Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:The world hates us because it can't beat us and we don't hug and kiss every twit who we run into, but call him what he is?

The world hates us because it hates God. I hope everyone could read the sarcasm in my last post. It just shows how unrealistic the worlds perception of Christianity is. Becoming a Christian doesn't make the right thing easy and natural. We still struggle with the flesh. I guess some feel they would do a much better job of being a Chrsitian, Whatever that means.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:The world hates us because it can't beat us and we don't hug and kiss every twit who we run into, but call him what he is?

Nor do you sound like you love your fellow man.
That my Christian brother is a commandment from God, one of the two most important commandments ever given!

Jesus said let those among you who are innocent cast the first stone.
the world does not have to beat Christians, because we do that ourselves.
If we can not even agree amongst ourselves what chance does the world have?

Jbuza wrote:

Deborah wrote:Blob made it clear why he came to this forum.
In a sense he came to find out what Christians are really like, well done the pair of you, because you have showed him exactly the reason the world hates Christians, and it is not Jesus Christ, it is our actions in the way we live and the way we act toward our fellow man. unfortunately the actions of a few colour the whole christian family the same!

Yes only the great and mighty and perfect can become Christians. Don't be surprised about people; we all know how they can behave.

I want to clarify that I wasn't trying to judge anyone or anything like that, I just don't find it suprising because I have reacted the same way and had to edit and skip some things I wanted to say. I certianly wouldn't want anyone to assume that I feel that I am "Holier than Thou", or that any Christian is Holier than any person ever was. David was a Murderer, Lot had sex with his daughters, etc, etc, etc. Even Jesus Christ himself said "Why do you call me Holy, There is only one that is Holy and that is God."

Jbuza wrote:The world hates us because it hates God. I

I have to disagree there. It's not the world hates God, it's the world does not know God.

Deborah wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:The world hates us because it can't beat us and we don't hug and kiss every twit who we run into, but call him what he is?

Nor do you sound like you love your fellow man.
That my Christian brother is a commandment from God, one of the two most important commandments ever given!

Jesus said let those among you who are innocent cast the first stone.
the world does not have to beat Christians, because we do that ourselves.
If we can not even agree amongst ourselves what chance does the world have?

The world doesn't have any more or less of a chance than we had. I don't think that because some get upset that means they do not love. It is this kind of passion that perhaps caused our Holy Savior Jesus to drive people out of the Temple.


It sounds slightly like you might be casting stones

Calling someone a twit is not not loving.

Deborah wrote:

Jbuza wrote:The world hates us because it hates God. I

I have to disagree there. It's not the world hates God, it's the world does not know God.

As You say If they knew God and accepted him, but then they wouldn't be the world any longer.
They do hate God, but if they knew him the wouldn't, so you are right to a point.

John 15:18-21

“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you... because they do not know Him who sent Me."

Jbuza wrote:

Deborah wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:The world hates us because it can't beat us and we don't hug and kiss every twit who we run into, but call him what he is?

Nor do you sound like you love your fellow man.
That my Christian brother is a commandment from God, one of the two most important commandments ever given!

Jesus said let those among you who are innocent cast the first stone.
the world does not have to beat Christians, because we do that ourselves.
If we can not even agree amongst ourselves what chance does the world have?

The world doesn't have any more or less of a chance than we had. I don't think that because some get upset that means they do not love. It is this kind of passion that perhaps caused our Holy Savior Jesus to drive people out of the Temple.


It sounds slightly like you might be casting stones

not so, I know I am not innocent or worthy.

do you have any idea what it is to see so clearly yet still not be able to do?
Jesus was innocent of sin, I am not. I hate even though I try not to, I get angry, it's one step foward and two steps back.
Before you cast judgement on me, stand where i have been and see what I have seen, and more importantly see what I see.

Jbuza wrote:

Deborah wrote:

Jbuza wrote:The world hates us because it hates God. I

I have to disagree there. It's not the world hates God, it's the world does not know God.

John 15:18. 'If the world hates you, keep in mind it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own As it is you do not belong to the world. That is why the world hates you.

it's not logical to hate what you don't know

Deborah wrote:Do you have any idea what it is to see so clearly yet still not be able to do?
Jesus was innocent of sin, I am not. I hate even though I try not to, I get angry, it's one step foward and two steps back.
Before you cast judgement on me, stand where i have been and see what I have seen, and more importantly see what I see.

Yes, Sister, I do. Wont it be wonderful to be rid of these sinful bodies. I didn't mean to Judge you, I just thought you may have been a little harsh. Sometimes it is hard to communicate in this way bec ause you don't see the warm smile and kind tone that could be accompanying the words.

Jbuza wrote:

Deborah wrote:Do you have any idea what it is to see so clearly yet still not be able to do?
Jesus was innocent of sin, I am not. I hate even though I try not to, I get angry, it's one step foward and two steps back.
Before you cast judgement on me, stand where i have been and see what I have seen, and more importantly see what I see.

Yes, Sister, I do. Wont it be wonderful to be rid of these sinful bodies. I didn't mean to Judge you, I just thought you may have been a little harsh. Sometimes it is hard to communicate in this way bec ause you don't see the warm smile and kind tone that could be accompanying the words.

I do not mean to come across as harsh. it is unfortunate that I do not have the way with words that some of my Christian brothers and sisters do on this message board.

Fortigurn wrote:I'm sorry, but this isn't good enough. You've created a backdoor for yourself with the statement 'that cannot possibly be subjectively interpreted'. Anything and everything can be subjectively interpreted. Furthermore, why the insistence on a date?

I provded examples of what I consider to be objective statements of future happenings. In what sense are my examples subjective? (The only way I can see this could be so is by resorting to philosphical pedantry such as nihilism.)

It needs a date because it is a statement about a future event. "One day the human race will be no more" is not a prohpecy, just a statement of the obvious. "The last human will die in the year 2050" is a prophecy (literally it isn't because I am no prophet, but you know what I mean).

How about a more rigorous definition, which isn't so blatant about creating an escape clause for your argument?

My definition and examples are nothing if not rigourous.

A statement of future happennings must be unambiguous and dated. If ambiguous then any old happenings will be cited as fulfillment; but if no happenings can reasonably be pointed to yet it is not dated then people will say "ah, but it is not fulfilled yet". Horoscope writers know this and are deliberately vague to avoid being rumbled.

Blob wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:I'm sorry, but this isn't good enough. You've created a backdoor for yourself with the statement 'that cannot possibly be subjectively interpreted'. Anything and everything can be subjectively interpreted. Furthermore, why the insistence on a date?

I provded examples of what I consider to be objective statements of future happenings. In what sense are my examples subjective? (The only way I can see this could be so is by resorting to philosphical pedantry such as nihilism.)

The issue is not whether the statements are subjective or objective, but whether or not they can be subjectively interpreted. That is the issue, as declared by you (not me).

It needs a date because it is a statement about a future event. "One day the human race will be no more" is not a prohpecy, just a statement of the obvious. "The last human will die in the year 2050" is a prophecy (literally it isn't because I am no prophet, but you know what I mean).

You are arguing that accurate predictions of events must be accompanied by dates. Surely you realise the paucity of this reasoning? A forecast of the eruption of a volcano may not be accompanied by a fixed date (more likely by a date range), but does this mean that if the volcano erupts within the specified date range, the prediction of the eruption was not an accurate prediction of the event?

Examples could be multiplied, as I'm sure you realise.

How about a more rigorous definition, which isn't so blatant about creating an escape clause for your argument?

My definition and examples are nothing if not rigourous.

A statement of future happennings must be unambiguous and dated. If ambiguous then any old happenings will be cited as fulfillment; but if no happenings can reasonably be pointed to yet it is not dated then people will say "ah, but it is not fulfilled yet". Horoscope writers know this and are deliberately vague to avoid being rumbled.

I can agree with this. What I'm curious about is the fact that you've attached two escape clauses - the 'date' requirement, and the 'subjective interpretation' requirement.

As I've said, the issue is not whether the statements are subjective or objective, but whether or not they can be subjectively interpreted. That is the issue, as declared by you (not me).

Fortigurn wrote:The issue is not whether the statements are subjective or objective, but whether or not they can be subjectively interpreted. That is the issue, as declared by you (not me).

Take my examples then. In what sense are they subjective or open to subjective intepretation.

You are arguing that accurate predictions of events must be accompanied by dates. Surely you realise the paucity of this reasoning? A forecast of the eruption of a volcano may not be accompanied by a fixed date (more likely by a date range), but does this mean that if the volcano erupts within the specified date range, the prediction of the eruption was not an accurate prediction of the event?

Fair point. A range of possible dates then. I would point out that in my example above I consider "2050" (365 dates) to be precise enough.

I can agree with this. What I'm curious about is the fact that you've attached two escape clauses - the 'date' requirement, and the 'subjective interpretation' requirement.

Escape clauses? Objectivity and a statement of when are basic requirements for a tenable statement of future happenings.

But please point to why my initial eclipse examples are subjective or open to subjective interpretation. I'm sorry, I really don't see it.

Blob wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:The issue is not whether the statements are subjective or objective, but whether or not they can be subjectively interpreted. That is the issue, as declared by you (not me).

Take my examples then. In what sense are they subjective or open to subjective intepretation.

Any statement is open to subjective interpretation. This does not validate the interpretation, but you cannot claim a statement is not capable of being interpreted subjectively.

Fair point. A range of possible dates then. I would point out that in my example above I consider "2050" (365 dates) to be precise enough.

Thank you for being reasonable. I can work with this. I will consider a proposal and make another thread.

I can agree with this. What I'm curious about is the fact that you've attached two escape clauses - the 'date' requirement, and the 'subjective interpretation' requirement.

Escape clauses? Objectivity and a statement of when are basic requirements for a tenable statement of future happenings.

I can agree with that, but I considered these clauses to be unnecessarily proscriptive.

But please point to why my initial eclipse examples are subjective or open to subjective interpretation. I'm sorry, I really don't see it.

Any statement is open to subjective interpretation. Even a statement such as 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' is open to subjective interpretation.

I suggest you spend a little time in a law court. Our legal system thrives on the premise that every statement - or even event - is open to subjective interpretation.