation, these are foes have hindered and killed countless before you. Arise! Answer His call! It's your only reasonable response, and you know it. "Awake thou that sleepest, arise from the dead, Christ [YahShua] shall give thee light. Awake to righteousness and sin not. For some [of you] have not the [intimate] knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame." (Ephesians 6:14, I Corinthians 15:34) Live For YahShua The King!!

Reverend Durnan, I am an atheist. Are you on a mission to save atheists, or are you on a mission to protect Christians from atheist rhetoric? I am guessing the latter, since the former cannot be achieved with such ridicule and condemnation. If you are trying to protect Christians from atheist rhetoric, then you are failing because of the condemnation, incoherence, and apparent lack of truth and reason. That may work in tent revival meetings, but it does not seem to be working here. I will respond to your points merely as an exercise in argumentation, and you would best to read it to upgrade your knowledge. You made your first point by alluding to the old cosmological argument, or "first cause" argument--every event must have a cause that precedes it in time, and the only thing that can cause the existence of the universe is God. At least that is what I presume you had in mind when you asked, "But then, pray tell, from whence cometh that seashore?" My response is that the existence of the universe is not necessarily an event. We don't see any particles of matter coming into existence from any discernable cause. From a naturalistic perspective, it is plausible to suspect that the universe always existed and never had a beginning. Some say that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, and it certainly seems to be the beginning of the observable universe, but the whole universe could be much bigger and grander. But, supposing that the Big Bang is the beginning of the whole universe, you might capitalize on that with, "Ah HA! So then, pray tell, from whence came the Big Bang??" The answer would have to be that there was no cause. This is a sort of doctrine that is certainly not foreign to Christianity. Pray tell, from whence cometh God? Your second point is made by saying that atheists don't know everything there is to possibly know in the whole universe, therefore they can't possibly be justified in believing for certain that there is no God. My response is that I need only adequate knowledge about the idea of God to know with conclusive (not absolute) certainty that God does not exist. The belief in God fulfills fundamental human hopes in lives that are otherwise often hopeless--hope for a purpose, hope for love, hope for sustained pleasure, hope for long life, hope for universal justice, hope for importance, hope for simple ways of explaining their environment, and hope for a certain guide to living life. Part of that is why Voltaire said, "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer"--if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Since God so closely resembles a creation of the wishful-believing human mind, and since I have seen no evidence for God, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God does not exist. But that is all a lengthier alternative to a shorter and equally-effective rebuttal: Do you know absolutely everything in the universe? If not, then why are you so certain that there is no Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer? Your third point is, "Charles Colson states that the heaping ash remains at Auschwitz, the killing fields of S.E. Asia & the Middle east, and the frozen wastes of the Gulags in the world should serve to vividly remind an "atheist" that the City of Man is hardly enuf; we must also seek the City of God. " I have, this time, three points to make in return. 1) Atheists were responsible for the atrocities of the Soviet Union and Southeast Asia, but Nazi Germany was predominantly Christian. It is uncertain what religion Hitler was, but he certainly used Christian propaganda. "Gott Mit Uns" was a popular war slogan meaning, "God With Us." I don't mean that as an argument against the belief in God, but you may want to rethink your own argument and focus instead exclusively on communist atrocites. Also, I am puzzled on what reminder manifests as heaping ash remains in the Middle East. In that region, I am aware only of wars and slayings that went on historically and go on presently between professed Muslims, Christians, and Jews. 2) On the point of communist atrocities, I don't have such an easy rebuttal, because the perpetrators were indeed atheists. But I can still rest easy knowing that the ideology of atheism did not motivate the atrocities. Atheism is not an ideology. It is simply a single belief that there is no God. The communist atrocities were motivated by an ideology of communism and aided by a system of hero-worship totalitarianism. Atheism was a tool to unite the masses under one ideology, but atheism was not the ideology. The Soviet flag had a hammer and sickle, representing the power of the working class. It was not a symbol of atheism. So I would say that atheism remains innocent of motivating great atrocities. The same cannot be said for Christianity. The heaping ash remains of European witch burnings, the dungeons of the Spanish inquisition, and the blood-soaked sands of the Middle Eastern crusades should serve to vividly remind us all. 3) If that previous sentence were an argument against God, it would not hold. The existence of God is independent of the behavior of human beings. That is a third reason that your argument about atheism does not hold. Even if atheism motivates extreme violence, it would not relate to whether or not God exists.

Yes,but what does that prove? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Absolutely nothing relevant.

By this you refer to the many thousands who do take the Bible literally? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> More like many hundreds, I'd say. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would disagree. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You could be right, and if you are, I would still contend that it is a very small percentage even if it is in the thousands.

By this you refer to the many thousands who do take the Bible literally? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> More like many hundreds, I'd say.

That could be true. Science is so often at odds with Christianity that Christians distrust the consensus of scientists in general. It is not limited to biology, geology, and cosmology, but it leaks into ecology, psychology, and physics. Such a high percentage of physicists and biologists are atheists and almost no natural scientists take the Bible as the literal truth, I can understand why many Christians think that science is dominated by an anti-Christian culture.

Yes - and thank-you. Which is why I still do not understand why many/most atheists still insist on using science as their grounds for disbelieving in God? (If you don't, great - but why do the others?) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The primary grounds for disbelieving in God is almost always, "There is no evidence." When Christians present arguments from nature to show that God exists, those arguments are shot down with science.

If I only I knew more about genetics, I could address what you are saying. I may get back to you this weekend after I do some reading. I hear that a lot from Christian apologists and evangelists, and I strongly doubt it. What draws me to most message boards is an insatiable need to argue.

So in other words . . . atheists are using science as a means of disproving God - Even though science isn't supposed to be dealing with God. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In the minds of some atheists and many Christians, eliminating the need for explaning nature with God is the equivalent of disproving God, but that isn't logical. God could still be there and he even could have a great ongoing hand in the workings of nature, despite the lack of need for the explanation of God. Like I said, science can never disprove God. God could have created the universe 6,000 years ago with the appearence of an eventful history of 14 billion years, and science would not know any better. God could be moving every particle, wave, and force in the universe with the appearance that it is all the natural workings of the universe, and science would not know any better. Science deals only with nature and logic. Christianity and other religious belief systems state that God interacts with nature, and so the best that science can help atheists do is eliminate the need for God as an explanation of nature. Science cannot look into the realm of God and take pictures.

this is true only in the suns reference frame. In the earth's reference frame about the only effect the sun's gravity has on earth itself is some relatively minor tidal influence as it passes over head. It has very little effect on the motion of the other bodies in space from the earth's reference frame, because we observe everything move in an orbit around the earth, or else a circle in the sky, every twenty four hours. Imperfections in these orbits and circles are created by forces produced by both by the sun and moon, as well as other bodies such as planets and even distant stars. All of which must be explained by physics with respect to the earth's reference frame. Ok, I'll give you that much, if you define useful as 'how easy it is to do the math', but that in no way calls into question the Biblical account of creation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have no argument with that. I don't really want to argue the validity of whatever the Bible has to say about the physics of the Sun and Earth, because there are dozens of ways for a devoted Bible literalist to dodge the problems while still feeling justified. I think the Bible makes more sense looking at it from my perspective. The Bible has a geocentric model simply because that was the popular idea of the time of its writing. It is a straightforward, obvious, and intuitive explanation for me. Most apologists seem to have their own explanations to make the Bible still seem like the infallible Word of God, such as God speaking poetically and in the language of his audience, or alternative meanings for words like "foundation." You have what seems to me to be a wag-the-dog sort of explanation, and it may make sense to you, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but it would be vain to explain exactly why unless you really want me to.

OK, allow me to help you understand. It is not actually a law of any natural science that says things tend toward chaos and decay. It is an intuitive rule of thumb, but there are many exceptions. For example, plug the bath, turn on the hot water, pour in some soap, and you will have almost perfectly half-spherical bubbles forming on the surface of the water formed out of that chaos. Pull the plug, and you will have an orderly spiraling whirlpool. Those things are formed not just from time and chance, but also predictable natural laws. Relatively unordered molecules of water turn into complexly chrystallized snowflakes without any intelligent hand to guide it. Of course, none of those examples approaches the complexity of life, yet we have everything we need in nature to make present day life a possibility. We have a diversely-chemicalled environment, a continuous flow of energy, and consistent natural laws, which may form a simple replicating system of matter. Once you have that, all you need is a mechanism of change and natural selection. The duplicates that change in favor of survival generally live to produce the next generation. The changes can either be bigger, smaller, faster, slower, more complex, or less complex than the previous generation. After billions of generations, we would expect to have a great diversity and some very complex forms of life, which we do. Which is why I wonder why atheists are always running to science to disprove or disbelieve in God. Many atheists think that science has successfully eliminated the need for God to be used as an explanation for nature. Over the centuries, a naturalistic way of looking at the universe has eliminated what used to be explained by whatever gods that were popular of the time of those mysteries. But a naturalistic model of the universe has advanced tremendously, so we no longer need Poseidon to explain ocean waves, storms, and currents. We no longer need the life and death of Sun gods to explain the cycles of night and day. We don't need divine invention to explain fire. We don't need demons to explain mental disorders. We don't need promises of God to explain rainbows. We don't need messages of the gods to explain the patterns of stars. We don't need Satan to explain the origins of religions. We don't need divine curses to explain the diversity of languages. And we don't need a creator to explain the diversity of life. Whatever unanswered questions of nature we have left, it is figured by atheists that they also will be explained naturally in enough time, and even if such questions will never be answered, it is still more likely that such mysteries have a forever-unknown natural cause rather than a supernatural cause, which can "explain" absolutely any puzzle imaginable.

WhySoBlind, I can't really rigidly deny what you are saying. According to general relativity, a dog's tail can be at rest and the dog plus planet Earth can be wagging. It is mathematically valid, but not useful for understanding the physics of it. The dog is applying a force on the tail, and so it makes more sense to think of the tail accelerating accordingly. Similarly, we think of the Sun as the focus of the solar system because it is the Sun's gravity that makes the rest of the planets move as they do. You said, "relativity states that there is no prefered frame of reference, all reference frames are equally correct and useful." All reference frames may be equally correct, but not all are equally useful. "Useful" depends on the opinions of the observers, and it is simply more convenient to think of the Sun as at rest in the vicinity of the solar system.

nebula, I am sorry I missed your questions. Please forgive me for that. Hi, there! I am puzzled by this. "and show that there is no necessity for God" I do not understand how that can stand as a reason to not believe in God. Is there a necessity for rainbows? Is there a necessity for the color neon yellow? Is there a necessity for . . . well if I were more creative, I coud probably come up with other examples. Why is "necessity" a requirement for existance? You are perhaps misunderstanding me when I say "necessity." I don't mean "necessity" as in necessity for human survival or well-being. I mean necessity for explanation. In that sense, Thor's Hammer is not a necessity for explaining lightning bolts because we have the theory of electromagnetism. Scientific arguments can defeat many arguments that are meant to be evidence for the existence of God. The teleological argument in relation to biology says that God must exist because creatures are well-adapted to their environments and only God could have made it that way. But the theory of evolution gives evidence that God is not necessary in that sense, though God still may or may not have an ongoing hand in the process. Science uses a naturalistic lens, where things are predictable, observable, and sensible, not subject to the arbitrary will of unpredictable supernatural agents. That doesn't mean that science assumes God does not exist. Science simply does not speculate about God or anything else beyond nature.

WhySoBlind, I am not attempting to compete with you, and I don't want it to turn into that. You may correct me, but please don't get condescending. You may know more than me about relativity and physics, but that doesn't matter. You at first made your argument from the first postulate of special relativity, but I suppose you mean general relativity instead, because your argument does not involve inertial frames. Please try not to conflate the two. If we talking about general relativity, then your argument does hold, at least in a mathematical sense. I was incorrect in that sense, because, yes, you can validly say that the nucleus of an atom orbits an electron if you wanted to, only it wouldn't be a useful reference frame for studying atoms. Anything can be chosen to be at rest. Sure, the Earth can be chosen to be at rest with respect to the Sun and planets using the general principle of relativity. However, it would not quite follow, as you stated previously, "from within the earth's reference frame, which all of us are in, the earth is actually at rest, just as you observe, and everything else orbits the earth." Only the Sun, Moon, and human satellites would orbit the Earth in a geocentric model, and the rest of the planets would still have their elliptical foci on the Sun. You can say that the Earth is at rest, but it wouldn't be a useful reference frame for understanding the solar system, nor would it be true that the Earth is at the center in any geometrical sense.

I have never heard that angle. The geocentric model actually does not make sense according to the theory of special relativity. The first postulate of the theory states, "The laws of physics are the same for all observers in inertial frames." But the Earth is not an inertial frame. Inertial frames are that which are not accelerated by external forces. The Sun is applying gravitational force on the Earth and causing the Earth to accelerate in an elliptical orbit. The Sun is in an approximate free fall and would count as an inertial frame in the vicinity of the planets. We think of the Earth orbiting the Sun instead of the Sun orbiting the Earth primarily because that is the most sensible way to make sense of the solar system. Regardless of which model we use, each of the planets and asteroids have their elliptical center point on the Sun. The Sun has a greater gravitational say in the matter. In a geocentric model where the Sun disappears, all relations to the planets are lost. But in a heliocentric model without the Earth, the Sun simply doesn't care and travels as it did with the Earth. It really does make better sense with the heliocentric model. If you assume that the Bible gives a geocentric model, that would be like saying that the protons and neutrons orbit an electron. Not even with Newton's or Einstein's relativity principles can you get away with that. But you can forgive the Bible for having a geocentric model since everyone thought the Earth to be center of the universe at the time, and we still use geocentric language such as "sunrise" and "sunset" despite our modern knowledge. Lastly, according to modern physics, there is no center of the universe, so it would be meaningless, if not false, to say that the Earth is the center. I might even call it nonsense since the Earth is orbiting the Sun which is orbiting the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.