Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What are the odds?

1…1011131516

Comments

  • #362
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    vibe666 wrote: »
    why is it that the numbers of people who ARE of a christian faith is falling the world over?
    Totally false statement.

    All the available statistical evidence demonstrates that the number of Christian adherents in the world (somewhere in the region of 2 billion people) is increasing at a rate of 2% per annum (that's an extra 110,000 new Christians every day).

    Of course the numbers of adherents is no indication of the truth of Christianity - but hopefully this will help you not to repeat this howler of an urban legend again.
    This thread has actually turned me into a steadfast atheist and I have to say, it's very liberating, so thanks (to both sides). :)
    Glad to hear it. I am in favour of seeing the number of nominal church members reduced as quickly as possible.


  • #363
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    vibe666 wrote: »
    as I've said before, the crusades, the inquisition, the troubles in northern ireland, the nazi's and many more were all following what they perceived to be their gods great plan for them (and the rest of us).
    We need the mythbusters in this thread! I grew up in NorthernIreland in the 60s and 70s and I personally know several former paramilitaries who were atheists. Their motivation was political and tribal.

    Interestingly I also know former paramilitaries who immediately turned away from violence once they converted to Christianity (both Catholic and evangelical varieties).
    to be fair, I'm happy to give you stalin and mao to play with, both atheists and both completely barking but I don't think people capable of genocide like that would get to power any more without religious backing.
    I guess the one huge gulag that makes up North Korea is just an optical illusion then?

    The continued persecution and killing of Christians in China today must also be carried out by those in the Chinese Communist Party who are secretly religious?

    all the most recent nut jobs seem o have some sort of religious fervour of some kind. with our new found global village there's very little to hate about each other aside from differing religious beliefs.

    Let's see ....
    Genocide in Rwanda - caused by tribalism.
    Darfur - lighter skinned Muslims killing their darker skinned co-religionists.
    Georgia - Orthodox Russians fighting orthodox Georgians.
    Kenya - Massacres caused by tribalism.
    Zimbabwe - Zanu PF killing MDC supporters.
    Democratic Republic of Congo - Slaughter caused by political factionalism and tribalism.
    South Africa - Zimbabweans killed on the streets because they are of a different nationality.
    Peru - Shining Path guerillas (who profess to be atheists) commit massacres in the name of Maoism.
    Sri Lanka - Tamil Tigers kill thousands seeking seperatism for their language/ethnic group.
    Sierra Leone - Unspeakable atrocities committed in the name of tribalism and the control of diamonds.
    Liberia - Massacres and cannibalism in the name of political factions and warlords.

    Time to get off your high horse and smell the coffee.


  • #364
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    Their motivation was political and tribal.
    Many sociologists believe that organized religion is little more than tribalism, but carried on with religious markers instead of tribal ones. I don't recall that Dawkins has developed that idea very much, but there are others who have and whom you may find interesting.
    PDN wrote: »
    Time to get off your high horse and smell the coffee.
    Ye gods, man -- it's off to bed for you with a dose of Myles!


  • #365
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    They must have known? How must they have known it was evil before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good&Evil?
    Yes, they must have known:
    Gen 2:16-17 ESV And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, (17) but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What exactly do you mean by "independent knowledge on Good&Evil"? God created the tree, so surely the fruit was hardly lying to them when they discovered it was wrong to be naked. But when God finds out they know about it being wrong to be naked, he throws a wobbler and banishs them to a life of pain.

    Independent knowledge means that now they knew what was wrong without God telling them.
    God doesn't punish them for knowing that they were naked, He punished them because they had eaten from the forbidden fruit. This fruit had given them what God had said: death - spiritual dath. They were no longer capable of being in God's presence, enjoying His fellowship. Their nature had become sinful.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Care to explain how wisdom of Good&Evil makes you spiritually dead?
    This wisdom was obtained by being disobedient to God. That disobedience made them spiritual death.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The Tree of Life was guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword to stop Adam and Eve from getting the fruit after they where banished, surely God could have justed guarded the tree if they stayed.
    Yes God could have done anything. But in His mercy and wisdom He banished them from the Garden of Eden, and made them work for their food.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Originally Posted by santing viewpost.gif
    God used animal skins to teach them that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
    Where did you get that from?
    Heb 9:22 ESV Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Can you explain that? Do you believe it is sinful to feel shame if naked? Do you believe the bible tells that to cover our nakedness is sinful?
    No, it is not sinful to feel shame if naked. But when Adam and Eve where innocent, before the fall, they did not know shame. Shame came with the package of knowing Good & Evil, which came through disobedience to God which gave them the sinful nature.


  • #366
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I didn't say he curse Adam or Eve, I said he cursed the rest of us. He gave us a sinful nature. Do you think Adam gave us a sinful nature? Is he a god now, can he alter the nature of reality?
    God didn't curse us with the sinful nature. We inherited this nature from our parents. Adam couldn't change his nature, he could only pass it on.
    We are born in the likeness and image of Adam, with a fallen nature.
    Gen 5:1-3 ESV This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. (2) Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. (3) When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    And would have ended when Adam and Eve died except God decided we would inherit it, for a laugh.

    The was his curse to the rest of us. Otherwise how else do you explain everyone having a sinful nature except Jesus who was not born of Adam but born of God?
    We indeed inherit the nature from our parents, just like we inherit their genes - that's kind of obvious.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    "They" and "we" are different people Santing. I am not the same person as my father, and he can't decide what I inherit.

    If a sinful nature is transfered through genetics that must have been something God decided to do (the curse for future generations). If it is transfered some other way, again that must have been something God decided.

    I can't through my actions decide to pass traits onto my descendants, and neither could Adam. Nothing Adam did on his own could determine that his descendants would have a sinful nature that he didn't have. It was God's act of punishment.
    We recoginse in our children the same gifts and the same struggles we had when we were young. If that's decided just by genes - I don't know. But it is part of the nature - our sinful nature - that we pass on. A nature of life cannot come forth out of a nature death.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    God puts it better himself in Exodus

    You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand of those who love me and keep my commandments.

    Yes, God promises here that He will not punish the children because of sinful acts their parents have committed. However, children may have to carry the consequences of the sinful acts their parents have committed. If I build an empire on selling drugs, then one day all of my possessions will be confiscated and my children will be poor.
    That's why we also read in Exodus:
    Exo 34:6-7 NET The LORD passed by before him and proclaimed:10 "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, (7) keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin. But he by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children's children, to the third and fourth generation."
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Do you not think it is funny that God would set it up like this and then decide to punish us for something we have no choice over?
    From our own nature we don't have the choice. But God gives His gifts freely to all humans - love, joy, sun, rain etc. He works at each of our hearts so that everyone gets a choice of accepting or rejecting Him. If we accept Him, it is not because we are so good or clever, but because God worked at us.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Also you have jumped quite significantly from your original assertion only a few posts ago that God has to allow us to inflict suffering and pain on each other because otherwise he would be curtailing our free will. But he is already curtailing our free will, and punishing for it as well!
    God didn't curtail our free will to choose good, Adam did when he disobeyed God. Adam choose death over a life with his Creator.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Which makes God pretty damn evil.

    An ethical doctor doesn't sit around thinking "man I hope a lot of people get sick and suffer so I have someone to talk to" and a loving God would either. A doctors happiest day is when he sees no patents, and Gods happiest day would be when no one needed him.

    The idea that God would introduce suffering and pain into the world so that we would then inflict it on each other and the victims would need him to couple, like a jealous husband breaking his wifes legs so she needs him for everything, just makes God seem like a horrible needy tyrant.
    God's happiest moments are indeed those when sinners accept His offer of salvation. Outside of God's presence their is only misery, shame, regrets etc. Our sinful nature is the primary cause of the suffering in the world, a reminder of what life without God is about. Here on this earth we still enjoy many of God's blessings.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well yes but we cannot do it on our own because God made us that way

    The wife with the broken legs locked in the house needs her husband but only because he broke her legs and locked her in the house so she would need him. Does that sound "loving" to you?

    Love isn't about need it is about want. It is about freely choosing something.

    God made us to need him, and to top it off he then cursed us with a sinful nature, trapped to sin no matter what while punishing in a lake of fire for eternity those who did.

    No where in that is there "love"

    I don't (thankfully) believe your god exists, but even if I did I would not worship him. I would be terrified of him for sure, and the universe would be a much scarier place with the idea of something like that existing, but I wouldn't (I hope, if I was strong enough) worship him.
    God indeed made us to need Him. He made us to worship Him and have fellowship with Him. That was already the case before the fall. The only way to find fullfilment in life is to find this fellowship with God.
    The only way for us to find this way was for God himself to enter His creation and lift the curse, carry the punishment for sin. He did this and offers to all who want the way out of misery.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes he could have.

    For a start he could have not made Satan. That would have been a good start. He could have also made humans to be able to with stand suffering and pain, or simply without the concept of pain and suffering at all. That would have been easy. There is no reason why we have to have these frail bodies that break and suffer so easily. We might not need God then, but why would he care if he truly loved us as he is supposed to?

    He also could have punished Adam and Eve and left it at that, rather than cursing all of humanity as punishment for what they did, forcing us to a life of sin which he then goes on to punish us for with eternal suffering and pain.
    When God created Angels and Humans He gave both the capability to be disobedient to Him. He wants love and obedience from people who can say No.
    In order to understand the punishment we need to understand how bad sin is. God is holy, separated from sin and cannot tolerate sin - and sinners cannot stand in the presence of a Holy God.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Originally Posted by santing viewpost.gif

    [*]That God will work out all things for the good
    I see no evidence of that, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.
    My perception is different than yours ... God has saved multitudes and will save multitudes more. God is victorious over sin. He provided the solution for sin.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why if they don't have a choice and are only this way because God decided so? Also what purpose does punishment serve after all the horrible things have happened? The purpose of punishment in modern justice systems is to stop someone doing the thing again. Punishing people at the end of time is largely pointless, particularly if you are punishing them for simply being the way you made them.
    Again, God didn't make us sinners. He comes down in our cell to rescue us. He gives everone who wants a new nature that cannot sin. As a famous Bible verse says:
    Joh 3:16-17 ESV "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (17) For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Good thing God throws them into a lake of fire over something they can't control isn't it. That sounds fair and just. Which is why we execute the mentally handicap. Oh wait ...
    No, someone is thrown in the lake of fire because he rejected God's salvation.
    Joh 3:18 ESV Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
    The mentally handicapped can very often not reject (or accept) God's salvation and they are therefore saved, just like little children who die are saved.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    There's nothing in that article but an attack on the guy who proposed the three age system. Typical of these websites. All attack on established work and no original research. I'm fully aware that the system is not clear cut across the world and depends on access to materials. However a clear division between stone tool usage and more advanced tech is visible across most of the world. The transition times differ with the middle east tending to get there first in every major tech development. The date ranges in which these were used in various places are quite well established by a considerable number of dating methods which despite being very different, all give us the same answers.
    Sorry you didn't like the article. Here is one more positive: The mystery of ancient man
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    19th century technology? Are you kidding me? It's already been shown how very primitive technology can be used to move megaliths. That's primary school history stuff. Just because such masonry work wasn't common in say the middle ages does not mean they couldn't do it at all. Medieval stone work was of vastly superior quality to prehistoric works. They'd found that it was far more practical to build large stone structures by, shock horror, cutting the stones into manageable pieces. The builders of stone henge would have constructed forts from wood because stone work was such a chore for them. As to the Ancient Egyptians having skills we can't replicate today... name one.
    We don't replicate, because we are not bothered, but
    1. The biggest stones used in building are bigger than we can lift.
    2. The finest quality of Egyptian linen is better than we produce.
    3. The great Pyramid is made with a greater accuracy than we bother to replicate. Which builder in Ireland can build a straight wall?
    And it is interesting to know how the Egyptians cut granite - iron or bronze tools won't do it!
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    But the very latest that humans could have settled America for example predates the flood by 6000 years or more. If we assume those settlers were wiped out in the flood, what you're telling us is that 8 people repopulated the entire world within 200 years? So not only did they get over the crippling genetic issues associated with a starting mono-ethnic population size of 8, they also healthily bred like rabbits whilst migrating over literally thousands of kilometres, filling out North and South America, China and India, Africa and Europe, setting up empire-sized civilisations as they went...
    As the current timeline is based on the Egyptian Chronology, - which is at odds with the chronology presented in the Bible (Jozef, Moses, Judges, Salomon etc.) research has been done to adjust the Egyptian Chronology. See for instance Timing is everything
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I have no doubt that 8 people can become 1 million within 200 years, but only under ideal circumstances. It could happen in the modern world, but under all of the stresses described above? And in a post-flood world? Salted soil and decaying ruin everywhere? Not to mention poor hunting due to the destruction of all but 2 of each kind of animal. Does none of this strike you as something worthy of scepticism at the very least?
    We don't really know how the post-flood worl looked like. I think it was covered with a healthy layer of clay and earth. The ocean wasn't as salty as today - it was probably filled with sweet water, which can easily be deduced if we use a the principles of C14 dating on salt in the ocean. That would give a maximum age of less than 10,000 years to the oceans.


  • #368
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    santing wrote: »
    God didn't curse us with the sinful nature. We inherited this nature from our parents. Adam couldn't change his nature, he could only pass it on.
    God didn't curtail our free will to choose good, Adam did when he disobeyed God. Adam choose death over a life with his Creator.
    there you go, that's it right there.

    Adam's creator, our creator, the big fecking cheese buck stops here boss man of it all.

    a fair just and reasonable god (or indeed man) would limit the consequences to those guilty of the crime rather than cursing the whole of civilisation for eternity.

    nobody asked me if i wanted to be cursed for something that happened milennia ago and was feck all to do with me.

    and PDN, sorry to break it to you, but YES christianity is in decline, in fact so is every religion apart from Islam which seems to be getting very popular recently.

    you should try reading the odd legitimate news source rather than all those hokey bible bashing ones with ray of sunshine graphics on them.

    christianity will be all but dead within 100 years.


  • #369
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    santing wrote: »
    Sorry you didn't like the article. Here is one more positive: The mystery of ancient man

    No, I'm not going to bother with that one. I've read dozens of these creationist articles and not one of them would get past a science undergraduate. I'm done with these, thanks.
    santing wrote: »
    We don't replicate, because we are not bothered, but
    1. The biggest stones used in building are bigger than we can lift.
    2. The finest quality of Egyptian linen is better than we produce.
    3. The great Pyramid is made with a greater accuracy than we bother to replicate. Which builder in Ireland can build a straight wall?
    And it is interesting to know how the Egyptians cut granite - iron or bronze tools won't do it!

    1. The biggest stones used by the Egyptians hit the 80-90 ton mark. We have cranes that can handle 10,000 ton loads.
    2. Source please. Preferably with some means of measuring "quality" of linen.
    3. Everyone knows Irish builders are cowboys. If they were working under pain of whipping or death I imagine their work, using modern technology, would outshine the Egyptians.
    4. They used wooden wedges swelled with water to make controlled cracks in the stone. How does this equal 19th century technology?
    santing wrote: »
    As the current timeline is based on the Egyptian Chronology, - which is at odds with the chronology presented in the Bible (Jozef, Moses, Judges, Salomon etc.) research has been done to adjust the Egyptian Chronology. See for instance Timing is everything

    Yes and the work proceeds from an irrational bias and is utterly without merit. The people who dated the Egyptian ruins and indeed all of the ruins found archaeologically were composed of a vast array of faiths and creeds. They did not proceed from any assumptions when doing so and had no motives to misrepresent their findings. There isn't a credible archaeologist in the world who will accept the crap in that link.

    Scientists are a bunch philosophically dedicated to change in response to evidence. Indeed, the Egyptian chronology has been extended and contracted by actual scientists in the past. But never by 2000 years. They're not buying this, and there's a reason for that. Ask yourself why the only people in the world who disagree with the majority on this one also happen to be biblical literalists.
    santing wrote: »
    We don't really know how the post-flood worl looked like. I think it was covered with a healthy layer of clay and earth.

    Why do you think that?
    santing wrote: »
    The ocean wasn't as salty as today - it was probably filled with sweet water...

    There's no evidence at all that this is true. Quite the opposite in fact. The chemistry doesn't work at all for starters. To go from fresh water to salt water in the space of 4000 years would require either an insane evaporation rate (say goodbye to your flood entirely and hello to the global drought) or would require the water to have vastly different properties to... well, water. It can only dissolve salts so fast. Sea floor deposits show that the salinity of the ocean has been stable for a couple of billion years now, which you can just translate to 10,000 years if you insist. There's also records of various civilisations using sea water to make salt by evaporation, and indeed basing economies upon it, as far back as 3600 years. So really we're talking about going from fresh water to strongly salty in the space of 400, rather than 4000 years. Or we would be if all the other evidence hadn't already discounted it.
    santing wrote: »
    ...which can easily be deduced if we use a the principles of C14 dating on salt in the ocean. That would give a maximum age of less than 10,000 years to the oceans.

    I doubt you can do meaningful carbon dating on sea salt. It doesn't contain much carbon for starters. Got any primary data to back up that 10,000 year figure?


  • #370
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    vibe666 wrote: »
    and PDN, sorry to break it to you, but YES christianity is in decline, in fact so is every religion apart from Islam which seems to be getting very popular recently.

    you should try reading the odd legitimate news source rather than all those hokey bible bashing ones with ray of sunshine graphics on them.

    christianity will be all but dead within 100 years.

    Just repeating untruths doesn't make them true.
    wikipedia (that well known hokey bible bashing source with ray of sunshine graphics) wrote:
    Within the world's four largest religions, Christianity currently has the greatest growth by numbers and Islam has the fastest growth by percentage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions

    All statistical evidence, including that gathered by the CIA, the United Nations, and Encyclopedia Britannica confirm that Christianity is growing at the rates I indicated.

    Would you care to cite any source to back up your little wishful-thinking fantasy about Christianity declining around the world?


  • #371
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    PDN wrote: »
    Would you care to cite any source to back up your little wishful-thinking fantasy about Christianity declining around the world?
    hmm, let me think. how about everywhere?

    (in no particular order)
    new zealand: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411365/943741
    the uk: http://english.irib.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11649&Itemid=99999999
    one from the times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3890080.ece
    a great one here about ireland and europe in USA today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-10-europe-religion-cover_x.htm
    indymedia article on ireland: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81868
    one from the Christadelphians who seem to agree too: http://itdoesmatter.org.uk/decline.html
    from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (the people who REALLY ought to know): http://pewforum.org/events/051805/global-christianity.pdf

    clearly showing that it is actually true that there is a sharp rise of christianity in africa and parts of asia where people are still weak minded and suffering great hardships, these kinds of people are very open to the suggestion that christianity will save them from it and the christian church has taken advantage of that to bolster it's numbers while it still can (way to take advantage of the meek, nicely done:D).

    but then when you are suffering you need a light at the end of the tunnel and christianity has placed itself very well as that light and as such it is indeed on the rise in these places but even with a huge injection of numbers from those areas the global figures are unsustainable and still dropping on overall.

    the problem is that in europe and the US people aren't suffering nearly as much and life is much better. it's a lot easier to convince people you can save them from their suffering when they actually are suffering. a well educated affluent society has no need to pray for salvation from anything. "oh god please save me from my nice car and plasma tv" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as all the depressing bible prayers for salvation. :)

    oh, and the bottom table in that link also shows how well muslims are doing, as I also said (but then muslims weren't sent here to suffer, so they're bound to be doing better). ;)

    so christianity has about as long to live as it will take to educate people in africa enough to bring them out of the 3rd world vacuum they are living in and as long as it takes to liberate the chinese from communism (already well on it's way with the capitalist growth seen in china in the last few years) so in a final twist of irony communist oppression is one of the only things keeping your lot going. ;)

    go on post another 'creationontheweb' propaganda article refuting it, I dare ya. :p


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    PDN wrote: »
    Let's see ....
    Genocide in Rwanda - caused by tribalism.
    Darfur - lighter skinned Muslims killing their darker skinned co-religionists.
    Georgia - Orthodox Russians fighting orthodox Georgians.
    Kenya - Massacres caused by tribalism.
    Zimbabwe - Zanu PF killing MDC supporters.
    Democratic Republic of Congo - Slaughter caused by political factionalism and tribalism.
    South Africa - Zimbabweans killed on the streets because they are of a different nationality.
    Peru - Shining Path guerillas (who profess to be atheists) commit massacres in the name of Maoism.
    Sri Lanka - Tamil Tigers kill thousands seeking seperatism for their language/ethnic group.
    Sierra Leone - Unspeakable atrocities committed in the name of tribalism and the control of diamonds.
    Liberia - Massacres and cannibalism in the name of political factions and warlords.

    Time to get off your high horse and smell the coffee.

    I've been reading a book lately called The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day. His aim is to dissect some of the more commonly spouted charges levelled against religion - specifically Christianity. It's been an interesting read so far. Intelligent guy that he is, he can be insightful and amusing in his analysis, but he can also be a little acerbic, especially to Harris and Dawkins. I think this is probably just how he is, and so I tend to ignore the odd ad hominem argument he sometimes lets slip. I like him.

    Anyway, I really do have a point! In the chapter I'm currently reading he presents some interesting stats on the above topic: Christianity and war. One can make of them what one will. (I'm paraphrasing Day below)

    After doing a bit sniffing around the internet he reckoned that only 10.8% of the military conflicts listed on Wiki can 'reasonably be attributed as having a religious aspect'. Wiki, being what it is, couldn't be considered a source of reliable information. So he decided to embark on the mammoth task of studying each these wars and determining if he was correct in his analysis. However, by way of good fortune, two chaps happened to publish a 3 volume, 1,500+ page compendium on the very topic right around the same time. Of the 1,700+ wars examined in the book, the authors only saw fit to categorise 123 of these wars as religious. This accounts for less than 7% of the wars chronicled. Of this ~ 7%, Islam accounts for ~ 50% of the wars. The remaining ~ 3.5% is divided amongst other religions including Christianity.

    I generally consider wars to be waged over geopolitical issues, and that religion as a primary factor was somewhat down that pecking order. Still, I'm surprised that he makes such claims. I wonder would objective historians agree?
    vibe666 wrote:
    vibe666 and PDN, sorry to break it to you, but YES christianity is in decline, in fact so is every religion apart from Islam which seems to be getting very popular recently.

    you should try reading the odd legitimate news source rather than all those hokey bible bashing ones with ray of sunshine graphics on them.

    christianity will be all but dead within 100 years.

    No doubt Christianity is in decline throughout Europe. But you seem to ignore the rest of the world. That Europe is now widely considered to be post-Christian isn't much disputed - certainly not here. Bar two sources (one of which I believe undoes your argument - see the next paragraph), your links focus mainly on Ireland and the UK. You have confirmed something that we are already aware of. Well done!

    I find it amusing that you state Christianity is in it's final death throws - or will be in 100 years - and then go on to provide statistics from the Centre for the Study of Global Christianity which suggest otherwise. In light of these statistics - which include a staggering rise in Christianity throughout Africa to mention but one - I'm confused as to your '100 years' faith based position.

    For many Christians (but not all) the decline in European faith is not necessarily a lamentable slide into slow death for our religion. The football squad has been trimmed down, so to speak. And those not committed have moved on. Hopefully, in the future, this will mean that the hierarchy of the collective Christian denominations will spend less time worrying about politics and themselves and start thinking about God. It will also mean that there is a smaller yet more more committed following. So, in keeping with the football analogy, this leaves a more compact and fitter squad at the gaffers disposal!

    Still, I find your post very childish, vibe666. As far as I can see, you haven't provided any evidence to back up your wider claims. Instead, you post some drivel about the 'weak minded' people in parts of Africa and Asia (this is exactly the type of smug superiority that I find so repellent), some unsubstantiated tripe about communist oppression supporting the growth in Christianity and then cement it all together by liberally sprinkling emoticons throughout your post.

    While there does seems to be an undeniable correlation between materialism and the decline in religion, I would say this is more of a waxing and waning of belief. History does not seem to be on your side with regards to your '100 year' faith based statement. I can't think of and incident where religious beliefs have been successfully eradicated - not in the long term anyway. Added to this, you seem to think that our societal affluence will continue unabated. Sceptic that I am, I find it much more likely that world events over the next 100 years will put pay to that. There are many possible events which could cause instability and conflict: shortages in energy, water or climate change are but to mention a few of the more obvious. But I'll admit this paragraph is more a statement of faith. Something your guilty of yourself, vibe666. Still, as one contributor to the links you kindly provided stated: Religion is always declining and always reviving.

    So we'll reconvene in 100 years and see who is correct, shall we?


  • #373
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    vibe666 wrote: »
    hmm, let me think. how about everywhere?

    (in no particular order)
    new zealand: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411365/943741
    the uk: http://english.irib.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11649&Itemid=99999999
    one from the times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3890080.ece
    a great one here about ireland and europe in USA today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-10-europe-religion-cover_x.htm
    indymedia article on ireland: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81868
    one from the Christadelphians who seem to agree too: http://itdoesmatter.org.uk/decline.html
    from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (the people who REALLY ought to know): http://pewforum.org/events/051805/global-christianity.pdf

    clearly showing that it is actually true that there is a sharp rise of christianity in africa and parts of asia where people are still weak minded and suffering great hardships, these kinds of people are very open to the suggestion that christianity will save them from it and the christian church has taken advantage of that to bolster it's numbers while it still can (way to take advantage of the meek, nicely done:D).

    That's a mighty lot of links and words when your answer could as easily be summed up in three words - namely, "Oops, I lied."

    None of your links serve to support your blatant untruth expressed thus:
    vibe666 wrote:
    why is it that the numbers of people who ARE of a christian faith is falling the world over?

    Your links simply state that church attendance is falling in New Zealand, the UK and Western Europe.

    You appear to have made the rather elemenary mistake of not reading your own sources, since they contradict rather than support your fantasy about Christianity declining worldwide:
    vibe666's own link to USA Today wrote:
    Andrew Greeley, a priest, professor at the University of Chicago and prolific author on Christianity, argues that despite the drop in church attendance, Christianity is not on the wane everywhere in Europe. "Religion declined abruptly in England and the Netherlands. It is stagnant in West Germany, and it is flourishing in Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia," he says. "I get upset about the sweeping generalization about the decline in religion. Religion is always declining and always reviving."

    ... It's a different story in Eastern Europe, where the economies are weaker — and citizens less secure. That partly explains why religion remains strong in countries such as Russia, Poland and Ukraine.

    Your link to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity makes no mention of your mythical legend of Christianity's worldwide decline. It simply states that the centre of global christianity is shifting to the South. That is, of course, due to the massive growth in Christianity in places like Asia, Africa and Latin America. Since they also happen to be the most populous areas of the world it remains true that the growth in just one nation such as Nigeria offesets the decline in all of Western Europe put together.

    As for citing the Christadelphians as a authoritative source to support your case - talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel! You want to cite the opinion of a tiny cult as a counter to the surveys demonstrating Christianity's growth produced by the United Nations. You are doing exactly the same thing as those Creationists who cite 'creationonthe web' as scientific proof to counter the Royal Society or any reputable scientific body. Why stop with the Christadelphians? Maybe you can find links from the Scientologists or David Koresh's Branch Davidian as well! As well as being intellectually bereft, your citing of the Christadelphians as an authority is rather strange coming from the person who said: "you should try reading the odd legitimate news source rather than all those hokey bible bashing ones with ray of sunshine graphics on them."

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

    You compound your dishonesty with rank hypocrisy.
    so christianity has about as long to live as it will take to educate people in africa enough to bring them out of the 3rd world vacuum they are living in and as long as it takes to liberate the chinese from communism (already well on it's way with the capitalist growth seen in china in the last few years) so in a final twist of irony communist oppression is one of the only things keeping your lot going
    So let's get this straight. Your point is that Communist oppression is what is keeping Christianity growing so rapidly in China (itself a direct contradiction of your claim that "the numbers of people who ARE of a christian faith is falling the world over".

    That is an interesting thesis, but you have one little teeny-weeny problem. Your own sources, supposedly supporting your little urban legend, actually argue that Christianity was hindered by Communist oppression in Eastern Europe and is now growing as a result of Communism's collapse:
    vibe666's own link to USA Today wrote:
    It's a different story in Eastern Europe, where the economies are weaker — and citizens less secure. That partly explains why religion remains strong in countries such as Russia, Poland and Ukraine. "For the masses, religion provides a sense of certainty in an uncertain world," he says. And since the collapse of communism and its anti-religious ideology, people in Eastern Europe are taking advantage of their new freedom to worship

    So, according to you and your 'proofs', Christianity is growing in China purely because of Communist oppression but is also growing in Eastern Europe because of the lack of Communist oppression.

    Can you understand why I am less than convinced by such (lack of) logic? But hey, maybe it's because I'm a poor deluded Christian while you're an atheist who reaches his conclusions on the basis of rationality and evidence. :rolleyes:
    oh, and the bottom table in that link also shows how well muslims are doing, as I also said (but then muslims weren't sent here to suffer, so they're bound to be doing better)

    Yes, Muslims are growing worldwide. So are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and a host of other religions. Mankind is becoming increasingly religious. I've never denied that, although why you as an atheist should be so happy about the growth of Islamic religion is a bit puzzling. However, I think we've realised by now that you are not bound by the same standards of reason or logic that constrain the rest of us in our thinking.
    go on post another 'creationontheweb' propaganda article refuting it, I dare ya.
    OK, now I'm calling you out as a liar - pure and simple.

    The word 'another' would require my having posted a previous 'creationontheweb' article. I have never cited or linked to 'creationontheweb' in my life. It would be rather strange if I did since I am not a Creationist.


  • #374
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    PDN wrote: »
    Mankind is becoming increasingly religious.

    Is there evidence for this? There may be a growth in the major religions, but I assume most of this growth is coming from people who are members of minority and tribal religions converting (which wouldn't add anything to the total number of religious people on Earth) plus the natural growth of religion as the human population increases.

    For you to say that mankind is becoming increasingly religious would require evidence that there are more atheists and agnostics converting to religion than vice versa, and I would be surprised if this were the case.


  • #375
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    It appears as if we are singing from the same hymn sheet, PDN!


  • #376
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    It appears as if we are singing from the same hymn sheet, PDN!
    Yes indeed! Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?


  • #377
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Charco wrote: »
    Is there evidence for this? There may be a growth in the major religions, but I assume most of this growth is coming from people who are members of minority and tribal religions converting (which wouldn't add anything to the total number of religious people on Earth) plus the natural growth of religion as the human population increases.

    For you to say that mankind is becoming increasingly religious would require evidence that there are more atheists and agnostics converting to religion than vice versa, and I would be surprised if this were the case.

    Millions of atheists/agnostics are converting to Christianity in former Communist countries. China is the obvious example.

    Other countries where the percentages of professed atheists are falling and the numbers of the religious are increasing would include Russia, Ukraine, most of the 'Stans' (former Soviet republics now turning to Islam), Vietnam, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique.

    I think there is a fair argument that the conversion of atheists & agnostics to Christianity in these countries far outweighs the drift of believers into atheism in Western Europe, the US and Canada.

    Today the percentage of people worldwide identifying themselves as atheist is estimated to be between 2% and 3% - according to wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, and the CIA (of course those who gather their information from the Christadelphians might come up with different figures ;)). I wonder what percentage of the world's population were professing atheism 30 years ago (just think of the Soviet bloc and China).

    Of course you can argue that those living under Communism were not real atheists, that their professed atheism was a product of societal pressure rather than genuine belief/unbelief. I think that this is known as "the one true Scotsman" argument.

    If you do choose to go down that road then you may expect me to use the same tactic. I will argue that most of the nominal Christians who are deserting the Church in Western Europe and North America were not true Christians, but were adherents through societal convention rather than genuine belief. My argument will be supported by statistics demonstrating that forms of religion that require a firm commitment from adherents (rather than just nominal membership) are actually growing by rates that wildly exceed the 2% cited earlier. Evangelicalism & Pentecostalism, for example, are growing at vastly faster rates.


  • #378
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    santing wrote: »
    Yes, they must have known:

    Gen 2:16-17 ESV And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, (17) but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

    Independent knowledge means that now they knew what was wrong without God telling them.
    God doesn't punish them for knowing that they were naked, He punished them because they had eaten from the forbidden fruit. This fruit had given them what God had said: death - spiritual dath. They were no longer capable of being in God's presence, enjoying His fellowship. Their nature had become sinful.

    They seemed perfectly capable of being in Gods fellowship, they just didn't want to be naked, because they believed it to be wrong. They could have stayed in Gods fellowship, either dressed in fig leaves, or God could have explained how even though they knew it to be wrong to be naked (because of the Tree of Knowledge of G&E), it was ok to be naked with him. The bible doesn't describe Adam and Eve as doing any other "sins" against God, they even thank him for their sons, Gen 4:1/25), (and in the first place they where tricked into eating from the Tree by the most cunning animal in Eden, the snake). I can't quite see where the sinful nature comes into it.
    santing wrote: »
    This wisdom was obtained by being disobedient to God. That disobedience made them spiritual death.

    That doesn't make sense. How can you be spiritually dead by knowing Good&Evil? Presumably God knows Good&Evil, is He spiritually dead?
    santing wrote: »
    Yes God could have done anything. But in His mercy and wisdom He banished them from the Garden of Eden, and made them work for their food.

    I fail to see the mercy in forcing a life of pain and suffering on people who were tricked into doing something wrong. Why is the suffering necessary for spiritually dead people? What could they get from it?
    santing wrote: »
    God used animal skins to teach them that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.[/I]
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    Where did you get that from?
    Heb 9:22 ESV Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

    There is no mention of the shedding of blood in Genesis 3 at all (there isn't even the mention of the word "animal", but thats not really important), and no mention any forgiveness for the sin of eating from the Tree either . The passage from Hebrews refers to Moses using blood to anoint the 10 commandments, not Genesis
    santing wrote: »
    No, it is not sinful to feel shame if naked. But when Adam and Eve where innocent, before the fall, they did not know shame. Shame came with the package of knowing Good & Evil, which came through disobedience to God which gave them the sinful nature.

    Why would they feel shame if they did not think they where doing something wrong? Also, they would only feel shame if they where doing something wrong, since they where feeling shame for being naked, then being naked is wrong. As they where naked before eating the fruit from the Tree of G&E, this means they doing something wrong before then too, which means they where not innocent before eating from the Tree. This means that Adam and Eve were not actually created innocent.
    santing wrote:
    The ocean wasn't as salty as today - it was probably filled with sweet water, which can easily be deduced if we use a the principles of C14 dating on salt in the ocean. That would give a maximum age of less than 10,000 years to the oceans.

    ROFL:D:D:D. Wow, and for those interested, the composition of sea salt.


  • #379
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    PDN wrote: »
    Evangelicalism & Pentecostalism, for example, are growing at vastly faster rates.

    Out of curiosity do you have any numbers for the growth in those two denominations in Africa? I've seen numbers on Wiki suggesting that Pentecostalism was growing at phenomenal rates?


  • #380
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Out of curiosity do you have any numbers for the growth in those two denominations in Africa? I've seen numbers on Wiki suggesting that Pentecostalism was growing at phenomenal rates?

    I want to avoid vibe666's accusation of quoting "hokey bible bashing source with ray of sunshine graphics" - so I'll ignore the Christadelphians. :)

    How about the International Humanist and Ethical Union (The world union of Humanist organizations)? Do you think they will classify as Bible bashers?
    In an extremely polemical and rabid article against Evangelicals and Pentecostals they make the following claims:
    International Humanist and Ethical Union wrote:
    Throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Pentecostalism is spreading like a wild fire leaving death, rot, darkness and destruction in its wake.

    Thousands of Pentecostal churches are mushrooming in cities and rural areas across the continent. In fact, in Africa, there are more churches and mosques than schools, industries and research centres. According to the Focus on Africa magazine, Evangelical Christianity has more that 125 million devotees in Africa - 19 percent of the continent's population - up from 17 million people who described themselves as 'born-again Christians' in 1970.
    the Pentecostal or Charismatic Church very soon will be the largest Christian church in Latin America. Already 80 % of the Protestants in Chile are Pentecostals, and even if the Catholic church still is leading in most of the Latin American countries, the Pentecostals grow with the highest rates. The Pentecostal cathedral in Santiago has 18.000 seats and The Temple of Brasil para Christo takes even more
    this movement stretches from South America to Europe, from Canada to mainland China: in Henan province of China, for instance, a million converts were reported in 1994
    The highly esteemed statistical surveys published by David Barrett now show beyond doubt that the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches are the world's largest protestant movement, with 500 million followers in 1997. While the Baptists and the Methodists till the middle of the 20th century where the flagships of the Protestants, these churches are now left behind by the Pentecostals - or they have changed their own character and joined the more successful Brethern in the Lord. Those of us who come from cultures like for instance the Scandinavian or English societies, may have lived in the illusion that the Lutheran or Anglican churches are the big ones, and we have to realize that these are minorities compared with the hallelujah-shouting half billion Charismatics.

    We are now facing the fact that the Pentecostals within a period of time also may outnumber the Catholic church, which today is the world's largest Christian denomination, with 1 billion members. Barrett's 1997 prognosis says that this number will increase to 1.3 billion in 2025, while the Pentecostals in the same time span will more than double their number from 500 million to 1.1 billion - an increase that with a similar speed will make the Catholic church the world's number two church before the year 2030. Even if this prognosis fails, we have to add to the picture that the Pentecostals are active and practising believers. Their churches do not have the same kind of formal and passive membership as the old churches haves.

    You can read the full apocalyptic rant at http://www.iheu.org/node/1754

    Evidently the humanists don't envisage Christianity dying out anytime soon.


  • #381
    bus77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,313 ✭✭✭bus77


    PDN wrote: »
    The priests tell the craftsmen that they want a big bronze basin big enough to fill the empty space in front of the altar in the Temple.

    Apologies for bringing up the pot again but I think I've sussed out what it was for.

    Along with this huge thing you've got 10 more basins around the temple. They used the big one to refill the little ones every day.

    ''37 After this manner he made the ten bases; all of them had one casting, one measure, and one form.

    38 And he made ten lavers of brass: one laver contained forty baths; and every laver was four cubits; and upon every one of the ten bases one laver.

    39 And he set the bases, five on the right side of the house, and five on the left side of the house; and he set the sea on the right side of the house eastward, toward the south.''

    So each one of the smaller one's hold's 40 baths and there's ten of them.
    To fill each of them once, 40 x 10 = 400.

    Now if you multiply that by a 7 day working week you get 2800. But if you do it by 5 working days you get the 2000 baths that the big one held.

    So a five day working week for the temple, a refill of the big pot on a Saturday, rest on Sunday. And back in business for the Monday.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    PDN wrote: »
    Of course you can argue that those living under Communism were not real atheists, that their professed atheism was a product of societal pressure rather than genuine belief/unbelief. I think that this is known as "the one true Scotsman" argument.

    I suppose it would indeed be a fallacious argument for me to say that the people who were forced into atheism in the USSR and China were not atheists, at least on paper. Thankfully coerced atheism is significantly on the decline and people who do believe are free to express their true beliefs, and hopefully when coerced belief (on state, communal and familiar levels) takes a similar downturn we might see truer reflections of what people privately believe. Until then we will have to make do with the imperfect surveys that we have and assume them to be roughly correct.

    And thinking about it again perhaps I was a bit hasty in questioning the net increase in belief among humanity as of course religious people on average do have considerably larger families than non-believers, thus the increasing human population would be biased towards belief.


  • #383
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    bus77 wrote: »
    Apologies for bringing up the pot again but I think I've sussed out what it was for.

    Along with this huge thing you've got 10 more basins around the temple. They used the big one to refill the little ones every day.

    ''37 After this manner he made the ten bases; all of them had one casting, one measure, and one form.

    38 And he made ten lavers of brass: one laver contained forty baths; and every laver was four cubits; and upon every one of the ten bases one laver.

    39 And he set the bases, five on the right side of the house, and five on the left side of the house; and he set the sea on the right side of the house eastward, toward the south.''

    So each one of the smaller one's hold's 40 baths and there's ten of them.
    To fill each of them once, 40 x 10 = 400.

    Now if you multiply that by a 7 day working week you get 2800. But if you do it by 5 working days you get the 2000 baths that the big one held.

    So a five day working week for the temple, a refill of the big pot on a Saturday, rest on Sunday. And back in business for the Monday.

    Quite possibly, but they would take the rest on the Sabbath (Saturday) rather than Sunday. That way they would be free to watch Sky Sports Super Sunday.


  • #384
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Charco wrote: »
    I suppose it would indeed be a fallacious argument for me to say that the people who were forced into atheism in the USSR and China were not atheists, at least on paper. Thankfully coerced atheism is significantly on the decline and people who do believe are free to express their true beliefs, and hopefully when coerced belief (on state, communal and familiar levels) takes a similar downturn we might see truer reflections of what people privately believe. Until then we will have to make do with the imperfect surveys that we have and assume them to be roughly correct.

    And thinking about it again perhaps I was a bit hasty in questioning the net increase in belief among humanity as of course religious people on average do have considerably larger families than non-believers, thus the increasing human population would be biased towards belief.

    And of course Robin believes that we are all born as atheists, so that would make every single Christian a convert from atheism. :)


  • #385
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    PDN wrote: »
    Quite possibly, but they would take the rest on the Sabbath (Saturday) rather than Sunday. That way they would be free to watch Sky Sports Super Sunday.

    Off topic, but when did the Sabbath become a Sunday in Christianity instead of Saturday and why? I have always meant to find out but never did.


  • #386
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Charco wrote: »
    Off topic, but when did the Sabbath become a Sunday in Christianity instead of Saturday and why? I have always meant to find out but never did.

    According to the Book of Acts the early Church began worshipping on a Sunday from the very beginning. This was because both the Resurrection and the Day of Pentecost occurred on a Sunday.

    Also, as large numbers of Christians gathered in the Temple courts in Jerusalem to worship, it probably seemed less provocative and confrontational to do so on a Sunday rather than to disrupt the Sabbath worship of the Jews.

    However, none of this equates to changing the Sabbath from a Saturday to a Sunday. It is most likely that the early Jewish Christians worshipped on Sunday but still observed the Sabbath regulations on a Saturday, just as they observed the dietary laws and practiced circumcision etc.

    For this reason some sects (eg Seventh Day Adventists) still observe Saturday as the Sabbath. Indeed, the SDA see Sunday worship as being 'the mark of the Beast'.

    My own view, based on Scripture, is that no day should be set apart as a Sabbath - instead every day should be treated as holy. Most of the churches I oversee meet on a Sunday because that is the most convenient time for most people. But at least one of our churches worships on a Saturday - not for any theological reason but because they borrow a building from the Presbyterians and can only do so on a Saturday.

    I certainly reject the nonsensical idea, common in Northern Ireland where I grew up, that God is somehow offended by someone buying an ice cream or watching a football match on a Sunday. I have, on occasion, hurriedly pronounced the benediction at the end of a Sunday Service and then rushed to our local stadium to watch an Eircom League match.


  • #387
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    santing wrote: »
    God didn't curse us with the sinful nature. We inherited this nature from our parents. Adam couldn't change his nature, he could only pass it on.

    Adam didn't have a sinful nature. That was the point of Adam. He was created perfect in God's image, given complete free will and the ability not to sin if he choose to. If Adam had been created with a sinful nature it would make even less sense that God would punish him for disobeying him.
    santing wrote: »
    We recoginse in our children the same gifts and the same struggles we had when we were young. If that's decided just by genes - I don't know. But it is part of the nature - our sinful nature - that we pass on. A nature of life cannot come forth out of a nature death.
    I've no idea what that means, but Adam didn't have a sinful nature, we did. How did it get there if it wasn't put there by God?

    Your idea that Adam's choice was some how passed on to the entire human race makes no sense, any more than saying I must like stamp collecting because my Great Grandfather did.

    Adam did not have the ability to cause his descendents to have sinful natures, he was after all only human. It was God.
    santing wrote: »
    Yes, God promises here that He will not punish the children because of sinful acts their parents have committed.
    Well no you might want to read that again, actually God promises that he will punish the children because of the sinful acts of their parents.
    santing wrote: »
    However, children may have to carry the consequences of the sinful acts their parents have committed. If I build an empire on selling drugs, then one day all of my possessions will be confiscated and my children will be poor.
    Your children may be poor but that isn't an act of punishment. And no state or justice system in the western world would keep them poor simply to punish you, or for that matter throw them in jail.

    Funny that your perfect God would choose to punish people for things they didn't even do.
    santing wrote: »
    From our own nature we don't have the choice. But God gives His gifts freely to all humans - love, joy, sun, rain etc.
    Well God gives pain and suffering freely as well, so I'm not sure where you think "gifts" comes into it. God created the sun to warm us and fire to burn us, water to drunk and to drown in.

    Every so called "gift" God gives can be used to inflict suffering and pain. It is funny you think we should be thankful for this, though I imagine you will say that it is humans who abuse these gifts, but really couldn't God have done a bit better job. I mean you don't give a knife to a serial killer than then be shocked when he stabs someone.
    santing wrote: »
    God didn't curtail our free will to choose good, Adam did when he disobeyed God. Adam choose death over a life with his Creator.
    Adam was a human. He did not have power to curtail the free will of the entire human race even if he wanted to, any more than you could today effect the nature of your great great great great grand children.

    God is the only being with that power.
    santing wrote: »
    God's happiest moments are indeed those when sinners accept His offer of salvation.
    I sincerely doubt that, considering he made the sinner in the first place.

    If that is the case then God is a bit sick, causing suffering to get pleasure when people turn to him for help.
    santing wrote: »
    God indeed made us to need Him. He made us to worship Him and have fellowship with Him. That was already the case before the fall. The only way to find fullfilment in life is to find this fellowship with God.
    A creature who creates beings that suffer and require the being to ease that suffering is basically evil. It doesn't matter if that is a god or if it is someone starving a pet dog.

    You see us suffering and think how wonderful it is that God is willing to ease our suffering. You, conveniently, ignore that it is God that created the suffering in the first place so that we would need him.

    If he loved us he wouldn't have created us without it.
    santing wrote: »
    When God created Angels and Humans He gave both the capability to be disobedient to Him. He wants love and obedience from people who can say No.

    Apparently not, since he took away our choice after Adam.
    santing wrote: »
    My perception is different than yours

    No, you are just so caught up in trying to ease your suffering that you are not prepared to look at the question of why you suffer in the first place.

    Like the woman who's husband has chained her to the bed it is hard to look at the cause of the suffering when that cause is also your own chance of relief. The woman needs the husband even though he has done this to her. You (think) you need God, even though if one follows the beliefs of your religion it is God who has done this to do.
    santing wrote: »
    ... God has saved multitudes and will save multitudes more. God is victorious over sin. He provided the solution for sin.
    He also created the need to have a solution.

    The woman chained to the bed is hungry, and the husband feeds her, providing a solution to the hunger. She may be grateful for this, and do what he wants. But one should not forget that it is he who tied her to the bed in the first place.

    God provides a way to escape his punishment, but one only needs to escape it in the first place because of God.
    santing wrote: »
    Again, God didn't make us sinners.
    Yes he did. Adam was a human, he could not make the entire human race have a sinful nature condemned to sin no matter what. That was not his power. God curse us all to punish Adam so great was God's anger towards Adam.
    santing wrote: »
    No, someone is thrown in the lake of fire because he rejected God's salvation.
    No, we are not thrown into the lake of fire as punishment for not accepting God's salvation, we are thrown into the lake of fire as punishment for sin, sin that we cannot help but commit. There is no justice in that.
    santing wrote: »
    The mentally handicapped can very often not reject (or accept) God's salvation and they are therefore saved, just like little children who die are saved.

    You missed the point. We, civilised society, do not execute people who are mentally handicapped because they have no choice in how they behave.

    God throws people into a lake of fire for sinning, despite us having no choice not to sin. That is not justice, that is tyranny.


  • #388
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Millions of atheists/agnostics are converting to Christianity in former Communist countries. China is the obvious example.

    Other countries where the percentages of professed atheists are falling and the numbers of the religious are increasing would include Russia, Ukraine, most of the 'Stans' (former Soviet republics now turning to Islam), Vietnam, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique.

    That isn't true PDN, we have been over this before.

    The "atheists" in China converting to Christianity were not atheists. In fact a lot were Christians to being with.

    It seems silly that you would rant about statistics and then make a basic mistake of thinking that official figures from a totalitarian state some how represent the spiritual beliefs of the population.


  • #389
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That isn't true PDN, we have been over this before.

    The "atheists" in China converting to Christianity were not atheists. In fact a lot were Christians to being with.

    It seems silly that you would rant about statistics and then make a basic mistake of thinking that official figures from a totalitarian state some how represent the spiritual beliefs of the population.

    Except that I actually visit China regularly and have met with thousands of converted atheists. They share their stories with me and they are very clear that they were not Christians to begin with.

    However, no doubt you, with your vast experience of the Chinese Church, will continue to correct me and tell me how wrong I am. You do this based on what exactly? What is your basis, apart from wishful thinking, for thinking that you know more about the background of Chinese Christians than they do themselves?


  • #390
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Except that I actually visit China regularly and have met with thousands of converted atheists. They share their stories with me and they are very clear that they were not Christians to begin with.

    However, no doubt you, with your vast experience of the Chinese Church, will continue to correct me and tell me how wrong I am. You do this based on what exactly? What is your basis, apart from wishful thinking, for thinking that you know more about the background of Chinese Christians than they do themselves?

    PDN if you want to claim that thousands (exactly how many have you meet and had the time to get to know to the point where they share details such as their previous spiritual beliefs?) of atheists in China have converted to Christianity go ahead.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    PDN if you want to claim that thousands (exactly how many have you meet and had the time to get to know to the point where they share details such as their previous spiritual beliefs?) of atheists in China have converted to Christianity go ahead.

    And if you want to claim that a lot of the millions of new Christians in China were already Christians then supply some evidence.

    Statistical evidence would be best. Anecdotal evidence from your meeting a few thousand, or even a few hundred, of these pre-existent Christians would be a poor second. However, an unfounded assertion based on how you would like things to be (ie a faith statement) will convince nobody.

    So, come on, what basis do you have for making such a statement? You frequently tell us that you a rational person who bases his beliefs on evidence. Therefore it is reasonable for me to ask you - where is the evidence?


Advertisement