weaver <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Weaver, I fully understand your "exhasperation" with me. But you need to understand that I was "once where you are." I did not accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior until I was almost 24. I am a Biologist by training (my major in college) and by nature a fairly "logic oriented" sort of person. I was raised Lutheran (Missouri synod)and totally rejected Christianity when I was in High School and became a confirmed Agnostic until my decision to accept Christ.

THAT decision did NOT come until I had Jesus Christ "proved" to me. Since then I have learned more about what it is to "be" a Christian, but I'm not done learning yet.

For you, the issue is really fairly simple. I hear someone who has been hurt in the past and decided that they don't need a particular religion that caused them pain. That's a "normal" human reaction and pretty much similar to the reaction I had in High School. But I also hear someone who is not opposed to actually reading, hearing, or discussing the "proofs," but who reserves the right to "decide for themselves."

Weaver, deciding for "oneself" is what Christianity is all about. No one can impart salvation to another. It is an individual choice, one at time.

And yes, there are many tragedies in the world that cause the sorts of questions you are raising. There ARE answers to some of the and there are NO answers to some of them. Bad things do happen to "good people" all over the world. We, unfortunately, DO live in a fallen world that is broken by sin. This world will someday be remade, but until then we live in a world corrupted by sin, not as God made it originally.

If you really are interested in reading a little about the subject I can recommend two books to get you started. The first may not be in print anymore, so you may have to do some internet digging. It is a little book that was the book that I first read that lead me to finally surrender and accept Jesus Christ. The author is now deceased, but he wrote a few really good books that you might find helpful should you decide to continue your search. Anyway, here are the two books that I would recommend to begin your search into the validity of God, Scripture, and Jesus Christ.

Know Why You Believe, by Paul Little

Evidence That Demands A Verdict, by Josh McDowell

If there are specific questions that you would like to discuss, I'd be happy to do so. Do NOT be afraid to ask any question, no matter how hard (like why do children die and do children go to heaven or hell?). I do think, however, that it really begins with who Jesus Christ is, because if he is NOT God the Son and is NOT the Word ("In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God), then Christianity that is based upon Him is irrelevant and futile and has no power.

Let me give you something to think about regarding one of your questions, though. You said, "If you can answer the question, why did/do all those little kids have to suffer? Where was Christ, worker of miracles through God when those precious little babies were being brutalized and filled with terror before they died?" God was there. God was crying along with the rest of us and willing to reach out in comfort to those willing to accept. We "blame God" for all the "bad things" in life, but we never seem to blame Satan, or selfishness, or evil people, or a fallen world as the "cause."

We want God to intervene miraculously, all the while denying His existance and His ability TO actually intervene. God HAS intervened sometimes, and then usually it is "chalked up to coincidence," but not the hand of God.

IF God were to "end all suffering" in the world right now (which WILL happen one day) then the world would end and Judgment would come. God is unwilling that ANY should perish that are going to come to Him, so He waits and crys with us in our pain. If you don't think He does, then read a little about Jesus and His crying and His feeling of His human emotions. We DO have a "high priest" who intercedes with the Father on our behalf who DOES know exactly what we feel. That is the same "high priest" who felt the pain of evil and betrayal and sin to an infinitely higher degree than any of us ever has because He bore the entire weight of sin of everyone who ever lived or who will live. He sweat blood. He begged and pleaded from the pain to "let the cup pass" that He was supposed to drink FOR us. Yet, He submitted His will to the Father's will, regardless of the pain or personal desire to escape what was coming.

That same love is why God does not yet end evil and suffering in the world. He continues to endure the pain of it, along with us, so that none who WILL be saved will be "missed."

To agree with your sig line statement, ""The truth will never damage a cause which is just," I concur in one's honest evaluation of the person Jesus Christ.

God bless all who seek answers and the truth.

Weaver, there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" with doubting. But doubting should spur us on to investigating to see if those doubts are "founded or unfounded." That is something that God uses to "motivate" us. Believe me, there ARE people who don't "doubt" and are "closed" to hearing the truth spoken. Their hearts are "hardened" and there is no reaching them. Besides, it is not our responsibility to "convert" anyone. We can't. All we can do is tell people about Christ. They have to decide for themselves.

There are many folks who claim the "title" of Christian, but who do not understand or do not believe in Jesus Christ as the ONLY way by which we may be saved. NOTHING we do can save us. No "good works" are "enough." It is the Scripture that lays out the only path to salvation, and it is a very narrow path with only one doorway that must be passed through....Jesus Christ. That is God's design, not "man's."

God bless.

FH,

I can't respond right now, this is all really starting to cause unrest in me, for lack of a better way to communicate what I am feeling.

It's kind of funny that you are from MO, both my dad and BF were raised there in Flat River and St. Louis respectively. I think it was you who said your parents live in the U.P. as well. Small world.

I am going to get the book by McDowell which both you and Mel have recommended.

I have turned my back for about five years now really, and it is starting to seep into all my thoughts, so it is time for me to start searching.

Thank you FH. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Mel--My question would be this, what are those percentages taken FROM? Are they taken as a percentage of ALL marriages or are they taken as a percentage of divorces only in their specific groups of marriages?

It would stand to reason that less athiests even enter into the institution of marriage since it is largely viewed as a religious practice. That would mean LESS atheists are married, which would result, naturally, in LESS divorces.

... .

D--I can’t imagine that this research group would base the %ages calculated on the entire marriage base rather than the subgroups—if they did such nonsense I don’t see how they would be in business long, particularly since their clients are Christian organizations.

It sees rather obvious that they did not do as you suggest, however, since the numbers add up to something much larger than 100%, which is clearly an impossibility if they were taken from the entire population of marriages.


D.

FH--Dimpsasawa, forgive me for this but I have to ask because you piqued my interest with this one statement that you "slipped in;" when I was preparing for a Bible study last year.

For someone who has clearly come down on the side of evolution and against the "God of Scripture," I would appreciate an explanation from you about this "Bible study" you were preparing for and a statement about your personal faith in, or rejection of, Jesus Christ. Since you brought this up, and implied that you were in a "Bible study" that would be interpreted by readers as "supportive of God and Jesus Christ," you now "owe" us further clarification of what you actually believe so we will be better able to understand "where you are coming from" when you make the sorts of statements that you make.

D--Sure. I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I was baptized in the Catholic church as did I baptize (or rather, the Deacon did) my son. My wife went to Catholic schools as well as college. However, that being said, I do not take the Bible literally. Moreover, I can hardly claim to be devout in my faith—I will admit it is not central to my life nor my marriage. My faith has rose and fell over the years, and these last two years or so it has been low. When I discus certain religious topics to what I believe is a conservative audience, I make it a point to state my faith. I do this because I am sometimes taken to be an atheist. That in itself isn’t really troublesome to me, but I have gotten the impression that a ‘hostile’ audience gives less respect to what I might have to say.

FH--So what does it prove? Nothing. There are too many unknown variables in the samplings, etc. to make much more comment.

D—I agree, as my personal comments clearly indicated.

D--I’m not sure why you want to turn me into your enemy-that I’m ‘attempting to slam’ Christians and that I’m ‘against God’ and so on. I enjoy discussing, I don’t enjoy verbal fighting. Religiously, we disagree on mere details, at least in my opinion. Moreover, in the creation/evol. thread, the intent was not to argue my personal opinions, but rather to present the conclusions of the scientific method. Scientific conclusions are not meant to be taken as religious nor universal (i.e. ‘The Truth’) conclusions, nor even necessarily my personal conclusions. In many cases these are very different things.


D.

I am no more attempting to "turn you into in my enemy" that you are doing with your comments to me and anyone who supports the Creation model.

An example, if you will, of what you are "saying" even if you don't understand what you are saying:

"Scientific conclusions are not meant to be taken as religious nor universal (i.e. ‘The Truth’) conclusions, nor even necessarily my personal conclusions. In many cases these are very different things."

Some scientific "conclusions" are meant to be universal and some DO appropriate "religious" conclusion (i.e. ‘The Truth’) whether on not you see them as such. Evolution is elevated to the level of "Religious Truth" simply because there can only be ONE truth, Creation by act of God or Evolution by act of random chance. The only "in between" option is used by those who attempt to straddle the issue with nonsensical statements like, "Well, God created the original "First" condition and then stepped back and let random chance determine if the "finished product" would actually develop." Some "great architect" God would be there. Draw up the schematics and plans, throw them on the ground, and then say, in effect, "now see if you can assemble yourselves as you go find all the needed parts and put them together in just the right order as the detailed blueprints show you is needed."



My suggestion would be why don't you apply that same scientific method to the Scripture. You dismiss it "out of hand" as not being "literal." So just what part of the Scripture do you reject? Let's start with the Gospel of John. It's obvious that you already reject the Creation account in Genesis and that you reject that "God Created" the universe and all that is in it, including life.

So, just what were you "baptized into?" Membership in a "club?" IS Jesus Christ who he said he was? That IS the basis of Christian belief, even Roman Catholic belief. If Jesus Christ IS who he said he was, do you you reject what HE has said and consider it a lie?

You seem to be attempting to "straddle" the issue and say something like, "see, I'm a Christian because of the way I was raised, but I reject everything that makes a Christian "a Christian." I can "pick and choose" what I will believe and what I won't believe because I am superior to God, the Apostles, the Prophets, etc."

Dimpsasawa, you have pointed out, once again, precisely what I have been saying all along. The issues is NOT "evolution" or "creation." The is IS simply and foremost, "is Jesus Christ who He says He is?"

IS Jesus Christ the Son of God? Did the eternal "Word" take on human form in the person of Jesus? Did Jesus Christ die and was he resurrected from the dead? Is Jesus Christ the "Word" as described in John 1:1? Can God be trusted to speak TRUTH, not falsehood?

FH--Some scientific "conclusions" are meant to be universal and some DO appropriate "religious" conclusion (i.e. ‘The Truth’) whether on not you see them as such.

D—Meant to be so by whom? Those outside of the scientific community? The most well-respected scientific findings are not defined as ‘absolute truths’ in any sense in the scientific community. If you follow the scientific method, you will get certain results. Following other methods of course produces other results.

I wrote this before but I’m not sure if you got what I meant or if you believed me. Science is only a method, it is not a result. That is, the “Scientific finding = The Truth” equation is not stated nor implied anywhere in the scientific process.

Imagine I’m a scientist, and God himself directly informs me that a scientific fact is completely wrong, and somehow, I absolutely know this to be true. This revelation would not change the status of the incorrect belief as a scientific fact precisely because its falsehood could not demonstrated (assuming that scientific community could not demonstrate the falsehood of the fact in question) using the scientific method. Do you understand this? A scientific finding does not mean “the correct result.” It means the result obtained using the scientific method.

FH--My suggestion would be why don't you apply that same scientific method to the Scripture.

D—The first step would be to present a scientific hypothesis pertaining to a specific religious claim. Have at it and we can see how far this goes.

FH-- It's obvious that you already reject the Creation account in Genesis

D—As a literal account, yes I reject this.

FH--and that you reject that "God Created" the universe and all that is in it, including life.

D—I never said nor implied that in any of my posts. As I have wrote more than once, Abiogenesis /= Evolution. Completely different topics.

FH-- I'm a Christian because of the way I was raised, but I reject everything that makes a Christian "a Christian."

D—I thought a Christian was one who accepts Jesus Christ as their savior and believes what Catholics call “The Creed,” which is recited at every mass and summarizes our faith. Its long so I don’t want to post it, but I’m sure you can Google it. If there is more, what?

FH-- The is IS simply and foremost, "is Jesus Christ who He says He is?"

IS Jesus Christ the Son of God? Did the eternal "Word" take on human form in the person of Jesus? Did Jesus Christ die and was he resurrected from the dead? Is Jesus Christ the "Word" as described in John 1:1?

D—And how is this relevant to what I believe regarding creation/evolution? I really don’t see the connection. I’m not playing dumb to start another point of contention. Maybe this is a result of my religious ignorance, but I really don’t see it. Maybe you could elaborate and explain it to me?

FH--Can God be trusted to speak TRUTH, not falsehood?

D—But God didn’t author Scripture. Man did.

FH, if you would like to discus science and related stuff, I would suggest to move it to the other creation/evolution thread so we don’t take another thread up on this topic.