@P A well put together breif summary. Question: are we to understand your quote from Col 1:15,16 as stating Christ was the first being ever born in creation? by whom God? Am I to understand that jesus is divine but not a god? even though somehow related to one through father son relationship. I've always accepted Christ as a messenger but never the literal 'Son' of God. To me its pointless for God to be Father to Christ in the literal sense of how we understand it. Besides it shows that when it comes to worship according to Christians that they need more than just God infact it seems to me when it comes to the wish of avoiding hellfire that Christ is greater than God in prayer because Christians pray to Jesus for their forgiveness correct? If that is the same as praying to God in order to get the hope of salvation then jesus is God and there wouldn't be any reason why one could just pray directly to God for such a hope.
- Status
P_A
Active Member
Yes, Jesus was created first. In that respect he was the firstborn of all creation - God's first creation in heaven - therefore his son. He was the one through which everything else was made. The bible called him a master worker with God. So even though I don't personally know exactly what or how things were done, if you likened it to a company, I suppose you could say God was the Owner, and Jesus was the manager. God produced the blueprints, and Jesus made the products - in this case, EVERYTHING else, with the power AND instructions he received from God.
Yes, I suppose you could say he is divine, but not a God, since he is second only to God himself.
Hellfire is quite another subject.
We are told to pray "through Jesus", due to the ransom he paid to bring us into an approved relationship with God. It is only due to that ransom he paid dearly for, that we can be recognized. The actual prayer is heard by God, but those who don't recognize Jesus' sacrifice when praying also don't recognize the authority he has over mankind, and his headship. As such, the scripture I mentioned about headship also says the head of the man is the Christ, and the head of Christ is God. So in this respect we see a chain of command - more or less. In that way can prayers be recognized. Of course there are other things involved in seeing that our prayers are answered, but that's the basics.
Yes, I suppose you could say he is divine, but not a God, since he is second only to God himself.
Hellfire is quite another subject.
We are told to pray "through Jesus", due to the ransom he paid to bring us into an approved relationship with God. It is only due to that ransom he paid dearly for, that we can be recognized. The actual prayer is heard by God, but those who don't recognize Jesus' sacrifice when praying also don't recognize the authority he has over mankind, and his headship. As such, the scripture I mentioned about headship also says the head of the man is the Christ, and the head of Christ is God. So in this respect we see a chain of command - more or less. In that way can prayers be recognized. Of course there are other things involved in seeing that our prayers are answered, but that's the basics.
@P_A ~ you mentioned prayers and how God answers our prayers.
Please take a look at this link:
http://www.godisimaginary.com/i1.htm
Please take a look at this link:
http://www.godisimaginary.com/i1.htm
DarthPika
New Member
Look, stop linking to that website. It was made by people who clearly do not understand, or even try to understand Christan beliefs. Furthermore, like anyone else who is out to prove that something's bad, they take words and twist them around to get them to mean what THEY want them to mean.
You seem to be forgetting that as Christans, we believe in a life after death. God never specified WHEN our prayers will be answered.
You seem to be forgetting that as Christans, we believe in a life after death. God never specified WHEN our prayers will be answered.
ryanvergel
New Member
this link was probably hard to see in the midst of the other walls of text, but it is very accessible and can explain the 'absurd probabilities actually happening" pretty well.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
there are a number of things to consider (from the article):
1) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
(millions of instances- mutations occuring many times in one individual, and many individuals existing, over many years...)
2) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
(that it is an average, with millions of chances to peak or happen 'early', etc)
i really don't have a problem with the genetic mutations and their probabilities. flip the coin enough times... and it gets flipped a lot.
we have observed, even within the course of a few hundreds years, instances of change in animals that seems to be related to an enhanced ability to survive. moths in london turning greyer during the industrial revolution, pigeons in cities emitting a deeper, more resonant mating call compared with a few hundred years ago when all of them emitted the same type of high-pitched, melodic mating call, etc etc. there are lots of things we have seen as change, in many of the animals, and the changes happen to 'allow for better survival'. it is hard to deny these scenarios.
just look at dogs and cats and the short time they have been bred, and how different qualities can easily be 'bred out' as well as mutated outward. the probability seems to increase as like-individuals tend to mate more, and the expressed traits become more dominant and forthcoming over time. successful individuals (those at the top of the food chain) seem to be more likely to draw better organisms to mate with. the stronger male lion takes over the pack- the brighter peacock attracts the better female, so on and so forth- and if certain mutations or attributes help the individual more, it can be seen that they might be more likely to breed and encourage the attributes to display.
basically, there seems to be a misrepresentation of the probability, and how the probability works in nature. there can be other factors to increase 'evolution'/evolutionary adaptation, as well- as shown in breeding and modern, recent cases of animals changing rapidly in a rapidly changed environment.
P_A
Active Member
Thanks for the link, but I stopped reading after it started to conflict with my views. It mentions that cancer should be stopped, but there's nothing wrong with praying for that as a side effect of God's Kingdom to take control of human affairs, and His will to be done. What they don't realize is that is precisely what will happen under the rule of God's kingdom, and that event will happen shortly. So the premise is skewed, and therefore the resulting conclusions are faulty.
Since all of the prophecies regarding any other subject in the bible have come true with 100% accuracy, any of the resulting prophecies regarding the future of mankind can be taken at face value. (The fall of most organized religions, persecution of remaining religious, the governments giving their power to a worldwide government, Armageddon (where the wicked are destroyed permanently, and the devil is chained up for 1000 years), cleanup of the earth by survivors, people grow younger, no sickness, live in paradise in security, have your own property, resurection of dead loved ones, enter into a period of unparalleled teaching where all alive have the knowledge of God, then the devil is let loose.) All those things look and sound rather fantastic, and maybe a little hard to believe, but since God has the power to accomplish these things, it is a certainty. Just because it looks like a prayer for the end of cancer is a useless waste of time, and it doesn't seem like it will work, we can be assured that it will happen - but only in God's timeframe, not ours. It won't be late. He promises us that.
The changes you mention don't seem particularly earthshattering Ryan. Those Moths may have changed coloring, but did they grow horns as well? Or other appendages? Did they become longer lived? Or perhaps did they change into other higher forms of animal life? Did the bird's more melodious call change the size or length of feathers or the size of their leg and wing bones? I really don't want to seem like I'm belittling your post (even though I'm failing miserably), but I honestly don't think that changes of that small of a magnitude can be a proof of the existence of evolution when the changes you mention are capable within the genetic structure of the animals. Let's be honest here, there are even large differences within the horse, cat and dog family, but they still breed true - when they have offspring, they are still horses, cats, and dogs.
Since all of the prophecies regarding any other subject in the bible have come true with 100% accuracy, any of the resulting prophecies regarding the future of mankind can be taken at face value. (The fall of most organized religions, persecution of remaining religious, the governments giving their power to a worldwide government, Armageddon (where the wicked are destroyed permanently, and the devil is chained up for 1000 years), cleanup of the earth by survivors, people grow younger, no sickness, live in paradise in security, have your own property, resurection of dead loved ones, enter into a period of unparalleled teaching where all alive have the knowledge of God, then the devil is let loose.) All those things look and sound rather fantastic, and maybe a little hard to believe, but since God has the power to accomplish these things, it is a certainty. Just because it looks like a prayer for the end of cancer is a useless waste of time, and it doesn't seem like it will work, we can be assured that it will happen - but only in God's timeframe, not ours. It won't be late. He promises us that.
The changes you mention don't seem particularly earthshattering Ryan. Those Moths may have changed coloring, but did they grow horns as well? Or other appendages? Did they become longer lived? Or perhaps did they change into other higher forms of animal life? Did the bird's more melodious call change the size or length of feathers or the size of their leg and wing bones? I really don't want to seem like I'm belittling your post (even though I'm failing miserably), but I honestly don't think that changes of that small of a magnitude can be a proof of the existence of evolution when the changes you mention are capable within the genetic structure of the animals. Let's be honest here, there are even large differences within the horse, cat and dog family, but they still breed true - when they have offspring, they are still horses, cats, and dogs.
Last edited:
ryanvergel
New Member
The Father and I are one.
He seems to literally say that he is BOTH the son AND the father.
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father
He identifies himself with God
You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and you are right, because that's what I am.
(the commandments.. I am the LORD, your God...)
unless you believe that I am he
Hard to interpret this any other way than him saying that jesus is the referenced he- or god.
---
Again, the problem for me, and I suspect others, is understanding how X can be both itself (defined as the son of Y) and Y itself. The object is both itself and its creator? The object became its creator? Became a part of its creator?
I like to stay almost exclusively textually based in my interpretations of the Bible. It is said to be the word of God, so it would follow that it must be interpreted literally, rather than metaphorically.
I like that the discussions in this thread have gone on for almost ten pages- productively. People with actual curiousness and passion for the subject posting, rather than just trolls and dismissive people.
DarthPika
New Member
Looking at it from a scientifically stand point, it would seem reasonable that God is a being of another dimension. A dimension that we can not even begin to comprehend. I don't think it's possible for us to understand it. It even says somewhere in the bible that it's pretty much impossible for us to understand it.
eauxmar
New Member
scientifically speaking its reasonable to believe that there is no god.
P_A
Active Member
Nice post Ryan! Good job. However you can explain those verses in their context quite easily when you use surrounding verses, and other supporting evidence. I'll try my best to use the bible to discuss them all, when I have a bit more time. I like challenges like this. Just realize that it won't be me who is explaining things, but the bible itself.
DarthPika, thanks for your idea. It may actually be right, who knows? I have no idea where God resides (in physical space - if you can call it that), and I don't think anyone here on earth past or present can answer that question, so any theory of "where" he is could conceivably be right.
eauxmar, scientifically speaking, we have more evidence of the actual existance of God than his non existance! I'm afraid I don't agree with you on that one at all. However, the popular belief is that it's reasonable to believe He doesn't exist. It's best that we don't confuse the two statements.
DarthPika, thanks for your idea. It may actually be right, who knows? I have no idea where God resides (in physical space - if you can call it that), and I don't think anyone here on earth past or present can answer that question, so any theory of "where" he is could conceivably be right.
eauxmar, scientifically speaking, we have more evidence of the actual existance of God than his non existance! I'm afraid I don't agree with you on that one at all. However, the popular belief is that it's reasonable to believe He doesn't exist. It's best that we don't confuse the two statements.
prodigal_fanboy
New Member
P_A, care to outline your scientific evidence of God's existence?
I'm curious how it holds up to various theories and Occam's Razor.
I'm curious how it holds up to various theories and Occam's Razor.
Last edited:
P_A
Active Member
Once I respond to Ryan's counterpoint, I'll be glad to discuss that, but my faith in the existance of a loving Grand Creator has little to do with scientific evidence, and everything to do with religious evidence. I may be less qualified to report scientific evidence than you hope. However I will give it a shot.
IMO I don't think the problem when we come down to it isn't so much if God is or is not real but what is our relation to God and God to us i.e. religion and worship. What is the correct view (religion) what is the correct method (worship). Something must become God to even atheists, something they place their aims and hopes on, like science, money, relationships etc these are I know concepts and not some 'God' but they are concepts that are set above the indiviual attempting to aim for them in the sense surrogating the usually or typical sense of God as the all knowing start and finish alpha-omega of all things.
It is impossible for us I think to not want something to be more awesome than our own understanding. To followers of religions that believe in God/s it is awesome to think they will after bodily death still have life and for an atheist it is awesome to think that this life is nothing but a composite of a variety tiny particles that our mind and its thoughts are an emmition of sorts of the brain the central nervous system of neurons and when we die we die. Its awesome for those who believe in samsara and karma that something that is 'me' gets transfered to another vessel and that my karma in this life as I sit typing this sentence is drawing/weaving in some place, some time that very vessel that 'I' will 'inherit' despite the 'I' will not be the 'I' I am now but a differnt one with different name differnt form different mind yet related to the one before through karma.
Please note that 'awesome' in the context above doesn't mean cool or something similar it is used to explain something incredible.
It is impossible for us I think to not want something to be more awesome than our own understanding. To followers of religions that believe in God/s it is awesome to think they will after bodily death still have life and for an atheist it is awesome to think that this life is nothing but a composite of a variety tiny particles that our mind and its thoughts are an emmition of sorts of the brain the central nervous system of neurons and when we die we die. Its awesome for those who believe in samsara and karma that something that is 'me' gets transfered to another vessel and that my karma in this life as I sit typing this sentence is drawing/weaving in some place, some time that very vessel that 'I' will 'inherit' despite the 'I' will not be the 'I' I am now but a differnt one with different name differnt form different mind yet related to the one before through karma.
Please note that 'awesome' in the context above doesn't mean cool or something similar it is used to explain something incredible.
Benzo
Front Page News Editor<br>Forum Moderator
I have a question for the athiest group- Do you accept Christmas Gifts?
Seriousely though, do you ( they ) ?
Jehovah Witnesses do not accept Christmas gifts, ( the only religous orginization that I know that does not- And that I am related to some ), but what other religions are there that are christan based but do not celebrate holidays such as christmas?
Seriousely though, do you ( they ) ?
Jehovah Witnesses do not accept Christmas gifts, ( the only religous orginization that I know that does not- And that I am related to some ), but what other religions are there that are christan based but do not celebrate holidays such as christmas?
ryanvergel
New Member
i view christmas as a cultural holiday rather than a religious one. there isn't a christian god in my mind, so i see it as a retained custom that has survived for hundreds of years.
so, i love presents and accept them gladly. its part of the holiday.
so, i love presents and accept them gladly. its part of the holiday.
Maybe this is my views clouding the judgement, because yes, everything in that link (should) be correct.
(Before I go on, the link refers to abiogenesis and not evolution but the maths should be the same)
Where I take some issue is yes, the probability of creating individual amino acids is not so small that in a few million years you can get there. I just cannot understand e.g. why did all apes not evolve into humans etc. etc. I hear a lot of lazy explanation of animal characteristics as 'they just evolved that way'. But why did they evolve that way. and how?
Survival of the fittest is demonstrably true - there are loads of experiments on bacteria to show that it is. But there seems to be something missing which explains why nature prefers certain characteristics over others, which is not explained sufficiently by abiogenesis or evolution IMO
I have a particular problem when it comes to the holidays that 'relies' on some magical being, in this case, Santa Clause. In this explanation to follow I am simply focusing on the subtle in cause yet strong in effect ramifications (as I see them) of a 'commericalized-conusmer-culture-christmas' leaving the 'religious' aspect out of it.
You're young, it's just a week before christmas, you can't wait! Santa will bring presents any time now, in fact you made a list, curious however that your parents mentioned to you that last year his elves were overworked and is now requesting you to limit the list to 3 things and out of that 3 you'll be lucky to get one. Doesn't matter too much however since it's still just amazing that such a great and powerful person graces you with gifts and you've never met.
This goes on for sometime until you're like 9 (the age where imagination dies in to imagination never to leave it again) when your folks tell you santa isn't a 'real-person' you're dumbstruck and dumbstruck for two reasons, first how could I be so stupid! and 2. they lied to me!
However at the time you're not thinking this at all you're thinking nothing you're 9 an age where you're old enough to 'know' but not old enough to 'think' for all your thinking is done in the realm of the imaginary which has just begun to rot though you won't know it yet until the truth becomes more and more terrible to tell as lies become more and more mixed into it.
I have mentioned the subtle seemingly harmless cause now for the strong effect, the lie of something as real but in 'truth' unreal in reality the reality of hunger and pain scrapes and bruises and other such sensations that is, told by those that were trusted start becomming untrusted start becomming strangers on a subconcious level.
Parellel to that at the same time in the subconcious arises in one that it is normal to lie that lying is just another 'truth' a truth only shared are thought to be shared by the liar and the liars cospirators who through relation of knowing all in turn become liars.
It is my belief that this fall of morals start with lies, lies not told by strangers that wish you harm but family and friends that wish you good that aren't lies but 'stories' so stories in turn become void of all signifigance other than the story was a 'good story'. The initation for many is the truth on Santa Clause.
Speaking of christmas in the christian not the culural aspect I find Christ's birthday and life very interesting (yeah I know like almost everyone else that he was more likely born near the end of March) Since Christ had forgone all material comfort and requested with great exhortation perhaps commandment that those who wish to follow in his ministry also forgo all comforts, the savior according to those who would later call themselves christians, who had only once and that was on the first day of his life 'christmas' received but three 'presents which were in reality one gift for the presents he recieved were for a gift for a corpse not a newborn child. The orgin in western-christian culture to gifting presents ironically comes from a story to prophesise death and resurrection of Christ quite unlike what we seem to see christmas today.
Those who care to read this longwinded post please ponder its signifigance.
NoPoke
Active Member
scientifically speaking it is best to say nothing about God!
God is as untestable as the little green men who may or may not inhabit a planet orbiting some distant star.
For those who claim that there is scientific evidence for God just show me any peer reviewed substantial double blind trial and I'll happily shift my viewpoint.
"God did it" is a valid theory. But not a valid scientific theory. At the other end of the spectrum we have theories like Quantum Electro-Dynamics (our most accurately tested theory). And a broad spectrum in between. The reason why scientific method is so powerful is because even QED will fall if a single experiment that can be repeated shows it to be false.
I have no issue with anyone claiming that there is more evidence for the existence of God than against. I do have an issue with the "scientific" label being attached to such evidence.
God is as untestable as the little green men who may or may not inhabit a planet orbiting some distant star.
For those who claim that there is scientific evidence for God just show me any peer reviewed substantial double blind trial and I'll happily shift my viewpoint.
"God did it" is a valid theory. But not a valid scientific theory. At the other end of the spectrum we have theories like Quantum Electro-Dynamics (our most accurately tested theory). And a broad spectrum in between. The reason why scientific method is so powerful is because even QED will fall if a single experiment that can be repeated shows it to be false.
I have no issue with anyone claiming that there is more evidence for the existence of God than against. I do have an issue with the "scientific" label being attached to such evidence.
Yeah exactly. Everything we do is selfish, even when we are trying to be selfless, we are doing that so that we feel good about ourselves. There is no "selfless act". If I go and volunteer at a homeless shelter, thats because I want to gain an experience/some good karma.
Unless your parents force you to do things. but I don't know how to define that
same here. it's a cultural holiday; after all, our kids' school vacations are centered around it, etc...
'mom
- Status