# Christians and Christianity



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

The purpose of creating this thread is to hopefully increase unity and discussions among Christians on this forum and to help those with questions about Christianity to find answers. Hopefully, we can all find support and encouragement from each other when the bumps on the road of life seem like impassable mountains. 
In an attempt to begin a discussion, which area of Scripture have you been studying? I have been working in Ecclesiastes; finding it to be very intriguing.


----------



## knightrider (Jun 27, 2014)

What a nice thread you started!

Right now I am struggling because both of my children have turned away from God. I raised them in the church. They never missed church or Sunday School and the lessons were loving and caring, not vindictive or scary. But they have rejected it all. I feel like I have not been a good enough Christian example to have them turn away so completely. I think if I had been more cheerful, not had so many problems, had things go more smoothly, it would have strengthened their faith instead of losing their faith.

My favorite verse is II Corinthians 4:8 "We are often troubled but not crushed; sometimes in doubt, but never in despair. We have many enemies but are never without a friend, and though badly hurt at times, we are not destroyed."


----------



## Horsef (May 1, 2014)

knightrider said:


> What a nice thread you started!
> 
> Right now I am struggling because both of my children have turned away from God. I raised them in the church. They never missed church or Sunday School and the lessons were loving and caring, not vindictive or scary. But they have rejected it all. I feel like I have not been a good enough Christian example to have them turn away so completely. I think if I had been more cheerful, not had so many problems, had things go more smoothly, it would have strengthened their faith instead of losing their faith.
> 
> My favorite verse is II Corinthians 4:8 "We are often troubled but not crushed; sometimes in doubt, but never in despair. We have many enemies but are never without a friend, and though badly hurt at times, we are not destroyed."


I am sorry you are going through that.

If you permit, I would offer you a point of view of an atheist which might help you understand them better. I am atheist (or agnostic or whatever the correct term is) because I don’t have the belief in a higher being. The emotion simply isn’t there.

It is a very personal “decision” which has nothing to do with how I was raised or with my family. I’ve put “decision” in quotes because I never decided not to believe, just like I never decided to love my parents or to fall out of love with ex boyfriends. The emotion is either there or it isn’t.

I feel it would be disingenuous and insulting to people who believe to pretend otherwise and just go through the motions. I am honest with people I am close to because I trust and respect them enough to share this with them.

I never felt at a disadvantage because I lack religion nor did I live an immoral life because of it. I still have a strong internal compass for right and wrong and I have a lot of compassion for other people and animals. For all effective purposes, it is as if I am religious (well, the particular religion I was raised in which isn’t restrictive of how people go about their lives as long as they aren’t hurting anyone). I hope I could help at least a little bit. Best of luck.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

knightrider said:


> What a nice thread you started!
> 
> Right now I am struggling because both of my children have turned away from God. I raised them in the church. They never missed church or Sunday School and the lessons were loving and caring, not vindictive or scary. But they have rejected it all. I feel like I have not been a good enough Christian example to have them turn away so completely. I think if I had been more cheerful, not had so many problems, had things go more smoothly, it would have strengthened their faith instead of losing their faith.
> 
> My favorite verse is II Corinthians 4:8 "We are often troubled but not crushed; sometimes in doubt, but never in despair. We have many enemies but are never without a friend, and though badly hurt at times, we are not destroyed."


If it gives you hope, I too was raised in a Christian home, and then rejected the Faith when I was about 14-15, then came back when I was 16. In my 20's now and staying Christian. I'm a hard skeptic of most things, pulling apart ideas and questioning the authority of just about everyone. I had to allow myself to be opened up to the Spirit and stop fighting Him. So don't blame yourself for your children's rejection; always know that nothing is impossible for Him Who framed the worlds. 

That is a good verse to remember!


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

Horsef said:


> I am sorry you are going through that.
> 
> If you permit, I would offer you a point of view of an atheist which might help you understand them better. I am atheist (or agnostic or whatever the correct term is) because I don’t have the belief in a higher being. The emotion simply isn’t there.
> 
> ...


I agree with you; it is meaningless to go through the motions without believing. One is then prone to a systematic form of heartless legalism, or lip service, as it is called by some. Belief, though, I have found to be more than emotion. Emotions are fleeting and wild, often a poor choice for making decisions; yet one must have a emotion in the worship of God. On the contrary, one cannot believe from sheer intellect either, as that too remains shallow and legalistic. One must have both in order for true belief, a unity of heart, head, and soul.


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

knightrider said:


> What a nice thread you started!
> 
> Right now I am struggling because both of my children have turned away from God. I raised them in the church. They never missed church or Sunday School and the lessons were loving and caring, not vindictive or scary. But they have rejected it all. I feel like I have not been a good enough Christian example to have them turn away so completely. I think if I had been more cheerful, not had so many problems, had things go more smoothly, it would have strengthened their faith instead of losing their faith.
> 
> My favorite verse is II Corinthians 4:8 "We are often troubled but not crushed; sometimes in doubt, but never in despair. We have many enemies but are never without a friend, and though badly hurt at times, we are not destroyed."


More stuck than appears at the moment. I would think this has more to do age than anything else. You never forget things you learn as a youngster. And it's easy to do because deep down they know they aren't really going anywhere. He is still there and they know it.


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

Horsef said:


> I am sorry you are going through that.
> 
> If you permit, I would offer you a point of view of an atheist which might help you understand them better. I am atheist (or agnostic or whatever the correct term is) because I don’t have the belief in a higher being. The emotion simply isn’t there.
> 
> ...


The main thing wrong with organized religion is they dont get- if you are using the Bible to hurt other people, you're using it wrong.


----------



## Mulefeather (Feb 22, 2014)

knightrider said:


> What a nice thread you started!
> 
> Right now I am struggling because both of my children have turned away from God. I raised them in the church. They never missed church or Sunday School and the lessons were loving and caring, not vindictive or scary. But they have rejected it all. I feel like I have not been a good enough Christian example to have them turn away so completely. I think if I had been more cheerful, not had so many problems, had things go more smoothly, it would have strengthened their faith instead of losing their faith.
> 
> My favorite verse is II Corinthians 4:8 "We are often troubled but not crushed; sometimes in doubt, but never in despair. We have many enemies but are never without a friend, and though badly hurt at times, we are not destroyed."


From a self-proclaimed BuddhiPagaChristiaTotemist (or as Gonzo from the Muppets used to say, "A Whatever"), I'm sorry you are going through this. 

I think all children eventually separate from what their parents believe, at least in the beginning. Belief ebbs and flows a lot when people are young, and what we've learned in childhood needs to be proven out by our own experiences as young adults, and then just plain adults. 

I think it's also important to remember that your relationship with God is not going to be the same as your childrens', just as their relationship with you is different from all the other people they will meet along the way. You gave them a foundation, but now is their time to decide what that relationship will be. 

I know more than my fair share of "wild child" friends who it seemed would be the furthest people from religion their entire lives. Drugs, trouble with the law, everything you could think of. These days, now in our 30's, most of those people are usually some of the most devout and faithful people I know. And all of them, in their hearts, are good people.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Moderator's note:

please be aware that if this discussion veers into one of a political nature, it would end up being removed. We once allowed such discussions of news and politics, of which religion often focussed pointedly, and they invariably become very caustic, so ultimately, we chose to close down the "News and Politics" area, and ask that there be no political discussion on the General talk area, either.

Please enjoy your discussion on your faith, your feelings about it, and share your love/joy, doubt, . . . but, no politics , and usual etiquette rules apply.

over and out.


----------



## EstrellaandJericho (Aug 12, 2017)

knightrider said:


> What a nice thread you started!
> 
> Right now I am struggling because both of my children have turned away from God. I raised them in the church. They never missed church or Sunday School and the lessons were loving and caring, not vindictive or scary. But they have rejected it all. I feel like I have not been a good enough Christian example to have them turn away so completely. I think if I had been more cheerful, not had so many problems, had things go more smoothly, it would have strengthened their faith instead of losing their faith.
> 
> My favorite verse is II Corinthians 4:8 "We are often troubled but not crushed; sometimes in doubt, but never in despair. We have many enemies but are never without a friend, and though badly hurt at times, we are not destroyed."


don't forget the parable of the lost sheep and how it is the most precious. You laid the foundation, God will find them again.


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

Horsef said:


> If you permit, I would offer you a point of view of an atheist which might help you understand them better. *I am atheist (or agnostic or whatever the correct term is) because I don’t have the belief in a higher being. The emotion simply isn’t there.*
> 
> It is a very personal “decision” *which has nothing to do with how I was raised or with my family*. I’ve put “decision” in quotes because I never decided not to believe, just like I never decided to love my parents or to fall out of love with ex boyfriends. The emotion is either there or it isn’t.


I agree with these points given.

I am a teenager, so I'll walk lightly here, but I have a few things to add to this. 
I do not believe in God or gods. I think a lot of atheists are accused of not believing because we ''want to reject moral and all-powerful beings''. My parents were upset when I finally told them I don't believe in God (although they knew it without verification for years), and told me it was because I was a teenager and I was fighting them... I honestly don't think that's the reason. I mean, I was raised in the church and strong Christian homeschooling, and I never really believed in God. Its not me ''fighting'' them or God, its me genuinely not believing. I'm still going to church willingly, I'm not going to argue with them when they talk about God, I'm not suddenly changing my moral code and going against all that is good, I have no issue with religion existing, etc.. 

If I could have one thing, I would want my parents to not think of me as a teen in crisis _because_ of my atheism.
I know it will come with time, and that my parents deeply care for me and want the best for me. And for that, I could not love them more then I do. They are just about the best parents I could ask for.


----------



## Kaifyre (Jun 16, 2016)

I too am an atheist. My opinions on religion can be summed up quite nicely by a passage from Christopher Paolini's 'Eldest'. In this chapter, Visions Near And Far, Eragon asks his teacher Oromis about the elves' religion, and Oromis replies that elves do not worship anything. When Eragon responds in disbelief, Oromis explains his position and enumerates:


"But ask yourself this, Eragon: If gods exist, have they been good custodians of Alagaesia? Death, sickness, poverty, tyranny, and countless other miseries stalk the land. If this is the handiwork of divine beings, then they are to be rebelled against and overthrown, not given obeisance, obedience, and reverence."
.....
"It seems a cold world without something ... more."
"On the contrary," said Oromis, "it is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our own actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment. I won't tell you what to believe, Eragon. It is far better to be taught to think critically and then be allowed to make you own decisions than to have someone else's notions thrust upon you."


To me, belief in a deity does not make a person good. Non-belief does not make a person bad. Personally I don't feel that baptism should be allowed until a person is old enough to make their own decisions, to either accept or decline the notion of a god. I have seen a lot of young children .... indoctrinated, for lack of a better term ... into religions that they have nothing in common with as they grow older. Believing in a god simply because your parents do is not a good enough reason, in my books. Some people want or need the concept of a god in their lives ... I'm sure that brings them great happiness. For me, I live a good life and am perfectly happy without a god, so godless I shall remain. : )

-- Kai


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

Kaifyre said:


> To me, belief in a deity does not make a person good. Non-belief does not make a person bad. Personally I don't feel that baptism should be allowed until a person is old enough to make their own decisions, to either accept or decline the notion of a god. I have seen a lot of young children .... indoctrinated, for lack of a better term ... into religions that they have nothing in common with as they grow older. Believing in a god simply because your parents do is not a good enough reason, in my books. Some people want or need the concept of a god in their lives ... I'm sure that brings them great happiness. For me, I live a good life and am perfectly happy without a god, so godless I shall remain. : )
> 
> -- Kai


Well said! I agree completely. 

If people are happy believing in their god, and it doesn't cause mental or physical harm to any other creature or person, I have NO qualms with them.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

EmberScarlet said:


> I am a teenager, so I'll walk lightly here, but I have a few things to add to this.
> I do not believe in God or gods. I think a lot of atheists are accused of not believing because we ''want to reject moral and all-powerful beings''. My parents were upset when I finally told them I don't believe in God (although they knew it without verification for years), and told me it was because I was a teenager and I was fighting them... I honestly don't think that's the reason. I mean, I was raised in the church and strong Christian homeschooling, and I never really believed in God. Its not me ''fighting'' them or God, its me genuinely not believing. I'm still going to church willingly, I'm not going to argue with them when they talk about God, I'm not suddenly changing my moral code and going against all that is good, I have no issue with religion existing, etc..
> 
> If I could have one thing, I would want my parents to not think of me as a teen in crisis _because_ of my atheism.
> I know it will come with time, and that my parents deeply care for me and want the best for me. And for that, I could not love them more then I do. They are just about the best parents I could ask for.


No worries about being young, if you have questions, you might as well ask. 

Surely you have a reason though, for not believing. When I was younger and not a Christian, I was mostly confused about various doctrines, which lead to frustration and eventually I gave up for awhile on trying to figure things out. As St. Anselm once said, believing comes before understanding. 

I believe you when you say that you are not fighting against your parents. You are your own person and have to solve your own problems. It is good that you are respecting your parents.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Greenmeadows said:


> *Surely you have a reason though, for not believing*. When I was younger and not a Christian, I was mostly confused about various doctrines, which lead to frustration and eventually I gave up for awhile on trying to figure things out. As St. Anselm once said, believing comes before understanding.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

Greenmeadows said:


> Surely you have a reason though, for not believing. When I was younger and not a Christian, I was mostly confused about various doctrines, which lead to frustration and eventually I gave up for awhile on trying to figure things out. As St. Anselm once said, believing comes before understanding.


I'm sure that, if there is reason for me to believe in God, I will find it. And when that happens, I will welcome him with open arms, because Heaven sounds heckin' great! Who would reject that?


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

Kaifyre said:


> "But ask yourself this, Eragon: If gods exist, have they been good custodians of Alagaesia? Death, sickness, poverty, tyranny, and countless other miseries stalk the land. If this is the handiwork of divine beings, then they are to be rebelled against and overthrown, not given obeisance, obedience, and reverence."
> .....
> "It seems a cold world without something ... more."
> "On the contrary," said Oromis, "it is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our own actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment. I won't tell you what to believe, Eragon. It is far better to be taught to think critically and then be allowed to make you own decisions than to have someone else's notions thrust upon you."


 That is an interesting perspective, but doesn't answer the fundamental question of why. What reason, if there is no God, do we have to behave morally? I see humanity being prone to the whims and fancies of any given individual, leading to moral relativity. What one thinks may hold contrary to another, and all do what seems right at the moment. Seems confusing to me. Perhaps you could explain further.  




> To me, belief in a deity does not make a person good. Non-belief does not make a person bad. Personally I don't feel that baptism should be allowed until a person is old enough to make their own decisions, to either accept or decline the notion of a god. I have seen a lot of young children .... indoctrinated, for lack of a better term ... into religions that they have nothing in common with as they grow older. Believing in a god simply because your parents do is not a good enough reason, in my books. Some people want or need the concept of a god in their lives ... I'm sure that brings them great happiness. For me, I live a good life and am perfectly happy without a god, so godless I shall remain. : )
> 
> -- Kai


I agree, there are many who proclaim to be Christians and refuse to submit to the law of God; hence belief (or so they call it, but given a more thorough examination, proves rather a lack of inwardness) You are again right in saying it is not a lack of belief that makes one bad, but rather it is the act of doing wrong. In some particular denominations of Protestant churches, it is only when a child reaches the age of accountability that he or she is baptized, which remains more biblical IMO. Belief is an individual choice for eternity, and children do not yet possess the ability to fully comprehend what that entails.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

tinyliny said:


> Greenmeadows said:
> 
> 
> > *Surely you have a reason though, for not believing*. When I was younger and not a Christian, I was mostly confused about various doctrines, which lead to frustration and eventually I gave up for awhile on trying to figure things out. As St. Anselm once said, believing comes before understanding.
> ...


Belief or lack of belief is generally formed from some sort of reasoning. My reasoning when I was younger was that I didn't understand how or why evil existed and the doctrines of predestination. I had a reason to doubt, as now I have reasons for believing.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

EmberScarlet said:


> I'm sure that, if there is reason for me to believe in God, I will find it. And when that happens, I will welcome him with open arms, because Heaven sounds heckin' great! Who would reject that?


Keep searching and thinking about it then!  When you seek with an open mind and heart, you shall find indeed!


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

Greenmeadows said:


> That is an interesting perspective, but doesn't answer the fundamental question of why. What reason, if there is no God, do we have to behave morally? I see humanity being prone to the whims and fancies of any given individual, leading to moral relativity. What one thinks may hold contrary to another, and all do what seems right at the moment. Seems confusing to me. Perhaps you could explain further.


Well, I'd think that we'd evolutionary evolve to behave in a way that best promotes the success of the species. Our brain has a moral compass, and while its not completely apparent why or how it decided whats ''right and wrong'', its still there. 
For example, psychopaths have impaired abilities to feel guilt/remorse/pain. Studies show that their amygdala and orbital frontal cortex are very often smaller or less active, and thus their moral compass is severely impaired. 

I am not a professional, though.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

My not having adopted a theistic or even deistic world view is mostly cosmological in nature. _An omnipotent and omniscient being that serves as cause and reason for everything doesn't explain why any of the things we observe are the way they are or are not._ "Because God" is really the final answer, the end of all inquiry into the questions that move us: Why are we here? How did we come to be here? Why is there something rather than nothing and why does it exist the way it does? It seems to me that pushing the answer to these questions to a Creator, and a benevolent Creator at that, is a sign of not wanting to face some alternative answers that are not really that pretty, maybe even quite scary or even depressing - at the forefront of which being that we don't matter, that we are no more important _to the Universe_ than the dinosaurs.

So how does an atheist get "spiritual", how does one get the feeling of belonging to something greater than oneself? I, for one, find it fascinating that the matter that I am made of (anything heavier than hydrogen or helium, say) exists because a star collapsed and died. In my own death, I may lose my consciousness, my awareness, and my physical cohesion, but I am not going anywhere, as matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but simply be transformed. Through a sequence of unlikely and fortuitous events, I am self-aware, aware that I exist, and can ponder the environment that I live in, even understand it in some rudimentary way. Consider, however, the scope of my understanding, both in terms of space and time, against the vastness of the Universe, also both in terms of space and time. Religion endows the believer with an exceptional access to "Eternity" (via the vehicle of "Soul") that simply does not appear to exist for anything else. Why is that? For what purpose should there be a soul that exists forever? Can we even define "forever" in a way that doesn't simply convey "for a really long time"? That really comes back to the second sentence I wrote in this post.

Having said that, I acknowledge that my world view is a belief system just as well. We can't really run an experiment that would show us how a universe would look like (a) if there were a Creator, (b) if there were no Creator - not even a thought experiment. That, ultimately, renders the "existence" question a fruitless avenue of inquiry - it thus has no bearing on my decision making. Plato, philosopher of the 5th century BC, said _"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."_ Ditto for all the scriptures.


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

@mmshiro well said. My thoughts and ideas exactly.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

EmberScarlet said:


> Well, I'd think that we'd evolutionary evolve to behave in a way that best promotes the success of the species. Our brain has a moral compass, and while its not completely apparent why or how it decided whats ''right and wrong'', its still there.
> For example, psychopaths have impaired abilities to feel guilt/remorse/pain. Studies show that their amygdala and orbital frontal cortex are very often smaller or less active, and thus their moral compass is severely impaired.
> 
> I am not a professional, though.


Yes, to a point. But misses the fundamental question of where does morality come from? What caused, say, stealing to be wrong? If moral values were completely dependent on individuals, then no one could say that anything is wrong. If one adopts a perspective that evolution causes morality, due to the fact that sometimes it seems to help promote a species, then immoral acts such as stealing and lying ought to be seen as right. Stealing and lying sometimes cause an individual to be able to become more successful.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

I am finding it fascinating that so many atheists and those who do not claim any religion are interested in Christianity.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

mmshiro said:


> My not having adopted a theistic or even deistic world view is mostly cosmological in nature. _An omnipotent and omniscient being that serves as cause and reason for everything doesn't explain why any of the things we observe are the way they are or are not._ "Because God" is really the final answer, the end of all inquiry into the questions that move us: Why are we here? How did we come to be here? Why is there something rather than nothing and why does it exist the way it does? It seems to me that pushing the answer to these questions to a Creator, and a benevolent Creator at that, is a sign of not wanting to face some alternative answers that are not really that pretty, maybe even quite scary or even depressing - at the forefront of which being that we don't matter, that we are no more important _to the Universe_ than the dinosaurs.


Perhaps something more terrifying than having no significance in the world is actually having significance and being held accountable for every deed. It would be a relief to many if they had no purpose greater than themselves and they would simply devolve into a mere substance of no worth. It relieves a great deal of responsibility.



> So how does an atheist get "spiritual", how does one get the feeling of belonging to something greater than oneself? I, for one, find it fascinating that the matter that I am made of (anything heavier than hydrogen or helium, say) exists because a star collapsed and died. In my own death, I may lose my consciousness, my awareness, and my physical cohesion, but I am not going anywhere, as matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but simply be transformed. Through a sequence of unlikely and fortuitous events, I am self-aware, aware that I exist, and can ponder the environment that I live in, even understand it in some rudimentary way. Consider, however, the scope of my understanding, both in terms of space and time, against the vastness of the Universe, also both in terms of space and time. Religion endows the believer with an exceptional access to "Eternity" (via the vehicle of "Soul") that simply does not appear to exist for anything else. Why is that? For what purpose should there be a soul that exists forever? Can we even define "forever" in a way that doesn't simply convey "for a really long time"? That really comes back to the second sentence I wrote in this post.


An atheist does not "get spiritual", but rather must allow the Spirit to work in his or her soul. In Christianity, it is not the work of oneself that causes one to "become spiritual", but rather it is the power of God. 
As for being the result of a random explosion resulting in stardust, I find that absurd due to the fact of the complexity of the human body, much less the advanced ecosystems and other creatures. The chances of the correct type of hemoglobin alone forming into a proper structure to support life exceeds the Universal Probability because of the integrated structures required for life. The dual systems of the body, such as the functions that the heart and lungs must be developed simultaneously also don't seem to imply a random sort of development. 



> Having said that, I acknowledge that my world view is a belief system just as well. We can't really run an experiment that would show us how a universe would look like (a) if there were a Creator, (b) if there were no Creator - not even a thought experiment. That, ultimately, renders the "existence" question a fruitless avenue of inquiry - it thus has no bearing on my decision making. Plato, philosopher of the 5th century BC, said _"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."_ Ditto for all the scriptures.


Agreed. One cannot prove the existence or non-existence of a deity through a scientific method. But from what we can observe, we can make guesses about the possibilities. As for the quote of Plato's, the Moral Law presented in Scripture is not to help the "good" people, but the "bad.


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

Greenmeadows said:


> Yes, to a point. But misses the fundamental question of where does morality come from? What caused, say, stealing to be wrong?


Like I said, we don't know why, and I for one don't have all the answers. But, does that mean a God exists? No. It means we don't understand it yet. Where did God pull moral from, anyways? He would have had to come up with it, himself. 




> I am finding it fascinating that so many atheists and those who do not claim any religion are interested in Christianity.


I find religion to be one of the most interesting topics around. Not Christianity specifically, but religion in general.


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

I would like to know more about Native American spirits

Judaism is also interesting.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

EmberScarlet said:


> Like I said, we don't know why, and I for one don't have all the answers. But, does that mean a God exists? No. It means we don't understand it yet. Where did God pull moral from, anyways? He would have had to come up with it, himself.


 Exactly, I don't know all the answers either, no one does, and no one will ever fully understand it either. The structure morality has implied that it had some sort of intelligence to create it, as we have never observed structure coming from non-structure, nor order from non-order. And yes, the system of morality is part of God's attributes, and if He is eternal, then morality always existed, therefore, morality had no beginning. 






> I find religion to be one of the most interesting topics around. Not Christianity specifically, but religion in general.


Yes, it prompts a deeper thought into the existence and purpose of humanity.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

aubie said:


> I would like to know more about Native American spirits
> 
> Judaism is also interesting.


Those are interesting too, but I think it would be better to start a new thread for that.


----------



## ApuetsoT (Aug 22, 2014)

Greenmeadows said:


> Yes, to a point. But misses the fundamental question of where does morality come from? What caused, say, stealing to be wrong? If moral values were completely dependent on individuals, then no one could say that anything is wrong. If one adopts a perspective that evolution causes morality, due to the fact that sometimes it seems to help promote a species, then immoral acts such as stealing and lying ought to be seen as right. Stealing and lying sometimes cause an individual to be able to become more successful.


Morals are relative to the culture and society the individual grows up in. Ask a 1400 Aztec priest if human sacrifice is moral, and they would say yes. Ask a samurai warrior if seppuku is moral, they'd say yes. Ancient Greeks are famous for their gluttonous parties and debauchery. Very publicly accepted and encouraged. 

At a lower level, morals rise from pack behavior. It is generally negatively viewed to lie, steal from, or harm someone within your own family or tribe, across all cultures. If an individual acts against their tribe, they risk harm to themselves. Altruistic acts benefit the family unit as a whole, increasing survival chances. While individual 'immoral' acts might give an advantage at the time, overall they are detrimental to that individual's survival due to ostracism from the family unit. The impact isn't as deep today because we don't rely on our families as much as a prehistoric hunter-gatherer troupe would.

It's observable in non-human primates to some extent, but to get to our level there is a requisite self-awareness and emotional empathy.

For perspective, I'm a nihilist.


----------



## Kaifyre (Jun 16, 2016)

@Greenmeadows I suppose I believe that morality generally came about as a form of survivalism. Not killing other people allows your species to breed and spread (which is the fundamental drive of all living things). Not stealing allows all members to thrive, thus making it easier to breed. Helping each other again serves to make it easier to breed. This concept is seen in many creatures on this planet - wounded dolphins will take turns guarding and helping a pod member until it recovers. Wolf packs care for their elderly pack mates, bringing them food and setting a slow enough pace for the elderly to keep up. Humpback whales will assist other whale species in fighting off orcas and other oceanic predators, even when it is of little or no personal benefit. My own parrot will attempt to feed me when I am sick, and chase away people, objects or other creatures that she thinks will do me harm. 

While I think all of these creatures possess undeniable intelligence, I think we can all agree that none of them are as intelligent as we are. What, then, has resulted in them developing a sense of morality, as it were? I highly doubt any of these species are developed enough to have any concept of a deity, so I doubt there is any concept of divine punishment for killing a pack member or stealing all the fish from another dolphin. They assist one another because it helps them to survive. They have learned, over many generations, that cooperating brings the best way of living, so that's what they do - they do as much as they can to ensure their lives are as easy as possible, and if they have easy lives then it makes breeding more successful. Species that don't cooperate, that kill each other and make it generally harder for members of their own species to survive, make it harder to breed and therefore the chances of them going extinct increase. Since all creatures possess some degree of self preservation, such an act goes against their rudimentary knowledge. 

That's my take on it anyway. : )

-- Kai


----------



## gunslinger (Sep 17, 2011)

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 
who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell: 
The third day he rose again from the dead: 
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 
I believe in the Holy Ghost: 
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints: 
The forgiveness of sins: 
The resurrection of the body: 
And the life everlasting. Amen.


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

Greenmeadows said:


> Perhaps something more terrifying than having no significance in the world is actually having significance and being held accountable for every deed. It would be a relief to many if they had no purpose greater than themselves and they would simply devolve into a mere substance of no worth. It relieves a great deal of responsibility.


Nah, I don't observe that. Adherents of any religion believe they hit the jackpot with their own "proper" adherence to doctrine, and even that is iffy if you consider the intra-religious disputes of what constitutes "A True XXX". Nobody ever fears that *they* will be subject to negative consequences due to the judgment of _their_ deity - that's reserved for The Others.

You see, you don't have any feedback about how your deeds will be evaluated and thus rewarded or punished. You don't get feedback form your deity, the judging agent, if you are on track to get a good performance evaluation, or what you can do to get one. You are all alone in making it up as you go, trying and hoping for the best.




> An atheist does not "get spiritual", but rather must allow the Spirit to work in his or her soul. In Christianity, it is not the work of oneself that causes one to "become spiritual", but rather it is the power of God.


See, that is exactly my problem. What exactly is "the power of god", and is there anything that is not under its purview? If it explains everything, it explains nothing. If it is limited in scope, the deity is limited - which is not postulated by all religions. (Hinduism, for one, allows for deities with human fallacies.)



> As for being the result of a random explosion resulting in stardust, I find that absurd due to the fact of the complexity of the human body, much less the advanced ecosystems and other creatures.


And yet, it is supported by observation. The heavier elements that make up the atoms in our body were created by the immense energies of collapsing stars, pushing lighter elements into heavier atoms. We can actually do this in particle accelerators, so the method is sound. We have also observed these elements in asteroids from other parts of the galaxy. Unless you believe that our bodies are _not_ made of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. - that's where those elements come from.



> The chances of the correct type of hemoglobin alone forming into a proper structure to support life exceeds the Universal Probability because of the integrated structures required for life.


This fails to take into account the ability of matter to self-organize under the right conditions. Water molecules do not just coalesce into lumps of ice when it snows, they self-organize into highly complex patterns (snowflakes) - with just one simple molecule to work with. 

We have observed the emergence of simple, self-replicating organic structures in the primordial soup that covered Earth in its early days - in the lab.

The universe isn't random but highly ordered because of the laws of symmetry that matter obeys: conservation of energy being one of them. Thermodynamics explains how large scale structures self-organize by minimizing the total energy of a system; e.g. the spin alignments that spontaneously magnetize certain metals.

The "Universal Probability" is a made-up number based on a subjective judgment call, with no explanation why it has the value it does, nor how it can be computed. In the Wikipedia article itself, it says that, "_Dembski appeals to cryptographic practice in support of the concept of the universal probability bound, noting that cryptographers have sometimes compared the security of encryption algorithms against brute force attacks..._", thus clearly ignoring matter's tendency to form highly organized structures spontaneously, thus vastly underestimating the probability for the emergence of self-replicating organic structures which are the building blocks of life. 



> The dual systems of the body, such as the functions that the heart and lungs must be developed simultaneously also don't seem to imply a random sort of development.


Same fallacy as above. Nobody asserts that a bunch of dust, swirled up by a gust of wind, spontaneously coalesced into a human being.



> As for the quote of Plato's, the Moral Law presented in Scripture is not to help the "good" people, but the "bad.


Oh, I disagree very much. Humans always act out of self-interest. It may be enlightened self-interest (the realization that helping others helps oneself), but it is self-interest nonetheless. Thus, if you consider yourself a "good person", your self-interest induces you to take part in the reward system that is provided by your religion. The scripture spells out what that reward system is. For Christians, it's "salvation" (from the consequences of one's sins). (That, by the way, reminds me of the first sentence of your response, "being held accountable for one's deeds". There appears to be a contradiction, because being held responsible for each and every one of your thoughts, in eternity, makes salvation impossible.) In any case, "nirvana" would be the reward system for Hindus, "paradise" for Muslims. Nobody ever comes back, however, to report on the success or failure of their attempt to reap their reward, so you live hoping for a reward, or fearing a punishment, that may never come. 

Your faith gives you certainty that it is as you think it is, but reality has a way of not caring much about one's beliefs. The beauty is that as you get real feedback on your actions in reality, you can adjust and improve your outcome. Horses are a great example of rectifying mistaken beliefs regarding their (and your own) nature. Only natural laws give true accountability for your decisions. Societal rules are already artificial and depend on context and are subject to corruption. Nobody has ever received *observable, objective* feedback from any deity they believe in, past or present.


----------



## 6gun Kid (Feb 26, 2013)

mmshiro said:


> So how does an atheist get "spiritual", how does one get the feeling of belonging to something greater than oneself? .


 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

ApuetsoT said:


> Morals are relative to the culture and society the individual grows up in. Ask a 1400 Aztec priest if human sacrifice is moral, and they would say yes. Ask a samurai warrior if seppuku is moral, they'd say yes. Ancient Greeks are famous for their gluttonous parties and debauchery. Very publicly accepted and encouraged.
> 
> At a lower level, morals rise from pack behavior. It is generally negatively viewed to lie, steal from, or harm someone within your own family or tribe, across all cultures. If an individual acts against their tribe, they risk harm to themselves. Altruistic acts benefit the family unit as a whole, increasing survival chances. While individual 'immoral' acts might give an advantage at the time, overall they are detrimental to that individual's survival due to ostracism from the family unit. The impact isn't as deep today because we don't rely on our families as much as a prehistoric hunter-gatherer troupe would.
> 
> ...


If morality is relative to the culture and society an individual grows up in, who or what forms that morality? What causes human sacrifice and seppuku to be moral in their eyes, but not in ours? 
Even from my own limited experience, altruistic acts don't always lead to benefits. In fact, sometimes it goes the opposite. A patient and loving person is quick to be abused in society by others. Killing, in the form of wild animals, is also encouraged. A male cat will kill another cat's kittens to ensure his genetics remain at the top. Same with zebras, and other animals. Why don't humans go about killing another's young in order to ensure that only the strongest genetics survive?


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

I shall reply to the other posts at the first chance I get! But can't do so at the moment.


----------



## Celeste (Jul 3, 2011)

If we are going strictly on Darwinian survival of the fittest, we have no advantage to be "moral" outside of our own genetic line. According to Darwin, individuals with some genetic advantage will have a survival advantage. 

From a Darwinian survival point of view only, why is it wrong to kill someone besides your family? Why would you not steal to increase the advantages for your progeny? How can we put blame on murders, rapists (rape actually insures that the chances of one's offspring being produced increased) and other horrible crimes if there is no "greater good".

According to Darwinian philosophy alone -- he who has the most babies that survive and reproduce wins.

If are to be moral people, it is because we are more than just lions or zebras. The concept of a deity and a soul seem to be more relevant from this perspective.


----------



## knightrider (Jun 27, 2014)

For those of you who are searching, here are some books that I found very interesting:

_Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution_ by Michael J. Behe. This is not a support of creationism but just some intriguing thoughts by a very intelligent biochemist

_God, Man, and the Thinker, Philosophies of Religion_ by Donald A. Wells

For those of you who are searching about heaven, _Many Lives, Many Masters_ by Brian L. Weiss, MD

For me personally, I cannot challenge your ideas. Since I was very young I have known and felt God's presence. I assumed that other people do also, but apparently many do not. I don't argue about the existence of God because I feel him regularly. Like the song says, "He walks with me and talks with me along life's narrow way." For me, it would be like saying, "There is no couch in the living room," when I can feel it and sit in it.

I don't mean that God answers all of my prayers and does my will. I just mean that I feel his presence with me, even when he is saying "no." As C.S. Lewis says, "Aslan is not a tame lion."


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

Greenmeadows said:


> I_f morality is relative to the culture and society an individual grows up in, who or what forms that morality? What causes human sacrifice and seppuku to be moral in their eyes, but not in ours? _


Not God. Those cultures didn't even know about the Christian God. And, shouldn't your God have ''convicted'' them that what they were doing was wrong? If he had, wouldn't they have stopped? Its arrogant to assume everyone on a massive hunk of rock before modern technology would be subject to your morality. 
These cultures have been split away from the first man for thousands of years, and thus have nursed their own version of morality. 



> Even from my own limited experience, altruistic acts don't always lead to benefits. In fact, sometimes it goes the opposite. A patient and loving person is quick to be abused in society by others. Killing, in the form of wild animals, is also encouraged. A male cat will kill another cat's kittens to ensure his genetics remain at the top. Same with zebras, and other animals. Why don't humans go about killing another's young in order to ensure that only the strongest genetics survive?


Yes, but, as you can see we are at least a little different from most animals in one way - we rule the planet. Something along the line enabled us to be able to best conquer our surroundings. Its not necessarily the will of some God(s), but our own lack of understanding we had thousands of years ago that caused us to claim we are the image of a God. And anyways, we still do kill each other like animals. Ever heard if murder? War? More so then, than now, we were savages that killed each other frequently. 
The effects of selection are apparent in humans even now. While some of us are visiting the Moon, and soon Mars, others are still trapped in the stone age. Those who didn't approach science and evolve, will be left behind. It sounds cruel, but its true. So yes, some of the ''strongest genetics'' are thriving today, even despite our bodily health issues.

EDIT: I am aware that what I said isn't perfect, and doesn't quite put my point across. I'm bad at collecting thoughts and putting them in words. v-v''


----------



## Kaifyre (Jun 16, 2016)

I would just like to add that I am loving all of these well thought out and well reasoned responses, from both sides of the aisle. It is so hard to find people willing to participate in a calm, rational discussion and it is something I've sorely missed from high school debate tournaments. I think the world would be such a better place if every person in it were taught how to effectively debate. : ) I enjoy learning about other people's points of view, and where they're coming from, and how their view of the world differs from my own. I find it makes it easier for me to converse with them later on, and affords me a greater understanding of that individual. We are all unique, and I have always enjoyed learning about the uniqueness of others. 

Carry on, good peoples.

-- Kai


----------



## ApuetsoT (Aug 22, 2014)

Greenmeadows said:


> If morality is relative to the culture and society an individual grows up in, who or what forms that morality? What causes human sacrifice and seppuku to be moral in their eyes, but not in ours?


Their history and circumstances and their own spiritual beliefs. The Aztecs believed they were appeasing their gods with sacrifices. Seppuku relates back to warrior culture and dieing honourably


> Even from my own limited experience, altruistic acts don't always lead to benefits. In fact, sometimes it goes the opposite. A patient and loving person is quick to be abused in society by others.


I'm not convinced true altruism exists, in the sense of a selfless act performed with no gain or reward for the individual. How often have we heard someone say something along the lines of "The act of giving makes me feel good". Even if it's not a physical reward, altruistic behaviour still benefits in a chemical way. Self sacrificing behaviour causes others to look on the individual more favourably, meaning in the future they are more likely to receive benefit of it. It gets more complicated when you get into areas where the benefit is internal or transient, like the case of an honourable death or sacrificing one's life.



> Killing, in the form of wild animals, is also encouraged. A male cat will kill another cat's kittens to ensure his genetics remain at the top. Same with zebras, and other animals. Why don't humans go about killing another's young in order to ensure that only the strongest genetics survive?


It's about the family unit. Wars and conflict are between different units, familial, ideological, geographical, or cultural. All cultures have partaken in war in some form, with little qualms about killing the opposition if it means the survival of their own group. Humans and non-humans can't be compared straight across since they lack our emotional and self-awareness. There is also difference in that humans, for the most par, pair bond. Most other species do not, not even chimps.


----------



## InexcessiveThings (Oct 22, 2016)

We have an interesting, and actually respectful discussion here. Kudos to everyone for keeping it nice!



Greenmeadows said:


> That is an interesting perspective, but doesn't answer the fundamental question of why. What reason, if there is no God, do we have to behave morally? I see humanity being prone to the whims and fancies of any given individual, leading to moral relativity. What one thinks may hold contrary to another, and all do what seems right at the moment. Seems confusing to me. Perhaps you could explain further.


That's the thing about morality and ethics: it's all very much subjective. I took an undergraduate course in ethics a couple years ago, and that was a huge part of our class discussions and presentations. Every philosopher or ethicist comes up with their own system to analyze such things and explain why we do the things we do, and often they don't agree. What is moral or ethical, "right or wrong," is all dependent upon human society and the environment in which someone lives. Every culture has their own views on these things and so it is very challenging to use anything to standardize a reason for why we behave "morally" or what constitutes "moral action." The relativity of morality is unfortunately never going to go away because it does depend on human belief systems. So we have to behave morally because our human societies hold us accountable for behaviours that are considered unacceptable. We evolved complex societies which gave rise to such questions, which in turn produced belief systems to augment what was already established as acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. Again, this is all relative to the particular environment one lives in, and of course how a person grows up will (most likely) greatly influence their views as a adult. But the fact that we now live in a very interconnected world layers of complexity can be added because we have better exposure to other points of view and other belief systems and religions.

I don't believe in any sort of higher being, although I'm not sure I quite fit into the category of atheist it is close enough. This sort of thing also fascinates me despite this, as I am in a scientific field. The intersection of science and religion is interesting to me. We don't bring religion into science nearly as much as in the past as our understanding of how our world functions grows but it is still a part of the lives of many modern scientists. As I am going to school to be a paleontologist, I find myself moving further and further away from religious ideas. Yes, I know, the majority of all devout Christians don't have ridiculous creationist views, and there are many scientists who do manage to reconcile their religion with their profession (some of my family included). I however, cannot reconcile these two things. With the way I think and the things I study I simply cannot, by any logic, find the ability to believe in something like the Christian God or other higher being. I do have family and friends who are quite religious which I am perfectly fine with, but that ability to believe in something so intangible just doesn't exist in me, much like some others have said. If I had to say I believe in something, I would say I believe in science and it's ability to explain the world. Science can be used to explain or at least theorize how things we may not fully understand, given enough time and experimentation. I look at the world with a very analytical, logical point of view and for me that just does not mesh well with the ideas of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, god, gods, or other being.



Kaifyre said:


> @Greenmeadows
> While I think all of these creatures possess undeniable intelligence, I think we can all agree that none of them are as intelligent as we are. What, then, has resulted in them developing a sense of morality, as it were? I highly doubt any of these species are developed enough to have any concept of a deity, so I doubt there is any concept of divine punishment for killing a pack member or stealing all the fish from another dolphin. They assist one another because it helps them to survive. They have learned, over many generations, that cooperating brings the best way of living, so that's what they do - they do as much as they can to ensure their lives are as easy as possible, and if they have easy lives then it makes breeding more successful. Species that don't cooperate, that kill each other and make it generally harder for members of their own species to survive, make it harder to breed and therefore the chances of them going extinct increase. Since all creatures possess some degree of self preservation, such an act goes against their rudimentary knowledge.


You get at another interesting point here: how do we even begin to define intelligence? Human intelligence is different from say, a dolphin's intelligence or a whale's. We have very different ecological niches and lifestyles, so judging their intelligence by our standards is really very difficult and often problematic. These sorts of behaviours are helpful in keeping the species alive to reproduce, as is the goal of all life on Earth. I think it is important to remember that we are also part of the kingdom Animalia. _**** sapiens_ forms complex societies, and so do many other animals, but I think many people disregard these other animal communities because their ways of life can be difficult to comprehend due to our differences physically and ecologically. We humans even are an evolutionary success story. We have been able to overtake the planet due to our ability to exploit various resources in ways unlike other animals and we have bred to the point of unsustainable levels of biomass for the planet. So no, these other creatures would not have an idea of a higher power like humans do but the way they behave to maximize their ability to survive and pass on their genes is the same thing we do just in a different sort of way. Human morals you could argue arise out of an evolutionary history that drove our ancestors to do all they could to pass on their genes which happened to involve the creation of human societies (safety in numbers, perhaps, among other things) as we know them. Religion and spirituality are just other ways to define human morals that go far beyond the simple ideas that killing your own species is counter productive to long term survival or helping the injured will help maintain your gene pool.


----------



## Spanish Rider (May 1, 2014)

> I feel like I have not been a good enough Christian example to have them turn away so completely


*knightrider,*
I am so sorry to hear you say this. My mother also did her best to raise us "Christian". It seemed to work for my sister, but for me not so much.

I have not "turned away" per se, but I have a hard time with faith. It would seem that I have a scientific mind: I analyze, question and find holes in theories, not just in religion, but in everyday life. It is part of my nature, and I am my father's daughter (he was a research scientist). I truly believe that there is nothing that my mother could have done differently to raise me to develop a sense of faith. And, let's not forget that it is God who has given me this brain, this capacity for analysis, this unending doubt. Furthermore, I truly believe that there must be a reason for it. Without it, we as humans would still believe the Earth is flat, and so many medical advances would never have been developed, etc, etc.

Yet, faith is something I am envious of. I see the faith of others and wish I could experience the same. For a time, as a recent mother, I even prayed for it, but to no avail. It is just not meant to be. I have raised my children in the Catholic Church (or rather, their father has). I have been very careful over the years to not lay the seed of doubt in their minds, yet as they are coming into adulthood, I can see it in their eyes.

And, surprisingly enough, this summer, as my father lay on his death bed and the pastor came to pray, he hugged my mother and said, "You will be with him again." And her response? "Will I really? How can you be so sure?" So, you see, even the most faithful of us experience moments of doubt. Or, perhaps my mother is just like myself, secretly searching for a faith that never seems to come.

I find solace in a phrase that was often uttered in the Unitarian Universalist Church when I was a child, although I never truly understood it until I was an adult: "To Question Is the Answer." So, I keep questioning.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

For me all religions are interesting. Judaism, Hindu, Christianity, Budism and Muslim. All believe in a more powerful God or Gods. 

However, I am not a church goer. Totally pointless me attending a Sunday Service as I just fall asleep! 

What I have found in life is many who do go to church on a regular basis are far less likely to act in a Christian way. 

I have known three truly Christian people in my life, two of those being my parents and the other my first riding instructor. All three looked for the good in all things, they went out of their way to help others - even total strangers. That to me, is way more important than going to church every week. 

I do know of people who were brought up with very strict religious beliefs and they were ruled by fear of sinning until an age when thy totally rebelled against their upbringing of beliefs. 

What I believe is very different to most. I do believe in God the Father and from there on it breaks away somewhat from the usual beliefs. 

I did try to read the bible all the way through, got stuck on the begats and the begotten. What isnwritten in the good book is fascinating, how did they know about evolution? The fact that the world was created in seven days - what is a day in evolution? 
On the other side there are many contradictions which makes it all the more fascinating to me.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

Kaifyre said:


> @Greenmeadows I suppose I believe that morality generally came about as a form of survivalism. Not killing other people allows your species to breed and spread (which is the fundamental drive of all living things). Not stealing allows all members to thrive, thus making it easier to breed. Helping each other again serves to make it easier to breed. This concept is seen in many creatures on this planet - wounded dolphins will take turns guarding and helping a pod member until it recovers. Wolf packs care for their elderly pack mates, bringing them food and setting a slow enough pace for the elderly to keep up. Humpback whales will assist other whale species in fighting off orcas and other oceanic predators, even when it is of little or no personal benefit. My own parrot will attempt to feed me when I am sick, and chase away people, objects or other creatures that she thinks will do me harm.


Killing others ensures that the strongest breed and survive. A moral law protects the weak, the lame, the sick, the old, and the very young. Those with bad genetics and the inability to survive ought not to be breeding material, and usually aren't. As for not stealing, that seems to only be a trait in a few species, not throughout the entire animal kingdom, hence it cannot be a valid reason for why not stealing helps others survive. 
That is cute with your parrot though! 



> While I think all of these creatures possess undeniable intelligence, I think we can all agree that none of them are as intelligent as we are. What, then, has resulted in them developing a sense of morality, as it were? I highly doubt any of these species are developed enough to have any concept of a deity, so I doubt there is any concept of divine punishment for killing a pack member or stealing all the fish from another dolphin. They assist one another because it helps them to survive. They have learned, over many generations, that cooperating brings the best way of living, so that's what they do - they do as much as they can to ensure their lives are as easy as possible, and if they have easy lives then it makes breeding more successful. Species that don't cooperate, that kill each other and make it generally harder for members of their own species to survive, make it harder to breed and therefore the chances of them going extinct increase. Since all creatures possess some degree of self preservation, such an act goes against their rudimentary knowledge.
> 
> That's my take on it anyway. : )
> 
> -- Kai


Do they actually think about what they do and why they do it? Or is it mere instinct, and not morality at all? Whereas humans possess the capability to think and reason on why some things are right and some things are wrong. Morality, then, must have a conscious reaction to a situation. There are species that are thriving that compete with each other, not caring about another member, such as previously stated. If it is harder to breed, then only the strongest will survive, ensuring better genetics for future generations


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

Greenmeadows said:


> Killing others ensures that the strongest breed and survive. A moral law protects the weak, the lame, the sick, the old, and the very young. Those with bad genetics and the inability to survive ought not to be breeding material, and usually aren't. As for not stealing, that seems to only be a trait in a few species, not throughout the entire animal kingdom, hence it cannot be a valid reason for why not stealing helps others survive.


You say below that animals have no moral. You say here that *moral law* protects the weak/lame/sick/elderly... Many intelligent creatures still protect ALL these things. (Going on a bit of side tangent) Some animals have evolved to bond with others, have complex relationships, and feel empathy. Crows, elephants, dolphins, and others have been studied time and time again, showing they react strongly to dead bodies or bones (the fact that they recognize the BONES of their species I find *incredible*) or the passing of a ''loved one''. Elephants have been observed crying over dead offspring and family members. 



> Do they actually think about what they do and why they do it? Or is it mere instinct, and not morality at all? Whereas humans possess the capability to think and reason on why some things are right and some things are wrong. Morality, then, must have a conscious reaction to a situation. There are species that are thriving that compete with each other, not caring about another member, such as previously stated. If it is harder to breed, then only the strongest will survive, ensuring better genetics for future generations


I think dismissing all other animals as not sentient/aware is a tad ignorant. 
Dolphins have an observable and complex language (not to be confused with other creatures' communication), names, and an ability to scientifically approach things (even knowing which corals provide antibacterial agents). We are now sure some species feel grief and emotion. Scientists are now starting to accept animal sentience and look into it going forward. 
Just because your book says you have dominion of all the animals on the Earth doesn't mean they are stupid or not sentient.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

mmshiro said:


> Nah, I don't observe that. Adherents of any religion believe they hit the jackpot with their own "proper" adherence to doctrine, and even that is iffy if you consider the intra-religious disputes of what constitutes "A True XXX". Nobody ever fears that *they* will be subject to negative consequences due to the judgment of _their_ deity - that's reserved for The Others.


Since this is a thread on Christianity, it would be most appropriate to address questions based on a Christian perspective. A true Christian fears not doing the will of God, which will have negative consequences even though in many denominations the security of salvation is not affected. 





> You see, you don't have any feedback about how your deeds will be evaluated and thus rewarded or punished. You don't get feedback form your deity, the judging agent, if you are on track to get a good performance evaluation, or what you can do to get one. You are all alone in making it up as you go, trying and hoping for the best.


The Christian religion is not based on one's works, but rather the grace of God. Our deeds are as filthy rags, and it is useless to try and perform more good deeds to outweigh the bad. We already know that not a single human will get a "good performance evaluation". This is why Christ died, in order that we may be justified before a perfect and holy God; this grace is not of ourselves, but completely of God. 






> See, that is exactly my problem. What exactly is "the power of god", and is there anything that is not under its purview? If it explains everything, it explains nothing. If it is limited in scope, the deity is limited - which is not postulated by all religions. (Hinduism, for one, allows for deities with human fallacies.)


The power of God is His Spirit dwelling in us. As we are not God, and never will be, we do not see the full range of things as He sees it; it does not limit His power if He chooses to not show us everything He sees, but rather He sends His Spirit that we may have the strength to continue against evil. 



> And yet, it is supported by observation. The heavier elements that make up the atoms in our body were created by the immense energies of collapsing stars, pushing lighter elements into heavier atoms. We can actually do this in particle accelerators, so the method is sound. We have also observed these elements in asteroids from other parts of the galaxy. Unless you believe that our bodies are _not_ made of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. - that's where those elements come from.


Where did the elements come from? And yet the existence of the integrated complexity we see in nature is not explained. Suppose by some freak of nature (dare we call it supernatural?), that the amino acids where arranged into the correct order that supports life. What good is that unless we also have a system that is able to read this code? No life is possible unless it has some sort of coded system, and another system developed at the same time to read the first coded system. 




> This fails to take into account the ability of matter to self-organize under the right conditions. Water molecules do not just coalesce into lumps of ice when it snows, they self-organize into highly complex patterns (snowflakes) - with just one simple molecule to work with.


What are the right conditions and what are the odds of the right conditions forming at precisely the right moment with the right elements? Snowflakes are one thing, but life is another. No one has ever been able to create life from non-life in the lab. Life is far more complex than a mere snowflake. 


> We have observed the emergence of simple, self-replicating organic structures in the primordial soup that covered Earth in its early days - in the lab.


Care to share that study? It sounds like an interesting read! 



> The universe isn't random but highly ordered because of the laws of symmetry that matter obeys: conservation of energy being one of them. Thermodynamics explains how large scale structures self-organize by minimizing the total energy of a system; e.g. the spin alignments that spontaneously magnetize certain metals.


Why does the universe follow those laws? The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains that any system must end up in entropy. So, then we face many more questions, such as when did the universe begin, how and why did it begin, and why did structure come about when we are sliding towards entropy? 




> The "Universal Probability" is a made-up number based on a subjective judgment call, with no explanation why it has the value it does, nor how it can be computed. In the Wikipedia article itself, it says that, "_Dembski appeals to cryptographic practice in support of the concept of the universal probability bound, noting that cryptographers have sometimes compared the security of encryption algorithms against brute force attacks..._", thus clearly ignoring matter's tendency to form highly organized structures spontaneously, thus vastly underestimating the probability for the emergence of self-replicating organic structures which are the building blocks of life.


One way or another, of the 20 amino acids necessary arranged in such a manner to support life is against the odds. It is impossible. 



> Same fallacy as above. Nobody asserts that a bunch of dust, swirled up by a gust of wind, spontaneously coalesced into a human being.


By asserting that it was mere chance that developed life, then it would seem equally strange. 



> Oh, I disagree very much. Humans always act out of self-interest. It may be enlightened self-interest (the realization that helping others helps oneself), but it is self-interest nonetheless. Thus, if you consider yourself a "good person", your self-interest induces you to take part in the reward system that is provided by your religion. The scripture spells out what that reward system is. For Christians, it's "salvation" (from the consequences of one's sins). (That, by the way, reminds me of the first sentence of your response, "being held accountable for one's deeds". There appears to be a contradiction, because being held responsible for each and every one of your thoughts, in eternity, makes salvation impossible.) In any case, "nirvana" would be the reward system for Hindus, "paradise" for Muslims. Nobody ever comes back, however, to report on the success or failure of their attempt to reap their reward, so you live hoping for a reward, or fearing a punishment, that may never come.


No one has the authority to say that all humans always act out of self-interest unless one can know all things, which would then be an attribute of a deity. Being held accountable for each deed is valid under the law, but by grace, one may find redemption from missing the mark of perfection. In Christianity, what has one been rewarded for? Salvation is not a reward for good work, nor is it something anyone can earn. It was given to us by a merciful God. It is true that no one comes back to report, but eventually one will find out regardless. If you live hoping for a "reward", is that such a terrible fate? To have a mission and purpose in life, a reason to keep trying? To have hope? 



> Your faith gives you certainty that it is as you think it is, but reality has a way of not caring much about one's beliefs. The beauty is that as you get real feedback on your actions in reality, you can adjust and improve your outcome. Horses are a great example of rectifying mistaken beliefs regarding their (and your own) nature. Only natural laws give true accountability for your decisions. Societal rules are already artificial and depend on context and are subject to corruption. Nobody has ever received *observable, objective* feedback from any deity they believe in, past or present.


I see a lot of generalization in that statement.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

Celeste said:


> If we are going strictly on Darwinian survival of the fittest, we have no advantage to be "moral" outside of our own genetic line. According to Darwin, individuals with some genetic advantage will have a survival advantage.
> 
> From a Darwinian survival point of view only, why is it wrong to kill someone besides your family? Why would you not steal to increase the advantages for your progeny? How can we put blame on murders, rapists (rape actually insures that the chances of one's offspring being produced increased) and other horrible crimes if there is no "greater good".
> 
> ...


Very good points.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

knightrider said:


> I don't mean that God answers all of my prayers and does my will. I just mean that I feel his presence with me, even when he is saying "no." As C.S. Lewis says, "Aslan is not a tame lion."


Those look like excellent books!  

It can be hard to be submissive to His will when we want our own ways, but nothing is impossible with Christ!


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

EmberScarlet said:


> Not God. Those cultures didn't even know about the Christian God. And, shouldn't your God have ''convicted'' them that what they were doing was wrong? If he had, wouldn't they have stopped? Its arrogant to assume everyone on a massive hunk of rock before modern technology would be subject to your morality.
> These cultures have been split away from the first man for thousands of years, and thus have nursed their own version of morality.


And if not God, the what? If 3y/x= not z, then "not z" could be anything. If you shut out possibilities, then you may never discover the truth. I cannot speak for what they felt in their conscience, but I do know that often people shut off their consciences, hence why they refused to stop. 
As for the second paragraph, I agree that there is largely an amount of corruption from what once was. 




> Yes, but, as you can see we are at least a little different from most animals in one way - we rule the planet. Something along the line enabled us to be able to best conquer our surroundings. Its not necessarily the will of some God(s), but our own lack of understanding we had thousands of years ago that caused us to claim we are the image of a God. And anyways, we still do kill each other like animals. Ever heard if murder? War? More so then, than now, we were savages that killed each other frequently.



Was it a lack of understanding? As you offer no valid argument otherwise, other than "not God", one has no reason to think differently, as "not z" could be anything, and not providing why z is an incorrect answer is a bit confusing. Yes, that was my point in terms of murder. Most people are against war because of the cost of life. Only those who are viewed as villains enjoy killing, but the animals hold no such prejudice. They kill because they do not know right from wrong.


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

@Greenmeadows
My apologies for the confusion, I'm simple terrible at getting my point across and making sense.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

I find all the endless back and forth about whether God exists and what good religion is, and how it is "anti science" so mysterious. Reason plays no part in my belief in God, and really, neither does belief, if you mean by that, things your parents and the Bible told you were true. I was never coerced or frightened into belief, and I never in the slightest had any conflict between my experience of God and scientific theories. I can't even imagine how to begin to do this.

I knew God existed as long as I can remember. No one told me about him. It was a private matter I never discussed or even thought to. I was raised by atheists, became a Buddhist in my early twenties (which to me is an awareness practice which does not require a belief in anything), but drifted away from the Buddhist community though not the practices. I never connected my God with religion until I "accidentally" found myself in a Catholic church at Christmas, 25 years ago. Never had been in a church before except for other people's weddings. Never had opened a Bible. 

You could say I found religion but it was much more like, OH, THERE you are! Only who was saying it? I was extremely grateful to the Church. Still am.

I have spent a quarter century being a practicing Catholic -- singing in the choir, serving in many ministries, becoming an oblate of the Camaldolese Benedictines -- and right now I could not honestly say if I am a Catholic in any conventional sense of the word. Or even a Christian. It seems to me that now, in my early sixties, I am returning to my original being, one who feels God, hears God, talks to God, depends on God, but he is a God without a name or a religion or a book, again. 

I'm not a lapsed Catholic, or a disaffected Catholic . . . just an odd soul.


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

I agree, the back-and-forth probably doesn't belong on this thread. I'm not trying to prove God doesn't exist or anything - you can't prove it one way or the other.  Loved it discussing with you all!


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

ApuetsoT said:


> Their history and circumstances and their own spiritual beliefs. The Aztecs believed they were appeasing their gods with sacrifices. Seppuku relates back to warrior culture and dieing honourably.


 One must examine where did their history come from, and that history, and so forth until the very beginning is reached. What caused morality to develop in the first place? If then, the Aztecs believed they were satisfying their gods with such sacrifice, then the killing in their minds was not murder, but a delusion of doing good. If one would have shown them that their gods never existed, it is likely they would not kill anymore because their conscience would get in the way. A similar thing happened in Nazi Germany, those who were assigned to kill were overtaken by their conscience, even though their agenda told them they were doing the world a favor. Similar thoughts on the Seppuku. 



> I'm not convinced true altruism exists, in the sense of a selfless act performed with no gain or reward for the individual. How often have we heard someone say something along the lines of "The act of giving makes me feel good". Even if it's not a physical reward, altruistic behaviour still benefits in a chemical way. Self sacrificing behaviour causes others to look on the individual more favourably, meaning in the future they are more likely to receive benefit of it. It gets more complicated when you get into areas where the benefit is internal or transient, like the case of an honourable death or sacrificing one's life.


We can hear it by many, but it doesn't necessarily hold true for everyone. The heart must be judged, and I am not inclined to believe humans to have the ability to judge another's heart.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

EmberScarlet said:


> @Greenmeadows
> My apologies for the confusion, I'm simple terrible at getting my point across and making sense.


No problem.  It would be helpful though if you could define your argument a little more clearly than just saying that God didn't do it.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

Avna said:


> I find all the endless back and forth about whether God exists and what good religion is, and how it is "anti science" so mysterious. Reason plays no part in my belief in God, and really, neither does belief, if you mean by that, things your parents and the Bible told you were true. I was never coerced or frightened into belief, and I never in the slightest had any conflict between my experience of God and scientific theories. I can't even imagine how to begin to do this.
> 
> I knew God existed as long as I can remember. No one told me about him. It was a private matter I never discussed or even thought to. I was raised by atheists, became a Buddhist in my early twenties (which to me is an awareness practice which does not require a belief in anything), but drifted away from the Buddhist community though not the practices. I never connected my God with religion until I "accidentally" found myself in a Catholic church at Christmas, 25 years ago. Never had been in a church before except for other people's weddings. Never had opened a Bible.
> 
> ...


Hmm, interesting!


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

Greenmeadows said:


> No problem.  It would be helpful though if you could define your argument a little more clearly than just saying that God didn't do it.


I'm not sure there's a better way to say it. Maybe I'll try later, but I think its better to leave this thread for the other Christians, not debates.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

EmberScarlet said:


> I'm not sure there's a better way to say it. Maybe I'll try later, but I think its better to leave this thread for the other Christians, not debates.


Haha, okay. Not sure about the others, but I like thinking about different approaches to beliefs and defining what I believe. Feel free to PM me if you want to keep discussing it!


----------



## NavigatorsMom (Jan 9, 2012)

I will share my story/thoughts, but can't promise I'll respond as this thread seems to be moving quickly! 

I was raised going to church with my family, participated in the youth group as a teenager, and spent a lot of time in campus ministry in college. I loved being a part of these groups and really felt at home with these like-minded people, especially in college - I was a part of the Wesley ministry and my college's group seemed particularly open-minded. I also spent a LOT of time on a Narnia-centered forum in 2008-09, which was also pretty religious (The Dancing Lawn, if anyone here was ever active there - how funny would that be!) I consider myself Christian but in a very loose way. I believe in God - that's just a thing that's true for me, like the sky being blue or something. But other than that... I don't believe the Bible should be taken literally - the stories are stories, meant to help people understand how to live a good life, but they are not instructions for how life should be lived. Even if they were, at this point they have been translated and translated so many times over, it is questionable if the meaning in what we read as a Bible today is even what was originally meant. It just doesn't seem right to literally follow instructions from so many years ago and try to apply them directly to life today. 

I am fully supportive of LGBT+ rights, pro-choice, and believe in evolution. If I am being fully honest I can say that while I believe in God and identify as a Christian, I don't believe that my way is the only way. If we are going so far as to say that this being made us and the world and the universe... who's to say that there weren't others taking part in that? Who's to say that what I believe and what someone else believes are actually different? Could different religions be different ways of directing us to the same kind of mental peace or spiritual health? I don't know, and I feel much less positive of things than I did when I was younger and had not seen so much of the world. But my faith gives me something to hold on to, and is real to me, and I think that's the important thing. 

Just to clarify, I don't believe that you have to be a Christian/religious to be a good person - I feel that many Christians currently are NOT living their lives in a way that reflects the love of Jesus. And I while my faith is important to me, it is a personal thing - my fiance is not religious and that is not an issue in our relationship at all, because the core things about him - that he is a good person who cares for others, etc., is much more important than his thoughts on how the universe was created or where we go when we die.


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

Some random thoughts picked from bits and pieces from what's been posted. In no particular order.

I don't have a scientific brain. I have a handicappers brain. I see patterns, probabilities, etc.

Helping others is the most important thing. -Inasmuch as you do unto the least of these, you have done also into Me . 

I have always struggled with predestination, Gods Will, free will. I think humans blur the line. Pastors always seemed to be "called" to a better job. Search committees for pastors remind me of the same thing for coaches. 

I do believe as mentioned in God. I to vary somewhat after that in most forms of the Christian religion. One big area is the Bible itself. I believe some of the things, does and don'ts, reflect not Devine inspiration as much as humans, albeit well meaning, inserted what they thought or what was going on at the time. Where you get contrition. 

God has never answered a prayer of mine. Garth Brooks lyrics aside, I mean something that was just for me. Not for grandma to get better or the like lots of people are praying for. The prayers of the righteous availith much. Maybe that's part of it. Maybe a bigger part is I still believe anyway. 

Alan Jackson has a lyric in one of his songs " I can't seem to talk to God without yelling anymore ". I am glad that part is over. 

I realize this isn't very articulate. Certain things I am a purposeful simpleton.


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

knightrider said:


> For me personally, I cannot challenge your ideas. Since I was very young I have known and felt God's presence. I assumed that other people do also, but apparently many do not. I don't argue about the existence of God because I feel him regularly. Like the song says, "He walks with me and talks with me along life's narrow way." For me, it would be like saying, "There is no couch in the living room," when I can feel it and sit in it.
> 
> I don't mean that God answers all of my prayers and does my will. I just mean that I feel his presence with me, even when he is saying "no." As C.S. Lewis says, "Aslan is not a tame lion."


Couldn't have said it better myself :thumbsup:

It is like trying to explain what a gallop feels like, or what collection feels like, or what jumping feels like, to someone who has never tried it, never felt it. Denying His existence and influence in my life would be like denying that I need oxygen to breathe. Some may call it a 'blind faith', but to me it is not blind, for I have felt Him near to me and talked with him, and I have seen the result of His will in my life. He is not an OCD controlling God either, He gently guides, like a father does to his children, or like we do with our beloved horses. I can confidently say from experience that His ways are consistently better than mine, and His plans greater than my own. It's a relationship built on trust, from which came strong faith. I don't know how else to put it, He is dear and akin to me as a father. I could not explain the overwhelming feeling of love He gives to me, only that it is the love of a father.

Of course, some just think I'm nuts. I'm OK with that.


----------



## InexcessiveThings (Oct 22, 2016)

Greenmeadows said:


> Where did the elements come from? And yet the existence of the integrated complexity we see in nature is not explained. Suppose by some freak of nature (dare we call it supernatural?), that the amino acids where arranged into the correct order that supports life. What good is that unless we also have a system that is able to read this code? No life is possible unless it has some sort of coded system, and another system developed at the same time to read the first coded system.
> 
> What are the right conditions and what are the odds of the right conditions forming at precisely the right moment with the right elements? Snowflakes are one thing, but life is another. No one has ever been able to create life from non-life in the lab. Life is far more complex than a mere snowflake.


 @Greenmeadows, I feel a need to point out that a couple statements you made here are not quite correct. No one would likely dispute you on saying that life can be far more complex than the physical processes that produce weather. The point of theories like evolution are to explain how life works. With each new discovery, we gain new insights in the origins of complex life. It would be foolish to say that we fully understand or ever will fully understand life, how it developed and how it works (we do have a good understanding of most biological processes though). Human intelligence can only go so far. We only have one example of life available to us as well: Earth. But I have a hard time with simply assigning some supernatural origin to it whether someone thinks it is implied by the way life-molecules organize or by something else. We can't just say that all aspects of life's necessary molecules (among other things) is attributable to God when there is actual science that explains many of these things. It seems to me that we are often grasping at straws by trying to explain poorly understood phenomena either through scientific experimentation or by attributing them to a God. Neither is entirely infallible in such a regard. 

The leading theory on the beginnings of life actually starts with biosynthesis, which in very simple terms, is the creation of organic molecules in an abiotic environment. So the idea is that organic molecules can be synthesized through chemical reaction of inorganic material and these molecules would have to have arisen first before more complex structures as said structures are made from the synthesized molecules in question. You can google "Miller-Urey experiment 1985" and get lots of results, including more recent work that has corroborated the original experiment where they produced abiotic synthesis of biomolecules in the lab (albeit the new work is sometimes under diff. conditions). My point is, the building blocks of life can be created in a lab quite easily, so yes, "life" as you seem to be implying here, has not exactly been created in a lab from nothing but organic materials that are highly important to structuring life have been, so who's to say we won't ever see something more? Synthetic biology is a new field that deals in similar things, making artificial biological entities like enzymes. Also, amino acids don't have any sort of "code" like you say that needs to be read by something. They are used to build larger proteins mainly. Nothing code-like about them.

The conditions that made life on Earth possible were probably truly extraordinary, and we have no way of knowing for certain what those conditions were or how life arose, but we _can_ make pretty educated guesses based in modern scientific knowledge and procedure. That's what science is for; to study the world around us and explain it's phenomenon by use of our meagre intelligence. I don't intend by any means to try and say definitively that God doesn't exist. OR say that anyone who believes in God is crazy just because I do. I just mean to point out that your argument here is a little lacking. But I digress. This is far off from the original topic at hand, so I don't want to sidetrack things too much while I keep writing walls of text...


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

NavigatorsMom said:


> I will share my story/thoughts, but can't promise I'll respond as this thread seems to be moving quickly!
> 
> I was raised going to church with my family, participated in the youth group as a teenager, and spent a lot of time in campus ministry in college. I loved being a part of these groups and really felt at home with these like-minded people, especially in college - I was a part of the Wesley ministry and my college's group seemed particularly open-minded. I also spent a LOT of time on a Narnia-centered forum in 2008-09, which was also pretty religious (The Dancing Lawn, if anyone here was ever active there - how funny would that be!) I consider myself Christian but in a very loose way. I believe in God - that's just a thing that's true for me, like the sky being blue or something. But other than that... I don't believe the Bible should be taken literally - the stories are stories, meant to help people understand how to live a good life, but they are not instructions for how life should be lived. Even if they were, at this point they have been translated and translated so many times over, it is questionable if the meaning in what we read as a Bible today is even what was originally meant. It just doesn't seem right to literally follow instructions from so many years ago and try to apply them directly to life today.
> 
> ...


Interesting view!  I think Scripture, particularly in the Old Testament, is a good source of history too. 
I agree that many Christians don't live out their faith. The road is long and narrow; it's very hard to live the way God desires.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

aubie said:


> Some random thoughts picked from bits and pieces from what's been posted. In no particular order.
> 
> I don't have a scientific brain. I have a handicappers brain. I see patterns, probabilities, etc.





> I have always struggled with predestination, Gods Will, free will. I think humans blur the line. Pastors always seemed to be "called" to a better job. Search committees for pastors remind me of the same thing for coaches.


 Yes, that is a very difficult doctrine to understand. Most don't understand it from a biblical perspective, but sometimes people will project their will and try to make it look like God's, which makes it even more difficult to understand.



> I do believe as mentioned in God. I to vary somewhat after that in most forms of the Christian religion. One big area is the Bible itself. I believe some of the things, does and don'ts, reflect not Devine inspiration as much as humans, albeit well meaning, inserted what they thought or what was going on at the time. Where you get contrition.


Supposing that the Bible wasn't Divinely inspirired, one then faces the problem that it becomes impossible to know for sure what is right and wrong, or even what is true. For instance, if the command to not murder is a mere human invention, then what reason do we have to obey it, other than it might make things better for us? The same goes for other commands too, such as loving your enemy.  



> God has never answered a prayer of mine. Garth Brooks lyrics aside, I mean something that was just for me. Not for grandma to get better or the like lots of people are praying for. The prayers of the righteous availith much. Maybe that's part of it. Maybe a bigger part is I still believe anyway.
> 
> Alan Jackson has a lyric in one of his songs " I can't seem to talk to God without yelling anymore ". I am glad that part is over.


Yeah, I feel your frustration there. Sometimes it seems like God won't answer our prayers when sometimes He just says "No" or "Wait". It seems as if He doesn't hear us, but it may be that it just isn't what we want to hear. I struggle with this too, so you aren't alone!


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

InexcessiveThings said:


> @Greenmeadows, I feel a need to point out that a couple statements you made here are not quite correct. No one would likely dispute you on saying that life can be far more complex than the physical processes that produce weather. The point of theories like evolution are to explain how life works. With each new discovery, we gain new insights in the origins of complex life. It would be foolish to say that we fully understand or ever will fully understand life, how it developed and how it works (we do have a good understanding of most biological processes though). Human intelligence can only go so far. We only have one example of life available to us as well: Earth. But I have a hard time with simply assigning some supernatural origin to it whether someone thinks it is implied by the way life-molecules organize or by something else. We can't just say that all aspects of life's necessary molecules (among other things) is attributable to God when there is actual science that explains many of these things. It seems to me that we are often grasping at straws by trying to explain poorly understood phenomena either through scientific experimentation or by attributing them to a God. Neither is entirely infallible in such a regard.


It seems a bit silly to give science the attributes of a deity, IMO. Science is merely that what we can observe; the beginning of life seems to be metaphysical in nature, that can be neither proved nor disproved by the scientific theory. As for things being explained by science, I never disagreed. Many notable scientists believe in a Creator, and find nothing contradictory in it. Science is a tool which we may use to study the universe around us; so of course, many inquisitive theists will use it. 




> The leading theory on the beginnings of life actually starts with biosynthesis, which in very simple terms, is the creation of organic molecules in an abiotic environment. So the idea is that organic molecules can be synthesized through chemical reaction of inorganic material and these molecules would have to have arisen first before more complex structures as said structures are made from the synthesized molecules in question. You can google "Miller-Urey experiment 1985" and get lots of results, including more recent work that has corroborated the original experiment where they produced abiotic synthesis of biomolecules in the lab (albeit the new work is sometimes under diff. conditions). My point is, the building blocks of life can be created in a lab quite easily, so yes, "life" as you seem to be implying here, has not exactly been created in a lab from nothing but organic materials that are highly important to structuring life have been, so who's to say we won't ever see something more? Synthetic biology is a new field that deals in similar things, making artificial biological entities like enzymes. Also, amino acids don't have any sort of "code" like you say that needs to be read by something. They are used to build larger proteins mainly. Nothing code-like about them.


Leading theories are often disproved; such as at one point in history, a leading theory was that the world was flat. It refuses to deal with the fundamental question of where all this matter originally came from, as something coming from nothing is a scientific impossibility and an infinite past also is a natural impossibility without a supernatural intervention. 
Yes, the building blocks of life, in some cases, can be built in a controlled lab where there is a form of human design involved. But that ought to prove that there must be a creator, as we don't find these randomly slapped together. It requires structure and intelligent being to form the right conditions. We will discover more, I'm sure of that, but no human will ever be able to fully comprehend its existence. Well, using the statement that I gave, I said that amino acids must be structured into a code that is used in DNA. That is undeniably a code.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

Greenmeadows said:


> The purpose of creating this thread is to hopefully increase unity and discussions among Christians on this forum and to help those with questions about Christianity to find answers. Hopefully, we can all find support and encouragement from each other when the bumps on the road of life seem like impassable mountains.
> In an attempt to begin a discussion, which area of Scripture have you been studying? I have been working in Ecclesiastes; finding it to be very intriguing.



*Moderator Note:*


While threads on this forum are open to all members, please be careful not to derail this topic by arguing against Christianity. It is understandable that all members do not practice the same religion or share the same beliefs, the purpose of this specific thread was to create a Christian Fellowship. It was not opened to spark debate. Thank you for being respectful and understanding.


----------



## charrorider (Sep 23, 2012)

Greenmeadows. To say that the Old Testament is a "good source of history," is just not so. I don't think that there's anything in the OT that has been proven to have actually taken place. I'm aware that some people think so, but I don't believe that's universally accepted.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

charrorider said:


> Greenmeadows. To say that the Old Testament is a "good source of history," is just not so. I don't think that there's anything in the OT that has been proven to have actually taken place. I'm aware that some people think so, but I don't believe that's universally accepted.


I suggest you study a bit of archeology and some history. This concept is too vague to address here, but I have studied the topic to some extent and find that indeed, there is significant historical evidence supporting accuracy in biblical history in several instances.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

My church has always been on the top of a hill with views all around. It is there I go for saying a prayer. 

When working, at the top of the hill was a stone circle with a cross in the centre, the cross fell down having rotted out but was renewed just before I left. 

I was there with the dogs admiring the views when the local vocal came by. I remarked to her that it was a great place for inspiration for a sermon the which she remarked that she took her sermons from a book. 

My mother always said I was so curious I wanted to know the workings of a maggots backside so religion has always made me think. I am sure we all have a guardian angel. I know that many times I have had warnings and when ignored I have regretted it. (Perhaps my guardian angel needs a 4 x 2 to knock sense into me!)


----------



## charrorider (Sep 23, 2012)

Greenmeadows. Sorry what I said seems to have offended you. I can only suggest that you study some objective archeology and history. But if you insist that the OT is "history," then you may want to consider that the people who consider the OT to be history and not faith also reject Jesus to be who and what Christians believe he is.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Moses parting the Red Sea for one. In translation archaeologists have thoughts that the reed beds were what parted and not the Red Sea. An earthquake around the Mediterranean at around that time could well have cause the water to drain allowing the Israelites to pass safely. 

Signs of a great flood have been found which at that time meant the 'whole' world as they knew it, was flooded.


Regardless of whether there is or isn't a God, whether you believe or not, the stories in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, set some darn good rules that we should all live by.


----------



## pennywise (Feb 1, 2016)

Greenmeadows said:


> I am finding it fascinating that so many atheists and those who do not claim any religion are interested in Christianity.


Why would it be fascinating to you that people would want to look into belief systems that have an affect on them socially and politically? I don't need to be a Muslim to know that I aught to know what it is that I don't want controlling the State. I aught to know what it is in Christianity that half my family subscribes to when they invite me to Sunday brunch, for my safety sake. I aught to know as much as I can about what I don't believe in, otherwise I'm rejecting things upon ignorance. If someone should say that they have no belief for a belief system, shouldn't they know _why_? Likewise, I always wish to find Christians who can tell me why they aren't a Jain or a Hindu, or Muslim, or why they have chosen to veer away from the mass grave of Greek gods. This sort of thinking should be the minority; our society needs to move away from ignorance and it should be entirely normal for us to be aware of the things our fellow mammal live their life around even if it has not to do with our own lifes' beliefs. Its called, um... learning? Above all else, it's fascinating to look at. Step aside from the Abrahamic religions, and there's a reservoir of colorful things people have done. The current and historical problem of religion is that there has been enough of that, that it's been normal to hear what you've always heard and forget that there are many (many) other beliefs systems that you know nothing about. That's what it means to be ignorant; to be a subject of your own making by not doing research when information is more available than it ever has been before. And I've been told this by Christians, with their raised eyebrow, as if they think their religion is special--like it's not on a list alongside others.. that it's a sign that I must secretly be drawn to it's teachings. I'll say, it's familiar to all the other archaic things I have read. 

To respond to the question about morality that atheists possibly cannot have....All offense to be taken, but we keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, _at least gives us morality_. However, every side you look, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is true. Depending on my mood, I sometimes choose not to point out what an insulting and patronizing question this is. (It is on a par with the question:, _what's stopping you from stealing and lying and raping?_) Just as the answer to the latter question is: self-respect and the desire for the respect of others—while in the meantime it is precisely those who think they have divine permission who are truly capable of any atrocity—so the answer to the first question falls into two parts. A life that partakes even a little of friendship, love, irony, humor, parenthood, literature, and music, and the chance to take part in battles for the liberation of others cannot be called 'meaningless' except if the person living it is also an existentialist and elects to call it so. The Bible indeed does contain a warrant for trafficking humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it as this is the mark of infancy in our species. That previous is a jumbled quote, and I'll offer one from Weinberg: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." And please do not tell me it's not so, when people are thrown off buildings because someone is trying their very hardest to complete divine warrant. This is not a light response given by the religious, as it suggests, if not out right stating, that they _know_. But this violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience before it looks at me with an ingratiating grin and tries to tell me that I can't possibly know right from wrong without it. The truth of morality is that it has developed alongside our understanding of how others (and other creatures) can suffer; we build everything around this, as we should. And the more important truth about morality, right and wrong, is that I don't know how we got here and as much as I want to know, I'm not comfortable enough pretending that I do. I'd rather admit that I am still learning than hide behind books written by stone age peasants. The conversation about what is true, good, beautiful, must go on without assumptions made before the search begins. If God worship is dead, who would tell us how to act around one another? I submit to you that it has been us all along who are responsible for the wicked atrocities and selfless acts of humanism that have broken and preserved our species this far. 

My response may read aggressive but I promise it is not. It's just that I am very invested in this kind of conversation and I have passionate opinions when people are willing to state that I, and my co-thinkers, are either lost from the True Faith, acting as a stubborn child would by straying from the True Faith, or completely void of meaning or care of others without it. If you are going to say that, I will always have to respond. 

XOXO


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

Foxhunter said:


> My mother always said I was so curious I wanted to know the workings of a maggots backside so religion has always made me think. I am sure we all have a guardian angel. I know that many times I have had warnings and when ignored I have regretted it. (Perhaps my guardian angel needs a 4 x 2 to knock sense into me!)


The concept of guardian angels is fascinating! Do you have any Scripture that you could reference so that I could study it better? Haven't studied it as well as I ought to have lol. It is something I would like to learn more about!


----------



## Celeste (Jul 3, 2011)

The original discussion was about Christianity, which is the following of Jesus Christ. He taught peace, love, tolerance; kindness, respect for women.

People do evil in the name of religion, yes. The Islamic religion is being taken over by people that are doing that; I doubt it has anything to do with religion. It is, as you said, primitive tribalism.

Back to the discussion about Christianity. No person that follows the words of Jesus himself can do evil and feel good about it. 

"Love one another"
"Blessed are the peacemakers"
"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone"
"Go and sin no more" (to the woman caught in adultery)


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

charrorider said:


> Greenmeadows. Sorry what I said seems to have offended you. I can only suggest that you study some objective archeology and history. But if you insist that the OT is "history," then you may want to consider that the people who consider the OT to be history and not faith also reject Jesus to be who and what Christians believe he is.


Nah, I don't usually get offended at something so simple lol. Yes, there are events recorded in the OT that have significant archeological evidence. Once I am able to return to my "library" and notes, I will show you some of the examples of what I mean. By your implication that Christians ought to believe all things in Scripture just because the book says it is true, that could be taken that you consider Christians as stupid ignorant fools prone to what is called Blind Faith and subjected to circular reasoning. There are indeed some things that must be taken in faith, as it is similar by many claims by the non-religious, but that does not hinder our ability to reason and have ample evidence for what we believe and draw conclusions that are deemed most plausible.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

pennywise said:


> Why would it be fascinating to you that people would want to look into belief systems that have an affect on them socially and politically?


It is fascinating that so many are quick to post here about how they DON'T believe and try to say why Christianity is silly when this thread was predominately created for Christians and people who have sincere questions. 




> The Bible indeed does contain a warrant for trafficking humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it as this is the mark of infancy in our species.


Hmm, a better understanding of the culture at that time would be justified. Slavery is never justified in Scripture, but rather there are restrictions for the owners that the slaves may find fair treatment. Ethnic cleansing is never mentioned at all, as the wars fought were fought not just to kill others based on their nationality; there are examples in Scripture where Hebrews married into other nationalities and did not receive condemnation. And bride-price also must be considered at the time; it was a way to help protect women from ruthless men of that time. 
On the other hand, all of these deeds have been performed in the name of atheism too... 





> My response may read aggressive but I promise it is not. It's just that I am very invested in this kind of conversation and I have passionate opinions when people are willing to state that I, and my co-thinkers, are either lost from the True Faith, acting as a stubborn child would by straying from the True Faith, or completely void of meaning or care of others without it. If you are going to say that, I will always have to respond.


I don't recall anyone here reverting to name calling someone who is not a Christian. I have merely analyzed what others have offered and found that I too questioned their conclusions as they have questioned mine.


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

Greenmeadows said:


> It is fascinating that so many are quick to post here about how they DON'T believe and try to say why Christianity is silly when this thread was predominately created for Christians and people who have sincere questions.


Yes, as I've already said, we should all leave the Christian thread to people of the faith to find communion and encouragement from others - its not a debate thread, so lets leave it be.


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

But it's been a good one. Have not had a 8 pager here in a while. 

Honestly with that kind of participation a thread on cartoons would be interesting.


----------



## charrorider (Sep 23, 2012)

Greenmedows. I'm shaking my head wondering where in the world you got the notion I implied Christians should believe all things in Scripture, or I consider all Christians fools, etc. I think you're back pedaling on the OT is history statement and trying to shift the focus and confuse the issue by "putting" words in my mouth I never said. You should've gone into your "library" and come up with some evidence to support your viewpoint before suggesting I needed to be educated. Yes, and I do think you should consider that those who believe the OT to be history (the authors) and their religion at once (a contradiction, if you ask me), also reject your notion of Jesus and by extension, Christianity.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

charrorider said:


> Greenmedows. I'm shaking my head wondering where in the world you got the notion I implied Christians should believe all things in Scripture, or I consider all Christians fools, etc.


Right here: 



charrorider said:


> Greenmeadows. To say that the Old Testament is a "good source of history," is just not so. I don't think that there's anything in the OT that has been proven to have actually taken place. I'm aware that some people think so, but I don't believe that's universally accepted.


 Saying that you don't think that anything in the OT has been proven implies that you assume Christians to be ignorant and we merely believe myths. 

And here:



charrorider said:


> But if you insist that the OT is "history," then you may want to consider that the people who consider the OT to be history and not faith also reject Jesus to be who and what Christians believe he is.


Here you imply that when we do find solid evidence, then we can't have faith and must reject Christ. 



> I think you're back pedaling on the OT is history statement and trying to shift the focus and confuse the issue by "putting" words in my mouth I never said. You should've gone into your "library" and come up with some evidence to support your viewpoint before suggesting I needed to be educated. Yes, and I do think you should consider that those who believe the OT to be history (the authors) and their religion at once (a contradiction, if you ask me), also reject your notion of Jesus and by extension, Christianity.


Under the circumstances, I cannot give proper references to the works I have in mind, so no, I can't offer evidence at this moment. And no, not all people who believe the OT to contain actual historic events scorn the idea of Christ and faith.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

charrorider said:


> . Yes, and I do think you should consider that those who believe the OT to be history (the authors) and their religion at once (a contradiction, if you ask me), also reject your notion of Jesus and by extension, Christianity.


The Jews might have rejected Jesus as the son of God but Jesus never rejected the Jewish religion. He celebrated the Passover with his disciples (Matt 26 from v. 17). Over the years the Jews had turned to a religion that worshiped the law more than the giver of the law.
How much of the OT is truth, how much of that truth is written from the perspective of a people who's world only extended to the areas they travelled and how much of it are stories written to inspire or intimidate isn't something that know but as Jesus never ordered his followers to turn away from the religion he was born into then it remains a part of Christianity
The Muslim faith which is another branch from the same tree regards parts of the Old Testament to be 'true' and others to have been corrupted in some way from the original or added too. Unlike the Jews they do believe that Jesus was a messenger sent by God though not the son of God. He has more mentions in the Quran than any other person.


----------



## charrorider (Sep 23, 2012)

jaydee. Nothing you wrote contradicts or disputes what I said.


----------



## charrorider (Sep 23, 2012)

Greenmeadows. All I see is 'implied' this and 'suggested' that. Basically, putting words in my mouth I never said. If I say I disagree with something you say, I don't mean anything other than I don't think the facts support your viewpoint. Nothing else. The only issue here is the statement that the OT is a "good source of history." A statement which has not been supported with any evidence. All this other stuff about implications and suggestions is nothing but noise, the strategy of shifting focus, of creating confusion. When something supporting the opinion that the OT is "good history" is presented, then we can continue the discussion. In the meantime, follow the Golden Rule, mentioned in every religion around the world. I won't be replying to anything that isn't pertinent.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

charrorider said:


> jaydee. Nothing you wrote contradicts or disputes what I said.


 You asked Greenmeadow why Christians would want to study and/or follow something that was written by a religious group who denied the existence of Jesus Christ and what I posted was my reply to that. If Jesus had instructed his followers to dismiss everything the Jewish faith had taught them then that would be a good enough reason but he didn't.
He said in Matthew 5:17)
_“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”_ 
He was more intent of trying to teach the difference between temporal laws that were given to the people to protect them in their life situations - such as what they should and shouldn't eat - and spiritual laws.
(Mark 7:13).
"_I do not want to be like the Pharisees and “nullify” the Word of God with my tradition or preferences_ "


You'll find that many people who have a deep belief in God and Jesus and the true spiritual side of things don't affiliate with any particular Church because they have concerns about how much of what's written in the Old and New Testaments was influenced by powerful religious leaders who used it as a tool to control their 'congregation'
The celebrations of Christmas and Easter are prime examples as is the move from polygamy to monogamy


----------



## Corrigator (Feb 12, 2018)

jaydee said:


> The Muslim faith which is another branch from the same tree regards parts of the Old Testament to be 'true' and others to have been corrupted in some way from the original or added too. Unlike the Jews they do believe that Jesus was a messenger sent by God though not the son of God. He has more mentions in the Quran than any other person.


Prophet Jesus is mentioned by name 25 times (عيسى). Muhammad is mentioned by name 4 times (search for محمد at Qur-ân Search Tool). However, Prophet Moses is mentioned 136 times in the Qur'an (search for موسى at Qur-ân Search Tool).


----------



## pennywise (Feb 1, 2016)

1. The majority of people (including myself) who have responded, have responded because there have been things that pertain to us. Someone made the very first comment by saying that they struggle with their faith-less kids. A few posts down, someone refers to those kids as sheep. A couple people offered what its like to be the lost sheep, that the term doesn't fit as they have given their beliefs deep thought. Someone is always going to complain, mope, or wish for very deeply that their non-believing relative, child, or close friend will finally stop "turning away". But said time and time again, it's not out of stubbornness, to temporarily turn away from parental guidance. Atheists show up in topics like this because it's dangerous not to offer the opinion of the person who often gets brought up by certain people. I spent years around religious folk and even sat through sermons from my Uncle that said things about atheism that I'd never even seen before, that seemed ridiculous, but the congregation believed him! I finally tried to say something (a terrible, terrible idea) and it was met with rejection. My family didn't want to consider me an atheist because they knew what atheism meant, apparently, better than I did. SO, when someone brings up their atheist kids and it's greeted with consoling, "the flock will always return to the shepherd", I feel a compulsion to voice how strongly I disagree. And, I get that this thread was meant for meek conversations about the bible, but it's never just that.

2.Then what is it here for. Seriously. If it's all relative and God's moral absolutes aren't absolute, they're just adjustable to the times, then what is the religion here for? Was god really unable to reveal to us that we shouldn't own people, or did that come about in the 19th century because we came to the conclusion that our ancestors couldn't? Perhaps God-worship is relative to the time, too. Either way, using "the times" as means to justify stuff that hasn't been amended since when it was written, is nutty. The bible was written for people who owned slaves because slavery was normal, for people who considered women part of the chattel, but we stopped doing that and it was from no direction of the bible that we came to that conclusion. We are not the same society as when something like the bible would have been produced, and to say that it's still relevant during a time when we've moved on from such ways of living is incredibly illogical. The logic that goes along with what you said, about it being a book of a past time, would mean that the next logical step is to find a new one or toss it to the side. "Relative" social happenings are called so because they are not relevant to the current relative that we live in; not relevant to the future relative, thereafter. You're effectively saying that there are things in the bible that are _not_ absolute revelations, even though you'd maintain that you can decipher what still is worth paying attention to? _Ah, yes, we've tossed out the rule book for slave care, and we let women own things, but, see here? The bible says that we must...._ I think a bit more care must be taken if you'd going to us that approach. it was either created using a reservoir of infinite knowledge from the divine that would include knowledge about human suffering and a vast of other things, (microorganisms, anyone?) or it was not.

Are you about to reference Stalin? Hitler? lol Do the following for me: find a society that threw off theocracy and adopted the teachings of Lucretious, Democritus, Spinoza, Paine, Russell, that made scientific and rational humanism the teaching. Find me the society that did that, that fell into tyranny, slavery, famine, and ruin, and then we'll be on a level playing field. So far, all that's shown is that the idea of worship and credulity and servility to religion is a bad idea in the first place. "Done in the name of atheism" ? lol, do you even hear yourself?

3. probably answered in #1


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Corrigator said:


> Prophet Jesus is mentioned by name 25 times (عيسى). Muhammad is mentioned by name 4 times (search for محمد at Qur-ân Search Tool). However, Prophet Moses is mentioned 136 times in the Qur'an (search for موسى at Qur-ân Search Tool).


 I don't know about the other two names but its my understanding that he's mentioned by name 25 times but indirectly 48 times in the 3rd person and 35 times in the first others are attributes to him giving a total of around 187. Some sources say he appears in 95 verses and other about 71 verses.
Either way its still very interesting and supports his existence as a prominent religious figure at that time.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

pennywise said:


> 1.
> 
> 2.Then what is it here for. Seriously. If it's all relative and God's moral absolutes aren't absolute, they're just adjustable to the times, then what is the religion here for? Was god really unable to reveal to us that we shouldn't own people, or did that come about in the 19th century because we came to the conclusion that our ancestors couldn't? Perhaps God-worship is relative to the time, too. Either way, using "the times" as means to justify stuff that hasn't been amended since when it was written, is nutty. The bible was written for people who owned slaves because slavery was normal, for people who considered women part of the chattel, but we stopped doing that and it was from no direction of the bible that we came to that conclusion. We are not the same society as when something like the bible would have been produced, and to say that it's still relevant during a time when we've moved on from such ways of living is incredibly illogical. The logic that goes along with what you said, about it being a book of a past time, would mean that the next logical step is to find a new one or toss it to the side. "Relative" social happenings are called so because they are not relevant to the current relative that we live in; not relevant to the future relative, thereafter. You're effectively saying that there are things in the bible that are _not_ absolute revelations, even though you'd maintain that you can decipher what still is worth paying attention to? _Ah, yes, we've tossed out the rule book for slave care, and we let women own things, but, see here? The bible says that we must...._ I think a bit more care must be taken if you'd going to us that approach. it was either created using a reservoir of infinite knowledge from the divine that would include knowledge about human suffering and a vast of other things, (microorganisms, anyone?) or it was not.
> 
> ...


 You can't use the Bible to justify obeying 'temporal' laws.
Temporal laws were simply a code of conduct or a sort of safety manual depending on the subject. In those days (just as in our own more recent history) owning slaves was the norm. Tribes fought against other tribes and took captives to use as slaves. It doesn't mean it was right to own people - it was part of their lives. 
We've moved on from things like that as we've evolved, in the same way that we eat things now that were said to be wrong to eat in OT times. 
Even my Grandmother who was born in 1900 would say that pork should never be eaten in any month without an R in it. They'd learned through trial and error that eating pork that had been stored in warm/hot conditions would have a good chance of making you ill. Nowadays with modern refrigeration storage its no longer something we worry about.
Many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity - that doesn't make Christianity wrong, its those people that hid behind it that are/were wrong. 
The message given by Jesus is to 'Love one another" (John 13: 34-35) He doesn't give any exceptions to that. 
Christians certainly don't have sole rights to being 'good people'
The world that Jesus was born into wasn't ready for him and likely never will be.
Humans are by nature 'tribal' and find it very difficult to move on from that state.


----------



## charrorider (Sep 23, 2012)

jaydee. I'll be completely frank with you. I didn't read past your first sentence. "You asked Greenmeadows why would Christians want to study or follow something that was written by a group who deny the existence of Jesus Christ." that isn't what I said at all.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

charrorider said:


> Greenmeadows. All I see is 'implied' this and 'suggested' that. Basically, putting words in my mouth I never said. If I say I disagree with something you say, I don't mean anything other than I don't think the facts support your viewpoint. Nothing else. The only issue here is the statement that the OT is a "good source of history." A statement which has not been supported with any evidence. All this other stuff about implications and suggestions is nothing but noise, the strategy of shifting focus, of creating confusion. When something supporting the opinion that the OT is "good history" is presented, then we can continue the discussion. In the meantime, follow the Golden Rule, mentioned in every religion around the world. I won't be replying to anything that isn't pertinent.


Here is a bit that I found. 

Babylonian Chronicle 5 (Found in the British Museum WA21946, ABC 5 (Jerusalem Chronicle) - Livius ) This is confirmed in Jeremiah 46 "Against Egypt.
Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which was by the River Euphrates in Carchemish, and which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah. " 

Ration Book of Jehoiakin (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin VAT 16283; VAT 16378, Jehoiachin in Babylonia - Livius )
- 2 Kings 24:15- "And he carried Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. The king’s mother, the king’s wives, his officers, and the mighty of the land he carried into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon."

You can go on about how the things you said were misinterpreted, but perhaps you should clarify what you mean when you say it instead allowing it to be vague and open to misunderstanding.


----------



## charrorider (Sep 23, 2012)

Greenmeadows. Neither one of the two examples you mention has anything to do with the religious aspect, nor are they in the Old Testament. That King David existed does not prove the accuracy of the religious aspect of his story. That was the context in which you said that the OT was a "good source of history." I hope this was clear enough, so you don't have to read anything I didn't say into it. And now I'm done.


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

charrorider said:


> Greenmeadows. Neither one of the two examples you mention has anything to do with the religious aspect, nor are they in the Old Testament. That King David existed does not prove the accuracy of the religious aspect of his story. That was the context in which you said that the OT was a "good source of history." I hope this was clear enough, so you don't have to read anything I didn't say into it. And now I'm done.


Yep, I showed you were they were in the OT. And I didn't say it proved the religious aspect, just that there are things recorded in Scripture that are confirmed from other sources.


----------



## Audball (Jul 11, 2016)

I know this i a long shot because it's an older thread and pretty specific question but does anyone hear have experience with prophetic dreams? I believe I had one about a friend I have reason to be concerned for, nothing too dire and over all it was a very positive dream and I get the gist of it but I wonder if there are any specifics I may be missing out on. TIA.


----------



## Avna (Jul 11, 2015)

Audball said:


> I know this i a long shot because it's an older thread and pretty specific question but does anyone hear have experience with prophetic dreams? I believe I had one about a friend I have reason to be concerned for, nothing too dire and over all it was a very positive dream and I get the gist of it but I wonder if there are any specifics I may be missing out on. TIA.


If you want to know more about your prophetic or at least important-feeling dreams, one of the best ways is simply to ask it. Really! You need to get yourself into a deeply meditative or prayerful state, and then focus on one aspect of the dream -- a person, or the ocean, or the red door, or whatever. Get an image of it clearly in your mind and then ask it exactly what you want to know. Then just accept whatever answers come to you. Don't try to edit them! You may very well be surprised at what they have to say. It helps me to write them down. 

I have always had significant dreams -- long before I became a Christian, certainly, and I developed this technique out of the many kinds spiritual exercises I have done.


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

My dreams have always been complete and utter nonsense. However last Friday night I did have a dream about Able Tasman winning here race on Saturday. I had already picked her, but she did win. That's as close as I have ever come.

That doesn't mean yours aren't more important or that God makes things known to you in that way.


----------



## Audball (Jul 11, 2016)

Avna said:


> If you want to know more about your prophetic or at least important-feeling dreams, one of the best ways is simply to ask it. Really! You need to get yourself into a deeply meditative or prayerful state, and then focus on one aspect of the dream -- a person, or the ocean, or the red door, or whatever. Get an image of it clearly in your mind and then ask it exactly what you want to know. Then just accept whatever answers come to you. Don't try to edit them! You may very well be surprised at what they have to say. It helps me to write them down.
> 
> I have always had significant dreams -- long before I became a Christian, certainly, and I developed this technique out of the many kinds spiritual exercises I have done.


I plan on doing this but I was also kinda hoping for Daniel or a Joseph. I tend to doubt my interpretations but I'm working on that?


----------



## Greenmeadows (May 8, 2016)

Audball said:


> I plan on doing this but I was also kinda hoping for Daniel or a Joseph. I tend to doubt my interpretations but I'm working on that?


I can relate, as sometimes my dreams come true. But I don't think they are prophetic or anything, more likely it is just thoughts and some degree of subconscious reasoning about the situation from days before.


----------

