What's your Religion?

He rebelled because he wanted to ascend above God's throne. Basically, he wanted to become God and became filled with pride.

God still does have power over everything but He has given everyone free will to choose and He has said He will not take that away and He never has.

He wants us to love Him freely. He does not want puppets on a string or robots serving Him.

As far as Purgatory, there is no such thing. That was added by the Catholic church in the 5th century but it's origins began in pagan beliefs as far back as the 3rd century.

 

Church of Christ

 

One last (for now):

This is necessarily false. Religion lies outside the realm of science. There CANNOT possibly be scientific proof that proves anything about God. The moment you assume the presence of a god you are, by definition, not working with science.

In addition, a theory in science is not *just* a theory in the way that word is used in everyday speech. It is an observation backed up by so much evidence that any new information is highly unlikely to significantly change it. It refers to an explanation of the natural world backed up by a vast body of evidence. The theory of a heliocentric universe (the sun is the center of the universe), cell theory (that living things are made of cells), plate tectonic theory (the theory that the Earth is divided into crustal plates). Like evolution, these are foundational theories in their respective fields and are unlikely to be significantly changed by new information because of the vast body of knowledge already collected. Our understanding may be refined but the basic theory will remain. Any new theory would have to explain why everything we know about the current theory is wrong and why the new theory would explain natural phenomena better. That is the scientific meaning of "theory."

I'm not at all trying to dog out your religious beliefs, but you really don't understand what science is and what it is not. I also have no problem with your religious beliefs, only the misrepresentation of science.

 

Wow @ your science teacher. But I'm afraid I'm not sure what you are talking about? Did the grants prove natural selection? Help me out? Thanks.

 

In the passage that you quoted from Job, what he was saying was he recognized who God was. God was his Creator and God had every right to do what He wanted to do. God did not strike Job down, Satan did. Yes God did allow it because He knew Job would not forsake Him. As a result, when we face tough times, we can look to Job and see that even though we will go through bad times, God will be with us through them.

As far as your question on eternal torment. We all have sin. God is a just God that is sinless and Holy and must deal with sin. He never wanted mankind to go to hell but sin still must be dealt with. Thus, Jesus became sinless man to pay for the sins of the world. Those that want to reject that, will be left having to deal with sin themselves since they chose to reject their sin being paid for free of charge.

 

I've been Googling, I think you mean Peter Grant's research regarding evolution and natural selection. I'm looking at it right now, but the first place I found it mentioned was on a website refuting evolution, so I'm not sure how much of the research is being fairly presented. I'll keep looking and get back to you.

 

Your circular logic is really mind blowing, just to let you know.

 

A person in essence sends themselves to hell. That is what I was trying to explain. People make the assumption that they are all automatically good. Well, they are good to whose standards? Usually it's there own standards. But when we compare ourselves to a Holy sinless God, we simply don't measure up. The Bible tells us that sin entered into mankind through 1 man and through 1 man, Jesus, redemption of that sin was established when He died for the sins of the world. God has made a way and has offered to pardon and forgive every sin we have ever committed and trust me, that amazes me because I work in a prison and read grizzly details of humanities crimes and yet that is all forgivable.

But, a person only goes to hell because they reject that offer from God of having their sins forgiven thus they must pay for their own sins themselves and the payment required by God for those sins is eternal death. God has said that sin cannot even be in His presence because of who He is and as a righteous God, He must also deal with sin. He did that by having Jesus take our punishment so we would not have to. Now it is up to us to accept that or reject it.

If I went to court for a crime and the very judge sentencing me offered to take my sentence free of charge, I would be a fool to reject that. I am guilty of that crime and the judge is making sure the crime is being properly punished but he has chosen to pay the price for me instead.

 

Here we go NMC. I think I have a basic idea. Peter and Rosemary Grant basically furthered research on Darwin's finches in the Galapagos. As much as any new evidence can "prove" a theory, their work has.

Usually scientists shy away from the word "prove" because our understanding of the natural world is constantly evolving. Science, if you're doing right, is a process of trial and error, seeing what is repeatable and what hypotheses are supported by observations. Science gets things wrong sometimes, that's the nature of the game. If you can't admit you were wrong, you aren't really doing science at all. So usually we say evidence gathered supports (or refutes) a hypothesis (that is the idea under consideration). When a hypothesis gathers a vast body of knowledge that supports it, it becomes a theory (also sometimes called a principle). We also don't like to use the word Law anymore, it has fallen out of favor because it implies an inflexible or unchangeable notion about the way the world works, and of course as I already stated our knowledge is constantly changing. Newton's Theory of Gravitation, for example, doesn't seem to hold up under some conditions that Newton could not possibly have been aware of, he didn't have the technology to measure it. He wasn't really wrong, he just had incomplete data. Einstein's Theory of Relativity holds up where Newton breaks down, and it appears we need both to understand gravity at all levels. Where the two intersect is a current popular field of study.

 

So then what is the point, why this stupid game to see if we believe some book that is everyday being disproved and laughed at for its stupidity by a growing population. It actually seems like the bible is doing the opposite of what god intended and preventing people from believing in him.

This is such bs, how can it be called a sacrifice if the dude comes back to life? That defeats the purpose of dying. Also your ability to allow someone to take your punishment is so morally screwed up that it is obvious why you so dearly cling to the bible.

 

LOL kinda yeah. Science and religion are both ways of understanding the way the world works. Personally, science is what makes sense to me; my mind works on the more logical end of the spectrum. Some people definitely see it the other way around, or even mix them together, and that's ok, too. I just insist on keeping scientific arguments about religion scientifically accurate, and that's why I decided to post tonight.

Thanks for the rep

 

Because the book was put together by men. Not gods. Back in the day fear was a great motivational factor, especially fear of the unknown. For hundred, thousands, of years that book scared people into believing in God. When an earthquake destroyed a city the leaders of church pointed at god and said you angered him.

When fear stopped working they invented a much more loving figure, Jesus, because love worked for a time and fear wasn't. As we understand more about the natural world and science we needed something else to bribe us.

Now none of them work now because we see it for what it is. Advertising. Plain and simple.

 

I agree that Jesus should not of had to pay the price of sin for me. But nevertheless, He still chose to do it and I am eternally grateful for that. I also recognize the fact that He desires a relationship with me. I love that too. With sin, it was something that I inherited. I had no choice to live a sinless life or a sinful life. I inherited that nature when Adam fell in the garden of Eden. God also knew that too and that is why He chose to pay for our sin. That is also why Satan and the fallen angels and demons are not given a second chance. They were in heaven with God and were created with sinless bodies but chose to sin. While Adam and Eve were created also in a sinless nature at first, Satan deceived them into that sin thus sin entering into mankind but God made a way for that sin to be dealt with. And again, I am eternally grateful for that.

 

Well I voted other, so here's my thoughts.

I believe Thomas Paine said it best when he said:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." -Thomas Paine

As for what I do believe in, I think Einstein said that one best.

"I no longer believed in the known God of the Bible, but rather in the mysterious God expressed in nature." - Albert Einstein

 

basically this interviewer is you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZB0lLIcXIA

 

So if satan doesn't punish bad people, then hell shouldn't be too bad. A little hot maybe, but at least it'll be a dry heat.

 

This post I like

 

So I'm going to Tuscon?

 

respectful post ^^^

 

actually, that would be the Lotto, not the church.