Is this good for Christianity?

[Justadude]

Here's a Bible verse to quote:

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

There is another place where Jesus talks about people so eager to convert others.

Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

I laughed when I read that verse again. You too could become a self-righteous hypocrite who sees everyone else as potentially needing your help. If you could get them to admit how inferior they are, you might feel better about yourself inside.

LOL....now that would be interesting! I think the second verse most definitely applies to Christians like @Paul Christensen who has been trying to argue against evolution so hard lately, but because he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and is relying on charlatans like Ray Comfort, he's likely pushing away anyone who has any level of science education beyond 8th grade. Many non-Christians who read that sort of nonsense will just figure, well there's another stereotypical ignorant, Luddite-esque Christian.

That's what this thread is about. From what I can tell Paul really does think he's doing a good thing and no matter what anyone says to him, he'll never see it any other way. If I was someone who wanted to see Christianity fade into irrelevancy, I'd cheer people like him on!

I imagine some will catch themselves when they see they are being tempted to fall into a panic while others will become increasingly paranoid.

There is room for optimism, I agree; but the Republican Party may be misguided if they are optimistic about pursuing the past strategies that got them elected. It's a matter of time before some states go blue. The Republican Party has been losing clout and members for some time in states like Texas and Georgia. If they don't broaden their appeal, they're done for.

They'll eventually adapt. Many conservatives today don't realize Nixon signed the endangered species act, national environmental policy act, and clean water act into law, or that Reagan banned assault weapons as CA governor, and signed the immigration reform and control act (which granted amnesty to many undocumented immigrants) as president.

I think it'll be a harsh wakeup call, but it seems inevitable.

I remain optimistic in general. I noticed a shift in attitudes in my town after Trump was elected. Lots of black people (not all, of course) seemed friendlier than before. I figured they were trying to send a message that they weren't racist and didn't want white people to feel threatened. I took up the same attitude. I became more friendly with black people I met casually on the street. Maybe the town I live is in unusual. It is predominantly white -- but we have a black mayor and a black chief of police. You may be amused by how the black guy got elected mayor. When the white men running as Republicans, the more extreme guy refused to accept his loss and ran as an independent. (he is a real extremist.) The black Democrat won his first term narrowly. If all the white Republicans had voted for the same guy, they would have won the election. The mayor is now so popular, I expect him to be re-elected as long as he wants to run. People don't care about his race or political party that much.

That's cool! Sometimes people get what they need, even if they don't realize it.

 

[Justadude]

1. There is only one road map provided by God. Would you go into a convenient store and ask for "A map, any map?" Apparently there is more to your position than just seeking the truth. I gave you enough information to get on track, but you are thinking that everything is equal? It's not.

How do you know?

2. And I answered that what you thought was the situation, is not the situation the situation at all...and then I told you what the actual situation is. You are like one who asks for directions, then after being told the right way from the wrong way, just sits there considering the wrong way.

Right, you told me what you believe. Other Christians believe differently.

All of what I told you is intelligent, but none of your response is. Your definition of intellectualism is suspect.

Nice.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Wait, you ignore everything I posted including questions I asked, and now you expect me to answer your questions? I noticed in the heresy thread you do that often.

Do you always disrespect people like that?

I asked you a simple, direct question. Why can't you answer it?

 

[Paul Christensen]

LOL....now that would be interesting! I think the second verse most definitely applies to Christians like @Paul Christensen who has been trying to argue against evolution so hard lately, but because he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and is relying on charlatans like Ray Comfort, he's likely pushing away anyone who has any level of science education beyond 8th grade. Many non-Christians who read that sort of nonsense will just figure, well there's another stereotypical ignorant, Luddite-esque Christian.

That's what this thread is about. From what I can tell Paul really does think he's doing a good thing and no matter what anyone says to him, he'll never see it any other way. If I was someone who wanted to see Christianity fade into irrelevancy, I'd cheer people like him on!


They'll eventually adapt. Many conservatives today don't realize Nixon signed the endangered species act, national environmental policy act, and clean water act into law, or that Reagan banned assault weapons as CA governor, and signed the immigration reform and control act (which granted amnesty to many undocumented immigrants) as president.

I think it'll be a harsh wakeup call, but it seems inevitable.


That's cool! Sometimes people get what they need, even if they don't realize it.

I see you are an agnostic. What do you think will happen to you when you die?

 

[Justadude]

I asked you a simple, direct question. Why can't you answer it?

Because you ignored everything I posed to you and then asked your question. I don't mind discussing, or even debating, these subjects with you but I also expect a certain level of respect and manners while doing so.

I see you are an agnostic. What do you think will happen to you when you die?

I don't know. I'll find out when it happens.

As to the topic of this thread and why I mentioned you, I wonder if you have any sort of appreciation of how ridiculous your posts on evolution are, and how they play right into the negative stereotypes about Christians? Or does that not matter?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Because you ignored everything I posed to you and then asked your question. I don't mind discussing, or even debating, these subjects with you but I also expect a certain level of respect and manners while doing so.

I don't know. I'll find out when it happens.

As to the topic of this thread and why I mentioned you, I wonder if you have any sort of appreciation of how ridiculous your posts on evolution are, and how they play right into the negative stereotypes about Christians? Or does that not matter?

Why don't you stop abusing me and just honestly answer my questions, or have a respectful discussion?
If you can't, I'll just put you on ignore and that will be that!

 

[Justadude]

Why don't you stop abusing me and just honestly answer my questions, or have a respectful discussion?
If you can't, I'll just put you on ignore and that will be that!

All right, let's both try and be respectful. I already answered your question about death, and the only other question you asked me was this: "Do you really believe that the whole universe and the world around you has been created out of absolutely nothing?"

My answer is that I don't know how the universe came to be.

Now that I've answered your questions, please answer mine.

Do you believe everything Richard Dawkins says?

How many churches are teaching that God and Jesus aren't real? Can you quote one saying God and Jesus aren't real?

And relative to the topic of the thread: You know very little about science, you're extremely biased, and the things you say about science are about as wrong as wrong can be, yet you post as if you're the one person in the world everyone should listen to regarding science. Plus, you do all that under the banner of Christianity and tell people they have to agree with you or else they're not Christians. Do you really think that makes Christianity look appealing?

 

[Giuliano]

LOL....now that would be interesting! I think the second verse most definitely applies to Christians like @Paul Christensen who has been trying to argue against evolution so hard lately, but because he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and is relying on charlatans like Ray Comfort, he's likely pushing away anyone who has any level of science education beyond 8th grade. Many non-Christians who read that sort of nonsense will just figure, well there's another stereotypical ignorant, Luddite-esque Christian.

That's what this thread is about. From what I can tell Paul really does think he's doing a good thing and no matter what anyone says to him, he'll never see it any other way. If I was someone who wanted to see Christianity fade into irrelevancy, I'd cheer people like him on!

I seldom go apocalyptic, but I think Christianity in its current form is meant to fade into irrelevancy. I read the patterns of past history as a prediction of the future. Christians are very good at looking at the Jewish hypocrites in the New Testament and judging them. They approve of the idea that it was time to erase the form of Judaism in practice as that age ended. Having studied Judaism somewhat, I'd say the Jews came out of the fall of the Temple with a better religion, a purer form. The worst sect vanished completely. Anyone who reads the Gospels and sees how self-righteous and egocentric the religious leaders had become should see how many Christians is very much like that today. It's the same unproductive, unloving attitude.

Some Christians read the story about the Good Samaritan and say, "Oh, those terrible Jews." The message is lost on them. They fail to see how they are like the Jews who didn't stop to help. They do not see that Jesus was preaching the importance of compassion over some kind of rituals and having the right list of "orthodox" doctrines.

There is a problem with people like Paul who say they know the whole Bible is true -- and they know exactly what it all means. They don't really know. Inside, deep down, they know they don't know; but they want to feel as if they know instead of admitting it when they don't know something. Anyone who disagrees with them is like a pin coming close to the inflated balloon of their ego. If you agree with them, they think it will make them feel better. "See? I'm right. Everyone agrees with me. That means I'm right." It really doesn't make them feel better. That is an illusion. Their solution? Insist even more vehemently that the whole Bible is true and they know exactly what it all means. The Bible takes on a role like an addictive drug.

 

[Justadude]

I seldom go apocalyptic, but I think Christianity in its current form is meant to fade into irrelevancy. I read the patterns of past history as a prediction of the future. Christians are very good at looking at the Jewish hypocrites in the New Testament and judging them. They approve of the idea that it was time to erase the form of Judaism in practice as that age ended. Having studied Judaism somewhat, I'd say the Jews came out of the fall of the Temple with a better religion, a purer form. The worst sect vanished completely. Anyone who reads the Gospels and sees how self-righteous and egocentric the religious leaders had become should see how many Christians is very much like that today. It's the same unproductive, unloving attitude.

I have a cousin who's a pastor at a more liberal Christian church and she tells me the same thing. She refers to today's fundamentalists as "latter-day Pharisees". I hope you're both right.

Some Christians read the story about the Good Samaritan and say, "Oh, those terrible Jews." The message is lost on them. They fail to see how they are like the Jews who didn't stop to help. They do not see that Jesus was preaching the importance of compassion over some kind of rituals and having the right list of "orthodox" doctrines.

Maybe it's also related to how modern conservative Christianity has become intertwined with modern Republicanism and its belief in individualism and self-reliance?

Either way, I'm reminded of this (don't watch if easily offended):

There is a problem with people like Paul who say they know the whole Bible is true -- and they know exactly what it all means. They don't really know. Inside, deep down, they know they don't know; but they want to feel as if they know instead of admitting it when they don't know something. Anyone who disagrees with them is like a pin coming close to the inflated balloon of their ego. If you agree with them, they think it will make them feel better. "See? I'm right. Everyone agrees with me. That means I'm right." It really doesn't make them feel better. That is an illusion. Their solution? Insist even more vehemently that the whole Bible is true and they know exactly what it all means. The Bible takes on a role like an addictive drug.

That's exactly the sort of thing I was conveying to Enow a couple of weeks ago. In the church I grew up in all the leaders and teachers were so confident and sure they knew all about God, what God was like, and what God wanted. But when I asked how they knew all that they invariably fell back on what I call magical thinking. The holy spirit told them, they have a vision, God revealed to them during a prayer, etc.

I've never found anything like that to be persuasive, and it's a big reason why I never was a believer.

 

[Paul Christensen]

All right, let's both try and be respectful. I already answered your question about death, and the only other question you asked me was this: "Do you really believe that the whole universe and the world around you has been created out of absolutely nothing?"

My answer is that I don't know how the universe came to be.

Now that I've answered your questions, please answer mine.

Thanks for that.

Do you believe everything Richard Dawkins says?

No. I don't believe his atheistic teaching. But what was significant to me was that his comment about Christianity being dogmatic about belief in the Bible, which he accepts, and then he says that when Christians themselves compromise their belief in the literal text of the Bible, then that will be the destruction of Christianity within two or three generations. What interested me is that he shows more awareness of the dangers to Christianity than many Christian leaders!

How many churches are teaching that God and Jesus aren't real? Can you quote one saying God and Jesus aren't real?

I can't quantify that. I know that Bishop Spong, an Anglican bishop who has influenced Christians in many churches, teaches that there is no personal God, no historical Jesus, no virgin birth and no resurrection of Christ. All you have to do is obtain copies of his books that will clearly show this. Lloyd Geering, a NZ Presbyterian minister brought out the same teaching and caused a major division in the NZ Presbyterian church. He then influenced the religious studies of NZ universities and teacher training colleges with his teaching, and now that teaching forms the basis of religious studies across the board, instead of Biblical Christianity.

And relative to the topic of the thread: You know very little about science, you're extremely biased, and the things you say about science are about as wrong as wrong can be, yet you post as if you're the one person in the world everyone should listen to regarding science. Plus, you do all that under the banner of Christianity and tell people they have to agree with you or else they're not Christians. Do you really think that makes Christianity look appealing?

Of course I'm biased. My religious foundation is the literal text of the Bible - that God spoke directly to holy men of God, and that what He says is what He means, and He means what He literally says.

I don't tell people to agree with me. I tell people to agree with the literal text of the Bible. I believe everything that science teaches that can be proved in the present by the scientific method of direct observation and testing. I believe that dinosaurs existed because we have the bones and skeletons in our museums. I believe in the law of gravity because when I drop an apple it falls down onto the floor. I can test whether hydrogen is inflammable by filling up a container, putting a match to it and hearing the bang. I know that Julius Caesar existed because there are statues and historical records that prove it. I can go and see where Corinth and Ephesus used to be because I can walk through the ruins. I know that Pompeii was destroyed by a volcanic eruption because the evidence is right there. These things can be proved beyond doubt because the evidence is right there for us to see.

But we can't use the scientific method to prove that something that happened millions of years ago actually happened. We can't observe it because we weren't there, and don't have photos of it. We don't know what dinosaurs actually looked like because all we have a skeletons and no actual photos of living dinosaurs in the wild. Therefore, any theory about those things has to be in the realm of a belief system. Evolution is one of those belief systems, and therefore it is just as much of a religion as Christianity.

So, my religious foundation is literal Biblical Christianity, while an evolutionist is on his own religious foundation. And we are both dogmatic in what we respectively believe.

So, I don't care whether people agree with me or not, but because this is a Christian forum, I encourage people to believe the Bible, therefore, if what I am saying is totally consistent with the literal text of the Bible, and you say I am lying, then you are effectively saying that the literal Bible, inspired by God is a lie, leading to the inference that God is a liar. It's not me who is saying that, it is the Bible itself, either God's Word is accept as true, or else we say that God is a liar.

 

[Justadude]

Thanks for that.

No problem!

No. I don't believe his atheistic teaching. But what was significant to me was that his comment about Christianity being dogmatic about belief in the Bible, which he accepts, and then he says that when Christians themselves compromise their belief in the literal text of the Bible, then that will be the destruction of Christianity within two or three generations. What interested me is that he shows more awareness of the dangers to Christianity than many Christian leaders!

That's an interesting conundrum from my POV. On one hand, if Christians insist on Biblical literalism and everything that goes with it, they're likely to see people reject the faith because it doesn't line up with reality. But OTOH if Christians keep reinterpreting the Bible every time we discover something new, they're likely to see people reject the faith because it seems wishy-washy.

I can't quantify that. I know that Bishop Spong, an Anglican bishop who has influenced Christians in many churches, teaches that there is no personal God, no historical Jesus, no virgin birth and no resurrection of Christ. All you have to do is obtain copies of his books that will clearly show this. Lloyd Geering, a NZ Presbyterian minister brought out the same teaching and caused a major division in the NZ Presbyterian church. He then influenced the religious studies of NZ universities and teacher training colleges with his teaching, and now that teaching forms the basis of religious studies across the board, instead of Biblical Christianity.

Thanks. I was aware of Sprong and some of what he teaches, but as far as I can tell his views are a tiny minority among Christians. I believe most Christians still believe in the existence of God and a real Jesus, don't they?

Of course I'm biased. My religious foundation is the literal text of the Bible - that God spoke directly to holy men of God, and that what He says is what He means, and He means what He literally says.

Do you think that bias calls into question a lot of what you say about science?

I don't tell people to agree with me. I tell people to agree with the literal text of the Bible.

From what I've seen you are pretty quick to question the faith of Christians who have a different interpretation of the Bible than you. To me, that looks like you questioning the faith of anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I believe everything that science teaches that can be proved in the present by the scientific method of direct observation and testing. I believe that dinosaurs existed because we have the bones and skeletons in our museums. I believe in the law of gravity because when I drop an apple it falls down onto the floor. I can test whether hydrogen is inflammable by filling up a container, putting a match to it and hearing the bang. I know that Julius Caesar existed because there are statues and historical records that prove it. I can go and see where Corinth and Ephesus used to be because I can walk through the ruins. I know that Pompeii was destroyed by a volcanic eruption because the evidence is right there. These things can be proved beyond doubt because the evidence is right there for us to see.

But we can't use the scientific method to prove that something that happened millions of years ago actually happened. We can't observe it because we weren't there, and don't have photos of it. We don't know what dinosaurs actually looked like because all we have a skeletons and no actual photos of living dinosaurs in the wild. Therefore, any theory about those things has to be in the realm of a belief system. Evolution is one of those belief systems, and therefore it is just as much of a religion as Christianity.

I see you regularly post this idea that if an event isn't directly observed or recorded, science can't study it or say anything about it. I gotta ask, where did you get that from? Did you make it up?

So, my religious foundation is literal Biblical Christianity, while an evolutionist is on his own religious foundation. And we are both dogmatic in what we respectively believe.

I see that sort of thing a lot in creationists, where they project their traits onto others. Maybe you should be a bit more magnanimous and not assume that everyone who accepts what science says about evolution is doing so for religious reasons. Just because it's a religious issue for you doesn't mean it is for everyone else.

So, I don't care whether people agree with me or not

Do you care if some of what you say about evolution and science is not only wrong, but so ridiculously wrong that it might give people a negative impression of Christians?

but because this is a Christian forum, I encourage people to believe the Bible, therefore, if what I am saying is totally consistent with the literal text of the Bible, and you say I am lying, then you are effectively saying that the literal Bible, inspired by God is a lie, leading to the inference that God is a liar. It's not me who is saying that, it is the Bible itself, either God's Word is accept as true, or else we say that God is a liar.

I see that sort of thing from Christians a fair bit. You've set it up to where disagreeing or doubting you is the same as disagreeing or doubting God. It's pretty shallow and transparent IMO, and I suspect turns at least a few people off.

Even if the Bible is completely right, your interpretation of it might be wrong. You're not infallible.

 

[ScottA]

How do you know?


Right, you told me what you believe. Other Christians believe differently.


Nice.

1. When I did not know there was a God but called out to Him in dispair, He answered and I was caught up in the spirit above the earth and shown many things, and was then returned and given a multitude of confirmations.

2. No, you assumed I only told you what I "believe." But I explained that there are those who actually "know"; and having had my personal encounter with God, I am one.

 

[Paul Christensen]

No problem!


That's an interesting conundrum from my POV. On one hand, if Christians insist on Biblical literalism and everything that goes with it, they're likely to see people reject the faith because it doesn't line up with reality. But OTOH if Christians keep reinterpreting the Bible every time we discover something new, they're likely to see people reject the faith because it seems wishy-washy.

I think that people reject the faith because they see that many professing Christians live as if they don't believe the Bible to be true. These "Christians" can be angels at church, but lying, thieving, blaspheming, fornicating adulterers at heart when they are away from the eyes of their church associates. I think there is greater respect from people who see Christians being dogmatic about their belief in the Bible, especially its moral requirements, even though they don't believe the Bible for themselves.

By the way, while I am thinking about it. Do you think that you are an agnostic because you may be wanting to evade moral responsibility to someone like God, and prefer to live your own life without having to account for your actions? Just askin'

Thanks. I was aware of Sprong and some of what he teaches, but as far as I can tell his views are a tiny minority among Christians. I believe most Christians still believe in the existence of God and a real Jesus, don't they?

I think that it depends on what region you are living in. In NZ Spong's and Geering's teaching is a major influence in our churches. But maybe in the US Bible belt region it may not be.

Do you think that bias calls into question a lot of what you say about science?

Yes. My bias is that the Bible is the authority and science confirms it, instead of science being the arbiter of whether the Bible is accurate or not.

From what I've seen you are pretty quick to question the faith of Christians who have a different interpretation of the Bible than you. To me, that looks like you questioning the faith of anyone who doesn't agree with you.

It might appear that way, but what I do is to compare what people say with what the Bible says, and because the Bible is the authority for me, I reply to them what the Bible says about the issue. If that calls someone's faith into question, it's not me who is doing it, but it is the Bible that is acting on their conscience.

I see you regularly post this idea that if an event isn't directly observed or recorded, science can't study it or say anything about it. I gotta ask, where did you get that from? Did you make it up?

No, I didn't make it up. I just know what the criteria of the Scientific Method is.

The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.
The scientific method (article) | Khan Academy

So, establishing something through science, it has to be directly observed first. Anything that cannot be directly observed and tested cannot be scientifically proven. Therefore evolution cannot be directly observed or tested, therefore it cannot be scientifically proved. Therefore it has to remain an unproven theory based on the belief system of the evolutionist.
[qipte]I see that sort of thing a lot in creationists, where they project their traits onto others. Maybe you should be a bit more magnanimous and not assume that everyone who accepts what science says about evolution is doing so for religious reasons. Just because it's a religious issue for you doesn't mean it is for everyone else.[/quote]
Creationists, although they cannot prove for themselves by direct personal observation or the observation of others, they base their belief system on the word of someone who was actually there at creation, and who actually made it happen. Therefore the issue is whether a person believes that God is really there, has spoken to holy men of God, and what has been recorded is true. A Bible-believing Christian is dogmatic and adamant that God is absolutely true is what He says.

Do you care if some of what you say about evolution and science is not only wrong, but so ridiculously wrong that it might give people a negative impression of Christians?

I think that when Christians give reasonable account of their faith and why they believe what they do, then although others don't believe what they believe, there is a respect that they are genuine in their belief.

Of course, Jesus predicted that Christians will be hated of all nations because of Him, and this is quite true, especially in countries dominated by Islam. It is not a hatred based on anything reasonable or anything that the Christian person has done wrong, but that when a truly Bible believing Christian is present, his manner of life and actions can have a negative effect on the conscience and the opposition and persecution comes because the unbeliever doesn't want to face the idea that he may be morally responsible to someone like God, especially if he knows that he is a lying, thieving, blaspheming, fornicating adulterer, and so he tries all he can to discredit the Christian so that the impact on his conscience will go away.

I see that sort of thing from Christians a fair bit. You've set it up to where disagreeing or doubting you is the same as disagreeing or doubting God. It's pretty shallow and transparent IMO, and I suspect turns at least a few people off.

It's not me who has set that up. It is the Bible - when people disagree with what the Bible clearly says about creation, their morals, future judgment, and their need for Christ, then they are disagreeing with God, because it is God through the Bible who is saying these things. I am just agreeing with what the Bible is saying.

Even if the Bible is completely right, your interpretation of it might be wrong. You're not infallible.

You are right. I am not infallible. But there are major narrative and instructional areas of the Bible that are so clearly stated that the only interpretation is what is actually said. The problem is that many cannot accept what the Bible is saying about the lifestyle they are choosing, and so they try to read in a different interpretation to ease their conscience. It was the same in the garden when God told Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit from a certain tree they would die. Then the talking snake came along and asked Eve, "Did God really say that?" If Eve had any sense she should have answered, "Yep. That was definitely what God actually said". Instead she went into a discussion because there was a doubt formed in her head, and so the talking snake said, "Here is a better interpretation - you won't actually die."

It is like interpreting the verse, "The soul who sins will surely die", and "The wages of sin is death". Someone who is conscious of their sinful lifestyle, whether it be lying, stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain, hating, looking at others with lust, or having an adulterous affair, or viewing pornography, will interpret those verses as, "Even though I have this sinful lifestyle, it doesn't really mean that I will die", or "The wages of my sin is not necessarily death".

So, if you are standing on the footpath, and I see a large truck capsize and start skidding straight for you and I yell to you, "Get out of the way of that truck or you will be killed!", by your definition of interpretation, you might say to me, "Oh, that's just your interpretation!"

 

[Justadude]

1. When I did not know there was a God but called out to Him in dispair, He answered and I was caught up in the spirit above the earth and shown many things, and was then returned and given a multitude of confirmations.

2. No, you assumed I only told you what I "believe." But I explained that there are those who actually "know"; and having had my personal encounter with God, I am one.

That's the sort of magical thinking I've been talking about. Of course there are other people who've had the same kind of magical experiences, except it was a different god and his revelation to them was different than yours. So how do I tell which one is the truth?

I appreciate how your experience was very meaningful and life-changing for you. It just doesn't mean much of anything to me.

 

[Justadude]

I think that people reject the faith because they see that many professing Christians live as if they don't believe the Bible to be true. These "Christians" can be angels at church, but lying, thieving, blaspheming, fornicating adulterers at heart when they are away from the eyes of their church associates. I think there is greater respect from people who see Christians being dogmatic about their belief in the Bible, especially its moral requirements, even though they don't believe the Bible for themselves.

For sure, hypocrisy and "do as I say, not as I do" is a factor.

By the way, while I am thinking about it. Do you think that you are an agnostic because you may be wanting to evade moral responsibility to someone like God, and prefer to live your own life without having to account for your actions? Just askin'

I don't think so, since I'm a pretty boring person. I think I mentioned before in this thread how I've pointed out to my Christian friends and family that I don't live any differently than they do, other than their church activities.

I think that it depends on what region you are living in. In NZ Spong's and Geering's teaching is a major influence in our churches. But maybe in the US Bible belt region it may not be.

You're probably right.

Yes. My bias is that the Bible is the authority and science confirms it, instead of science being the arbiter of whether the Bible is accurate or not.

Thanks for being honest.

It might appear that way, but what I do is to compare what people say with what the Bible says, and because the Bible is the authority for me, I reply to them what the Bible says about the issue. If that calls someone's faith into question, it's not me who is doing it, but it is the Bible that is acting on their conscience.

But how do you know you're reading it the right way? For a very long time Christian authorities read the bible as describing a stationary earth that was orbited by the sun and everything else in the universe. They even persecuted scientists who said otherwise, no matter how solid their science was. But we all know how that turned out. How do you know you're not doing the same thing?

No, I didn't make it up. I just know what the criteria of the Scientific Method is.

The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.
The scientific method (article) | Khan Academy

So, establishing something through science, it has to be directly observed first. Anything that cannot be directly observed and tested cannot be scientifically proven. Therefore evolution cannot be directly observed or tested, therefore it cannot be scientifically proved. Therefore it has to remain an unproven theory based on the belief system of the evolutionist.

I'm going to try and help you with this, so please take it in the spirit intended. Also, this topic (whether science can study and draw conclusions about events no one observed) has nothing to do with the Bible or God.

That is indeed an accurate description of the scientific method. However, you're mistaken in thinking that "make an observation" means "observe the event". Let me try and illustrate this with an example.

I come home from work and I notice that my front window is broken, the bushes in front of the window are smashed down, there are footprints in the dirt, all my electronics are gone, there are muddy footprints inside the house going from the window to the part of the living room where my electronics used to be, there are bloody fingerprints on the wall by the window, and there is a blood smear on a bit of jagged glass in the broken window.

I didn't directly observe what happened while I was gone. No one did, since no one else was home. But a team of forensic scientists can certainly collect data, analyze it, and draw solid conclusions about what happened, can't they? And they'll follow the scientific method in doing so. They "make an observation" when they note the size and type of shoes that made the footprints. They "make an observation" when they examine the fingerprints. They "make an observation" when they compare the fingerprints to those in their database. They "make an observation" when they collect and examine the DNA from the blood smear. They "make an observation" when they compare the DNA to sequences in their database.

And when they get a match on the DNA and fingerprints the police go and arrest the person. When they do they notice he has shoes that match the footprints at my house and all my electronics are in his house. Eventually the suspect is charged with breaking and entering and theft, and put on trial. The jury hears the evidence, and due to the evidence, finds him guilty.

Does that seem reasonable? Even though no one saw the person break into my house and steal my things, we're very much able to study that event and reach firm conclusions about it based on the evidence left behind.

I hope that helps you understand how "make an observation" isn't the same thing as "you have to directly observe the event", and how scientists study events they didn't witness all the time.

Creationists, although they cannot prove for themselves by direct personal observation or the observation of others, they base their belief system on the word of someone who was actually there at creation, and who actually made it happen. Therefore the issue is whether a person believes that God is really there, has spoken to holy men of God, and what has been recorded is true. A Bible-believing Christian is dogmatic and adamant that God is absolutely true is what He says.

Sure, but just because it's a religious issue for you doesn't mean it is for everyone else.

I think that when Christians give reasonable account of their faith and why they believe what they do, then although others don't believe what they believe, there is a respect that they are genuine in their belief.

Yes, but being "reasonable" is the key. I'm trying to convey to you how a lot of what you post about science is not reasonable, and is, to be frank, silly. As a result you, and by association, Christianity both seem silly as well. Some of your fellow Christians in this forum have been trying to get you to understand the same thing, so maybe you should take a step back, humble yourself, and consider the possibility that if lots of people are giving you the same message there might just be something to what they're saying.

Of course, Jesus predicted that Christians will be hated of all nations because of Him

Right, "because of Him", not "because of the silly things Christians say about science".

It's not me who has set that up. It is the Bible - when people disagree with what the Bible clearly says about creation, their morals, future judgment, and their need for Christ, then they are disagreeing with God, because it is God through the Bible who is saying these things. I am just agreeing with what the Bible is saying.

You are right. I am not infallible. But there are major narrative and instructional areas of the Bible that are so clearly stated that the only interpretation is what is actually said. The problem is that many cannot accept what the Bible is saying about the lifestyle they are choosing, and so they try to read in a different interpretation to ease their conscience. It was the same in the garden when God told Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit from a certain tree they would die. Then the talking snake came along and asked Eve, "Did God really say that?" If Eve had any sense she should have answered, "Yep. That was definitely what God actually said". Instead she went into a discussion because there was a doubt formed in her head, and so the talking snake said, "Here is a better interpretation - you won't actually die."

It is like interpreting the verse, "The soul who sins will surely die", and "The wages of sin is death". Someone who is conscious of their sinful lifestyle, whether it be lying, stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain, hating, looking at others with lust, or having an adulterous affair, or viewing pornography, will interpret those verses as, "Even though I have this sinful lifestyle, it doesn't really mean that I will die", or "The wages of my sin is not necessarily death".

So, if you are standing on the footpath, and I see a large truck capsize and start skidding straight for you and I yell to you, "Get out of the way of that truck or you will be killed!", by your definition of interpretation, you might say to me, "Oh, that's just your interpretation!"

Okay, I appreciate you taking the time to explain.

 

[Truth OT]

But since you are an agnostic, you probably believe that you do not need Christ. And that is the real issue.

As an agnostic person as it relates to theism as well, I too can speak to this. First, I am agnostic because I have not been presented with any convincing evidence that the god(s) of religious texts actually exist. With that being the case, there is no anointed one (Christ) since no god has been demonstrated to exist to be able to anoint a savior figure. All that said, the real issue is the lack of reality-based, demonstrable evidence that specifically points to the existence of the gods promoted by men.

 

[ScottA]

That's the sort of magical thinking I've been talking about. Of course there are other people who've had the same kind of magical experiences, except it was a different god and his revelation to them was different than yours. So how do I tell which one is the truth?

I appreciate how your experience was very meaningful and life-changing for you. It just doesn't mean much of anything to me.

That is correct, it doesn't mean much to you...that is, as far as you personally benefiting. However, there is only one consistent thread of witnesses and testimonies in all of history and in the world, and mine is in accord. That cannot be said of all, and that is what you should be paying attention to.

So, yes, it is personal. If you want to know the truth, you are not going to get any proof from others second hand information. You will have to go to the Source. As history has established - that's how it works.

As for the "magic", that is very close. But it is all (the truth as well as the counterfeit and false) a creation, meaning contrived; and like many things created or contrived...it's not the real thing, but merely an image. As for the science...the facts are: matter is actually energy, and time is an illusion. So, in case you have not fully considered the facts in terms of their actual reality, "Let there be light", is actually/factually "Lights, camera, roll'em!"

Or...you could just retreat to the fallacy that the world is not the illusion of hard and fast, feet on solid ground, but is actually whirling through space and the unknown best guess of science, with no acknowledgement of the greater forces of life, and continue to live in darkness, while the truth escapes you with its multitude of clues.

 

[Justadude]

That is correct, it doesn't mean much to you...that is, as far as you personally benefiting.

I appreciate you understanding that.

However, there is only one consistent thread of witnesses and testimonies in all of history and in the world, and mine is in accord. That cannot be said of all, and that is what you should be paying attention to.

I don't see that at all, and in fact see the opposite. Just within Christianity there are hundreds (or thousands depending on how you count) of denominations. Reminds me of this cartoon.

So, yes, it is personal. If you want to know the truth, you are not going to get any proof from others second hand information. You will have to go to the Source. As history has established - that's how it works.

Okay then.

As for the "magic", that is very close. But it is all (the truth as well as the counterfeit and false) a creation, meaning contrived; and like many things created or contrived...it's not the real thing, but merely an image. As for the science...the facts are: matter is actually energy, and time is an illusion. So, in case you have not fully considered the facts in terms of their actual reality, "Let there be light", is actually/factually "Lights, camera, roll'em!"

Or...you could just retreat to the fallacy that the world is not the illusion of hard and fast, feet on solid ground, but is actually whirling through space and the unknown best guess of science, with no acknowledgement of the greater forces of life, and continue to live in darkness, while the truth escapes you with its multitude of clues.

I see no reason to go with what you say, since all you've provided so far is a story about a magical vision you had. Lots of people throughout history have had magical visions, so I see no reason to think yours is the truth while everyone else's isn't. Or I could go with the more logical conclusion that having magical visions is just a product of the human mind.

 

[Enoch111]

First, I am agnostic because I have not been presented with any convincing evidence that the god(s) of religious texts actually exist.

One does not need religious texts to establish the reality and presence of God. One simply needs to examine the orderliness of the universe, telescopically and microscopically.

Take the structure of DNA as an example. Only a superior Intelligence could design such a thing and put it into all living creatures. And DNA is now used to identify individuals because it is so precise. Where does precision come from other than from a meticulous Creator?



So you do not have leg to stand on, simply wilful ignorance.

 

[ScottA]

I appreciate you understanding that.


I don't see that at all, and in fact see the opposite. Just within Christianity there are hundreds (or thousands depending on how you count) of denominations. Reminds me of this cartoon.

Okay then.


I see no reason to go with what you say, since all you've provided so far is a story about a magical vision you had. Lots of people throughout history have had magical visions, so I see no reason to think yours is the truth while everyone else's isn't. Or I could go with the more logical conclusion that having magical visions is just a product of the human mind.

You're looking at the forest.

Meanwhile you are not connecting the dots. I have told you what it's not, and also what it is. How are you with crossword puzzles or mysteries? Not so good, I suspect.