Evolution Poll

[Jennifer]

@Shining:

But Jen, lets not forget that after one accepts salvation one cannot lose it, no matter how far they “backslide” afterwards. They are still a child of God.

I don’t think that’s true.  And I definately don’t remember reading it in the New Testament (which I read extensively while being stuck in a hospital bed for 3 months after I got injurred in Iraq.)

If you accept God then reject God through your actions then he’ll reject you again.  We are all born pure of sin, but fall into sin after our birth.  We are thus required to be reborn into purity through Jesus Christ.  If we decide to fall back into sin with premeditation and deliberate acts and do not later have a change of heart, then we are guilty of sin once again.  Baptism isn’t a get out of jail free card.

It’s like the parabel of the brothers asked to work the field.  One said he would and did not.  The other said he would not and later obeyed his father and did.    That’s similar to saying you’ll live a christian life then going out and sinning while the other goes out and sins then comes back and say’s s/he’s sorry and attempts to live the Christian life.  (Wish I could take credit for that analogy, but it’s Jesus’ he was good at analogies!)

[Avin]

Well MauserBob, Shining Bowie, or Jennifer, if you are confident you can find that in the book of Acts, please enlighten me where it states that Saul was renamed Paul.

I guarantee that you won’t find it.

Saul continues to be called Saul after his encounter with Jesus… see all of Acts chapter 9. No mention of renaming to Paul.

Furthermore, Saul continues to be called Saul when he is sent on his first missionary Journey: see Acts 13:2.

Saul is called Paul for the rest of the book of Acts, and Paul refers to himself by that name in his letters, with no mention of being renamed, even though he recounts his history a couple times.

If you find a reference to him being renamed, I will concede the point but it looks to me like the Bible makes absolutely no reference to Saul being renamed at any point.

Rather the names Saul and Paul are really the same name: the Hebrew form is “Sha-ul”, which is Romanized to Saul, and the Greek form is “Paulos” which is Romanized to Paul. When you first meet him in Acts it is in the Hebrew context, but the bulk of his life he is seen in a Greek context. He is still both Saul and Paul. No renaming takes place.

I have a hard time reading this thread when defenders of the Bible get Biblical facts wrong.

[Jennifer]

Avin,

if you actually read the text instead of going to bible falisies.org to get tidbits you could use in your arguements, you’d see that it is very plain that Paul had lived his entire life as a Roman Citizen with the name Saul and after conversion renamed himself to Paul.  Thus, he was renamed.  By changing his name he in effect renounced his mortal ways, the ways of a Roman Citizen who worshipped as a Pharisee and accepted the Christian lifestyle.

It isn’t like you could go to the local magistrate and have your name legally changed back then.  You were called by whatever name you wanted.

Sorry, but you’re picking at straws because you know no better.  Read the book.  You don’t have to believe it, but at least read it if you want to argue it.  Or, if you MUST use blogs, at least read the Christian ones so you understand the context of the situation.  He called himself Saul and persecuted Christians, later he called himself Paul and preached Christianity.

[Avin]

I ask you to read the Bible. Look at the verses I quoted. Saul was called Saul while he self-identified as a Christian according to Acts. I used absolutely no sources for my previous post other than the Bible itself. Don’t think that anyone who argues against you is using some sort of anti-Christian source. As I recall, you still have yet to give me a satisfactory answer to your claim that “God provides for those who provide for themselves” is a Biblical concept in the other Evolution thread after repeatedly ignoring me after I called you out for using a passage that actually demonstrates the opposite. I am not too impressed with your knowledge of the Bible at all and I am rather baffled therefore as to what is motivating you at all.

Furthermore your recent post seems to be even less based in historical reality. Saul was a Roman Citizen, true, but he certainly did not renounce this fact after becoming a Christian. In fact he was much more accomodating to the Roman empire once becoming a Christian than before. Prior to his encounter with Jesus, he was not only a Pharisee but one who would later self-describe himself as being zealous for his Judaism, echoing to Phinehas the former high priest (Numbers 25) or the Maccabees in that he was willing to kill deviant Jews (the Christians) in order to cleanse God’s people. As such, he would have despised the rule of the Romans, and his persecution of Christians would have been done as a way of bringing about God’s intervention to free the Jews from the Romans once and for all, via his messianic expectations.

However, after he became a Christian he continued to use his position as a Roman citizen (Acts 22 and onward), which was a far cry from renouncing the ways of a Roman Citizen as you suggest he did.

[Guest]

Popcorn time…

When y’all get around to areas that I enjoy (Lilith, “The Other People”, Elohim, etc.) I’ll chime back in.

In the mean time, I just LOVE watching Christians tear into each other over theology.  It is so nice to see them point out the errors, contradictions, contrinuity errors, etc in the Bible for themselves :-)

[NoMercy]

I  corrected you on the screech-owl earlier

[Guest]

And as I pointed out, your “correction” ignores the “she” reference, as well as corresponding additional documentation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic Tradition, and the Tora/Talmud.

Even “hard core” Christian theologians acknolwedge that the Screech Owl in Acts IS Lilith.

[Guest]

I think Catholic priests need to get laid. 8-)

[Guest]

@MADDOGG:

I think Catholic priests need to get laid. 8-)

They already did.  That is why the Catholic Church is paying out all that money to former Altar Boys.

Ooopppsss… was that my outside voice?

(Not a flame, documented fact covering scores of Priests in a large number of diocese)

[frood]

@ncscswitch:

@Jennifer:

I honestly don’t think there are other options, Jerm.  I only see two options for the after-life:

1)  You go to heaven and live your days in bliss worshipping God.

2)  You go to hell and live your days in torment because you realize that God no longer loves you.

And that my friend is the sign of a closed mind.  Everyone else be damned, I have the one true and ONLY way.

Also, that second option above is in direct contradiction to Christian principles.  I leave it to you to figure out why it is not consistent with Christianity (darn shame when the Pagan knows more about Christianity than half of the Christians).

I know this is from way back, but I have to comment on this. As a former Christian, I have to agree with Switch - a lot of Christians aren’t very Christian. Hell was the first Christian idea that I had to struggle with and eventually discard. It just doesn’t make sense:

1. God created and loves us all unconditionally
2. God invites us to love him (her/it - don’t understand how a superhuman being can have a gender)
3. If we worship God etc., then we get to enjoy an eternity of bliss
4. If we don’t accept Jesus as our saviour, then we are condemned to an eternity of torment.

So how do you reconcile #1 and #4? Especially in a western liberal democracy, where everyone otherwise believes that what you believe is the one thing you should never be punished for.

Our admittedly imperfect state will punish us for murder, arson, theft, etc. but you can have any faith or political view and as long as you are not hurting others, you have freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of expression.

Then on the other hand we have this supposedly all-loving Creator. If you fail to believe in him ON FAITH (ie, without solid, empirical evidence), then for that failing this loving God will sentence large hordes of his children to eternal torment. If that’s how it works, then God essentially created a universe the end result of which is untold suffering.

I was born a skeptic, and raised Christian. I spent decades in internal turmoil for my failure to “just believe.” I’ve finally let go of that and the last two years of my life have been the happiest, most fulfilling years of my life. I’m a little miffed that I had to spend 18 years feeling extremely guilty, inadequate and generally like a worthless Christian, but my glass is half full, and I have half my life left.

Finally, I just couldn’t believe in a God who would make so skeptical by nature and then condemn me for it for eternity. Now I’m no longer a worthless Christian, but a good and happy person, and at least the rest of my life won’t be wasted.

You just can’t have a loving God and also eternal punishment for such a harmless sin as expecting just a bit of evidence for what you are asked to believe. It’s not consistent.

I especially can’t believe in a God that would punish anyone who doesn’t fit Jennifer’s definition of what it takes to be saved.

[NoMercy]

your missing the idea I think Frood and I’m sorry you feel that way about the christians and that you think you wasted half your life.

God is perfect…

your not allowed to enter heaven in a sinfull state. You must be saved and re-born again from your old nature.

if you truly believe upon him and call upon him for salvation you are saved. after you are saved you cannot lose your salvation.

nobody in this world is perfect, and we all make our mistakes. We all sin by choice. But if you recognize this and repent and are fully trusting on your lord and savior Jesus Christ and are truly saved you have nothing to worry about it.

@ncscswitch:

Well hey, we have folks who want to disregard the reference to Lilith in the same book of the Bible… and that from someone who read the whole thing and has presented themselves as being very knowlegable about it…

Again I will echo What Shinning Bowie Stated:

@Shining:

Yeah that is pretty obvious from actually READING the Bible before you comment on it. Your post didn’t make you seem very worthy to debate on subjects of the Bible, if you didn’t know something that obvious…… sorry if that sounds harsh… but it’s kinda common knowledge

Again Switch you are looking to man in these areas thinking such things are actually true, like the screeth owl meaning sometihng else and that the bible is missing parts. You say this is widely known…. I in fact have never head of this before.

[frood]

Oops, sorry - when I said worthless Christian, what I meant was that I felt that I was a worthless example of what a Christian should be. I felt guilty, inadequate, etc.

I have nothing against Christians, I just don’t share their belief system.

I spent roughly 20 years fighting my inner nature and trying to believe. I suppose that was a “choice.” Then I finally realized I couldn’t change who I am and how my mind works.

If you think that that amounts to “sinning by choice” I suppose you are free to think of it that way. But that logic only works internally from within your belief system - there’s no external validation. All these religious arguments end up being circular, sometimes it’s just bigger circles. No one comes out and says “Jesus must be the saviour because Jesus is the saviour and therefore what he says must be true and he must be the saviour” although sometimes it comes close to that.

Mr. Ed could also say he’s the saviour but that wouldn’t make him the saviour. I could say it and it wouldn’t prove anything. So why does the fact that someone said it 2000 years ago (or someone wrote that he did) mean we have to believe it?

I spent 20 years desparately wanting some reason to believe, I think that’s a fair effort. If God is out there and wants to show up on my doorstep and turn water into wine or call down fire from heaven, I’ll be impressed and admit I was wrong. In the meantime, I’ve got other stuff to do.

God, if you’re reading this board, then please stop by anytime. Given your omnipotence, I don’t think it’s too much to ask. Or if you really are too busy, have one of the angels swing by with a flaming chariot to give me a tour and explain how souls are made. Whatever. I’m sure you can come up with something impressive.

All right, I’m now taking bets on whether I’ll have a personal, verifiable visit by the almighty. I’ll take any odds (how about 1,000 to 1). However, it can’t be something lame-ass like a homeless guy shows up and that’s really God visiting me etc. I think there has to be non-burning fire as a bare minimum. A huge crack in the earth with view of tormented souls would really seal the deal. However, I’m not holding my breath.

Mmmm. Sacrilicious.

[madscientist]

God has stopped by this board many times through those proclaiming his word.

Sometimes God really does show people things like cracks in the Earth with tormented souls (i.e he showed John the Apostle the future in the form of Revelation), but usually you have to be really close to God to get something like that. My grandmother was really close to God but was troubled that 3 of her 4 children weren’t Christians. After a while, she had a dream that she was in heaven, but saw only 1 of her children there with her. She asked God where the others were, and he replied “They will be here with much prayer.” That sort of thing happens when you are close to God.

Christians aren’t accepting the whole Christian premise on blind faith either. Almost all Christians have had God reveal himself to them in some way (i.e. answered prayer, evidence of divine protection, guidance through life), and that is why they keep their faith. However, it is true that you have to accept God by faith at first, like a little child. The miraculous answered prayer comes later.

[frood]

Yeah, well, that didn’t work out for me, and I at least have had the good fortune to have heard about this whole scheme.

So I suppose if it’s true, I’ll end up in hell. Fortunately, I don’t believe in it.

Just as an experiment, try thinking from a different set of assumptions. The Christian system is only compelling once you accept its basic beliefs as true. But if you try thinking without them, try thinking with a different set of assumptions, you see that from the outside, Christianity is logically inconclusive as far as proving the truth of anything.

Or, as another experiment, try coming up with an argument that does not rely on your assumptions. Show me, without relying on faith, that faith is necessary.

“God has stopped by this board many times through those proclaiming his word.” - that’s lame and you know it. All I’m asking is that an omnipotent being occasionally do something himself, or that claim of omnipotence starts sounding pretty shallow. And the more impressive miracles in the Bible don’t count either.

I don’t give a rat’s tuckus what a bunch of people 1,930 years ago wrote about Jesus, or what some desert tribe wrote about their patron deity 3,000 years ago. That proves nothing more than any other ancient text.

Independent. Verifiable. That’s the sort of proof you need to come up with. I expect it will arrive about the same time a 12-foot tall old guy with a big white beard shows up on my porch and introduces himself as the almighty.

Browsing through quotes for another thread, I came across this:

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.
-Lazarus Long

[Jermofoot]

Funny how the evolution poll “evolved” into a theological debate.  :lol:

[Guest]

From the initial post this was a religious thread and not an evolution thread.

The entire thread is actually on topic based on the original post that started it.

I will say this…  those who ahve been posting from the Christian Perspective have done a great job…  the have firmly and completely reminded me of a part of the reason why I am NOT Christian.

[NoMercy]

Hey Switch,

as a Chrisitian, I have a general concern for the lost. I will not force anything upon them. If giving the opportunity during conversations to bring the matter up of God then it is wise to do so. ( I will quickly get a general feel if they are interested or not and you can easily stop if they ask you to stop. ) another option is to simply hand out a panflet with instructions how to be saved etc… and leaving them with the option of reading it. ( this again will not force them to read it and they can disegard the matter )

Christians shouldn’t be forcing these matters on anybody. it is our choice to believe or not and to abide by the bible to the best of our abilities.
not sure if somebody mentioned earlier about being forced to give 10% of our wages to the church ( again nobody is forced to do so in this case - it is written in the bible and we do follow it )

You may be surprised about me actually. My parents don’t go to church and I didn’t grow up in a christian home.
So I do know about the other perspective.

Poeple are afraid to become christians or are turned away from the matter because it will effect there lives, there will be changes and for the most part people will not like these changes. ( no drinking, no smoking etc… etc…)

The bible explains perfectly the situations going on.  And Actually Frood echo’s a lot of people in the bible mentioned. In there mentions the “people” where always looking for “signs”  but they are warned to not look for signs.

[OLver]

@Jermofoot:

Funny how the evolution poll “evolved” into a theological debate.   :lol:

And it’s quite sad that evolution is always associated with a theological debate. It doesn’t happen when talking about Einstein’s relativity theory, Smith’s free market theory or when explaining what is the Planck’s constant. Problem is too many people think that natural selection theory is way easier to understand than the other things mentionned above. actually, it is not…

[Jennifer]

Avin:

When Sean Connery goes to Gaelic Speaking Nations he only uses the Name Sean Connery and when he’s in France it’s Jean and when he’s in America it’s John, right?  I mean we all just change our name to translate into the native tongue of the country we’re visiting, don’t we?

Oh, we don’t?  Okay, well then why do you think Saul did it?  Perhaps you just desire that to be the case so you can have a “flaw” in Christianity and their beliefs.

He renamed from Saul to Paul.  Anyone not trying to read more into the Bible then is written there will see this as the case.  I think you’re just over thinking the situation.  He changed his identity when his religion changed, to reflect that his name changed as well.

[Shining Bowie]

Jennifer I’m afraid you and I aren’t reading the same version of the English Bible. The Book of Romans deals extensively with the fact that all men are BORN sinners, and the books of John, and Hebrews, state the fact that Salvation is a permanent thing.

EDIT: That is of course, if you read the King James Version… I have no idea what the other more modernized versions have to say about it.