God or No God?

I think many people misinterpret because they can't understand the difference between literal and a metaphor. Metaphor can refer to literal things, but still be mistaken.

Misinterpretation happens with everyone. No one knows what should be metaphor and what should not be metaphor. In the case of religion oftentimes even the author does not know. God is probably the only one that knows for sure.

It is folly to trust anyone's interpretation or claim entirely as to interpretation. One must make sound judgement and then be open minded to the possibility that one is wrong. The Bible is most likely a mixture of literal and metaphor and which is which is unknown with the exception of the parables in the New Testament.

Not all of them are unknown, just a lot. Trusting human interpretation is idiocy, for "the flesh is weak".

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not all of them are unknown, just a lot. Trusting human interpretation is idiocy, for "the flesh is weak".

The only known ones are the parables. What one religion says, or what one person says, is not evidence to the fact, so others are unknown.

Originally posted by Regret
There is no reason to believe that God would not have used evolution as the tool of creation. It is possible for some creationist's views to be anti science, but it is an interpretation of the text. The Bible does not state the method of creation, and does not necessitate anything unscientific in regards to the method.

That's a real shocker... Ambiguity in scripture.

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
That's a real shocker... Ambiguity in scripture.

It isn't ambiguity, it is the avoidance of useless knowledge. There is no need to know exactly how some things occurred, no matter how fun it is to consider them. The exact method of how would do little good in teaching us to love everyone, the goal of the Bible according to Christ.

Originally posted by Regret
It isn't ambiguity, it is the avoidance of useless knowledge. There is no need to know exactly how some things occurred, no matter how fun it is to consider them. The exact method of how would do little good in teaching us to love everyone, the goal of the Bible according to Christ.

I find much of the Bible useless and irrelevant already.

Originally posted by Regret
It isn't ambiguity, it is the avoidance of useless knowledge. There is no need to know exactly how some things occurred, no matter how fun it is to consider them. The exact method of how would do little good in teaching us to love everyone, the goal of the Bible according to Christ.

But this philosophy gives loopholes. WHile I also believe it is correct, you should, in theory, be able to try to find out how everything occoured.

Originally posted by Regret
It isn't ambiguity, it is the avoidance of useless knowledge. There is no need to know exactly how some things occurred, no matter how fun it is to consider them. The exact method of how would do little good in teaching us to love everyone, the goal of the Bible according to Christ.

I guess it depends on the person. I dare say that out there at some point in history, there will have been at least one person who wondered how something happened. And who is to say what is useless knowledge? Really?

At the very least knowing the exact method would clear up debate. How many debates and schisms in the Churches can be attributed to different interpretations and beliefs of method? How much of the dispute between Church and Science is born out of differing perceptions on life, the universe, everything? Knowledge, even "useless knowledge" can be very valuable in stopping uncertainty.

There's been times where I've hated god but to this day I still believe in him. Because if there isn't a god then were all ****'d, might as well believe in something.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I guess it depends on the person. I dare say that out there at some point in history, there will have been at least one person who wondered how something happened. And who is to say what is useless knowledge? Really?

At the very least knowing the exact method would clear up debate. How many debates and schisms in the Churches can be attributed to different interpretations and beliefs of method? How much of the dispute between Church and Science is born out of differing perceptions on life, the universe, everything? Knowledge, even "useless knowledge" can be very valuable in stopping uncertainty.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
There's been times where I've hated god but to this day I still believe in him. Because if there isn't a god then were all ****'d, might as well believe in something.

One can believe in other, equally or far more tangible things then a God. I see no reason why we would be more or less doomed in the absence of a God.

Your are showing why we need to a personal relationship with God and Jesus so that we can have faith in them, which is what God really wants.

I am? For me to have a personally relationship and faith in something - be it a person, an ideal, whatever - I need some reason for this. Some knowledge such a stance, such a faith, is valid and justified.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I find much of the Bible useless and irrelevant already.

Much of it might be. Much of the Old Testament was, imo, written for those at the time of its writing, or for those during the time of the New Testament. So much of the Bible is probably useless and irrelevant in many contexts.

Originally posted by Alliance
But this philosophy gives loopholes. WHile I also believe it is correct, you should, in theory, be able to try to find out how everything occoured.

I did not mean to suggest that one could/should not pursue finding the answers to these questions. I merely suggested that knowing these things doesn't increase or decrease one's ability to become a better person in the sense that Christ stated, to learn to love everyone.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I guess it depends on the person. I dare say that out there at some point in history, there will have been at least one person who wondered how something happened. And who is to say what is useless knowledge? Really?

At the very least knowing the exact method would clear up debate. How many debates and schisms in the Churches can be attributed to different interpretations and beliefs of method? How much of the dispute between Church and Science is born out of differing perceptions on life, the universe, everything? Knowledge, even "useless knowledge" can be very valuable in stopping uncertainty.

Agreed, but it doesn't enhance a person's ability to love others. In fact by obsessing over questions that the answers to will not impact a person's ability to love others one often neglects others needs, and may even be said to come to a less loving manner of behavior.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You are showing why we need to a personal relationship with God and Jesus so that we can have faith in them, which is what God really wants.

Christ stated:

Mark 12:29-31
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

What God wants is our love, and our love of others. In fact, John was praised for his desire to be with his fellow men and his requesting to put off his going to God. If a man pursues a relationship with God and does not achieve a strong loving relationship with his fellow man, he has failed.

Originally posted by Regret
It isn't ambiguity, it is the avoidance of useless knowledge. There is no need to know exactly how some things occurred, no matter how fun it is to consider them. The exact method of how would do little good in teaching us to love everyone, the goal of the Bible according to Christ.

It's vague for a reason, and that's to avoid hard questions. "It's just God's will, so don't bother asking." Utter nonsense... The church has a liberal stance on everything. They are worried about the stain on the carpet; meanwhile, the house burns down around them.

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
It's vague for a reason, and that's to avoid hard questions. "It's just God's will, so don't bother asking." Utter nonsense... The church has a liberal stance on everything. They are worried about the stain on the carpet; meanwhile, the house burns down around them.

Lol, no, it's like asking about the chicken and the egg as far as the method of creation, doesn't really matter if all you care about is how the omelet is cooked. I didn't say that it wasn't a worthwhile question, I just stated that from the religious perspective, what does the method of creation have to do with the overriding principle of love one another? What people say is that religion needs to answer all questions to be valid, religion doesn't have to answer any questions to be valid, if it did there wouldn't be so many religious crap theories in existence. I could ask the physics guy how my brain worked, it's not something that means much to what he does, so he may not know, same goes for asking religion about the scientific explanation for what occurs, its not something that should mean much to what it does.

Also, I probably don't fit in with the "church" you mentioned, so I doubt your comment is valid in relation to myself.

Originally posted by Regret
Agreed, but it doesn't enhance a person's ability to love others. In fact by obsessing over questions that the answers to will not impact a person's ability to love others one often neglects others needs, and may even be said to come to a less loving manner of behavior.

Perhaps. But one aspect of humanity has, for many, been that curiosity. That hunger for understanding. Leaving a great big unanswered question just sitting there is distracting. People will ponder it. The best way to stop questioning is to give/find the answer. The answer I think could very well help in the advancement of love - because as I said - where you have a unknown answer you tend to get two or more camps (depending on its nature) coming up with what they think is the answer, and the division between them can be anything from tense to violent. And who is right? Which group should people trust? It goes on and on. An answer given can remove the potential for conflict - for most at least.

Is there a God, or isn't there a God, depends on our ability to disprove God. The burden of proof rests upon atheism to validate its position. Currently, the common alternative to Special Creation via a Personal Creator is the Big Bang Model of Origins. This is the accepted theory today. It is a wonder how this theory came to be accepted, as it violates two of the three Laws of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Cause and Effect.

Furthermore, as retrograde motion is observed throughout the universe, even within our own solar system, the Big Bang violates the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Beyond these violations of natural law, the Big Bang is unable to explain uneven "voids" and "clumps" throughout the universe.

Plus, there remains the question, "where did the Big Bang come from?" This question remains unsolved, even in the minds of atheists. A few atheists hypothesize that the universe is eternal and only appears to have had a beginning. This contradicts quite a few empirical evidences and observations, as well as violating natural law.

Me.

Originally posted by rooobarbcustard
Is there a God, or isn't there a God, depends on our ability to disprove God. The burden of proof rests upon atheism to validate its position. Currently, the common alternative to Special Creation via a Personal Creator is the Big Bang Model of Origins. This is the accepted theory today. It is a wonder how this theory came to be accepted, as it violates two of the three Laws of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Cause and Effect.

Actually that is not the case. The onus of proof, if this were a legal battle, would rest with Theists. The prosecution is trying to prove something. The defense has nothing to prove, one is considered "innocent" until proven guilty. It is up to the prosecution to prove that an offender did something. It is up to Theists to prove their God/gods did what they claim he did. As such the ones that need to come up with a convincing argument the most are the theists, since it is they that are trying to prove the existance and actions of a God.

Plus, there remains the question, "where did the Big Bang come from?" This question remains unsolved, even in the minds of atheists. A few atheists hypothesize that the universe is eternal and only appears to have had a beginning. This contradicts quite a few empirical evidences and observations, as well as violating natural law.

And it is one of the failings of the pro-creationist lobbies that the extent of certain of there arguments rest with evolution defeating itself. Unable to come up with a valid and scientifically likely theory of their own they instead point out unknowns in scientific origins and think that somehow validates their own stance. It doesn't. It does not in fact offer evidence to support their own theory, it merely highlights current problems in the oppositions theory.

And Unknowns are clearly a problem....oh wait....no.