The Bible and Christianity

[paradigmal]

God does exist. Now what son? If you can sit there and look at the order of things, the way life flourishes- the distance of the sun from our earth that sustains life precicesly- and NOT believe there is a GOD, then you my friend, lack any basic logic.

[mrjizzbomber]

God does exist. Now what son? If you can sit there and look at the order of things, the way life flourishes- the distance of the sun from our earth that sustains life precicesly- and NOT believe there is a GOD, then you my friend, lack any basic logic.

Life on Earth evolved FROM the conditions of our planet. The distance of the sun from our Earth is perfect because life evolved IN ORDER TO flourish at that distance. The Earth isn't positioned at the distance from the sun that it is BECAUSE the life on Earth needed it to be.

The same is true about the molecular composition of our planet and how life depends on that exact composition. Of course it does, it evolved to FIT that molecular composition. If it was any different, it would have evolved to fit the different set of circumstances.

Our bodies do not biologically operate how they do because of magic. The planet was not placed here to fit our molecular and metabolic needs. Our molecular and metabolic needs developed into what they are to conform to the environment we live in.

There is abundances of science, fact, research and knowledge to show how our bodies work and how this exact order was formed. You're extremely ignorant.

- The Bomber

[BabyBLue91]

I definitely agree with 'hewwa' but honestly, I respect everyone's opinions... so hopefully it stays like this, because I would hate to see this thread get ruined by nasty, offensive comments.

I agree with the post saying the Bible is not suppose to be taken so literally. It's meant to be imaginitive in some way, only to help us understand in a better sense of what happened. It just comes down to how much faith you have in your religion. I understand though. I'm a Christian Catholic, go to church every Sunday, pray, say grace, etc. etc. & still I question a lot of things, but I think its good because as long as you still have trust in it with the more knowledge you obtain, more power to ya.


& abramisaac, what do you consider yourself to be? Just curious.. interested in your thoughts.

[heva]

god doesn't exist though .............

this sounds like you're givin us a fact..okey you haven't seen Him so you don't know if He exists, but how can you say that God does not exsist if you don't have any proofs..or someone that really knows this stuff told you

[paradigmal]

The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

For you Bomber, in layman's terms- since i'm sure you don't want to scroll through my wall-o-text

1. We see that in the world some things are in motion [motus].

2. Anything in motion is put in motion by something else

a. since things being moved are only in potentiality to that toward which

they are in motion, whereas those things causing motion in others are

able to do so only insofar as they possess the act toward which they

move others.

i. because motion is simply the reduction of something from

potentiality to actuality,

ii. nothing can be thus reduced except by something in actuality.

b. Therefore, a thing cannot be both mover and moved with respect to the

same quality at the same time, viz., a thing cannot move itself.

3. The mover which puts another in motion must itself have been moved by

another, and that by another, etc..

4. This series of things moving and being moved cannot go on to infinity

a. for then there would be no first mover, and subsequently no other mover

i. since subsequent movers cause motion only inasmuch as they

have been put in motion by the first mover.

5. Therefore, there must be a first unmoved mover; and this everyone understands

to be God.



Secondly, to address the OP's first post: if there is a God, why does he allow evil things to happen?

First and foremost, God does not "will" bad things to happen, ie. he does not cause them, he allows evil - simply because of free will. It is permitted. However, although bad things do happen to people, it is permitted because good things can come from this.

[mrjizzbomber]

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

That paragraph is 99% gibberish and 1% poor grammar.

Anyway, after reading through that 5 times, I believe you are arguing this: everything that is in motion had to be put into motion by something else, which subsequently had to be put into motion by something else, etc. etc. etc. There must be an originating entity that started this chain of motion. As we have no rationale as to what that originating entity is, "everyone understands [this] to be God".

Your logic falls off at that last leap. Just because there is no proof that all motion did NOT begin with God, does NOT prove that all motion DID originate with God.

You can not prove something by disproving the negative. You really really can't. Don't use the word 'proof' if you can not meet the burden of proof.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Once again, you are trying to prove a positive by disproving a negative. Not disproving something does not equate to proving something.

The last three 'proofs' don't even have enough substance for me to respond to.

- The Bomber

[chronic]

The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

For you Bomber, in layman's terms- since i'm sure you don't want to scroll through my wall-o-text

I do believe in god but these words are not yours.

http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/09/st ... -beeb.html

[AbramIsaac]

Please don't turn this into a "God Does/Does not Exist" Thread. That wasn't the opening poster's intent.
This is about God in connection with Christianity; thereby assuming that God exists. Please, don't ruin this thread with a different debate.

[chronic]

I got a question for Christians;

Why would God, in christianity, send everyone who does not believe Jesus is god, to hell. That's one of the things that always makes me mad when I think about christianity (not that I have any problem with Christians) but that part just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean how can christianity be that tolerant and loving religion when one of it's primary beliefs is that the entire Muslim, Jew, Hindu world (and the rest) will spend Eternity in hell. Basically you got the people who never heard of god or Jesus and they'll still go to hell?

Acts 4:12 (New International Version)

12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

John 14:6 (New International Version)

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I am not against Christians or anything, I don't hold any hate against christianity but I really wish to know.

[AbramIsaac]

The issue of Hell, and who goes there for what reason, is described in greater detail in the Book of Enoch (which is omitted from most versions of the Bible). In the Book of Enoch, Enoch inquires an angel about what is to become of virtuous pagans, and those in the world that have never heard the word of God. The reply is that these people will go to a "hell", but it is more like Earth than anything else. Green fields, and a castle. Basically, instead of being freed from all pain, they simply go on to an "earth-like" place, if you will.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in a "hell" in the sense that most people would think; no such thing as burning for all eternity in constant suffering. Rather, they believe that the soul or body (not sure) is burned once in the grave, and that is the end of it. Simply nothingness, as opposed to a continuing life. Jehovah's Witnesses are pretty hardcore Christians too, you would think that they would include hell in their doctrine, but that's not the case (so far as I understand).

The issue of hell is a debated one. Some say that most references to "hell" in the bible are actually references to trash dumps that were located outside of the cities at that time. This indicates that hell isn't an afterlife, but rather a metaphore for the lack of heaven. Hell has been traditionally used as a tool to instill righteous behavior through fear.

I don't believe in Hell. I don't see the point of a loving God being so offended by our indescretions, that he would send us to an eternity of suffering. Doesn't add up for me; it seems vastly more likely that the Church wanted a way to control people, and they shaped the development of Christianity to put more emphasis on Hell.

[mrjizzbomber]

Please don't turn this into a "God Does/Does not Exist" Thread. That wasn't the opening poster's intent.
This is about God in connection with Christianity; thereby assuming that God exists. Please, don't ruin this thread with a different debate.

God's connection to Christianity is that "faith" and the threat of "eternal damnation" is their leverage. Those concepts are the Catholic Church's defense and justification for centuries of murder, torture, robbery and discrimination all of which have lead them to worldwide power and an abundance of wealth.

The only way to undermine the Catholic Church's global rule is to take away its leverage. The only way to do that is to point out God's nonexistence.

If we're going to "assume" God exists, then there is nothing to debate. We might as well have another half dozen crusades, murder all the Jews and Muslims again, burn women at the stake and torture non believers.

- The Bomber

[chronic]

^^ Christians believe Jesus is the son of God. Without going into much detail, I think that sums it up. We believe he's the Messiah of the Lord and he is the reason why we're Christians. I don't think anyone in the world can answer questions like that though, it's beyond our capable knowledge.

I don't think my views on trinity are that distorted.. 3 is 1 and 1 is 3
"I and the Father are one."
Etc..
In christianity Jesus is the son of god and god and that I am totally sure of. I've done a bit of research and spoke to a lot of Christians and they are all categoric on that point.

I also believe Jesus is the Messiah but that's not the point of my question; I wasn't looking for that kind of answer so let me reformulate;

What do you think of the fact that, in Christianity, everyone that is not a christian is doomed to spend the eternity in an infinite hell of suffering? I'm looking for, either your opinion as only a human being or as a Christian.

I don't think I asked what god looks like or what is the truth of our world so you can give me that;

I don't think anyone in the world can answer questions like that though, it's beyond our capable knowledge.

as an answer. The question itself is not difficult to understand and anyone can give his opinion but I'm more interested in Christian's opinion on the question.

[AbramIsaac]

Please don't turn this into a "God Does/Does not Exist" Thread. That wasn't the opening poster's intent.
This is about God in connection with Christianity; thereby assuming that God exists. Please, don't ruin this thread with a different debate.

God's connection to Christianity is that "faith" and the threat of "eternal damnation" is their leverage. Those concepts are the Catholic Church's defense and justification for centuries of murder, torture, robbery and discrimination all of which have lead them to worldwide power and an abundance of wealth.

The only way to undermine the Catholic Church's global rule is to take away its leverage. The only way to do that is to point out God's nonexistence.

If we're going to "assume" God exists, then there is nothing to debate. We might as well have another half dozen crusades, murder all the Jews and Muslims again, burn women at the stake and torture non believers.

- The Bomber

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm more agnostic than anything else. I don't believe in an omnipotent God, therefore I'm certainly not a Christian.

That's not the point. I'm stating the obvious fact that this thread isn't a "Does God Exist" thread. This is a "God in relation to Christianity" thread. Regardless of reality, that's what the thread is about, it doesn't matter if it's valid. That's what the discussion is, and to deviate from that discussion would be wrong.

I understand the anger towards organized religion, but that's a whole 'nother thread. Once again, I'd like to ask that we not get into the existence of God, because this particular discussion assumes that God does exist.

I'm sure you understand my position now? I'm just trying to keep the thread on the same track that the opening poster intended, out of respect. Don't you agree that's the proper thing to do?

[mrjizzbomber]

Just to be clear, I have absolutely no interest in arguing the existence of God with anyone. And I agree that it is completely irrelevant to the original post. I just get very frustrated when people think they can "prove God" because I can not "disprove not God". Until you go through a 9th grade logic class, please do not think you understand the concept of 'proof'.

Well I've been a Christian the majority of my life and its only been recently I've been questioning my faith. See, since 1st grade I've just been told that God loves you and all the bullshit Christians feed you. And they say that everybodys God's children. But if that's true why is there a hell. Why would he send his children to hell?

The original author of this topic is confused about religious dogma. Like he says, why does religion feed their followers so much bullshit, so many lies, so much deception. My posts have been trying to answer that. All the deception is aimed at brainwashing its followers into thinking their thousands of years of murder, torture, persecution, racism, hatred etc. is justified. They need their followers to believe the Church is for the good of the people, because the Vatican has billions and billions of dollars in wealth. It is the richest organization in the planet, the city holds untold fortunes, and they want to keep them.

That is why you are being lied to. That is why your religion makes no sense. The Church is in place to convince you it is all holy and to trick you into becoming a devoted follower. And not question why they had to burn women alive for being witches, for 400 years.

- The Bomber

[chronic]

Please don't turn this into a "God Does/Does not Exist" Thread. That wasn't the opening poster's intent.
This is about God in connection with Christianity; thereby assuming that God exists. Please, don't ruin this thread with a different debate.

God's connection to Christianity is that "faith" and the threat of "eternal damnation" is their leverage. Those concepts are the Catholic Church's defense and justification for centuries of murder, torture, robbery and discrimination all of which have lead them to worldwide power and an abundance of wealth.

The only way to undermine the Catholic Church's global rule is to take away its leverage. The only way to do that is to point out God's nonexistence.

If we're going to "assume" God exists, then there is nothing to debate. We might as well have another half dozen crusades, murder all the Jews and Muslims again, burn women at the stake and torture non believers.

- The Bomber

Religion, at it's core, is great and against cruelty and war. What men do using religion as a reason behind their actions should not be used to discriminate religion itself but more the weakness and greed of man. I'm a Muslim and I see people using verse of the Qu'ran, without understanding their context or meaning, so they can do something evil without feeling bad about it nor thinking they actually done a bad thing. God might not exist for you but he exists for others and that is a personal choice. You don't believe in god, I respect that but don't go arguing in a thread like this one, a thread where you cannot argument without actually believing or ''assuming'' god's existence.