Is there a God??

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by Prelewd

Yes.

I know man came to be, but how he got there, I don't know. One of the proposed theories may be correct, but so could several others. I find the subject fascinating as well. Maybe someone will stumble upon it like Sir Isaac Newton stumbled upon gravity and people go just go.. "duh."

If things were omitted fom the New Testament, then it isn't following the original intent of the religion.

The New Testament wasn't originally written as the New Testament. What I mean was the New Testament was originally just a collection of letters to churches ,writtings of Apostles and documentation of the history of Christ and his teachings by the followers of Christ. For example. Pauls letters to the churches were not intended to be part of the Bible when Paul wrote them. He wrote them simply as letters. I think he would have been suprised to find out that they are still read today and thought of as Holy documents. There is some really good stuff in those letters.
So the original intent of the religion was to follow Christ and his teachings. The Bible does a pretty good job doing that.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by Prelewd

You seem so sure considering your lack of proof..

I am sure.

The proof I need is the existence of the universe itself and how perfectly things work together. I believe science can explain (eventually) how it all works. But, that doesn't invalidate my belief in God.

----------

I'm not asking to convert anyone and I gladly listen to arguements against Gods existence. However, using the arguements that the universe has always been here (virtually the same arguement as to where God came from) is just a belief in something that can't be proven either.

[Prelewd]

Originally Posted by DGB454

The New Testament wasn't originally written as the New Testament. What I mean was the New Testament was originally just a collection of letters to churches ,writtings of Apostles and documentation of the history of Christ and his teachings by the followers of Christ. For example. Pauls letters to the churches were not intended to be part of the Bible when Paul wrote them. He wrote them simply as letters. I think he would have been suprised to find out that they are still read today and thought of as Holy documents. There is some really good stuff in those letters.
So the original intent of the religion was to follow Christ and his teachings. The Bible does a pretty good job doing that.

I agree that the bible (and other religious text) does a good job conveying a right way to live a happy, productive, meaningful life. I do not, however, think it wise to take the bible literally. I also would be inclined to question the validity of a letter written to the church, when it's not an official document at the time.

I too, Yogs, am not asking anyone to convert. I just giving everyone my perspective. I am also interested in hearing arguments for the religion side, but haven't heard anything truly convincing yet..

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by Prelewd

I agree that the bible (and other religious text) does a good job conveying a right way to live a happy, productive, meaningful life. I do not, however, think it wise to take the bible literally. I also would be inclined to question the validity of a letter written to the church, when it's not an official document at the time.

I guess that's where we differ. I think it would be unwise not to take it literally. The Bible does a lot more than just teach us how to live happy, productive, and meaningful lives. We can do that without the Bible. The Bible reveals the spirit of God. The mind of God. The nature of God.


The validity of a letter to a church? I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you mean that someone other than Paul may have written it? Also, what would an official document have been at the time?
Do you mean something with a seal on it?

[Joseph1082]

See, to me God, and The Bible are topics for two different threads.

[Prelewd]

Originally Posted by DGB454

I guess that's where we differ. I think it would be unwise not to take it literally. The Bible does a lot more than just teach us how to live happy, productive, and meaningful lives. We can do that without the Bible. The Bible reveals the spirit of God. The mind of God. The nature of God.


The validity of a letter to a church? I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you mean that someone other than Paul may have written it? Also, what would an official document have been at the time?
Do you mean something with a seal on it?

You need in interpret the bible literally to learn the spirit, mind and nature of god? Ok.. I guess I just don't understand

What I mean by an invalid letter is just because someone wrote something down, doesn't make it a fact. I can write some quote like "females are all decendents of donkeys" and have it included into a book. Does that make it true?

[dirtydx]

so if it aint packaged up and delivered to your door u wont believe God exists? Its the one thing in life you actually have to work for. And the most rewarding too.

[Prelewd]

Originally Posted by dirtydx

so if it aint packaged up and delivered to your door u wont believe God exists? Its the one thing in life you actually have to work for. And the most rewarding too.

How do you know? I wont believe that a god exists until it makes sense that a god exists.

[Joseph1082]

See... I tried to present it from a scientific point of veiw... I'm a scientist not a priest. Until you can give me a better theory as to the origins of the Universe and life, I have to say that God is a valid scientific theory. I have already said, most of the scientific community who accept Evolution and Big-Bang theories are themselves following a religion... there is no PROOF of these, so they follow by faith, faith that their ideas are correct, so Y is mine about God a religion and unscientific.
As for the bible and such, I cannot say how much if it is God's intended Bible or not, obviously it was written by men, it consists of history books, prophocy books, poetry, etc. Nor do I know if the religious institutions are truly what they are... after all, these are all institutions founded by MEN. Is the catholic church any different than a secular goverment, not really. Wasn't the Pope the highest monarch of the latter Middle Ages (yes he was). So whether you agree w religion, institutions, churches etc, that is up to you. As to God himself, he highly more likesly than any other explainations we have, period.

[RedLightning]

i dislike popes(yes this post is somewhat useless.)

[loismustdie]

ok well it is possible to prove things if the person you are trying to prove it to is rational.

the statement that god had to have been created is a rediculous satement because it is impossible for something to always have existed, and the term "always" refers to time.........god doesn't exist in time, we are the ones bound by time, and it is all we know, so we must ask the question: how did god get here? but upon further examination this question hold little to no substance........

and to believe that the universe has always been here is rediculous also, goes against the laws of nature, doesn't make any sense, please explain to me how you think this is possible.

[Joseph1082]

You know I am always up for a physical debate... yes, that is exactly Y it is futile to apply our concepts to go.. but for our limted understand, the term "forever" which means infinite time can also express that which is outside of time, an object such could enter time at any point along the timeline, thus the definition apllied, "infinite". God does not exist in the same realm as us, we are here in 3,4 or however many dimentions you believe, he is somewhere entirely outside. God is timeless because he never changes, if everything in the universe froze, no time would pass, time equals change, so God is a Static existence, the clue to this is when he tells Moses, "Before your father's father's father was, I AM" This means that at the same moment he was talking to Moses, he was also at a point far back in History, he is at all points, omnipresent, outside of time.
As I have stated, God is just as much a scientific theory and the Big-bang is just as much a religious beleif!

[Prelewd]

Still not convinced by the so-called proof that was written by man. You might call me stubborn, but neither side can prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The only way I could see that God exists is if he exists in your mind.

Another question.. how do you explain the people in the furthest regions of South America and Africa that have no contact with the outside world? Some of them do not believe in god.. God doesn't exist to them..

[Joseph1082]

I'm sure they have their own beliefs as to the origins of life and the universe... and I'm sure they fit closer to the God theory than the secular ones.

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by Prelewd

You need in interpret the bible literally to learn the spirit, mind and nature of god? Ok.. I guess I just don't understand

What I mean by an invalid letter is just because someone wrote something down, doesn't make it a fact. I can write some quote like "females are all decendents of donkeys" and have it included into a book. Does that make it true?

The other guys are handeling the existance of God question very well so I won't rehash what they have already said.

I suppose the Bible can be open to a certain amount of interpretation depending on the reader and the time and place the reader is in. Maybe that's why it is refered to as the Living Word at times. Meaning it is as relevant today as it was when it was written and it changes over time even though it it the same. (don't ask me to explain what I just said )
Here is an example of what I mean open to a certain amount of interpretation: The earth was created in 6 days and on the 7th day God rested. Was it a literal 7 days? Some people believe it was. Was it 7 of mans days or 7 of Gods days which could be very different measurements of time. Some people believe that's what is meant. Either way it was 7 days. I take that literaly even though I believe that a certain amount of evolution took place. Those things are are insignificant and not worth argueing about. What is important is the belief that God created the earth and man. That should be taken literally. Another example would be something that happened to me a while back. I read a passage in the New Testament and I got something out of it that I never got before. I was excited about it. I talked to my then Pastor about it. He told me that he remembered one time reading that same passage not to long ago and got something totally different out of it. We both took the Bible literally but both got something different out of it. (another example of how the Bible is a living word and open to a certain amoutn of interpretation.) Thuroughly confused yet?

As far as invalid letter is concerned. Christians beleive that even though the Bible was written by man it was inspired by God. The books included in the Bible are God inspired. If we believe that God inspired the Bible then we believe that God directed the putting together of the Bible. Why would he allow something false to be put in his word? We believe He is all powerful so why wouldn't we believe he could make sure His word is accurate?