"Why won't God heal amputees?"

Another thing about this thread is how christians reply to many of it. I showed the 'sexist' part of your conversation to a few female christian believer friends of mine. Before the discussion I asked them

"The bible is the direct words of god right?"

They replied "yes."

Then I asked them. "Gods words are perfect right?"

They answered "yes"

Then I gave one of my friends the 'sexist' part of your story and she said "the bible are the words of man inspired by god."

So now they are the words of man inspired by god? How many christians have already said that gods words are perfect and that the words come directly from god? Hell, look. Christians can't even get their own religion right. Doesn't anybody see how much BS it is? I've seen a few of these "contradictions in the bible" posts at other forums. And all these religious people have different theories to correct these contradictions. So which theory is right? Two hardcore christians have different corrections to the contradictions. Once again which one is right? Religious things like the bible only show how primitive the human race is.

I like to see christians take on this because alot of the time the only answers you will get is them changing their take on it alot or saying "the bible is right...because it's right."
 
Quote from vhehn:

we dont know"what or who created the big bang" so therefore it had to be biblegod? why not zues or santa claus? you are a perfect example of thiests starting their investigation from the indoctrinated mindset that god exists and if we dont yet have an answer for something it had to be god that did it.
the atheist is simply saying unless you show me evidence i dont believe it. that isnt faith its simply rational thinking.
More...

No I did not say it had to bible god at all.

Just because I believe in one means I think you must. I am just pointing out that being an atheist takes extream faith in light of scientific fact.
 
Quote from jem:

No I did not say it had to bible god at all.

Just because I believe in one means I think you must. I am just pointing out that being an atheist takes extream faith in light of scientific fact.
More...

i dont understand what you are trying to say. there is no scientific evidence for any god. how does it take extreme faith to to not believe in gods?
 
to vhehn and perhaps arcimedes - I presented the point that athiesm takes extreme faith. I did not argue that you had to believe Jesus is devine. As arch pointed out - for me that argument still remains a question of faith.

However, I did provide a link that takes the science head on. here is part of the main thesis.

"For example, recent supernova evidence has shown that the universe probably possesses a cosmological constant - a universal "repelling" force that accelerates the stretching of space as objects become further apart from each other. In order for the universe to contain stars and planets, this constant must be fine tuned to a level of one part in 10120. Such an extreme level of design is almost incomprehensible. In my discussion with atheists, several have told me that they are comfortable with the idea that such levels of fine-tuning could have occurred by chance in our single universe. Such a proposal is completely illogical, and, in fact, requires more blind faith than to believe that God designed the universe. In fact, in order to be a logic-based atheist (as opposed to a faith-based one), you must believe in the multi-universe theory. Not only that, but you must believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Don't believe me? Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:

Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger "multiverse," each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves.8

Luck has no place in science, since all events must be probable (on the basis of all possible events) in order to actually occur."
 
Quote from stu:

Than it is LITERAL speech. You must LITERALLY eat jesus and drink his blood.

Then it isn't LITERAL speech at all. You lied. It is FIGURATIVE speech.

You pretend to eat jesus with bread and pretend to drink his blood with wine. It is makebelieve because the LITERALspeech is literally impossible and aabhorrent anyway .

Which one is it to be !?

Now I know and you know, assuming religious indoctrination has not entirely removed all semblance of rational awareness from your thought processes, that you can't actually eat Jesus. Even though you say "eat his body and drink his blood. (gnaw on this flesh).... This was not figurative speech." ... you do realize don't you that it is FIGURATIVE speech. It is not possible to be Literal in this case?

You do realize don't you that by any normal standards to suggest anyone should eat another human's flesh would generally be considered debase, corrupt, depraved and repugnant in any event don't you? Even 2000 years ago to suggest people considered it ok to go about eating each other is not supportable. You do realize that don't you?.

So how come you think it's ok to come out with what you pathetically describe as "a little religious talk" , but which is actually a depraved idea. Why exactly? Because you have some religion behind you telling you religion is goodness and it is good to eat jesus and drink his blood?

Speak LITERALLY act FIGURATIVELY is that the kind of mixed up mumbo jumbo language you can only understand? You mean to say you eat jesus and drink jesus' blood Literally, but in fact you literally eat bread and drink wine figuratively!?

That type of indoctrination is exactly what convinces people they can say and do anything in the name of religious belief once convinced with a full knowledge that God Is On Their Side. Murdering, starting wars and flying airplanes into buildings, in the righteous belief that Jesus and Allah has saved them all because they drink his blood every Sunday and turn to the East five times a day. Then spin about and blame everyone for not understanding their religion that talks in those sick and perverted terms.

I do not "choose" not to believe in the vile, obnoxious and repugnant jesus ideas and beliefs you do jem. My personal standards of decency and humanity would simply not allow me to do so.
More...


You obviously do not get the following points. God does not have to be governed by your newtonian views of what is possible. Things happen subatomic that seem to require statistical understandings. Experiments may be dependent on the observer.

My faith may transubstiate the body and blood with the help of God during the Mass which the Catholic Church has for a very long time claimed to take place outside of time. Early Christians were convicted of being cannibals. We eat the body and blood of Jesus as he commanded us to do.

As i said earlier it was foreshadowed for us by Abraham, and the first passover where you eat the lamb and puts it blood on the frame of the door in the shape of a Cross so that death would passover. To me this takes faith but it could be quite consistent with non newtonian physics. You Stu are still stuck with you own observations.
 
Quote from jem:

In order for the universe to contain stars and planets, this constant must be fine tuned to a level of one part in 10120. Such an extreme level of design is almost incomprehensible.
More...

there you go falling back on the old "i dont understand how it could happen so it had to be god" arguement. that isnt evidence. that is just the authors opinion.
 
no i refute your point. It is not beyond our understanding. The luck that this universe would take is beyond calculation.

For scientists to postulate that the universe arrived at this level of sophistication by random chance takes a belief in an infinite amount of luck.

So "fortunately" we now have scientists proposing infinite universes. We just happen to live in the apparently infinitely lucky universe.

Do you see how tortutured science has become to avoid having to admit we are designed. In order to deny design or belive that we live in and infinitely lucky universe -- Some scientits have been forceed to postulate the seemingly absurd notion that we have infinite universes.

You have to have extreme faith to believe you exist our universe without a designer.
 
Quote from jem:

no i refute your point. It is not beyond our understanding. The luck that this universe would take is beyond calculation.

For scientists to postulate that the universe arrived at this level of sophistication by random chance takes a belief in an infinite amount of luck.

So "fortunately" we now have scientists proposing infinite universes. We just happen to live in the apparently infinitely lucky universe.

Do you see how tortutured science has become to avoid having to admit we are designed. In order to deny design or belive that we live in and infinitely lucky universe -- Some scientits have been forceed to postulate the seemingly absurd notion that we have infinite universes.

You have to have extreme faith to believe you exist our universe without a designer.
More...

there you go falling back on the old "the odds of it happening are high so it had to be god" arguement. that isnt evidence. that is just the authors opinion.

"rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences
 
Quote from vhehn:

there you go falling back on the old "the odds of it happening are high so it had to be god" argument. that isnt evidence. that is just the authors opinion.

"rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, innumerably: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences
More...

That is a specious argument. Sticking with a deck of cards, a closer analogy would be: for you to exist you would have to get dealt that one hand in 600 billion --- 600 billion more times. And whoa sure enough you got that incredibly lucky hand.

And then instead of saying hey, I am so lucky it must of have been by some design cause it is preposterous to think I am that lucky...

you say well I have some science buddies who do not like luck either and they do not like the idea of a designer so they propose that there are billions times billions times billions times billions of me playing cards so of course one of them will get that necessary hand dealt to him billions of times.

You see it is apparently far more palatable to propose infinite universes than to propose extreme luck (implying a designer.)
 
Quote from jem:

That is a specious argument. Sticking with a deck of cards, a closer analogy would be: for you to exist you would have to get dealt that one hand in 600 billion --- 600 billion more times. And whoa sure enough you got that incredibly lucky hand.

And then instead of saying hey, I am so lucky it must of have been by some design cause it is preposterous to think I am that lucky...

you say well I have some science buddies who do not like luck either and they do not like the idea of a designer so they propose that there are billions times billions times billions times billions of me playing cards so of course one of them will get that necessary hand dealt to him billions of times.

You see it is apparently far more palatable to propose infinite universes than to propose extreme luck (implying a designer.)
More...

primitive man used to see thunder and lightening and say that has to be god speaking, he used to see a rainbow and think that is a signal from god that the storm is over,he used to see other people get sick and die and think that has to be god making them sick, now we know what causes thunder and lightening and we know germs cause people to get sick. the more we know and learn the less need there is for "god did it "answers.
the theist has to retreat further and further to find fertile ground for their "god did it" superstitions. questions about our beginnings will also eventually be answered in the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top