Post your tough questions in here regarding Christianity

Quote Originally Posted by MRGETRICH:



You are right you don't know me. I take full responsiblity for my actions. This has nothing to do with taking responsibility for my actions. I'm not the one who accepts someone elses death as a cop out for my "sins"

This is about a story which the outcome was predetermined. If it was an unknown outcome then your God can't exist as it is all knowing. It can't not know about anything.

Maybe the story itself is about accepting responsibly for our actions, i won't argue that. To say that this story is literally true is insane and proves that the outcome was predetermined just like Jesus knew before he was born his job was to die on a cross. 

My example is simple, People are asking if God knows that we will sin, why did he put the snake there?

When the father gives the keys to his young son for the first time, he tells him not to drink and drive, the father knows that humans get tempted and makes mistakes, but out of LOVE gives him the keys and tells him not to drink and drive (much like God telling Adam not to eat from the garden from that specific tree).

The young son gets tempted by his friends and drinks and drives (much like adam succumbing to the temptaions of the snake).

Whose ultimate fault is it?

The father who loves his son so much trusts his son (lets assume the son was raised very well much like God crreated Adam without sin) and gives him the keys for the first time even though he knows that young men are vulnerable...or

The son, after recieving instructions not to drive while drunk, but disobeyed his father and gave into temptation?

When the son gets caught, does the son or the father get put in jail for the events that transpired?

Furthermore, imagine if this person went to jail for eternity (hypothtically) for drink driving, Then the father gives up his own life to free his son from eternity in jail?

And people here are saying why should we love Jesus? 

Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

If you can't test it, there's no point in even considering it. You can't test the existence of the tooth fairy, Santa, or the celestial teapot located between Earth and Mars.

I believe in the holy bible and that is enough, the holy book is NOT testable like everything else in this world.

That is why people like you, dumber than you and smarter than you have tried to kill it for 2000 years and have FAILED...

Quote Originally Posted by MRGETRICH:



Your claim is 100% made up nonsense. Your claim that there is a God is made up, your claim about it's supernatural realm is made up. It's a shame you can't, by your own admission show any different. Who can't make claims about an untestable deity that is hiding out somewhere?

Your problem and the atheists problem is that YOU will only believe in Gods existence if it SUITS YOUR guidelines.

You think you are all smart, many academics, professors etc have tried there best and have only been laughed at....

QUOTE

Originally Posted by CRRECORDS:

embrace science it is the best friend you have and denounce the bible as a great source of hatred and delusional mental illness.

_______________________________

How are you CR, always good to hear from you. Humans have intuited God and have searched. What we have found has inspired us to be good, nonviolent, and loving. What we have mostly failed to live up to is our intuitions of how to be good, and how to love. In our frustrations, we have become defensive, we have become believers of God who have to defend the idea of God as an excuse for the inability to live up to that idea. In many ways, science provided a road from God as the explanation of the origin of life. Truth, of course, is truth, so it is inevitable that science now has rediscovered God. Unfortunately, I doubt if this alone will make the difficulties of living the ideals of God much easier. So, we are in danger of once again serving a dogma that we have to defend out of guilt of not being able to live up to its demands. Einstein once said; "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." A saying of his was; "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." As our knowledge of the physics of the universe increases, scientists can ask "what if" questions, change the fundamental constants of the universe, and determine what effect these changes would have on our universe. The results of these changes are nothing less than astounding. CR, if you view a table showing the maximum deviation allowable in the fundamental constants in order to get a universe capable of supporting life. In some instances, changing the constants more than the amount indicated results in a universe that doesn't even contain matter. In many other instances, only hydrogen or light elements would exist, making life impossible. Changing just two parameters changes the longevity of the universe. Many of these perturbations would result in the universe that would have ended billions of years ago. That the universe seems to be designed specifically for human life has been called the anthropic principle. Depending upon their philosophical outlook, scientists hold to either the weak or strong anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle states that the apparent design of the universe is an illusion, and that there must be some undiscovered underlying principle that explains why the universe seems to be designed. The strong anthropic principle states that the underlying reason that the universe appears to be designed is because it has been designed by the ultimate Intelligent Designer, aka: God. So far, the strong anthropic principle fits the data better of the two. Galaxy size and location are important for life to exist and in order to gain enough heavy elements to form planets, our system must have formed close to a recent supernova. If the solar nebula was too far from the supernova event, insufficient heavy elements would have been present for life chemistry. If the supernova event occurred too early, then the heavy elements would have been dispersed before the Solar System would have formed. If the supernova event occurred too late, then the nebula would not contain enough heavy elements for life chemistry. In addition, it is possible that the supernova event itself could destroy all life.

The cosmos just puts you in you place when you try to understand it. Though, Jesus lamented that the kingdom of God is everywhere, but people just don't see it. Well, the evidence is subtle: it is easy for ordinary people to miss it. But scientists are special people: they are experts in deciphering subtleties of evidence. Why have they been missing the signatures of the divine. In my view, because like any atheist who declares; "no God required" becomes spiritually blind. For yourself, inviting something supernatural, God into your hypothesis, it can never become scientific. Because science by definition looks for natural explanations. And by "nature" if you mean the space-time-matter world, then your science cannot even accommodate quantum physics. In my opinion, you don't find God, He finds you. Though, the concept of a higher power, popularly called God, made his sun shine for the evil and the good, and sends the rain on the just and on the unjust. He finds the brightest minds who can better understand His creation, and He finds those who are bound to the straightjacket of materialism. CR, in my heart, in the begining there was God. For myself, the parables of Jesus didn't teach. They just reminded myself what was already written on my heart.

You mention deism, an observation of the natural world, without the need for organised religion. Where the higher power does not intervene in our affairs, and set in place the clockwork universe theory, building the universe, though, take Himself out of the picture to allow it operate on its own. Always thought that it was an interesting concept that the choice of God the creator would want to remain faceless and without a message during its timeline. Will take a look at your links.Though, will go on record and state; "no angel sightings to date".

Quote Originally Posted by SYSTEM:

But, if I say there is a invisible little man living on my shoulder, is it testable? 

My claim is that my little invisible friend on my shoulder is supernatural...He also can only be seen after death

Thats exactly right, it isnt testable. As i said however, just saying that in isolation is laughable.

I have talked about the many sign posts for God, origins of the universe, bible, fine tuning etc etc. when all combined it is very plausible

There is no point in arguing...

I have already established, the relationship with God is faith based.

I have already established that EVERY HUMAN being has faith in one shape or form. It is what you chose to apply it to i suppose.

I believe the sign posts are very strong for God's existence, you dont, that is YOUR choice.

Good luck to you

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

[Quote: Originally Posted by aerial

That the universe seems to be designed specifically for human life has been called the anthropic principle. Depending upon their philosophical outlook, scientists hold to either the weak or strong anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle states that the apparent design of the universe is an illusion, and that there must be some undiscovered underlying principle that explains why the universe seems to be designed. The strong anthropic principle states that the underlying reason that the universe appears to be designed is because it has been designed by the ultimate Intelligent Designer, aka: God.

[/Quote]The only scientists that believe in the anthropic principle are the ones at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and Oral Roberts University.

The term anthropic in "anthropic principle" has been argued ^[1] to be a misnomer.^[2] While singling out our kind of carbon-based life, none of the finely tuned phenomena require human life or some kind of carbon chauvinism.^[3][4] Any form of intelligent life would do, specifying carbon-based life, per se, is irrelevant.

The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist",^[5] is "easy" to support in mathematics and philosophy, i.e. it is a tautology or truism. However, building a substantive argument based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not tautologies and thus make claims which are contingent upon empirical verification.