For Ye Christian Ones...

[quote]pookie wrote:
haney wrote:
The very point of free will is right and wrong spiritual choices, not what physical laws can I defy. So trying to compare it to physical laws doesn’t even come close to a comparison.

So creating a world where man has free will, but can do no evil is impossible even for God?

If it is, then he can’t be omnipotent, since there’s something he can’t do.

If it’s not impossible, then God chose a world were evil exists over one where it doesn’t. As such, he can’t be an All Good, All Loving God.

Even free will itself, as we understand it, poses a problem. God, being omniscient, knows all you’ll do in your life.

He knew before I was born that I’d reject His message, would be an atheist and would condemn my soul to eternal torment in the afterlife.

Do I have free will? Could I do something that God hasn’t already foreseen? If I can, then I really have free will, but God cannot be called omniscient (since there are things He doesn’t know). If He knows all I’m going to do before I do it, then I cannot do otherwise as much as I try.

Free will becomes simply an illusion so that men believe themselves to be free. In that case God is lying to us.[/quote]

That is like the analogy if God can do all things can He create a rock that even He can’t pick up?

They are pointless logic traps, and never give a coherent answer.

You also equate forknowledge with foreordained. They are not the same God can know what you are going to do ahead of time, but not decree that it must be that way.

I will say you hit the nail on the head though when you said this “Even free will itself, as we understand it, poses a problem.”

The problem is our understanding of it. It is not something that is easy to understand.

[quote]randman wrote:
pookie wrote:
What Jesus went through is nowhere near the worst way to die I can think of. Not even close.

Just about everything you wrote kinda pissed me off but this part, I admit, did get to me the most. You try getting beat to near death, your hands and feet nailed to a cross, and then be left to die up there. You know, Pookie, you can be a real asshole. You are highly antagonist to believers. Why don’t you keep your posionous comments to yourself. Asshole.[/quote]

you forgot the starving, the intense labour, sleep deprevasion, the mental torment of being ridiculed, abandoned, and the constant feeling of being hated by all the people that who’s sin you are taking on. I would also imagine since He never knew sin there would also be an incredible since of guilt that He had never experienced before either.

Just a side note when they ripped the robe off of Him it was like taking a band-aid and removing it real quick. So quick that it removed the fresh scab that had formed between the robe and the wound.

Christ death was most likely due to a ruptured Heart too. It would be evidenced by the blood and water that flowed from His side.

Sorry for sugar coating it. I am sure if I had my books I could of given a more thorough answer.

[quote]randman wrote:
Just about everything you wrote kinda pissed me off but this part, I admit, did get to me the most. You try getting beat to near death, your hands and feet nailed to a cross, and then be left to die up there. You know, Pookie, you can be a real asshole. You are highly antagonist to believers. Why don’t you keep your posionous comments to yourself. Asshole.[/quote]

I didn’t say that it was an easy death or a pleasant one. Rather, there have been people who have suffered just as much or more for longer periods of time.

I really don’t understand why it is so important to you that Jesus have “the worst death ever”. What if he didn’t have the absolute worst death possible? So what?

If my comments piss you off that much, well don’t read them. If my arguments are wrong, show me. Explain to me how being nailed to a cross is the pinnacle of human suffering, 'cause I don’t see it. A painful, unpleasant death, sure. The worst end imaginable? Not even close.

Like I said to Zeb, I’ll cut down the jackass remarks and keep the discourse respectful, but you’ve got to give me better arguments than my being an asshole who posts “poisonous” comments.

[quote]haney wrote:
That is like the analogy if God can do all things can He create a rock that even He can’t pick up?

They are pointless logic traps, and never give a coherent answer. [/quote]

There are not pointless. They simply show that the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Creator is illogical and impossible.

Same difference. If he knows what I’m going to do before me, what choice do I have? Can I change my mind and do something unexpected? Of course not. Where’s my free will?

The instant God creates a soul, he must know whether that soul will eventually be saved or damned to eternal torment… why bother with the damned ones?

[quote]I will say you hit the nail on the head though when you said this “Even free will itself, as we understand it, poses a problem.”

The problem is our understanding of it. It is not something that is easy to understand. [/quote]

That’s always the way out for the faithful. “We cannot understand God’s Will”, or “The Lord works in mysterious ways”.

Somehow, when other things we believe are proven wrong, the earth being flat, for example, we simple abandon the old view and adopt the new. That’s how progress is made.

From a flat earth to a round one. From being in the center of the universe to being a minor planet around an ordinary star on the arm of a galaxy… From thinking that sickness is caused by spirits and “miasma” to discovering microbes, bacterias and viruses. We learn new stuff and abandon old ideas when they’re shown to be wrong.

With religion, when something is shown not to fit with the doctrine or the dogmas, somehow it’s reality that must be wrong. Logic and reason tell us that such and such concept is wrong or illogical… Well, our logic must be flawed or our reason too imperfect.

A bishop once said that claiming that the earth revolved around the sun was as ridiculous as claiming that Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth…

Gallileo was forced, under torture, to recant what he knew (and we now know) to be the truth…

[quote]XCelticX wrote:

Christianity has been covered in the blood of others all throughout its existence. Things like the Crusades and corrupt clergy prove this, but still only scratch the surface. Every human group is violent in some way or another. I challenge any of you to present a group that isn’t.
[/quote]

XCelticX,
I really respect where you are coming from, I think it’s cool that you are “searching” (please no condescension intended), but if you’re looking to man [to prove you right- or wrong whichever the case maybe] you’ll always come up short. Ask “God” or whoever might be up there and see if He is real- don’t “put Him to the test” so to speak- ask (if in fact He does exist) to show himself- if He really is who He says He is- He’ll know just how to do it so you’ll get the message- and if He doesn’t well you “gave Him the opportunity”. We could go all around the “proof” issue spewing facts and figures- which by the way all you have done very well I might add- y’all could talk circles 'round me-no disrespect or satire intended- except maybe for myself, but it really is a matter of the heart- do you “want” to believe or don’t you? No one can be your judge- neither will I.
Gal.3:2-5 “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard… are you so foolish… are you now trying to attain it with human effort!?” “Does God give you His Spirit and work miracles because you observe the law or because you believe…”
1 Cor.2:1-5
(paraphrased) “…I did not come to you with persuasive words… but with power… that your faith should not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God…”

I wish I could meet you in person and pray for you for you to “meet” God- He’d show up!! In a big way- because He loves Big things and to touch His people- we’re just so “left brained” in Western Society that we wouldn’t “see” Him if He smacked us up the side of the head most times- because of our,lack of faith “…Jesus did not do many miracles there because of there lack of faith…”. Miracles happen ALL the time- but more so where people “believe” which ends up being in third world countries- but we’re coming around over here now… my friend does missionary work and works in “healing” ministries and sees lots (hearing, sight, etc. restored) in Brazil- they have “child like faith”.
I’m not so special I just believe “if” there IS a “God” He would WANT to touch His people- in any and every opportunity WE allowed.
As my friend said to me- “Ted, you have as much of God as you want/allow”.
Bless you in your quest I hope & pray you find [God] what you are looking for.
PM me if you have any interest in hearing some “weird/cool” stories of my wife and close friends and even myself- although I tend to be a little “left brained” myself at times- ha!
Blessings :slight_smile:
(Sorry didn’t realize it was so long…)

[quote]pookie wrote:
haney wrote:
The very point of free will is right and wrong spiritual choices, not what physical laws can I defy. So trying to compare it to physical laws doesn’t even come close to a comparison.

So creating a world where man has free will, but can do no evil is impossible even for God?

If it is, then he can’t be omnipotent, since there’s something he can’t do.

If it’s not impossible, then God chose a world were evil exists over one where it doesn’t. As such, he can’t be an All Good, All Loving God.

Even free will itself, as we understand it, poses a problem. God, being omniscient, knows all you’ll do in your life.

He knew before I was born that I’d reject His message, would be an atheist and would condemn my soul to eternal torment in the afterlife.

Do I have free will? Could I do something that God hasn’t already foreseen? If I can, then I really have free will, but God cannot be called omniscient (since there are things He doesn’t know). If He knows all I’m going to do before I do it, then I cannot do otherwise as much as I try.

Free will becomes simply an illusion so that men believe themselves to be free. In that case God is lying to us.[/quote]

Pookie,
The fact that God gave us free will, knowing how bad we’d be-take a look around if there is any doubt (I’m not saying everything is bad, just not all ‘good’)- is fact and proof of His great love and trust in us.
I think it takes guts (if I can say that about God-? watch for lightning bolts :wink: to let us take the reigns, knowing full well what’s going to happen- just so He knows at the end that he’s going to come and pick up the pieces- now that’s REAL love my friend. Peace on your quest as well.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Why does any atheist think they are smarter than someone who believes in God?

We got to explain that too? Fuck.[/quote]

Pookie,
I gotta say that one was funny and I am a Christian! LOL!!
P.S. I’m pretty secure in my faith- so stuff like this kills me!!-HA!
(I LOVE Monty Python movies and they’re poke at religion-I know, I know a whole 'nother thread…)
Outta here!

[quote]TedK wrote:
The fact that God gave us free will, knowing how bad we’d be-take a look around if there is any doubt (I’m not saying everything is bad, just not all ‘good’)- is fact and proof of His great love and trust in us.[/quote]

He made us just as bad as he wanted us to be.

If you know what’s going to happen in advance, there’s no “guts” or courage required. We had this discussion in the “toughest man” thread already.

Courage is defined as being able to face danger or unpleasantness with confidence; to be stand up to hardship and pain without fear. Nothing can place God in danger, any unpleasantness or hardship would have to be of his own doing… how could God know fear? Many “mortal” emotions or sentiments make absolutely no sense when applied to God.

[quote]pookie wrote:
haney wrote:
That is like the analogy if God can do all things can He create a rock that even He can’t pick up?

They are pointless logic traps, and never give a coherent answer.

There are not pointless. They simply show that the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Creator is illogical and impossible.
[/quote]

Well lets take a look at somethings that defy logic. I was in a CPR class last week. The instructor who I have no clue what his belief in anything is said " I have seem some things that I can’t explain. There was a boy that had passed out in a pond. He was recovered 4 hours later. The paramedics begin performing CPR on him. He somehow lived. He had no brain damage."

If you want to verify the story I can give you the guys name and contact information in a PM. I am certain everyone in the medical community would say that is impossible. Logically and physically. As I said they are pointless because God has put Him self into subjection of certain laws in our Universe.

Free will is that God lets you make that choice. He could change the outcome since He knows what will happen. If He doesn’t change the outcome, then He is merely an observer of what happens. He doesn’t make the decision for you, He only knows what you will choose.

Maybe God is a sucker for Hope, Maybe the damned ones will bring about the salvation of the saved ones. I am not God I can’t answer that.

I was quoting you. So you can say it is a way out, but you are the one who defined it that way not me. If you don’t like the answer don’t provide the avenue for me to take it.

Well explain how the boy lived, and I will tackle your issues.

I would say the concept of not breathing for four hours to be wrong.

Ok, and anthony flew said that a God must exist to create the world. I guess that means all atheist are going to agree with Him.

Anthony Flew decided freely.

egh… read like 3 pages and got tired… too much to read,

i’ma juss say that i dont think that science and religion should be mixed at all. why try to use science to disprove religion (and yes thats why this thread started)

they each serve their own purpose, the Bible wasn’t written to show how everything happened… that would be moronic, impossible and moronic. who would read that? The Bible was written to show people how to live, etc…

science on the other hand does spend countless amounts of time, money, etc to explain HOW things happen. why try to mix things up. i have yet to read a bio book that tells me to love my neighbor.

to address the whole evolution v creation, i say that “creationism” (the kind that goes against evo) is something made by people… the bible doesnt say HOW He created us, it juss says He did… where’s the contradiction between the Bible and evolution/science? yes, “day” IS used to say era, haven’t you ever said “back in my day” or “back in shakespeare’s day” etc? science has no reason to attack that, or many of the other “disputed” facts in the Bible. science doesnt even say its in a different order than how its in the Bible: space, earth, water and land, plants, animals, humans.

i mean, why look to the Bible to explain how the moon orbits earth, or why would you look in a science book to help with spiritualism?

btw, celtic, begging God to prove to you He exists hardly counts as trying out Christianity.

[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You are basically claiming that if someone even mentions the name of “Jesus” then that automatically extends to you the right to bash their faith. I have to disagree with your point. If someone wants to state that Jesus is the toughest man whoever lived (on the tough guy thread) that is their right. If I remember correctly there were quite a few who claimed that.

You responded by stating that you thought Satan was the toughest (even though you attributed a wrong quote to him). Not one person bothered you about your choice. Everyone was pretty tolerant of your post, you had no problems.

Well, the post was pretty much tongue-in-cheek, but I guess I didn’t think that anyone would take Satan seriously.

Unfortuneately, you could not be as tolerant of other peoples choices as they were of yours. You just couldn’t stand to see anyone writing the name Jesus Christ, so you had to begin your Christian bashing: “Let’s assume Jesus was an historical figure, instead of a mythological one…”

You’re right. Bad intro. I should’ve simply stated that I view Jesus as a mythological figure, not an historical one. But I stand by the rest of the post. What Jesus went through is nowhere near the worst way to die I can think of. Not even close. Everyone jumps on the intro, and no one considers the actual point. I screwed up.

“I have trouble with Gods existence…would you accept to die for Santa Claus?”

Put that back in context please. Moon Knight asked me if I would die for God’s love. I was simply explaining the way I view the whole thing. If you don’t believe in something, you certainly don’t believe it can love you, much less accept to die for that non-existent love.

“How about walking on water,any purpose to that except showing off.” “I mean, what’s wrong with the guy? Isn’t he a little dense?” There are plenty more of your intolerant statements, but you get the idea.

Again, out of context. Someone had just mentioned that God didn’t do things for “theatrics”… Walking on water didn’t seem to serve any other purpose as far as I’m concerned.

The “little dense” part was regarding Jesus and faith. If Jesus knew that God was real, then he didn’t need faith. Faith is belief without proof. If you’ve got knowledge of something without any doubt, then there’s no faith required, or even possible…

If someone stated that they were a Gay man does that mean that it’s open season on that individual, just because he mentioned his sexual preference on a message board? I can hear you now: “I only bashed the Gay man because he mentioned it first.” You call that proper logic? More importantly is at all respectful of his choice? No! In fact, it would sound pretty hateful. Which is exactly how you sound every time you bash Christ, God, or Christians. Yea, God can take care of himself, no problem there. The problem is you are spitting in the face of all who do believe in God (Jesus etc) and that is the peak of intolerance and hate speech. Not to mention ignorance.

A little tolerance goes a long way when we are dealing with different cultures, beliefs and many of lifes important choices.

Your gay man analogy sucks, but I won’t get into that.

Concerning “proper logic”, if you bring up Jesus in a thread, I certainly reserve the right to comment on it. Whether you agree with the comment or not, that’s basically not my problem.

As for tolerance, well that would sure be nice. I seem to remember it was you who labeled us “God-haters” on the same thread and then asked someone named “Sam” if this was hate speech (whoever that “Sam” may be). Or being told to read apologetic litterature… Where’s the being “respectful of his choices” in there? I would use my “pot, meet kettle” line if I hadn’t just done so in a previous post.

As I recall, Moon Knight was about the only one who managed to keep the discussion civil and at least seemed to consider the other’s point of view.

All that being said, I understand where you come from and I see that for you, christianity is serious and you really believe. Fair enough. I’ll try to cut down the inflammatory remarks and avoid ridiculing your beliefs.

But at the same time, I would ask you to remember that as far as I’m concerned, God and Santa really are on equal footing. So when I say stuff that pisses you off, you’re probably taking it a lot more seriously than the way I intended it. As much as you’re convinced that Jesus is your savior and the way to eternal life, etc. I’m just as adamantly convinced that you’re wrong. (Or your beliefs to be wrong…)
[/quote]

Your entire argument (most of it) revolves around me taking what you had stated in the tough guy thread out of context. Context is unimportant in this case because there would have been no “religious argument” in that thread had you not initiated it! And that was my original point.

You have no more right to be intolerant of Christians than you do to someone who is gay, or a different color than you. Your attacks aren’t funny, enlightening or the slightest bit interesting. They are mean spirited and hateful, as referenced in my first post And once again claimed in your retort: “As far as I’m concerned God and santa really are on equal footing.”

you cannot insult a persons race, sexual preference or religious beliefs and get away with it by stating: “So when I say stuff that pisses you off your probably taking it a lot more seriously than I intended it.” There really is only one way to take some of your comments. If you tell a Jewish man a joke that insults Jews do you think he will find it amusing? Call a gay man a “fag” and again you have slighted him. How you “intended it” has nothing to do with how it is recieved. It might be time to take a look at how you approach the subject.

Anytime you want to have a serious discussion, without your name calling (you call it joking?), I would love to have it with you.

As far as insulting me, let’s leave religion out of this. Simply do what the mindless dweebs do on this forum do when they run out of arguments and but want badly to attack me (not that you are one of them, in fact you are not). Call me old and tell me all I can do are Pull-ups. I always get a kick out that…lol.

First, [quote]The Mage[/quote] (That would be me) [quote]wrote:
Now I am an atheist, but I see that there is some history to the bible. For example I kind of believe in Noah’s flood.

Now why would I do that? Does anyone know what happened about 12,000 to 13,000 years ago? The waters rose 300 feet. (Damn fossil fuels.) This might just be the original basis of the flood.

I truly believe that the old world was destroyed by a flood. But most people don’t even know the flood is still here. The waters never really went down. (There were 1 or 2 different times when the waters rose within a millennium of this event adding about 100 more feet.) [/quote]

I don’t think I put it as eloquently as I could have, but then [quote]XCelticX responded:

There have been numerous ‘floods’ throughout the Earth’s history. Moving out of an ice age, with temperatures raising, would involve a ‘flood’. People generally attribute something on that big a scale to cosmic powers(God), as people do for almost everything they can’t explain and don’t understand.

The flood in the Bible, however, was supposed to be sudden, killing ALL THE HUMANS on EARTH except those in the arc. That means the flood would have to be over all of the lands people inhabitted, which means water would cover every single major continent on Earth except Antarctica. That is VERY impossible, I assure you. Even if all of the ice on Earth were to suddenly melt, water wouldn’t cover ALL of the continents… [/quote]

At which point [quote]haney responded with:

I would assume you would know that there are marine fossils found on the upper parts of everest? That being said if the land was a little flatter than it is possible for all water in the world to cover the surface by 1.7 miles.

I guess you buy into the idea that mars was once flooded? [/quote]

Now of all the floods in the past, this was the big one in our collective memories. This is the only one that was substantial during a time when the possibility of a civilization existed. It has been common for people to live on the coasts, near water, so a large number of people were living in the worst place at the worst time.

This was a sudden flood. I don’t know how long it took to cause the water to rise 300 feet, but it changed the landscape of the Earth.

If you lived back then, and you lived through such an event, possibly on a boat of some sort, how do you think it would have been perceived? Can you fathom 300 feet? The low lying lands were pushed under water. Way under water.

If you saw that, from your perspective, it would look like the whole Earth was under a flood, and in a way it was.

I believe this is the whole beginning of all the flood stories, including Atlantis, Noah, Gilgamesh, Manu, and countless others. Other things were added in, other events, and other religious beliefs influenced the stories.

We don’t know what people considered the whole Earth at that time. When it says the whole Earth was covered, does it mean completely? I think this could be a vague statement myself. Hebrew is not easy to translate. Words have more then one meaning, and also numerical significance. The fact that they used no vowels does not help either.

I really became interested in this when I found out that there was this big flood about 12-13 thousand years ago, and started thinking of what Plato said, and when he said it. That actually places when he said Atlantis vanished around that time. Maybe the real Noah lived during this time.

The problem is that we have multiple millennia’s of time that has passed since this event, and there are so many myths, and people have so romanticized these events that they bear no connection to reality.

Now as far as if the world was flatter, of course it would be covered with water. If the world was completely flat it would be covered with water, but that is not reality. That 1.7 miles means they had to change things by more than that.

The world has had no ice caps before. This was during the time of the dinosaurs, and they obviously needed a lot of space.

As far as marine fossils, you do know that mountains grow don’t you? They could have been pushed up. Older mountains wear away and shrink. The Earth is constantly changing. Also there have been massive tidal waves. Things that dwarf the tsunami we just saw recently. Waves have left marine life on mountains to die, and become fossils. It depends on what you are talking about.

Back to Noah, and the Bible, and the Torah, you do know there are actually more then one story of Noah. One says he took 2 of all animals, but another says he took clean and unclean animals, and these animals are specifically listed, defined, and limited. It is believed that one person had the two stories, and combined them into one story.

[i]“Intelligent people understand that the goal of the Torah is not to inform us about natural sciences; rather it was given in order to create a straight path for people in the way of righteousness and law, to sustain in their minds the belief in the Unity of God and His Providence…”

Shadal (R. Sh’mu’el David Luzzato, 19th c. Italy)[/i]

Again many people here are fighting all or nothing arguments, when the truth might be in the middle.

Sure all conjecture, but interesting no doubt.

[quote]jponry wrote:
miniross wrote:
FIRESNATCH wrote:
Jesus was not a popular person. He had few followers and hung out with the bottom of society. So how did christianity become a mass movement? The answer is the resurection. They saw something they never saw befor. A miracle.

I watched that dude BP 1005 lb. That has never been seen before…soes that make it a miracle?

Slowly moving up weight in a lift to new levels hardly relates to that of being dead for three days, comming back to life and then walking the earth for hundreds to see before rising up in the clouds and ascending to heaven.

[/quote]

did you see this reusrection yourself. People cant get information correct 1 day after it happens, let alone hundreds of years.

I really cant believe people accept this much dogma.

question it man, next youll be saying that the planet and the universe was made in 7 days, and that man was made in gods image.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
veruvius wrote:
oh, please do tell me about thermodynamics, oh wise rainjack. I certainly wouldn’t know anything about that. I meant relativity, anyways. I’m sorry I’ve upset you. I’ll sacrifice an atheist for you.

It’s the law that refutes the theory of evolution. “Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, only changed.”
[/quote]

I was being sarcastic. I’ve taken three courses in thermodynamics, seeing how I’m a chemical engineer major. That is conservation of energy, which was later revised to be the conservation of energy and mass due to the theory of relativity.

And the second law of thermodynamics is really just a theory. It’s a case where every observable instance shows that all processes increase the entropy of the universe, but it’s impossible to prove that it is true. They just decided to call it a law because they were certain it had to be true.

[quote]haney wrote:
Well lets take a look at somethings that defy logic. I was in a CPR class last week. The instructor who I have no clue what his belief in anything is said " I have seem some things that I can’t explain. There was a boy that had passed out in a pond. He was recovered 4 hours later. The paramedics begin performing CPR on him. He somehow lived. He had no brain damage."[/quote]

Obviously, he didn’t stop breathing for 4 hours, or he’d be dead. Simply because your instructor cannot explain something, doesn’t a miracle make.

Was someone at the pond watching him for 4 hours? Is there video footage? Maybe he was floating on his back for 3h59 or stuck ashore… Maybe when he flipped around at some point and the noise grabbed the attention of whoever found him. Whatever the explanation, I can assure you that no miracle is required.

How do we know he was there for 4 hours? Maybe he had been there for 4 minutes when they found him… Maybe he was stuck in the pond for 3h55 and then passed out, to be found 5 minutes later. Maybe he was hypothermic and his heartbeat and breathing had slowed down a lot, allowing him more time in the water than the average drown victim. Whatever the truth is, I can assure that there’s a logical, physical explanation that doesn’t require a miracle.

There are simply too many assumptions and unknown for us to conclude that “a miracle” happened.

I’m quite sure the guy will stick to his story adamantly. But it’s just that, a story. I can Google for “miracle story” and find thousands of similar stories…

Exactly. It is impossible to be submerged for 4 hours and to then be reanimated with no subsequent damage. Hence, that is not what happened.

If I had free will, no one could know the outcome of a decision before I made it, because it would depend only on my willing it. If God has knowledge of my decisions before I make them, he’s the one willing them.

Again, hope (like courage) cannot apply to an omniscient being. You cannot “hope” for a different outcome than the one you already know will happen. The only way God could “hope” (or give us free will) is by not being omniscient. God could then create a soul, “hope for the best” and wait and see what it was going to do.

I’m not providing a way out, on the contrary, I’m pointing out flaws in the generally accepted notion of God (an Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-Good being), and in the concept of “free will” if such an entity were to exist. You’re the one saying that “free will” is a difficult concept and that’s why some things appear “difficult to understand” to us. They’re only hard to understand because you’re trying to fit “logical” conclusions onto an illogical premise.

No one can explain with 100% certainty how the boy lived, since no one was there to witness it. Things I can be certain of:

  1. No physical law was defied. There is a normal, non miraculous explantion for the event.

  2. No one knows the true, objective event.

  3. The story has been embellished in the retelling. Maybe he was in the water 10 minutes. That became “under an hour”, then “almost and hour”, “over an hour”. Maybe he’d left home 4 hours earlier and, of course, that became the time he spent in the pond, face down, unconscious from the first moment his skin touched the surface…

  4. People don’t like “ordinary” stories. They’re too boring. They much prefer magical tales with spirits and miracles and unexplainable events.

YES! You’ve got that part right. But don’t jump to the “miraculous” conclusion as the next step. Obviously, it’s not possible for someone to stop breathing for 4 hours and live, hence, that’s not what happened. There’s another, simpler explanation that will fit the known facts perfectly.

Why? Anyway, check this link: Internet Infidels, Inc / Secular Web / especially the December 2004 update. Flew based his reasoning in that their was no natural explanation for the appearance of DNA, and he saw the need for a “first cause” for that. Unfortunately, he’s wrong. There actually are quite a few theories on how DNA could’ve evolved to it’s current state. The best explanation of it I’ve read is “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins.

Of course, the theories are unproven, but part of them have been validated in laboratory experiments. There is much disagreement even among expert, and the obvious difficulty of reproducing in a reasonable time span something that occured in the span of billions of years… So whatever A. Flew believes, it appears that his main reason is not valid.[/quote]

[quote]veruvius wrote:
rainjack wrote:
veruvius wrote:
oh, please do tell me about thermodynamics, oh wise rainjack. I certainly wouldn’t know anything about that. I meant relativity, anyways. I’m sorry I’ve upset you. I’ll sacrifice an atheist for you.

It’s the law that refutes the theory of evolution. “Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, only changed.”

I was being sarcastic. I’ve taken three courses in thermodynamics, seeing how I’m a chemical engineer major. That is conservation of energy, which was later revised to be the conservation of energy and mass due to the theory of relativity.

And the second law of thermodynamics is really just a theory. It’s a case where every observable instance shows that all processes increase the entropy of the universe, but it’s impossible to prove that it is true. They just decided to call it a law because they were certain it had to be true.[/quote]

Ok, let me get this straight - you’ve had 3 courses in thermodynamics, you’re an engineering major of some sort, and you still believe in the THEORY of gravity?

BFG - This guy is exhibit A.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
veruvius wrote:
rainjack wrote:
veruvius wrote:
oh, please do tell me about thermodynamics, oh wise rainjack. I certainly wouldn’t know anything about that. I meant relativity, anyways. I’m sorry I’ve upset you. I’ll sacrifice an atheist for you.

It’s the law that refutes the theory of evolution. “Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, only changed.”

I was being sarcastic. I’ve taken three courses in thermodynamics, seeing how I’m a chemical engineer major. That is conservation of energy, which was later revised to be the conservation of energy and mass due to the theory of relativity.

And the second law of thermodynamics is really just a theory. It’s a case where every observable instance shows that all processes increase the entropy of the universe, but it’s impossible to prove that it is true. They just decided to call it a law because they were certain it had to be true.

Ok, let me get this straight - you’ve had 3 courses in thermodynamics, you’re an engineering major of some sort, and you still believe in the THEORY of gravity?

BFG - This guy is exhibit A.
[/quote]

The universal law of gravitation is not the be all and end all of gravity. Unified Field Theory has its own theory of gravity. And didn’t I already say I meant relativity? I make mistakes, sure, but I know plenty about science. What is it that you do, anyway? You can tell me about that.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Your entire argument (most of it) revolves around me taking what you had stated in the tough guy thread out of context. Context is unimportant in this case because there would have been no “religious argument” in that thread had you not initiated it! And that was my original point. [/quote]

I’d say the initiating post would be whoever mentioned Jesus as the toughest man. Then the follow-up of the crucifixion being the worst death in the history of the universe. But who started the whole thing is besides the point.

Here, it is you who’s intolerant of my convictions. I do not believe in God. At all. If you take my saying so as an attack upon yourself, if you see that statement as being mean spirited and hateful, then there’s nothing I can do. I do not hate christians. I live surrounded by christians. Most of my friends and family are christians. I do not hate any of them. I don’t hate you either. I simply do not share your beliefs and cannot understand how you can hold such a view; in a similar way that you probably think I’m a nut and an idiot for not seeing the obvious presence of God in our world.

I’m the one being called “God-hater”, “asshole”, “poisonous”, etc. And yet, my speech is the hateful one?

I’ve shared black jokes with my black neighbors and gay jokes with my gay friends; they didn’t take any offence. I don’t judge people on how they are, since they’ve had no more say in being black or gay than I had in being born white and male. Beliefs, ideas and convictions, that’s another matter. You have the choice of believing. You chose it (it was probably imposed to you as a kid, but you should now be old enough to think by yourself). If questioning those beliefs or ideas makes you uncomfortable (you should ask yourself why?) then don’t bring them up and just ignore me.

Just don’t try to shut me up by trying to show me as being intolerant of other’s beliefs. It’s you, it seems, who can’t tolerate my views.

It seems impossible to convey to you the fact of my absence of belief in God without angering you. I don’t believe in God. It follows that I don’t think the Bible (or Koran, or Torah) is anything special or “divinely inspired”, nor do I believe that Jesus was anything but a man, maybe a great philisopher of his time; but I don’t believe that the man’s life, as told in the gospels, ever happened. His mother was certainly not a virgin, and he didn’t rise from the dead. Now, if anything in there is “mean-spirited” “god-hater” hate speech, there’s simply no way we’ll be able to debate anything.

If I truly run out of arguments, that’ll mean that you’ve managed to convince me of the existence of God and the truth of the Bible and Jesus. I’d probably go back to church the next sunday.

Resorting to ad hominem attacks is a very weak tactic.

[quote]veruvius wrote:
What is it that you do, anyway? You can tell me about that.[/quote]

I collect beer cans on Rt. 24, behind the new Wal-Mart.

[quote]pookie wrote:
I didn’t say that it was an easy death or a pleasant one. Rather, there have been people who have suffered just as much or more for longer periods of time.

I really don’t understand why it is so important to you that Jesus have “the worst death ever”. What if he didn’t have the absolute worst death possible? So what?
[/quote]

I’m not going to get in a pissing match with you over if his death “was the worst ever”. The point is it was pretty freaking bad. Go see the Passion of the Christ and that will give you an idea on how bad it was. He did it for all of our sins (even yours). I’m not asking you to believe this, that’s what I believe. For someone (GOD) to go through a horrible death for me leaves me speechless just thinking about it. Again, I’m not asking you to challenge me on this, these are my beliefs.

It’s kinda hard not to read your comments when I’m on this board frequently. Again, I’m not engaging in a pissing match over who has had the worst death ever. It’s just the way you write that bugs me. You belittle his death in a real smug manner. If you’re not a believer, fine. But it’s your mean-spirited nature that really gets to me when you write about this topic.

You’ve said this a couple times already but you keep writing about my religion in a very disrespectful manner. Like Zeb said, you can pick on me all you want. I can take it. But your potshots at my beliefs are nothing but mean-spirited low blows. What’s your payoff Pookie? Why do you do this? Are you simply ignorant of what you’re doing when you write? Or do you enjoy getting a rise out of all the Christians on this board? Or do you have hatred for anyone that has a firm belief in GOD? Really, what’s you’re reason for writing the way you do? Be honest, what’s your payoff?