But if you say it's all or nothing, then why don't you believe that slavery should still exist, women should be subjects of men, and gays should be stoned to death? I know these are not your views, but if its all or nothing, they should be.
There was an Old Covenant, taking into account the customs and God's "pre-Jesus" sacraments of the time, and which paved the way for Jesus' arrival. Then, the New Covenant, which takes into account everything Jesus. As far as the slave part goes, my guess is, many servants back served their respective masters, but were also cared for, at least should have been. There's a lot of old typologies, customs, and more's of the time. Again, I could question God, but, really, it would be senseless and futile in my opnion. I choose to simply trust and obey. I'm living the best possible life as a result. I'll find out all the other stuff when I get to heaven.
I just explained it before and it was explained on that YouTube video. If you believe that mass can only be produced by mass; then mass cannot be made from nothingness. Space, time and mass are finite; therefor it has a starting point. Only something supernatural and eternal can create mass; because nothing can never make something. The genesis is the biggest proof because science even using cosmology are still scratching their head. You can bring up multiverse; but still who started that? If there is such thing as a multiverse; then there is mass in other parts of the void. They are still mass that can't be created by nothingness. So as hard as science is trying to band aide the genesis "god of gaps"; they just choose to ignore because they don't know. Unfortunately; they know that nothingness cannot create mass. So my proof is there was a creator. Is mine the right one? Yes to me mine is right for me.
"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17). This was written 2000 years ago. This is description of atoms; which can't be seen by the eye. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the Earth (matter)... And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters." [Genesis 1:1,3 … written some 3450 years ago]. This explains time, space and matter.
Deuteronomy 27:23: Cursed is the man who sleeps with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.
This is our missing link. You are making assumptions about what the universe ought to look like, if it was purposefully designed. Upon what do you base these assumptions? What is your metric by which you distinguish a "soulless" universe from a purposefully created one? I can think of no empirical measure by which these two possibilities can be evaluated. If you can, please fill us all in: how do the findings of evolution, cosmology, and biology definitively preclude (or reduce to highly improbable) the possibility of design? Ironically, these are the same fallacious assumptions at work in the teleological arguments for the existence of god, just used for the opposite purpose. Aquinas recognized patterns in the world and concluded that they were evidence of a conscious designer. You see randomness and disorder in the world and conclude that there must be no designer at all. Both of these arguments presuppose that there are specific characteristics of the universe that suggest one thing or another -- as if we have other universes to which we can compare our own, and make conclusions about its design (or lack thereof). You can't categorize a sample size of 1, and you can't claim as remarkable any of its traits, however chaotic or ordered they may appear. You grossly overstate the scope of scientific knowledge, and in so doing perpetuate the image of atheists and scientists as arrogant and close-minded. Science has nothing to say about that which is untestable. Nothing at all. You may look at the findings of cosmology and say that the universe appears cold, chaotic and unplanned, but that's not science -- that's (ironically) an emotional response to scientific discovery. The domain of science isn't constant, but it is absolutely finite. We cannot speak scientifically about that which cannot be empirically and reproducibly tested. If there is another definition of "science" that contradicts this statement, please tell me where you found it, and in what peer-reviewed scientific journals I can find papers addressing the existence of supernatural deities. It is not my job to regulate how or why people choose to explain the unanswerable. I think the benefits of science and scientific understanding are self-evident, and that rational thinkers will always recognize the importance of testing their beliefs critically. Yes, I think the correct answer to many of these questions is "I don't know, and you don't either", but that can often be a tough sell. I don't think overstating the powers of your product and ridiculing its critics is the right way to go. I agree with most of your perspective. I think your conclusions on the nature of the world are generally correct. And even I think you come off sounding like a self-righteous prick. I can only imagine how you sound to those you are ostensibly trying to convert.
well they never fucked their siblings, seeing as how they never had any just seems odd that god would set up the human race for inevitable failure, as brothers and sisters would be forced to eventually mate
For me, I understand completely how you and others can see god in these knowledge gaps. And this allows someone who is logical and accepting of science to also believe in god. God made the Big Bang. Not how I see it, but I understand and can't combat that view. However, where humans have learned things, through science and measurement, I don't understand how those areas can be denied. Age of earth, evolution, these things don't mean there is no god, and they are clearly demonstrated. Why are these facts fought against by believers. Many of the scientists I work with believe in god, they just are much less ridged about anything that science disproves.
off on your own tangent there again. it was a simple question that doesn't have to be framed in terms of christianity - how does a human in an emotional relationship with an object that isn't otherwise detectable in any way know that object isn't a delusion?
So, 3400 years ago someone wrote about observations that had been made for millennia? Mythology, including the bible (regardless of god being real or not), were written/told to explain the observed world. Thunderstorm? Oh, that's just Zeus throwing lightning. Fire? Oh, Prometheus stole it from the gods. We live on the earth, see the stars (heavens) at night and experience time. Why is it so groundbreaking that someone wrote about this? Every civilization has a creation story to try and explain how we came to be. Christianity/Judaism is no different.
Not even remotely. What it really shows is how easily one can find evidence for anything, if one looks hard enough for it in the Bible (or any similar text).
anybody working tomorrow? Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." Numbers 15:32,36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
You mean working today, right? Everyone knows that Saturday is actually the Sabbath. It turns out that Satan convinced early Christian leaders to shift their holy day to Sunday in order to trick them into disobeying God's clear commandments. They're all going to be sooooo surprised when they end up in Gehennah on that little technicality!
My biggest problem with the notion is "God" is that I have no proof, and lack the ability to have faith. My biggest problem with evolution is that genetic mutations should be in the literal millions, and frequently, if organisms mutate and the best of those mutations survives. Other than that, this is an emotional issue, and I tend to side with those who are invested in "faith" and admit it, because the evolutionary side is also faith-based, yet won't admit. I don't know the answers, and I am comfortable in not knowing.
Adam and Eve is pretty close. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm Are we all descended from a common female ancestor? In 1987, a group of genet*icists published a surprising study in the journal Nature.* The* researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today's major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage. Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve.
