Moesker

I can understand these movies not being your "cup of tea".

 

However, it's interesting that some people just flat out don't like them and wish they weren't ever made.

 

If you don't like them, just don't watch them.

I will fight anyone on the notion that any movie 'should not be made'. And I completely agree with you about not watching something if it isn't your cup of tea.

But you have to admit its Christian groups that are usually the ones protesting certain movies, television shows, albums, books, etc. because they don't like the content.

 

 

I fail to see why there is a controversy here. All the materials—both the bibles and the Satanist coloring books—are voluntarily available upon request. If I understand correctly, they're not part of any school sanctioned curriculum, are they? :

What other movements should we allow on campus to distribute their literature 'upon request'?

 

 

It's a travesty that they don't have Husker coloring books featuring Lil' Red. A TRAVESTY!!

 

I am all for Husker coloring books in schools across the nation but the true travesty is that lil' Red exists.

I fail to see why there is a controversy here. All the materials—both the bibles and the Satanist coloring books—are voluntarily available upon request. If I understand correctly, they're not part of any school sanctioned curriculum, are they? :

What other movements should we allow on campus to distribute their literature 'upon request'?

This is absolutely absurd. I can understand potentially having books and reading materials that say it is OK not to believe in God which I am really conflicted about to be honest. But when they have a satanic children's coloring book and other Satanic books available for kids that is absolutely awful. If someone believes in Satan they obviously believe in higher powers, sowhy would we ever let children be let down the road of worshiping Satan? It's good versus evil so why would we ever open our kids to evil?

The teachings of Satanism aren't evil. You are being confused by the representation of Satan from the bible with the actual Satanic religion. If you looked into it with an open mind you would see this. This is not an endorsement of Satanism, just recognizing that there is some good philosophy in it...just as there is in the New Testament of the bible.

"God is not dead" movies are just another chance for some Christians to promote the false narrative that Christians are persecuted in this country.

That said, the possibility of offending someone is never a reason not to make a movie. I don't know of any atheists that were offended by the movie...only amused.

Surely all you anti-Christian folks are not going to argue that satanic movies are the equivalent of the Bible when it comes to what should or should not be in a library (schools, public, wherever)?

 

From a historical perspective, the Bible is one of the more important written works in human civilization. Some satan worshipping movie or other contemporary trash cannot compare. From a teaching perspective, the moral and ethical values and concepts that are profoundly set out in the Bible are beyond question.

 

Seriously! One cannot find serious educational merit in satanistic junk.

 

One might want a copy of the major works of various political, social, religious and other philosophies. Not satanistic crap of no meaningful value to anyone.

Have you even looked into LaVey Satanism? There is a lot of good philosophy in there just as there is in the New Testament. And its much more level headed than the ridiculous Old Testament.

But in the end, its just another attempt of a few trying to tell the many how to live their lives.

I am guessing you are just making uneducated assumptions.

But if we are talking value, then Dr. Suess is probably ahead of all religious philosophies.

I just wish both sides would not use the schools for their battlegrounds

This. A million times this.

 

 

In your opinion... I know the boiler plate response for somebody that would request proof that God is fiction but, you made the claim so you would have to provide proof for that. And here we find ourselves right back at the beginning, you with your beliefs and I with mine, neither one of us able to prove our beliefs suitably for the other. Did anybody expect it to end differently?

 

Is it also then the duty of a Christian to prove the thousands of other Gods in history as fiction?

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. 9/11 truthers don't need to be proven wrong as well...do they? A homeless man walking down the street proclaiming that he is Jesus at the top of his lungs needs a little more evidence does he not? Or does he have to be proven wrong?

 

It just means that religion is outside the domain of empiricism.

 

 

Yep. I would consider myself an empiricist, a rationalist, a skeptic and a materialist, while also a person who tries to follow Jesus, who believes in the resurrection and believes in Yahweh the Father as Creator still being active in this world.

 

I don't think this is irrational, it's just hard to put into a neat little categorical box that humans like to group things into, and it requires a certain kind of surrender that certain elements of what I believe are mostly experiential and can't be falsified or tested in a lab.

 

Do you believe those who think your belief is irrational are themselves irrational? Can't it simply be a difference of opinion?

 

 

 

Why are you so angry?

 

I made the mistake of pressing the "view it anyway" buttons on Moesker and Red Dead Retreads comments. They always put me in a bad mood. I will be sure to never make that mistake again.

 

 

Yeah, its tough when those on the other side of the argument are as condescending as you are. But at least you have the advantage of your point of views condescension being embraced as fighting for your faith while mine is simply being a "dick" as you put it even though it is the same type of arguing.

 

 

This really doesn't benefit anyone, and is best left to the Shed.

 

Maybe not but its true. There is a double standard in play here.

 

Why are you so angry?

 

I made the mistake of pressing the "view it anyway" buttons on Moesker and Red Dead Retreads comments. They always put me in a bad mood. I will be sure to never make that mistake again.

 

 

Yeah, its tough when those on the other side of the argument are as condescending as you are. But at least you have the advantage of your point of views condescension being embraced as fighting for your faith while mine is simply being a "dick" as you put it even though it is the same type of arguing.

The other day I was wondering when we would rehash this.

 

Something that both sides seem to totally ignore is that at some point, both sides believe I something that is totally beyond comprehension by the human brain.

 

Just because you think the thought of a God is totally hogwash, you are still willing to believe in a Big Bang from matter that always has existed. That matter had no "beginning".

 

I don't see how believing that is more logical than believing in a God who created it.

I have been on record as saying that both concepts are hard to wrap my head around. But just because I don't understand it, it doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Thats true for a supreme being and yes, it is also true for theories such as the Big Bang.

But allowing the possibility that there is a God that created everything we know is much different than believing in a specific God that man has created...or thousands of them.

 

Without a doubt, the law of averages dictates that there are many millions of other civilizations out there, many far more advanced than ours. As for one coming to earth and throwing us a bone, I just hope they are more cordial than what our country's settlers were to the people they encountered.

 

Antenna kisser.

 

 

It has been my experience that most every person who does not believe in God has some earthly reasons for it. M[/size]

Nah. Just didn't grow up with it. It's a tradition (or lack there of) we tend to inherit from our parents. Nothing against those who did; we are nothing if not bound by social and cultural traditions. It's really not that empty or different over here, though. We're living in the same world; that is, with each other.[/size]

I probably shouldn't have said "most". "Many" would have been more appropriate. I realize that many others simply were not exposed to it or brought up in a household of belief. I'm sure there are almost limitless reasons or circumstances that lead to all our belief differences. But a very common one I have seen is with people who did believe at one time and later became angry with God. Can't say I blame many of them either. Some people have experienced some indescribably bad things that would likely drive the strongest of us away from the faith. And yet others, these very bad experiences strengthened their faith. Some friends of ours lost a teenage daughter to a brain tumor. Terribly sad tragedy. Personally, I don't think I could have dealt with it but their faith helped them through it and has not driven them away from it.

 

I never had one bad moment at church. No pedophile pastors or corrupt church officials to speak of. I just did my own study of the bible when I had the opportunity and drew my own conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

The watchmaker analogy is self-refuting because it obviously looks designed compared to its natural surroundings, which weren't designed.

Interesting that you'd make that statement. Which would be more difficult to create from scratch, a brass watch or the bed of clovers that it is lying on? Given enough time and the right machinery I could make a brass watch. But all the world's resources and intelligence working for a decade could not create one single, reproducing clover plant.

Right. We're saying the watch has a creator, because we can replicate its creation. We can't make that argument with the clover. We can't replicate billions of years of natural selection in a decade.

Wait, wut? I no understand your logic. If we know something as simple as a pocket watch has a creator, wouldn't something as incredibly complex as all the biological systems on earth be even more likely to have a creator?

No. The reasons we know the watch had an intelligent designer can't be applied to the clover. Assuming the complexity of life on earth is the product of an intelligent designer fails to account for alternate explanations. Darwin had a better explanation.

 

 

Why do people who do not believe in God always insist that evolution precludes the possibility of God? I don't think the concept of evolution is incompatible with God.

 

I don't either.

Why do believers always paint non-believers with such a wifde brush...especially when there are far more anti-evolution people who are believers?

 

Why aren't you saying THIS IS THE ONE TRUE GOD? The god you pray to says he is:

 

Deuteronomy 4:35 & 39

Deuteronomy 32:39

II Kings 5:15

Isaiah 37:16 & 20

Mark 12:29-34

John 17:3

1st Timothy 2:5

 

It seems like you're trying to hedge your bet - you acknowledge that there's a significant flaw in the myth of your god, so you leave room in your worldview that "god" may not be who you think he is.

 

It's actually a very Roman view, whether you know it or not. The Romans prayed to an "unknown god," because they acknowledged they may not know everything about every god, so they hedged their bet by sacrificing to this unnamed god, "just in case."

 

I guess that conveniently gets you off the hook of the "where you were born dictates what god you pray to" if you can somehow wrap your brain around the God of the Bible being one & the same with Allah - even though he explicitly states he isn't, and he isn't ambiguous about who he is.

 

It's like marrying a woman but feeling free to sleep with every other woman on the planet because it's possible they all share the same soul. You can try that if you get caught sleeping around, but I doubt your wife will be on board with it.

Probably going to have to let this one go. You're apparently unwilling or unable to look at it in the same manner that I do. I'm not hedging my bet. If anything, I am hedging the bet for other people. I know for a fact that God was the cause. Don't ask me to prove it or explain it any further. It is a deeply held belief of mine based on my cumulative experiences.

 

You just contradicted yourself. Is it a fact or a belief? You might tell yourself its a fact but in reality, its just your opinion or faith. I would never be arogant enough to say its a fact there is no higher power. Saying there is one, is just as arrogant.

Great discussion, guys. It says a lot about HB that we can hold a relatively civil discussion of such a contentious topic. Oh sure, there have been a little bit of saucy back-and-forth exchanges. But for a message board discussion concerning God, this is about as civil as it gets. :

 

============================

 

As to the question of whether an intelligent all powerful being guided the creation of the universe, it seems to me that if you don't believe in God you have to believe that there are a great number of other worlds out there teeming with various other lifeforms. Perhaps billions of other life-worlds, I would think. (If we are the only one, we must be really, really lucky to have such a diversity of sophisticated life on our little planet.) Some of these billions of life-worlds undoubtedly have simpler, less advanced lifeforms.

 

But since the universe is about 14 billion years old, it stands to reason that there must be other worlds with lifeforms far advanced beyond mankind's current abilities. Imagine what mankind will be in 100,000 years—assuming we don't blow ourselves to Smithereens in the next few decades. I wonder why haven't we seen any evidence of advanced lifeforms? (Except on the History Channel.) Don't get me wrong—I wouldn't expect them to hop out of their giant flying saucer to rape our women and steal our uranium. If they are advanced enough we really wouldn't have much worth taking. I mean, a highly advanced civilization coming to earth to steal our supply of uranium would make about as much sense as me going out to the field down the road and stealing the door off a dung beetle's house. If anything, I'd think they'd feel sorry for us and throw us a bone. Maybe cure a few diseases, or help us grow food in famine plagued areas. Where are the aliens??

Without a doubt, the law of averages dictates that there are many millions of other civilizations out there, many far more advanced than ours. As for one coming to earth and throwing us a bone, I just hope they are more cordial than what our country's settlers were to the people they encountered.

And just think of how many different versions of God are out there in the cosmos.

 

 

 

I voted for both options. While I believe in the Creator, I don't believe in the literal six 24 hour days. If you follow the six days of creation described in Genesis, it roughly follows the description of how scientists say the world was formed and life started.

 

Day 1.

 

Bible - "Let there be light".

 

Science - The Big Bang happened and the universe glowed from the charged electrons. The sun and planets formed.

 

Day 2.

 

Bible - “God said, ‘Let there be firmament in the midst of the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters.’”

 

Science - Water rich asteroids and other bodies collided with earth and as the earth was still hot, water vapor escaped which formed our atmosphere. The sun and moon were probably not visible at this point though day and night could be sensed. Eventually with further cooling clouds started forming and dumped large amounts of water back on earth.

 

Day 3

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together in one place and let the dry land appear."

 

Science - The weight of the new oceans compressed the earth and pushed up land masses and separated land from water.

 

Day 3A

 

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed and fruit trees bearing fruit."

 

Science - This passage does not reconcile well with science as they say sea creatures appeared first.

 

Day 4

 

Bible - “And God said. ‘Let there be light in the firmament of Heavens to separate the day from the night."

 

Science - Again a bit confusing as light from the sun and moon was made on the first day. One theory says that because there was so much humidity in the atmosphere that the skies were opaque and the sun and moon weren't visible as such. Another theory states that this second reference to light on day four of Genesis refers to the evolution of vision of the simple sea life. If there was no vision, then there was, in a sense, no light. So the lights were “turned on” in the evolution of sight in animals. “To separate day from night” refers to the time before and after sight.

 

Day 5

 

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas..."

 

Science - They confirm life began in the sea and over time became the fishes that we see in fossils and currently inhabit the oceans.

 

Day 6

 

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the Earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind; cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kind. Then God created man in his own image ... Male and female created He them ... And God formed man of the dust of the ground ... He took one of Adam’s ribs and made a woman.”

 

Science - They say that life on land.....birds, animals, humans etc came after fish in the sea.

 

I also believe that while Adam and Eve weren't the first 2 legged, upright walking humans on earth, they were the first that God breathed the "breathe of life" into which gave them a conscience, reasoning and the ability to love which separated them from their more animal like ancestors.

 

 

 

I think any religion could find a way to make all of this fit with their scripture.

 

The Book of Genesis wasn't written last week and made to fit what science says. Moses wrote it at a time when nearly every person was illiterate and written language was relatively new. One could almost say science came along 3900 years later and copied the 1st Chapter of Genesis. Perhaps the two religions....science and faith can arrive at the same point some time in the future.

 

Yes, science copied the book of Genesis.

 

 

 

 

It is much easier for me to believe that we have a purpose and that a higher power caused all this to happen. I just can't accept (and really don't want to) that this all happened by random chance.

It's the easy way out. People that don't know God or that can't define him to their satisfaction simply say it must be random chance.See what I did there?

OOH! OOH! Teacher, pick me! I see what you did there -- you contradicted yourself again. You admitted to pressing the easy button, then changed your mind and said others are pressing the easy button, even though I'm not sure anyone else said that's what they are doing.

I find it funny when non-believers say its the easy way out to believe in God.

I find it funny when believers admit they are taking the easier path, then accuse others of it.

Pretty sure i said it isnt easier. Reading comprehension is a bitch. And yes, if others say believing is easier i say bs, theres nothing easy about faith which you are helping us, believers, prove.

Pretty sure I never suggested it was you that said it was easier -- that's why I included the other quotes. Understanding third party references in conversations can be a bitch, as can labelling others via pronouns. Please try to keep up.

Please re-read my original post and tell me where i said it was easier for people to believe in God. Get back to me. It says straight out its harder to believe than not believe. I said its funny when NON-BELIEVERS say its easier. Imo of course. But let me know what im missing that you so clearly are stating I said.

 

As one who has been both a believer and non-believer...neither are particularly hard.

 

I voted for both options. While I believe in the Creator, I don't believe in the literal six 24 hour days. If you follow the six days of creation described in Genesis, it roughly follows the description of how scientists say the world was formed and life started.

 

Day 1.

 

Bible - "Let there be light".

 

Science - The Big Bang happened and the universe glowed from the charged electrons. The sun and planets formed.

 

Day 2.

 

Bible - “God said, ‘Let there be firmament in the midst of the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters.’”

 

Science - Water rich asteroids and other bodies collided with earth and as the earth was still hot, water vapor escaped which formed our atmosphere. The sun and moon were probably not visible at this point though day and night could be sensed. Eventually with further cooling clouds started forming and dumped large amounts of water back on earth.

 

Day 3

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together in one place and let the dry land appear."

 

Science - The weight of the new oceans compressed the earth and pushed up land masses and separated land from water.

 

Day 3A

 

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed and fruit trees bearing fruit."

 

Science - This passage does not reconcile well with science as they say sea creatures appeared first.

 

Day 4

 

Bible - “And God said. ‘Let there be light in the firmament of Heavens to separate the day from the night."

 

Science - Again a bit confusing as light from the sun and moon was made on the first day. One theory says that because there was so much humidity in the atmosphere that the skies were opaque and the sun and moon weren't visible as such. Another theory states that this second reference to light on day four of Genesis refers to the evolution of vision of the simple sea life. If there was no vision, then there was, in a sense, no light. So the lights were “turned on” in the evolution of sight in animals. “To separate day from night” refers to the time before and after sight.

 

Day 5

 

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas..."

 

Science - They confirm life began in the sea and over time became the fishes that we see in fossils and currently inhabit the oceans.

 

Day 6

 

Bible - “And God said, ‘Let the Earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind; cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kind. Then God created man in his own image ... Male and female created He them ... And God formed man of the dust of the ground ... He took one of Adam’s ribs and made a woman.”

 

Science - They say that life on land.....birds, animals, humans etc came after fish in the sea.

 

I also believe that while Adam and Eve weren't the first 2 legged, upright walking humans on earth, they were the first that God breathed the "breathe of life" into which gave them a conscience, reasoning and the ability to love which separated them from their more animal like ancestors.

 

 

 

I think any religion could find a way to make all of this fit with their scripture.

There are a lot of great scientists who are Christians.

 

Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to stop asking questions about how the world works.

It would be silly to think otherwise.

Its human nature to search for answers.

 

 

Oh but Moe, didn't you have fun in this thread arguing with people and needling other posters?

 

Help me out NUance, how is the needling just going in one direction. I think your persecution complex is showing.

 

 

 

I think he meant "noodling", because that would be a sign from the true god, FSM

 

RAmen.

 

So this was just taking the long road in order to throw out one specific point of view? Shocking.

 

Oh but Moe, didn't you have fun in this thread arguing with people and needling other posters?

 

So I guess we can shut down this thread now that we've settled the issue that there actually is a God and He was behind the Big Bang and 2.5 billion years of evolution on earth to create mankind and all manners of life on earth.

 

 

Although my premise that a creator who has no desire to interact with her creation still stands under this view. I wonder how that God feels about worship of false Gods? Hope its not a jealous God.

 

If you believe and study the bible (like I do) then you have to know that God is indeed jealous. In fact, that's the first of the 10 Commandments: Thou shall have no other gods before Me.

 

Actually, nothing has been settled from this. Do you really think any new ground has been broken here because of this? Many Christians have afforded the possibility that creationism and evolution can co-exist.

And yes, we know the Christian God is jealous, but is the true God? You had better hope not if you have made the wrong choice.

Help me out NUance, how is the needling just going in one direction. I think your persecution complex is showing.

 

 

 

I voted for the non-god answer. If you vote for "god," you've got to decide which "god" you're talking about, and there are literally thousands. Each comes with their own creation myth, each has their own flavor of religion, all of those religions can be traced back to man-centric themes and are not reliant solely on supernatural things. There is no proof of the existence of "god" or of any god. there is no reason to believe that Odin is more real than Zeus or Jupiter or Allah or Aten or Quetzalcoatl or any of the other literally thousands of them.

 

Your religion is not a true thing, it is an accident of your location of birth. In this thread, this country, the predominant religion is Christianity. It, then, is no surprise that most here are Christian. If you conducted this poll on a forum dedicated to some soccer team in Riyadh, you'd likely get a lot of "yes, god" votes - but those votes would be for Allah, not the Christian god.

 

That I cannot explain how random bits of matter could coalesce into life does not mean gods are real. It means I (we) don't understand how that happened yet. That humans could not explain how birds flew 5,000 years ago did not mean that flight wasn't real, or possible - it just meant they didn't know how to do it yet.

 

Based on the progression of knowledge of the human species, it's more likely to me that we'll eventually figure out how life formed. It's a difficult puzzle, but if we have long enough, we'll get the answer. I find that more plausible than a story of "god."

I disagree. A person does not have to decide which god or which religion to come to the conclusion that a higher power caused this all to come about. And it is a logic leap to claim that because humans have come up with multiple versions of God that there must be more than one and for some reason now we have to choose which one. What if there really is only one true God and mankind's attempt to explain him has simply left us with all these multiple "gods" and religions you trot out in every thread like this? I think there is one true God with a multitude of human attempts at explaining him. Sure doesn't mean there is really more than one, and if there isn't more than one, then it is not necessary to choose which one and it doesn't matter where you were born or the predominate religion in the area. Too many people get hung up on the constraints generated by mere human beings. Yeah, humans probably don't have it right. So what? The existence of one God, one creator, one all powerful being, is not dependent on our ability to explain him.

 

Once a person can accept that there is one true God (however, whoever that may be) then it becomes very easy to realize we were created and not just some random accident. Then the only challenge is figuring out which religion, which explanation, which description of God a person is going to gravitate towards. Then, at that point, you are correct, it depends where your were born, how your were raised and what you were exposed to. But none of those human inspired details are the least bit important to come to the conclusion that there must be a higher power, an architect, a God.

 

Even if there is one true God, that doesn't mean that any of man's religions is correct. God's existence doesn't automatically point to a known religion as being true.

 

I think the fact that there are so many religions points to man having a need to create ways to explain things he does not understand. The concept of God is likely not completely understandable to humans thus, its likely no earthly religion is the truth.

 

I wouldn't disagree with that. In fact, surprisingly, I really agree with that. Although I would modify it slightly and say that, logically, some earthly religions must be closer to the truth than others.

 

Not being argumentative...but why?