If there is a god

[chickenlittle]

Go ahead and give it a shot, feeling entitled and all.
You may experience something alright. Consider that your god if you want.

The God of Abraham who offered redemtion to all mankind, with amazing grace, through the sacrifice of His messiah for us, responds favorably only to genuine humility and repentance.
Not because we are worthy or entitled to seek his presence, but only because HE has made a way where there was no way.

But all that just goes against the grain doesn't it. Yes it does ... oh yes, so very very yes.

Amen

Couldn't have said it better.

[RR24K]

Go ahead and give it a shot, feeling entitled and all.
You may experience something alright. Consider that your god if you want.

The God of Abraham who offered redemtion to all mankind, with amazing grace, through the sacrifice of His messiah for us, responds favorably only to genuine humility and repentance.
Not because we are worthy or entitled to seek his presence, but only because HE has made a way where there was no way.

But all that just goes against the grain doesn't it. Yes it does ... oh yes, so very very yes.

:whisperer: :loonytunes: :dyinglaughing:

[I Think]

The God of Abraham

WHAT?? isn't your god supposed to be the god?
If abraham can have a god, why not the Romans, Greeks, or cowdy custard.

[Mr Danksworth]

Really? I challenge you to find me another piece of ancient litature written in the same style.

That would be styles. There were many authors used in the compilation of the bible. Which ones are you talking about? Not that they were even present for the events depicted. But that's a whole other story. By the way which bible are you talking about? There are quite a few of them too.

The gospels are unique in their age as literature as nothing else from the same era is written in the same (almost journalistic) style.

Not very good journalism if the 'witnesses/authors' can't even agree on what happened among themselves.

The funny thing about people who claim that the Bible is not a very good read is that they usually haven't taken the time to actually read it.

I've read it front to back multiple times. Reading it actually lead me to identify as an atheist.
It's a book of myths. Stories that have little or no basis in reality, the exodus never happened, the flood never happened and Mary wasn't raped by god to birth himself. I could go on but you get the picture.

[I Think]

MD - you must be a slow learner <G>, it took me two years of bible study (1/2 hr once a week) in high school to decide, I was 13 and realized there was no evidence to support the wacky theories being presented.

[westsidebud]

Really? I challenge you to find me another piece of ancient litature written in the same style.

That would be styles. There were many authors used in the compilation of the bible. Which ones are you talking about? Not that they were even present for the events depicted. But that's a whole other story. By the way which bible are you talking about? There are quite a few of them too.

The gospels are unique in their age as literature as nothing else from the same era is written in the same (almost journalistic) style.

Not very good journalism if the 'witnesses/authors' can't even agree on what happened among themselves.

The funny thing about people who claim that the Bible is not a very good read is that they usually haven't taken the time to actually read it.

I've read it front to back multiple times. Reading it actually lead me to identify as an atheist.
It's a book of myths. Stories that have little or no basis in reality, the exodus never happened, the flood never happened and Mary wasn't raped by god to birth himself. I could go on but you get the picture.

weak argument.the flood did happen

[Corneliousrooster]

(just don't be surprised when the majority of the worlds population isn't buying it - every religion when positioned against the population of the world will be a whopping minority, hmm...........does that mean that all of them contain inferior logic that can not be consumed by the majority??? )

So the majority accepting something makes it true? No - it doesn't make it true - It is your(insert God of Choice) God that sent you out into the world to spread his word (as the one truth) but left you very little in the way of actual tangible evidence that could convince someone who chooses to not base their life on "faith" but rather applied knowledge.
I also think you might be a bit shocked if you actually looked at the statistics.Here are your statistics...http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Any way you slice it - even though christianity is the most followed religion, it is still a minority at 33% when compared against the world as a whole.

Dinosaurs? Yeah those fossilized bones that ANYONE ON THE PLANET can touch and witness TODAY - so mythical....... Stories translated and interpreted by man and passed on for centuries, now thats worth basing your WHOLE EXISTENCE on................

So you have faith in fossils? No faith required - I touched a bone with my bare hands - and EVERY SINGLE PERSON around me could also touch the fossilised bone - Anyone on Any day can go and see them with their own eyes .

I am an evolutionist... and still put my faith in God.

Anyone can also experience God if they are willing to.

Anyone can believe anything if they put faith into something - I believe if you and I both live to be 100 years old, I will have read 1000's of books, immersing myself in countless bodies of knowledge in as many facets of life's experience that can hold my interest, helping me to experience and participate in as many of life's and the worlds wonders that your god created for you - You will have read the same book 1000's of times, the same collection of words, the same one sided story - and you can look deeply and try to find faith in the same faiths as the generations before you in the hopes of the ultimate reward in the great beyond

I am an evolutionist...and still have no faith in God (and even less in the creations made in His image - epic fail!)

[Corneliousrooster]

That would be styles. There were many authors used in the compilation of the bible. Which ones are you talking about? Not that they were even present for the events depicted. But that's a whole other story. By the way which bible are you talking about? There are quite a few of them too.
Not very good journalism if the 'witnesses/authors' can't even agree on what happened among themselves.
I've read it front to back multiple times. Reading it actually lead me to identify as an atheist.
It's a book of myths. Stories that have little or no basis in reality, the exodus never happened, the flood never happened and Mary wasn't raped by god to birth himself. I could go on but you get the picture.

weak argument.the flood did happen

You mean the one where they put 2 of every single one of gods land roaming creatures onto a boat - ya, nothing mythical there..............

[Mr Danksworth]

weak argument.the flood did happen

Okay, whatever you say.<pats on head>

[normaM]

weak argument.the flood did happen

Okay, whatever you say.<pats on head>

why do you care so strongly about what people believe in? what exactly are you offering as a replacement?
Don't believe in God - cool, continue on your way - but why the mocking?

[I Think]

Norma, why do you feel that people need a replacement for a belief?

[Corneliousrooster]

Okay, whatever you say.<pats on head>

why do you care so strongly about what people believe in? what exactly are you offering as a replacement?
Don't believe in God - cool, continue on your way - but why the mocking?

Maybe a little less belief and a little more critical thinking - maybe if people started looking at their surroundings as a bio diverse eco system that shouldn't be meddled with rather than a "creation" that was gifted to those in his image to squander in whatever manner they see fit based on a false sense of entitlement.....

[NAB]

weak argument.the flood did happen

You mean the one where they put 2 of every single one of gods land roaming creatures onto a boat - ya, nothing mythical there..............

Yup, flood did happen, at least in the area aof the known reasonably literate world at that time. But as to the rest of it (like the explanation of how most species survived it, nawwww ;-)

...and I learned that in sundayschool.

[I Think]

So a river flooded its banks, and an enterprising herdsman put some of his animals onto a raft and saved them from the flood.

after a few hundred retellings noah saved all the animals of the world.

[zzontar]

There is proof of a major flood in that era, but it would be impossible for the world to have the plants and animals there are now if everything was wiped out then, I guess they had bad cell service and couldn't find out if the flood was worldwide... I think with the bible getting the moral of most stories is more important than proving or disproving facts. For example, if the condensed version of the bible said nothing more than "the world is 3000 years old, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you"... the wise man would disregard the first part and apply the second part to his life, getting something out of it... the fool would focus on the first part and bicker about it endlessly, getting nothing out of it.