You CAN post in this thread anonymously by logging out and posting in this thread as a "guest". This is one of the only threads with this type of set up. Due to the subject and very passionate emotions people have about it, we have set up the anonymous guest posting to encourage participation from people who might not otherwise feel comfortable.
Cole. You and I discussed this once on your board, but I think it got lost in all of the super long quotes of other posts and quoting of bible passages. So I ask this again.
I have said before that I am open to believing in a "god" or supreme being, if I was able to be shown proof of one. I understand that for many people the "proof" for them is their "belief" of the existence of a supreme being.
My question is this - if I am willing to believe that there might be a god, are you able to potentially say that there might not be?
This is not really a question to make you say yes or no, but more of a discussion to see if you have the ability to see it the other way.
TVDinner wrote: Cole. You and I discussed this once on your board, but I think it got lost in all of the super long quotes of other posts and quoting of bible passages. So I ask this again.
I have said before that I am open to believing in a "god" or supreme being, if I was able to be shown proof of one. I understand that for many people the "proof" for them is their "belief" of the existence of a supreme being.
My question is this - if I am willing to believe that there might be a god, are you able to potentially say that there might not be?
This is not really a question to make you say yes or no, but more of a discussion to see if you have the ability to see it the other way.There is a possibility that there is no God. However you have to understand that my faith is not based on anything intellectual, it is part of my core being. Even if God is not real, He is real to me. If God is nothing but an idea in my head, that idea has enriched my life more than anything else. I do not see God as mearly an intellectual phenominon. I personally believe that when one actually finds a relationship with God, it cannot be on a simple intellectual level, it must be a striking emotional connection.
I am one of those types that would like to be shown scientific proof. Science shows that evolution does exist and until it proves to me that there is something else, I will continue to believe the way I do. I can scientifically show you things that you can't prove to me with religion.
This is one of the major reasons churches have stopped funding science and look down to science. Eventually science will either prove or disprove religion and that's pretty damn scary for many people. But why? Why should we be scared of the truth? Because so many have lived their life the way of the bible?
There is a possibility that there is no God. However you have to understand that my faith is not based on anything intellectual, it is part of my core being. Even if God is not real, He is real to me. If God is nothing but an idea in my head, that idea has enriched my life more than anything else. I do not see God as mearly an intellectual phenominon. I personally believe that when one actually finds a relationship with God, it cannot be on a simple intellectual level, it must be a striking emotional connection.
OK, lets keep this discussion going. I like this. For discussion sake - If you say God is potentially only real to you internally, and it is a big part of your life ("striking emotional connection"), so in some ways God speaks through you. So when everyone is always quoting God and quoting the words of God, does this mean that in some ways you are God?
TVDinner wrote: There is a possibility that there is no God. However you have to understand that my faith is not based on anything intellectual, it is part of my core being. Even if God is not real, He is real to me. If God is nothing but an idea in my head, that idea has enriched my life more than anything else. I do not see God as mearly an intellectual phenominon. I personally believe that when one actually finds a relationship with God, it cannot be on a simple intellectual level, it must be a striking emotional connection.
OK, lets keep this discussion going. I like this. For discussion sake - If you say God is potentially only real to you internally, and it is a big part of your life ("striking emotional connection"), so in some ways God speaks through you. So when everyone is always quoting God and quoting the words of God, does this mean that in some ways you are God? No. It does not.
God has become a part of my life. I quote what He has written in His books. I am merely a disciple, and I like it that way. My point there was simply that I don't care what people think, say, or do, God has been there for me. Even if I am wrong, I do not care, as my experiences in belief have done so much for me already.
I do not like the idea of being God or inheriting God's attributed at all. To be quite frank. I would never make things to add on to God's Word, scripture, the celebrated Word of God, is my only source of His Word. So no, that does not make me God, it just possibly means that He is guiding me through His Holy Spirit.
I do not believe that Religion and Science are mutually exclusive. I believe that both have been trying to silence the other, when both, I believe, will both reveal the same answers. God cannot ever be disproven, as He is omnipotent, He is above human knowledge.
MH0825 wrote: This is one of the major reasons churches have stopped funding science and look down to science. Eventually science will either prove or disprove religion and that's pretty damn scary for many people.
I would strongly disagree with that statement. Christianity (not saying all religion) has nothing to fear from science.
Well what happens if science proves that evolution occurred, does the bible rewrite itself to say god put creatures here and that his plan was for us to change with time?
You can't just change the bible every time some new fact comes up. It defeats the whole purpose.
MH0825 wrote: Well what happens if science proves that evolution occurred, does the bible rewrite itself to say god put creatures here and that his plan was for us to change with time?
You can't just change the bible every time some new fact comes up. It defeats the whole purpose.The Bible says that God created the universe, including the animals. It did not say how the animals changed throughout the years (as man changed, God changes man's surroundings, laws, and the like).
And an axiom of this thread was that the Abrahamic God is to be the focal point of discussion. We are talking about God in general. If the Bible is inaccurate, that does not rule out God.
MH0825 wrote: But if the bible is inaccurate does that not make you question what else you've believed in from there as well?I always live by this. I want you to assume that God is a real being. What would you trust more, the falliable word of man, or the infalliable Word of God. I would go for the latter, certainly not the former.
I do not denounce any of the Bible as inaccurate whatsoever. I accept the entirity of it as accurate.
I don't believe in God per se. I do believe there was a force or action greater than us all that we may never understand or be able to figure out and I have learned to accept that. I don't believe that it was a someone that could be portrayed as a person.
I think if we ever figure out what created the universe from a scientific way, we will destroy the planet. Something as powerful as creating the universe replicated would be entirely too powerful for anyone to control.
I can't really say I believe in God, but I do believe there is some thing but what who really knows.
I don't believe in the bible.
It has been translated and who can say that at some stage it wasn't translated incorrectly. It would only take one word translated wrong to change the whole meaning of it.
Tweety wrote: I can't really say I believe in God, but I do believe there is some thing but what who really knows.
I don't believe in the bible.
It has been translated and who can say that at some stage it wasn't translated incorrectly. It would only take one word translated wrong to change the whole meaning of it.
According to scholors, the Bible is around 99% accurate of its original transcript. (I cannot remember exactly).
I don't believe in God per se. I do believe there was a force or action greater than us all that we may never understand or be able to figure out and I have learned to accept that. I don't believe that it was a someone that could be portrayed as a person.
That's more or less what I believe. We can keep proving and disproving the evolution of the species and else, but we can never really have THE final manuscript that explains everything that has happened or is happening. Now, if one believes in a greater force and he/she calls it God, I'm fine with that; however, ...
Cole wrote:
According to scholars, the Bible is around 99% accurate of its original transcript. (I cannot remember exactly).
The thing is that there are many questions to be asked about the compilation of the holy bible. Constantine made Christianity the semi-official religion of the state, Byzantium, and this eventually led to the compilation of the first bible. Authenticity of each story/book (like Genesis, etc.) itself was already questionable because this was 400 years after the death of Jesus Christ (I'm just assuming his death). Furthermore, there were Christians sects who believed that Jesus Christ was not the son of God but he was a prophet, if not, a mere mortal. But Council of Rome settled that dispute once and all, and the church proceeded to compile the bible. Pretty much everything that happened in this period was political.
Holy bible isn't really a creation of God, but it's really a creation of men. Given that, we can't really start from the supposition that the bible is one and only truth ...
I'm not exactly an atheist, but, speaking logically, we can't really say that the bible is the proof of God ...
I believe that there is something higher, whether that is God or not. I don't care what religion people are - it's what makes them happy. What I don't like though are the fundamentalist religious people who try to take over secular societies and try to impose their religious beliefs on others.
Camron wrote: Yes, I do believe in God because otherwise how could any of this become, out of nothing?
If one believes in the higher power or the evolution or the big bang or the force triggered the evolution and the big bang and call it God, then that's fine. But historically speaking, the government and the religious authority (like Christianity, Judaism, etc.) were merged. So, it's healthy to assume that teachings of institutions of religions were formed like political messages and they became foundations of today's religions. And thus, believing that today's religions actually teach the definition of God or who he/she is seems to lack healthy skepticism.
