Posted on 02/24/2008 4:18:12 PM PST by no nau
No God: where’s the proof?
[[This is a religion thread, and if posters had the faith they claim, there would be no need for arguing with science.]]
We’re not arguing for arguments sake- we’re presenting refuting science in most htreads on this site- Misinformation is being shovelled into our kids minds at schools- so your assertion is false- there IS a need to present the facts.
[[Quite simply, if science appears to contradict one’s interpretation of one’s religion, the better approach is to seek more understanding or accept the apparent contradictions]]
Science in no way contradicts our religion- it is ONLY when the apologists for Macroevolution begin asserting issues BEYOND the science that it becomes necessary for the strict facts to be presented which contradict the assertions of Macroevolution.
[[Trying to challenge cosmology, geology, chemistry, physics and biology and promulgating half truths and sometimes blatant untruths does no honor to any self-respecting religion]]
Lol- so Christians should just roll over- and not question false assumptions? No- hte reason the scientists left this forum was precisely for hte reasons I listed. Noone is presenting ‘blatant untruths’ in defense of strict science/ID- The FACTS speak for themselves and show the issue of Macroevolution in it’s TRUE light- a biological impossibi9lity.
[[If there were a God, then He would be powerful enough to communicate the same message to all humans on the entire planet.]]
He did- However, it is fallible error prone man that has the problems with His word- not God.
Where’s the proof? It’s all around you- You just choose to ignore it and believe something else instead- God hasn’t failed- you’ve just failed to accept what has already been established.
[[But observing all the various faiths across the world, the only common thread between them is faith itself]]
It is apparent that you haven’t done a very careful examination of various faiths- many faiths have a lot in common and differ only on moot theoological issues that have nothign to do with the core message of God’s word- Your broadsweeping shallow characterization of Religion is innacurate
[[FR used to have quite a few very well spoken and knowledgeable people, on many different subjects.]]
I’ve read through their ‘well spoken’ posts and I find htem completely lacking in substance and evidence in support of Macroevolution- every ‘evidence’ they brought to the table is easily refuted with hte biological facts and hsow that their ‘evidences’ for Macroevolution were nothign more than disguised MICROEvolution- a common tactic used to sneak an imaginary, scientifically unsupported hypothesis into our schools- their ‘well spoken’ diatribes have indeed fooled many, but careful examination exposes htem for what they truly are- shallow rehashings of issues already soundly refuted
Or how do we look at a cockroach and say that it is ugly?
The answer, of course, is that we are ALL made in His image. We see things as He sees them.
Then I take it further, especially for evolutionists: How come there are so many varieties of flowers? Why don't they all look the same, smell the same?
If people can look at things in a very basic fashion, it's like common sense--you have to believe because that's what common sense says.
One of the stupidest pro-evolution teachings I have come across (in a biology class that I took in recent years to meet my graduation requirements) is that one proof of evolution is that all living organisms have DNA. Their arugment is that DNA proves that everything came from the same thing--primordial soup. I refute that with "Why would the Creator change what works--why not use that particular part of creation over and over? If it is the basis of life, then it should be found in every living creature." What a thin argument.
Very true, very true. Thank you so much for your post, dearest sister in Christ!
By definition faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Your response is evidence that nothing is incontrovertible.
"You can do very little with faith, but you can do nothing without it." -- Samuel Butler
So you follow the Holiness Code in Leviticus?
If he is trying to steer the direction of the dialogue wouldn’t that be considered beneficial to the overall agrument? You’re calling the end result an un-provable conclusion yet both sides of the argument are un-provable, by scientific standards, no?
Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I (Jesus) have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
It's filled in me through my faith in Him. Faith is what's required for a right relationship with God. Man cannot do that on his own, so God Himself came to Earth in the flesh to do it for us and said that if we accept by faith what was done, then we would be righteous.
Hebrews 11:6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Galatians 3:6 Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
The law hasn't changed. Those are God's standards for us, they always have been. The requirement to live by them no longer applies but that doesn't mean the truth of them has changed.
You have made statements but not backed them up.
I continue to find the effort to disort the world of science to support weak faith to be inappopriate.
How, for example, were the laws against cattle breeding, sowing fields with two kinds of seed, and wearing clothes of mixed linen and wool fulfilled in Christ?
And were the laws against homosexuality also fulfilled in Christ, and hence don't need to be followed any longer? How about the laws against defiling your daughter by making her a prostitute? Fulfilled? Don't need to be followed anymore?
The law hasn't changed. Those are God's standards for us, they always have been. The requirement to live by them no longer applies but that doesn't mean the truth of them has changed.
If these laws remain true, why aren't we required to live by them? Because they aren't "as true" today?
How anyone can be opposed to the idea of God after reading his book is beyond me.
schu
If you want to work at trying to prove a negative, that's OK with me. I'll stand by and watch.
If many faiths differ only on "moot theoological issues", then why your opposition to evolution? Many faiths, even many Christian faiths, the Catholic Church for one, have no problem with evolution. Why clutter up FR with "moot theoological issues" like Evolution?
There are many more interesting, and important, issues to be discussing on FR than one so divisive thats only a "moot theoological issue" anyway.
It troubles me also. I do not have the answer and I have talked to many clergy who think they do and when pressed fold up.
Check the spelling of Judgment.
None of our business.
My “criticism” is to all who would assume to condemn any other human.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.