POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

[rob19]

I have no problem with religious folk whatsoever as long as they're harmless & don't maintain that their religion is anymore superior than any other.

You & I are (thankfully) in agreement that the existence or nonexistence of God is an un-provable feat; which was my main gripe with Statler.

The Bible doesn't say specifically the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, but people who want to believe the writings of the Genesis to be a literal historical account rather than a metaphorical lesson, will add up the lives of the characters in Genesis from Adam to Jesus.

Again I'm with you in that I don't think it should matter to any Christian. I think too many Christians try to defend their young earth ideas, or defending the literal interpretation of Noah's Ark, Jesus's miracles, this, that, & the other. I don't think the historical accuracy is what you should be focusing on, but rather the positive teachings that come from the stories. Be the religion OF Jesus, not the religion ABOUT Jesus. The whole point of it should be about being more Christ-like, & not trying desperately to convince everyone to simply believe in him. This is where I think far too many Christians have gone astray.

About a year ago I talked for over an hour with one of the zealots who come to the campus & try to spread the word of Christ. Normally I'd tell them I don't have time, but I had an hour between classes & out of curiosity I agreed to talk to him. I asked him, "If a man lives a completely moral life, but was born in India & is a Hindu, & has never even heard of Jesus; will he go to Heaven? Is the criteria for getting into heaven simply believing in Jesus, or actually being Christ-like?". He told me he wouldn't get in to Heaven unless he accepted Jesus Christ as his lord & savior.

That is, in essence, precisely the problem I have with too many religious folk. It's too much about "joining the team", rather than merits of actions.

[Spesh]

The Ten Commandments could be considered an exception to that, but really the Ten Commandments are basic moral truths. Basically don't lie, cheat, steal, or murder. Most humans live by those things to varying degrees. The Book of Proverbs has many great lessons in it; a lot of common sense stuff and you don't even have to be religious to understand them or implement them.

You do remember the group of individuals that your having a discussion with, correct?

[Spesh]

That is, in essence, precisely the problem I have with too many religious folk. It's too much about "joining the team", rather than merits of actions.

This is something i have to question. I recall months(or a year) ago Locke created a thread about atheists being trusted as much as rapists. I kind of hijacked it with a linked, but still seperate, question of "how come its better to be a completely ****ty member of a religion than a most decent human being who happens to be an atheist?". I never got an answer and i dont recall there being a justification for the rapist link.

I would still love some sort of answer to my question. How the hell can Newt Gingrich lead the polls in an election, with everyone fawning over him signing(his third or fourth) "anti-divorce" contract, yet atheists cant have a hope in an election? I would think its much worse to be repeatedly betrayed by someone of the same faith than to trust someone who consistently follows a slightly different ethical guide.

[LouPhinFan]

I have no problem with religious folk whatsoever as long as they're harmless & don't maintain that their religion is anymore superior than any other.

You & I are (thankfully) in agreement that the existence or nonexistence of God is an un-provable feat; which was my main gripe with Statler.

The Bible doesn't say specifically the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, but people who want to believe the writings of the Genesis to be a literal historical account rather than a metaphorical lesson, will add up the lives of the characters in Genesis from Adam to Jesus.

Again I'm with you in that I don't think it should matter to any Christian. I think too many Christians try to defend their young earth ideas, or defending the literal interpretation of Noah's Ark, Jesus's miracles, this, that, & the other. I don't think the historical accuracy is what you should be focusing on, but rather the positive teachings that come from the stories. Be the religion OF Jesus, not the religion ABOUT Jesus. The whole point of it should be about being more Christ-like, & not trying desperately to convince everyone to simply believe in him. This is where I think far too many Christians have gone astray.

About a year ago I talked for over an hour with one of the zealots who come to the campus & try to spread the word of Christ. Normally I'd tell them I don't have time, but I had an hour between classes & out of curiosity I agreed to talk to him. I asked him, "If a man lives a completely moral life, but was born in India & is a Hindu, & has never even heard of Jesus; will he go to Heaven? Is the criteria for getting into heaven simply believing in Jesus, or actually being Christ-like?". He told me he wouldn't get in to Heaven unless he accepted Jesus Christ as his lord & savior.

That is, in essence, precisely the problem I have with too many religious folk. It's too much about "joining the team", rather than merits of actions.

Essentially you have to do both. After you accept Jesus, you have to live your life for him and follow his teachings to the best of your abilities. Does a death row inmate sitting in the chair get mercy from God at the last moment? I suppose that's between him and God. God knows that person's heart and whether he means it. Jesus granted mercy to one of the 2 thieves hanging on the crosses with him so there is precedent for it.

I wish there were more than one path to God. I really do. But unfortunately that's not what Jesus told us. What you are suggesting is acceptance, not tolerance. There's a difference between the two that has been glazed over in today's politically correct society. Hindus, Muslims, Shintos, etc are free to practice their beliefs however they choose. That's tolerance. However I don't have to accept their beliefs as equally valid as my own. That would be acceptance.

[LouPhinFan]

This is something i have to question. I recall months(or a year) ago Locke created a thread about atheists being trusted as much as rapists. I kind of hijacked it with a linked, but still seperate, question of "how come its better to be a completely ****ty member of a religion than a most decent human being who happens to be an atheist?". I never got an answer and i dont recall there being a justification for the rapist link.

I would still love some sort of answer to my question. How the hell can Newt Gingrich lead the polls in an election, with everyone fawning over him signing(his third or fourth) "anti-divorce" contract, yet atheists cant have a hope in an election? I would think its much worse to be repeatedly betrayed by someone of the same faith than to trust someone who consistently follows a slightly different ethical guide.

That's one of the problems with a lot of Christians. They demonize people that are different sometimes, especially here in the south. But essentially that is more of a cultural and ingnorance thing than a Christian thing. Christ had lunch and ministered to prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. He didn't think that way about people and Christians shouldn't either. There are plenty of people that claim to be Christians that are horrible people. Just like there are many Atheists that are great people.

[rob19]

Essentially you have to do both. After you accept Jesus, you have to live your life for him and follow his teachings to the best of your abilities. Does a death row inmate sitting in the chair get mercy from God at the last moment? I suppose that's between him and God. God knows that person's heart and whether he means it. Jesus granted mercy to one of the 2 thieves hanging on the crosses with him so there is precedent for it.

I wish there were more than one path to God. I really do. But unfortunately that's not what Jesus told us. What you are suggesting is acceptance, not tolerance. There's a difference between the two that has been glazed over in today's politically correct society. Hindus, Muslims, Shintos, etc are free to practice their beliefs however they choose. That's tolerance. However I don't have to accept their beliefs as equally valid as my own. That would be acceptance.

I don't think that there's any reason to believe Christianity is superior to any other religion. In fact I find most Christians know little to nothing about most of the other world-religions. That's your opinion though, & you have your right to it.

Again I find it disappointing that the measuring stick for your Heaven is more slanted towards "joining the team", rather than merit of action. For whatever reason I have a hard time imagining a scenario where Jesus is up at the pearly gates & is judging the hypothetical man's life I mentioned before; see's that he's about as morally upstanding as you could ask for from a person, & is like "well does he believe I sacrificed my life for his sins? "No?", well than **** that guy". It comes off as insecure that Christ would so badly want the "credit".

Not to mention the fact that about 99% of humanity lived & died before Jesus was ever born. /Shrug

[JackFinfan]

Essentially you have to do both. After you accept Jesus, you have to live your life for him and follow his teachings to the best of your abilities. Does a death row inmate sitting in the chair get mercy from God at the last moment? I suppose that's between him and God. God knows that person's heart and whether he means it. Jesus granted mercy to one of the 2 thieves hanging on the crosses with him so there is precedent for it.

I wish there were more than one path to God. I really do. But unfortunately that's not what Jesus told us. What you are suggesting is acceptance, not tolerance. There's a difference between the two that has been glazed over in today's politically correct society. Hindus, Muslims, Shintos, etc are free to practice their beliefs however they choose. That's tolerance. However I don't have to accept their beliefs as equally valid as my own. That would be acceptance.

I agree that the Bible makes it pretty clear that accepting Jesus is the only way to heaven. But, doesn't this make going into heaven almost statistical in nature. If you're born in Asia (minus Russia) you have almost no chance of going into heaven. God basically condemns people to hell by being born in the wrong country. I'm just picturing God as some sort of game show host of "Who Wants to Go to Heaven," where each soon to be born baby spins a gigantic wheel that has all of the countries names on it. Here comes little Billy, spin that wheel Billy. O you got U.S.A, congrats Billy; you have a 100% chance to hear about Christianity. Next contestant please, o no you got India, (cue Price is Right failure music).

[LouPhinFan]

I agree that the Bible makes it pretty clear that accepting Jesus is the only way to heaven. But, doesn't this make going into heaven almost statistical in nature. If you're born in Asia (minus Russia) you have almost no chance of going into heaven. God basically condemns people to hell by being born in the wrong country. I'm just picturing God as some sort of game show host of "Who Wants to Go to Heaven," where each soon to be born baby spins a gigantic wheel that has all of the countries names on it. Here comes little Billy, spin that wheel Billy. O you got U.S.A, congrats Billy; you have a 100% chance to hear about Christianity. Next contestant please, o no you got India, (cue Price is Right failure music).

That's why one of Jesus' last instructions before his ascension was to go out to all the world and spread the good news. As far as people dying that have never heard of Jesus, I don't know what to tell you. I would harzard a guess that God makes certain exceptions (he had to before Jesus). Unfortunately I don't know what to tell you on that one. I just know that God is a fair and just God. He knows each and every person's heart.

[rob19]

[NY8123]

Preface:

I'm a life long Christian. I grew up in the Assemblies of God church. I now attend, and have for several years, a non-denominational "mega" church as they're called. For those of you reading this that think religion is a load of crap, that's fine. You are free to believe how you see fit and I don't see me changing your mind. Just like you're not going to change my mind. Live and let live, cool?

I have a natural love of science and science fiction and am well versed on a number of physical science subjects. Life sciences...not so much, but a little bit.


Creationism:

Creationism is theology, it's not science theory. I am perfectly fine, as a Christian, not having it taught in science class. It simply doesn't belong there. Evolution is a science theory and belongs in science class textbooks with all of the other theories. I have no problem with it being taught, I believe in evolution myself. Charles Darwin was a lifelong devout man of God, he just said "things change". There's nothing in his theories that contradict anything in the Bible. Modern science has taken his work and turned it into the modern cross species evolution that we see today. That is what contradicts the Bible.


Young vs. Old Earth Creationism:

I'm an old Earth creationist. I'm not going begrudge young Earth creationist (YEC), they are free to believe how they see fit. The problem is see most often with YEC is that they concentrate so much on trying to prove their beliefs that they miss the greater meaning of God creating the Earth. In the end it doesn't matter if God created the Earth in 6 days or 6 billion years. The fact of the matter is God created it out of love. That's all that really matters.

I don't prescribe to YEC because the Bible simply does not say how old the Earth is. The Old Testament is basically a written history of the oral Jewish history. There are many lessons to be learn in the OT but not really many "rules" per se to live by in our modern lives. The Ten Commandments could be considered an exception to that, but really the Ten Commandments are basic moral truths. Basically don't lie, cheat, steal, or murder. Most humans live by those things to varying degrees. The Book of Proverbs has many great lessons in it; a lot of common sense stuff and you don't even have to be religious to understand them or implement them.

At this same time you simply cannot dismiss the rigorously tested methods of science. Science and religion are more alike that many people give credit. Both of them only want the truth. I think of science as the understanding the way that God does or did something. Its been hashed over, especially in that thread, that there is no proving or disproving the existence of God. Basically only God and prove or disprove himself. The findings of science in relation to the age of the Earth and the Universe are tested and stand up to the test. If the Bible doesn't say exactly how old the Earth is then it can't really be counted on to be the final say on that subject.

I think YEC waste a lot of time and resources defending a position that in the grand scheme of things doesn't matter. My salvation through Jesus doesn't depend on how long I think it really took God to create all that we know. I think about the Creation Museum about an hour from my house and I think what a waste of money. The money it cost to build and maintain it could be put to much better use caring for the sick, elderly, and poor. That's what Jesus commanded, along with spreading the word.

I think that about covers it. I may have left a few thoughts out, I'm kinda tired (I stayed up too late last night watching the Falcons - Broncos game).

If any of you have any questions about how I feel, as a Christian, about certain subjects then ask away. I'll do my best to make my answers clear and concise. Just keep the name calling and ridicule to a minimum.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree with your bolded statement Lou, 100%. There is one more huge factor that everyone in this argument misses, Time is a relative measurement, it is based on Human definition. On a large enough scale millenia could look like seconds and if my life spanned millenia why would I define smaller units of time for average measurement such as life?

So like I have said in the past and I will say until I die, there are certain theories that could be all inclusive, meaning everyone is right, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Creationists, Evolutionists all could be wrapped into one large theory that encompasses everything, the only thing you have to do is redefine a few things that mankind deem as "known" but really are only relative definitions based off the unknown.