I want to be convinced - an experiment

That point has never been missed. I gave some direct answers to that point, which you ignored and restated the point, instead. I assume this means you can't answer me? I did indeed say that in my last post, but you did not ask anything about it. I didn't answer your question, because you didn't ask it.We can start with the Bible's statement that the Word of God was in the beginning and created all things (John 1:1-3), and that it then became flesh and dwelt on earth (John 1:14). Do you think that's the Bible? What??? The Bible is true because Christians believe it??? Which of the 22,000 American denominations of Christians believe it right?The Bible has to be wrong the way Christians believe it, because the Bible said you will know a prophet by his fruit, and Christians' fruit is awful. Well, nice talking to you. As someone else pointed out, why did you bother coming here, then? I know it's not something Christians on debate boards typically do, but could you try pausing long enough to think about what you read, so you can answer what was really said? This meaningless statement of yours has nothing to do with what I said about wolves and dogs.

This is the least of your numerous violations of the forum rule requiring respect for others, and I'm ignoring your repeated violations of repeated assertions without supporting arguments or evidence.However, it is simply necessary to at least officially warn you that if you don't want to listen to Jesus' admonitions about calling people fools, you do have to listen to ours.I chose your statements to Crashfrog to address to avoid conflict of interest. I'll let AdminAsgara worry about your statements to me (as truthlover). It would be foolish, however, to just let you continue ranting and raving unchecked. Please cease and desist from including insults in every post (or any, for that matter).

Hi there.I don't know where to start to answer this, but there have been other people with your dilemma. You may want to read the website noted below. I too was brought up as a child being taught religion as "fact". It was only over time and having learned more about the world ( travel, geology, botany, zoology etc ) that I gradually moved away from belief in a supernatural being.http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/index.html

OOpsJust noticed that the site I posted is one you originally referred to. Anyway if you would like me to tell you why I as a geologist do not believe in any god, I can explain it to you.

neil88, you obviously didn't read all of this topic. I was asking for reasons to believe, not for reasons not to believe.'Reasons why I as a geologist do not believe in any god' - do geologists have some extra-special reasons not to believe in God?Anyway, I decided to become a follower of Christ several weeks ago. That does not mean however (if that's what you think) that I have now given up all that science has taught me. I believe in evolution and this goes together just fine with my newly acquired faith in Jesus Christ.

SardeCongrats on your belief in a supernatural being.Much of the early work in geology was done by theologists who studied fossils etc believing they were part of god's creation.For example, William Buckland (1784-1856) was a fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford (1808-1825) and one of the foremost geologists of his day. Professor of Mineralogy at Oxford from 1813, he was made Reader in Geology in 1819. He was President of the Geological Society twice, in 1824 and 1840. In 1845 he became Dean of Westminster.They tried to understand fossils in this light. But as time went on and fossils were better understood, it became apparent that their existence and distribution conflicted with a literal interpretation of the bible's creation story. Geology also disproves the flood story.So I, like others, have had to compare what I see with my own eyes with biblical accounts. Being a geologist allows me to do this at least in the field of geology.If you want to believe in god as a matter of faith, that is fine. But trying to reconcile your faith with the natural world of science is difficult. If you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and evolution as supported by the fossil record, then there is already a conflict.I would have thought you would have looked at evidence both for and against god before you made your decision.

PhatboyAre you saying that it would be impossible to have a mum with atheist beliefs who raises her kids on love and discipline and who is able to show her kids an inner character that is humble, loving, fair, and humerous?

Not at all. I am merely saying that the Spirit of God is Love, and it is Love and not education that will sway a child. Even though the mom claims atheism, God still uses her to rise her kids. It is impossible for her to have genuine love without His Spirit. Love is not an evolved chemical bonding concept.

neil88, I have looked at evidence from both sides. The thing is that I have always believed there is a God. I have always experienced Him/Her/It. Whenever I decide that I don't want God to be part of my life any longer (which I have done on several occasions over the years), I end up feeling that there's something missing...I am not a Bible literalist and I never will be. Besides having faith in God, I also have faith in science as a process. In my life, these two things do not contradict. To be honest, I am quite surprised when people insist on taking the Bible literally. It seems rather naive to me, though I do understand people's need for doing it. I couldn't, however, I think I have a little bit too much knowledge of the world to go for that version of Christianity. And besides, even if I think a certain story in the Bible didn't really happen, doesn't mean I can't learn from it and apply its lesson in my life. So in the end, I think the literalists and I would for the most part come to the same conclusions concerning how to conduct our lives. Whether or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons or whether or not there were dinos on the Ark has nothing to do with that.[This message has been edited by Sarde, 04-08-2004]

I have a question Sarde. You are a scientist, that is what I gather from what I read. And scientists study and read books upon books upon books. You rely alot on the fact that earlier scientist were correct in there conclusions. From there you can work to disproove or verify that work and go on from there. Why then, do you discount the book that has more eyewitness accounts of the items within it's pages. It seems (and I may be wrong) that they never found Hitlers body. Does that mean that he never really existed? Some say Jesus didn't. My point is if we can't rely on this history book to be reliable then we can't rely on any of them to be reliable. If you are going to use science as your tool of which you measure logicaly, then by what science book can really have faith in to be true and correct. -Z

Zachariah, what point are you trying to make? I believe in the Bible, I just don't think it's a history book. Especially the first books consist largely of myth (e.g. Adam and Eve, the Flood). I believe in the message of the Bible and I definitely believe that Jesus existed, was crucified and rose from the dead.What your problem then? Why do you insist I become a literalist?

I'm not TRYING to make a point. What I'm trying to do is figure out how scientists can be so contradictory. On one hand they say they believe in the scientific ways of learning, but history is a different story. Are historians scientists or not? How can you, a scientist say the bible isn't a history book. It's been documented by thousands of scholars as being historically accurate. Did you believe the history books you were taught from in high school? Or did you spend your extra time discounting them as well? I'm extremely happy you found Christ. It's a wonderfull gift. I hope you will do as much research in the bible as you do your career. -Z

You are missing the point about science. Science is testable and repeatable. You do not simply have to learn about it from a textbook.For example, if you do not believe in the increasing complexity of flora and fauna with time as indicated by the fossil record, you can check it yourself. All you need is a rock exposure and a hammer.

I have looked up several definitions of love, one is reproduced below."A strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties. Maternal love for a child. "There is no mention of god in this.So you are saying there is atheistic love and another kind of love you imply is god's genuine love?Hmmmmm.....interesting concept.So only the love associated with your particular supernatural being is the genuine one ? Is that the case?

I lovingly disagree. The point, I think, that is being missed here is that "scientists" believe what they see, through much testing and retesting to proove or disproove their theory or what-have-you. The you refer to is called history and unlike the science of which you speak this actually has eyewitness accounts which IS the best proof of all. That kind of proof can NOT be denied. Your experiments, on the other hand, are in a matter of speaking in the eye of the beholder.[This message has been edited by Zachariah, 04-09-2004][This message has been edited by Zachariah, 04-09-2004]