Evidence for God from Science

They've already tried...well, there was an organization that wanted to clone Jesus, to make a fourth part of the Trinity. It never happened though--thank God (pardon the pun). And we thought cloning dinosaurs would be an abomination!

Err, all cloning Jesus could possibly do is recreate His body. At best, they could "force" the second coming of Christ. I don't see how this would suddenly split god from 3 to 4 parts.

Amen! I thought it was stupid to think it would work too.

I believe that Christians have isolated themselves to the point where their comfort zone is so small that it can't handle the growing changes of a secular world. I mean, look how hard it's been to simply tell Christians that Genesis wasn't six literal days!

A Christian's "comfort zone" shouldn't allow in the fact the world is becoming more secularized, the idea should make a Christian uncomfortable enough to get off his happy meal rear end and do something about it.

Hey everyone i'm back.

Ok this isn't that complicated...God created the body which he would inhabit and used Mary as a vessel, thats basically it. The issue doesn't come down to is a virgin birth possible, it goes back to does God exist.

The bible was written by MEN thousands of years ago in a time without our knowledge and understanding of the world. To blindly follow the WORDS of the book with arrogant, literal simplicity is stupid on a grand scale. The message of the bible becomes far more valuable if one keeps in mind the era the authors were in, see through the naive to the true messages that are relevant to us now.

Too many take each paragraph, each sentence, each word and try to find literal meaning in it, you can't without sounding extreme!.

Faith is important in religion but it looses all integrity if you don't acknowledge the world you live in.

As far as the divinci code goes it is fiction wrapped up in fact it has opened up a HEALTHY debate about our past. I would love to know how many people have read the bible because of this book.

I don't think it will hurt the christian faith and I find it disturbing that some in the church feel they must protect christians from themselves by trying to demonise this book. I think if people are seeing this novel as total truth then they need to seek professional help as many manipulative Cultist leaders who would love to talk to them!!!

In the end BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE! Faith IS personal!
The world won't end because you read the book.

The bible was written by MEN thousands of years ago in a time without our knowledge and understanding of the world.

...divinely inspired by God, noted in the over 300 prophecies about Jesus being fulfilled (Be Intollerant, Because Some Things Are Just Stupid) for example.

Too many take each paragraph, each sentence, each word and try to find literal meaning in it, you can't without sounding extreme!.

So, everything written down is full of mistakes in the Bible? We have to find the non-flaws I'm guessing? lol...You're the extremist.

Faith is important in religion but it looses all integrity if you don't acknowledge the world you live in.

non sequitor (doesn't follow)

In the end BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE! Faith IS personal!

I'd rather be told "BELIEVE THAT WHICH IS TRUE!" So, should I believe I'm a little ballerina? That I'm a billionare, and that the banks stole all my money?

...divinely inspired by God, noted in the over 300 prophecies about Jesus being fulfilled

I do not argue the validity of the bible I only acknowledge who wrote it and when!!

So, everything written down is full of mistakes in the Bible? We have to find the non-flaws I'm guessing? lol...You're the extremist.

I never said anything about mistakes, my point is the Era within it was written. Men (with divine inspiration if you like) with no concept of the world we live in, politically, technologically, morally and even religiously different to their world, wrote the BIBLE. All I am saying is that the "Meaning" of particular parts of the BIBLE, to a good Christian sitting there watching a straw merchant trondle past 2000 years ago MUST find different meaning in some paragraphs of the bible to a good Christian sitting there watching a SkyBus fly over head. This is basic human understanding at work. This is why we MUST take into account when it was written in order to understand what is being said.

I am as far away from extreme as you can get. Unfortunately I know many who are extreme and they all expect others to "Follow" to the letter, the teachings of the Bible according to THEM at a level they can't keep themselves. Needless to say they are angry unhappy people.

There are so many interpretations, so many "TRUTHS".

AND YES!! faith IS personal. Is the Baptist or the Anglican or the Protestant condemned to hell because their TRUTH is slightly different to a Catholic's?

Finally .... If believing you are a ballerina brings you closer to god and makes you a better neighbor to your fellow man then who am I to argue.
(although I think you took what I said out of the context of the post that I submitted)

crazyed wrote:There are so many interpretations, so many "TRUTHS".

AND YES!! faith IS personal. Is the Baptist or the Anglican or the Protestant condemned to hell because their TRUTH is slightly different to a Catholic's?

Do you even understand what truth is?

If I refuse to believe while driving that I'll hit a person crossing the road, but someone sees me hit that person crossing. Is it true for me that I didn't hit a person, while only true for the person who witnessed the scene that I did? I can imagine how it would hold up if I were arrested and I protested my TRUTH differs from yours—I didn't hit any person! Would anyone really buy that? If I ran down a person on the road, then I ran them down whether I'd like to believe it or not. My belief has nothing to do with the truth of something, rather it is my belief that is either true or false.

Kurieuo.

All I am saying is that the "Meaning" of particular parts of the BIBLE, to a good Christian sitting there watching a straw merchant trondle past 2000 years ago MUST find different meaning in some paragraphs of the bible to a good Christian sitting there watching a SkyBus fly over head.

When the writers were at a loss for words, yes, they did have to use words that we couldn't literally interpret. In Revelations, John seems to be talking about horsemen who shoot fire, but if you think "what the heck..." well, he didn't have the word for tank, so horses (mode of transportation) were the closest thing to tank (another mode of transportation). We can see through those, but it doesn't mean when it says God walked on water, that He was really suspended by wires or something..or that they were too stupid to realize something.

There are so many interpretations, so many "TRUTHS".

As Kurieuo said, there aren't multiple truths. If I look at a doorway and I say the door is closed, and another person says it is open, only one of us is right, there is only one truth, it IS, or it IS NOT.

The bible was written by MEN thousands of years ago in a time without our knowledge and understanding of the world.

I think you'll find that if you study "their world" and compare it to "our world," you'll find that nothing is really different. We're more technologically advanced, and that is all. The same things that are bad now were bad back then, and vice versa. I find the following saying pretty much explains everything:

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

You also forget that people nowadays don't have a very good understanding of their world in general. Back then, people actually had to live their life, and interact with their neighbors. Nowadays most people sit in their homes, don't interact with other people more than they have to, and don't experience much of anything. I dare say that the people back then had a much greater understanding of their world than we have of our own, because they actually <B>lived</B> in it, rather than merely existing.

I was at the bookstore yesterday, and I noticed they had a display with copies of The DaVinci Code and Breaking the DaVinci Code. It was titled "The DaVinci Debate". Can people not realize the difference between fiction and nonfiction? This is silly.

Shirtless wrote:I realized that the ABC program that I saw, was the biggest truck-load of lies, deceit and propaganda, and backed-up by old, discredited information with more holes in it than swiss cheese!

Sounds like those articles Gerig wrote for the Epistle!

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: I'd rather be told "BELIEVE THAT WHICH IS TRUE!" So, should I believe I'm a little ballerina? That I'm a billionare, and that the banks stole all my money?

No, silly. It was the Martians from War of the Worlds. Tricky little buggers.

crazyed wrote:AND YES!! faith IS personal. Is the Baptist or the Anglican or the Protestant condemned to hell because their TRUTH is slightly different to a Catholic's?

\
No. People are condemned if their peception of truth does not match up with truth. If I say "Jesus isn't God! Hahahahaha!!1!1!1" and the real truth is "Jesus is God," oops, you're piss out of luck.

Finally .... If believing you are a ballerina brings you closer to god and makes you a better neighbor to your fellow man then who am I to argue

Sadly, believing he is a ballerina--assuming, of course, that he is not a ballerina) is not truthful. Lies don't bring one closer to God.

It's not a lie if he believes it.

Mastermind wrote:It's not a lie if he believes it.

Which of these do you mean?

1.) You are being sarcastic and forgot the smiley?

-OR-

2.) By "lie" you mean "something you know to be false"? In this case, you mean that Forge should have used the word "falsehood" instead. Be aware, though, that "lie" can validly be used to mean any falsehood, regardless of whether the person who tells it believes it.

No, no. Mastermind actually got me there. A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. If one is crazy and believes one is Napolean, one may be crazy, but not necessarily a liar.

However, I think my point is still valid. As God is truth, falsehood would lead away, correct?