Freeze and Dabo negative religious recruit UT

[StoVol]

Since we've gone completely off the rails here, if you could pick a mythological pantheon of Gods to be real, which would you pick? I'd probably go Norse. Norse gods often partook in flyting, which is basically like rap battles, to squash beef. Pretty bad*** IMO. Would be interesting to Loki put Kanye in his place.

Ragnar Lothbrook Butch slapping Biggie Smalls

 

[mommasvol]

It really is this simple, mommasvol. Unfortunately, many refuse to see and hear.

I know but we must keep saying it 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

[unioncityvol]

Atheists don't hate leprechauns, unicorns, fairies etc because they don't exist. Why hate on something that doesn't? Atheists hate on God because he does exist. This life seems too special like a gift and too me there's no way it's by accident.

 

[Vols4us]

I know but we must keep saying it 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Amen. And we shall.

 

[Vol464]

With a couple of exceptions, this has been a very civil discourse. As a believer, I will pray that those who aren't will see light.
One thing I have learned is that those who want to know the truth will find it. To those who don't, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 applies.
God bless each of you.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

Atheists don't hate leprechauns, unicorns, fairies etc because they don't exist. Why hate on something that doesn't? Atheists hate on God because he does exist. This life seems too special like a gift and too me there's no way it's by accident.

You don't see 'in leprechauns we trust' on money. Besides can you prove leprechauns, unicorns and fairies don't exist? Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Or something like that.

Yes I know I'm being a smartarse. Sometimes I just can't help myself. As for myself, I don't hate God. But I do hate religion. Big difference imo

 

[StoVol]

speaking of lack of evidence

interesting paper on the conservation of information

http://evoinfo.org/papers/ConsInfo_NoN.pdf

 

[KoachKletus]

JD - I challenge you to purchase, read, and consider what is provided in a 2015 published book titled The Genesis Account from Jonathon D. Sarfati, PH.D, F.M. As it states it is a theological, historical, and scientific commentary on Genesis 1-11. Dr. Sarfati is a noted scientist and logician that ties science and the Biblical account together. He is active in Creation Ministries International, whose analysis is substantially different from your current path. If you do not have an understanding of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew languages you will need to accept the commentary as written or double check through other sources when it comes to the language meanings. FWIW dinosaurs, DNA, etc. are covered in the book. CMI's organization is comprised of dozens of noted scientists and theologians around the world. It has been in existence for nearly 40 years.

Or you can continue with whatever you are doing without the counter information. Your choice.

. That dude is a nutcase spreading ignorance.

 

[JBondVol]

I've always been interested in the Nephilim. I wonder what they were and could've done. I've just started reading the book of Enoch. Then I'm going to start other apocryphal text.

The Nephilim subject is one that really got me looking for answers a few decades ago. The book of Enoch is a good start IMO, but beware, some of those apocryphal books read like Alice in Wonderland, if not weirder. It's easy to see why they weren't canonized.

Essentially, they were the offspring of some of the original gods of eden who mated with their own hybrid creation, resulting in some strange mutations. The giants of OT stories and the reason the gods finally decided to abandon their first experiment by flooding the earth. All of this was written in the epic of gilgimesh by the sumarians long before the Bible was written.

I would recommend any of the books by Zecharia Sitchen or Erich Von Daniken, who originally popularized the study of the Nephilim, or more specifically those "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis, back in the 1970's. It's a long wild journey, but the evidence is there.

Good luck.

 

[Vols4us]

. That dude is a nutcase spreading ignorance.

I assume that is your opinion after reading the book. smh. You wouldn't understand the first paragraph.

 

[Vol'n'beers]

I don't care what type of degree you have, if you are writing a book to prove a preconceived idea then you are not writing as a scientist. A scientific book would describe in great detail results from a study/investigation that was initiated to explain an observation. The tests and results should be independently repeatable and predictive of said observation.
For these reasons, many of the books listed in this discussion, especially the Bible itself, would not be admissible as proof in any scientific discussion such as this.
That's not to say they are not good literature and in any philosophical or spiritual discussion they become fully admissible.
However, what I and others on here base our nonbelief on is that there is and has never been repeatable and predictive evidence of any of the supernatural claims made by any religion. That's where the word faith comes into play.
In addition, lack of understanding in no way validates the supernatural. Our knowledge and understanding grows every day yet the more we learn the more questions we can ask.
This is not to disparage anyone with religious faith, only to help explain that some people require real proof in order to believe.
As for the moral question, this is something that does actually make me mad. An atheist can have every bit the moral code as a theist. There are actually studies out now that purport to show that children of non religious upbringing are actually more altruistic than those of religious households. I haven't read them and don't vouch for them, but mention them to make the point that those good aspects of the human being are not reserved for the religious. The sense of belonging and community and the empathy that requires are all birthed of evolution process and can be shown in species other than our own.

 

[norrislakevol]

The Nephilim subject is one that really got me looking for answers a few decades ago. The book of Enoch is a good start IMO, but beware, some of those apocryphal books read like Alice in Wonderland, if not weirder. It's easy to see why they weren't canonized.

Essentially, they were the offspring of some of the original gods of eden who mated with their own hybrid creation, resulting in some strange mutations. The giants of OT stories and the reason the gods finally decided to abandon their first experiment by flooding the earth. All of this was written in the epic of gilgimesh by the sumarians long before the Bible was written.

I would recommend any of the books by Zecharia Sitchen or Erich Von Daniken, who originally popularized the study of the Nephilim, or more specifically those "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis, back in the 1970's. It's a long wild journey, but the evidence is there.

Good luck.

Sons of God = Angels. This reference is towards the fallen Angels.

 

[JDisThereThere]

I'm still with Epicurus on this one:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

I'm still with Epicurus on this one:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

It could be said man is evil not God. That being the case the evil comes from man.

 

[JDisThereThere]

JD - I challenge you to purchase, read, and consider what is provided in a 2015 published book titled The Genesis Account from Jonathon D. Sarfati, PH.D, F.M. As it states it is a theological, historical, and scientific commentary on Genesis 1-11. Dr. Sarfati is a noted scientist and logician that ties science and the Biblical account together. He is active in Creation Ministries International, whose analysis is substantially different from your current path. If you do not have an understanding of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew languages you will need to accept the commentary as written or double check through other sources when it comes to the language meanings. FWIW dinosaurs, DNA, etc. are covered in the book. CMI's organization is comprised of dozens of noted scientists and theologians around the world. It has been in existence for nearly 40 years.

Or you can continue with whatever you are doing without the counter information. Your choice.

Yeah I had already heard of this guy, and my initial reaction of what I had seen/heard was that he was a bit loony. After some further research and watching some of his lectures, I still think he is pretty loony. I can't really justify buying that book since it seems like it is basically christian propaganda. Most all of the creation 'scientists' I've encountered have seemed loony tunes to me, and since I'm not a scientist, I look to see what scientist think about creation science. And pretty much all of them consider it to essentially be pseudo-science.

 

[JDisThereThere]

It could be said man is evil not God. That being the case the evil comes from man.

Well where did man come from according to Christianity?

 

[Vols4us]

I don't care what type of degree you have, if you are writing a book to prove a preconceived idea then you are not writing as a scientist. A scientific book would describe in great detail results from a study/investigation that was initiated to explain an observation. The tests and results should be independently repeatable and predictive of said observation.
For these reasons, many of the books listed in this discussion, especially the Bible itself, would not be admissible as proof in any scientific discussion such as this.
That's not to say they are not good literature and in any philosophical or spiritual discussion they become fully admissible.
However, what I and others on here base our nonbelief on is that there is and has never been repeatable and predictive evidence of any of the supernatural claims made by any religion. That's where the word faith comes into play.
In addition, lack of understanding in no way validates the supernatural. Our knowledge and understanding grows every day yet the more we learn the more questions we can ask.
This is not to disparage anyone with religious faith, only to help explain that some people require real proof in order to believe.
As for the moral question, this is something that does actually make me mad. An atheist can have every bit the moral code as a theist. There are actually studies out now that purport to show that children of non religious upbringing are actually more altruistic than those of religious households. I haven't read them and don't vouch for them, but mention them to make the point that those good aspects of the human being are not reserved for the religious. The sense of belonging and community and the empathy that requires are all birthed of evolution process and can be shown in species other than our own.

Scientists do what you say they would not do every day. They build cases to support their theories and sell them as absolute truth for money, prestige, power, etc. that are regularly proven wrong or distorted and have been for centuries. Keep trying with that one because you could not be more wrong with that statement.

What exactly is moral to an atheist? If there is no God, why do you choose to follow morals created by followers of a God? Those morals did not exist until created by (fill in the blank). Why would you get mad about any subject or conversations by "theists" over morals at all? Make up your own. Live like you are in charge of your existence and go your own way. Just follow the laws no matter what they are and stay out of jail. Entire nations and cultures have disappeared throughout history believing they can do whatever they decide is moral. So knock yourself out.

It is intellectually insulting to sell evolutionary process as the source of community and empathy. If it existed it would be tied to DNA, genomes, cells, proteins, mutations, etc. There is no empathy in that arrangement. It is calculating and defined. I say 'if' because adaptation to environment by species have nothing in common with evolution of species. Evolution is dreamland fantasy. Adaptation to environment by species is real. The very process that brought the theory is one of survival of the fittest. But I did notice that you did not include love in its many forms, mercy, hope, sacrifice, etc. Is that because they are intangible and not easy to identify in the evolutionary process?

 

[JDisThereThere]

A couple verses that refers to the actual water cycle:

All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again. - Ecclesiastes 1:7

27 For he draws up the drops of water; they distill his mist in rain,
28 which the skies pour down and drop on mankind abundantly. - Job 36:27-28


A verse telling us way before Columbus that the earth is round:

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; - Isaiah 40:22


Another verse that told man the earth was suspended in the solar system:

He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing. - Job 26:7


This is some scientific evidence that God chose to include in His inspired scriptures to help us in our journey of believing that He is real. Although He did include these things, they still were outside of the realm of what His real message was always meant to be about...Jesus. However, maybe, just maybe, He put information like this in His holy word, just for someone like you, JD. I pray and hope this helps you to start believing that God is alive, and He is very real. Good day, kind sir! :hi:

All those water cycle verse prove is that people back in those days observed that rivers flowed to the oceans and that it rains. Doesn't really explain it scientifically at all.

The verse from Isaiah about the Earth being round actually seems to me like they thought it was flat. For example, "he who sits above the circle of the earth"? Uh, the earth isn't a circle. If it had said 'the sphere of the earth', well then you might have something. Might...

That last verse is actually: He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. My thoughts on this verse are that skies aren't spread over empty space, and that the earth isn't suspended over nothing. The earth is flying through empty space (which isn't nothing by the way when you consider dark energy/dark gravity/dark matter). We are orbiting around the sun which is also flying through space.

Face it guys. The bible is just not a scientific book in any way, shape, or form.

 

[JBondVol]

Scientists do what you say they would not do every day. They build cases to support their theories and sell them as absolute truth for money, prestige, power, etc. that are regularly proven wrong or distorted and have been for centuries. Keep trying with that one because you could not be more wrong with that statement.

What exactly is moral to an atheist? If there is no God, why do you choose to follow morals created by followers of a God? Those morals did not exist until created by (fill in the blank). Why would you get mad about any subject or conversations by "theists" over morals at all? Make up your own. Live like you are in charge of your existence and go your own way. Just follow the laws no matter what they are and stay out of jail. Entire nations and cultures have disappeared throughout history believing they can do whatever they decide is moral. So knock yourself out.

It is intellectually insulting to sell evolutionary process as the source of community and empathy. If it existed it would be tied to DNA, genomes, cells, proteins, mutations, etc. There is no empathy in that arrangement. It is calculating and defined. I say 'if' because adaptation to environment by species have nothing in common with evolution of species. Evolution is dreamland fantasy. Adaptation to environment by species is real. The very process that brought the theory is one of survival of the fittest. But I did notice that you did not include love in its many forms, mercy, hope, sacrifice, etc. Is that because they are intangible and not easy to identify in the evolutionary process?

Evolution is a function of consciousness. If you are familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy, it's easy to see that a person at the bottom of the pyramid has no awareness of the need for love or morals, as his only objective is survival. It's is only when his needs for food, water, sleep, etc are met, that his consciousness is expanded, his awareness of something greater that he needs.

Fortunately, mankind has evolved to such a degree now that very few are living at that first level of consciousness. The sense of morality is natural in the absence of psychological illness and no religion is needed. Empathy comes with expanded consciousness.

 

[JDisThereThere]

Scientists do what you say they would not do every day. They build cases to support their theories and sell them as absolute truth for money, prestige, power, etc. that are regularly proven wrong or distorted and have been for centuries. Keep trying with that one because you could not be more wrong with that statement.

What exactly is moral to an atheist? If there is no God, why do you choose to follow morals created by followers of a God? Those morals did not exist until created by (fill in the blank). Why would you get mad about any subject or conversations by "theists" over morals at all? Make up your own. Live like you are in charge of your existence and go your own way. Just follow the laws no matter what they are and stay out of jail. Entire nations and cultures have disappeared throughout history believing they can do whatever they decide is moral. So knock yourself out.

It is intellectually insulting to sell evolutionary process as the source of community and empathy. If it existed it would be tied to DNA, genomes, cells, proteins, mutations, etc. There is no empathy in that arrangement. It is calculating and defined. I say 'if' because adaptation to environment by species have nothing in common with evolution of species. Evolution is dreamland fantasy. Adaptation to environment by species is real. The very process that brought the theory is one of survival of the fittest. But I did notice that you did not include love in its many forms, mercy, hope, sacrifice, etc. Is that because they are intangible and not easy to identify in the evolutionary process?

Morality predates religion. Period.

And it's quite insulting for you to say that an atheist can't develop a moral code and teach their children things like the golden rule and self-restraint. Although this hasn't been proven, but it is highly plausible (and I think probable) that morality is innate. Are you saying that you were a murdering, lying, thieving degenerate criminal as a toddler before you had religion pumped into you brain? For the most part, you don't have to teach children the golden rule.

Also, all christians cherry pick the parts of morality in the bible that they like and ignore the parts they don't like. Muslims are the ones that are really taking all of their religion really seriously and we're seeing how that is working out.

Also, the ten commandments are far from a perfect moral code, and some of those commandments are actually fairly immoral. I can extrapolate on this if you'd like.

Also, many of the worst atrocities in human history have been committed by religious folks who thought that they were being commanded by god.

“In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion” - Christopher Hitchens

 

[JDisThereThere]

I also forgot to ask what you guys think about the paradox of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Paradox of omnipotence
Omnipotence is the ability to do all things. However, some abilities are contradictory to each other.

God is apparently infinite and eternal. However, if he has eternal life then he doesn't have the ability to die or to kill himself.

Paradox of omniscience
If God knows everything, then he can not forget. However, that would also mean that he can't experience deja vu, as he would always know where he got his experiences from. However, this then means that God does not know how it really feels to experience a moment of deja vu.

Paradox of omnipresence
God is apparently everywhere. However, this means that he can't leave a certain place and he does not have the ability to be absent. This also ties into the paradox of omnipotence, since if god is all-powerful then he should have the ability to do all things.

 

[JBondVol]

The verse from Isaiah about the Earth being round actually seems to me like they thought it was flat. For example, "he who sits above the circle of the earth"? Uh, the earth isn't a circle. If it had said 'the sphere of the earth', well then you might have something. Might...

Face it guys. The bible is just not a scientific book in any way, shape, or form.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if Isaiah was taken up to see first hand that the earth was round, as Enoch and Moses were.

Although the history books tell us everyone thought the earth was flat in the middle ages, it was fairly well known otherwise among the educated, as the numerous historical references attest. If not for the church, it would likely have been common knowledge among even the peasants. They burned Galileo's books and imprisoned him until he died. God knows how many others were treated this way or worse, to keep the masses ignorant.

 

[OGbabyaviVol]

All those water cycle verse prove is that people back in those days observed that rivers flowed to the oceans and that it rains. Doesn't really explain it scientifically at all.

The verse from Isaiah about the Earth being round actually seems to me like they thought it was flat. For example, "he who sits above the circle of the earth"? Uh, the earth isn't a circle. If it had said 'the sphere of the earth', well then you might have something. Might...

That last verse is actually: He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. My thoughts on this verse are that skies aren't spread over empty space, and that the earth isn't suspended over nothing. The earth is flying through empty space (which isn't nothing by the way when you consider dark energy/dark gravity/dark matter). We are orbiting around the sun which is also flying through space.

Face it guys. The bible is just not a scientific book in any way, shape, or form.

It saddens me that you feel the way you do about God and His inspired Word, JD. I'll pray for you that one day your eyes will truly be opened to all the glories of the Heavenly Father, before it's everlastingly too late. I will no longer continue to try to explain His Word in this forum. However, if you ever have a change of heart and want to study, you know you can find me right here on Volnation, and I will be happy to do that with you. Good day, sir. :hi: Go Vols!

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

Well where did man come from according to Christianity?

God. So the next question would be how could a perfect God create an imperfect creation.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

God. So the next question would be how could a perfect God create an imperfect creation.

Duh. Perfect troll job.