Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Can God love? (Part 1)

Page 24 of 25 Previous  1 ... 13 ... 23, 24, 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:40 pm

First topic message reminder :

Can God love?

We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.

Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.

Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.

Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.

It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.

You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity.  You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.

Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you.  See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.

Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.

We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.

Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?

Have you seen God express his love for us lately?

Regards
DL

These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.

[youtube]



avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1079
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down


Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by snowyflake on Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:17 pm

Snowflake my dear, when the body dies all the organs are then totally irrelevant and therefore there is no need for their continuation, whilst memories and all the other involvements regarding the brain are important or there would be no point in having them, the organs you refer to are just necessary for the length of time the body lives, whilst the brain is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Polyglide, the brain is an organ just like any other organ in the body. If your memories are created in the brain, stored in the brain, which is made of tissue, neurons etc and it dies it stands to reason that thoughts cannot be created and anything that is stored in the brain dies with the brain. If your kidneys stop working when you die does your pee go somewhere else? What about your intestines? Your liver? Brain function is organic. It is not supernatural.

It is just a tad egomaniacal to believe that your personal thoughts and memories are so 'important' that they will transcend time and space.

I think you're just being funny here. No one can be this deluded surely?


snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Tosh on Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:20 pm

I think you're just being funny here. No one can be this deluded surely?


Have you met the sniffing sage ? Basketball
avatar
Tosh

Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by snowyflake on Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:19 am

Tosh, I KNOW you're being funny Smile

Polyglide does not understand the human body, physiology, biochemistry, anatomy, genetics, evolution. I don't expect she has learned any of this and therefore relies on her religious leaders to tell her what's right according to them. I doubt she investigates any other claim if it isn't a biblical claim. Which makes discussing the topic with her rather difficult. She's fighting with an unloaded weapon.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:42 pm

Yep, it's a BIG AXE.

Snowflake, it is you that tries to baffle one with theories that do not stand up to examination.

You can have all the sciences you wish but that does not make the use of, nor the truth of, anything they say unless there is proof and theories are not proof.

Of course faith is based on ones belief and after considering all that is available and worthy of such consideration, I have, over far more than my three score years and ten come to the firm conclusion that God is responsible for much of creation and in that statement there is much to be considered.

God created man and woman and the earth but that does not mean that there are not others who are capable of creating.

Man tends to confuse manufacture with create.

Anything man does is with that which is created, man cannot create anything, he can only manufacture.

The earth has a history far beyond that which we can understand and nor does it influence our prospects.

That which we can confirm by fossils etc; is a mere drop in the ocean.

The earth could have had many previous uses until God decided to create the earth as we now find it along with man.

The sad fact is that man has made a real pig's ear of all that he was given the chance to enjoy.




avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Tosh on Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:53 pm

You can have all the sciences you wish but that does not make the use of, nor the truth of, anything they say unless there is proof and theories are not proof.


Actually science prefers not to use words like proof ( mathematics and logic) and truth ( philosophy), but they do use theory and knowledge.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.

The evidence for the modern synthesis is so incontrovertible, the theory of Common Descent ( evolution) is considered a scientific FACT, which is another scientfic term. Just one piece of evidence that contradicts this theory would shatter it, there has not been one iota of evidence in every scientific discipline on mother Earth.

Polyglide, be a Christian, but be a Christian who accepts common knowledge, in my opinion Creationism diminishes Christianity.

RoB deep down knows creationism is bunkum but he is from Texas, and they love to be contradictory individuals, its in their culture.

I would love to know where in the fossil record God made humans in his image ??

avatar
Tosh

Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by snowyflake on Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:52 pm

Polyglide, you are not basing your opinions on facts. A scientific theory (such as evolution) can be a fact. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming while the evidence for creation is not.

You are baffled because you don't have the knowledge or understanding of science, nature, the world. How can you argue that you are right while millions of scientists around the world who are highly trained, have degrees up the wazoo, who hypothesise, test, gather evidence, analyse data and conclude based on the evidence? I can understand if you are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information out there. I work in science and it overwhelms me. But when someone presents data with evidence it's a bit arrogant to tell them they are wrong and you are right!



I might also remind you that just because billions of people believe in one god or another does not make the existence of any of them true.
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:28 pm

Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

Scriptures indicate that God knows that babies in the womb have not done anything good or evil. They also indicate that God hates some babies even while in the womb and innocent. It is also said that God creates us and our characters. Our characters, as we evolve, cannot help but do evil. God then is responsible for the evil that we will do as he has created our natures. Natures that we cannot help but follow.

We can blame our free will and the choices we make for the evil that we do but this does not explain why our God created natures decide to do evil. Theistic evolutionists try to explain this paradox but the average literalist or fundamental Christian does not follow their reasoning.

We have no choice and no free will to deviate from our God given sin nature and God would know this as it is was all planned. Jesus was to die even before man was created. That is why Adam’s sin is called a necessary sin.

If we have no choice in following our sin natures, and cannot deviate from our part in God’s plan, then what is God’s reason for punishing us for being exactly what he created and programmed us to do?

That is why Adam’s sin is called a necessary sin. He could not help but sin and neither can any of us. You cannot help but do evil and thus sin.

This is all rather abstract so if you like I will imagine a viable scenario for us to work with. We all know that many are starving to death in various countries. Imagine one of these starving children walking past a farmer’s apple tree. The child knows that if he steals the apples that the farmer’s family will starve to death. He or she has a choice of either stealing apples to prevent their death or not. The survival instinct being our first instinct, I think apples will be eaten.

That child’s God given nature will choose life, as all natures do by default, and eat an apple. Does that child deserve hell when it’s God given nature drove it to sin?

We cannot do anything but follow our basic God given natures. Do we deserve hell for doing so?

Is God’s punishment unjust?

If sin was required for Jesus to manifest, Adam had to sin. Would his punishment and death have also been unjust?

Did God, knowing Adam would be a sinner and cause God’s/Jesus’ death, hate Adam as well when he was creating him?

Regards
DL

This clip explains theistic evolution and how you cannot help but do evil and sin.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH#g/c/6F8036F680C1DBEB

avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1079
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Tosh on Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:37 pm

I cannot answer any of your valid points, and my head hurts just thinking about Theology, bearing in mind the whole concept of an unseen agent arose out of primitive ignorance. It is truly bizarre how the human mind can concoct such a maze of oxymorons, in order to make the nature of an unseen agent compatible with nature and human nature.

If your mind accepts theology then there is something affecting it, it is another type of unseen agent, its known as cognitive bias. The type of bias that denies common knowledge with certainty, running around gluing obscure texts to natural events and the type of mind that appoints itself as an expert on all matters scientific.

This type of mind has no problem in accepting the mental contortions necessary for God to make some sort of sense, and they sanctimoniously believe this utter gibberish enlightens the mind ??? eh ? eh ? Question

Jesus died as a martyr for fairness and kindness, I have no interest in the voodoo they attach to this man's sacrifice.


avatar
Tosh

Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Tosh on Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:51 pm

If humans cannot accept the emotional and rational reasons for morality and spirituality without the supernatural, then both their emotions and rationality are in a sorry state.

The supernatural dilutes and distorts the values of humanism, it reduces humans to sheep.
avatar
Tosh

Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:58 pm

Tosh wrote:I cannot answer any of your valid points, and my head hurts just thinking about Theology, bearing in mind the whole concept of an unseen agent arose out of primitive ignorance. It is truly bizarre how the human mind can concoct such a maze of oxymorons, in order to make the nature of an unseen agent compatible with nature and human nature.

If your mind accepts theology then there is something affecting it, it is another type of unseen agent, its known as cognitive bias. The type of bias that denies common knowledge with certainty, running around gluing obscure texts to natural events and the type of mind that appoints itself as an expert on all matters scientific.

This type of mind has no problem in accepting the mental contortions necessary for God to make some sort of sense, and they sanctimoniously believe this utter gibberish enlightens the mind ??? eh ? eh ? Question

Jesus died as a martyr for fairness and kindness, I have no interest in the voodoo they attach to this man's sacrifice.



No moral man would embrace human sacrifice and the notion that it is good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1079
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:02 pm

Tosh wrote:If humans cannot accept the emotional and rational reasons for morality and spirituality without the supernatural, then both their emotions and rationality are in a sorry state.

The supernatural dilutes and distorts the values of humanism, it reduces humans to sheep.

Speaking of which.
I cannot post this in it's separate spot but I would not mind your view.
It may hurt your head even more than the one above but let me try.

Only I can judge God. I, is you, if you choose to be.

Using the term --- I am here means you. I do not mean me unless I am referring to myself and all I say applies to all of us. You are ( I ) to you as I am I to me. Only you then can judge the God construct that you see as you evaluate what you know of God.

Jesus said that at the end of days he would return. He meant in spirit only. Not a physical manifestation. He also said that the time of the end was at hand and that the temple of God was within each of us. The tern spirit represents, the spirit of the law, what is written in the hearts, ---- God in other words, ---- is defined as laws and rules and such as they are the only thing you can follow at all times, ---- and these are set by you and you are in effect ruling yourself in terms of following the God construct you have developed.

Jesus is telling you that you and your heart are the only things of importance in terms of leadership as it is the rules you have accepted as worthy of following. Jesus warned that at end times there would be a number of Jesus’ to choose from and morality is what you will have to choose from.

That is why I think it important to evaluate what Jesus said and determine if it is worthy and moral or not.

Jesus Christ. Madman or something worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

Below, Bishop Spong speaks of basically redefining Christianity. Going from a church or religious thinking, to a more spiritual or heart felt thinking. I also urge Christianity to change because it is now too immoral to ignore with today’s mentality. It’s overall policies are immoral in my view. The God of war must die and Jesus declared the full and only God that is required and that the noble lie of politics should be revoked to let all know that the God you likely know was always a myth. This may be a good time for you to contemplate such a move as many Christians haves rejected the O.T. God and only focus on Jesus and loving policies.

Bishop Spong speaks well to this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AfFcAmx-Ro&feature=relmfu

Apotheosis means just recognizing that you are on a journey of being your own God. Some few will have help from God on this through a real apotheosis but only the very few it seems. You cannot get away from that fact so you may as well forget about fantasy, miracles and magic. They were never real and you are the strongest force you will ever know. After all, who but you can make you want to do anything voluntarily? There is no other force that can do this and therefore you are God in the real sense of being master of yourself. If that does not compute with you then remember that A & E became as Gods, God’s own words, and yours is the same birth rite. Throw it away if you wish. You cannot reject the knowledge of good and evil so I cannot fathom why you would throw away the fact that you as well can become as Gods.

The moral of Jesus and his sacrifice is that we should accept being God, and ruling ourselves even against a government if needs be. Become archetypal Moses and face government and declare that it faces one as great as itself. That is what being a free man is all about.

The time of the end is when Jesus becomes your God on earth, ---- again this is you, --- who takes the place of the mythical heavenly God of war. Jesus/you, as the way, the man’s way of judging first, not some absentee God’s unknown standard. Your covenant with yourself is to be the new covenant. Man answering to man and himself. Not to some unknown God.

This clip from J. Haidt shows that we instinctively share God’s morals. In this we are truly Gods and children of God.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

I am God because I am the only one who is capable of judging the God I know.
You are a God in your own rite as you are the only one who is capable of judging the God you know.

The noble lie is firmly in place and manipulating your thinking. Discard it. In this day and age we do not need it the way we may have in the past.

The Noble Lie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDNHM84lBA0

As a Gnostic Christian, this theology/philosophy is quite natural to me and can be for all people.

Try thinking as the God that you are. Stop being a sheep and rise to your true inheritance as a shepherd. That is the message Jesus wants you to recognize.

Regards
DL

P.S.
Listen to Jesus and hear for the first time in your life.
Ps 82:6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.
Hosea 1:10 Ye are the sons of the living God.
Do you think that sons of God are destined to be sheep or shepherds?
Jesus was here to empower us. Not enslave us. Do not waste what he gave.


avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1079
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:26 am

Snowflake, I can state just as many scientists, just as highly trained and educated, that contradict all that the evolutionists believe and that is because evolution is a theory and nothing more.

You can actually see what God created if you open your eyes instead of having them half shut by the nonsense spouted regarding evolution.

My weapon, as I have stated, is a Large Axe and this is honed by the most potent, the TRUTH.

avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Tosh on Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:35 pm

I can state just as many scientists, just as highly trained and educated, that contradict all that the evolutionists believe

Stop being silly, 99.9 % of scientists accept evolution is a fact, stop making up drivel to support your delusion.
avatar
Tosh

Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:01 pm

polyglide wrote:Snowflake, I can state just as many scientists, just as highly trained and educated, that contradict all that the evolutionists believe and that is because evolution is a theory and nothing more.

You can actually see what God created if you open your eyes instead of having them half shut by the nonsense spouted regarding evolution.

My weapon, as I have stated, is a Large Axe and this is honed by the most potent, the TRUTH.


Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.


You may want to read what some theist think of evolution. It des not look like they reject it at all.

Theistic evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH#g/c/6F8036F680C1DBEB

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1079
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:45 pm

My weapon, as I have stated, is a Large Axe and this is honed by the most potent, the TRUTH.

My weapon is a 20mm Vulcan CIWS Phalanx Blk IIB gun that fires 6,000 rounds per minute, and each round contains a bit of evidence that refutes your truth. Twisted Evil

21st Century weaponry always trumps Bronze Age axes!
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by snowyflake on Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:03 pm

Snowflake, I can state just as many scientists, just as highly trained and educated, that contradict all that the evolutionists believe and that is because evolution is a theory and nothing more.

No you can't. Only around 5% of scientists dispute evolution. They might be highly trained but their religious indoctrination is stronger than the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You can actually see what God created if you open your eyes instead of having them half shut by the nonsense spouted regarding evolution.

I have not seen anything that God 'created'. I have seen the evidence for evolution. I have looked at the archeological, geological, chemical, genetic and anthropological evidence. The are far more convincing than 'God magicked the world into existence'.


My weapon, as I have stated, is a Large Axe and this is honed by the most potent, the TRUTH.

You don't know what the TRUTH is any more than I do. You only believe you do and you believe without evidence. For everything in your life, you use evidence to maneuver in the world. You learned by trial and error and you base your life on this evidence. You don't cross the road without looking do you but when it comes to belief in God, you forfeit all of your reason to believe in invisible superheroes.

The interesting thing about Christians is that they say they have full faith in God but you wouldn't cross a road without looking, you wouldn't step off a tall building and you know your arm or leg wouldn't grow back if it were amputated no matter how much you prayed. Apparently, faith only extends so far.




avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:03 pm

99% of scientists thought the world was flat and 99% of scientists have had to change their minds on numerous subjects, numbers do not make anything either right or wrong they only portray what a percentage may think, think, being the operative word.

Just look up the number of scientists who refute with far more evidence in support of creation than those in favour of evolution, just put, against evolution in the computer and to substantiate your claim that only 5% of scientists think creation is correct, give 20 times more scientists names, who favour evolution. Talk Talk is easy.

Free will is exactly that, we have the choice in everything we do, taking into consideration that which is available.

You cannot blame anyone else for the manner in which you decide to live your life,of course not everyone has the same opportunities in life and this appears vastly unfair but on reflection whose fault is it that this state of affairs exists?.

There is enough of everything on earth to enable all to have sufficient to have a good and rewarding life, why have they not?

Because man himself has created the state of affairs we find ourselves in at the present time. not God but man.



avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:55 pm

99% of scientists thought the world was flat and 99% of scientists have had to change their minds on numerous subjects
This is actually a myth. People in enlightened cultures knew the world was round for thousands of years. It was only during the "Dark Ages" when science was hobbled by religion when the illiterate populace believed the world was flat. Since only the super elite received an education, and since science as we know it didn't yet exist, myths and superstition stood in for the truth without actually BEING the truth. Those "99% of scientists" were not actually scientists.
numbers do not make anything either right or wrong they only portray what a percentage may think, think, being the operative word.
I'll revisit this question again since it was left unanswered the last time I asked it:

If 95% of all the doctors in the world told you that you have cancer, would you simply ignore it and refuse treatment? I think I know the answer to this question, and that answer would suggest to me that you know as well as I do that numbers mean more to you than you're letting on.
Just look up the number of scientists who refute with far more evidence in support of creation than those in favour of evolution
We have ... and the number that continues cropping up again and again is that 95% to 99% of all scientists support evolution. In terms of having "far more evidence" for creationism, why don't you post some of it?
Because man himself has created the state of affairs we find ourselves in at the present time. not God but man.
On this, we can agree since a non-existent entity can't create our state of affairs.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by snowyflake on Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:23 pm

99% of scientists thought the world was flat and 99% of scientists have had to change their minds on numerous subjects, numbers do not make anything either right or wrong they only portray what a percentage may think, think, being the operative word.

That's because 99% of scholars at that time were educated in the church. So anything that was not authorised by the church was ignored or shoved under the carpet. Galileo was thrown in prison for daring to counter church doctrine by suggesting that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. He was declared a heretic and was damn lucky they didn't burn him at the stake.

Just look up the number of scientists who refute with far more evidence in support of creation than those in favour of evolution, just put, against evolution in the computer and to substantiate your claim that only 5% of scientists think creation is correct, give 20 times more scientists names, who favour evolution. Talk Talk is easy.

I have asked you this before. Please present the evidence. Show me one web page that says that. I have shown you the link that shows that 95% of scientists favour evolution as the most likely, most reasonable, most evidenced and most beautiful answer as to how we got here. You have yet to produce one single web page to support your argument.

There is enough of everything on earth to enable all to have sufficient to have a good and rewarding life, why have they not?

Because a large proportion of the wealth is sucked up by corporations and businesses, one of which is Religion. Religion shares some of its wealth but it makes sure it remains a powerful entity in the world. The combined wealth of all the religions in the world could feed, house and clothe everyone on the planet. How many churches, synagogues, temples, mosques are there in your town? All standing empty most of the week while the homeless have no shelter, no food, no safety. How much art, gold, silver, statuary, jewels, antiquities, land and property and other assets does each of the religions own? Gazillions. And they are tax exempt!



avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:32 am

The cancer quesion is totally irrelevant, there would be evidence, physical, that showed the existance of any disease, there is no evidence to support evolution that can be verified as the whole assumption is just pure theory.

I have told you to just put on your computer, those against evolution and you will get many names and web sites to visit that contradicts all that the evolutionists base their belief on and whilst there is just one who can give a reasonable answer evolution remains the lie that it is, aaadn always will be.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:26 pm

The cancer quesion is totally irrelevant, there would be evidence, physical, that showed the existance of any disease, there is no evidence to support evolution that can be verified as the whole assumption is just pure theory.
Actually, it's not irrelevant because you're ignoring all of the evidence put forth for evolution that 95% to 99% of scientists agree with. In other words, going back to the cancer question, even if 95% to 99% of doctors told you that you have cancer and showed you the evidence, you would apparently ignore the evidence simply because you want to believe you're healthy. Or would you? Because if you say that you wouldn't do something that silly, then I would have to ask: Why would you believe scientific evidence that a doctor hands you and not scientific evidence that a biologist or geneticist hands you? I dearly hope you're not trying to cherry pick science the way Christians cherry pick the Bible. Very Happy

I have told you to just put on your computer, those against evolution and you will get many names and web sites to visit that contradicts all that the evolutionists base their belief on and whilst there is just one who can give a reasonable answer evolution remains the lie that it is, aaadn always will be.

Actually, I have read the Creationist evidence ... and it's "science" designed by forming a conclusion first and then looking for evidence that supports it (while ignoring the inconvenient evidence that does not). The difference between science and faith is a simple one: If science found evidence to prove God, then science would say, "There is a God." But if faith found evidence that there is no God, then faith would say, "The evidence is wrong, non-existent, or faulty. There is still a God."

This very simple truism is why faith-based science is inherently untrustworthy.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:21 pm

I do not know where you get the 99% of scientists believe in evolution from, I thought the Dandy was out of production.

It matters not how many believe anything, believing does not make it true,
the same applies to religion, the latter is based on ones belief based on faith having considered all the alternatives.

Evolution is based on conjecture not considering the fact that there is no possibility of life coming about without intelligence being involved and one far beyond our understanding, man's main problem is thinking he is the most intelligent and this clouds everything he does, lost in a mist of his own creation.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:53 pm

I do not know where you get the 99% of scientists believe in evolution from, I thought the Dandy was out of production.
You should go back and re-read my posts then since I gave you the facts and figures previously.
the same applies to religion, the latter is based on ones belief based on faith having considered all the alternatives.
"Faith" is simply the concept of inventing facts when real facts aren't available. In some cases, "faith" is also the concept of ignoring real facts because they contradict a "faith" that has become too deeply rooted within the identity of the person. There are STILL people out there trying to convince the rest of us of things such as: The earth doesn't move, the earth does not orbit the sun, chemicals cannot change into other chemicals, there are no germs or bacteria or viruses, etc. etc. And all of this willful ignorance is on religious grounds as Creationists try desperately -- and pathetically -- to ignore scientific fact, instead shoehorning their religious beliefs into gullible minds. Creationism stands for the truth without actually being the truth.

avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:51 am

Some people laugh at creationists for one reason only, they are ignorant of the facts.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:57 pm

Some people laugh at creationists for one reason only, they are both equally dismissive of the facts which do not fit their respective arguments.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11906
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by snowyflake on Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:38 pm

The problem is that creationists don't have facts. They have faith and belief and that is all they have. If they had hard evidence it would appear in a peer reviewed journal, the experiments would be reproducible by anyone. The fact that not one creation scientist has ever had one paper appear in recognised scientific journal ought to tell you something.


Last edited by snowyflake on Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:03 pm

Why did God give rhythm to the African people?

Because He realised his faux pas over the hair.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11906
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Tosh on Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:48 pm

Some people laugh at creationists for one reason only, they are both equally dismissive of the facts which do not fit their respective arguments..

Care to supply the facts of creationism that are being dismissed ?

I will wait here.
avatar
Tosh

Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Ivan on Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:16 pm

The problem is that creationists don't have facts. They have faith and belief and that is all they have
snowyflake. That point is well demonstrated by an astonishing oxymoron that appears in the standard burial service used in the UK, dating from the 1662 version of the Book of Common Prayer. It talks of “sure and certain hope” (of a resurrection). How on earth can 'hope' ever be either 'sure' or 'certain'?
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7162
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by snowyflake on Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:23 pm

Hi Ivan! Smile

That is a very good question. Believers are 'sure' and 'certain' about God.
Something they've never seen, heard (unless they are in the asylum), touched, smelt or tasted. Something that cannot be tested, does not have a chemical or biological configuration, yet it is demanded by believers that we non-believers believe them because they speak the TRUTH. How the hell do they know?

Hope you are well, Ivan. Nice to see you here. Take care. Smile
avatar
snowyflake

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 59
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Tosh on Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:48 pm

Still waiting ?

Was my question relevant to your post or the thread topic ?

The silence is deafening.
avatar
Tosh

Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:40 am

Some people laugh at creationists for one reason only, they are both equally dismissive of the facts which do not fit their respective arguments.

I have to agree with Tosh.

What facts are non-believers dismissing, exactly?

This is indicative of, perhaps, the single-most greatest fatal error that believers make. They believe that a debate of science vs. superstition has actual merit. They believe that the opinion of the scientifically uneducated carries the same weight as a scientific expert and thus the world at large should treat the statements of both sides equally.

That is pure and utter rubbish. That's why I go to a doctor when I'm sick, not my accountant, auto mechanic, or Wal-Mart clerk. A doctor understands medicine whereas the others do not. So why should I believe the scientific opinions of Creationists with a degree in law (Kent Hovind) or a degree in economics (Ben Stein) over 95% of scientists all of whom have degrees in genetics, zoology, molecular biology, biology, and so forth?

If I want to know all about quantum mechanics, I do not consult an economist or a lawyer ... but that's EXACTLy what Creationists do. If the REAL scientific community accepted Creationism, then Creationists wouldn't have to appeal to unqualified people.

Ergo, what it all boils down to is that non-believers aren't necessarily dismissing creationist "facts" but calling Creationists to the carpet for their consistent misrepresenting scientific fact or simply getting it straight-up wrong.

A really over-used example of this is how Creationists keep pushing the idea that evolution addresses the origin of life. It doesn't ... and even though we keep saying it doesn't over and over and over again, what do Creationists keep saying? Take a wild guess.

Failing to entertain information that is misleading or flagrantly wrong is not being closed-minded or dismissive, and bad information stemming from a religious perspective does NOT give religion a free pass to be scientifically bogus. No one would accuse someone of being closed-minded by not accepting the "fact" that 1 + 1 = 3, so it seems nonsensical to accuse a non-believer of being "closed-minded" if we don't accept scientifically impossible scenarios like the earth being surrounded by an ice shield above the atmosphere 800km thick.

Even religious people don't have to be THAT stupid to believe in their faith.

But ... even if Creationists wanted to believe idiotic things like mom and dad each splitting their DNA strands in order to reproduce, I personally wouldn't care if they kept it to themselves or lived in happy ignorance sharing it with their family, clan, church, or whatever. But when they want to introduce their idiocy as educational policy within our schools or spout this crap to children at "Jesus Camps," I get a bit irate. Nothing is going to change how I feel about that.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Tosh on Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:59 am

Shirina,

The creationist argument is simple, they do not accept the authority of science, a bunch of unqualified self appointed judges pretending they have a scientific case against the consensus.

It is a delusion in every sense of the world, and their amateurish attempts to legitimise their position borders on the hysterical, these people really believe they have a right to cherry pick which parts of science to accept or reject ?

1.Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.


Polyglide and Texas reject evolution, both are not scientists in the relevant field and 99.9% of scientists in the relevant field accept evolution, and then some have the gall to state they have spent decades seeking the truth. They then have the audacity to try and use science to justify their disbelief but 99.9% of science believes ?

Now that is funny, whose truth are they interested in ?
avatar
Tosh

Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Tosh on Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:41 am

I scratch my head at the flat earth/evolution analogy repeated on here like some verbal tic, a belief based on no evidence is compared to a belief based on evidence ? If there is an analogy it is one that demonstrates the importance of basing ones belief on evidence, and not intuition or subjective perceptions.

avatar
Tosh

Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:18 am

In addition, they are encouraging fellow creationist groups to adopt an aggressive combat style of leadership and help proliferate new creation evangelism and internet evangelism groups.[4]

LINK

This shit has to end.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by astra on Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:46 am

There must be shed loads of money available for this to prosper.

How do you get the cash out of the loop?

(My half stomach finds that link churningly disgusting!)
avatar
astra
Deceased

Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Tosh on Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:22 pm

Another absolute cracker is the creationist claim that life breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?

Oh really, then why do the world's Physicists not think so ?

I don't care if some religious nutter thinks it does, he is not qualified to make these claims.
avatar
Tosh

Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:42 pm

How do you get the cash out of the loop?

I really wish I knew. Any move to do so would probably result in church groups going ape over losing their freedoms.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:36 pm

I wonder when the evolutionists will realise that if there was conclusive evidence of evolution there would be no debate, just as there is every proof of creation if one looks around and considers the alternatives and this should end the debate, however, lets get on with it and see how much dafter the evolutionists can get.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:04 pm

I wonder when the evolutionists will realise that if there was conclusive evidence of evolution there would be no debate
That's utter nonsense. I said in another post that religious tyranny is the most dangerous kind because it deals in unchangeable absolutes. THAT is why there will always be a debate. No amount of evidence will sway religious devotees from their unalterable views. Incorrect beliefs have to be weeded out over the course of generations. It's not as though the Church and religion in general instantly agreed with Galileo's heliocentric solar system. It took awhile for geocentrism to be kicked to the curb ... and even now, there are crackpots who STILL hang on to geocentrism out of simple stubbornness.
just as there is every proof of creation if one looks around and considers the alternatives
What other alternatives? A surgically selective belief in magic? No thanks.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Tosh on Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:09 pm

I wonder when the evolutionists will realise that if there was conclusive evidence of evolution there would be no debate, just as there is every proof of creation if one looks around and considers the alternatives and this should end the debate, however, lets get on with it and see how much dafter the evolutionists can get..

You are a wind up troll, neither science nor I care about your unqualified opinion, there is no debate about evolution except in the minds of unqualified people, 99.9% of qualified scientists accept evolution and reject creationism.
avatar
Tosh

Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 24 of 25 Previous  1 ... 13 ... 23, 24, 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum