Why christainity is a real religion
-
Originally posted by likeyou:
" Vince : oh, Does holding joss stick = paying respect? think about this, holding joss stick is just a form, is it that important?"
So you mean holding a joss stick and pay respect to one's mum or dad is not impt? What kind of teaching you have in church? That is totally rubbish and brain washed.
Might as well tell the pple is going to church important if your mind is wicked and evil?
Why cant children hold joss stick even you are a christian to pay respect to your parents? Holding joss stick will kill you and will dirty you?
Think about it! Your parents not your friends.
Actions of material value seems so important to you. U ask a Buddhist to come out on the ghost festival when his master told him that going out is bad luck.. u see u can ask him out or not. Even his mum tell him go out he wont. U may think its ridiculous and bullshit. But hey, u respect his decision and his religion.
Being an atheist doesnt mean u can around being all big n mighty, thats exactly how it is with you guys. Act so big n tough, talk with such blustery without fear. Thats exactly the attitude that is bring about the decay in society. Because of that lack of fear, you think you can do and say anything. Atheists and non-believers with a good heart and conscience will NEVER talk and make statements the way u do.
The bible has tought us to honour our fathers and mothers. And even though God is the Holy Father figure, if you dont learn to honour and respect that father figure, how do u even expect to love , respect and honour ur own parents. What is wrong with honouring ur parents the way u honour ur Holy Father ? The parents should be even more proud.
And as for entering the temple. There may be fear of attack by other spirits, it may because they feel uncomfortable, or they simply just refuse to enter. Depending on whether the Christian is of liberal view or conservative. But for sure, any Christian who enters the temple will pray to have strong faith and blessing. Because entering into a temple of idol worship is for Chrstians extremely hard to accept, because that is extremely against any Christian belief for idol worship.
-
Yes BADZ, I wonder why cant enter the temper, nothing to fear if you are a christian and nothing to fear is you know that GOD will be with you right?
Maybe her children is too extreme.
-
atheist are you sure we are? I am an agnotist
-
I can see that...
-
if there is proof of god existence, we wouldnt be debating and discussing this for millennium of years already isnt it. back to square one.
-
I hope that you might be a bit receptive to know the origination of religions, how they came about initially. alas........
-
Proof of God has existed ever since... but time and time again, man chose to forget. So do u still blame the Almighty for not giving.. proof of His existence ? Is our planet, orbiting the as the 3rd rock from the sun, not too hot.. not too cold. Just right for us.. suitable, sustainable living not proof again that his existence is there. So it really depends. If you argue that the universe is so wide and probablity states that 0.00000000000001% there is another planet like ours, sure.. go ahead. Until u find that 0.0000000000001%, we may be... the only human beings in this universe.
I am more then aware of the origins of religion.
However, you should be more receptive on the scripture of the bible to comprehend why it is written the way it is and why it is explained the way it explains.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Proof of God has existed ever since... but time and time again, man chose to forget. So do u still blame the Almighty for not giving.. proof of His existence ? Is our planet, orbiting the as the 3rd rock from the sun, not too hot.. not too cold. Just right for us.. suitable, sustainable living not proof again that his existence is there. So it really depends. If you argue that the universe is so wide and probablity states that 0.00000000000001% there is another planet like ours, sure.. go ahead. Until u find that 0.0000000000001%, we may be... the only human beings in this universe.
I am more then aware of the origins of religion.
However, you should be more receptive on the scripture of the bible to comprehend why it is written the way it is and why it is explained the way it explains.
did you mistook nature and natural phenomenon as works of god? look to me like you really dunno science or simply chose to ignore it. to think that you used these as proof that god exists, really border on the absurdity. science has explained that these natural phenonmenon have nothing to do with god, in fact there are nothing to suggest that these are acts of god. if like that are acts of god, then tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions are also deemed as acts of god lor, as is the rainfall and snow.
why should I read and be receptive to something that was concocted and invented by some men 2009 years ago. the stories are nice to read, but they were just the author's imagination then. on your claim that you know the origin of religion, I have serious doubts. If you know the origin of religion, you would have wholeheartedly agreed with my explanations on how religion came about and the flawed and paradoxes concept of god.
-
Originally posted by vince69:
The Bible teaches "Honor your father and mother" and this is the one LAW that comes with a promises, says a lot on this, does it?should not this, honoring and respecting one's parents be done when they are alive? or should this be done after they pass on?
oh, Does holding joss stick = paying respect?
think about this, holding joss stick is just a form, is it that important?
then why do your church need to build expensive church to honour god?
ask your self this before you lambast people for holding joss sticks
-
Originally posted by likeyou:
" Vince : oh, Does holding joss stick = paying respect? think about this, holding joss stick is just a form, is it that important?"
So you mean holding a joss stick and pay respect to one's mum or dad is not impt? What kind of teaching you have in church? That is totally rubbish and brain washed.
Might as well tell the pple is going to church important if your mind is wicked and evil?
Why cant children hold joss stick even you are a christian to pay respect to your parents? Holding joss stick will kill you and will dirty you?
Think about it! Your parents not your friends.
Ah... I see,
when I begin in this discourse, I am curious why everytime, when it comes to filial piety, its almost always boils down to not holding joss sticks = not filial, not honoring parents. Its as if, holding joss sticks is the one and only form of honoring parents during funeral for christians (all else does not matters).
Is this the only way?
my thoughts are
1) holding joss sticks is not the only way, the focus should be on the act of repecting parents/elders not the act of holding/not holding joss sticks.
2) its better to show these repects and honor when parents are alive, and not wait till they pass on.
3) finally, different people have different ways to honor and show respect to their parents, there in no "one size fit all" solution/methodology to follow, so let each person choose his/her ways, and lets not impose our ways on others.
do put some thoughts into these...
have fun... I won't be back, since this is no longer the EH I knew earlier ...
-
Vince...I agreed with your pt 3. To each his own. Parents also got 1. When they alive in this world, respect them and take care of them. But not psycho them to convert to christian when they are ill.
What will you guys do, if your parents are non christian and you are a faithful christian? Give and take? Or must have christian way? I heard that certain days, taoists pple will offer food to their god. And Christian are not suppose to eat the food that is on offer to their god. Is that true? Why?
-
i am just curious....
Do christians believe after a person is dead, the spirit will return to their homes to check if everything is properly taken care of?
Because when my grandma passed away, my uncle they all saw/ felt her in the house on the seventh day.. both of them while sleeping.... she was "washing dishes" and in the morning when they were awake... there was a hand print on the rice container.. the spirits do this to make sure there is enough rice in the tub...
Then what are spirits actually if souls are supposed to go heaven or hell??
And why is it there are ghost in this world?? Does anyone have a clue
And if a person is condemned to hell in the christian context.. does that mean their soul stay there forever or what??? and do what.. the meaning is??? why does God create new souls to see if they believe in him a not and then send them to hell if they dun believe in him.. wouldnt doing this be redundant??
Pls enlighten me anyone sorry to sound like an unknowledgable person..
-
Originally posted by LingLing aKa LoVeAnGeL:
i am just curious....
Do christians believe after a person is dead, the spirit will return to their homes to check if everything is properly taken care of?
Because when my grandma passed away, my uncle they all saw/ felt her in the house on the seventh day.. both of them while sleeping.... she was "washing dishes" and in the morning when they were awake... there was a hand print on the rice container.. the spirits do this to make sure there is enough rice in the tub...
Then what are spirits actually if souls are supposed to go heaven or hell??
And why is it there are ghost in this world?? Does anyone have a clue
And if a person is condemned to hell in the christian context.. does that mean their soul stay there forever or what??? and do what.. the meaning is??? why does God create new souls to see if they believe in him a not and then send them to hell if they dun believe in him.. wouldnt doing this be redundant??
Pls enlighten me anyone sorry to sound like an unknowledgable person..
Hi LingI have post a very simple question, maybe I ask again,
1) If a non christian has a good heart, do good deeds, help the poors, built roads and school for the poor, one day, he die, he go to hell? Cos he's not a christian? Someone told me the answer is YES.
-
Originally posted by LingLing aKa LoVeAnGeL:
i am just curious....
Do christians believe after a person is dead, the spirit will return to their homes to check if everything is properly taken care of?
Because when my grandma passed away, my uncle they all saw/ felt her in the house on the seventh day.. both of them while sleeping.... she was "washing dishes" and in the morning when they were awake... there was a hand print on the rice container.. the spirits do this to make sure there is enough rice in the tub...
Then what are spirits actually if souls are supposed to go heaven or hell??
And why is it there are ghost in this world?? Does anyone have a clue
And if a person is condemned to hell in the christian context.. does that mean their soul stay there forever or what??? and do what.. the meaning is??? why does God create new souls to see if they believe in him a not and then send them to hell if they dun believe in him.. wouldnt doing this be redundant??
Pls enlighten me anyone sorry to sound like an unknowledgable person..
Hi LingI have post a very simple question, maybe I ask again,
1) If a non christian has a good heart, do good deeds, help the poors, built roads and school for the poor, one day, he die, he go to hell? Cos he's not a christian? Someone told me the answer is YES.
-
ANy christians care to share their thoughts??
-
Originally posted by LingLing aKa LoVeAnGeL:
ANy christians care to share their thoughts??
Any humans care to share their thoughts? -
To 'An Eternal now' and others who have read his article. Being a christian myself straight away brings out the point that i would be bias towards christianity, but i guess we have to respect each other's beliefs here.
My Main issue with his link was that the writer had a very direct approach towards the bible, meaning that he took everything in it by its literal sense, which is obviously the wrong way to read the bible. In fact, i would be touching on this problem in the next few paragrahs
I would like to bring to your attention the 4th chapter of 'An Eternal now's link "Chapter 4: God or Buddha - Who is the Highest?"
1st para
What does God look like? The Bible says that God created man in his own image (Gen 1:26) so from this we can assume God looks something like a human being.
God creating man in his own image does not mean that God looks like man. the 'Image' written here is the characteristics or personality of God. to sum it up is his "Perfectness".Men used to be perfect, like God, without Sin. But when men sinned by eating from the Tree of knowledge of the Good and Evil, they had become sinners and evil-doers, and were banished away from God until Jesus Christ came down to save us. That is why men are no longer perfect.
The Bible tells us that God has hands (Ex 15:12), arms (Deut 11:2), fingers (Ps 8:3) and a face (Deut 13:17). He does not like people seeing his face but he doesn t mind if they see his back.
Now i would like us to take a look at every single verse and spot out why all of them do not apply to what the writer says:
(in King James Version)
Ex 15:12
9The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.
10Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters
11Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
12Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them.
The setting of this verse is one which Moses and the Israelites were praising and worshiping God after they escaped from the Pharaoh of Egypt. In the last few verses, Moses was talking about how Pharaoh thought he could use his hand and sword to wipe out the Israelites. But instead Moses draws comparison to God, when God stretch out his 'hand' then the water came down on the Egyptians. The 'hand' used here is just a comparison between Pharaoh and God, nothing to do with God's physical being.
This shows that when we are reading a particular verse, we must base it not only on what it says, but also what is it's context. in this case, the verses before it.
Duet 11:2
1Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway.
2And know ye this day: for I speak not with your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the LORD your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched out arm,
3And his miracles, and his acts, which he did in the midst of Egypt unto Pharaoh the king of Egypt, and unto all his land;
4And what he did unto the army of Egypt, unto their horses, and to their chariots; how he made the water of the Red sea to overflow them as they pursued after you, and how the LORD hath destroyed them unto this day;
The setting of this verse still involves Moses, after he had received the two tablets which bear the Ten commandments from God on top of Mount Sinai. In fact, in this verse, i can draw another reason which would make it simple to understand why 'his mighty hand and his stretched out arm' cannot be read literally. In the earlier part of the verse, Moses said that 'I speak not with your children which have not known'. If i was to read this using the writer of the article's method. i would be thinking that this would mean that i cannot talk with anyone who is not a christian? Of course not! This actually means that Moses would not follow the ways of the world, such as worship false Gods and idols, and so on. So the 'mighty hand and outstretched arm' is basically something for the reader to understand God's power more easily. What i would think when i read 'mighty hand and stretch out arm' would be such as; God is so powerful and almighty, and he reaches to everyone of us and helps us ' outstretched arm'.
This shows that we cannot read the Bible in the way we would read a children's story book, but instead by the way we read our literature books and poems.
Psalms 8:3
1O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
2Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
This is pretty similar to the earlier verse from Duet 11:2 (please refer)
Duet 13:17
16And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.
17And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;
18When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.
This verse does not show that God has a face in the first place. it just says that God can become merciful and compassionate though he has been angered terribly (of course by us doing something wrong). This verse says nothing about his face but his mercy and Compassion for us.
On the whole, I personally feel that with such lack of true understanding of the Bible and what it teaches, one should not believe it, let alone criticize it, you just bring yourself to self-ridicule. These simple literature skills are thought in schools to 14 year olds. much younger than the writer himself. He should honestly be ashamed. I personally would not go and criticize any religion unless i have completely read and understand whatever it teaches.
Now i would like to touch on atheists or free thinkers.
You guys often say i don't believe in this, i don't believe in that. but as timothy keller has said in his book, you still have to believe in something. Most Atheists believe in Evolution and the Big Bang, which basically points to "the scientific explanation for ourselves". The basic theory of Evolution, by Charles Darwin, is basically that everything forms, happens, changes by CHANCE over a long period of time. I’ll be touching on 2 main aspects, Evidence against Darwinism, Why it is so widely accepted in modern times.
Why it is so widely accepted in modern times
Darwinism is considerably a huge part of a person’s everyday life, whether we are studying or working. We can see the evidence of it in what we watch, hear and see in the world around us. But imagine what was life like before 1859, before the whole idea of evolution and darwinism was brought about by the man himself. The world was still the same, people were still people, scientist were still scientists, animals were still animals. Why would any commoner believe in it? When there were in a sense, ‘better’ and ‘proven’ ways of why the earth was created and how man came to be. In the next 150 years, more and more scientist began to believe in darwinism. Scientists, of course are of higher intellect and are the ‘equivalent of church leaders’ in the atheist society. Because Scientists are at such a high position in society, and because they are pretty neutral against all religions, they have the most exposure to the media, have the most books and are constantly writing in newspapers, they are less criticized and their works and understandings are more widely accepted among free thinkers. Most free thinkers think that there is no such thing as god but instead everything relies on chance and nature, which points to darwinism and the theory of evolution. But if most free thinkers think that darwinism is not a religion, then they are wrong. The definition of religion in www.wikipedia.org is “A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe”. Now, think to yourself, is darwinism a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? Of course it is! Now, what sets darwinism or rather degrades darwinism apart from the rest of the religions, is that it was inspired by a 100% human man! Charles Darwin himself! So if Charles darwin created darwinism, does that make him God? Or rather does that make him a person who has seen everything happening from the start and till the end? Did he witness the first cell growing into something 1 billion times bigger than it? Of course he did not. What Charles Darwin did was basically draw conclusions from things he saw around him, which is the reason why there is so much evidence for his theory. But again, Charles Darwin is still a human after all, and a human’s understanding of the world around him is only limited to a certain amount. For me, it’s harder to believe in a fellow person who has that certain amount of knowledge and power instead of a celestial being who has infinite amount of knowledge and power.
Coming back to my topic, the main reason why darwinism is so widely accepted in the world, is because it is endorsed by most scientists. Many people who have less intellect capability than scientists would probably think “since they are smarter than me, then they are probably right and i should believe in whatever they believe in”. But the main reason why darwinism is so widely accepted by scientists around, is because Charles darwin was practically one of them. Average scientists would look up to the better scientists and say “these people are smarter and more experienced than me, therefore they are correct”.
Evidence against Darwinism
Most believe in Darwinism simply because it is much easier to comprehend and understand it. But, in reality, these people are lazy and just want to lay back and say “this is where i come from, but since it is such, it does not affect me presently and i should go on living life just as i did”. Darwinism is basically believes that “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.” Now what this means is that it took 3.5 billion years (in other words: a very very very long time) for a single species to branch out into millions and millions of species, and currently the leader of it all are humans. So the whole basis of darwinism and the evolution theory is that things CHANGE over a long long PERIOD OF TIME through a course of ‘natural selection’. This is basically the assumption that time allows for change through natural selection. If you take out time out of this equation, there would not be change and no natural selection. How Charles Darwin brought up this approximate time of 3.5 billion years was by looking at fossil remains deeper and deeper into ground and examining them for age and therefore finding at what time would these fossils have been still alive and kicking. How he based this time was by the basic explanation that for things to be fossilised, it would take time and tremendous pressure to prevent decomposition. So if time was again taken out of this equation, Darwin’s theory of evolution would be completely wrong. Simply because, if things did not take alot of time to fossilise, then Darwin’s approximate time of 3.5 billion years would be wrong and the whole length of time would be shortened alot, and that would mean there could not have been enough time for evolution to occur. That basic explanation that the only way to fossilise something was by time and tremendous pressure was accepted during Darwin’s time, but is something that now is considered wrong. For example, a cat or dog can be fossilised in 2 or 3 years as long as there is a huge amount of pressure and the right conditions, with the exception of time. This link shows how it’s possible:http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Fossilization.htm. Therefore, Darwinism is false. This proves that as new discoveries are made, and new theories are brought up, old theories and beliefs have to be removed from the ‘scientific library’, and evolution and Darwinism are one of them. For more information, please read: http://www.discovery.org/a/10661
-
Originally posted by DouglasBitMeFingerBoomz:
To 'An Eternal now' and others who have read his article. Being a christian myself straight away brings out the point that i would be bias towards christianity, but i guess we have to respect each other's beliefs here.
My Main issue with his link was that the writer had a very direct approach towards the bible, meaning that he took everything in it by its literal sense, which is obviously the wrong way to read the bible. In fact, i would be touching on this problem in the next few paragrahs
I would like to bring to your attention the 4th chapter of 'An Eternal now's link "Chapter 4: God or Buddha - Who is the Highest?"
1st para
What does God look like? The Bible says that God created man in his own image (Gen 1:26) so from this we can assume God looks something like a human being.
God creating man in his own image does not mean that God looks like man. the 'Image' written here is the characteristics or personality of God. to sum it up is his "Perfectness".Men used to be perfect, like God, without Sin. But when men sinned by eating from the Tree of knowledge of the Good and Evil, they had become sinners and evil-doers, and were banished away from God until Jesus Christ came down to save us. That is why men are no longer perfect.
The Bible tells us that God has hands (Ex 15:12), arms (Deut 11:2), fingers (Ps 8:3) and a face (Deut 13:17). He does not like people seeing his face but he doesn t mind if they see his back.
Now i would like us to take a look at every single verse and spot out why all of them do not apply to what the writer says:
(in King James Version)
Ex 15:12
9The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.
10Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters
11Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
12Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them.
The setting of this verse is one which Moses and the Israelites were praising and worshiping God after they escaped from the Pharaoh of Egypt. In the last few verses, Moses was talking about how Pharaoh thought he could use his hand and sword to wipe out the Israelites. But instead Moses draws comparison to God, when God stretch out his 'hand' then the water came down on the Egyptians. The 'hand' used here is just a comparison between Pharaoh and God, nothing to do with God's physical being.
This shows that when we are reading a particular verse, we must base it not only on what it says, but also what is it's context. in this case, the verses before it.
Duet 11:2
1Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway.
2And know ye this day: for I speak not with your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the LORD your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched out arm,
3And his miracles, and his acts, which he did in the midst of Egypt unto Pharaoh the king of Egypt, and unto all his land;
4And what he did unto the army of Egypt, unto their horses, and to their chariots; how he made the water of the Red sea to overflow them as they pursued after you, and how the LORD hath destroyed them unto this day;
The setting of this verse still involves Moses, after he had received the two tablets which bear the Ten commandments from God on top of Mount Sinai. In fact, in this verse, i can draw another reason which would make it simple to understand why 'his mighty hand and his stretched out arm' cannot be read literally. In the earlier part of the verse, Moses said that 'I speak not with your children which have not known'. If i was to read this using the writer of the article's method. i would be thinking that this would mean that i cannot talk with anyone who is not a christian? Of course not! This actually means that Moses would not follow the ways of the world, such as worship false Gods and idols, and so on. So the 'mighty hand and outstretched arm' is basically something for the reader to understand God's power more easily. What i would think when i read 'mighty hand and stretch out arm' would be such as; God is so powerful and almighty, and he reaches to everyone of us and helps us ' outstretched arm'.
This shows that we cannot read the Bible in the way we would read a children's story book, but instead by the way we read our literature books and poems.
Psalms 8:3
1O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
2Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
This is pretty similar to the earlier verse from Duet 11:2 (please refer)
Duet 13:17
16And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.
17And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;
18When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.
This verse does not show that God has a face in the first place. it just says that God can become merciful and compassionate though he has been angered terribly (of course by us doing something wrong). This verse says nothing about his face but his mercy and Compassion for us.
On the whole, I personally feel that with such lack of true understanding of the Bible and what it teaches, one should not believe it, let alone criticize it, you just bring yourself to self-ridicule. These simple literature skills are thought in schools to 14 year olds. much younger than the writer himself. He should honestly be ashamed. I personally would not go and criticize any religion unless i have completely read and understand whatever it teaches.
Now i would like to touch on atheists or free thinkers.
You guys often say i don't believe in this, i don't believe in that. but as timothy keller has said in his book, you still have to believe in something. Most Atheists believe in Evolution and the Big Bang, which basically points to "the scientific explanation for ourselves". The basic theory of Evolution, by Charles Darwin, is basically that everything forms, happens, changes by CHANCE over a long period of time. I’ll be touching on 2 main aspects, Evidence against Darwinism, Why it is so widely accepted in modern times.
Why it is so widely accepted in modern times
Darwinism is considerably a huge part of a person’s everyday life, whether we are studying or working. We can see the evidence of it in what we watch, hear and see in the world around us. But imagine what was life like before 1859, before the whole idea of evolution and darwinism was brought about by the man himself. The world was still the same, people were still people, scientist were still scientists, animals were still animals. Why would any commoner believe in it? When there were in a sense, ‘better’ and ‘proven’ ways of why the earth was created and how man came to be. In the next 150 years, more and more scientist began to believe in darwinism. Scientists, of course are of higher intellect and are the ‘equivalent of church leaders’ in the atheist society. Because Scientists are at such a high position in society, and because they are pretty neutral against all religions, they have the most exposure to the media, have the most books and are constantly writing in newspapers, they are less criticized and their works and understandings are more widely accepted among free thinkers. Most free thinkers think that there is no such thing as god but instead everything relies on chance and nature, which points to darwinism and the theory of evolution. But if most free thinkers think that darwinism is not a religion, then they are wrong. The definition of religion in www.wikipedia.org is “A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe”. Now, think to yourself, is darwinism a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? Of course it is! Now, what sets darwinism or rather degrades darwinism apart from the rest of the religions, is that it was inspired by a 100% human man! Charles Darwin himself! So if Charles darwin created darwinism, does that make him God? Or rather does that make him a person who has seen everything happening from the start and till the end? Did he witness the first cell growing into something 1 billion times bigger than it? Of course he did not. What Charles Darwin did was basically draw conclusions from things he saw around him, which is the reason why there is so much evidence for his theory. But again, Charles Darwin is still a human after all, and a human’s understanding of the world around him is only limited to a certain amount. For me, it’s harder to believe in a fellow person who has that certain amount of knowledge and power instead of a celestial being who has infinite amount of knowledge and power.
Coming back to my topic, the main reason why darwinism is so widely accepted in the world, is because it is endorsed by most scientists. Many people who have less intellect capability than scientists would probably think “since they are smarter than me, then they are probably right and i should believe in whatever they believe in”. But the main reason why darwinism is so widely accepted by scientists around, is because Charles darwin was practically one of them. Average scientists would look up to the better scientists and say “these people are smarter and more experienced than me, therefore they are correct”.
Evidence against Darwinism
Most believe in Darwinism simply because it is much easier to comprehend and understand it. But, in reality, these people are lazy and just want to lay back and say “this is where i come from, but since it is such, it does not affect me presently and i should go on living life just as i did”. Darwinism is basically believes that “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.” Now what this means is that it took 3.5 billion years (in other words: a very very very long time) for a single species to branch out into millions and millions of species, and currently the leader of it all are humans. So the whole basis of darwinism and the evolution theory is that things CHANGE over a long long PERIOD OF TIME through a course of ‘natural selection’. This is basically the assumption that time allows for change through natural selection. If you take out time out of this equation, there would not be change and no natural selection. How Charles Darwin brought up this approximate time of 3.5 billion years was by looking at fossil remains deeper and deeper into ground and examining them for age and therefore finding at what time would these fossils have been still alive and kicking. How he based this time was by the basic explanation that for things to be fossilised, it would take time and tremendous pressure to prevent decomposition. So if time was again taken out of this equation, Darwin’s theory of evolution would be completely wrong. Simply because, if things did not take alot of time to fossilise, then Darwin’s approximate time of 3.5 billion years would be wrong and the whole length of time would be shortened alot, and that would mean there could not have been enough time for evolution to occur. That basic explanation that the only way to fossilise something was by time and tremendous pressure was accepted during Darwin’s time, but is something that now is considered wrong. For example, a cat or dog can be fossilised in 2 or 3 years as long as there is a huge amount of pressure and the right conditions, with the exception of time. This link shows how it’s possible:http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Fossilization.htm. Therefore, Darwinism is false. This proves that as new discoveries are made, and new theories are brought up, old theories and beliefs have to be removed from the ‘scientific library’, and evolution and Darwinism are one of them. For more information, please read: http://www.discovery.org/a/10661
Allo, you have potential to write novels. -
Originally posted by Rooney9:
did you mistook nature and natural phenomenon as works of god? look to me like you really dunno science or simply chose to ignore it. to think that you used these as proof that god exists, really border on the absurdity. science has explained that these natural phenonmenon have nothing to do with god, in fact there are nothing to suggest that these are acts of god. if like that are acts of god, then tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions are also deemed as acts of god lor, as is the rainfall and snow.
why should I read and be receptive to something that was concocted and invented by some men 2009 years ago. the stories are nice to read, but they were just the author's imagination then. on your claim that you know the origin of religion, I have serious doubts. If you know the origin of religion, you would have wholeheartedly agreed with my explanations on how religion came about and the flawed and paradoxes concept of god.
Well, i am fully aware of science and religion. All my statements till now is reference to science and religion. From quantumn physics to praying. From Evolution to Intelligent design. From the geological formations of this miracles to the scientific explainations of its possibilities.I am a strong advocate of Science and Religion. Because it stands side by side.
How do u know that it is invented and concocted. It is not ur normal fantasy book with dragons and elves.
The origin of religion, that u most likely watched on TV... does not FULLY explain Christianity itself. Its just a general conceptualisation of what religion is to different people. Dont mix Hindu's god to the gods of ancient Egypt and the Christian God.
Your paradoxes in this few posts leading up to this one is regarding Good n Evil. And your paradox is about God being all GOOD and not evil. But dont forget, God is capable of both Good n Evil. Your so called paradoxes.. are not even paradoxes.
About God able to create something he cant lift.. again.. to remind u of how to bring God to your level, is God can always create something to LIFT what he cant lift. Like Man. We can create something we cant lift, but we create machines to lift what we cant lift.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Being an atheist doesnt mean u can around being all big n mighty, thats exactly how it is with you guys. Act so big n tough, talk with such blustery without fear. Thats exactly the attitude that is bring about the decay in society. Because of that lack of fear, you think you can do and say anything. Atheists and non-believers with a good heart and conscience will NEVER talk and make statements the way u do.
Funny how you try to put the blame on one group of people...maybe the Ku Ku Klan and Taliban are "good" people to you...
Originally posted by DouglasBitMeFingerBoomz:Now i would like to touch on atheists or free thinkers.
You guys often say i don't believe in this, i don't believe in that. but as timothy keller has said in his book, you still have to believe in something. Most Atheists believe in Evolution and the Big Bang, which basically points to "the scientific explanation for ourselves". The basic theory of Evolution, by Charles Darwin, is basically that everything forms, happens, changes by CHANCE over a long period of time. I’ll be touching on 2 main aspects, Evidence against Darwinism, Why it is so widely accepted in modern times.
Now what's with free thinkers?
Does believing the evolution and the Big Bang makes them "religious"?
And one questions to Christians here, is a Christian still considered a Christian when he/she rejects part of the Bible?
-
to likeyou: the answer to your question is YES.
This is summed up by three verses in Ephesians 2: 8-10
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
The reason why is found in the earlier verses:
Ephesians 2:1-5
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
Now, this means that we were already spiritually dead, (there is absolutely no way we can save ourselves, no matter what we do) because we were sinful and disobeyed God. It is in our nature that we are sinful, that is why even if a non-christian has a good heart and does good deeds, he still sins, because it is impossible for one not to sin at all.
It is only by God's mercy and grace that we are saved. because without God, we are like dust. absolutely helpless and hopeless.
-
Originally posted by DouglasBitMeFingerBoomz:
to likeyou: the answer to your question is YES.
This is summed up by three verses in Ephesians 2: 8-10
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
The reason why is found in the earlier verses:
Ephesians 2:1-5
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
Now, this means that we were already spiritually dead, (there is absolutely no way we can save ourselves, no matter what we do) because we were sinful and disobeyed God. It is in our nature that we are sinful, that is why even if a non-christian has a good heart and does good deeds, he still sins, because it is impossible for one not to sin at all.
It is only by God's mercy and grace that we are saved. because without God, we are like dust. absolutely helpless and hopeless.
What question I ask?
-
Originally posted by RoyFang:
Funny how you try to put the blame on one group of people...maybe the Ku Ku Klan and Taliban are "good" people to you...
Now what's with free thinkers?
Does believing the evolution and the Big Bang makes them "religious"?
And one questions to Christians here, is a Christian still considered a Christian when he/she rejects part of the Bible?
Hey man, u understand my post or not.
Atheism itself is a form of religion, especially when they become die hard defending it against all others.
All i know is a Christian dont reject the BIble, as it is there for a reason, to learn to understand and learn its message.
-
Originally posted by DouglasBitMeFingerBoomz:
To 'An Eternal now' and others who have read his article. Being a christian myself straight away brings out the point that i would be bias towards christianity, but i guess we have to respect each other's beliefs here.
My Main issue with his link was that the writer had a very direct approach towards the bible, meaning that he took everything in it by its literal sense, which is obviously the wrong way to read the bible. In fact, i would be touching on this problem in the next few paragrahs
I would like to bring to your attention the 4th chapter of 'An Eternal now's link "Chapter 4: God or Buddha - Who is the Highest?"
1st para
What does God look like? The Bible says that God created man in his own image (Gen 1:26) so from this we can assume God looks something like a human being.
God creating man in his own image does not mean that God looks like man. the 'Image' written here is the characteristics or personality of God. to sum it up is his "Perfectness".Men used to be perfect, like God, without Sin. But when men sinned by eating from the Tree of knowledge of the Good and Evil, they had become sinners and evil-doers, and were banished away from God until Jesus Christ came down to save us. That is why men are no longer perfect.
The Bible tells us that God has hands (Ex 15:12), arms (Deut 11:2), fingers (Ps 8:3) and a face (Deut 13:17). He does not like people seeing his face but he doesn t mind if they see his back.
Now i would like us to take a look at every single verse and spot out why all of them do not apply to what the writer says:
(in King James Version)
Ex 15:12
9The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.
10Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters
11Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
12Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them.
The setting of this verse is one which Moses and the Israelites were praising and worshiping God after they escaped from the Pharaoh of Egypt. In the last few verses, Moses was talking about how Pharaoh thought he could use his hand and sword to wipe out the Israelites. But instead Moses draws comparison to God, when God stretch out his 'hand' then the water came down on the Egyptians. The 'hand' used here is just a comparison between Pharaoh and God, nothing to do with God's physical being.
This shows that when we are reading a particular verse, we must base it not only on what it says, but also what is it's context. in this case, the verses before it.
Duet 11:2
1Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway.
2And know ye this day: for I speak not with your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the LORD your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched out arm,
3And his miracles, and his acts, which he did in the midst of Egypt unto Pharaoh the king of Egypt, and unto all his land;
4And what he did unto the army of Egypt, unto their horses, and to their chariots; how he made the water of the Red sea to overflow them as they pursued after you, and how the LORD hath destroyed them unto this day;
The setting of this verse still involves Moses, after he had received the two tablets which bear the Ten commandments from God on top of Mount Sinai. In fact, in this verse, i can draw another reason which would make it simple to understand why 'his mighty hand and his stretched out arm' cannot be read literally. In the earlier part of the verse, Moses said that 'I speak not with your children which have not known'. If i was to read this using the writer of the article's method. i would be thinking that this would mean that i cannot talk with anyone who is not a christian? Of course not! This actually means that Moses would not follow the ways of the world, such as worship false Gods and idols, and so on. So the 'mighty hand and outstretched arm' is basically something for the reader to understand God's power more easily. What i would think when i read 'mighty hand and stretch out arm' would be such as; God is so powerful and almighty, and he reaches to everyone of us and helps us ' outstretched arm'.
This shows that we cannot read the Bible in the way we would read a children's story book, but instead by the way we read our literature books and poems.
Psalms 8:3
1O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
2Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
This is pretty similar to the earlier verse from Duet 11:2 (please refer)
Duet 13:17
16And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.
17And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;
18When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.
This verse does not show that God has a face in the first place. it just says that God can become merciful and compassionate though he has been angered terribly (of course by us doing something wrong). This verse says nothing about his face but his mercy and Compassion for us.
On the whole, I personally feel that with such lack of true understanding of the Bible and what it teaches, one should not believe it, let alone criticize it, you just bring yourself to self-ridicule. These simple literature skills are thought in schools to 14 year olds. much younger than the writer himself. He should honestly be ashamed. I personally would not go and criticize any religion unless i have completely read and understand whatever it teaches.
Now i would like to touch on atheists or free thinkers.
You guys often say i don't believe in this, i don't believe in that. but as timothy keller has said in his book, you still have to believe in something. Most Atheists believe in Evolution and the Big Bang, which basically points to "the scientific explanation for ourselves". The basic theory of Evolution, by Charles Darwin, is basically that everything forms, happens, changes by CHANCE over a long period of time. I’ll be touching on 2 main aspects, Evidence against Darwinism, Why it is so widely accepted in modern times.
Why it is so widely accepted in modern times
Darwinism is considerably a huge part of a person’s everyday life, whether we are studying or working. We can see the evidence of it in what we watch, hear and see in the world around us. But imagine what was life like before 1859, before the whole idea of evolution and darwinism was brought about by the man himself. The world was still the same, people were still people, scientist were still scientists, animals were still animals. Why would any commoner believe in it? When there were in a sense, ‘better’ and ‘proven’ ways of why the earth was created and how man came to be. In the next 150 years, more and more scientist began to believe in darwinism. Scientists, of course are of higher intellect and are the ‘equivalent of church leaders’ in the atheist society. Because Scientists are at such a high position in society, and because they are pretty neutral against all religions, they have the most exposure to the media, have the most books and are constantly writing in newspapers, they are less criticized and their works and understandings are more widely accepted among free thinkers. Most free thinkers think that there is no such thing as god but instead everything relies on chance and nature, which points to darwinism and the theory of evolution. But if most free thinkers think that darwinism is not a religion, then they are wrong. The definition of religion in www.wikipedia.org is “A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe”. Now, think to yourself, is darwinism a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? Of course it is! Now, what sets darwinism or rather degrades darwinism apart from the rest of the religions, is that it was inspired by a 100% human man! Charles Darwin himself! So if Charles darwin created darwinism, does that make him God? Or rather does that make him a person who has seen everything happening from the start and till the end? Did he witness the first cell growing into something 1 billion times bigger than it? Of course he did not. What Charles Darwin did was basically draw conclusions from things he saw around him, which is the reason why there is so much evidence for his theory. But again, Charles Darwin is still a human after all, and a human’s understanding of the world around him is only limited to a certain amount. For me, it’s harder to believe in a fellow person who has that certain amount of knowledge and power instead of a celestial being who has infinite amount of knowledge and power.
Coming back to my topic, the main reason why darwinism is so widely accepted in the world, is because it is endorsed by most scientists. Many people who have less intellect capability than scientists would probably think “since they are smarter than me, then they are probably right and i should believe in whatever they believe in”. But the main reason why darwinism is so widely accepted by scientists around, is because Charles darwin was practically one of them. Average scientists would look up to the better scientists and say “these people are smarter and more experienced than me, therefore they are correct”.
Evidence against Darwinism
Most believe in Darwinism simply because it is much easier to comprehend and understand it. But, in reality, these people are lazy and just want to lay back and say “this is where i come from, but since it is such, it does not affect me presently and i should go on living life just as i did”. Darwinism is basically believes that “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.” Now what this means is that it took 3.5 billion years (in other words: a very very very long time) for a single species to branch out into millions and millions of species, and currently the leader of it all are humans. So the whole basis of darwinism and the evolution theory is that things CHANGE over a long long PERIOD OF TIME through a course of ‘natural selection’. This is basically the assumption that time allows for change through natural selection. If you take out time out of this equation, there would not be change and no natural selection. How Charles Darwin brought up this approximate time of 3.5 billion years was by looking at fossil remains deeper and deeper into ground and examining them for age and therefore finding at what time would these fossils have been still alive and kicking. How he based this time was by the basic explanation that for things to be fossilised, it would take time and tremendous pressure to prevent decomposition. So if time was again taken out of this equation, Darwin’s theory of evolution would be completely wrong. Simply because, if things did not take alot of time to fossilise, then Darwin’s approximate time of 3.5 billion years would be wrong and the whole length of time would be shortened alot, and that would mean there could not have been enough time for evolution to occur. That basic explanation that the only way to fossilise something was by time and tremendous pressure was accepted during Darwin’s time, but is something that now is considered wrong. For example, a cat or dog can be fossilised in 2 or 3 years as long as there is a huge amount of pressure and the right conditions, with the exception of time. This link shows how it’s possible:http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Fossilization.htm. Therefore, Darwinism is false. This proves that as new discoveries are made, and new theories are brought up, old theories and beliefs have to be removed from the ‘scientific library’, and evolution and Darwinism are one of them. For more information, please read: http://www.discovery.org/a/10661
Hi Douglas
I quote your final conclusion:
////////////////"That basic explanation that the only way to fossilise something was by time and tremendous pressure was accepted during Darwin’s time, but is something that now is considered wrong. For example, a cat or dog can be fossilised in 2 or 3 years as long as there is a huge amount of pressure and the right conditions, with the exception of time. This link shows how it’s possible:http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Fossilization.htm. Therefore, Darwinism is false. This proves that as new discoveries are made, and new theories are brought up, old theories and beliefs have to be removed from the ‘scientific library’, and evolution and Darwinism are one of them. "/////////////////////////
You have raised a point in fossilization in matter of million years versus artificial fossilization using pressure and such.
May I know your view on carbon dating on the following samples:
a) fossil dug out from deep ground;
b) fossil done by artificial means.
What will the cabon dating reveal for sample (a) and (b)?
sincerely
laffin
-
to laffin, although i have no scientific means of showing u the statistics, based on what i know. the carbon dating would probably be the same.