God is not Mysterious

[JOHN1513]

Matthews 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
[SUP]4 [/SUP]A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
[SUP]10 [/SUP]Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
[SUP]11 [/SUP]How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Your friend
Jeremiah Howell

 

[Utah]

Why the appeal to ridicule? Is that what Jesus would do? When reading that Jesus was given a crown of thorns and a mocking sign that sarcastically called him The King of the Jews, did you think to yourself, "Yes, ridicule is exactly the appropriate way to deal with people that you disagree with. Good for them."

Why quote someone in whom you do not believe? Besides, I'm not ridiculing, I'm stating the obvious.

 

[Starcrash]

Your ways aren't mysterious to me. You have been governed by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, just as I have. We understand each others nature. Our desires. Our will.

God is not like us. He is not governed by what we are governed by. We don't understand His Nature or we would be able to describe it to each other with perfect understanding.

If we completely understood God and His Ways we would be equal to God in our understanding. We are not equal to God in any way that I am aware of.

I didn't claim that "God is like us". I agree that "He is not governed by what we are governed by". That doesn't mean that he can't be understood just because he's different. My example wasn't different enough to make my point, so instead consider a pet dog. They aren't "governed by what we are governed by", nor are they "just like us", but you generally understand what a dog is feeling and what it wants. If you don't, you will if you simply observe its reactions to what you do to it; you'll spot patterns. This is what I'm claiming can be done through prayer. Please stop making the logical fallacy of claiming that "perfect" understanding is necessary to have some understanding.

Your assertion that "if we completely understood God and His ways we would be equal to God in our understanding" has no basis. Are you "equal" to a king once you understand his ways? Can you start making decrees once you understand him? Maybe you're just re-iterating your fallacy that understanding God requires "perfect" understanding, which is what you believe God has.

Would you ever be convinced by these arguments if they came from a believer of a different religion? If a Muslim told you that you simply couldn't understand Allah, and that's why you didn't believe that he answered prayer, would that really be the knock-down argument that you think your own is? Or would you assume that he's biased because of his faith?

 

[Sophia]

God is unchanging, yet His ways are mysterious. WHY?!

The rules of physical are unchanging,
and yet to a newborn baby,
they are mysterious. WHY?!

Understanding God has nothing to do with His consistency. The principles are not within the grasp of the finite mind. We pretend to understand what "love" means... but it is just pretending. All we know is what the love shown us felt like and what it did for us, and that we are to show that to others.
Do we really understand what "good" is?
What "glory" is?
What "almighty" is?
What "holy" is?
What "omnipresent" is?

We define words... but that doesn't mean we actually grasp the Truth of it.

 

[Starcrash]

Why quote someone in whom you do not believe? Besides, I'm not ridiculing, I'm stating the obvious.

This is another logical fallacy that I personally refer to as the "T-Man Fallacy"; it's where you accuse someone of attacking a straw-man by restating your position as something that isn't mutually exclusive with the position being attacked. "Ridiculing" and "stating the obvious" aren't necessarily different things, and what you did still fits the definition of ridicule, so it was perfectly legitimate to call it what it was. Were the Jews that mocked Jesus just "stating the obvious"? If they were, should we then say that it couldn't be called ridicule?

I quote the bible not because I believe it but because you do. Am I wrong to assume that you want to follow Jesus' footsteps, or wrong to think that the mockery of Jesus was something that upsets you? If so, I won't remind you of what Jesus would do or try to make you empathize with me by drawing a parallel between your actions and those of Jesus' enemies. Instead, I'll appeal to things that you do care about, because that's what a good debater does.

 

[Starcrash]

God is unchanging, yet His ways are mysterious. WHY?!

The rules of physical are unchanging,
and yet to a newborn baby,
they are mysterious. WHY?!

Understanding God has nothing to do with His consistency. The principles are not within the grasp of the finite mind. We pretend to understand what "love" means... but it is just pretending. All we know is what the love shown us felt like and what it did for us, and that we are to show that to others.
Do we really understand what "good" is?
What "glory" is?
What "almighty" is?
What "holy" is?
What "omnipresent" is?

We define words... but that doesn't mean we actually grasp the Truth of it.

A baby learns over time, because it observes. I'm suggesting that you don't learn about God because you're not even trying. Like many Christians, you've simply thrown up your hands and surrendered, assuming that it can't even be done.

I know what "good", "glory", "almighty", etc. mean because these are human concepts -- we make dictionaries, for example, to try to grasp the meaning of words and concepts as best we can. Do you also assume that we can't get a grasp on ideas, even ones that have been talked about for centuries? It's not like we have to re-invent the wheel, because plenty of people have paved the way to understanding ideas. But I'm guessing that you don't know these, either, because you've already presupposed that they are unknowable.

 

[posthuman]

I wish you had made just one point instead of several, and had actually developed those points. And while you're at it, I wish you had provided links to more of them than just the first one. *sigh*

Matthew 13:53-58 has nothing to do with God's will or with prayer. Since miracles are commonly cited by Christians as evidence that Jesus was the Son of God, it doesn't make logical sense to "not perform miracles due to lack of faith". It seems more likely that the lack of faith came from the lack of miracles. But like I said, it has nothing to do with the efficacy of prayer because we're talking about it working for Christians, not for those who lack faith. Studies of prayer always employ believing Christians so that this won't be a factor.

Luke 22:42 is a verse I often cite to show that prayer doesn't work. If you believe that Jesus is God, then it was obviously God's will that Jesus shouldn't die (because God himself was asking for it). And yet he died... so his prayer was ineffective. You might claim that Jesus had to die for some reason or another, but to make such a claim is to say that you know more than Jesus did. Obviously he felt that such a prayer had a chance of being answered, otherwise he wouldn't have prayed it.

I responded above to "Grandpa" about this same passage where Paul prayed to have his suffering removed. If "His grace was sufficient" for Paul, why isn't it sufficient for everyone that would otherwise be healed? Even Paul shook off a poisonous snake's bite, suggesting that "His grace wasn't sufficient" for Paul always but sometimes required healing. You may note that Paul didn't pray for healing in this case, but he didn't have to because the problem was fixed without needing prayer, unlike the thorn in his flesh which drove him to prayer. This is yet another contradiction, showing that God's will isn't consistent. Couldn't Paul have learned a lesson from the snake bite, the same one that he learned from the thorn in his flesh?

i'm sorry, i thought i put links but i must have forgotten to insert them.

in Matthew 13:53-58, it's demonstrated that Jesus did not heal everyone that came to Him. the Will of the Father is that we should believe in the Son - and it is a testimony to us that while He walked on earth among men, He did not perform miracles among those who had no faith in Him, but He did heal those who believed.
if you think Christ's primary purpose was to heal the sick, then this is confusing, but this is not Christ's purpose. the Father's purpose in sending THE BRANCH to us was to propitiate our sins, drawing us to Him and making a way for us to come to Him. the miracles are not the reason He came - they are a sign for mankind that points to the reason He came.

in Luke 22:42 He prayed righteously, saying "not my will, but yours be done" -- this is an example for us, how our faith should be. it is completely consistent with how He explicitly taught we should pray - "your will be done" and asking for our daily bread, and not to be led into temptation - not demanding it.
i put this to demonstrate how that the righteous ask, but submit their will to God's, acknowledging that He is sovereign, being meek and humble before Him, even though by grace through His promises we may be bold to come to Him, when by the measure of the law He gave the Jews, we do not have that right. Here, even the One more righteous than any that ever has lived did not have His request granted - but His second request, that the Father's will be done, is granted.
this touches on the mystery of the Godhead being fully in Christ - how that He, being equal to God in nature, on earth in the form of a man, prayed to the Father. this is that He was also fully human, so that in Him we have a high priest who is not alien to us - and here the subject of His prayer is His priestly sacrifice. it's not understood carnally, but clear spiritually. the word and human idea "trinity" doesn't do it justice or explain it.

in 2 Corinthians 12:6-10 you are not understanding "grace" the way that i do -- "grace" doesn't mean, "i get what i want" -- it means you don't get what you deserve, and you get something better that you don't deserve. the humility Paul learned through this is better than the healing he asked for.


you are seeing inconsistency and contradiction because you have the pretense that prayer should mold God's will into yours.
it is quite the opposite - through prayer, through conversation with Him, our will is molded into God's.

Take delight in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart.
(Psalm 37:4)

this ↑ is fulfilled when you delight in God's will - then the desire of your heart is His desire, not that His desire becomes what you desired. if the latter were true, you would be delighting in yourself, not God.

 

[Starcrash]

Matthews 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
[SUP]4 [/SUP]A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
[SUP]10 [/SUP]Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
[SUP]11 [/SUP]How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Your friend
Jeremiah Howell

As I mentioned in a reply to Posthuman, this isn't relevant. We're talking about Christians understanding God's will, not pharisees or someone comparable to them. Christians are the ones who tell me that they can't understand God.

But while you bring up this subject, why would "a sign from heaven" be "tempting" God? Isaiah performed a miracle for the prophets of Baal at Mount Hebron -- was that a case of "giving in to temptation"? Similarly, Moses showed the Pharoah signs. God himself gave Gideon a sign with the fleece. Was that "giving in to temptation"? Seriously, this one passage is framed in a very biased way because it's a pharisee asking for something.

 

[JOHN1513]

[SUP]Luke 11:28 [/SUP]But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
[SUP]29 [/SUP]And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
[SUP]30 [/SUP]For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

[SUP]John 2:18 [/SUP]Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
[SUP]21 [/SUP]But he spake of the temple of his body.
[SUP]22[/SUP]When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
[SUP]23 [/SUP]Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
[SUP]25 [/SUP]And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

Your friend
Jeremiah Howell

 

[JOHN1513]

[SUP]John 6:26 [/SUP]Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
[SUP]27 [/SUP]Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
[SUP]29 [/SUP]Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
[SUP]30 [/SUP]They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
[SUP]31 [/SUP]Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
[SUP]32 [/SUP]Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
[SUP]33 [/SUP]For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
[SUP]34 [/SUP]Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
[SUP]35 [/SUP]And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
[SUP]36 [/SUP]But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
[SUP]37 [/SUP]All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
[SUP]38 [/SUP]For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
[SUP]40 [/SUP]And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
[SUP]41 [/SUP]The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
[SUP]42 [/SUP]And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
[SUP]43 [/SUP]Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
[SUP]44 [/SUP]No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
[SUP]45 [/SUP]It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
[SUP]46 [/SUP]Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
[SUP]47 [/SUP]Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
[SUP]48[/SUP]I am that bread of life.
[SUP]49 [/SUP]Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
[SUP]50 [/SUP]This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
[SUP]51 [/SUP]I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
[SUP]52 [/SUP]The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
[SUP]53 [/SUP]Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
[SUP]54 [/SUP]Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Your friend
Jeremiah Howell

 

[Grandpa]

Please stop making the logical fallacy of claiming that "perfect" understanding is necessary to have some understanding.

Are you just hoping I said that?

Your assertion that "if we completely understood God and His ways we would be equal to God in our understanding" has no basis. Are you "equal" to a king once you understand his ways? Can you start making decrees once you understand him? Maybe you're just re-iterating your fallacy that understanding God requires "perfect" understanding, which is what you believe God has.

You're not really listening. You are only hoping for an argument that you can knock down.

If you understand a kings ways you are equal to him in understanding. Maybe that doesn't make you a king but it makes your understanding equal to a kings.

 

[Starcrash]

Are you just hoping I said that?



You're not really listening. You are only hoping for an argument that you can knock down.

If you understand a kings ways you are equal to him in understanding. Maybe that doesn't make you a king but it makes your understanding equal to a kings.

God is not like us. He is not governed by what we are governed by. We don't understand His Nature or we would be able to describe it to each other with perfect understanding.

This was exactly what you said. You claimed that we couldn't describe His Nature with "perfect understanding". I argued that we could some "some understanding", but you couldn't even cede that much because you keep making this false dichotomy between no understanding or perfect understanding. I gave you the example of understanding a pet dog, something that you can't understand perfectly because it is so different ("not like us", "not governed by what we are governed by") and yet you didn't agree with me that even such understanding was possible with God. So yes, you were arguing for only perfect understanding.

I won't attack a straw man if you're clear about what you're arguing for. You used the word "equal" but seem to be equivocating it. Allow me to quote that again.

If we completely understood God and His Ways we would be equal to God in our understanding. We are not equal to God in any way that I am aware of.

Again, the argument that we would have to "completely understand God". What if we only understood God somewhat -- not totally mysterious, but not completely understood. We certainly wouldn't be "equal to God in our understanding", but I wasn't arguing that we have to be. In fact, I argued that God's consistent nature would make him far more easier to understand, and thus we still wouldn't be "equal to God in our understanding" because he'd understand us as far more complicated beings to understand (because of our inconsistencies). So why the appeal to being God's equal in our understanding?

 

[ColinCat]

This was exactly what you said. You claimed that we couldn't describe His Nature with "perfect understanding". I argued that we could some "some understanding", but you couldn't even cede that much because you keep making this false dichotomy between no understanding or perfect understanding. I gave you the example of understanding a pet dog, something that you can't understand perfectly because it is so different ("not like us", "not governed by what we are governed by") and yet you didn't agree with me that even such understanding was possible with God. So yes, you were arguing for only perfect understanding.

I won't attack a straw man if you're clear about what you're arguing for. You used the word "equal" but seem to be equivocating it. Allow me to quote that again.



Again, the argument that we would have to "completely understand God". What if we only understood God somewhat -- not totally mysterious, but not completely understood. We certainly wouldn't be "equal to God in our understanding", but I wasn't arguing that we have to be. In fact, I argued that God's consistent nature would make him far more easier to understand, and thus we still wouldn't be "equal to God in our understanding" because he'd understand us as far more complicated beings to understand (because of our inconsistencies). So why the appeal to being God's equal in our understanding?

When god cures a headache, or finds someone a job, or puts someone in the right place at the right time then everyone seems to understand him perfectly. They know god helped them, they know god made them drive down the wrong road to prevent someone else getting run over. They understand god and know he cured their loved one.. They know god guided them to discover something that benefitted them.. They understood him all too well.

But, when you ask them about the third world, or amputees, or other atrocities in the world that happen on a regular basis then suddenly they don't understand gods ways. And he is mysterious... And we are reminded how gods ways are different than mans ways.


So which is it? Isnt it a coincidence that when the smaller things happen.. Easy regular day things.. then its god's work, we know its god's work and we know he did it all. But when it comes to the real problems of the world... Hes mysterious again.

So is he mysterious or not?

 

[Reborn]

So is he mysterious or not?

He is.
Just not in the way that you are thinking. (only)
Yes, the obvious...like how'd He create the universe type mystery.
Or --why do bad things happen to "good" people?

But when others question if He is mysterious, or say He's not?.....that alone, is wild/mysterious?

I wanted to try something out, ...so I read my daughter a parable from Matthew.
She explained what she thought it meant....she was right.
She understood its surface meaning right away.

She is only 7.

Every Christian (or nonbeliever) that reads the parables of Christ, thinks to themselves
"HEY!!....I understand it...I must be saved"
Or..."That's not a mystery,.... Christians are goofy"

Never thinking that EVERYONE can understand it's meaning at first read though.

Not much of a mystery huh?

So, logically, there must be 'a meaning' to each and every parable that only those who care to see it....can see?
You tell me...is He mysterious?

 

[ColinCat]

He is.
Just not in the way that you are thinking. (only)
Yes, the obvious...like how'd He create the universe type mystery.
Or --why do bad things happen to "good" people?

But when others question if He is mysterious, or say He's not?.....that alone, is wild/mysterious?

I wanted to try something out, ...so I read my daughter a parable from Matthew.
She explained what she thought it meant....she was right.
She understood its surface meaning right away.

She is only 7.

Every Christian (or nonbeliever) that reads the parables of Christ, thinks to themselves
"HEY!!....I understand it...I must be saved"
Or..."That's not a mystery,.... Christians are goofy"

Never thinking that EVERYONE can understand it's meaning at first read though.

Not much of a mystery huh?

So, logically, there must be 'a meaning' to each and every parable that only those who care to see it....can see?
You tell me...is He mysterious?

I have no idea what point your trying to make.

 

[Starcrash]

He is.
Just not in the way that you are thinking. (only)

...

Not much of a mystery huh?

...

You tell me...is He mysterious?

ColinCat seemed to be arguing that Christians aren't consistent about whether or not God is a mystery. He seems to be when you want him to be and not when you don't. And this whole argument was a good support of his point.

 

[Reborn]

ColinCat seemed to be arguing that Christians aren't consistent about whether or not God is a mystery. He seems to be when you want him to be and not when you don't. And this whole argument was a good support of his point.

So because we don't all agree, there is a flaw in Christianity?
I should trust in science.....they NEVER disagree, or debate amongst themselves?

...or correct old theories every 5 years.

I made a point above.
Now, that is the mystery.
Funny.

Good luck...I've got to go to the Cats.com
....and tell them how much cats stink, (except sniping cats, right Starcrash?) and how much I love dogs.

 

[ColinCat]

So because we don't all agree, there is a flaw in Christianity?
I should trust in science.....they NEVER disagree, or debate amongst themselves?

...or correct old theories every 5 years.

I made a point above.
Now, that is the mystery.
Funny.

Good luck...I've got to go to the Cats.com
....and tell them how much cats stink, (except sniping cats, right Starcrash?) and how much I love dogs.

Thing is, science is ever changing when new information comes to light.

Religion is never changing, regardless of what new information comes to light.

You knock yourself out on those cat forums.

 

[Starcrash]

So because we don't all agree, there is a flaw in Christianity?
I should trust in science.....they NEVER disagree, or debate amongst themselves?

...or correct old theories every 5 years.

I made a point above.
Now, that is the mystery.
Funny.

Good luck...I've got to go to the Cats.com
....and tell them how much cats stink, (except sniping cats, right Starcrash?) and how much I love dogs.

Put away your straw men. It's like you have a new one every time I post.

I didn't claim that "because you don't all agree, there is a flaw in Christianity". I believe it, but I said no such thing. And you immediately went to this "two rights make a wrong" fallacy yet again by taking a poke at science. Is disagreement a bad thing or good thing? If bad, then you ought to be ashamed of your own. If good, then stop ridiculing science for having disagreement. Science gets better by correcting its old mistakes. Disagreement among Christians shouldn't happen because you allegedly have God to moderate all disputes. You don't, because he doesn't exist.

Your post both made excuses for finding God mysterious (such as the Problem of Evil that you alluded to as "bad things happen to good people") and for not finding Him mysterious (the bible can be read and understood even by children). ColinCat gave examples of Christians finding God mysterious sometimes and not at other times, and your rebuttal was to give examples where you find God mysterious sometimes and not at other times. You didn't refute his argument, but rather proved it.

 

[Reborn]

Thing is, science is ever changing when new information comes to light.

Religion is never changing, regardless of what new information comes to light.

You knock yourself out on those cat forums.

What new information dude?
Maybe you'd have better luck on those forums too Colincat....another "cat"...hmm, didn't catch that when I posted my last one.

Do you guys need hugs or something?
Why the bitterness towards Christianity....why not Muslims, or Buddhists,
.......or 'Beliebers'
Go "correct" Justin Bieber's fans.

You might have an actual argument against those guys?