SDW

Am I close:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wrgy-MZ3-4

Personally, I do believe that God personally created everything that exists by and through his own will. I take it on faith. I don't need science to prove it to me. I also believe that there is ample scientific evidence to support this claim (and notice that I said SUPPORT, not PROVE).

But the reality is that about 97% of what some people try to pass off as "Creation Science" is absolute hooey. And when we let our religious beliefs dictate how we interpret scientific data, rather than letting the data dictate the conclusion, we end up with situations not dissimilar to the one in this video.

In the Christian concept of heaven, the Bible is clear that there will be no sadness and no suffering.

It's also a common belief among Christians that we will recognize our loved ones when we see them in heaven. This is all fine and dandy for the loved ones that are there with us.

But...

If I will not be sad or sorrowful, then will I even acknowledge the absence of those loved ones who are not in heaven? Or does my eternal joy mean that I will forget about them for all eternity?

For Christians, this should be a more thought-provoking question. For non-Christians, it's an opportunity to be silly and sarcastic (I can take it). Fire at will, R&S!

I was in a discussion with an Agnostic friend yesterday. He was citing some of the issues he has with Christianity. He was telling me that he found it hypocritical how some Christians "cherry-pick" their doctrines from the Bible, and then not a minute later was complaining about how Christians are oppressive of certain civil liberties (abortion rights, homosexuality, and such). Problem: If you want me to be in support of things that are explicitly against God's revealed will, then you actually want me to cherry-pick my doctrines.

I'm looking for clarification here. If I am a Christian, am I supposed to believe the WHOLE Bible, or am I supposed to just cut/paste the parts of it that society seems to like into my worldview?

Just thought I'd throw the discussion out there. For the non-Christians out there, which would you rather: A Christian who geuninely lives by his faith and supports the teachings of the Bible, or someone who picks his doctrines so as to not offend others?

State your response in 500 words or less, single spaced. No bibliography required.

One of the basic arguments of Atheism is that since the Theist makes an affirmative statement on the existence of "God," and the Atheist does not make such a claim, that the burden of proof falls on the Theist to prove their stance, and not on the Atheist to disprove it.

Now, when an Atheist makes a statement to the effect of, "I observe no irrefutable evidence that God exists, and therefore have no compelling reason to believe he does," they are not making an affirmative claim about the existence of God, and therefore do not lay upon themself a burden of proof.

However, should they make a statement to the effect of, "God does not exist," does this amount to the same caliber of affirmative declaration as the Theist's statement of "God does exist"? And if so, is the person making the conclusive statement "God does not exist," now held to the same burden of proof as the one who made the claim that God does exist?

Okay, let's all play nice now, kids!

What Biblical character once encouraged a group of people to cut off their penises?

No guessing--Cite the passage in the Bible where this takes place or no points.

While God is omnipresent, Satan is not. So since Satan cannot be everywhere at once, he requires his evil demon minions to do the bulk of his dirty work.

God's angels get credit for what they do--the Bible even mentions some of them by name! But as far as evil goes, we generally give Satan the full credit for the work of all of the demons. We even paint Satan to be the ruler of hell, rather than the eventual tenant of the cell closest to the boiler.

Do you think that demons get a raw deal? I mean Satan gets all the credit for their hard work... they get no recognition for all that they do for him; and they're still all gonna eventually wind up in hell anyway!

And for those who don't believe in God, Satan, heaven, hell, etc... just play along for the sake of some twisted fun!

I've been in sort of a pissing match with a co-worker about the King James Bible. There is of course a movement within Christianity that claims that the KJV is the ONLY valid English translation; he's in that camp, I'm not. My fallback is the NIV and NASB, with KJV being my third version of choice.

He has made the ridiculous claim that the KJV is the true English translation because it is the first translation ever made in English. I happen to know of (and pointed out to him) at least two other English translations of the Bible that predate the KJV, but was looking to find out just how many more known pre-KJV English Bible translations there were out there.

For the record, this is not a question about the credibility (or lack thereof) for the KJV (or any other version), so steer clear of version-bashing for a few minutes... just provide info about any English Bible you know of published prior to AD 1611.

Let's assume for a momemt that some archaeological team somewhere in the ancient Roman Empire stumbled across a document, that they were able to prove was from the hand of the apostle Paul himself--say, a second letter to Galatia, or a previously unknown letter to one of the other churches he started (Berea, Athens, etc...). Or maybe we found a sequel to Acts, that we could prove was written by Luke. Or possibly another letter that we could prove was written by the apostle John.

If we had this previously unknown document, and we could prove BEYOND ALL DOUBT that it was directly from the hand of one of the know writers of the New Testament, how much doctrinal authority would Christianity as a whole give to this document? Would Christianity consider actually including it in the New Testament?

How do you as a Christian feel about this hypothetical prediciment?

This one time I was upset at a guy I worked with, who was a very lazy Agnostic. To get back at him, I went to a Mormon Church and filled out the interest card with his name and address, his phone number, etc... about a month later he started complaining that for some reason Mormon missionaries were visiting his house all the time and wouldn't leave him alone.

I'm wondering, what other kinds of religion-based practical jokes my fellow R&S rabble-rousers have ever played on people? Let's have some fun... best practical joke gets the points.

I know that the FSM is a ficticious deity created by an Atheist to mock theists. I know the basics of its inception--it was a concept introduced by Robert Henderson a few years ago, as a model deity to help protest Intelligent Design being taught in Kansas schools.

But I am curious as to the deeper nature of the 'religion.' Is there any actual doctrine, life-lessons, etc... that have been developed as part of Pastafarianism since its inception? Has anyone delved further into what Pastafarianism truly is?

To ask in simpler terms: you know those 'Star Trek' dorks that can speak fluent Klingon--are there also FSM dorks out there that have actually formalized Pastafarianism? And if so where can I find their Holy Cook-Book? Wiki kinda comes up short.

I'm not looking for inspiration or enlightenment (maybe amusement, though). I'm just curious... again, I know it's a deliberate fake. (Atheists, I point that out to protect myself from my own brethren... no offense meant to y'all

As a Christian, I see ample evidence in our universe to convince me God does in fact exist. However, I cannot say the same for the "people" who supposedly screen questions and answers to look for violations of the community guidelines.

At best, there is a elementary subroutine that evaluates reports that come in and makes a decision based on some predetermined equasion, which is what decides which content to delete. It is accompanied by another subroutine that sends an automated response 3-5 days after a violation is challenged, with one of several form-letters it selects at random, stating general info--that you had asked a person on the other end to clarify.

Pascal's wager would tell me that it would be safer for me to not ask this question... that it would be safer just to assume that the Yahoo Cops exist. But time after time the mounting evidence keeps pointing to the conclusion that they don't. Am I alone, or are there other Yahoo-agnostic out there who share my plight?

One of the last commands Jesus gave his disciples before ascending into heaven was to "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20)

Every day I see someone post a question on this page as to why Atheists show up here... as if Christians DON'T want them here.

Do we not realize that these people are the very ones that Christ was commanding his followers to minister to?

Do we not realize that by asking them why they are here, we are in essence saying that we don't want them here--and in turn are shooting ourselves in the foot at following one of Christ's most important commands?

Do we not realize that this attitude among Christianity is exactly what fuels its opposition, and that we are only propagating the beliefs of others about our faith?

When will you stop rejecting, and start doing what Christ commanded of you?

Next spring I am hoping to go to Ensenada, Baja Calif, Mexico, and I want to go diving while I'm there. I am going nuts trying to find a SCUBA boat operator in the area.

Anyone here know of a good dive operator in Ensenada? Please give me a webpage (I had to disconnect international calling on my phone because of an ex).

R&S-ers kick fish-butt!

Just an observation I have made in my time on this forum.

Yes, I fully recognize the ridiculousness of many of the things that Christianity believes, and I also know that I am painting myself with a big bulls-eye asking this question. So go ahead and fire at will.

Anyway, Atheists constantly ask how Christians can believe in things like a virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, burning bushes, parting of the seas, talking donkeys, global floods... you get the idea.

Christians believe that a God that exists outside of our plane of existence created the entire universe out of nothing, and formed it exactly to his specific design. Now wouldn't it go to figure that if we believe that God can do THAT, then the rest of the Bible is child's play to him?

So if we believe Genesis 1-2 is true, then there's no logical reason to believe that the rest couldn't be true.

Not trying to open debate--I'm just curious what kind of answers I'll get.

THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION ONLY--NOT AN ATTACK ON ATHEISTS--CHRISTIANS, PLEASE ANSWER RESPECTFULLY!!!

Question assumes, for sake of argument, that Christianity is true.

Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29, and Luke 12:10 all refer to the unforgivable sin of "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." What this is generally believed to mean is giving credit for supernatural acts of God's to someone or something besides God--traditionally but not exclusively to Satan.

Atheism attributes the miracle of creation not to God, but to "A series of trillions of unlikely but fortunate accidents," to use a standard description. By saying that this series of accidents is responsible for creation and not God, are they in effect committing an act of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

And, if so, could this unforgivable sin be what actually keeps them out of the kingdom of heaven?

Again, theological discussion only--play nice!

Whenever I first log onto Y!A and there is the list of open questions on the homepage, there are never any R&S questions. I started actively looking a month ago, logging on several times a day, and I have yet to see one.

Is this just chance? Or are we Y!A's bastard stepchild that it wants to keep hidden away from it's other users?

Or does Johnny Appleseed have more of a chip on his shoulder tonight than normal?

I've never seen him respond the way he has been tonight. I actually checked his profile to make sure he wasn't a clone or a troll.

Somebody had their Wheaties (TM) today! Love ya, Bro!

I have done my best since I started hanging out with you kids to show what Christianity really stands for. I have admitted when I have no satisfactory answer for questions.

I have supported my stances with both the Bible and with practical examples from real life.

I have dropped the heavy end down on dozens of other Christians when their behavior was totally out of line.

I have never claimed that I am right and everyone else is wrong; I have actually acknowledged the undeniable fact that someone out there has to be wrong.

This last idiot has just started making me feel a little self-conscious. There's a few of us on here who really got our acts together, but too many of the people claiming to be Christians are like dear Brother Sam.

Have I done a good enough job of showing that not ALL Christians are like that? Are there enough of us here to make you all think that there's some good left in Christianity?

You stated in a recent question that "Christian always like to say this..." and then essentially threw out Pascal's Wager.

I am a Christian. Personally I find Pascal's wager to be a disgusting cop-out for Christians. It is that quintessential scare-tactic of using hell to extort people into Christianity, which brings people into the religion for the wrong reasons.

The word gospel literally translates "Good News," and Christianity, in my opinion, should be ministering less about saving people from hell and more about the abundant blessings that await us in heaven. I am not the least bit interested in hell, because I will not be there; and my ministry reflects this belief.

So, as a Christian, I do not ever use Pascal's Wager as part of my argument for my beliefs... which means that your statement that "Christians always like to say..." is WRONG.

There is so much political correctness going on in this world, that even God is a target. Some religious and womens' rights groups are insisting that God is a woman, or at least that we only think of God as a man because of the male dominance of the societies when the dominant world religions originated. Maybe God's a man, maybe God's a woman (and I will concede, for the sake of my argument, that maybe God is a flying spaghetti monster).

But when was the last time you ever heard anyone suggest that Satan may also be a woman?