betsy

I'm not going to debate about the authenticity of the Bible. It will lead us nowhere. I don't want to think. I'm also tired. I understand that to you, it is nothing more but an ancient text or bestselling fiction of ancient time. But for me, it is so much more than that. I feel. I know this is not good enough for you guys....but speaking as a believer, I'm just trying to explain. Jonsa expressed his quest for knowledge about religion and faith...and it's best that he talk to someone who can really answer his questions.

When I started reading the Bible (on my second read now with Bible Study footnotes), I found out that my church was doing a lot of things that were actually contrary to the teachings of Christ. The Bible (New King James) does not say anything about eternal torment (as in staying in hell forever). It just says that those who are saved will have life after death. Those who aren't will just die.

I was born and raised a Catholic but never really took religion seriously. I strayed away actually. At a later stage in life, I felt this void deep inside. Something was terribly missing and I knew I had trouble with my faith. I stumbled on to Pastor Charles Price (Living Truth Ministry) while he was talking about Abraham: The Rocky Road to Faith. The way he read and explained passages from the Bible seemed so easy and simple that I began reading the Bible. If I want to fear, love and obey my Lord, I have to know what He wants. I don't want to be misled. By that I mean by preachers or religion who inject their own rules and man-made laws and rituals to the doctrine. I find Pastor Price to be credible, and stays true to the Word of God. Maybe because I was born and raised a Christian that's why somehow faith is already in me...the spark already there, and it just needed some working on. I don't know about atheists, especially if you've been an atheist all your life. If you are in a quest to understand, it will be best to talk to someone who'll be able to explain and answer your questions.

You gotta be kidding me. You too? Can't keep away....can't resist? So what do you think you're doing now? And he calls me hypocrite. Whatever....

Funny you should mention school. I understand that you would want to preserve your own values. It was not long ago that I was musing Christians should fund their own schools and daycares (if it's not being done already with Catholic schools....I'm not sure), with clear stipulations that they would reflect Christian values/beliefs. No, it need not be "Amish-style" path....remember we've got Christians in science and in other fields who managed to do their jobs and yet adhere to beliefs. In fact, if all Christians will follow the path of dedicating their jobs to our God....not only will you see such dedication and integrity, but you bet they'll do their very best. Of course, with different denominations and different interpretations and takes....this is the big problem. We're divided. So I guess this is just wistful thinking. FYI, I don't belong to any organized religion. I used to be Catholic. Now, I'm reading the Bible, and listening to Charles Price, who I feel tries not to stray from it. Values/doctrines aside, somehow the standard of teaching in Catholic schools is high. At least that's what I was told by parents who send their children to Catholic schools.

Thanks for the input Dre, Bill and Jonsa. Dre and I have been on this forum for so long (if Dre is who used to be Drea?)...and we've been butting heads...fiery debates and insults galore in the old days....yet at the end of the day, I respect her views and I accept that I'll never get to sway her to mine. I know Bill that there's a minority of Christian views, and I mean the "fundamentalist-type" like mine....who tries to put up a good rebutt as best I can. Heck, I think I'm the only one in Creation! Not easy facing everybody....boy, just replying to each and everyone is impossible! And yes Jonsa, I've taken a peek at some forums out there....Mapleleaf is the best, as far as I'm concerned. Now that MLF won't be maintained, all the more it's up to self-discipline that we try to maintain its standard as best we can. Let me tell you guys for all our differences, I enjoy our little skirmishes. Sometimes I have this awful sense of humor. It's never personal.

Don’t despair. There are alternative theories that attempt to explain the cause of the beginning of the universe. One such theory is that it began from nothing. Quentin Smith stated in 1993 that the only rational explanation for the beginning of the universe is that it came “from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” Later, in 2006, Daniel Dennett proclaimed that the universe created itself. This must mean either that the universe existed before it existed, which of course is absurd, or that it was created from nothing... Let’s see if this leads to any valuable conclusion... If atheism is true, then God is non-existent. However, if atheism is false, then God exists. According to Smith and Dennett, “nothing” created the universe. It does lead to some interesting speculation. Nothing is the absence of space-time, the total lack of a material world. It is, atheistically speaking, the condition that would be if the universe did not exist – non-existence would be total and absolute. But theistically speaking, it is the spiritual realm, beyond and transcending Space-Time where God exists. Now it follows that if the atheistic “nothing” created the universe, then the universe cannot exist because, as science knows, nothing can be created from nothing. But obviously the universe exists, and science has shown that it also began. Therefore the theistic “nothing,” the First-Cause, God, created the universe. Therefore, God exists. Therefore atheism is false. But don’t worry – you’ll find another job.

I’m thanking Kimmy for her generosity. I must say she is the gift that keeps on giving. She is a classic example of the type of poster this particular thread is all about. Kimmy came on the scene in the thread CREATION. Her first valuable contribution to the thread was this: Fair enough. Although a bit offensive, it is her opinion. However, instead of following her own advice and just “move along quickly”...this gal just keeps coming back. Here’s my reply to her first post above. In spite of her rudeness, I tried to be civil. Kimmy proved my statement right. She cannot keep away. She cannot resist coming back. (Creation and God vs Science threads). Something about the topic of religion, God or faith draws like a magnet to Kimmy. If my statement above were a “prophesy”..she surely made it come true. Kimmy tried to ridicule my opinion to the extent of deliberately mis-quoting me. Instead of an apology or an explanation, she made another attempt. (see posts #16, 17, 48 and 53). There is no point in engaging someone in a discussion who deliberately distort and manipulate with malice. It is also rude and self-centered to disrupt discussions like a bratty kid interrupting adults in their conversation just for attention. Most of her contributions to my topics were nothing more than to try to smear or to try to engage other posters to a gang-mentality. In a heatedly yet jocular moment between Dre and I at CREATION, Kimmy was quick to jump in. (See CREATION posts # 81, 83, 84). And she did the same with this post which she attached to Bubbermiley's comment: Her usage of the word “we” indicative of her attempt at gang-mentality. Mob mentality. Strength in numbers. Of course Kimmy hates me. There’s no surprise there. She’s got anger issues, BIG TIME! Hate is a very strong word. Irrational. It is the views I represent. About God and faith. She hurls insults and uses dishonest methods of engagements...and she goes ballistic when she gets insulted back, or reads my analysis. Must've definitely saw herself in that profile. I’m not concern about how she feels for me or anyone who feel the same way. If you're not mature enough to accept that there will be those who will be immovable in their views, that you don't necessarily have to agree with them (vice versa), acknowledge that we all have our own views...then I surely wouldn't even want to waste my time on you. What's so telling for me though is her usage of the word “we.” It speaks volume about a lack of confidence. She cannot even stand up on her own to say, I HATE YOU.

In the beginning.... ....there was Bill sitting in the front row seat when it all started. Then...along came Canadien. ....who claims to know how God will precisely do it! He threw an impossible task to poor Betsy. Well you tell me! You seem to be in more position than anyone else on this planet to do that....saying how you know the mind of God. However..... lo and behold, I got the flak from Bill: Suddenly, a monty python-moment happened. Bill and Canadien got together. Exactly! Betsy and her supporters are not content to insist on the existence of God. They have to tell HIM how he did everything! And it's me who spout non-sense??? I'm sorry...couldn't help it...bwa-ha-ha-ha....forgive me if....bwa-ha-ha-ha...I just ignore you two.....

I was careful to stress in that post that I was referring to some atheists. As I've explained before, it was the extreme hostile reactions/responses to any posts or any posters who dare mention God, religion or faith that really got me so interested with this type of posters. All these years that I've been a member of this forum...I witnessed hostilities ranging from deliberate insults and ridicule of one's faith, personal attacks and childish name-calling. They seem so incapable of civility....keeping their tempers in check when dealing with the topic that includes God. They so easily forget that this is a public forum. A place of discussion. However, just the very mention of His name drives some to go ballistic. "God" is a hot button for some. Whoa....you don't go there, they hiss. And boy, do they all come out in numbers. ALL HANDS ON DECK! It's pure anger. Anger issue ...for whatever reason(s) they may have....that they carry on their shoulders. I actually stumbled on a blog site where-in a pastor wrote this guy a letter, beginning his greetings with something like, "hello friend," obviously trying to establish the tone of the discussion....and the pastor proceeded to give his views about faith. Well, he got a very rude, scathing insults after another....beginning with a slam that he dared to call this guy, "friend"...that "it's an insult to friendship"....and the atheist really flew off the handle. So it's not just some people on this forum. Dime psychology or not....what more can one deduce from unreasonable reactions? There is something going on inside. Some atheists however, are confident in their stance. You could tell by their ability to freely engage in discussion...they don't feel threatened by the mention of religion, faith and God.

Since no one has proposed an alternative to an Intelligent Designer as the cause of the beginning of the universe, I have to assume either that there is none in the collective mind of posters or that that collective is in the process of formulating one... In anticipation of the latter and in the meantime, here’s a brief outline of an epistemology which I find particularly important. It is brilliant in its simplicity and directness, lacking as it does the pretentious and affected language and convoluted thinking of so much philosophical endeavour, and in the fact that, unlike with most philosophical speculation, it has the benefit of demonstrable, real life evidence in its support. The theory is that scientific theories and knowledge can never be considered true categorically, but must be considered true only on the basis of probability. In other words.... assuming increased knowledge, all scientific theory and knowledge must inevitably be subject to revision or abandonment. The history of science certainly demonstrates the truth of this. The Theist has little problem accommodating this into his wider philosophy because he readily understands that all knowledge is in God and man is simply scraping the surface of that vast resource. Man’s mind, as impressive as it is, will never attain absolute knowledge. It is beyond his capacity. This should be resident in the mind of anyone, including those on this forum, who imagine the finality, or even the eventual finality, of human scientific enquiry.

I don't know what you mean, other than you quoting my two statements. Explain.

My goodness. A lesser Christian would throw his hands in the air in despair.....but I'll hang in there. Has anyone actually read these posts, let alone anything else?

Huh? How do you know what science can validate? I don't imagine your knowledge of the Bible or Science is at a level where you can make that statement. Who said anything about scientific evidence from the Bible? Care to expound on that.

Once and for all, you should try and get your head around this: We're using YOUR scientific texts...the preponderance of evidence from scientists to provide evidence of the validity of the Bible as an explanation for the creation. You don't need to consider the Bible. That's up to you. Consider the scientific evidence and what it shows. If you don't think it indicates a necessary Intelligent Designer, tell us your theory. Simple.

No. Actually, He told us. Now we're trying to tell you.

This isn't a true-false test. Short answers won't do. Nobody's suggesting you know or I know....the question is what does the available evidence indicate?

You're absolutely right. Darwin himself stated that he has no intention of trying to explain the origin of life. It would be like trying to explain the origin of matter. Of course in Darwin's time, the very idea of explaining the origin of matter was not even in the mind of science. But evolutionary theory post-Darwin has proposed inumerable theories attempting to explain the origin of life, some ridiculous and some more ridiculous.

Someone suggested that I am “dodging the issue,” and by the context of his post, the issue to him has something to do with a snake and consistency. The snake was a jocular issue initiated by Dre.... my response was very funny even if I do say so myself (although probably not to someone who takes himself a little too seriously).... and the reply of Dre was pretty funny too. If there was an issue there..... it was one of humour, or lack of it. It was a crafty convergence of the very Divine theory of creation and the very mundane one of evolution. That’s all. Most posters got it (I hope). As for the all or nothing theory of Biblical interpretation and the requirement of the reader to explain inconsistent bits, it betrays an ignorance based on atheistic assumptions. Those assumptions include the belief that the Bible is just another ancient text which we are free to ignore and, ad hominem (Locke), dumb to accept. Why would you expect me, considering that it is the Word of God, to either fully understand or infallibly interpret the Bible, much less assume that if I don’t understand, then God must be wrong? Of course, you’re free to see it that way whether or not you have ever studied the Bible and biblical interpretation. As you must too, I accept most of what I’ve read concerning science and cosmology in spite of the various authors/scientists’ relatively inferior intelligence, but even with my limited knowledge.....I don’t feel compelled to accept everything; for example, the M-theory, baby universes, panspermia, the Origin of the Species, and on and on, most of which can be reasonably seen as desperate atheist attempts to avoid the reality of a superior intelligence. The Bible, from a theist’s point of view, is a different kettle of truth – it is absolute Truth, absolute Knowledge. But I repeat, I am not anti-science, for lack of a better term. In fact I’m delighted at the scientific evidence concerning the beginning of the universe and the validity of the argument for evolution which profoundly support the biblical contention that God is the First-Cause. Now that science has conclusively determined, notwithstanding the counterproductive attempts to sweep intelligent design under the rug, that the universe had a beginning, the real issue is how the universe began. How did the universe begin? What caused the so-called Big Bang? It’s no secret what I believe. The preponderance of evidence is very much on the side of an intelligent designer. It’s up to those who disagree to provide an alternative.

So? Follow the discussion...until then, don't bug me. Golly, you're proving to be worse than that wild-eyed dude. Move along. Shooo. Better yet, just stick to those leaflets.

Ooops. I thought that's why Newton's law of gravity is now a "law." If there has been changes to the law of gravity, I hope they're not substantive. I hate to think my friends and I will all be hurled into space.

What about it? You're the one who believes in evolution. Say hello to your uncle.

Gravity is no longer a theory. It's now the LAW OF GRAVITY....because it has been proven. Evolution is definitely a theory. A debunked one at that.

It was the title of a book allegedly written by Einstein in 1921. It was the title given to the anecdote that followed.

I believe that God exists whether proven by science or not. My belief is cemented by my faith. That being said, I have nothing against science for indeed science is a gift from God. Again, that is my belief. This topic is just a stark and undoubtedly clear depiction that there are those atheists (stressing that means not all atheists) who hunger for the discovery that will prove that there is no God. If you scroll back to all the topics that dealt with religion/evolution etc., those who tend to possess such rabid hunger for the confirmation that there is indeed no God also bear such hostility towards God, religion or anyone professing to believe in God. Intended insults to God, deliberately seeking to offend and ridicule believers into either acquiscence or silence in expression of belief. These are the ones who parrot scientists-writing-books by usage of such redundant, unimaginative phrases like "Spaghetti Monster" or "Pixie-in-the Sky"....which amuses me actually for, as if there is no other creative way to express such contempt. They could've come up with more creative insults than just mimicking and parroting! Those hostilities piqued my curiosity. These attitudes I ended up analyzing. Some of these atheists offered valuable insights by saying how they were let down by religion....or by religious people. Most of these hostilities stem from their anger. They have anger issues with religion....with religious people. Some of them perhaps put their own expectancy on God....expecting God to behave the way they envisioned Him to behave.....and were utterly disappointed/rebellious when God did not meet their own expectation. These anger is being expressed on those who maintain their belief in God...and on God. Nothing more like a petulant child who wishes to hurt his parents for not giving him what he wants. I say that there are those atheists, and these types are predominantly among them, who pinned their high expectation on science. To them, science is the one that will knock down this ridiculous belief in God. Those who are so insecure of their own atheistic belief really hunger for this confirmation. There must be a struggle deep down inside these folks (that nagging thought way, way back there in the deep recesses of the mind that just wouldn't be quieted, that keeps insisting... that there might indeed be God)....continuous wrestling with this uncomfortable notion. So they cling and avidly follow every bit of scientific theories that will bring them closer to that discovery that will rid them of this discomfort forever. This topic only mirrors the fanaticism, the similarities in faith between a believer in God, and a believer in science. Ironically, the comparative reaction to Hawking made it so clear. These atheists are mostly former believers of the Christian faith. To some, atheism has become so religion-like....with science as its god, the scientists like Dawkins and Hawking similar to a messiah who will bring them redemption. Redemption is to be confident in the knowldge that there is indeed no God. These atheists are hurting. Perhaps, who knows....they hurt because God is knocking....but they aren't listening.