Honest Question For Non-Christians

[quote]JPBear wrote:
We cannot approach God from the point of view that we deserve to be in communion with him and that we deserve his favor or mercy. Mercy would not be mercy if it was deserved. What we all deserve is justice for our sins. Yet God has made a way to be redeemed. You can sit here and say that God’s mercy is not up to your standards, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
[/quote]

NO WAY!

I want God to come here right now and explain to me in detail why he’s not on TV, or something else like that?

And why would a loving God send people to Hell?

Yea…I want explanations.

And I also want a God that I comepletly understand with my 21st century mind.

It seems God is not very embracing of other religions.

How can a loving God be like that?
HUH?

It seems there are better ways to save the world from sin than to impregnate a virgin…This can’t be true…

I want God to be…well more politically correct too.

Why isn’t God more like what I WANT HIM TO BE?

Answer that!

(Okay, forgive the sarcasm, but when it is put like that you really start to see why people fail to get close to God…They want to shrink God down to their size and understanding. And then they want God to make the first move. If it was not so very sad, it would indeed be funny!)

[quote]JPBear wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I think my point about prophets is also interesting.

Why don’t they have to struggle with their faith like the rest of us?

Why did God choose to reveal himself to them? They don’t even have faith. They have seen the evidence, so they claim.

Why did God only choose the Jews as his special people for so many years? They were the only group of people that He revealed Himself to. Not only that, but He had the Jews destroy many other nations because of their sins during that time period.


[/quote]

This is exactly my point. Why would God chose only one group be it Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc.

Answer, he would not. These people are just claiming he did.

There may be a God but all of the man made religions make false claims to him.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And I also want a God that I comepletly understand with my 21st century mind.[/quote]

So, let me see if I understand your logic:

– Not being able to understand God means that our mind is too limited

– Not being able to understand natural selection, infinity and randomness means they are absurd concepts

Anyone else see an inconsistency here?

Oh, no, wait: I’m asking this to the same guy that believes there are no inconsistencies in the Bible.

Let me predict your answer:

"
The light bulb doesn’t need changing! There’s nothing wrong with it!

And why do you hate Americ…, errr, God?
"

Pretty close?

[quote]electric_eales wrote:
Still haven’t explained this to me[/quote]

Let me help :wink:

Dinosaurs are some absurd theory that the reality-detached liberal nuts that most academics are came up with to question what they are too stupid to understand.

OR

It’s all there in the Bible – if you look hard enough. It’s just that you’re too stupid to see it.

[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
And I also want a God that I comepletly understand with my 21st century mind.

So, let me see if I understand your logic:

– Not being able to understand God means that our mind is too limited[/quote]

“No one understands the mind of God.” If you read the Bible you have read that passage!

Again if you would actually read the Bible instead of buying into a handful of nutty web sites, you would know there are no inconsistancies.

I challenge you to spend some time in the word of God with an open mind and see how it changes your life for the better.

We can all get better right?

:slight_smile:

[quote]hspder wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Still haven’t explained this to me

Let me help :wink:

Dinosaurs are some absurd theory that the reality-detached liberal nuts that most academics are came up with to question what they are too stupid to understand.

OR

It’s all there in the Bible – if you look hard enough. It’s just that you’re too stupid to see it.
[/quote]

First you have to actually read (and study) the Bible in order to undersand it.

And secondly, I think it’s fairly well documented that very large animals roamed the earth called dinosaurs.

[quote]electric_eales wrote:
Still haven’t explained this to me[/quote]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=dinosaurs

Go here and read to your heart’s content.

Dinos were my big hang up too when I was an atheist. Once I knew God though, it really did not bother me any more.

This will probably add fuel to the fire for the Atheists. In the Bible we are given what we need to know God as much as we can and how to have a relationship with him. I think if you look at the purpose of the Bible that is what you will see. This is one of the main differences between Christianity and other religions. The bible in its basic form is broken into two testaments or two covenants. The Old Testament shows the covenant between God and his chosen people.

The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament covenant (Jesus). I believe that the Bible came directly from God to men spanning around 1500 years. I would like the opportunity to refute any thing that you feel is a contradiction. There is no other book like it. There are more manuscript copies of the New Testament than any other piece of literature. This in itself is proof that even though the Bible has been copied many times it remains accurate.

As for the comments about dinosaurs:

I would add that the Bible is not all inclusive. There are a lot of different things that were not included and that does not mean that they didn?t happen or that they make the Bible less plausible. There are passages that mention large creatures. I will see if I can find a reference for you.

Me Solomon Grundy

[quote]JPBear wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Still haven’t explained this to me

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=dinosaurs

Go here and read to your heart’s content. [/quote]

I did. And it says:

"
The Bible, however, makes it plain that dinosaurs and people must have lived together.
"

Even though the site grasps at all straws one can imagine to prove the above (by saying that one particular species of dinosaur is described in the Bible, and that accounts of Dragons are actually accounts of dinosaurs) the FACT is that there is NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL of a dinosaur that is even remotely contemporary to the earliest human fossil ever found. EVERY single dinosaur fossil precedes EVERY single human fossil.

There is NO overlap. Not a single one. In fact, several MILLIONS of years passed between the latest dinosaur fossil and the earliest human one.

That is absolutely unquestionable, and goes firmly against the above statement.

Unless, of course, you do what the document itself says, which is an exercise in absurdity:

"
If you remove the evolutionary framework, get rid of the millions of years, and then take the Bible seriously, you will find an explanation that fits the facts and makes perfect sense
"

Yeah, makes PERFECT sense. Just “get rid of the millions of years” and it all works out!

[quote]JPBear wrote:
Dinos were my big hang up too when I was an atheist. Once I knew God though, it really did not bother me any more. [/quote]

Clearly.

Isnt the scientific explanation for Dinosaurs by the ID people that the fossils were planted by satan to test peoples faith?

[quote]JPBear wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Still haven’t explained this to me

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=dinosaurs

Go here and read to your heart’s content.

Dinos were my big hang up too when I was an atheist. Once I knew God though, it really did not bother me any more.
[/quote]

Solomon,

I’m going to address my comments to you, since you made such a sincere effort at asking non-Christians about their positions.

First, that website JPB pointed out actually made me sad.

The orthodox jews I know don’t even believe in a literal interpretation of genesis. (and yes, I know there are a few who do, but I’m talking about the vast majority).

You know why they don’t believe dinos and man lived side by side 6k years ago? Is it because their hearts were hardened because they didn’t accept Jesus as the messiah and abandon the law that God commanded them to keep forever?

No, it’s because they understand that Genesis is most likely an allegory.

They also have the Oral Tradition and Midrash, hundreds of pages of very complex commentary, developed over thousands of years by various learned rabbis. And these are crucial to understanding the Torah. In fact, do you know there is no Page 1 of the Torah? Why? Because of the Oral Tradition which is needed to understand it. You are not allowed to study it by yourself because you will be unable to understand it.

This I’m cutting/pasting from a Jewish literacy website:

[i]It is a foundation of our faith to believe that God gave Moses an oral explanation of the Torah along with the written text.

This oral tradition is now essentially preserved in the Talmud and Midrashim.

We thus speak of two Torahs. There is the Written Torah (Torah SheBiKetav) and the Oral Torah (Torah SheB’Al Peh). Both are alluded to in God’s statement to Moses, “Come up to Me to the mountain, and I will give you… the Torah and the commandments” (Exodus 24:12).

In many instances, the Torah refers to details not included in the written text, thus alluding to an oral tradition. Thus, the Torah states, “You shall slaughter your cattle… as I have commanded you” (Deut. 12:21), implying an oral commandment concerning ritual slaughter (shechitah).

Similarly, such commandments as tefillin and tzitzit are found in the Torah, but no details are given, and they are assumed to be in the Oral Torah. Although observing Shabbat is one of the Ten Commandments, no details are given as to how it should be kept, and these are also in the unwritten tradition. God thus said, “You shall keep Shabbat holy, as I have commanded your fathers” (Jeremiah 17:22).

Just as we depend on tradition for the accepted text, vocalization, and translation of the Torah, so must we depend on tradition for its interpretation.

The Written Torah cannot be understood without the oral tradition. Hence, if anything, the Oral Torah is the more important of the two.

Since the Written Torah appears largely defective unless supplemented by the oral tradition, a denial of the Oral Torah necessarily leads to the denial of the divine origin of the written text as well…[/i]

All of this valuable information was thrown out by whom? Not Jesus, not James, not Peter… but Paul (who never met Jesus). Why? Because the Gentiles he was marketing to found his product too confusing. Plus, they didn’t want to be circumcised and they wanted to keep eating the meat sacrificed to pagan gods.

Therefore, if you read the Bible literally, and not the way it was meant to be read/studied, you come to absurd conclusions like those of the website above.

Peace.

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Isnt the scientific explanation for Dinosaurs by the ID people that the fossils were planted by satan to test peoples faith?[/quote]

He also tampers with the decay of carbon isotopes, that sneaky bastard.

[quote]futuredave wrote:
The orthodox jews I know don’t even believe in a literal interpretation of genesis. You know why? Is it because their hearts were hardened because they didn’t accept Jesus as the messiah and abandon the law that God commanded them to keep forever?

Or because they understand that Genesis is most likely an allegory.[/quote]

Precisely. As we are all well aware, there is a disproportionate amount of Jews in the scientific and academic communities. Einstein was a Jew. I have tremendous appreciation for the tremendous respect for learning and science that Jewish families transmit to their kids; they are always among the best students. Clearly, they ARE comfortable with science and do not see that accepting scientific evidence is a threat to their belief system – they, in fact, cherish it, and I have heard many Jews saying that “Science is God”, i.e., that science, for them, is basically another way to UNDERSTAND and reach God.

I know what is the Christian response to this – basically what you described, i.e., that they turned their backs to God – but the irony here is that Christians agree that Jews are God’s chosen people; God being omniscient, he had to know that they were going to reject Him. It says so in the Bible. So what is the point of picking THEM? Why not pick a people that wasn’t as “stubborn”?

Wait, I know what you’re going to say --the reason this seems odd to me is that I haven’t studied the Bible properly.

The problem with that excuse is that I can much more easily claim that the only reason you reject Evolution is that you haven’t studied it properly yet…

[quote]futuredave wrote:
You’re actually turning others away from Christianity with this dinosaurs and man lived hand-in-hand nonesense. Not that I care. I’m just saying[/quote]

100% agreed.

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Isnt the scientific explanation for Dinosaurs by the ID people that the fossils were planted by satan to test peoples faith?[/quote]

Check out this site. It gives a differing view. You have to register, but its free.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.shtml

Me Solomon Grundy

I really am fucking tired of this.

Can we get back to talking politics? Enough with this God bullshit. No one is going to change their viewpoint here, especially on religion…can we let this go?

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
Don’t read anything into it. Its just a joke I wanted to share.[/quote]

A guy falls off a cliff, and on the way down just manages to snag a tree branch. He shouts up to the top of the cliff “Is there anyone up there? Help!”. A voice booms out “I am your God. Since you have been my faithful servant, your life will be spared. Just let go of the branch and no harm will come to you.” The guy thinks for a minute, then shouts back “Is there anyone else up there?”

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I really am fucking tired of this.

Can we get back to talking politics? Enough with this God bullshit. No one is going to change their viewpoint here, especially on religion…can we let this go?[/quote]

I started this to get an idea of where Non-Christians were coming from. Thank you for your input. I will be interested to discuss any topic in relation to understanding someones core beliefs. I think religion, even if its Atheism or any other theism, directly effects that.

Me Solomon Grundy

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I really am fucking tired of this.

Can we get back to talking politics? Enough with this God bullshit. No one is going to change their viewpoint here, especially on religion…can we let this go?

I started this to get an idea of where Non-Christians were coming from. Thank you for your input. I will be interested to discuss any topic in relation to understanding someones core beliefs. I think religion, even if its Atheism or any other theism, directly effects that.

Me Solomon Grundy[/quote]

Maybe you need to ask?

What do you want to know about an atheists world view?

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I really am fucking tired of this.

Can we get back to talking politics? Enough with this God bullshit. No one is going to change their viewpoint here, especially on religion…can we let this go?

I started this to get an idea of where Non-Christians were coming from. Thank you for your input. I will be interested to discuss any topic in relation to understanding someones core beliefs. I think religion, even if its Atheism or any other theism, directly effects that.

Me Solomon Grundy[/quote]

That’s fine, but we’ve had like four different threads on this in the past four months that have all gone over 500 posts. We don’t need another one. I’m tired of the same bullshit.

There’s good stuff going on in politics…and religion is something that just gets boring after hearing the same shit for months.

[quote]futuredave wrote:
JPBear wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Still haven’t explained this to me

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=dinosaurs

Go here and read to your heart’s content.

Dinos were my big hang up too when I was an atheist. Once I knew God though, it really did not bother me any more.

Solomon,

I’m going to address my comments to you, since you made such a sincere effort at asking non-Christians about their positions.

First, that website JPB pointed out actually made me sad.

The orthodox jews I know don’t even believe in a literal interpretation of genesis. (and yes, I know there are a few who do, but I’m talking about the vast majority).

You know why they don’t believe dinos and man lived side by side 6k years ago? Is it because their hearts were hardened because they didn’t accept Jesus as the messiah and abandon the law that God commanded them to keep forever?

No, it’s because they understand that Genesis is most likely an allegory.

They also have the Oral Tradition and Midrash, hundreds of pages of very complex commentary, developed over thousands of years by various learned rabbis. And these are crucial to understanding the Torah. In fact, do you know there is no Page 1 of the Torah? Why? Because of the Oral Tradition which is needed to understand it. You are not allowed to study it by yourself because you will be unable to understand it.

This I’m cutting/pasting from a Jewish literacy website:

[i]It is a foundation of our faith to believe that God gave Moses an oral explanation of the Torah along with the written text.

This oral tradition is now essentially preserved in the Talmud and Midrashim.

We thus speak of two Torahs. There is the Written Torah (Torah SheBiKetav) and the Oral Torah (Torah SheB’Al Peh). Both are alluded to in God’s statement to Moses, “Come up to Me to the mountain, and I will give you… the Torah and the commandments” (Exodus 24:12).

In many instances, the Torah refers to details not included in the written text, thus alluding to an oral tradition. Thus, the Torah states, “You shall slaughter your cattle… as I have commanded you” (Deut. 12:21), implying an oral commandment concerning ritual slaughter (shechitah).

Similarly, such commandments as tefillin and tzitzit are found in the Torah, but no details are given, and they are assumed to be in the Oral Torah. Although observing Shabbat is one of the Ten Commandments, no details are given as to how it should be kept, and these are also in the unwritten tradition. God thus said, “You shall keep Shabbat holy, as I have commanded your fathers” (Jeremiah 17:22).

Just as we depend on tradition for the accepted text, vocalization, and translation of the Torah, so must we depend on tradition for its interpretation.

The Written Torah cannot be understood without the oral tradition. Hence, if anything, the Oral Torah is the more important of the two.

Since the Written Torah appears largely defective unless supplemented by the oral tradition, a denial of the Oral Torah necessarily leads to the denial of the divine origin of the written text as well…[/i]

All of this valuable information was thrown out by whom? Not Jesus, not James, not Peter… but Paul (who never met Jesus). Why? Because the Gentiles he was marketing to found his product too confusing. Plus, they didn’t want to be circumcised and they wanted to keep eating the meat sacrificed to pagan gods.

Therefore, if you read the Bible literally, and not the way it was meant to be read/studied, you come to absurd conclusions like those of the website above.

Peace.[/quote]
I went to that website too. It was not what I had expected.I don?t consider anything that I saw a ?deal breaker? in reference to salvation. I would probably agree that the creation account in Genisis is not literal. I would not consider it false though. I can accept that this was given to teach man to rest on the 7th day and also that it was described in the most basic terms. The explanation was probably sufficient for a pre-science culture. I can?t imagine trying to explain something like that without getting too deep. I think it would be like explaining it to a child. The oral tradition of the Torah is interesting. I had always thought of it as a cultural way of passing history to the next generation and not a biblical necessity. How did you come to the conclusion that Paul threw this out?

I think your final conclusion is a bit limiting. I would say that parts of the bible are to be taken literally. The historical books (kings, Chronicles) in the Old Testament contain historically accurate lineages that have been proven archeologically. I do think it is an important point to read and study the Bible as well as the culture to get an accurate picture of what is stated.

As a side bar: Ask your Jewish friends at what point blood atonement for sin was no longer necessary, or what they do now.

Me Solomon Grundy