Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Why Are You a Christian?

Not really. God is just a word to which people apply their own ideas. The God of Hinduism, Brahman, is nothing like the God of the bible. The two descriptions, the bible and the Gita, are not compatible.

I have no belief about how the universe came to be. I am questioning those who do claim to know. The two are not the same. You are equivocating.

Not really. God is just a word to which people apply their own ideas. The God of Hinduism, Brahman, is nothing like the God of the bible. The two descriptions, the bible and the Gita, are not compatible.

I started reading this discussion believing that Yeshua (Jesus) was who he said he was, son of man , prophet, rabbi (teacher), savior. And that Paul was a fraud corrupting Jesus' teachings and directing people through the wide gate down the broad path to destruction. Jesus' purported friends accepting and promoting Paul's teachings do great damage. Paul and Jesus cannot be reconciled. Without Paul the "Christain" church would never have been able to justify its atrocities and power over the secular affairs of government. I'm still where I was in my original beliefs but I don't blame non believers for not accepting the Jesus represented here.

The atheists have tried hard to promote “their religion” in this thread and have shown much truth to this scripture:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)

I am amazed that some nonbelievers can toss about Bible passages quicker than I. I just like it simple, straight, pure, and simple.

Indeed. you exhibit a sad case. You are still trying to pretend that you can dictate the thoughts and intent of another person in order to create some straw man against which you might argue. You attempt to tell someone else what they are trying to do and why, yet you do this without a shred of the precious "evidence" that is so key to your positioning. That is lame, and your description of my alleged "premise" is dead wrong. I have and make no argument here and you cannot identify any such argument. My purpose has been to ask cogent questions and to expose your posturing. Furthermore, you now have stooped to posting base vulgarity. Is this frankness frustrating?

CCCC, Let's convert your argument into the form of a syllogism. Premise one: God exists.Premise two: God is not interested in the futile human process and search for evidence about God, and not interested in what evidence humans do or do not find.Conclusion: Therefore, humans should not apply the principles of reason and logic to Christian God claims and just accept that The Christian God exists. This is your argument. At best, it's a completely illogical circular argument, at worst, it's exactly what I called it. A dishonest attempt by Christians to prevent the asking of questions they cannot answer.

AS - let's not, because it would be dumb to waste more time and effort on your phony game. You assume and try to state "my argument" even though I HAVE MADE NO ARGUMENT - for you need to stage an argument of your liking (a straw man) so that you can work your methods. No argument -I merely stated a condition and asked your response - thinking that you might try to reply based on "evidence" - your stated coin of the realm for your position and beliefs. Nope - no evidence came back from "Mr. Evidence" - just merely your own assumptions and assignations about "religious followers with no evidence to support your assertions about them. You are exposed. You abandoned your base. There is no point in one trying to have an honest discussion with a pretender. I don't know what or if God thinks about human efforts to prove or disprove His existence, and my ignorance of that does not bother me. Phonies trying to game others regarding God are not even entertaining, and certainly not worth my simple human time. Done here.

I started reading this discussion believing that Yeshua (Jesus) was who he said he was, son of man , prophet, rabbi (teacher), savior. And that Paul was a fraud corrupting Jesus' teachings and directing people through the wide gate down the broad path to destruction. Jesus' purported friends accepting and promoting Paul's teachings do great damage. Paul and Jesus cannot be reconciled. Without Paul the "Christain" church would never have been able to justify its atrocities and power over the secular affairs of government. I'm still where I was in my original beliefs but I don't blame non believers for not accepting the Jesus represented here.

"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-in-rome-for-inquisition

Notice how we've come full circle back to Galileo's time: anyone who questions materialism or Neo-Darwinism is virtually driven from the academic public square---and this in a Nation whose Constitution defines that liberty which is good for you as a "blessing"---something good in the eyes of God and whose founding charter (the Declaration of Independence) appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". A famous Chinese paleontologist remarked a few years back "In China, you cannot question the government. In America, you cannot question Darwin." Sad but true. Truly, we are right back where Galileo started.

Do you not see the parallels between theistic denials of Heliocentric Theory and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

Do you not see the parallels between theistic denials of Heliocentric Theory and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

You'e kidding right? You cannot possibly be that stupid.

You have that backwards.

And yes, in a modern academic setting people who deny The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are considered just as misguided as those why deny Heliocentric Theory.

The movement of the earth around the sun is an observable fact of present day reality. Neo-Darwinism is a deduction from an a priori philosophical premise which is held primarily on the basis of faith. The evidence for Neo-Darwinism is contradictory at best. This was the theme of a remarkably candid lecture lecture given by Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the author of that museum’s general text on evolution, compared creationism (not creation-science) with evolution, and characterized both as scientifically vacuous concepts which are held primarily on the basis of faith. Many of the specific points in the lecture are technical, but two are of particular importance. First, Patterson asked his audience of experts a question which reflected his own doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about evolution: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.” Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not. One point of comparison was particularly striking. A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the “fact” of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But now, according to Patterson, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means.