The Official Born Again Believer's Thread!!

[JustinThyme]

Can someone recommend some appropriate forums for me?

Ultimately, I'm looking for somewhere where there can be polite, intelligent discussion of world religions, not necessarily exclusively Christian....although there isn't anything wrong with it being Christian focused. Any ideas?

BTW, I would also strongly encourage those reading here to spend a little time reading other religious texts. In addition to NT and OT, take a look at the Bhagavad Gita....or the Quran. I'm not trying to convert anyone, but there are other traditions and cultures which also have worthwhile reading material, not to mention, it can't hurt for developing a bit of world tolerance and understanding. Just as the Apostles, in addition to Jesus himself, had worthwhile things to say.

[Scarlet_Worm]

yup, I'm a Christian through and through...I'd die for my faith (and have almost a couple times)

[draelyc]

Originally posted by Echoes so you have said...

I've always invited everyone to read your posts & see for themselves.

[rushtallica]

Originally posted by JustinThyme Can someone recommend some appropriate forums for me? Ultimately, I'm looking for somewhere where there can be polite, intelligent discussion of world religions, not necessarily exclusively Christian....although there isn't anything wrong with it being Christian focused. Any ideas? BTW, I would also strongly encourage those reading here to spend a little time reading other religious texts. In addition to NT and OT, take a look at the Bhagavad Gita....or the Quran. I'm not trying to convert anyone, but there are other traditions and cultures which also have worthwhile reading material, not to mention, it can't hurt for developing a bit of world tolerance and understanding. Just as the Apostles, in addition to Jesus himself, had worthwhile things to say.

http://www.theologyweb.com/

This forum I linked is great for religious conversations and debates, IMO. There'll be a little bias but plenty of representatives for various views, and people can say whatever they want (in a civil manner, anyway), take whatever view they want (agnostic, gnostic, atheistic, etc.), have avatars representing their views, various forums, including one specifically for nonchristians to talk to each other on, etc... It's a rare type of place I've seen people feel at home in discussing their views regardless of what their views are.

[draelyc]

Originally posted by JustinThyme Ultimately, I believe that a society like the US, should be able to include phrases like "one nation under God" in such a way that should be acceptable to all but the atheists. "God" should be able to be understood as the acceptance that the world we know must be controlled by some type of higher power, without having to be exclusionist by limiting the phraseology to Jesus or Mohammed, Buddha, Shiva, etc.

 

 

But that is precisely what most atheists refute vehemently -- the notion that "the world we know must be controlled by some type of higher power"; how can you come up with a definition of "God" that includes the belief that there's *no* higher power controlling *anything*?

 

Just speaking academically here, since I'm a Christian, myself.

[draelyc]

Originally posted by JustinThyme Can someone recommend some appropriate forums for me? Ultimately, I'm looking for somewhere where there can be polite, intelligent discussion of world religions, not necessarily exclusively Christian....although there isn't anything wrong with it being Christian focused. Any ideas? BTW, I would also strongly encourage those reading here to spend a little time reading other religious texts. In addition to NT and OT, take a look at the Bhagavad Gita....or the Quran. I'm not trying to convert anyone, but there are other traditions and cultures which also have worthwhile reading material, not to mention, it can't hurt for developing a bit of world tolerance and understanding. Just as the Apostles, in addition to Jesus himself, had worthwhile things to say.

[Echoes]

Originally posted by draelyc Hey, 17, I respect the sincerity of this post, and I think you raise a great question, one I'd love to discuss... But, with literalists like Echoes 'round these parts who scorn and deride any aspect of Christianity that falls outside of their literalist, fundamentalist dogma, it's hard to have a good discussion about questions like yours without devolving into fighting and name-calling. But pm me if you like -- I think this is a great topic. Chris

that mean Echoes wont let a discussion about CHRISTIANITY (hint...hint) go without mentioning Jesus Christ as Lord and God's ONLY provision for salvation.

[wok]

Originally posted by RonniePentatonic Good website for anyone who is not familiar with Dr. Baugh, archaologist and athiest turned Christian. Lots of good info and reading here: http://www.creationevidence.org/

 

 

Ronnie, no offense, but Baugh is widely known be a liar ( about his credentials). He has NO accredited education in the field of science whatsoever.

 

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

 

 

not criticizing your beliefs, but you have to understand frauds like him do your religion more damage than good

[kdp86]

God is love, He gave us the gift of His Son as a sacrifice for our sin's forgiveness... it gets so complicated, but that's it. We were given freedom, including the freedom to mess up, and we are offered the gift of forgiveness for our mistakes, and all you have to do is accept it. Following Jesus is an after-affect of that, because why wouldn't you praise someone that has saved you from hell, and payed your debt for you? Jesus saves- KP.

[draelyc]

Originally posted by Echoes that mean Echoes wont let a discussion about CHRISTIANITY (hint...hint) go without mentioning Jesus Christ as Lord and God's ONLY provision for salvation.

I wish you'd be an honest man, and actually ignore me, when you *claim* to be ignoring me.

What it means, in truth, is exactly what I posted, regardless of your attempt to twist it around right there. There was nothing in my post to 17 that could in ANY way be taken as an attempt to discuss Christianity without mentioning the essential REQUIREMENT of Christ Jesus -- DUH!, I mean, that's specifically what he was asking about!

What my post means (I'll spell it out for you) is that I cannot compose a sincere and accurate response to 17's questions while at the same time dealing with your infantile idiocy. Hence, my suggestion that if he would like, he should pm me.

Now, run along and play your hell-mongering, exclusionist, literalist, funDAMNentalist baby-games elsewhere. Grown folks is talkin' here.

[RonniePentatonic]

Originally posted by draelyc Great reading here, as well: http://www.talkorigins.org Especially here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html

haha! Good stuff Chris. I like Dr. Baugh's theories better though...


Neener!!!



Hope youre doing well dude!

[rushtallica]

Originally posted by wok Ronnie, no offense, but Baugh is widely known be a liar ( about his credentials). He has NO accredited education in the field of science whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh

 

 

Unfortunately, I believe you are correct. I'd read what some others have to say, but there are some creationists who have almost no more accreditation than I do.

[Rodimus Prime]

i still can't make heads or tails about creation/evolution.

on one hand, creationism seems to be a really bad hybrid of quasi-scientism and somewhat interesting but not universally accepted theology.

on the other, evolution seems far too random. I don't understand why this topic bears so much weight as a basis for faith. It's not like the Bible was, is, or ever will be a scienctific jounal of any sorts. The story of creation in Genesis was written after other stories of creation and has been written and it bears their influence.

[wok]

Originally posted by RonniePentatonic haha! Good stuff Chris. I like Dr. Baugh's theories better though... Neener!!! Hope youre doing well dude!

Dr Baugh is no Dr. he is a liar and a fraud. His ideas are no 'theories either, they are not even unsubstantiated hypotheses. They are mere personal opinions.

[wok]

Originally posted by Rodimus Prime i still can't make heads or tails about creation/evolution. on one hand, creationism seems to be a really bad hybrid of quasi-scientism and somewhat interesting but not universally accepted theology. on the other, evolution seems far too random. I don't understand why this topic bears so much weight as a basis for faith. It's not like the Bible was, is, or ever will be a scienctific jounal of any sorts. The story of creation in Genesis was written after other stories of creation and has been written and it bears their influence.

 

 

a few common misconceptions here

 

-evolution is NOT random.

-evolution does NOT describe how life came into existance. that's Abiogenesis. Evolution just describes how species evolve. Nobody would argue against the idea of 'God' setting evolution in motion (although it would just that, an idea).

 

There is no conflict between creation and evolution. It is only there because some people (ie young-earth creationists) make it a conflict for their own benefit

 

Maybe this will put you on the right track.

[Rodimus Prime]

thanks for that clarification wok. I thought evolution assumed the big bang.

I'm not opposed to the idea, something about creationism leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe, i just feel like its a christian knee-jerk reaction to the contention between science and the bible.

science is going out of style anyways

[17 Tubes]

Originally posted by hal9000 I do know you're sincere and I appreciate it. I also know I

[JustinThyme]

Originally posted by Rodimus Prime i still can't make heads or tails about creation/evolution.

 

 

 

My personal belief is that they are not mutually exclusive. Even many hard core Christians accept this.

 

The bible really needs to be understood as a product of it's time. There are some elements which are historical fact, some elements which are allegory, and others which are fables in order to present ideas.

 

For example, the sun wasn't created until one of the later days (don't remember which one). And since without the rising and setting of the sun, there can't have been specific "days" of creation prior to it. Many believe this is merely a way to describe the phases of the worlds creation, and not technically a 168 hour/7 day process.

 

Additionally, the OT and NT were both not put into writing until many years (centuries, I believe) after the events they speak of. They were originally propagated by oral traditions. So although not everyone believes this, I personally think it's important to realize that while it's teachings may be divine and authoritative, the particular words are not always literal.

[draelyc]

Originally posted by RonniePentatonic haha! Good stuff Chris. I like Dr. Baugh's theories better though... Neener!!! Hope youre doing well dude!

Lol~ Thanks for taking that in the spirit in which it was intended!

Doing great -- hope you are, too, brother!

[wok]

Originally posted by Rodimus Prime thanks for that clarification wok. I thought evolution assumed the big bang. I'm not opposed to the idea, something about creationism leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe, i just feel like its a christian knee-jerk reaction to the contention between science and the bible. science is going out of style anyways

thank god(sorry , pun)science is not a fashion. as long as people remain inquisitive and keep thinking, there will be science.

[RonniePentatonic]

OK guys, Im not in the mood to argue....and I respect your opinions as I hope you respect mine, no harm intended.

But....lets be fair about this, since every so called "creationist" scientist or whatever seems to be discredited. (without reliable source btw...) WHO, (there must be one) do YOU guys feel is most credible. Cause if you guys cant think of at least one, welll, you know where Im going with that.

Look at all the evolution theories and scientific fact that has been discredited over the years...does that make the whole thoery false? Theres a hell of a lot more "scientists" trying to disprove and discredit creation scholars than the other way around.

Im just a Christian backslider trying to present intelligent debate to PHD guys here and rarely recive any rebuttal other than mocking degrees and personality, quality of thier credentials, etc...never see any actual fact to back up the hasty dismissal of the possibilities Im trying to present.

Convince me, you guys are educated and pretty sure of yourself. I have no degree or scince backround, I should be an easy conquest....

[RonniePentatonic]

Originally posted by draelyc Lol~ Thanks for taking that in the spirit in which it was intended! Doing great -- hope you are, too, brother!

Better than ever man, I love these topics but feel like a one armed knife weilding man in a gunfight.

Im gonna keep swinging tho...

[wok]

Originally posted by RonniePentatonic OK guys, Im not in the mood to argue....and I respect your opinions as I hope you respect mine, no harm intended. But....lets be fair about this, since every so called "creationist" scientist or whatever seems to be discredited. (without reliable source btw...) WHO, (there must be one) do YOU guys feel is most credible. Cause if you guys cant think of at least one, welll, you know where Im going with that. Look at all the evolution theories and scientific fact that has been discredited over the years...does that make the whole thoery false? Theres a hell of a lot more "scientists" trying to disprove and discredit creation scholars than the other way around. Im just a Christian backslider trying to present intelligent debate to PHD guys here and rarely recive any rebuttal other than mocking degrees and personality, quality of thier credentials, etc...never see any actual fact to back up the hasty dismissal of the possibilities Im trying to present. Convince me, you guys are educated and pretty sure of yourself. I have no degree or scince backround, I should be an easy conquest....

i just question the motives of these Creation 'scientists' . Especially since every one of them so far has been found to lie about their 'scientist' status, their credentials. In itself, that doesn't make them necessarily wrong. But would you eat at a pizzeria if you found out the chef is lying about his credentials, and is not even a real chef? Wouldn't you question his motives?

why instead not focus on the important aspects of christianity? Does it really bother you as a christian that species evolve? Does that threaten your beliefs (if so, yours must not be very strong).

if i were religious, i would see for what young-earth creationists are: false prophets

Besides that, contrary to what these people may tell you, the theory of evolution has not been discredited, EVER. yes, the theory may change on details (such is the nature of science), but the core ( the FACT that species evolve) has never been refuted. to the contrary, the more research is doen, the more it is supported.

also, don't let them make you believe there is a conflict between science and religion. i's only there because they turn it into a conflict ( for instance, no scientist will claim there is no possibility that god started the evolution process).

Finally, young earth creationism has widely been dismissed by the majority of Christian authority around the world, mainly the Catholic Church

[draelyc]

Originally posted by RonniePentatonic OK guys, Im not in the mood to argue....and I respect your opinions as I hope you respect mine, no harm intended. But....lets be fair about this, since every so called "creationist" scientist or whatever seems to be discredited. (without reliable source btw...) WHO, (there must be one) do YOU guys feel is most credible. Cause if you guys cant think of at least one, welll, you know where Im going with that. Look at all the evolution theories and scientific fact that has been discredited over the years...does that make the whole thoery false? Theres a hell of a lot more "scientists" trying to disprove and discredit creation scholars than the other way around. Im just a Christian backslider trying to present intelligent debate to PHD guys here and rarely recive any rebuttal other than mocking degrees and personality, quality of thier credentials, etc...never see any actual fact to back up the hasty dismissal of the possibilities Im trying to present. Convince me, you guys are educated and pretty sure of yourself. I have no degree or scince backround, I should be an easy conquest....

Hey, Ronnie:

This is *NOT* intended as an argument or attack, so please don't take it that way... Go back and read carefully the Frequently Asked But Never Answered page I posted a link to earlier. I really think it'll shed some light on why Creationism isn't science.

It's not about which scholars are credentialed in what -- it's ultimately about two different spheres of inquiry, and two totally separate modes of thinking: empirical science on the one hand, and faith/theology on the other.

Now, I don't believe for an instant that faith and science, that theology and empirical fact have to or do contradict each other (which is the orthodox stance of the Vatican, too, I think). BUT... and here's the kicker ... Creationism of any kind is not and cannot ever be "scientific," because it presupposes things which CANNOT be proven *or* disproven, or tested at all in any empirical, physical way.

Creationism is perfectly fine as a philosophy, as a theological perspective, as a *belief*... but it is not and cannot be science, because science ONLY deals with that which is empirically testable. That's all science *can* deal with, EVER.

And the reason you see all professional scientists (all real scientists) putting down or discrediting so-called "creation scientists" is NOT because scientists *have* to be atheist (many are devout believers), but because Creationism is NOT science, and to allow it to be accepted as science by the general public is to destroy the validity of real, actual science.

To put a fine point on it, passing a law requiring biology teachers to teach creationism would be like passing a law requiring priests and ministers to teach their congregations that there's no such thing as God -- as an "alternate theory."

[RonniePentatonic]

Originally posted by wok i just question the motives of these Creation 'scientists' . Especially since every one of them so far has been found to lie about their 'scientist' status, their credentials. In itself, that doesn't make them necessarily wrong. But would you eat at a pizzeria if you found out the chef is lying about his credentials, and is not even a real chef? Wouldn't you question his motives? why instead not focus on the important aspects of christianity? Does it really bother you as a christian that species evolve? Does that threaten your beliefs (if so, yours must not be very strong). if i were religious, i would see for what young-earth creationists are: false prophets

 

 

No, I believe life evolved after God created it. Its plain to see even with cave dwelling animals and such. But I also belive that humans were created and not evolved from animals.

 

That theory contains many holes too, just as the "coal takes millions of years to form" theory and the amount of time it takes a tree to come petrified, etc...all disproven. Sure, they are minor in comparison but relevant nonetheless when speaking of credibilty.