"G-Net" <netnerve@verizon.net> wrote:

Science is "irrelevant" IF it tries to supercede what information God
has already given us.

And there's your problem right there. Rejecting this dazzling, stunning
and
beautiful universe around us, with its perplexing complexity and its
remarkable
simplicity, you prefer to imagine that the words of some ancient humans
written
down in a book and edited and 'translated' over thousands of years are the
actual
word of God.

Well, it's your loss, I assure you.

I disagree. I think the scientific community loves to throw rocks at
Christianity and scripture.

I think in most cases scientists and the science-minded like to throw
rocks at the
wilfully ignorant people who insist that everything except the Bible is
wrong.

And in most cases even then, I think it's really out of a desire to
convince you people
to look, just for once, at the real world, and see what your god is really
capable
of.

Really? I can't think of even one Christian who believes in ANY way
that God is "trapped inside a book".

So: could your god have used evolution as a means of creation?

I don't "cling" to the Bible and have never met anyone who does. Being
a Christian in today's godless society has never been more difficult
than it is today.

Yeah, it has. You're not going to get thrown to the lions, are you?
Don't be so
melodramatic.

It is much easier to claim
that you know all the answers and have no need for God.

Woah there, Bessie! I'M not the one claiming to know exactly how
everything
happened, and that I have no need to learn more. That's *your* script.
As to
having no need for God - I've said no such thing. If I didn't need
religion of
some form I wouldn't be religious, now would I?

It's also much easier to not believe in sin or that you do anything wrong
that
you will have to account for.

Harder, actually. Because when I do things wrong I have to account for
myself
there and then to other people and (worse still) to my own conscience.

I don't get to go "forgive me Lord" and have the guilt taken away.

Nor do I have an Evil One to take the blame for me: "Satan Made Me Do It."

Interesting. On one hand you say that God is "omnipotent and
omniscient" yet you, with the same mouth

...fingers...

say that the Bible is not
factual. So if you really believe that God is "omnipotent" why do you
not believe that He had the power to ensure that scripture was
absolutely true?

Because it patently isn't, and because I don't consider any truly
omnipotent and
omniscient God bound to the words of humans thousands of years ago who
didn't have
any means of examining the universe in the way that we can.

If God's out there, then He's allowed us to develop the means to examine
His work
in such detail. We owe it to Him to take advantage of that gift. To my
mind, it's
quite insulting to reject it and say, "actually, no, we're not interested;
we'd
rather stick with what this shepherd guy wrote thousands of years ago,
thanks all
the same".

Who do you suppose has the most to gain in creating "huge and ever-
increasing" mountains of supposed "scientific data" which SEEMS to
"prove" that the Bible is not only fallible but basically wrong? Do
you suppose that this would benefit the devil at all?

What, that people take their heads out of their holy books and start to
learn about
each other and the world they live in?

That they increase their understanding of their place in the world and in
relation to
each other? Oh yes, I'm sure he's *delighted*.

Again, you proceed from the flawed premise that 'learning equals rejection
of God'.
This is the crux of your problem here.

You know I don't know exactly how my car works or many of my home
appliances either. I have somewhat limited knowledge

[...]

So, to say that I "choose
ignorance" is your way of being condescending toward someone who is
steadfast in their faith, I can accept that.

Bingo. I'm betting you don't believe your car's powered by hamsters in
little
wheels, am I right?

I'm pretty sure you know that, if you put fuel in and activate the
ignition, the
fuel is burned to create energy and the energy is fed through to the
wheels to
make the car move.

If you're like me, you don't need to know more. You know enough to work
the
vehicle, and to know if something's wrong. You know enough about how a
car works
to operate it, and to give you an idea when it needs attention, and who it
needs
attention from.

See, I know how the universe works to about the same relative standard. I
know it
began many billion years ago with a great big explosion that created
matter and
energy and the rules that govern them - gravity and electromagnetism and
the
nuclear forces.

I know that, as a result of the interplay of these forces,
galaxies and stars and planets formed from the cooling material. I know
that at
least one of those planets formed liquid oceans and that, somehow, a
molecular
replication process occurred. And I know that that process gave rise to
more and
more complex molecular structures which became self-sustaining and
self-nourishing
and eventually developed into what we now consider to be 'life', whatever
that is.
And I know that life continued to develop over billions of years until it
became
able to sit in front of a screen typing out an argument on Usenet.

Now, that's my limited understanding of the universe I live in. I know
enough to
work my little bit of it, although I admit I've no idea who to take it to
if it
breaks down. Not one single scrap of the above means that I can't live
with the
idea of God.

Not one tiny bit of it. In fact, if I were inclined to believe in a
single, creator
God, the constant process of discovery would just make me more and
more impressed by what He's done.

So you say that I'm being condescending in saying that you've chosen
ignorance.
You're free to think so. But say you take that car to be repaired, and
the
mechanic tells you that such a problem has occurred, and this or that is
why it
happened. If you then deny that the problem occurred for the reason
given, aren't
you being deliberately ignorant?

The situation's the same. Ish. Science is revealing more and more
information
about the universe and the world around us. It's trying to make sure that
it does
so in a regulated and objective way. And most people take what
information they're
able to understand on board and adapt their view of the world accordingly.

Even most religious people manage to do that. Like I said, the more we
discover
about the universe, the more impressive an achievement we see it is, if we
believe
in a Creator.

But you, unfortunately, don't do any of that. You just look at these
marvellous
discoveries - these wonders that the Creator's seen fit to reveal to us,
or to
allow us to find out for ourselves - and you just say "it's not in my book
so it's
not right". You shut your eyes to all this, and then tell the rest of us
that
you're the one who's being true to what God wanted for us.

You see it as an easy life, I don't. If it was so easy why are there
not more people choosing the Christian life?

There are probably many reasons. Perhaps there are those who've come to
believe from observation of people such as yourself that Christianity
*requires*
the rejection of knowledge and learning, and can't reconcile that with the
idea
of an intelligent creator.

There is no "risk" in taking the easy way out. The risk is in holding
on to what I know to be true and keeping my faith in God.

Let's not pussyfoot around. The risk here is that you might find you
don't
know as much as you think you do.

It COULD "change your life" in ways you wouldn't want.

Yep. I said as much. That's why it's a gamble, of sorts. Life generally
is.

You could also climb the
mountain and find out that there was no real reason to climb it in the
first place.

True enough - in which case you've lost nothing.

Ah, but you miss the whole point of the Christian life! First off,
standing before God as a Christian means I won't be "paying those
bills" at all.

Fascinating. Stop paying them, then. I mean it. If Christianity means
you don't
have to pay for food, or energy, or your ISP subscription, then stop
paying, right
now.

Standing before God as
a born again Christian means that I will be blameless before God.
Notice I said
"blameless" not sinless nor perfect.

Yes, I noticed. In other words, the mere fact of your being a Christian
frees you
from guilt and responsibility.

And then you argue that it's not an easy life?

Secondly, and just as importantly, the Christian life is a life of joy
and contentment
that is unattainable to those who do not believe.

Perhaps so. But again, rejecting knowledge does not require rejecting
God. Our
disagreement here is not whether or not it's right to believe in God or
Christ, but
whether it's right to dismiss any knowledge not contained in that one
book.

I also don't agree that I need to delve into things that
scripture clearly indicates are dangerous

Like I said, don't take risks and you'll have a nice, comfortable life.
You won't
learn anything - but of course if you've already convinced yourself that
there's
nothing left that you can benefit from learning, that doesn't matter, does
it?

There are plenty of other things that I consider "success" that also
involve helping other
people. I don't however feel the need to brag about my personal
"succcess" to encourage others.

Actually I offered the possibility that your success might encourage
others. I
didn't say anything about bragging. Say your admirable performance in
persuading
that person not to kill themselves that particular day was observed by
someone who
then felt inspired to join the Samaritans, and was then able to dissuade
many more
people from taking their own lives. Is that not a way in which your
success could
have had a positive benefit for others?

Or do you think only of success as it relates to you personally?

Again we disagree. I cannot "save" anyone, only God can do that. My
question for you
is, "Why worry about anyone else if there is no reward in it for you?"

And the fact that you can even ask that question tells me a great deal
about your
so-called Christianity. Why should I help someone else when there's
nothing in it
for me? The answer is "because I can".

I mean, you don't believe in God.

I don't believe in *your* god.

You don't believe in sin.

I don't believe in sin against God. Only against others and against
myself.

You don't believe in heaven or hell.

Correct.

What I find in many cases is that people somehow think that
ultimately, their "good deeds" will carry the day for them. They reason
that a "loving God" surely would not punish me since I've done all of
these "good deeds" and "helped" so many people.
This flies blatantly in the face of scripture but people want to
believe it so they do.

Well, if what you say is true, and those who do good deeds will be
punished by your
god, then I have even less reason to respect your god, don't I?

Well like I said, you take your easy way of following men while I
follow God.

And God, fortunately, doesn't require you to do anything you feel
uncomfortable
with.

All you need to do is offer up the occasional hallelujah and it's all
sorted
for you. Aren't you lucky?

Well from your post you don't believe in God, so it's "logical" that
you are in fact, an atheist.

Precisely the sort of faulty logic that prevents many Christians from
seeing an
objective picture of the world. I don't believe in *your* god. I'm not
an
atheist.

BTW, I'm not religious at all, I am a Christian. They are not the same
thing.

Actually, they are. It's just that some Christians insist they're not
because
they're conscious of the negative connotations of the word 'religious'.

This is again your idea of what is "wasting my gifts" versus my idea.
You have no way of "knowing" what my "gifts" are so you have no way of
knowing what I'm doing with them, whether I am using them or whether
I am sitting on them.

The fact is, if you're refusing to use your intelligence, then you're
wasting God's
gift to you.

And if you're sticking your head in the sand and denying everything
that isn't written down in that book of yours, then sorry, but you're not
using your intelligence.

So, you have some unrefutable PROOF that is beyond doubt that the
theory of evolution is a positive, provable, documntable fact? I'd
like to see your "proof" that you have pinned your hat on.

No you wouldn't. You'd reject it out of hand. The proof is all over the
place, if
you're willing to look at it - but you aren't. You're not willing to
accept that
mankind has been breeding animals for millennia, selecting for strength,
speed,
stamina, intelligence, and whatever else. You're not willing to accept
that the
medical world is fighting a constant battle against antibiotic-resistant
strains of
bacteria because the resistant strains are becoming dominant as the
non-resistant
strains are dying off.

If you were willing to accept any of this proof AS proof, then I don't
suppose we
would be having this conversation. Instead, you have to tell me that God
just
happened to create faster, stronger, more intelligent creatures just when
we
decided we wanted them - but mysteriously slowly - and that He's
constantly coming
up with new microscopic nasties to torment us with (although quite why our
loving
God would be doing that I'll have to leave to you to explain).

Your posts claim that you were once a Christian,
but your posts are inconsistent with someone who is, was, or ever has
been.

Really? What should I be, then?

I was just going by what you have said in your posts. You have
indicated to me that I cannot be as intelligent or knowledgable as you
because of my supposed clinging to Biblical beliefs.

No - I've said that I don't think you're *using* your intelligence (which
isn't the
same as saying you aren't intelligent) because you're clinging to a
*literal
interpretation of the Bible*.

No one can be "raised Christian". You may have been raised in a
Christian home but that does not mean in any way that you were in fact
a Christian.

Semantic pedantry, but if you will, then yes, I was raised in a Christian
home.
Whatever the details, it means that I am thoroughly versed in the
Christian Bible
and have a pretty good knowledge of the principles of the Christian faith.

Let's see, "nominally Christian", I wonder what that's supposed to
mean?

What do you *think* it means? It means they describe themselves as
Christian.
'Nominally', from 'nominal' meaning 'by name', ultimately from nomen,
meaning
'name'. They describe themselves thus - whether or not they'd qualify in
your eyes
isn't for me to say and isn't really my concern.

So, in your opinion, being a Christian who can "think" means that only
certain parts of the Bible are true?

It means that the Bible contains truth. It doesn't mean it's necessarily
true.

For example, they would ignore Genesis
since it does not agree that we came from apes?

We didn't 'come from apes', and evolutionary theory doesn't say we did.
That's a
Creationist strawman.

It's a clear matter of our individual definitions of "facts". You see
science as
"fact" I see it as theory if it does not agree with scripture.

And you see Genesis as 'fact' while I see it as a fairy story thought up
by people
who had no way of obtaining more accurate information and no time to
concern
themselves with abstract ideas about cosmology and biology.

So, to me, Genesis has value as a myth - but none as fact.

What if we "fundies" know more than you do? What if the "fundies" have
really found a relationship with God but you have not?

Then you're welcome to Him.

Your "science" is ignoring scripture and the information it contains.

Actually, historians have studied your scripture in detail, and have
managed to
obtain quite a bit of information about the disparate sources of what you
now think
of as a single coherent text. Also, scientists have obtained information
that
contradicts Biblical accounts, but have not been engaged, as you seem to
believe,
in a deliberate campaign to undermine the Bible.

My life is rich and full and I have been blessed by God more than I
could ever tell you.

Good for *you*.

I'm sorry if you feel that way. I believe that saying that the Bible
is wrong

And I've said that where? I've said I believe there's truth in the Bible,
but that
it isn't necessarily true. Can you understand that idea?

You are in a slippery slope. If some scripture is not fact than none
of it is.

Now why on Earth would you say that? Well, actually it's obvious why -
Creationists often think in absolutes. So I'll point this out,
problematic though
it may be to you: just because one part of your scripture isn't LITERAL
truth, it
doesn't follow that none of it contains any kind of truth at all.

Jesus taught in parables. Were THEY literal truth?

Either Jesus was who He said He was or He's not.

That at least is true. I personally don't believe he was. But that's not
the
issue here. That's a long way beyond the issue, which lies in Genesis.

What gives you the right to tell people
why God gave us the Bible when what you are saying is contradictory to
what the Bible says? I think you are really in danger of judgement
from God for what you are doing.

That's between me and God. It's irrelevant to you, of course, because
being a Christian you wouldn't relish watching a fellow human being
suffer at the hands of your loving god.

So let me get this straight. You think it's a "sin" to NOT believe
what man (science), is saying?

Man? Science? Sorry - where did these come in? I said it was a sin
against the
self not to use one's possibly-God-given intelligence.

Do you have a scripture ve...

No. I don't need one.

You think you are right, I think God is right.

I also think God might be right. The question here is whether *you* are
right.

also think that God is God and I am merely human. I don't profess to
understand EVERYTHING because I am not God.

But you don't allow for the possibility that God could, outside of the
Bible,
present you with something you don't understand.

It doesn't occur to you that the Bible, if it is God's Word, might have
been
intended for readers thousands of years ago, and that what He's given us
since then might constitute His new lessons, tailored for humanity as it
exists today?

God
did not create Satan, He created Lucifer who was an angel of light.
The Bible says that Lucifer was the most beautiful angel. Lucifer,
like man is doing now,
got arrogant and decided he could be like God.

One might wonder why, if God's presence is as totally awe-inspiring as
some would
have us believe, any angel could even be thinking of rebellion. Also, why
would
God - omnipotent as He is - allow the New Satan to interfere so
fundamentally with
His favourite creation?

The simple fact is that you can make whatever excuses you like, but you
still can't
resolve the eternal dilemma for those who believe there's a single creator
God
incapable of evil: evil exists, therefore either God cannot do anything
about it or
chooses not to do anything about it.

In the former case He cannot be omnipotent;
in the latter He cannot be omnibenevolent. Either way, He's not what you
claim
He is, and He isn't worthy of our worship.

Incidentally, 'Lucifer' is not the former name of the Devil, as is often
claimed.
The name appears in scripture only once, in Isaiah 14:12: "How art thou
fallen
from heaven, o Lucifer, King of the Morning". This passage refers not to
Satan,
but to a king of Babylon using the common kingly title of 'Morning Star'
(a title
Jesus apparently used to describe himself in Revelation 22:16, making him
Lucifer
as well). The use of Lucifer as a proper name for Satan is unscriptural.

I don't wish you or anyone else
ill will because you disagree with the Bible.

Somehow I'm not convinced. You relate the torturous intentions of your
'loving'
God a little enthusiastically. And you don't seem able to acknowledge the
fact
that such torture, if it occurs, would be for one reason and one reason
alone: God
wills it.

If you end up spending eternity with an animal, it certainly won't be
God. I have heard Satan depicted as somewhat goat like though...

Yes, that was when Christians nicked Pan because they wanted something a
little
more frightening than the angel of light they'd decided Satan was when
they co-
opted him for use as the Adversary, which was when they decided that God
was
incapable of evil but needed some way of explaining the presence of evil
in the
world (although they didn't really think it through properly); until the
New
Testament Satan was just another of God's servants doing His bidding. He
can be
seen doing God's benevolent bidding in the Book of Job, when God decided
to
destruct-test one of His most faithful followers, just because He could.