ScubaSteve

...meaning God's existence is rational. Yeah, there are plenty of rational explanations for various phenomena. They all can't be correct, because many of them contradict each other and compete. I have not, however, found a fact derived from any scientific exploration that contradicts the existence of God or His activity in this world. Evolution shows that genesis is bunk. Geology shows that the Flood is bunk. We know that creatures present in the Bible like unicorns and talking snakes and all that nonsense never existed. You religion is based on a book full of superstitions and mythology; how you can even suppose it could be true is completely beyond me. It's also beyond me how you can say that God's existence is rational when everything you attribute to divine intervention could be explained in ways that do not need any magic and are thus way more likely than your completely unsupported religion. The bone I would like to pick is that you say Evolution shows that Genesis is bunk. I beg to differ on that because Evolution isn't proven yet! They have a general idea of what happened in evolution, but just seem to be missing some vital links in the whole scheme of things. Until those links are found (if they ever will be) evolution cannot be used to prove anything. It is still only a theory. Another thing I would like to state about evolution is that if we evolved from apes from changes in our DNA, why are there still apes? But anyway, that's digressing from the point of conversation so will leave it at that. Just wanted to add my two cents worth

Another question about evolution I would like to ask, is if we evolved from apes like we supposedly did, and that was a physical change for the better, why are there still apes? Wouldn't they have evolved into humans as well?

My parents were Godly parents, as Charismatic Christians they always went above and beyond just the Sunday Masses. We used to attend regular praise and worship sessions elsewhere and they encouraged us kids (there were 5 of us) to go to youth group, Christian camps etc. Unfortunately however I did have a major straying from the right path from the ages of around 14/15-20/21. That involved a large slide into drugs and alcoholism and sexual relationships etc. and everything else that goes along hand in hand with them. If it wasn't for my parents constantly sending me text messages telling me that anytime I wanted to come home that they always had a place for me and that they still loved me even when I had absolutely no contact with them for 3 years, then I would probably be either still heading down that path or be dead. In fact I could probably say I would be dead by now. But it was Mum and Dad's upbringing and their strong base of faith and what they taught me when I was young which gave me the determination to get through the rough times, and eventually the Lord used that to bring me back to him and now I am a much stronger Christian and have accepted Jesus as my Saviour and Lord. So I just want to praise God and thank him for the wonderful parents he blessed me with, without them I wouldn't of found Him again and be living the wonderful life He has given me. Praise God!

Wow, that's shocking. And I completely agree! In New Zealand it isn't uncommon for nakedness etc. to be shown on the News programmes no less, played at 6pm! The time when most kids are sitting around watching t.v with their parents! Albiet it's not porn but it can be just as bad.

I believe it was because of 3 things: 1. It was used as a sign of obedience to him in all matters. I mean, as a male, who in their right mind would want to cut a piece of flesh off that part of the body? But to truly obey and follow God, He requires us to go beyond just the mental side of living for God, He want's us to physically live it, to physically show that we stand for him. Also what billielovesdarrin posted: 2) It could be that it was a sign of belonging to his covenant people. Once circumcised, there was no turning back. The man would be identified as a Jew forever, which reminds us that once we accept the covenant of God and accept God and to receive God's gifts, we accept it for life, you can't really renege on the deal. If you accept him into your life you do it for life. Just like you can't sew the foreskin back on. 3) It also could of been used as a symbol of "cutting off" the old life of sin, purifying oyour heart and dedicated yourself to God. By partaking in the act of circumcision you are saying that you are God's and only God's. That you are obediant to His words and His ways. And also looking at the more physical side of things it could of been done as a health measure, prevent infection etc, so God was killing two birds with one stone. Anyway, they are my thoughts on the subject.

What I don't understand about evolution is how can we be created from a single celled organism, which to reproduce has to replicate itself due to the fact that there are no gametes present which means it is asexual. If something could reproduce and spawn the entire living species on earth, why did it suddenly change from being an asexual organsim to almost every single living creature requiring a mate of the opposite sex to reproduce? Wouldn't the asexual tendancies be more beneficial and enable the organism to survive more easily as it didn't have to compete for a potential mate/partner, therefore increasing it's chances of survival?

I have mixed feelings about your post DOK. I know there are many bad churches out there that have done harm to the flock, but when I read your complaint, I was just not sure how valid it was. Here is what I mean. Jesus taught us that if we were going to follow him, we had to die to self. We must die so he can live. In that way, we do lose our old identity. The old man has died and now we are a new creature in Christ Jesus so we obviously won't be like we were before. If that is what you mean by being stripped of your identity and personality, I really don't think the church is at fault. It sounds like they are trying to teach discipleship. That being said, you didn't provide any real details about what they did so it is quite possible if I knew the rest of the story I might be giving a completely differen't response. There is nothing wrong with you or anyone else being you in the sense of the unique personality God created you to be. At the same time, some people claim that being them means doing things that are contrary to scripture. When someone points out something they are doing is wrong, they get mad and say, "Well that is just who I am." I hope I am not confusing you. There is a fine line here. I would suggest you spend time praying and seeking God about the matter and follow his leading. That leading may tell you to return to your church and submit to their authority, or it may tell you to leave. I pray the Lord will help you to make the right choice. Also DOK, if you have anything you want to add but don't want it added to the thread, feel free to PM me anytime. I can hardly be called a defender of the church. Much of the so-called church today is anything but Christian, but there are still some good places left. I am just trying to be fair about things and not attack what might be a good Bible believing congregation. I have to say this is the best post so far on here. That's good sound advice.

I like this idea as well, I'm going to go find some highlighters in the next few days... although I'll likely need a new bible as well, the one I have now has very thin pages, and even my super-light yellow highlighter bleeds through to the next page at times. I use colour pencils, it may take a little longer to highlight the passages but it doesn't bleed through and still looks tidy while making them stand out

What are hermeneutical gymnastics? Lol and first of all, can I ask where you stand, are you for believing that the bread and wine become Body and Blood or do you believe that it's a joke and contradiction? Sorry, I'm having one of those slow sort of days

It's possible that Jesus did that to seperate the devoted from the "cruisers". For following Jesus requires us to take the good along with the bad, there are always going to be things we have to do that we don't like. You wouldn't want people following you who are only in it for the good times, or are able to pick and choose what they want/don't want. If Jesus had reneged on his statement and said that he was only joking, how seriously would the people that left have taking their commitment to him? When something they didn't like or didn't want to do they would of just been able to say "Well you were just kidding then so I'll take it that you're just kidding. It would of ended up as a half hearted commitment that would of fallen apart at the first sign of hardship. And I think I can safely say that no one would want that minor level of commitment.

I completely agree! As a Kiwi I'm absolutely disgusted that our government would even contemplate doing something like this! Imagine how the child would feel if they got told when they were older that the government had been "tracking" them because they had a higher risk of becoming a criminal?! It could knock their self-esteem completely and possibly make the situation alot worse! I feel that it's undermining the importance of parents in the upbringing of their children, the government should be concentrating on educating parents on how to raise their kids properly instead of just sitting in the background waiting for them to stuff up. I'm dissapointed about it, it's just another example of the "nanny state" that our current government is trying to bring in. Also dissapoints me that the Church in New Zealand isn't doing more to stop it.

Amen to that! It's inspirational that story

Who is to say that it isn't though? For even though it doesn't taste like flesh and blood, (I've never eaten flesh but am pretty sure it doesn't taste like the hosts) why can't Jesus transform it into his flesh and blood? For after all, Gods ways are not ours and ours is not to question why.

Lol yeah I am Catholic and loving every minute of it!

In the mass today the bread and wine are just representations of his body and blood. He used the bread and the wine to explain the significance of what He was going to do on the cross. If you look at Luke 22:19-20 "19 Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had thanked God for it, he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, "This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20 After supper he took another cup of wine and said, "This wine is the token of God's new covenant to save you - an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour for you." Paul also says later on in the bible in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 "23 For this is what the Lord himself said, and I pass it on to you just as I recieved it. On the night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant between God and you, sealed by the shedding of my blood. Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it." Therefore the host and the wine are merely representations, not an actual physical manifestation. Many Catholics I have met believe that the bread and wine remain unchanged, but Christ is spiritually present within the bread and wine. However there have been instances where the bread and wine actually do manifest themselves into flesh and blood. As you say in Paragraph 5 of your article: "Many Catholics and high Anglicans..., believe that the priest has power to change a wafer and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ," The best example of this happening would have to be Lanciano, Italy - 8th Century A.D A priest has doubts about the Real Presence; however, when he consecrates the Host it transforms into flesh and blood. This miracle has undergone extensive scientific examination and can only be explained as a miracle. The flesh is actually cardiac tissue which contains arterioles, veins, and nerve fibers. The blood type as in all other approved Eucharistic miracles is type AB! This, and more examples can be found on Eucharistic Miracles Paragraph 31 of your article: "The Bible says "Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins" (Heb. 9:22) The mass is a non-bloody sacrifice. The sacrifices in the Old Testament were bloody. Jesus' death was very bloody. The mass is not. Therefore, according to Biblical theology, the mass is nullified and totally worthless!" The major flaw in your argument is at the start of Heb 9:22. It states "22 In fact, we can say that according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified by sprinkling with blood. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins." However, if you read further into Heb 9; namely 9:24-26 "24 For Christ has entered into heaven itself to appear now before God as our Advocate. He did not go into the earthly place of worship, for that was merely a copy of the real Temple in heaven. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, like the earthly high priest who enters the Most Holy Place year after year to offer the blood of an animal. 26 If that had been necessary, he would have had to die again and again, ever since the world begain. But no! He came once for all time, at the end of the age, to remove the power of sin forever by his sacrificial death for us." and Heb 10:1-4 "1 The old system in the law of Moses was only a shadow of the things to come, not the reality of the good things Christ has done for us. The sacrifices under the old system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship. 2 If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would of stopped, for the worshippers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared. 3 But just the opposite happened. Those yearly sacrifices reminded them of their sins year after year. 4 For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." and Heb 10:9-12, 14 "9 Then he added, "Look, I have come to do your will." He cancels the first covenant in order to establish the second. 10 And what God wants is for us to be made hold by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time. 11 Under the old covenant, the priest stands before the altar day after day, offering sacrifices that can never take away sins. 12 But our High Priest offered himself to God as one sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down at the place of highest honor at God's right hand. 14 For by that one offerin he perfected forever all those whom he is making holy." you will see that with the death of Christ he "nullified" the old covenant and brought in a new covenant, one that doesn't require sacrifices. Therefore the mass cannot be considered as nullified.

Some public schools aren't too bad, where I went to school in Oamaru, New Zealand, the boys public school Waitaki Boys, carried around hymn books and said a prayer at the start of each day, whereas where I went to school at St Kevin's College (Catholic private school) the only religious things we did was Religous Education where we learnt more about other religions than our own and celebrated the odd mass such as Ash Wednesday etc. So the public school I feel had more prayer in it that a Catholic School!

My thoughts are that back then the firstborn males were the heirs of the families, due to inherit everything, therefore considered the most important offspring as they would provide for their parents etc when the parents were too old to look after themselves. So alot of time would of gone into raising the firstborn to a standard sufficient to be able to keep the family business going. So I would say that God decided to kill the firstborn males because they were often the most cherished and had the most time invested in them, it would hurt them the most. I know it sounds cruel but God was proving a point.