10 questions every intelligent Christian must answer

[General Zod]

Hmm...How to put it in another way...let's say you are in god's shoes, and assuming god does have Human emotions. You create something alive...but do you think you would want to well...help out your creations in minor things like sickness when there is already a medicine available to them. And bear in mind that it is not just ONE family that is asking for your help...but rather millions of them.

You're still not making sense, and this analogy ignores the fact that modern medicine, or medicine period has developed very slowly over thousands of years.

That was what I meant by the flood is not literally a massive flood all around the world. However, I've heard somewhere that the current humans have descended from a population stock around 10,000.

It is POSSIBLE that the surviving group encountered a flood of some kind that occurred due to the extinction event. Let's assume an asteroid hits earth when humans have evolved. And let's say it landed somewhere in the sea. Sure...there would not be a worldwide flood. But what happens if the survivors encountered a flood of some kind. Then when they find the rest of the world have a lot less animals, they may assume it is the flood that killed everyone instead of other kinds of events.

There are other ways to write a global flood off without having to invent some silly story that never happened.

The most important role of the bible is to serve as a moral story teaching humans the right values. I mean it isn't hard for them to accept the more spiritual side of the bible. It’s really the teaching of the bible that counts the most, rather than accepting a literal meaning of the bible.

It's not a very good moral guide either. Some of the lessons are okay, but for the most part for every commandment of "love thy neighbor" there's at least 5 commandments of to "Do not suffer a witch to live". Easier to throw the whole thing out and come up with something new without so many glaring contradictions.

Or we might as well just tell them that if god is omnipotent, then how on earth can a simple human understand god's thinking?

With Fundies...we can't really push them to reject religion all of a sudden...but rather push them towards a more moderate approach.

The hardcore fundies will never legitimately accept anything you try and tell them. See: Anne Coulter.

[ray245]

In regards to genesis...when I mean it happen on a metaphorical way...I am referring it as...well more on a cosmic level. In some way...we can say there is 'something' that indirectly creates us, like the big bang for instance. How do we treat the big bang...either as a event or a form of god in purely optional.

But on issues like how life started, I prefer the theory of evolution because accepting the literal creation of living things is...well quite weird.

Let's say you believe that god create earth in 7 days...that does not mean LITERALLY 7 days as the 7 days to god could be 7 billion years to us. That is if you choose to believe in god at all.

You're still missing the point. They didn't give a shit whether it happened like that, even if you interpret it non-literally. The whole introduction to Genesis is nothing more than a preamble and it's only meant to impress listeners with how powerful God is. Neither the people who heard the story or the people who spoke it could have cared less whether it was true. To even call it a vague metaphor for real events is to assign motives to the writers without cause.

Is it that bad in US? I thought that with US being a liberal country...they could be more open minded. Is genesis that impressive to people? After reading about DIFFERENT kinds of stories about the creation of earth...genesis seems to be the simplest story of all.

Why would an act of creating earth be impressive when there are so many other planets and stars all around? At least some Chinese mythology includes stories like the creation of stars and Milky Way and galaxies. To make Christians see a more metaphorical point of view can ensure Christians does not give things like earth is only 10,000 years old or things like that. Or worse...yelling at ficitional stuff like Harry Potter or science ficition.

Can't they tell the difference between fact and ficition...as things like Harry Potter aren't even part of the bible!

I believe that earth was simply part of a chain reaction caused by the big bang...but what is the stuff that causes the big bang, and what was things like BEFORE the big bang...I'm open to all sorts of theories, be it religious or science. Genesis as the creation of earth only would be nothing more than pure fiction. Genesis as the start of everything...that is something that I may accept as more plausible...until science could offer a solid theory about it. Right now...I've yet to hear any thing solid about the start of everything like time, space and universe other than some science ficition.



Just another thought in the debate of religion with chrisitians. Personally, I feel that one reason why they reject other's people view is because we are pushing them too hard.

We could tell them that it is not a wrong thing to accept a metaphorical version of the bible. And that accepting a metaphorical view is actually better than accepting a literal view.

The only way to well change a fundies view is to 'preach' to them in a way. Don't paint yourself as anti-chrisitians, so that they may be more willing to listen to you...giving you a chance to SLOWLY chance their mindset. Make your argument in a subtle way, so they would not recongize that you are challenging his view too fast.

Mainly because if you must a human too hard, it will be harder for him to accept other points of view and become too stubborn

[Darth Wong]

How does any of that rambling even vaguely address what I said?

The problem is that modern people assume that Moses and his handpicked priests were interested in factual history. That is a pure junk assumption, without a shred of logic or evidence to back it up.

[ray245]

The hardcore fundies will never legitimately accept anything you try and tell them. See: Anne Coulter.

Even if you brainwash them?

[Darth Wong]

The hardcore fundies will never legitimately accept anything you try and tell them. See: Anne Coulter.

Even if you brainwash them?

Sounds like you've been brainwashed, if you think that Genesis is a plausible explanation for anything. What does the word "explanation" mean to you, anyway?

[General Zod]

The hardcore fundies will never legitimately accept anything you try and tell them. See: Anne Coulter.

Even if you brainwash them?

Brainwashing is the reason they're so hardcore in the first place! Being indoctrinated into the belief system from birth will do that to a person.

[ray245]

How does any of that rambling even vaguely address what I said?

The problem is that modern people assume that Moses and his handpicked priests were interested in factual history. That is a pure junk assumption, without a shred of logic or evidence to back it up.

As in Moses does not exisit or Moses telling and teaching people about genesis...I'm rather confused. Unless you mean...they create their own story about creation of earth, and their version of it is ficitional?

I think you misunderstood me. When I mean genesis, I am not refering to how it happened as said by the bible, rather the 'act' of creating everything. I am refering to genesis as events like big bang.

Genesis to me mean the creation of everything...as I've have yet to come across any bible other than the stories of it...I may not understand christian terms that well.

[ray245]

The hardcore fundies will never legitimately accept anything you try and tell them. See: Anne Coulter.

Even if you brainwash them?

Sounds like you've been brainwashed, if you think that Genesis is a plausible explanation for anything. What does the word "explanation" mean to you, anyway?

That would mean that I am brainwashing myself. I have yet to be 'preach' by any chrisitan so far...other than reading accounts of the bibles. What I have been trying to say was...the best way to convert a fundie's thinking and view of genesis. If you are telling them to reject genesis straight away, it would have been too much.

Explanation...you mean the creation of things like the universe and big bang? The start of time? Well...the reason I can accept a 'god' if you will that create them is because I've yet to come across a solid theory on what were things like BEFORE the big bang.

If you know any site that contains solid information and theory of things before the big bang, feel free to enlighten me.

[General Zod]

Explanation...you mean the creation of things like the universe and big bang? The start of time? Well...the reason I can accept a 'god' if you will that create them is because I've yet to come across a solid theory on what were things like BEFORE the big bang.

If you know any site that contains solid information and theory of things before the big bang, feel free to enlighten me.

I suggest a few physics courses as opposed to websites. There was no before the Big Bang, because time did not exist until it occurred.

[Darth Wong]

As in Moses does not exisit or Moses telling and teaching people about genesis...I'm rather confused. Unless you mean...they create their own story about creation of earth, and their version of it is ficitional?

Are you really this dense? I'm saying they just made up a story. They didn't care whether it even remotely resembled history. They didn't even have a concept of an "historian" at the time.

That would mean that I am brainwashing myself. I have yet to be 'preach' by any chrisitan so far...other than reading accounts of the bibles. What I have been trying to say was...the best way to convert a fundie's thinking and view of genesis. If you are telling them to reject genesis straight away, it would have been too much.

Explanation...you mean the creation of things like the universe and big bang? The start of time? Well...the reason I can accept a 'god' if you will that create them is because I've yet to come across a solid theory on what were things like BEFORE the big bang.

If you know any site that contains solid information and theory of things before the big bang, feel free to enlighten me.

You really are fucking dense, aren't you? Let me explain it for you in small words, moron: THE PHRASE "GOD DID IT" IS NOT AN EXPLANATION. A rational explanation leads to comprehension, not just a name you slap on every mystery you encounter. That's leaving aside your pitiful misconceptions about Big Bang theory itself.

[Qwerty 42]

These are all my personal beliefs, I don't intend to use them to proselytize to anyone.

Why won't God heal amputees?

He is unable to do so.

Why are there so many starving people in our world?

A number of reasons. None of them divinely related: I don't believe in a God of any physical power- it's irreconscible with the idea of a benevolent God. Instead, my God suggests, but is physically unable to directly impact the stage.

Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

Because that wasn't God- the overwhelming chunk of the Old Testament is the equivalent of mythology.

Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

I'm no historian, but I can't help but wonder if ancient priests constructed those passages in order to make themselves invulnerable against fledgling science.

Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?

Because ancient peoples concocted or imagined those passages to protect their malevolent practices.

Why do bad things happen to good people?

For wont of a better term, "bad luck." Luck, of course, doesn't actually exist, but I hope my meaning has gotten across. Of course, people who are open and giving, the good people, are more easy to take advantage of. Again, my God suggests, he does not have the final say over bad things happening to good people.

Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles leave behind any evidence?

I wouldn't be able to recite a list of miracles off, so I'll keep my silence, but again: I do not believe that a benevolent God can be reconsciled with the belief in a god of any manifest power, therefore any miracles than require physical change outside of human means (ex: regrowing limbs) simply did not occur.

How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?

Again, I believe in a God of suggestion: I think that suggestion occurs, but I don't think anything as real as Jesus literally walking in the door could occur.

Why would Jesus want you to eath is body and drink his blood?

If that actually did occur (out of an idle curiousity, does that passage exist in all four Gospels?) I can't imagine Jesus remotely intended it to become Communion as we know it today.

Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

Probably for the same reasons that non-Christians divorce. I can't think of any reason that a union involving faith would be any more stable.

[General Zod]

A number of reasons. None of them divinely related: I don't believe in a God of any physical power- it's irreconscible with the idea of a benevolent God. Instead, my God suggests, but is physically unable to directly impact the stage.

If all God can do is make suggestions then why is he necessary at all? Did he suggest the universe into existence too?

[Darth Servo]

I just don't get it why some Christians want to read and believe the word of the bible LITERALLY.

So basically...we could argue to Christian that all things come from god from a certain point of view. I guess the problem is getting some Christian to stop looking at the bible LITERALLY…

The response I've gotten to that question on more than one occasion is "Its the word of God. God can't lie. Metaphoric storie that didn't actually happen constitutes lying". And yes, their response to bringing up Jesus' parables was "You don't know they didn't actually happen!!!" Like God is really going to send literal sheep to heaven and goats to hell.

In my experience, they don't bother trying to argue their way out of a jam like that. When they paint themselves into a corner, they just box their way out with the "I'm not an expert. If you want a good answer you should come to my youth group or visit my church or talk to my minister or whatever" trick. Funny how they would never accept anyone telling them to go talk to a scientist about evolution.

Indeed, and they turn around and use our lack of omniscience on every field of science showing an old universe and telling them to consult an expert as "proof" that science has no answer at all. "How do you know 'dating method X' takes a long time?" as if one person can have the vast amount of scientific learning on the tip of his tongue.

[Qwerty 42]

A number of reasons. None of them divinely related: I don't believe in a God of any physical power- it's irreconscible with the idea of a benevolent God. Instead, my God suggests, but is physically unable to directly impact the stage.

If all God can do is make suggestions then why is he necessary at all? Did he suggest the universe into existence too?

No, he isn't necessary. I don't see why he has to be, and he certainly didn't create the Universe.

[General Zod]

No, he isn't necessary. I don't see why he has to be, and he certainly didn't create the Universe.

If he isn't necessary, then what was the point in your answer?

[Qwerty 42]

No, he isn't necessary. I don't see why he has to be, and he certainly didn't create the Universe.

If he isn't necessary, then what was the point in your answer?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I belive in the existances of a God and a Jesus, even if I don't think they were needed for human development, which I believe makes me eligible to answer.

[General Zod]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I belive in the existances of a God and a Jesus, even if I don't think they were needed for human development, which I believe makes me eligible to answer.

I didn't say "necessary for human development". I said "necessary at all". So I'll rephrase myself. If they are not needed whatsoever, for anything, why believe in them? Otherwise, why are they needed?

[Qwerty 42]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I belive in the existances of a God and a Jesus, even if I don't think they were needed for human development, which I believe makes me eligible to answer.

I didn't say "necessary for human development". I said "necessary at all". So I'll rephrase myself. If they are not needed whatsoever, for anything, why believe in them? Otherwise, why are they needed?

It doesn't have to be needed in order to exist, unless I'm misunderstanding you. I'll probably follow this post up later but I'm not feeling up to philosophical discussion. Is it alright if I properly get back to you later?

[General Zod]

It doesn't have to be needed in order to exist, unless I'm misunderstanding you. I'll probably follow this post up later but I'm not feeling up to philosophical discussion. Is it alright if I properly get back to you later?

Small tip, don't post stuff in slam threads if you don't feel up to defending your points.

[Darth Wong]

This is what happens when people look desperately for an excuse to believe in God. They just put him outside any conceivable context where his existence would force us to ask questions about his definition. In short, they make him totally useless and irrelevant so that we can't ask questions about his usefulness and relevance. Which begs the question of what the point of believing in him is.

[Qwerty 42]

It doesn't have to be needed in order to exist, unless I'm misunderstanding you. I'll probably follow this post up later but I'm not feeling up to philosophical discussion. Is it alright if I properly get back to you later?

Small tip, don't post stuff in slam threads if you don't feel up to defending your points.

Appreciated, it didn't occur to me that I might need to defend my points when I posted.

This is what happens when people look desperately for an excuse to believe in God. They just put him outside any conceivable context where his existence would force us to ask questions about his definition. In short, they make him totally useless and irrelevant so that we can't ask questions about his usefulness and relevance. Which begs the question of what the point of believing in him is.

Well, that's the thing, there isn't a point to believing in him/it/she/they/whichever. Certainly, the idea that those of faith are stronger ethically than those without has been proven quite thoroughly false.

Certainly, no self-good comes from faith, since the idea of a God who sorts by belief is also irreconscible with the idea of a benevolent God. I cannot believe that any self-harm is done through the simple act of believing in something irrational, but it certainly does not better oneself.

You can call it an artifact of a religious upbringing. That description probably wouldn't be to far off, either: were I raised an atheist I doubt that I would profess faith today.

My belief in God as a sort of divine Jiminy Cricket is not one that I can defend using anything which is useful to debate. There's nothing for me to concede, since I wasn't arguing to begin with but rather answering the question that Poe provided, but I think that I am unable to further provide intelligent discourse.

[Justforfun000]

Qwerty 42 said:[

Well, that's the thing, there isn't a point to believing in him/it/she/they/whichever.

Actually there is. It's the "reward" of eternal life in heaven. The only REAL reason why people desperately want to believe in God is to assure themselves that they will live forever and that the possible truth that we are nothing more then an extremely intelligent, yet still dying organism on a tiny planet of the universe with no special meaning or purpose, is just not possible because it's too horrible to contemplate.

[General Zod]

Actually there is. It's the "reward" of eternal life in heaven. The only REAL reason why people desperately want to believe in God is to assure themselves that they will live forever and that the possible truth that we are nothing more then an extremely intelligent, yet still dying organism on a tiny planet of the universe with no special meaning or purpose, is just not possible because it's too horrible to contemplate.

The problem with that though, is that this "reward" is just as vague, nebulous and lacking of proof as the sky pixie they're believing in. Belief in one requires belief in the other, even though neither has objective proof so it seems somewhat circular.

[Justforfun000]

General Zod Wrote:

The problem with that though, is that this "reward" is just as vague, nebulous and lacking of proof as the sky pixie they're believing in. Belief in one requires belief in the other, even though neither has objective proof so it seems somewhat circular.

Indeed. The only thing I'm holding out hope for is some kind of potential idea somewhat like the force in Star Wars. Maybe we just "blend" into it and become one with everything. I guess that's kind of Buddhist too, isn't it?

Barring all that unlikely event, I take comfort in science declaring nothing ever truly dies, it just changes form. The matter-energy conversion argument. I don't really understand that too well as I never delved much into it....Can anyone explain this in detail?