Prodigalson123

David wasn't condemned for his many wives was he? I know he suffered for the adultery, but he married Bathsheba and seemingly afterwards was blessed.

I'm hoping that someone can help with this one. I have a friend whose mother just married an Egyptian man, not just the ethnicity but who lives in Egypt. He is polygamous. Where in the Bible is the statement that we can only have 1 wife? I personally can only handle 1 so I'm not looking to add to the household , lol but he asked me for help.

we've accepted too much of it. IMHO if we were serious, we wouldn't go to any commerce centers on Sundays. The reason that businesses are open on Sundays is because there is a demand. We shouldn't be part of that, again in my opinion.

because mankind doesn't seek God, but it seeks its own. People will still choose to serve themselves because that's the nature ofthe flesh

I left a church about a year and a half ago, and the pastor was struggling with people who aren't submitting to authority. I know that most of us don't like to be toldwhat to do, but here is the area where the rubber meets the road. If the pastor in questio is following the guidelines that the Bible decrees, then I think that loyalty is required. If the pastor isn't, then go through the proper channels to discipline the pastor.

What I'm saying is that using scripture proves nothing. and this is where I disagree. You take the credibility of the individual who is speaking, and thus you measure what they said from there. I'm not interested in physical sciences. Don't know why, but they really never interested me. But I am into the law, and usually look at things as from a legal case point of view. When you have conflicting testimony, then you go to credibility. Jesus claims he is God, and that His words are from a divine nature. If that is true, then lets look at the probability of that. He has fulfilled 109 prophecies that the "messiah" would fulfill, statistically it is impossible for one man to fulfill those. He even said that if you don't believe his words, believe his works. Things that were done in public, not hidden, and not only for a sympathetic audience. The Pharisees were anything but sympathetic, and they don't refute the miracles. The Jewish historian Josephus didn't refute any of the acts, and he was the premier historian of his age. So, if you look at the credibility, then there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary that the acts or the claims that Jesus made were wrong. He died on the cross in a very public manner, and he was seen by 500 people at one time after, what can you say to that other then an opinion that you don't believe? If the court needs a couple of witnesses to corroborate some evidence, then why does the eyewitness of 12 men, 2 women and a crowd of 500 not suffice? The only logical reason would be that you refuse to believe. Did you know that Magellans expedition around the world was testified to by the 18 surviving sailors from his expedition. Only 1 man chronicled that trip in writing, yet you probably believe the account to be true. Why then would you discount the account of 514 people? It is so rare that anyone quotes scripture that even starts to prove anything to a nonbeliver. For the simple reason that scripture is written by believers for believers. If I'm asking where is the logic in burning a gentle human being and forgiving a violent believer, telling me its gods will doesn't explain it. If I ask for evidence of god or proof that your rules are really the will of god, quoting Christian rules at me doesn't clarify anything. Not a thing. You continually speak of gentle, innocent, kind unbelievers. I think your debate isn't genuine, it's about you futhering your agenda. If you think that natives are innocent, then you should look at the history of the clans of scotland against each other, look at the tribes of Africa and how they waged war on each other. Look at the racial hatred in the former Yugoslavia, and the genocide perpetuated there. And, take a look at how the Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus have been butchering each other in India, Pakistan and the far east. The true evidence is, mankind is a barbaric, murdering, self-centered, self-serving race. You may place kind and gentle attributes on a certain group of people, but your being dishonest to look at a species and state that the good has outweighed the bad. There has been something like 200 years that a war hasn't raged somewhere on the globe in the history of recorded time, how can you claim that a species that has, at best, a 90% warfare ratio is a good group? If I ask a Muslim how he can claim that the Koran is the word of Allah and he replies ''you must surrender to Allah, I will show you the truth of the Qu'ran'' and quotes a piece of scripture. 'Do you not see that Allah is He Whom do glorify all those who are in the heavens and the earth, and the (very) birds with expanded wings? He knows the prayer of each one and its glorification, and Allah is Cognizant of what they do. (The Light 24.41)' Does this prove anything? Is it constructive to the debate? Does it answer my question? If you ask me to explain the Buddhist teaching of no self/emptiness and I say ''it is because Lord Buddha says it is so, you must obey'' The Dharmapada saysI would ask you to prove the virtue of that individual. I would ask you to show how that person comported themself to a level above the rest of us. If you could do that, then we would go on to the next series of questions, and then we would be moving along beyond the pedantic argument you claim is "logic" ''All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.'' Do you now see the logic in no self/emptiness?? No, it is not constructive debate. It is preaching, not debate. When Christians and Muslims quote their books to argue a point they make the assumption that just because they endow their book with the authority of undisputed truth, others will as well. Atheists are totally scepical about the authority of the Bible and the Koran. So dont use the bible to defend youre faith.I refuse to conform to your standard. If you don't like that then we will agree to disagree. But you can't tell someone that they can't use resources. You might reject them, but that is more a reflection on you then the debater. Use proof, evidence, logic.I did, now we will see what your response is If you don't do this we can only assume that youre faith is just that and nothing else. no logic, no proof, no evidence just blind faith. If this is the case then you should keep youre beliefs out of politics, out of education and off the battlefield, until you can bring something more substantial to the table than a book and superstition. As you requested, I will ask you a question................... if god really loves us and doesnt enjoy troturing souls for all eternity, why didnt he have a prophet and messiah in every town and village across the planet, from Papua New Guinea and Borneo to Australia and Africa??? Or was he quite happy to fry those poor souls until the white man conquered their countries???Isn't that a racist comment? Are the Mediterranean countries considered white? Jesus was a Jew from Palestine, is He white? Paul and the apostles who went out to convert the world were....wait for it.....Jews from Palestine. Hhmm seems that the white man wasn't the original missionaries. But onto a more reasonable question. Does the fact that the OT believers were allowed into heaven not resonate on you that....if you haven't heard of Christ, then there must be another method that God uses to judge a person? Abraham wasn't able to meet Jesus, and yet he is in heaven. Stated in both the OT and the NT. How might this be possible? Because his faith was counted to him as righteousness. His faith in God, and his behavior. So there is a way for those poor innocent kind gentle souls that you seem so connected to and care for to be judged. Surely an all powerfull, mercifull god would have been able to do this. According to you guys his message is ''I LOVE YOU'' ''BELIEVE IN ME OBEY OR BE TOTURED FOR ALL ETERNITY'' If so he would have used his power and ubiquitous nature to tell all in such a way that could not be argued with, Then he could rightfully say ''I TOLD YOU SO'' I know that your logical mind will go into convulsions at the idea that I'm gonna quote scripture, but here goes: Romans 1:18-23 18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 19. because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21. because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. So....the apostle Paul, who btw was versed in theology, philosophy, was as literate as any man at the time. Was educated in multiple languages, was a talented debater, went through the school of rhetoric, was a pharisee, schooled in religious politics. He claims that God has provided plenty of proof of himself. It's called natural revelation. Seeing the majesty of the world, the awesome power of nature, the complexity of the stars, ans the elements speak to the fact that God is present. That there is an innate right/wrong knowledge in all men. Again, there is no record of Paul being delusional, no record of him not being sane, not being rationale, not being trustworthy. But on the flimsy evidence he supposedly left us and the totally inefficiant way he used of spreading his urgent message tells me, if you guys are right about the lake of fire and then he is not loving and he enjoys torture. Or of course you could also come to a more logical conclusion!!! Your definiton of logical is to be cynical and think you have made some sort of point by saying people aren't logical. But....this coming from someone who claims peace and love are important to a person and dropping questionable words right out of the gate. That there is no truth in it what so ever. Please can you seperate youre arguments from my quotes and I will reveal the problems with youre arguments, but the way you have pasted it all thogether like that makes it very difficult to tell apart and I have to keep re reading it. But I will give you a taste of the kind of response you will recieve once you paste youre answers so I can see them. You say that in law we work back from the credibility of the person who is testifying. Then you use St Pauls claims that Jesus was god and then the prophecies and miracles of this so called devine creator to back up his credibility, if I where a lawyer I would have to say anyone who made such a claim is either mad, trying to bring the debate into disrepute or he is god in which case I need proof from independent witnesses not from people who are riding on the same delusion as St Paul and Jesus. I need proof from people without faith, not prphecies written at the begginnig of a fictional novel and fullfilled prophecies at the end of the same novel. This would not stand up in court. In the absense of that proof of, we can only look at the logic of what this self proclaimed god tells us, look at his dogma, rules and so called wisdom and see if they really are wise or make any sense att all. as far as I can see he talks nonsense. And so do you. I will get to you throwing words like racist into the dabate in good time, but surely it is god who saw no urgency for Africans, Australians, Asians and Chinese to learn of his plan to torture them. Not me. Using the logic of law that makes youre god the racist. Luke, I'm not going to waste hours on this, my answers are in differant color, if you can't see that, then there we have it. I stated that there were 514 witnesses, do you really delude yourself to think that of the 500 witnesses, they were all believers already? But even if they were, how does that make a difference to the fact that it happened? Are you in the legal profession? You obviously aren't if you think that someone must be neutral to the facts to be credible. I stated that Josephus, the premier Jewish historian of the day, who isn't a believer, didn't discredit the claims that were made about the miracles. I already stated that the pharisees, who were Jesus' enemy, didn't discredit his miracles. So.....what say ye to that? But i notice you haven't answered the questions I pose to you., Don't waste time by posting an answer about text color and/or your inability to read it comfortably instead of responding to the "debate" you seemed to ask for. If you are a debator, then act. If not then we can let the thread die quietly.

What I'm saying is that using scripture proves nothing. and this is where I disagree. You take the credibility of the individual who is speaking, and thus you measure what they said from there. I'm not interested in physical sciences. Don't know why, but they really never interested me. But I am into the law, and usually look at things as from a legal case point of view. When you have conflicting testimony, then you go to credibility. Jesus claims he is God, and that His words are from a divine nature. If that is true, then lets look at the probability of that. He has fulfilled 109 prophecies that the "messiah" would fulfill, statistically it is impossible for one man to fulfill those. He even said that if you don't believe his words, believe his works. Things that were done in public, not hidden, and not only for a sympathetic audience. The Pharisees were anything but sympathetic, and they don't refute the miracles. The Jewish historian Josephus didn't refute any of the acts, and he was the premier historian of his age. So, if you look at the credibility, then there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary that the acts or the claims that Jesus made were wrong. He died on the cross in a very public manner, and he was seen by 500 people at one time after, what can you say to that other then an opinion that you don't believe? If the court needs a couple of witnesses to corroborate some evidence, then why does the eyewitness of 12 men, 2 women and a crowd of 500 not suffice? The only logical reason would be that you refuse to believe. Did you know that Magellans expedition around the world was testified to by the 18 surviving sailors from his expedition. Only 1 man chronicled that trip in writing, yet you probably believe the account to be true. Why then would you discount the account of 514 people? It is so rare that anyone quotes scripture that even starts to prove anything to a nonbeliver. For the simple reason that scripture is written by believers for believers. If I'm asking where is the logic in burning a gentle human being and forgiving a violent believer, telling me its gods will doesn't explain it. If I ask for evidence of god or proof that your rules are really the will of god, quoting Christian rules at me doesn't clarify anything. Not a thing. You continually speak of gentle, innocent, kind unbelievers. I think your debate isn't genuine, it's about you futhering your agenda. If you think that natives are innocent, then you should look at the history of the clans of scotland against each other, look at the tribes of Africa and how they waged war on each other. Look at the racial hatred in the former Yugoslavia, and the genocide perpetuated there. And, take a look at how the Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus have been butchering each other in India, Pakistan and the far east. The true evidence is, mankind is a barbaric, murdering, self-centered, self-serving race. You may place kind and gentle attributes on a certain group of people, but your being dishonest to look at a species and state that the good has outweighed the bad. There has been something like 200 years that a war hasn't raged somewhere on the globe in the history of recorded time, how can you claim that a species that has, at best, a 90% warfare ratio is a good group? If I ask a Muslim how he can claim that the Koran is the word of Allah and he replies ''you must surrender to Allah, I will show you the truth of the Qu'ran'' and quotes a piece of scripture. 'Do you not see that Allah is He Whom do glorify all those who are in the heavens and the earth, and the (very) birds with expanded wings? He knows the prayer of each one and its glorification, and Allah is Cognizant of what they do. (The Light 24.41)' Does this prove anything? Is it constructive to the debate? Does it answer my question? If you ask me to explain the Buddhist teaching of no self/emptiness and I say ''it is because Lord Buddha says it is so, you must obey'' The Dharmapada saysI would ask you to prove the virtue of that individual. I would ask you to show how that person comported themself to a level above the rest of us. If you could do that, then we would go on to the next series of questions, and then we would be moving along beyond the pedantic argument you claim is "logic" ''All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.'' Do you now see the logic in no self/emptiness?? No, it is not constructive debate. It is preaching, not debate. When Christians and Muslims quote their books to argue a point they make the assumption that just because they endow their book with the authority of undisputed truth, others will as well. Atheists are totally scepical about the authority of the Bible and the Koran. So dont use the bible to defend youre faith.I refuse to conform to your standard. If you don't like that then we will agree to disagree. But you can't tell someone that they can't use resources. You might reject them, but that is more a reflection on you then the debater. Use proof, evidence, logic.I did, now we will see what your response is If you don't do this we can only assume that youre faith is just that and nothing else. no logic, no proof, no evidence just blind faith. If this is the case then you should keep youre beliefs out of politics, out of education and off the battlefield, until you can bring something more substantial to the table than a book and superstition. As you requested, I will ask you a question................... if god really loves us and doesnt enjoy troturing souls for all eternity, why didnt he have a prophet and messiah in every town and village across the planet, from Papua New Guinea and Borneo to Australia and Africa??? Or was he quite happy to fry those poor souls until the white man conquered their countries???Isn't that a racist comment? Are the Mediterranean countries considered white? Jesus was a Jew from Palestine, is He white? Paul and the apostles who went out to convert the world were....wait for it.....Jews from Palestine. Hhmm seems that the white man wasn't the original missionaries. But onto a more reasonable question. Does the fact that the OT believers were allowed into heaven not resonate on you that....if you haven't heard of Christ, then there must be another method that God uses to judge a person? Abraham wasn't able to meet Jesus, and yet he is in heaven. Stated in both the OT and the NT. How might this be possible? Because his faith was counted to him as righteousness. His faith in God, and his behavior. So there is a way for those poor innocent kind gentle souls that you seem so connected to and care for to be judged. Surely an all powerfull, mercifull god would have been able to do this. According to you guys his message is ''I LOVE YOU'' ''BELIEVE IN ME OBEY OR BE TOTURED FOR ALL ETERNITY'' If so he would have used his power and ubiquitous nature to tell all in such a way that could not be argued with, Then he could rightfully say ''I TOLD YOU SO'' I know that your logical mind will go into convulsions at the idea that I'm gonna quote scripture, but here goes: Romans 1:18-23 18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 19. because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21. because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. So....the apostle Paul, who btw was versed in theology, philosophy, was as literate as any man at the time. Was educated in multiple languages, was a talented debater, went through the school of rhetoric, was a pharisee, schooled in religious politics. He claims that God has provided plenty of proof of himself. It's called natural revelation. Seeing the majesty of the world, the awesome power of nature, the complexity of the stars, ans the elements speak to the fact that God is present. That there is an innate right/wrong knowledge in all men. Again, there is no record of Paul being delusional, no record of him not being sane, not being rationale, not being trustworthy. But on the flimsy evidence he supposedly left us and the totally inefficiant way he used of spreading his urgent message tells me, if you guys are right about the lake of fire and then he is not loving and he enjoys torture. Or of course you could also come to a more logical conclusion!!! Your definiton of logical is to be cynical and think you have made some sort of point by saying people aren't logical. But....this coming from someone who claims peace and love are important to a person and dropping questionable words right out of the gate. That there is no truth in it what so ever.

If you share intimate feelings, emotions that are reserved for your exclusive other, then yes it's infidelity. It happened to me when my wife had an online affair with a co-worker. She complained about me to him, and they shared sexual innuendos and flirting. It was crushing to me, but we have persevered and we have an awesome marriage now!

process, I have answered your statements, if you don't like the answer, then I have nothing left for you. You ask me why God would do something? I don't know why you would do something, so how can I speak for God? again, you ask questions that I answered. We inherited the condition form Adam, think of it as a spiritual birth defect. again, asked and answered. Just because you don't find it satisfactory doesn't mean that it wasn't answered. I would infer that this was the way God's justice could be satisfied. Look at Genesis 15. God makes promises to Abraham by swearing on Himself. Why? Because there is no higher authority, and He can't go against His own righteousness. See, here is a perfect example of my not answering you like you are answering me. I reject your premise, but don't claim you didn't answer the question. Give me proof that reincarnation exsists. Are you going to use anectdotal evidence? personal testimony? If you are, then you are hardly in a position to claim that the case for Christ can't use the same I think you asked why, not what ought to be. If the question is what ought to be, then I go back to the question about do you have the prerequisite wisdom to make that decision? I would imagine you, nor anyone else except God, does. And if you think you do, could you please post your resume so that I may judge you worthy, since you seem to think that is a human beings role here

I didn't say that Hitler would deserve to go to heaven. All I said, is that he wouldn't deserve eternal hell. Christianity would allow that Hitler would go to heaven if he had converted. To me this looks contrary to justice. ah and thus the quandry. God sees you and me as heinous as Hitler, because we are a sinners. There is no distinction in Gods eyes, a sinner is a sinner. So....the good news is that Hitler would be accepted to heaven if he truly repented, and the same is offered you even though you think that there are people who by matter of degrees are worse, but the law still looks at them as sinners. If you're a felon, it doesn't matter what felony you committed, you are still a felon

I didn't say that Hitler would deserve to go to heaven. All I said, is that he wouldn't deserve eternal hell. Christianity would allow that Hitler would go to heaven if he had converted. To me this looks contrary to justice. ok process, if he doesn't deserve to go to heaven.....but not to hell....then where????

I agree that people aren't perfect. But I disagree that there are "none righteous", at least as I understand the term. And even considering the most evil of people, I don't think any of them would deserve eternal hell. So do I err then that you think that justice isn't important? Using Hitler as an example, why would he deserve to go to heaven? If I can live my life as good as can be, but Hitler is allowed in then what purpose was my behaving in a reasonable manner? Jesus states that there is only 1 who is good, and that's God. So we are back to the same question then that is presented to all non-believers, what do you think about Jesus? Was he a liar, madman or what he claimed to be? If he is either of the 1st 2 then it doesn't matter what he says, but if he is messiah, then what he says is the most important thing. The situation we are in with regard to our fallen nature -- well why did God create Adam in such a way that if Adam makes a mistake Not a mistake, but directly disobeying God. And the theory that our forefathers don't pass along mistakes or benefits to us isn't logical is a fallacy. Do you benefit from the people who went before you in the history of this country? Of course you do. The mistakes and successes by the originators of this republic have affected your ability to be free from the moment you were born. If you were born in the former soviet socialist republic, then your rights and dare I say your perspective would be very different then they would be if born in the US. Your environment and the actions of those who preceded you make an impact on your life. Not really that large a stretch in my opinion then original sin gets passed on to lots of succeeding generations? We aren't really responsible for what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden are we? So if we sin because of our fallen nature, are we responsible for it? or entirely responsible for it?No we aren't "responsible" for it, but that doesn't change the fact that we can't enter God's presence with this imperfection. God gave Adam and Eve free will, and I've heard others say they think that God should've just made everyone the way He wanted so that no one goes to hell. Well in the age of mankind insisting that he have choice, that no one will make an individual do something they don't want to do, doesn't it strike you as hypocritical that the same camp of people will now say that God shouldn't allow us to choose where our destiny will be? Now maybe you don't like the choices, but to say that we should be self-determining, but then say that God should guarantee our admittance to heaven is seemingly talking out of both sides of the proverbial mouth. It's almost like you would say to your parent that you want to do things the way you want, but you expect them to support all your choices unconditionally, and to foot the bill also. Seems funny how that situation only breeds spoiled ungrateful children on earth, yet you think it should be the recipe for the afterlife? If faith in such and such is criteria for salvation, is it not arbitrary? Why should we have faith in religion X rather than religion Y or Z etc. Is that really the way that God would do it? God has a right to satisfy his justice as he sees fit. Do you think you have the status to question God as to how he provides redemption? It is the legacy f man to say that he will place himself as judge and ruler over himself, when in reality we wouldn't be able to survive 1 moment without God. Think about the silliest thing you've ever done, bouncing a check, losing your car keys, leaving the stove on and leaving the house etc. Now, can you really tell me that you have a resume to say you have the wisdom to discern how eternal salvation should be determined? I certainly don't. Every theology other then Christianity is a self-righteous religion. They believe that if you do good, you'll be rewarded. Some believe that you won;t make it to paradise until you have wiped the slate clean of your offenses here. Some believe that we are divine in our nature, and that this life is nothing more then a series of lessons to perfect that divine nature. Some believe that rote obedience is the way, that acts of charity and good works will earn you entrance. Christianity says, it is a free gift of God, that you accept that one person has paid for your errors, one who had no error himself, and that price was paid by God himself so you can come home, free of guilt and welcomed in perfection. But it is an imputed righteousness that is put on you like a new set of clothes. But....you must trust that Jesus is who he says he is, that his sacrifice was enough, and then show that you are a follower of him by conforming your life to him and living your life out of gratitude to him. Sounds like a reasonable deal to me. If a rich benefactor came to you, when you were hopelessly in debt, and offered to pay your credit card bills, house payments and car payments, but all you would have to do is tell others how you got out of debt, and dedicate the rest of your life to not piling up more debt, would you accept that offer? I think we all know the answer. But that's because you could see it and touch it and witness the benefit of such an offer. But, if you won't see any results until you die, would you be as willing? That's why it takes faith, not impirical evidence. And those who insist on impirical evidence will be left searching.

I was raised Catholic, but that didn't make me believe that God is real. I went the other way because I didn't accept the teaching as real, but as a tradition passed down from my parents. But when I got married, I found out that my wife is pagan. So I had to find out what I believed. I spent the next 3 years investigating other religions. Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, Wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam. The only one that made sense to me was Judeo-Christianity. I was very close to being a messianic Jew, but Christ was the only answer that made sense. But not Catholicism, much to the chagrin of my mother. So for someone to be able to find an answer independent form the teachings of their parents is not only possible, I'm here to tell you that I am evidence.

well this probably won't be a long discussion if the first round has degenerated to profanity already.

Luke, I'm not sure why you think that not only can you ask for a debate, but also frame the parameters of the debate. Are you so naive that you don't think that scriptures, that the religion is based on, will be the core of the response when issues are brought up? If you want to discuss the validity of Christiantiy, my suggestion would be to look at other posts in this category to see some of the arguments. If you want to have a discussion, then maybe not telling people how to answer would be a first step. Debating is the presentation of ideas, then the logical examination of those ideas. Thus far all you've spoken about is why would God send good people to Hell? The answer was given to you, there are none righteous, no not one. Religions that believe that they can get to heaven by actions are, by definition, self-righteous. No matter the persuasion of the individual, everyone I've met is flawed and imperfect. Why does the concept that God would allow those who conform to His requirement (which is belief in His provididng a way to Him, his son Jesus Christ) then seem so out of the realm of possible? Do you at least admit it is possible? I also find it humorous how people like to state that this or that predated Christianity as if that in and of itself disqualifies the ethic. It doesn't predate God no matter the philosophy. Now the real matter is how do we prove God was before everything? How do you prove He wasn't? So, since the whole topic is grandiose, lets start with something small. I'm happy to have the discussion with you as long as it stays civil, and not insulting. Ask me a specific question and I will endeavor to answer you honestly, but....scripture will be part of it but we can dissect the verse to see if there is validity, ok?

First, let's deal with your assertion that human logic will never disprove Christianity. Of course it won't. I agree. But what I find interesting in your post is that you believe that the evidence of some sort of human corpse rising from the dead. On what do you base this evidence? I am unaware of any such thing. His appearance to 500 witnesses after His death? that isn't evidence? I'm not interested in physical science, but legal protocol, and jurisprudence I am interested in. If it takes a few witnesses to convict someone of a crime, how many does it take to substantiate an event? I think 500 is more then enough, and that doesn't include the 2 women who originally saw Him, and the 12 apostles. BTW the fact wasn't disputed by the Jewish historian Josephus, the leading man of his day in that role. And the Jews did have sufficient motive to look for the charade if it were present Secondly, how is it that you suppose that Christianity offers any kind of moral code? The definition of Christian morality differs from person to person, and never achieves the basic definition that it transcend that of human rationalization.See, now that is just a ridiculous statement. Look at the history of the time, and Christianity (Judaism which Christianity is based on) was distinct in numerous ways. Look at the admonitions of the age, they are usually accompanied with "Thou shalt not ____ as the (insert name of group of people here)" Thus not just coming up with a prescribed course of action, but also contrasting it with an example that the people of the day would be able to associate If a God exists, and His morality is transcendental to human intellect, then there should be things that don't make sense in His morality.I think the whole concept of God sending His son to die for sinners doesn't seem to make sense to a great number of people. Circular reasoning here. We are sinful creatures, and have no idea how to live justly. How is it, then, that every Christian who speaks about morality is willing to allow those who wear cotton-polyether blends also condemn homosexuality? Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible in the OT in the same place that wearing two different threads in clothing is condemned. If Christians were willing to be consistent and condemn polyether blends along with homosexuality, then I might be convinced that Christian morality transcends my own ability to determine what is right and wrong. But, things being as they are, I have a problem deciding how some Christians will allow homosexuality, and others won't. What is your shirt made of?This is a perfect example of trying to muddy the waters instead of speaking to issues. If you don't like the fact that the OT (and btw the NT also without some obscure reference to clothing in Romans, Galatians) established that God abhors homosexuality, calling it an abomination, then speak to that. God made specific standards for Israel to keep because they were His chosen people. The Levites had different regulations then the tribe of Judah because their role was different, but there are regulations that transcend to all God's people. Christians who don't agree with the basics of the faith, I contend, are not the examples that should be used to answer whether the doctrine is right, appropriate and/or just. A Democrat that doesn't believe in the platform of the party is a poor example to argue about the validity of the ethos. It's a dishonest endeavor. Ask someone who is consistent with the doctrine of Christianity about it and then make your judgements. Homosexuality is banned by the Bible, the laws and regulations that are outlined in the tradition of the faith, we believe, came from God Himself. If someone doesn't agree with the tenants of the faith, they are free to do so. But they will have to answer to God eventually. When there is no command then the believer is free to do as their conscience dictates. There are 3 circumstances to make a stance on. Commanded, positional or conditional. If something is commanded to do, or forbidden to not do, then that is the standard we are to keep. Romans 1:20-32 20. Since the beginning of the world, the unseen qualities of God--His unseen power and His divinity--could be clearly seen and understood from what God made. They have no excuse. 21. Because, even though they knew God, they didn't give God the glory that He should have. They weren't thankful, either. Instead, their thinking became nonsense and their foolish hearts became dark. 22. They acted as if they were wise, but they became fools. 23. They exchanged the glory of an undying God for something else--idols that look like men, birds, animals with four feet, or reptiles. All these die. 24. So, God handed them over to the sinful desires of their hearts. They became sexually unclean, degrading their own bodies with one another. 25. They exchanged God's truth for a lie. Instead of worshiping God, the Maker, they worshiped and served something which was made. (God is praised forever. Amen.) 26. This is why God handed them over to immoral, unnatural drives. Even their females exchanged their natural sexual drives for unnatural ones. 27. In the same way, males stopped feeling natural sexual drives for females and burned up in their lust for one another-- males with males. They do what is shameful, but they must receive in themselves the consequences for this error. 28. Also, since they didn't want to allow God to stay within their circle of knowledge, God handed them over to worthless thinking, to do things they should never do. 29. They are filled with all kinds of wrong, with evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, tricks, malice, gossiping, 30. slander, hatred for God, insults, pride, boasting, and new ways to do evil. They don't obey their parents. 31. They always break promises. They are stupid and heartless. They show no pity for others. 32. They know that what God said is right-- that people who practice such things deserve death--but they do them anyway. And they even encourage others who are practicing the same things. If there is no commandment against the act, or there has been a decree of freedom from a former law, then we are free to do as we see fit. But...if the believer feels that to do something is wrong, then to go through with it is a sin(positional) Romans 14:1-3 1. Accept the who is weak in faith, but don't argue about opinions. 2. One person believes that he is allowed to eat anything. But the weaker eats nothing but vegetables. 3. The one who eats must not look down on the one who does not eat. And, the one who does not eat must not condemn the one who eats, because God accepts him, too. Don't do something that you are free to do if it will cause a problem for a fellow believer. If someone has a problem with alcohol, I won't be serving wine at the dinner table to tempt them (conditional). Romans 14:20-23 20. Don't destroy God's work for the sake of food. Everything is pure. But, it is wrong for a person to eat anything that might trip someone else. 21. It is better if you don't eat meat, drink wine, or do anything that might trip your brother. 22. You have your own faith. Keep it between yourself and God! The person who doesn't feel condemned is happy. He what he is doing. 23. But the person who has doubts feels condemned, if he goes ahead and eats, because he is not sure. A person must be sure that everything he does is right, or else it is sin. So, if someone who claims to be a Christian doesn't have the same standards as another, then the reason might be conditional or positional, but if they don't agree with a commanded behavior, they are wrong and in sin, and why would you use them to judge the whole group, unless they happen to fall conveniently into what you are looking to disprove? k

If you're asking why people don't engage in discussions about the possiblity of something, maybe because anything is possible. If the question is the probability, then my answer is, probability will be spun by whomever is making the argument. If you're asking why more Christians don't delve into the scientific issues of our day, maybe they don't know enough about the topic, so they rely on those they have read. Specifically to your example, why does it matter if the big bang were true or not? The Christian contention is "God spoke, and it happened" If the bbt is the result of that, how does that affect any of us today? Now if the jist of your comment is....Why don't Christians investigate these claims in regards to their faith, I can only speak for myself. I'm not interested. If I were, then the vocation I would have chosen would have been the physical sciences. But alas that's isn't where my interests lie. Sorry if the answer disappoints you, but the topic just isn't interesting to me. Now evolution, there might be a more fiery debate

as is often the case I believe, the right intentions and the wrong methods. We are supposed to pray for people, but not their harm. Asking the Lord to make it clear to the person that getting drunk is wrong is the right thing to do, but being so specific might be taking it a bit far IMHO

Keith Olberman is a non-entity in politics, and now he has to rachet up the rhetoric in order to be relevant. His ratings are low, and the rant boring. These are the same people who want to state that abortion is a right. I hope that it is swept away in my lifetime

I want to find my loved ones, and then go to the dwelling that the Lord has gone ahead and prepared for me, then there will be a feast of epic proportions!!!!!!!!!

There was a theologian who stated that he loved the idea of playing the piano, but hadn't stuck with the lessons when he was young. So as an adult he really wanted to play Chopin, but didn't have the prerequisite skills. So he got a teacher. The teacher instructed him in the method of rudimentary playoing, but he was impatient. When he finally decided to do the ground work, and do the necessary step by step learning, he made progress. But....he needed that teacher. Maybe what you need to do is find a trusted mentor, and in unison work through this problem. If the sin is one that you can overcome, but just feel blase about your walk with God, then maybe mix it up a little bit. Go to the beach at sunrise/sunset to remind you of the Lords awesome power, go to the mountains to remember the majesty that is our Lord. Read the psalms for comfort and poetry. Whatever the resulting activity, ask the Lord to guide you. The answers don't come in our time, and maybe that is the lesson that is being taught to you. Just some suggestions. Hope it works out, and I'll pray for you

great post kitty, wisdom well beyond your years

good stuff

I always understood that Christ meant church in the "corporate" sense. How could he really have meant church in the local assembly of believers, when knowing that the church would expand well beyond the boundaries of Israel it would seem a limiting statement. There are many references to the "church" meaning the group of believers throughout the ages. I guess I'm confused at the level of confusion here.

Wouldn't it be just like God to have our pets there also? I know my wife and my son count on seeing our pets again, so I hope that they are there if for no other reason then I love my wife and son and want joy to come to them.