Science & Christianity- debate over everything

[RobQel-Droma]

I don't know your question is very vague. What are you saying they don't fall under the definition of Christianity? I was defining Christianity, not Catholicism. However according to most of the world Catholicism does fall under the definition of Christianity. Are you saying they don’t believe in Jesus Christ?

 

I'm not sure exactly how it is so vague, but whatever.

 

According to most of the world, perhaps, but does that mean its truth? No. Muslims believe in Jesus as well, but would you define them as Christians?

 

Because of its complexity? Surely then what ever designed these things must have been more complex that the things themselves, correct?

 

Therefore, something more complex than the universe can exist without a designer, but anything less complex must have a designer? Just want to make sure I'm understanding the argument correctly.

 

I know this isn't directed to me, but I'm not sure what your point is by this question. I've never looked at God from a level of complexity, at least the way you are. I don't measure God by: "He's complex than anything else, so He's God" (which would be valid, I guess), but in the sense you are saying it, you could say that the most complex human on Earth is better than anyone else.

 

Keeping with open mindedness though, I would like to think that any rational person will be willing to accept christianity (or any other religion) that had sufficient supporting evidence. That none exist is not a testament to the pig-headness of atheists, nor should it be viewed as such.

 

Wait... none exists? Where did you get that idea?

 

In fact, did you know that evolution is what actually has no hard evidence?

 

Let me get one thing straight. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic for the Last two years, and I for one am somewhat astounded at the idea that People think that Catholics aren't real Christians. Of Course, though I also know that Martin Luther was just a bit Anti-Semitic but you can take that to the Bank.

 

And then you say:

 

I should know, since I'm an Evolutionist and a Proponent of The Idea that Adam and Eve never existed, but I'm getting off kilter to my point, if there ever was one. But I think I'm trying to say that I always thought Christianity has always been a successful religion because of how it can be interpreted to its followers, and the religion it self is suffering when one person can accuse another sect of Christianity of not being a true part of Christianity.

 

I'm sorry, but everything you just said contradicts the teaching of the Bible, which I thought was the basis for true Christian belief. Now you can interpret it how you wish? Er..... that's not Christianity. Just go read the book yourself. In fact, the first book is Genesis, which starts right off with Adam and Eve.

 

I'm not trying to bash your faith... but if the Bible is what Christians follow (and there is no doubt about it, just like Muslims and the Koran) then you seem to follow a much different religion than I do, one that I would not quite call "real Christians." (no offense meant by "real", I'm just explaining what I mean by the term)

 

Yeah, you can safely ignore those.

 

A polite question: do you adhere to either faith?

 

So what? Take a deck of cards and deal them all out one by one. You will get some order of those 52 cards. Shuffle and try again, and repeat for the rest of your life. You probably won't ever get the same order again. But guess what, you did get that highly improbable order once.

 

The odds of winning the lottery are also astronomical, but people still win it.

 

Improbability is not a proof that something can't happen. Incredibly improbably things happen all the time.

 

It is a strong argument against something, however. It should not be the only one, but still....

 

And seriously, do you believe that all life on this Earth is as complex as a set of 52 cards? Or even one in a million? It is astronomically greater; I'm not even sure if it could be computed. I'm not saying that is the only reason I believe in Creation, but I think you underestimated a little.

 

Secondly, if you are arguing then from the point of evolution, you must understand that random mutations aren't good things. They're bad. In fact, according to Darwin's own law of natural selection, it would weed out those who have mutations because they wouldn't be able to survive. Take any kind of system in the human body. It would be so complex, and each part would depend so much on the other, that it would all have to coexist at the same time. Each individual part could not develop one at a time, or the system would not work, and the organism would die - from natural selection. Or, if you wanted to argue that it could have happened at the same time, and it's merely a matter of odds, then you might want to chalk up another billion to the number. Or trillion. Or "google." For each single system.....

 

I don't know. But luckily there are people that are actually looking into what the answer might be instead of just shrugging and saying "Goddunit."

 

Which is not what, I hope, any Christian is doing. But let me point out that science has agreed/failed to destroy God for thousands of years. Not trying to say, well, "that must mean that 'Goddunit'", but you get my point. In fact, Christianity and the Bible have even had some things about the nature of the Earth and the Universe that took science a very, very long time to accept.

 

Quote:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

 

Hi.

 

Oh, well that certainly voids my verse, yep. What... is this like a challenge, or something? Like, "let's see who can win by throwing verses in each other's face!"

 

Oh well - I can play that game, if you want to:

 

And Peter said to them, "Repent therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

 

Matthew 3:6 : Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

 

Matthew 3:11 : "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

 

Matthew 3:13 : [ The Baptism of Jesus ] Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

 

Matthew 3:16 : As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

 

Mark 1:5 : The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

 

Mark 1:8 : "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

 

Hi to you as well.

[mimartin]

I'm not sure exactly how it is so vague, but whatever.

 

According to most of the world, perhaps, but does that mean its truth? No. Muslims believe in Jesus as well, but would you define them as Christians?

 

Well the Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet not the son of God. Catholics believe Jesus was the son of God. Not a very good example in my opinion, but to answer your question (one that I already answered in the thread) I do not know more the about Catholics then you can learn from attending Mass for about 10 years of my life. I do however know that Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and not a prophet like the Muslims. By definition, they are Christians and that is the truth as far as I am concern.

[Achilles]

I know this isn't directed to me, but I'm not sure what your point is by this question.

Perhaps post #86 (the one I responded to) might help to provide context for the question. If not, then I believe I quoted the applicable part in the post that you quoted. I hope that helps.

 

I've never looked at God from a level of complexity, at least the way you are. I don't measure God by: "He's complex than anything else, so He's God" (which would be valid, I guess),

Commander Thire's point seemed to be (don't know for sure because he never answered my question) is that you can't have intricacy without design. The logic doesn't hold water though because just a human mind capable of designing a car has to be more intricate than the car itself, a supreme consciousness capable of willing the universe into existence has to be more intricate than the universe itself. Therefore the whole "humans/animals/universes are too complex to have evolved on their own therefore the judeo-christian god can be the only possible answer" argument (aka "goddunit", aka "goddidit") doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

but in the sense you are saying it, you could say that the most complex human on Earth is better than anyone else.

I acknowledge that this is how you've interpreted what I said.

 

Wait... none exists? Where did you get that idea?

Erm...because there isn't any? Do you have some?

 

In fact, did you know that evolution is what actually has no hard evidence?

Interesting statement. Perhaps it would be in your best interest to do a little bit more research on the topic before continuing down this path.

 

Personally, I find the evolution of the whale to be the most interesting because it involves a transition from land mammal to sea mammal, but I've heard that the evolution of the horse is the most completely documented. I hope one (or both) of those prove to be sufficiently interesting starting points for you. Best of luck with your research.

 

PS: Also, a shameless plug for one of my favorite "other" forums, EvC Forums. Assuming that you don't want to take my word for it, you might find the arguments presented by actual evolutionary biologists more persuasive. Just a warning that scientific literacy is required. Enjoy!

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

A polite question: do you adhere to either faith?

I'll give you three guesses.

[RobQel-Droma]

I acknowledge that prior to Constantine, Chrisitianity was likely quite different. Careful there with your use of the term "Bible" however. That suggests there was One central teaching back in the day. No such thing. There was the Old Testament and various epistles, letters, and gospels some of which were appended and others omitted.

 

I beg to differ. Jesus' apostles did not teach diverse teachings. In Galatians, I think, Paul specifically says that if anyone, even an angel, teaches something different to what they (the apostles) were teaching, they were to be accursed. The OT and the NT do not contradict each other; those other gospels, such as the gospel of Judas and whatnot, were false gospels. In fact, many of them were fakes put forth by other sects to try and justify what they were doing.

 

The idea that Pure Christianity existed as homogenous belief is false and overly romantic.

 

Why? In the beginning it was.

 

And, by definition, Pure Christianity would exist that way. I would not call these other sects "pure" by any means, since Pure Christianity would follow the original form of Jesus' teaching/the Bible.

 

There were arguments even among the different sects, calling each other heretics. The Chrisitian Jews for example did not accept Gentiles as followers of Christ. The Gnostics believed that matter (that is, the world the God created) was evil and saw Jesus as a savior from the evil world.

 

Sure, just like any other religion. However, I do believe that there is only one truth, so these others followed a mistaken form of the Gospel. In fact, many blatantly disregarded parts of the Bible, which I would think would be the basis for any Christian beliefs. I would not call them "Pure Christians" by any sense.

 

Of course the church become corrupt with political power and inclusions of such policies and indulgences. Martin Luther was in the right to point out the hypocrisies in the church's doctrines. But given that, let us not attempt to idolize pre-Roman Christianity as something pure. Christianity owes its secular longevity to the Roman Empire which organized it, codified it, and spread it across the known world. Given the infighting in pre-Roman Christianity, the odds were much more likely that Christianity would never have coalesced.

 

Oh, I agree. But it started out as something pure, and then was corrupted by different factors. But those other denominations and viewpoints that split off can not be regarded as true Christianity.

 

Well the Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet not the son of God. Catholics believe Jesus was the son of God. Not a very good example in my opinion, but to answer your question (one that I already answered in the thread) I do not know more the about Catholics then you can learn from attending Mass for about 10 years of my life. I do however know that Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and not a prophet like the Muslims. By definition, they are Christians and that is the truth as far as I am concern.

 

So any one that believes in Jesus as the son of God is, by default, a Christian?

 

Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope (Christians don't), and they have a line of popes descending from him that are the highest authority on Earth to them. He is the ultimate power to them, and he can exercise his judgement on anyone in the Catholic Church. This kind of power over the Church or judgement placed in the hands of one man is not what the Bible teaches, nor is it what any other Christians adhere to.

 

Catholics also believe in transubstantiation.

 

Catholics also used to sell indulgences to buy salvation; still pray to Mary and others as saints; and etc....

 

I could go through a list of others, some minor, and some not, but I hope you see my point. None of what I listed is agreed with by the Bible/Christians.

 

I'll give you three guesses.

 

I love you people. I ask a question, and you answer with a smart, snooty reply.... and one that doesn't answer the question.

 

So I'm asking you again.

 

Answer the question, please.

 

Interesting statement. Perhaps it would be in your best interest to do a little bit more research on the topic before continuing down this path.

 

Personally, I find the evolution of the whale to be the most interesting because it involves a transition from land mammal to sea mammal, but I've heard that the evolution of the horse is the most completely documented. I hope one (or both) of those prove to be sufficiently interesting starting points for you. Best of luck with your research.

 

I'd love it if you show me this documented hard evidence.

 

Commander Thire's point seemed to be (don't know for sure because he never answered my question) is that you can't have intricacy without design. The logic doesn't hold water though because just a human mind capable of designing a car has to be more intricate than the car itself, a supreme consciousness capable of willing the universe into existence has to be more intricate than the universe itself. Therefore the whole "humans/animals/universes are too complex to have evolved on their own therefore the judeo-christian god can be the only possible answer" argument (aka "goddunit", aka "goddidit") doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

Oh, I agree. Simply saying that since "everything is so complex, it must be God" is rather weak. I think it is evidence for the existence of God, but I wouldn't use it as hard evidence since it is so fragile.

 

I acknowledge that this is how you've interpreted what I said.

 

Again.... I love these answers. Tell me how you really meant if it I'm wrong.

 

Erm...because there isn't any? Do you have some?

 

Before I open up with it, would you kindly clarify what it is you are saying there is no evidence for? God, the Bible, Jesus.....? I'm sure you stated this somewhere already, but I'd like to know before I start spouting things that aren't really relevant to what you said.

[mimartin]

So any one that believes in Jesus as the son of God is, by default, a Christian?

Yes. By definition, I would say they are Christian, so yes. Many other Christian faiths have different doctrine that I may not agree with, but my opinion does not make them non-Christian. I would also assume that you do not have the power to make them non-Christians either.

[Rogue Nine]

Oh, well that certainly voids my verse, yep. What... is this like a challenge, or something? Like, "let's see who can win by throwing verses in each other's face!"

 

Oh well - I can play that game, if you want to:

 

And Peter said to them, "Repent therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

 

Matthew 3:6 : Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

 

Matthew 3:11 : "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

 

Matthew 3:13 : [ The Baptism of Jesus ] Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

 

Matthew 3:16 : As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

 

Mark 1:5 : The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

 

Mark 1:8 : "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

 

Hi to you as well.

Yeah, and none of those verses explicitly state 'You must be baptized in order to receive Jesus as your Savior'.

 

And I was really just responding to something in your earlier post...

 

So no, it isn't just about believing. The Bible is very clear about that.

with...

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

...to show that, yeah, it essentially does just boil down to believing.

[RobQel-Droma]

Yes. By definition, I would say they are Christian, so yes. Many other Christian faiths have different doctrine that I may not agree with, but my opinion does not make them non-Christian. I would also assume that you do not have the power to make them non-Christians either.

 

So what you are saying is that they all are following their own *interpretation* of Christianity? If so, I would agree. Its just that Catholics are much different than say, from Church of Christ christians or other not-so-denominational churches, which try and follow the Bible as closely as possible. Catholics, as I pointed out, have very, very different doctrine; since it was Catholics we were talking about, that is why I was trying to make a distinction between Catholics and "Pure/True Christians", which Catholics are not (simply by what the Bible teaches - if you accept Christians that completely follow the Bible as "Pure/True Christians"). Surely you don't believe that they both have almost exactly the same beliefs, because they do not.

 

 

Rogue Nine.... I'm not able to get LF to respond, so I can't go back and quote you. But, in response to what you said:

 

I'm not sure how Mark 16:15-16 isn't explicit enough.

 

[ Jesus talking to his disciples ] "Go therefore into all the world, preaching the Gospel to all Creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,..."

 

That's pretty explicit. Add that to all my other quotes..... I think its pretty obvious. Simply saying "oh look, here's one verse about salvation that doesn't mention baptism, we should throw all the other verses out" doesn't really work.

 

Besides, I think its pretty logical to assume its not just belief.

 

"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder."

-- James 2:18-20 [NRSV]

 

So are the demons saved? By your logic, they (and even Satan!) are saved, if it is merely belief.

 

Well, anyways, LF is really giving me trouble, so I think I'm signing off for tonight. I'll see if its working any better in the morning.

[mimartin]

I am not saying anything different then I originally posted. Catholics are Christians. As to which religious belief is right or which is wrong, that is not my decision and I leave that judgment with God. It is not mine to judge. Just because I judge a religion not right for me does not have a barring into if that religion is correct or not. It just means if I am willing to practice it or not.

 

I have not seen this “so-called” true/pure or whatever you want to call it form of Christianity. Every Christian religion I have personally participated in (Catholic, Baptist and Church of Christ) all had different doctrine and interpretations of the Bible. We cannot agree on what a 200-year-old document says how is everyone going to agree on a 2000-year-old document's meaning.

[RobQel-Droma]

mimartin - I would differ that we can infer what being a Pure Christian is by what the Bible says. Some people may interpret things differently, but usually it is to advance their own beliefs, and the passages they use are obviously misused. I think it tends to be very clear on what is right and wrong - it is inspired by God, after all, so it is His standard of Christianity. Anyone that follows something different to what the Bible says, is, sadly, wrong.

[Rogue Nine]

Rogue Nine.... I'm not able to get LF to respond, so I can't go back and quote you. But, in response to what you said:

 

I'm not sure how Mark 16:15-16 isn't explicit enough.

 

[ Jesus talking to his disciples ] "Go therefore into all the world, preaching the Gospel to all Creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,..."

 

That's pretty explicit. Add that to all my other quotes..... I think its pretty obvious. Simply saying "oh look, here's one verse about salvation that doesn't mention baptism, we should throw all the other verses out" doesn't really work.

Wikipedia article on Mark 16

Curious how this verse is the only one that explicitly mentions baptism as a requirement. Curious how this section of Mark is the subject of a debate on Biblical authenticity.

 

Besides, I think its pretty logical to assume its not just belief.

Explain please, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder."

-- James 2:18-20 [NRSV]

 

So are the demons saved? By your logic, they (and even Satan!) are saved, if it is merely belief.

It isn't my logic, it's the logic of John. And I would think supernatural beings like demons would not only believe there is one God, but know for certain. After all, He kicked them out of Heaven.

 

Oh, and belief was certainly enough for the thief on the Cross. Why not for the rest of us?

[RobQel-Droma]

Curious how this verse is the only one that explicitly mentions baptism as a requirement. Curious how this section of Mark is the subject of a debate on Biblical authenticity.

 

Curious how this seems to be enough for you to dismiss it entirely. Rather subjective, don't you think?

 

Explain please, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

I was referring to what I said right afterward.

 

It isn't my logic, it's the logic of John.

 

Did John ever say that all you had to do was be baptized? If he did (which he didn't), he was alone among the other disciples.

 

And I would think supernatural beings like demons would not only believe there is one God, but know for certain. After all, He kicked them out of Heaven.

 

Er, that's right. And..... again..... do you think that they are going to Heaven because of their belief only?

 

Oh, and belief was certainly enough for the thief on the Cross. Why not for the rest of us?

 

Because we aren't hanging from a cross about to die with no hope of surviving the day.

[Tommycat]

I don't know that we could empirically define that as 'evidence' for the existence of any deity, let alone the judeo-christian god. The fact that people have spiritual experiences is evidence that we are capable of having spiritual experiences. The experience itself says absolutely nothing about the cause or the source of the experience.

Hence why I said it would only be useful to the individual. In scientific terms, it is merely useless data. Extrapolations based on personal experience are not empyrically testable. NOW if God were to reshape the rockies into a sign that said "God Was Here" I think that would be pretty clear evidence that a greater entity existed. However the proof of something that we cannot empyrically test through the five generally accepted senses, is near impossible.

 

If you choose to believe that the cause/source is the judeo-christian god, then that is certainly your right, however we cannot apply the scientific method to that belief. On the other hand, if you believe that the cause/source is biological, then you can certainly apply the scientific method to that belief. If one belief isn't testable and only has benefit for one person, then it would appear to have a lot less utility than a belief that is testable and has benefit for everyone. My 2 cents.

I agree. Then again I'm not attempting to force the belief that God exists down your throat. Just that in MY experience, I have seen and felt things which I attribute to God(though whether it is YHWH I have not said, And I do not know if it is).

 

Well, at one point, I felt the "touch of god" too...actually more than once. I still have those spiritual experiences, I just no longer attribute them to an external source.

If your experience was what I had you might feel different. Then again you might not. For all I know it could have been a freak occurance, but it is what makes the most sense to me.

 

What is a "pure athiest"? Kudos for your open-mindedness.

Pure athiest as in being completely opposed to the idea of a supreme being existing at all. Being completely skeptical of anything to do with any religion. As for open mindedness: Having been on the other side of the argument I understand that it takes a lot of proof to sway your opinion, and I know that I cannot provide sufficient evidence of it.

 

I submit that we're splitting hairs, but your point is absolutely valid (having a "best answer based on the evidence" is the same thing as "not knowing for sure" in my book )

Well, just making sure you stay on your toes and clarify your positions properly. It keeps the strawmen at bay

 

I'm afraid this doesn't address my point though. You can either believe in predestination (god has a plan for you) or free will (your choices are your own and have consequences). Predestination presents problems for god's alleged omni-benevolence. Free will presents problems for god's alleged omnipotence. Regarding god's alleged onmiscience, well, I think the book of genesis discounts that

Predestination is kinda like a fairly open ended game. You have a beginning, and an end. What you do in between those two points is your choice, but you still inevitably come to that end(kinda reminds me of the Yorrik lines from Hamlet haha). Of course I have my issues with the bible itself. I think it is a great colection of stories, but whether it is the word of god, or an accurate recounting of god's actions on earth, I don't really believe that. I mean heck they just found evidence that it wasn't the Red sea, but it was a mistranslated REED sea.

Nope, the "kook-alarm" hasn't gone off yet.

Thanks. You're less of an anti-theist than I was haha.

 

Well I respect that you've choosen to interpret what I said that way, but in my opinion, it's not up to you to determine what I meant.

On these here internets determining what one means is much more difficult than in person. I was merely asking for clarification. I admit it seemed to come off kinda "preachy" but with fundies about, you have to watch yourself.

 

I agree that the pursuit of knowledge is both noble and necessary, but I don't loose sleep at night because there are certain questions that I don't have answers to. I don't feel compelled to make up answers and portray them as being absolute truth when I encounter something that I cannot explain (i.e. the meaning of life, how the universe was created, where our morality comes from etc).

 

To sum up: I think you're confusing "acceptance of the unknown" with "blissful ignorance". They are not the same thing.

Meh I guess I just try to understand as much as possible. Probably why I was so opposed to religion. Religion is more about accepting what is out there.

 

Thanks for your response. I enjoyed the read.

Thanks for reading. And definately thanks for the response.

 

Oh and a couple of things you may want to read up on(especially battling fundies) The story of Attis and Cybelle(it is an interesting read and follows very closely with the story of Jesus Christ). And yes the most complete fossil record is for the horse. It goes back to the "dawn horse" or Eohippus. It has "transitional fossils" as well as information on how these transitions took place rather rapidly. It is definately very useful for arguing against creationism(I told you I used to argue from your standpoint haha).

 

@Rob:

Actually it isn't just believing, it is accepting Jesus as your savior. Demons are not able to do so. They are of another existence level. Therefore even if they ask forgiveness, they cannot be allowed back in.

[ET Warrior]

I'd love it if you show me this documented hard evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

 

There's a nice brief wikipedia article about it.

 

 

There is an amazing amount of hard evidence for evolution on all scales. We see it every winter with the constant evolution of the Flu Virus and our attempt to inoculate ourselves against the new strain.

 

The Peppered Moth is a pretty potent example that we have direct evidence of.

 

Also, you may want to read up on Transitional Fossils

[True_Avery]

snipped flaming/baiting comments --Jae

So what you are saying is that they all are following their own *interpretation* of Christianity? If so, I would agree. Its just that Catholics are much different than say, from Church of Christ Christians or other not-so-denominational churches, which try and follow the Bible as closely as possible. Catholics, as I pointed out, have very, very different doctrine; since it was Catholics we were talking about, that is why I was trying to make a distinction between Catholics and "Pure/True Christians", which Catholics are not (simply by what the Bible teaches - if you accept Christians that completely follow the Bible as "Pure/True Christians"). Surely you don't believe that they both have almost exactly the same beliefs, because they do not.

You are going to prove all other religions wrong but yours by presenting interpretation as evidence?

Interpretation is what religion is all about.

 

Your so called "True Christianity" is your singular religion. I can guarantee you that nobody else follows your so called "True Christianity". Your Interpretation of Christianity is what you define as Christianity, thus by all means you are fully and completely saying:

 

"I am right, and everybody else is wrong."

 

I guarantee you that if you lined up 100 "True Christians", that you would get 100 different definitions of what Christianity is. And then you would simply state that they are all wrong in some way but you.

 

And even if you had a group that believed every last single thing you believe, then you have just proved that individuality does not exist. If anything, you have proved you follow a cult.

 

And even if everything you believe turns out to be right... Guess what? You are now dead and the only human soul in heaven. You believe you are singularly right and all other religions and people are wrong, so you must be the only person allowed true salvation. And even if there are others, you yourself would get the satisfaction of saying "Hahaha! I was right and all you idiots were wrong!"

 

From the time I spent in Christianity, I seem to remember that God has the final say in all of this. Not you.

In fact, did you know that evolution is what actually has no hard evidence?

 

There is plenty of evidence, you just refuse to accept that it exists. We could present you with all the evidence in the world, and you would most probably reject it.

School taught evolution. The Television and Internet have pieces on it all over the place. The news even has specials on it.

As you said:

"Curious how this seems to be enough for you to dismiss it entirely. Rather subjective, don't you think?"

 

[ Jesus talking to his disciples ] "Go therefore into all the world, preaching the Gospel to all Creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,..."

 

So, because I do not accept God and Jesus fully into my life, AND get baptized I will not be saved? So, I am to live with sin my entire life, and when I die I get thrown down to one of the layers of hell while you get to go to the happy, jolly gated community full of people that sinned and put down other people their entire life?

 

And even if I follow Jesus and God my entire life, if I do not get baptized I don't get to join the private club?

 

You make getting salvation sound like signing up for insurance. Do this and that, make sure you get this done, and keep within these limits for the rest of your known life. How is that any different than exchanging salvation for money? At least money for the church can be put to causes like orphanages and schools.

 

An old man throwing water on you is nothing but an old man throwing water on you. I highly doubt a god is going to care if you got water splashed on you at one point in your life.

 

Oh, and belief was certainly enough for the thief on the Cross. Why not for the rest of us?

 

Unless you get water thrown on you by an old guy you are not on god's radar. It doesn't matter how good or bad you were in life.

 

Because we aren't hanging from a cross about to die with no hope of surviving the day.

 

So, in order to be saved... you have to get baptized right? Thats what you said, so it must be absolute truth. But wait... you just said that if you are dieing on the cross, then you can be saved anyway. How can that be? That means there are loopholes!

 

"So are the demons saved? By your logic, they (and even Satan!) are saved, if it is merely belief."

 

You must be wrong that that too then! They are doomed, but they can still believe! That means they can be saved without being baptized! But... but... you can't be wrong! You are a True Christian! There must be something wrong here...

 

Did John ever say that all you had to do was be baptized? If he did (which he didn't), he was alone among the other disciples.

But... but... but

 

That would mean some lines in the bible would have to be wrong and contradictory to each other! There is no way that could be possible!

 

Listen. You cannot put the ENTIRE bible out for evidence of your claims and then say "Well, you know, that part isn't right... but the rest of it is!". That would mean that more parts of the bible would also have to be incorrect. Which means, by chance, the entire book could actually be wrong. Oh no! That means your so called "True Christianity" could also be wrong!

 

You have, again, proved my point in saying that you believe your interpretation of the bible is correct and everybody else's is wrong.

 

My, but then we come very close to "there is no truth", or "all religions lead to God", don't we?

According to you, there is your truth and your truth only. And everybody else gets nothing because they do not have your personal interpretation of christianity.

 

Sure, just like any other religion. However, I do believe that there is only one truth, so these others followed a mistaken form of the Gospel. In fact, many blatantly disregarded parts of the Bible, which I would think would be the basis for any Christian beliefs. I would not call them "Pure Christians" by any sense.

 

Consider the fact that there are many belief systems and that if you were 100% right in your beliefs, you would be God. Be as angry as you want with me, but I don't stand people that put themselves above all other beliefs.

 

I do not consider my opinion right. My opinion is simply another opinion. But I do not hold it over other people. There are a limitless amount of religions, beliefs, and gods and I understand that if any of them were truly right, then everybody would follow it.

 

Oh, and on a final note for you... One last quote:

"I'd advise you to please not define Christianity to someone's statement (like this person's) especially when it does not seem that you really know exactly what the Bible teaches."

 

Follow what you preach before you tell other's how and what to believe.

 

Good Day.

[Arcesious]

Evolution... here we go. something i can debate.

Half correct, ahlf incorrect.

Yes, there is evolution today. In my bible it's called adaptation. as it says God gave the animals the ability to adapt, but they all go after their own kind.

There are a lot of animals that couldn't have formed by evolution, including giraffes and woodpeckers. because of natural selection, they wouldn't be able to have evolved in the first place according to evolution, because through evolution, one part evovolves at a time, but they need all the parts that were said to have evolved in the first place, but then it doesn't work, and evolution can't apply there. there's lots of other animals that poke big holes in the evolution thoery, ones i can't think of at the moment. (somebody can ya find something to help me prove this?) see, the problem is, most all scientists that study evolution seem to be athiests, and they don't want to disprove a theory they so greatly believe is true. Every now and then in their studies, they'll coem accross an animal that couldn't have formed from evolution, and they decide to ignore it and not tell anyone about it, which leaves it to chrisitna scientists and the liek to hav eto dig deep to fidn those animals the evolutionists didn't want to mention.

Humans need every part of their body, and evolution won't work with apes to humans if natural selection is real, which it obviously is. Some parts humans have and vitally need apes don't have.

woodpeckers for one:

http://www.verticalthought.org/issues/vt13/evolution.htm

and some other site that has soem stuff agaisnt evolution.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm

 

(one thing, i'm not sure if i agree with everything stated on these two sites.)

 

EDIT: Rob-Qel-Droma are you part of a baptist church or something? The bible says that you have to believ ein Jesus to be saved , and baptism is optional, not required, but suggested. the verses asyign you must be batised to be saved of your sins are often misinterpretted, they actually shoudl mean that batism will clenase you of your sins, not save you. baptist teachings tedn to have a slight contradiction problem because the foudner of the baptist beliefs misunderstood those verses slightly. I have nothing agaisnt baptist churches or baptism itself however. and i want to warn you don't let true_avery bother you, she just likes to make fun of people and make them mad for her won amusement watching them get all mad about it.

[Tommycat]

There are a lot of animals that couldn't have formed by evolution, including giraffes and woodpeckers. because of natural selection, they wouldn't be able to have evolved in the first place according to evolution, because through evolution, one part evovolves at a time, but they need all the parts that were said to have evolved in the first place, but then it doesn't work, and evolution can't apply there.

Actually you are incorrect. First off natural selection works better with the belief that all animals were created and only the less fit died off. Lets start with the false assumption that an animal without all the parts working together. An animal like the woodpecker would only need to be a bird, with a slightly stronger beak. How is it that anti evolutionists can't accept that more than one adaptation can take place yet they can accept that a mythical creature with no proof exists. The beak and tongue did not have to evolve at the same time.

 

I counter your website with one of my own. I read yours, now please give me the courtesy of reading mine

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

 

Oh and you might want to actually READ the second one you posted. It counters the "proofs" against evolution quite well.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, Rob, let's see. There's oh so many choices stating that salvation is absolutely _not_ tied to the act of baptism. Baptism is an outward expression and declaration of your faith (and in the case of infant baptism, the commitment to raise the child in the Christian faith).

And before you say that I'm taking things out of context, I've actually read the context around these verses. You may want to acquaint yourself with those sections as well. I've read through the entire Bible a number of times, and have had a couple college courses in Bible and theology and a couple of classes in ancient world history and the Middle East (to understand cultural background and context) in addition to the numerous books I've read. Feel free to say I don't really know exactly what the Bible teaches, but that won't make it true. I use the NIV version because that's the most scholarly of the translations.

 

Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household.

 

Romans 4:24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead

 

Romans 10:9-10 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

 

Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

 

Luke 7:50 Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (note that Christ did not tell her to go get baptized in order to be saved)

 

Luke 23:40-43 But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (Christ did not say the thief had to be baptized to be saved. It'd be kind of tough anyway, what with the thief being nailed to a cross and all).

 

Acts 15:11 We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

 

Romans 10:13 "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (not 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord and gets baptized)

 

Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (note again salvation is for everyone who believes, not for everyone who 'believes and is baptized'.)

 

John 3:16 as noted above

 

Comment on the verses you've quoted:

 

Your uncited verse is from Acts 2:38 "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This verse says a. repent and then b. be baptized, but baptism is never stated to be an additional requirement for salvation.

 

Matthew 3:6--this says nothing about salvation itself. It just says they confessed, then they got baptized. It does not say baptism is required for salvation.

 

Matthew 3:11--that's a comparison/contrast of baptism with water vs. the later baptism with the Holy Spirit.

 

 

In regards to demons being believers:

This is the verse I think you were wanting to quote:

James 2:19 "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." The Greek used here is pisteuo, which can mean both to think to be true/acknowledge a fact as well as to trust in God for saving faith. Just because I believe in the existence of evil doesn't mean I'm committed to it.

 

Matthew 3:13 and 16--again, neither says anything about baptism being required for salvation

 

Mark 1:5--this also does not say that baptism was required for salvation. It simply says they got baptized after confessing their sins.

 

Mark 1:8 specifies how Christ/God will provide the Holy Spirit to believers, but again says nothing about baptism as a requirement for salvation.

 

Mark 16:16--belief is required for salvation, and later in that verse it specifically says lack of belief results in condemnation, not lack of belief coupled with lack of baptism. Since no where in this verse, indeed in the entire Bible, does it say that lack of baptism results in condemnation or lack/loss of salvation, I don't believe that baptism is required for salvation. It's important to Christianity, to be sure, and baptism serves as our outer expression of our faith. I don't want to minimize the importance of baptism. However, in example after example after example, people were told that their faith saved them or was counted as righteousness--the Old Testament prophets and leaders, the woman at the well, the woman with the alabaster vial, the thief on the cross, and so forth. No baptism was ever involved for them. Note in the verse that belief is required first and then baptism to demonstrate that faith to those around us.

[Rogue Nine]

I would differ that we can infer what being a Pure Christian is by what the Bible says. Some people may interpret things differently, but usually it is to advance their own beliefs, and the passages they use are obviously misused. I think it tends to be very clear on what is right and wrong - it is inspired by God, after all, so it is His standard of Christianity. Anyone that follows something different to what the Bible says, is, sadly, wrong.

Right, so you're not 'interpreting things differently' from other people in this discussion and using your interpretation (or that of your particular faith) to advance your own beliefs?

 

Curious how this seems to be enough for you to dismiss it entirely. Rather subjective, don't you think?

If I was to follow the Bible as stringently as you seem to do, I would want to be sure what I'm reading is the bona-fide, 100%, honest-to-God truth. Why is it then, in all the Bibles I've found, this little proviso is written between Mark 16:8 and Mark 16:9...

 

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

Why don't they have it? Could it be that someone added it in after the fact? Sure it preaches a good message, but is it truly 'God-breathed'? If I relied on Biblical authority as much as you seem to do, I would want to be sure I'm relying on something that can be universally agreed upon.

 

But for argument's sake, let's say Mark 16:16 is a-ok. For someone who relies on Biblical authority as much as you do, you left out quite a bit!

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Emphasis mine. Huh. It doesn't say who ever does believe but isn't baptized will be condemned. Going on logic, there isn't an 'or' statement there to provide for baptism. Odd, since the first half of the sentence provides the 'and'. (Jae explains this so much better than I do. Love you Jae! <3)

 

Did John ever say that all you had to do was be baptized? If he did (which he didn't), he was alone among the other disciples.

Um, thanks for proving my point?

 

Because we aren't hanging from a cross about to die with no hope of surviving the day.

Cool, so there's a loophole to the whole baptism thing! I just have to be about to die and everything is peachy-keen! Awesome.

 

Kinda pigeonholes your whole 'belief + baptism = salvation' thing, though. :/

[Achilles]

I'd love it if you show me this documented hard evidence.

I believe that I pointed you to two very well documented examples as well as a third source where you could find additional information should you find the the others lacking. Surely that's more than sufficient? Also, it appears to be more evidence that you've provided for the god argument. *shrugs*

 

Oh, I agree. Simply saying that since "everything is so complex, it must be God" is rather weak. I think it is evidence for the existence of God, but I wouldn't use it as hard evidence since it is so fragile.

Ok. The source of your contention then?

 

Again.... I love these answers. Tell me how you really meant if it I'm wrong.

I believe I address my exact meaning the last response. Please feel free to let me know if any part is still unclear.

 

Needless to say, "one man being better than another" was not my intent. Just for future reference, I don't defend arguements that I don't make. I hope you can respect that.

 

Before I open up with it, would you kindly clarify what it is you are saying there is no evidence for? God, the Bible, Jesus.....? I'm sure you stated this somewhere already, but I'd like to know before I start spouting things that aren't really relevant to what you said.

Well, surely there's evidence for the bible. I'm pretty sure I could find one in any bookstore. As for god or jesus, yes, I'm stating that there currently exists no evidence for either. If you'd like to see my specific argument regarding jesus, please feel free to visit this thread. I do appreciate your willingness to clarify my arguments before responding. Hopefully I've provided sufficient clarification.

 

Hence why I said it would only be useful to the individual. In scientific terms, it is merely useless data.

I disagree. Clearly something happens. Something measurable. Hardly "useless data".

 

Extrapolations based on personal experience are not empyrically testable.

I individually come down with the flu. Not empirically testable? My symptoms are consisent for all people with said affliction? Finding a treatment won't have benefit for others?

 

Granted, I'm using an extreme analogy, but it's essentially the same thing. Your "religious" experience may have been triggered by something other than what triggered mine, but that's like saying your flu is different from mine because you got your's on a Thursday at noon from a doorknob and I got mine on a Monday when someone sneezed. Our physiology is the same therefore the experience is essentially the same.

 

NOW if God were to reshape the rockies into a sign that said "God Was Here" I think that would be pretty clear evidence that a greater entity existed. However the proof of something that we cannot empyrically test through the five generally accepted senses, is near impossible.

Yes, that might be one example of "sufficient evidence". If we could emperically rule out any other explanation other than a supernatural deity (named "god") then we could safely assume that god does exist. Then we could begin narrowing down whether any of our other assumptions about god (man, woman, cow, christian, muslim, hindu, etc) were true and if so, which ones.

 

Personally, I think we'd get stuck trying to rule out aliens, but that's just the skeptic in me.

 

I agree. Then again I'm not attempting to force the belief that God exists down your throat. Just that in MY experience, I have seen and felt things which I attribute to God(though whether it is YHWH I have not said, And I do not know if it is).

Having intelligent debates with liberal christians is genuinely enjoyable. Thank you for the experience.

 

If your experience was what I had you might feel different. Then again you might not. For all I know it could have been a freak occurance, but it is what makes the most sense to me.

I would argue that our experiences were probably very similar if not exactly the same. Different influences guided us down different paths, but that shared human experience didn't change.

 

Pure athiest as in being completely opposed to the idea of a supreme being existing at all.

I call that "foolish". Interesting that we have different names for it

 

Being completely skeptical of anything to do with any religion.

I call that "rational". Interesting that we have different names for it

 

Well, just making sure you stay on your toes and clarify your positions properly. It keeps the strawmen at bay

Fair enough

 

Predestination is kinda like a fairly open ended game. You have a beginning, and an end. What you do in between those two points is your choice, but you still inevitably come to that end(kinda reminds me of the Yorrik lines from Hamlet haha).

I respectfully disagree. If the outcome is known beforehand (predetermined) then the choices leading up to that end aren't choices at all. If god intends for you to be a serial killer and burn in hell, then you do not have free will and therefore control over your actions. You cannot have destiny and choice at the same time. You might be able to bolster an argument that will persuade me otherwise, but I have yet to see one.

 

Of course I have my issues with the bible itself. I think it is a great colection of stories, but whether it is the word of god, or an accurate recounting of god's actions on earth, I don't really believe that. I mean heck they just found evidence that it wasn't the Red sea, but it was a mistranslated REED sea.

Well, hundreds of illiterate slaves hand-copying partial copies over hundreds of years and half a dozen languages before the task was taken up by partially literate scribes/monks with an agenda...what can you expect

 

Thank goodness for the printing press which could accurately reproduce mass quantities of mangled texts for all time from that point thereafter.

 

On these here internets determining what one means is much more difficult than in person. I was merely asking for clarification. I admit it seemed to come off kinda "preachy" but with fundies about, you have to watch yourself.

Hopefully, I was able to clarify. If not, please let me know.

 

Evolution... here we go. something i can debate.

Half correct, ahlf incorrect.

Yes, there is evolution today. In my bible it's called adaptation. as it says God gave the animals the ability to adapt, but they all go after their own kind.

Please begin by explaining what "kind" is. What "kind" is a duckbill platypus? Would a wolf and a poodle be the same "kind"? How about a whale and elephant (both mammals)? Or a whale and dolphin (sea mammals)?

 

There are a lot of animals that couldn't have formed by evolution, including giraffes and woodpeckers.because of natural selection, they wouldn't be able to have evolved in the first place according to evolution, because through evolution, one part evovolves at a time, but they need all the parts that were said to have evolved in the first place, but then it doesn't work, and evolution can't apply there.

This is true according to whom? Mutation can only occur in one trait at a time? This will be a huge relief to all the human babies that are born everyday with massive, wide-spread birth defects...going forward, of course. Please provide a source for your argument.

 

there's lots of other animals that poke big holes in the evolution thoery, ones i can't think of at the moment. (somebody can ya find something to help me prove this?)

Please be sure to let us know just as soon as you remember what some of them are.

 

see, the problem is, most all scientists that study evolution seem to be athiests, and they don't want to disprove a theory they so greatly believe is true.

Or it could be that all the people that are smart enough to be scientists eventually turn out to be atheists

 

PS: don't repeat what you just said to anyone at the discovery institute. They might take offense.

 

Every now and then in their studies, they'll coem accross an animal that couldn't have formed from evolution, and they decide to ignore it and not tell anyone about it, which leaves it to chrisitna scientists and the liek to hav eto dig deep to fidn those animals the evolutionists didn't want to mention.

If they didn't tell anyone about it, then how do you know about them?

 

Humans need every part of their body,

Appendix? Tonsils? Wisdom teeth? Check out "vestigal organs" when you get some free time.

 

and evolution won't work with apes to humans if natural selection is real, which it obviously is.

So natural selection is real but evolution isn't? Interesting that it's normally natual selection that most creationists forget about, not random mutation.

 

Some parts humans have and vitally need apes don't have.

For instance?

 

woodpeckers for one:

http://www.verticalthought.org/issues/vt13/evolution.htm

Nothing here provides even a minor complication for the theory of evolution. The pastor did craft a nice article though.

 

and some other site that has soem stuff agaisnt evolution.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm

You have to read the rebuttals too, my friend.

 

Thanks to everyone for the replies.

[RobQel-Droma]

snipped flaming/baiting/sarcastic comments. --Jae

 

Actually it isn't just believing, it is accepting Jesus as your savior. Demons are not able to do so. They are of another existence level. Therefore even if they ask forgiveness, they cannot be allowed back in.

 

Where did you find this out?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

 

There's a nice brief wikipedia article about it.

 

Wikipedia?

 

There is an amazing amount of hard evidence for evolution on all scales. We see it every winter with the constant evolution of the Flu Virus and our attempt to inoculate ourselves against the new strain.

 

That's called adaption, not evolution. Note that the Flu Virus is still the Flu Virus.

 

The Peppered Moth is a pretty potent example that we have direct evidence of.

 

Wait, people are still using the Peppered Moth? I thought everyone understood about that by now...

 

The light-colored peppered moths, as it says, were originally the dominant strain of those moths in England, until the trees were covered in soot, making it easier for predators to spot them. Then, the light-colored moths started to get eaten, and the population died down. The dark peppered moths started growing in population - it wasn't evolution, both species existed at the same time. The light ones didn't turn into the dark ones; do the research, its true. One merely died down when predators found it easier to hunt them.

 

Also, you may want to read up on Transitional Fossils

 

So.... one or two fossils, and they say "the missing link!" How come, for instance, the whale-like one is suddenly a transitional fossil even though the only classification for that is that it is an amphibian and it is kinda like a whale in some respects? Is that all?

 

What do you say to this, then: they have found several species of animals (that were supposedly evolving at different times) in the same layer of soil. How does evolution explain that?

 

our so called "True Christianity" is your singular religion. I can guarantee you that nobody else follows your so called "True Christianity".

 

Many people believe what I do. Do you really expect to defend your statement?

 

Your Interpretation of Christianity is what you define as Christianity, thus by all means you are fully and completely saying:

 

"I am right, and everybody else is wrong."

 

Well, only one interpretation is going to be right. There's only one truth about this.

 

If what I believed was against the Bible, then I would be wrong. But I don't go against the Bible, and many people do.

 

I guarantee you that if you lined up 100 "True Christians", that you would get 100 different definitions of what Christianity is. And then you would simply state that they are all wrong in some way but you.

 

Wrong again. Do you really think that what the Bible says is so interpretation-dependent?

 

And even if you had a group that believed every last single thing you believe, then you have just proved that individuality does not exist. If anything, you have proved you follow a cult.

 

I have no idea what the heck you are trying to say here.

 

And even if everything you believe turns out to be right... Guess what? You are now dead and the only human soul in heaven. You believe you are singularly right and all other religions and people are wrong, so you must be the only person allowed true salvation. And even if there are others, you yourself would get the satisfaction of saying "Hahaha! I was right and all you idiots were wrong!"

 

You are now suggesting that I want people to burn in hell. I'm not going to comment.

 

From the time I spent in Christianity, I seem to remember that God has the final say in all of this. Not you.

 

You're quite right. In fact, I'll go listed to what He says about this. From the Bible, which is His Word. I'm not seeing anything that is contradictory to what I believe, so I think I'm good. If there was, I'd need to change some of my beliefs, since, after all God has the final say.

 

There is plenty of evidence, you just refuse to accept that it exists. We could present you with all the evidence in the world, and you would most probably reject it.

 

School taught evolution. The Television and Internet have pieces on it all over the place. The news even has specials on it.

 

No, I don't consider fossils found of two species "hard evidence" for evolution.

 

So, because I do not accept God and Jesus fully into my life, AND get baptized I will not be saved? So, I am to live with sin my entire life, and when I die I get thrown down to one of the layers of hel

 

In fact, more personal, why are you no longer a Christian? (or, if you are, why this attitude?)

 

And even if I follow Jesus and God my entire life, if I do not get baptized I don't get to join the private club?

 

Its what He says to do. You can ask Him about it when you die, I guess.

 

You make getting salvation sound like signing up for insurance. Do this and that, make sure you get this done, and keep within these limits for the rest of your known life. How is that any different than exchanging salvation for money? At least money for the church can be put to causes like orphanages and schools.

 

Believe, be baptized for the remission of your sins, and follow God.

 

Doesn't sound to complex to me.

 

An old man throwing water on you is nothing but an old man throwing water on you. I highly doubt a god is going to care if you got water splashed on you at one point in your life.

 

You deny that is part of what He says to do in the Bible?

 

Again, you can ask Him in Heaven. As for me, I'm going to do what He says.

 

Oh, silly Rogue Nine. You must remember:

 

Unless you get water thrown on you by an old guy you are not on god's radar. It doesn't matter how good or bad you were in life.

 

Do you know what baptism is? It is the remission of our sins. If we don't have that, we aren't "good" at all, no one is.

 

But... but... but

 

That would mean some lines in the bible would have to be wrong and contradictory to each other! There is no way that could be possible!

 

Listen. You cannot put the ENTIRE bible out for evidence of your claims and then say "Well, you know, that part isn't right... but the rest of it is!". That would mean that more parts of the bible would also have to be incorrect. Which means, by chance, the entire book could actually be wrong. Oh no! That means your so called "True Christianity" could also be wrong!

 

You have, again, proved my point in saying that you believe your interpretation of the bible is correct and everybody else's is wrong.

 

Er.... how? I'm not the one discarding parts of the Bible. I was wondering why Rogue Nine was discarding every verse I put forth to stand by one single verse that doesn't even explicitly say that you don't have to be baptized. I accept that verse.... that doesn't mean anything. The verse doesn't say "all who believe, even if they aren't baptized"....

 

Again, that proves my point that you think you yourself are right and everybody else is wrong.

 

Fine. You claim that the Bible is not right? Because all I said was, anyone that doesn't follow the Bible is wrong. Do you disagree? I thought you claimed to be a Christian at one point?

 

Now,...while some of us consider the fact that there are many belief systems and that if you were 100% right in your beliefs, you would be God.

 

No, I would just be following what God says.

 

 

I do not consider my opinion right. My opinion is simply another opinion.

 

So... you believe something that you don't consider correct? What?

 

But I do not hold it over other people. There are a limitless amount of religions, beliefs, and gods and I understand that if any of them were truly right, then everybody would follow it.

 

Yea, sure they would. All roads lead to Heaven, though, right!? I mean, since no one is right or wrong.

 

Oh, and on a final note for you... One last quote:

"I'd advise you to please not define Christianity to someone's statement (like this person's) especially when it does not seem that you really know exactly what the Bible teaches."

 

Follow what you preach before you tell other's how and what to believe.

 

Good Day.

 

Interesting. How exactly do I not know the Bible?

 

Rob-Qel-Droma are you part of a baptist church or something? The bible says that you have to believ ein Jesus to be saved , and baptism is optional, not required, but suggested. the verses asyign you must be batised to be saved of your sins are often misinterpretted, they actually shoudl mean that batism will clenase you of your sins, not save you. baptist teachings tedn to have a slight contradiction problem because the foudner of the baptist beliefs misunderstood those verses slightly. I have nothing agaisnt baptist churches or baptism itself however. and i want to warn you don't let true_avery bother you, she just likes to make fun of people and make them mad for her won amusement watching them get all mad about it.

 

I go to a "Church of Christ", which I guess is kind of a "non-denominational" Church, although it probably really is. I, however, do believe in baptism - if it does cleanse us of our sins, how is it optional? Wouldn't we be ugly to God if we were still carrying our sins around?

 

Lol, and True Avery's female? I didn't know that.

Right, so you're not 'interpreting things differently' from other people in this discussion and using your interpretation (or that of your particular faith) to advance your own beliefs?

 

Not that I'm aware of. Am I?

 

Um, thanks for proving my point?

 

Your welcome. What exactly did I do?

 

Cool, so there's a loophole to the whole baptism thing! I just have to be about to die and everything is peachy-keen! Awesome.

 

Kinda pigeonholes your whole 'belief + baptism = salvation' thing, though. :/

 

Well, babies, when they die, supposedly go to Heaven without believing, because they are innocent. Is that a loophole in yours?

 

@Jae - I'm not going to quote your whole post, since its kinda long, but... remember in Acts:

 

"...'What must we do to be saved?' They said. Peter replied, 'Repent, therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins'..."

 

Pretty definite if you ask me. He pretty much outlines what you have to do to be saved.

 

I believe that I pointed you to two very well documented examples as well as a third source where you could find additional information should you find the the others lacking. Surely that's more than sufficient? Also, it appears to be more evidence that you've provided for the god argument. *shrugs*

 

I don't recall that, but ET Warrior provided some. I think I responded earlier in this post.

 

Ok. The source of your contention then?

 

None.

 

I believe I address my exact meaning the last response. Please feel free to let me know if any part is still unclear.

 

Needless to say, "one man being better than another" was not my intent. Just for future reference, I don't defend arguements that I don't make. I hope you can respect that.

 

Is my logic wrong?

 

Well, surely there's evidence for the bible. I'm pretty sure I could find one in any bookstore.

 

Funny.

 

As for god or jesus, yes, I'm stating that there currently exists no evidence for either. If you'd like to see my specific argument regarding jesus, please feel free to visit this thread. I do appreciate your willingness to clarify my arguments before responding. Hopefully I've provided sufficient clarification.

 

Many early historians mention Jesus.

 

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day”

 

...just to name one. I could name more, if you want.

[Achilles]

That's called adaption, not evolution.

Different how?

 

Note that the Flu Virus is still the Flu Virus.

Until it becomes something different like HIV or SARS.

 

Well, babies, when they die, supposedly go to Heaven without believing, because they are innocent. Is that a loophole in yours?

 

@Jae - I'm not going to quote your whole post, since its kinda long, but... remember in Acts:

 

"...'What must we do to be saved?' They said. Peter replied, 'Repent, therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins'..."

 

Pretty definite if you ask me. He pretty much outlines what you have to do to be saved.

*Pops popcorn*

 

Evangelical fights are the best!

 

I don't recall that, but ET Warrior provided some. I think I responded earlier in this post.

Glad that's cleared up then.

 

None.

Oh, so you did that to meet some sort of word count then?

 

Is my logic wrong?

I don't know. It was your argument so you tell me.

 

Many early historians mention Jesus.

And?

P.S. I address this in the thread I referenced.

 

...just to name one. I could name more, if you want.

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. All his (contested) texts belie is a familiarity with the cult. Should a modern writing biography on David Koresh qualify as evidence for his divinity? The big difference here is that we actually have a historical record for someone named David Koresh, so...

[Rogue Nine]

Not that I'm aware of. Am I?

You mean to tell me that your interpretation is the end-all to how the Good Book should be read? That one must either read it the way you read it, or else one is 'not doing it right'?

 

Your welcome. What exactly did I do?

You said 'Did John ever say that all you had to do was be baptized? If he did (which he didn't), he was alone among the other disciples.' I quote John 3:16, which stated that whoever believes in Jesus will have everlasting life. John doesn't mention baptism at all in that verse. Soooo...I dunno, really. You really didn't refute my point. :S

 

 

Well, babies, when they die, supposedly go to Heaven without believing, because they are innocent.

The Bible doesn't say they do; it makes no provisos for children And if we're going on what the Bible says (your stringent interpretation), then we are all born into sin and must come to Christ and be baptized before we can be saved. Therefore, since babies have neither been saved nor baptized, they're going to hell.

 

The whole reason I brought up the example of the thief on the cross is to point out how some people were never baptized, yet they were seemingly given a free pass to Heaven (Jae points out many of these nicely). How does your 'belief + baptism or else no salvation' doctrine reconcile that?

 

And why do you skip over those middle points I made? I think they're rather relevant...

 

@Jae - I'm not going to quote your whole post, since its kinda long, but... remember in Acts:

 

"...'What must we do to be saved?' They said. Peter replied, 'Repent, therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins'..."

 

Pretty definite if you ask me. He pretty much outlines what you have to do to be saved.

Funny how you almost completely ignore the one post which really throttles your arguments for baptism being a part of salvation.

 

Oh, and you like leaving out stuff too. Right before Acts 2:38...

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

 

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

They do not ask 'how do we get saved?' It's pedantic, I know, but you like to take the Bible at face value, so...

 

However, later in Acts, someone (shock!) actually does ask how they can get saved! The jailer!

The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

 

They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

Lookit that, no mention of baptism at all. Huh.

 

(Oh, and just so we're clear, is the baptism you're talking about the physical act of sprinkling/immersing in water or the spiritual 'Baptism of the Spirit'? You can have the latter without the former.)

[Jae Onasi]

@Jae - I'm not going to quote your whole post, since its kinda long, but... remember in Acts:

 

"...'What must we do to be saved?' They said. Peter replied, 'Repent, therefore, and be baptized for the remission of your sins'..."

 

Pretty definite if you ask me. He pretty much outlines what you have to do to be saved.

 

Acts 2:38 to be specific. The NIV translation reads "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Again, it does not specifically say that baptism is required for salvation itself. It enjoins believers to be baptized, but does not say that baptism itself is needed for salvation. I looked this verse up in my Hebrew-Greek Keyword study Bible, and here's what it had to say about this verse:

The main verb in this verse is metanoesate, which means 'repent'. This refers to that initial repentance of a sinner unto salvation. The verb translated 'to be baptized' is in the aorist passive imperative of baptizo, which means that it does not have the same force as the direct command to "repent". The preposition "for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins" is the Greek word eis, "unto". It signifies "for (or unto) the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins." This same preposition is used in 1 Corinthians 10:2 in the phrase "they were all baptized into (eis) Moses." signifying that the Israelites were identified with the work and ministry of Moses. Repentence is something between an individual and God, while baptism is intended to be a testimony to others.

 

You completely ignore all the verses I quoted that specifically say that one is saved through faith, period. There is nothing in the Bible saying specifically that baptism is required for salvation, and there are plenty that say salvation happens through faith without baptism being specifically required. I'm sorry if that rocks your world, but that's the way the Bible reads.

[Tommycat]

I disagree. Clearly something happens. Something measurable. Hardly "useless data".

What I mean is that a singular non-repeatable instance can be chalked up to being an anomaly. Testing it is impossible as it only occured once. Yet was sufficient to meet my needs.

I respectfully disagree. If the outcome is known beforehand (predetermined) then the choices leading up to that end aren't choices at all. If god intends for you to be a serial killer and burn in hell, then you do not have free will and therefore control over your actions. You cannot have destiny and choice at the same time. You might be able to bolster an argument that will persuade me otherwise, but I have yet to see one.

Well in essence he may intend for me to be an artist and I choose the serial killer path. He may try to steer me away from that path, but if I continue to turn away from Him, then I have given him no alternative but to place me on the path to hell. You can have a predetermined good and predetermined bad outcome and still have it be destiny(Thinking of Bindu and the swirling destiny haha). You can let God decide everything for you, but then you have no control over how it happens. You can take full control of it and maybe screw it up. Or you can take some control but ask God for guidance, and hope you get his instructions right. The more control you take the more likely it is that you will fall off the path he has determined for you.