Symphony - I'm in total agreement with what you wrote in the quotation, so I'll keep reading to see where you "headed" with your "objection" to Christianity rather than to people who might abuse it for their own purposes.



Okay, at the risk of sounding condescending and arrogant (which by the way is something I "hear" in many comments from "opponents" to Christianity also, perhaps it's sort of an "in the eye of the beholder" sort of thing for everyone) let me try to answer your question this way:

Atheists DENY (by definition) that any "God" can exist. That's what the term means..."A theist." Their "openness" that you refer to is a "false front" to show how much more "superior" they are, or their belief is, than a Christian who has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, why does the "Faith" need defending and why do I think it does? Because it is OPPOSED by many who want others to REJECT God and Christ. THEY are not willing to let others "see all sides and decide for themselves, on their own" either. Look no futher, if you want proof, than the vehement and radical BAN on any mention of God or Creation in the schools. Opponents use scare tactics all the time to get ONLY their unproven theory accepted as "FACT."

The other reason is even more basic. IF the Bible is true and there IS a heaven and a he11, which would be more "loving," to tell Adam and Eve to NOT give into their own rationalizations and believe the LIE that they are being told, or to STAND for God and to defend what God has ALREADY told all of mankind?



Symphony, I hear what you are saying, but consider this, the "shoe" also fits in reverse. How many times do you hear someone being lambasted for their faith in Christ? It happens most of the time by nonbelievers. I could run you a litany of the most common terms used, but you probably already know them.

As for the "Christ-likeness" reference, let me ask you something. Was Jesus being "Christ-like" when he made a whip and angrily cleared the temple of those "using" religion for "less than Godly purposes?" Was it NOT "Christ-like" to defend the "faith of the fathers" entrusted to them by God? Was it not "Christ-like" for Jesus to confront the Pharisees of his day?

You see, everyone wants Christians to be "meek little lambs" taking everything and "turning other cheek" because that gives them license to do and say whatever they want to for whatever purposes they want. The TRUTH, at least for Christians, is that there are "two masters" right now, Satan and God. NO ONE can serve both masters. That IS the "cold, hard, truth." NONbelievers DON'T like to hear that, anymore than Satan would have liked to have someone stand up and tell Adam and Eve to not listen to him, to warn them, and to "oppose" a way of life that leads to eternal destruction.

God bless.

Swan, it would be easy for me to "take offense" at how you tried to characterize me, but you don't know me and you certainly don't know what I believe.

For the record, I agree with what you said in the above quotation. That's one of the reasons why we only should have God on the throne and NOT another human, no matter how much we might respect that person. I disagree with what you "heard" in my posts, but be that as it may, if YOU have experienced that sort of thing, let me ask you a question.

Why don't you look for a solid, bible believing/bible preaching church where the members ARE trying to live according to God's commands? They ARE gettting increasingly more difficult to find, but using the "difficulty" of the task would merely be another type of "excuse" for tolerating, or blaming others, who are in OPPOSITION to James' teaching about "show me your faith...".




That may be a "catalyst," but it's not the "cause." If anyone is allowing someone else to "define" their beliefs and their ability to "seek the truth," then either they are extremely weak or it's a CHOICE that they make for whatever reason they want to use to justify the choice.

Should I become violently "anti-homosexual" and condemn them all because I see so many of them doing very harmful things (as in NAMBLA)? Should I reject the "straight" lifestyle because some have done despicable things to some gays (like killing them)?

Yes, we are to "hate the sin" but "love the sinner." But that does NOT mean that we have to "become" the sinner due to someone else's actions. There IS right and wrong. There IS heaven and he11. There IS Christ and Satan. We do NOT base our lives on others as an excuse or justification for sin.

As Joshua put it, "Choose ye this say whom ye shall serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." We are EACH responsible for our own choices. That is what I consistantly say and if that is "offensive," I am truly sorry.

God bless.

FH,

I believe Swans Song replied to me in both posts and use my quote at the top of the first post. Just for clarification.

Symphony

WAT - It's called "spontaneous generation." That was the view before they realized that flies didn't "come from" piles of dung, they just lived and bred there.

Today, everyone recognizes that life ONLY comes from life. NO example of any life "Evolving" from non-life exists or is possible. They (some scientists) ARE trying to do just that, but they somehow forget that THEY are the intelligence behind their attempts and are "forcing" the circumstances. Even with that, however, they have been unsucessful in get any form of life to exist from non-living "soup."

"Evolution" IS about LIFE arising from non-life. Adaptive change of living creatures is NOT the same thing as the "origin of life" question. THAT question remains an "either/or" theory. Either evolution OR creation. Period. No third alternative. At the heart of it is "God or no God," according to the "thinking of men" and not the thinking of God. IF God had NOT revealed himself to us, we would be "hardpressed" to think of anyone or anything that we'd "accept" as being "above us, superior to us, more knowledgeable than us, etc."

My goodness, there's a lot to catch up on.

Mojodiva


Thank you, I will book mark them and check them out.


Symph! *waves*


I wouldn't necessarily say this is the reason I'm an Athiest. I'm more emotional/intuitive than logical/rational, anyway. Emotionally, intuitively, the idea of a God... particularly a loving, involved, benevolent God, doesn't FEEL right given what I observe all around me. I suppose you could say I've actually looked for this God that everyone else around seems to feel in their lives. I haven't found anything that I think could be Him and nearly EVERYONE has assured me that if I found Him, I'd know it. Therefore, it stands to reason that if I haven't, then I'd know that too.

What perplexes me most, is how many believers act. Which is a little like what you said in a different post about defending the faith. I'll get to that a little later.

Mys

FH,

You said:



Then agreed with my quote:



I see contridiction.



If there is one thing that has stuck with me here at MB it is not what I say or how I say it but the perseption of the other party that matters. If I am being perceived in a certain way then it's up to me to change my communication if I want to reach them.



I just don't buy into that notion. In conversation with Athiests I have never gotten the impression that they think they are superior or that I am "less" in any way. Again, that may come from mutual respect.



I see your point on this. I personally think that all the options should be taught in school or none at all. The foundation and blanks should be filled in by the parents. In a world where we see the The teachings of Christianity dwindling slowly out of our system I DO believe it's important to a person to fight for the right of thier beliefs and also to stand up for their religion/beliefs and defend it. For a cause I see this as necessary. Defending religion in a convo on a message board or over coffee with people of opposing views...well, I just don't see the reason to defend.



I think I covered this above but wanted to add YES, go Christ for using a whip and getting angry at those using religion for less than godly purposes. Why don't we have the CHRISTIANS themselves standing up against those who do the same today? Why aren't they crying out to the vatican to sell off the stockpile of riches and feed the poor and help the needy? Why aren't the Christians condemning thier own churches when they are so focused on building a glorious building instead of a sanctuary for God's people and a place for those who are searching to go? God said, "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name there I will be." THAT to me is church.

Please don't take this personaly. This is just my beef with Christianity/the Church in general, not people who want to follow God. I've heard over and over from many a non-believer and those struggling with thier beliefs that this is a real turn off for them. As you said yourself, it's very hard to find a decent church these days. The last church I attended I was happy in for a time. The pastor actually held many of the beliefs I did. It was a new church and a breathe of fresh air. Problem was the leaders were so focused on getting the numbers of attendees up they weren't taking care of the needs of those who were already there seeking God and needing help. So sad.

I commend you for your strong beliefs.

Symphony

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

Forever Hers


I don't understand why you believe that other people's opinions don't matter to an athiest unless you mean opinions on whether or not a God exists. In that respect, most of the athiests I know (and I know quite a number as they're generally more comfortable for me to be around these days because many believers, upon hearing I'm an athiest, seem to imagine me capable of all kinds of crimes or something. Which is something I don't understand and am very sad about.) Anyway, most of the athiests I know are just as firm about their beliefs as most Christians I know. As an analogy, it would be like me complainig that you persist in believing in God when so many people don't or believe in Allah (the Moslem God) or something. I think it's safe to say that you don't care what other people, in or out of church, believe with respect to your belief in God. Many athiests also don't care what other people, in or out of church, believe with respect to thier non-belief in God. It's parity of sorts.


But, don't Christians choose their belief because they WANT to? Isn't that the whole definition of a choice? You get to choose the one you want - belief in God (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) or belief in many gods (panthesim like Hindu is) or belief in no god/gods at all. Chrisitans have the same choice that everyone else has - in fact, everything I've ever been told about Christianity is that God wants you to make a choice and that blind belief probably isn't 'real' salvation. Salvation is a conscious act - made because you're inspired by love and devotion to worship a God you truly believe in. How can that not be doing it because they want to? I was told "God does not coerce worship or belief - He established free will."

Can't you say everyone chooses what they choose because they 'want' to, in the end?

My question is and has been - why do people make that choice. How and why are they so inspired? (I ordered the book, now I'm waiting for it to arrive.)

Mys

worthatry


I believe the term is abiogenesis.

Mys

ForeverHers


Yes, this is right. I do plan to look at other ideas. But, for the purposes of this discussion I am primarily interested in Christianity. If nothing else, I guess the only reasonable thing to do would be to evaluate the proof of Christianity against the proofs of other religions and beliefs and see how they measure up. I guess that's the most practical way to go about figuring out all this. So, I do appreciate the links to other ideas, I hadn't ever even heard of Noachides before. But, perhaps a discussion on that would be better on another thread - and probably after I've got a firm handle on just what Christianity is all about (so I don't get too confused and start mixing things up).
Heh. Like you said, it won't be a quick process.

Mys

ForeverHers


Why do you believe it's about superiority? I've certainly never felt superior to any Christian, Moslem, etc. based on my lack of belief. And yet, it's convienent to use the term 'athiest' because that accurately describes what I am - someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God or Gods.
Let me see if I can explain this correctly. I think that most people in this country, upon meeting another person, sort of 'assumes' the person they just met is a Christian. And that is a very valid assumption because there are a LOT more Christians in this country than anything else. I don't want to be mistaken for a Christian because I don't want to insult them. It would be pretty easy for me to just let people make their natural conclusions about who I am and what I believe and not correct them but I feel that is hypocrasy - masquerading as one of them to 'fit in.' It's not nice; it feels rude. Sooner or later, I'm going to probably do or say something that is contrary to their beliefs.
Therefore, I need some way to describe myself that doesn't sound like I'm trying to convinced them not to believe in God. If you don't use the term athiest and just say "Oh, I don't believe in God." somehow that's often taken as a provocative invitation to argue about it. And, most of the time, I don't want to aruge, don't want to change anyone's mind about anything, don't think I can convince anyone else even if I REALLY wanted to - I just need to let them know that I am not a Christian.


I think there's a lot of this feeling on both sides. I wish we could heal the rift because I certainly feel a lot of hostility, at times, from believers who seem to look at me with distrust and occasionally distaste. It can make it hard to ask questions because people often assume you're baiting them.

Mys

No, that's not it.

FH:

Evolution, and science in general, indeed are not thiestic. I don't agree this is the same as saying they're athiestic. By definition, science relies on the study of natural phenomena. Any consideration of supernatural influences is simply not included because it cannot be either proven or disproven. This doesn't mean the supernatural is impossible - it's just outside the realm of science.

Any "bans" on God or creation in schools are usually for inclusion of these topics in science courses, for the reason I stated above. (I personally think these subjects are quite appropriate in history, philosophy, or classes on the study of religion in general, as long as other beliefs are also included.) Would we dance about singing?

If creationism, intelligent design, or any other non-science were to be included in science curriculums, where does it stop? Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafanarianism) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> ?

There is no conscious attack or scare tactic by evolutionists. Science is thiestically neutral. It has to be because it doesn't include the supernatural. What about that don't you understand? Any feelings of attack by some espousing strong beliefs, while maybe seeming real to them, may be simply a defense mechanism because contrary ideas to individual beliefs are not welcome and/or cannot be objectively considered.

Back to my point, can you imagine a more faithless pursuit than trying to prove the existence of God? Yet that is what the whole "intelligent design" movement is really about, and it seems that people of faith should rejoice at the federal court decision Tuesday forbidding the schools of Dover, Pa., to read a statement touting intelligent design in science classes.

This eloquent ruling ought to be considered a Christmastime blessing for self assured Christians.

The state of Pennsylvania required its schools to teach evolution, the scientific theory (not "theory" as used in everyday language) that most scholars accept as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The Dover school board thought it knew better and required that students be made to listen to a statement proclaiming that evolution "is not a fact" but just a theory, that it contains gaps "for which there is no evidence," and that ID "is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

Well, it's true that anything is possible - before Albert Einstein, who would have believed that time passes infinitesimally more slowly for a passenger on a train than for a farmer standing beside the tracks. But equating evolution with ID is like comparing a mighty fortress to a line in the sand. Someday a new theory of the life sciences may supplant Darwin's, just as Einstein's revolutionary theories supplanted those of Isaac Newton. As Judge Jones carefully and forcefully explains in his ruling, however, ID isn't even science at this point. It's belief.

Jones notes that during a discussion of the ID disclaimer, one of the Dover school board members made the argument that "2,000 years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" That helped Jones reach the reasonable conclusion that the board was motivated by religious belief - specifically, Christian belief - and that the policy was an unconstitutional mixing of church and state.

Mainstream theologians have long since come to terms with evolution, which seems to be as unconditionally true as any scientific theory could ever be. As Jones points out, the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record does not logically lead to the conclusion that ID - or any other explanation - must be a better answer; there is a mountain of evidence that supports evolution and essentially none that supports ID. If new scientific evidence happens to neatly bifurcate one of the ID'ers darling "gaps" in the fossil record, I bet ID'ers would quickly jump up and shout, "See! Now there are TWO gaps where before there was one!!! PROOF evolution is not a fact!!!"

Jones traces the way that intelligent design grew directly out of an explicitly religious "creation science" movement and finds that "ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations." He adds, "Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community."

The judge notes that nothing in Darwin forecloses religious belief. Intelligent design, on the contrary, seems to be anti-faith.

One of the best definitions of Christian faith is attributed to St. Paul, who called it "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." At every Mass, Roman Catholics around the world "proclaim the mystery of faith." There is no need to have faith in something that can be touched, measured, quantified, predicted; no need for faith in something that can be seen if only we build a big enough telescope or a sensitive enough electron microscope.

What would be the posture of a believer toward a God who could be seen? It might be adoration, I suppose, or obeisance, but it wouldn't be faith as believers since St. Paul have understood it. Faith requires mystery. Faith requires a leap.

Someday, perhaps, legitimate evidence of intelligent design will be found and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals - papers that don't just cast doubt on Darwin but offer some tangible evidence of a designer. I doubt it, though. Science and faith are two separate paths to knowledge, and neither is meant to depend on the other.

Faith we feel. Science we touch. We don't dance how to sing.

It seems to me that it's wrong to use faith as a means to a scientific end. Doesn't faith have to be the end in itself?

WAT (borrowing from several sources)

Yes I was defending you Forever I agree with what you said and how when ever anyone say that they are a believer it's like get ready to duck becuase here comes the buckshot.


Thank you Symp I was relying to your post.

Mys,


I can tell you about why I have made that CHOICE. I struggled with my faith as a teenager. I went to a private Christian school. I was a good kid but was always told I was going to ****** for this reason or that. I guess I didn't conform the way I was 'supposed' to. Add to that pressure my parents, while both believing in God, believed differently and there was many an argument in the house about who was right and who was wrong. I had three views of Christianity in my life at a very confusing time (teenage years).

At one point when I was 17 I had enough and really doubted there was a God. In school there was a day when badges were made and we were to pin them to our shirts to represent our faith. On one side of the badge it was red and said "Hot for Jesus" on the other side it was blue and said "Cold". Well, if there was one thing I learned in life up to that point it was to be honest and true to myself. In a school of about 200 I was the only student who placed my badge to the blue "Cold" side. Students were amazed but I knew many of them would have made that choice had they been able to be really honest and didn't have fear of the reprecussions. My honesty was met with less than enthusiasm by the teachers and staff. It was a LONG day. I felt judged to say the least.

One teacher towards the end of the day addressed me in class. She told me she respected me and my honesty when it would have been so easy to pretend or lie. I will never forget that teacher.

That is the point when I decided that I didn't believe there was a God. A few years went by and I realized that I could have a relationship with God. It didn't matter what anyone else thought about me or believed to be 'true'. My relationship was between me and my God. I searched for a church but have never found one that takes care and nutures it's people and is an open door for everyone.

I cannot claim any Christian religion but I do have some of the same core beliefs though not all and I have only met one person who believes exactly as I do. I completely disagree with organized religion and believe that God is with me and where two or more are gathered in his name he is there. I see God around me, especially in nature and in human life and spirit.

I cannot believe in Evolution for many reasons which I won't go into, it just doesn't work for me. Because I do believe there are two choices, creation and evolution, I choose to believe that God created us and the world we know. For me it becomes a logical choice. There are times in my life I wonder if God is really there and other times where I have been almost sure.

I do think people, the world and the universe are far too amazing to have just happened. I see the dynamic of good and evil in our world and feel there is something behind that.

Some other reasons people may choose to believe without Devine inspiration that I can think of are:

1) They are raised to believe and haven't taken the time to examine or question those beliefs for themselves.

2) Fear that if they don't believe they will suffer an eternity in ******.

3) Some find comfort in knowing there is something bigger than themselves. They know what will happen when they die. They know there is always something to turn to in times of trouble.

My husband said something interesting tonight. He said the thing that keeps him most from believing there is a God is that he would then have to believe there is a Satan and he's just not prepared to accept that.

Symphony

Swan's Song,



And I still don't get why you felt you had to defend Forever. I AM a believer too. I didn't sense that Forever took offense to what I said (directed at him and in NO WAY having to do with religion) so I am more than curious why you did.

Symphony

Sorry I wrote a reply and for some reason it disappeared,
It was long and quite good,


But yes I defended him because as a reborn christain, he speaks the word of GOD and for some reason, some posters are not happy to hear about things based on a biblical scriptures, pertaining to marriage.

Forever advice comes from his faith and when ever he gives his opion based on his faith, some, not all seems to become not angry, maybe annoyed with his advice,or disregard it, like its nonsense. Because it comes from his faith? I don't know but he seems to be treated like the WS who is still in the fog phase.

WAT - Myschae offered "abiogenisis" as another term for what you were describing. I can agree with abiogeneisis if you'd prefer that term.

According to the Webster's Dictionary:

abiogensis [GR.a-, without; + biogensis], in biology, spontaneous generation.

Since my Major in College was Biology, I understand the term either way. Or were you looking for something less "scientific" as a descriptive term? Perhaps "faith?" Perhaps "in the beginning....?"

A little clarification if you please.

Swans Song - this has happened to me MANY times over the years. It's why I usually usually copy all posts I'm working on, on line, to the clipboard as I progress. Sometimes, I even work on the post in Word until it's ready to be posted "just in case" the system hiccups.

Sometimes I forget to do that, and I stare at a blank screen wondering "why?"


Also, I appreciate your "chiming in" in defense of Christian prinicples. But a word of "caution" if I may. EXPECT opposition. Not only is it "normal," but in today's climate, "Christians" are "fair game" and are NOT supposed to "stand their ground." They are "supposed to" surrender or else be labeled as "offensive, arrogant, condescending, etc.," anything to shift the discussion from FACT to emotion, from REASON to feelings, from TRUTH to "self-centeredness" where the individual, not God, gets to determine what is "Right and Wrong," that "God didn't really mean what He said."

God bless.

Myschae - I know you are waiting for the arrival of that book, but I thought I'd let you know that in the interim what I am going to do is to post up the generally accepted dates for when the books of the NT were written, in "short form" answer to your previous question and the comments from the "perpetual student" you referenced who was seeking yet another degree.

I'll try to get to that later today so you'll have it to think and/or comment about.

God bless.

Myschae - Here are the approximate dates that the various books of the New Testament were written, and the authors of each book. The "details" of how these dates were arrived at is the subject of a lot a "dry" research, but we can get into that if you'd like. That book you are waiting to receive from Amazon will have some of that material in it.


Here's what it looks like:


New Testament

Book Approximate Writing Date Author

1. James ………………...... A.D.44-49 ………………………James
2. Galatians ………......... A.D. 49-50 …………………… Paul
3. Matthew ……………..... A.D. 50-60 …………………… Matthew
4. Mark ………………........ A.D. 50–60 …………………… Mark
5. 1 Thessalonians ….... A.D. 51 …………………………..Paul
6. 2 Thessalonians ….... A.D. 51-52 ……………………. Paul
7. 1 Corinthians ………... A.D. 55 ……………………………Paul
8. 2 Corinthians ………... A.D. 55-56 ……………………. Paul
9. Romans ……………...... A.D. 56 ……………………………Paul
10. Luke ……………….......A.D. 60-61 ……………………. Luke
11. Ephesians ……………..A.D. 60-62 …………………....Paul
12. Philippians …………... A.D. 60-62 ……………………. Paul
13. Colossians …………... A.D. 60-62 ……………………. Paul
14. Philemon ……………... A.D. 60-62 ……………………..Paul
15. Acts ………………….... A.D. 62 …………………………..Luke
16. 1 Timothy ………….... A.D. 62-64 …………………….Paul
17. Titus ………………….... A.D. 62-64 …………………… Paul
18. 1 Peter ………………... A.D. 64-65 …………………… Peter
19. 2 Timothy …………….. A.D. 66-67 …………………… Paul
20. 2 Peter ………………... A.D. 67-68 …………………… Peter
21. Hebrews …………….... A.D. 67-69 …………………… Unknown
22. Jude …………………..... A.D. 68-70 …………………… Jude
23. John …………………..... A.D. 80-90 …………………… John
24. 1 John ……………….... A.D. 90-95 …………………… John
25. 2 John ……………….... A.D. 90-95 …………………… John
26. 3 John ……………….... A.D. 90-95 …………………… John
27. Revelation ……………. A.D. 94-95 …………………… John


Don't confuse the extant MSS copies as being the original books when you see the earliest COPIES as being from around the 2nd Century or so.

God bless.