Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Hey you athiests...

That's YOUR belief, It is not a requirement to be a Christian.

I agree that we don't know all of God,if we did he wouldn't be God. i do want to point out however that the verses you refer to don't just say that God is smarter than us. Read before and after those verses and you will see that God is saying for us to forsake our ways because his ways are better and that he will send us his word to show us his ways.

One would hope so.

I Cor 2:9

New International Version
However, as it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--

curdog4570,



You are correct. As I have posted here previously when I was a fairly new Christian I used to ask people almost everywhere I went if they were a Christian. The vast majority said, “Yes.”

Then one day, to make conversation, I asked how long he had been born again. He didn’t have a clue what I was talking about.
So I started asking people what it takes to be a Christian. There was a world of answers. You need to know only the actual born again Christians will be with Jesus.

I'm well aware of the effects of entropy on this universe and how current scientific models predict it will end in "The Big Chill". There is nothing in this model contrary to the current scientific observations. It really would be beneficial to you if you started getting your science from real scientist.

I guess you didn't get the part about infinity. If it was infinitely old it would have already reached "The Big Chill" as you call it.

It is interesting that "real scientists" are those you agree with. God tells us the earth started out cool and will end hot. Your "real scientists" tell us the earth started out hot and will end cold.

An alternative way to look at it might be that we in our nature as men hold preconceived notions of who God is or who He "ought" to be, and need a revelation outside our heads that helps us see Him as He truly is.

Perhaps it isn't that some are merely "hung up on theology" but that they know THEMSELVES too well to believe they can be trusted with deciding who God is or is not... For themselves even?

Just another way to come at this.

Personally I have no doubt that a God who can create the universe (in whatever fashion and over whatever time frame He chose to do it) and who can make right this mess of a world can also sustain a reliable written account of who He is and what He is doing in History (His story). I am sure that it all fits; I am also sure that my perspective is not broad enough for it to "make sense" to me so an awful lot is still shrouded in mystery. That helps keep me humble. I REALLY need that.

Besides... who could worship a God they could understand? Not me.

Yeah, let's get our facts from scientists, the same bunch of clowns that brought us global warming. Great idea.

No. I just don't feel the need to substitute a supernatural being in the place of "We don't know." Whether or not I have an alternative is of no relevance to the truth of your explanation. Your hypothesis must rise or fall upon it's own evidence, for which you have none. All you've presented is the "Cosmological Argument" which has changed little since it was presented by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century. It still suffers from the same logical problems now, that is did 700 years ago, an infinite regress, (where did God come from), follow by special pleading (God's exempt from the rule that everything needs a cause), it's parsimonious (as I was alluding to before, something so complex it requires a creator that is even more complex, but doesn't itself require one), and none of the a-priori arguments can be established as fact.

In addition it now has further problems since science has discovered that some events on a quantum level can occur without a cause. Add in Larry Krauss's Hypothesis (it has not graduated to the level of a scientific theory) for a universe from nothing, and the Cosmological Argument is weaker than ever, and not sufficient evidence to believe in your god.

Even if you could establish as a fact the Universe was created by a supernatural being, you would still have all your work ahead of you demonstrating it was YOUR supernatural being, an not one from some-other belief system, perhaps even one that would send you straight to their version of Hell.

Gus,

Why would it be necessary to assume it was a "Who", and not a how? When you pick a rounded pebble from a stream it is not the product of an intelligent mind, but natural processes.

Then perhaps you wish to tell us why you cling to idea's that fail to hold up to scrutiny.

Perhaps it's a fear of death, or a longing something better than the life you lived? Please enlighten us.

You really should.

You might learn something.

antelope_sniper,

As much as you go on, you continue to demonstrate you do not understand Infinite. There can only be One. Infinite does not allow for something greater from which to spring.

Raider,

Do you see your contradiction between 9 and 10?

And could you really call it Heaven without hunting dogs?

I say let them post, so long as those with different beliefs are allowed to debate them.

What does free will have to do with earthquakes, tsunami's, floods, droughts, malaria etc?

So if a Bible passage doesn't say what you want it to say, just chuck it?

Personally, I find most of Genesis to be somewhat true in the sense that most of the characters of Aesop were based on truths, but you can't take it literally. It probably was from oral traditions that morphed who knows how much, or from too many misinterpreted or otherwise untranslatable rewrites. Most of you read King James bible or more modern versions that were mostly taken from there. Heck I can't hardly understand Chaucer and that wasn't much before King James,They even claim that it is English but Jame's scholars translated words from Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Latin, and other languages that were more than a thousand years old in times that language changed much faster than it has since the written word has become much more widespread, I believe they got it all mixed up literally, even if the gist of it all is still there.

Just look at the first few pages if you don't think so. In Genesis 1, God made man and woman, then Adam named stuff and etc. In Genesis 2, Adam is lonely so God makes his rib into a woman (what happened to the one he made in book 1?) Then there is Cain and Able, and Cain's wife - who is she, where did those people in Nod come from? That is just for starters all of Genesis follows this pattern, but it is really old, and as I said before, probably largely an attempt to first write an oral tradition. The closer we get to the era of Christ the more accurate, and the better the writing skills of the chroniclers gets. We know plenty of Cesar, Alexander, Cicero, and many others, Christ as well, but most of the things that are considered silly by Atheists are all found in Genesis. It comes at the very dawn of written history which explains why it can't be taken literally in my opinion, but that doesn't necessarily make it false in essence. That probably is not what many other people believe, but it is my belief and allows me to be religious, non-denominational and rational.

Please prove this.