I have voted for Honza's daughter yesterday and will continue to do so.

That's really all I'm saying. I wonder sometimes why people even want to believe in a harmful God.

Deuteronomy 29:29 NIV: The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.>

For now, I believe Moses and Noah heard God's voice. I meant that I worry about people today who claim to hear God's or anyone else's voice. The final point I'll address tonight:
<A person cannot be an eyewitness if he/she has passed away. A two thousand year old account of an eye witness testimony amounts to hearsay. >

A dead eyewitness may have left recorded testimony, which is just as valid if it's reasonably secured. Let me choose a shorter time frame and see where you draw a line of credibility. What if someone 100 years ago recorded a historical event. Does that amount to hearsay today?

<If I write a bunch of stuff down, bury it, and in two thousand years from now somebody finds it does that make what I wrote true? >

It depends if it was true when you wrote it. The passage of 2000 years has absolutely no bearing on that.

<Now lets say somebody finds it in a hundred years, and for the next 1900 years it is recopied and edited many times, is it still true?>

It would not, in itself, prove the event occurred. Indeed, if we recorded something right now it wouldn't prove that something occurred. In this respect, it doesn't matter very much if 2000 years or a nanosecond have passed. (Of course, if an account is written hundreds of years after what it accounts, that <does> heavily impact its reliability.)

I believe most are anti-Bible and are not nearly as unbiased as you believe.>

Most natural scientists are anti-Bible in that they don't believe in the Bible (but they're not any more anti-Bible than anti any other holy book in that respect). Natural science, and most natural scientists, are <not> anti-Bible in that they're not prepared to treat Bible stories as alternatives to the scientific theories. They are; it's just that practically all Bible stories score very lowly when evaluated scientifically (they break the laws of physics, they have very little testable evidence supporting them, some Bible stories are flat out incompatible with known facts, plus there's no need for Bible stories as science has developed other explanations to both the origin of the universe and the origin of humanity) and are therefore discarded.

However, it should be noted that science does not treat Bible stories as a bulk. If one Bible claim (or apparent Bible claim) is refuted, they don't immediately throw the whole God idea out of the window. Instead, (treating the God idea as a scientific hypothesis) they update the hypothesis by removing the bits contradicted by new evidence while keeping the basic idea, i.e. God.

For example, with increasing evidence that the Earth was way older than ten thousand years, scientists didn't turn atheists en masse; they simply gave up on the idea that the Earth was young while keeping God. God continued to receive serious scientific mentions long after the notion of a young Earth was little more than a historical footnote. Even today, many credible scientists believe in a God (and many others consider the idea of some supreme being quite possible) while practically none believe in a young Earth.

Meditation:Why were the religious leaders so upset with Jesus that they wanted to kill him? They charged him with blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God and he made himself equal with God. The law of Moses laid down the death penalty for such a crime: "He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him" (Lev. 24:16). As they were picking up stones to hurl at Jesus, he met their attack with three arguments. The many good works that he did, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, and feeding the hungry -- demonstrated that they obviously came from God.

Jesus defended his right to call himself the Son of God with a quote from Psalm 82:6 ("I say, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you"). If scripture can speak like that of humans, why should Jesus not speak of himself like that? Jesus then made two claims: He was consecrated by the Father to a special task and he was sent into the world to carry out his Father's mission. The scriptural understanding of consecration is to make holy for God – to be given over as a free-will offering and sacrifice for God. Jesus made himself a sin-offering for us, to ransom us from condemnation and slavery to sin. He spoke of his Father consecrating him for this mission of salvation (John 10:36). Jesus challenged his opponents to accept his works if they could not accept his words. One can argue with words, but deeds are beyond argument.

Jesus is the perfect teacher in that he does not base his claims on what he says but on what he does. The word of God is life and power to those who believe. Jesus shows us the way to walk the path of truth and holiness. And he anoints us with his power to live the gospel with joy and to be his witnesses in the world. Are you a doer of God's word, or a forgetful hearer only?

But I don't see any Creation scientists running around like James Hansen and David Suzuki saying anyone who disagrees with them should be imprisoned: or like Neal deGrasse Tyson pretending that "all scientists" accept Darwinian evolution, when they don't.

What I do see, everywhere I look, is a massive falling-away from Christianity. Maybe it was never more than skin deep. Maybe for 2,000 years the Western nations never paid Christ more than lip service. Maybe the world didn't have very far to fall.

If by "churchmen", you mean regular members of the church, then I disagree. I know that many regular church members help the needy, create positive youth programs, and pursue a life based on love, humility, and peace.

However, I regard most creation scientists as prideful and deluded at best. At worst, they are greedy liars who make a very good living for themselves by selling their deceptive products. They attach their wrong ideas to the Bible, so that when people reject their ideas they are also compelled to reject the Bible. Creation scientist are not your friends.

<But I don't see any Creation scientists running around like James Hansen and David Suzuki saying anyone who disagrees with them should be imprisoned: or like Neal deGrasse Tyson pretending that "all scientists" accept Darwinian evolution, when they don't. >

Well, I'm not familiar with those claims or the contexts in which they were made. But if you're looking for bad examples of creation scientists, you can start at the top of some of the creation ministry organizations:

For example, consider Kent Hovind, the Baptist who founded CSE (the Creation Science Evangelism ministry)? Hovind has earned between $1-$2 million a year since 2002 selling merchandise and doing speaking tours. His son has been running CSE lately because Kent is serving a 10 year prison sentence for tax evasion and financial fraud.

Then there's Ken Ham's AiG (Answers in Genesis). Ham and AiG were sued by fellow ministry CMI (Creation Ministries International) because CMI didn't like losing money from magazine subscriptions when AiG published their own magazine and misrepresented it as a replacement for CMI's magazine. AiG reported US revenues of over $13 million in 2005.

How about John MacKay, currently the director of CR (Creation Research), who previously co-founded CSF (Creation Science Foundation) with Ken Ham? In an attempt to get control of CSF, MacKay accused Ham's personal secretary of witchcraft and necrophilia (no evidence needed, just 'discernment').

But then again, since when do Christians feel justified by comparing their behavior to that of non-christians?

<What I do see, everywhere I look, is a massive falling-away from Christianity. Maybe it was never more than skin deep.>

Yes, well, Christianity has been earning reputation for being prideful, abrasive, and gullible. Creation science has contributed generously to this cause.

But I still think there are Christians who actually practice loving one another, and who are kind to their enemies, who do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God. Such will always have a good reputation.

<God save us. There is absolutely no way we are going to save ourselves.>

As far as I know, that has always been Christian doctrine.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> Whereas that is all the proof I need to know that at least 19,999 of them are wrong.>

You realize how that sounds don't you? Your belief is based on the same hearsay that there's is.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> TCE I might write up my own position about eternal punishment, but for now, a pretty straight forward discussion of the matter:

http://www.christiancourier.com/art...;

The author of that site answered none of the questions I raised. His only reasoning is because the Bible says so which is no different from what you are saying. Here are a list of questions taken from http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.... These questions have no answer scripturally or otherwise that is truly satisfactory.

1. Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God allow the creation of souls foreknowing those souls would end up in Hell?

2. All human beings are born into a fallen condition, according to the Bible, and deserve death and eternal punishment in Hell. How is it just or loving to punish humans for a condition which no human can avoid?

3. How can God give such flawed, ignorant, and fallen creatures as ourselves the responsibility for our own eternal destinies?

4. Humans can commit only a very finite amount of sin or wrong-doing in one lifetime, yet Hell is an infinite punishment. In fact, the Bible even teaches that all it takes is just one single sin to deserve an eternity in hell. How is this justice or loving?

5. How can God punish a person for not believing in him when, as an omnipotent being, he can make his existence known with certainty to every person, but He still chooses not to?

6. If Hell is the choice of every individual who goes there how is it plausible that any informed, rational person would ever deliberately and knowingly really choose to go there?

7. It is clear that the religion a person subscribes to is largely a result of the culture they are born into. How can a person be thrown into hell because of his place of birth, because of geography? This alone makes the Hell of the Bible seem profoundly unfair.

As I showed earlier there is no support in the Bible for such a concept, and thus it is "made up", for various reasons; one being that you at one time there was this arrangement that you'd pay the church money to "buy off" the consequences/punishment for sin, to limit your time in "hell". Right... Disgusting practices of fear mongering aiming to make big money, and thus rob and enslave the ill-informed population.

The ultimate punishment [for any human] is exclusion from [everlasting] life.

I don't concern myself too much with how things sound. My faith is based on eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

Per the questions:
1. I don't know. It's sophistry to suggest you need the answer before you accept the possibility such a God exists.

2. The Bible doesn't teach that.

3. We are created in His image, and we have the capacity to choose right. Most don't.

4. If a person lived an exemplary life, but had only one bad night where they killed someone, how is it justice if they receive a life in prison sentence?

5. He has done so. People choose not to believe. Many make great rationalizations why they don't.

6. People want what they want, today, consequences of tomorrow notwithstanding. That's the sad secret of life and is just as applicable outside the realm of religion.

7. I might spend some time addressing that one. It is a spectacular example of the rationalizations of unbelievers.

<The idea of serving a God who will burn most of the world's population in hell makes me nauseous. There's really no difference between that and what Hitler tried to do. >