-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
@lynda: thank you for your questions:
Q1- I am. Perhaps you can understand how if I don't hold the Bible to be the very word of god, it would not be very effective in swaying me. For instance, there is probably a similar passage in the Koran. Something along the lines of 'if you do not accept the teachings of Mohammed, you will not receive the reward of heaven". If such a passage did exist, would it be enough to convince you to become a Muslim?
Q2- I'm not sure. I'll allow you to be the judge. Allow me to explain my position a bit: I believe that we each must reach our conclusions rationally by our own logic. So for me science is valuable in that sense. Science is, to me, a verb more than it is a noun. It is a process (the scientific method) of extracting logical conclusions from observations. So if you're asking how I feel about science, then I think it is a very useful tool. Do I accept everything every scientist says as gospel (if you'll excuse the expression)? I do not. There are disagreements in every field.
Q3- Life is an incredible thing to me. But for me it is also purely chemical. The 'soul' to me is mechanical. It exists because our bodies and minds exist and if this ceases to be the case, then the soul ceases to exist as well.
Many religions treat the soul and the body as separate entities that can be separated from one another. I do not subscribe to this. I believe that life and the 'soul' are synonyms and once life is extinguished everything of that person's being is as well.
Of course the idea of non- existence is difficult to imagine. You've existed for as long as you can remember! This is a favorite quote of mine:
"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." -Mark Twain
Q1- I am. Perhaps you can understand how if I don't hold the Bible to be the very word of god, it would not be very effective in swaying me. For instance, there is probably a similar passage in the Koran. Something along the lines of 'if you do not accept the teachings of Mohammed, you will not receive the reward of heaven". If such a passage did exist, would it be enough to convince you to become a Muslim?
Q2- I'm not sure. I'll allow you to be the judge. Allow me to explain my position a bit: I believe that we each must reach our conclusions rationally by our own logic. So for me science is valuable in that sense. Science is, to me, a verb more than it is a noun. It is a process (the scientific method) of extracting logical conclusions from observations. So if you're asking how I feel about science, then I think it is a very useful tool. Do I accept everything every scientist says as gospel (if you'll excuse the expression)? I do not. There are disagreements in every field.
Q3- Life is an incredible thing to me. But for me it is also purely chemical. The 'soul' to me is mechanical. It exists because our bodies and minds exist and if this ceases to be the case, then the soul ceases to exist as well.
Many religions treat the soul and the body as separate entities that can be separated from one another. I do not subscribe to this. I believe that life and the 'soul' are synonyms and once life is extinguished everything of that person's being is as well.
Of course the idea of non- existence is difficult to imagine. You've existed for as long as you can remember! This is a favorite quote of mine:
"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." -Mark Twain
M
Q1 - No, of course not. Most of my family and friends are religious. I don't understand why they believe what they believe so it sometime seems a little odd to me, but I recognize people have differing opinions and don't hold it against them.
Q2 - Sure. I don't believe that anyone can be 100% certain about something. I believe that they can logically be 99.99% sure, but 100% is being foolhardy to me. I think challenging one's own beliefs is a method of personal growth. I would never say that it is impossible that there is a god, but saying I think it's possible isn't the same thing as saying I think it's probable
Q3 - Why would I get angry? I do think that that is how things got where they are today. I'm wary of the world "believer" because it sounds like I will accept on faith anything that a biologist tells me. This is not the case. I have, however examined the widely accepted evolutionary arguments and think there is a pretty good basis for them.
I do, however, think that many people misunderstand the theory of evolution and this is where some disbelief of it comes from. I would be happy to take further questions about my evolutionary inclinations.
Q2 - Sure. I don't believe that anyone can be 100% certain about something. I believe that they can logically be 99.99% sure, but 100% is being foolhardy to me. I think challenging one's own beliefs is a method of personal growth. I would never say that it is impossible that there is a god, but saying I think it's possible isn't the same thing as saying I think it's probable
Q3 - Why would I get angry? I do think that that is how things got where they are today. I'm wary of the world "believer" because it sounds like I will accept on faith anything that a biologist tells me. This is not the case. I have, however examined the widely accepted evolutionary arguments and think there is a pretty good basis for them.
I do, however, think that many people misunderstand the theory of evolution and this is where some disbelief of it comes from. I would be happy to take further questions about my evolutionary inclinations.
M
@yeshy:
Q1 - No, of course not. Most of my family and friends are religious. I don't understand why they believe what they believe so it sometime seems a little odd to me, but I recognize people have differing opinions and don't hold it against them.
Q2 - Sure. I don't believe that anyone can be 100% certain about something. I believe that they can logically be 99.99% sure, but 100% is being foolhardy to me. I think challenging one's own beliefs is a method of personal growth. I would never say that it is impossible that there is a god, but saying I think it's possible isn't the same thing as saying I think it's probable
Q3 - Why would I get angry? I do think that that is how things got where they are today. I'm wary of the world "believer" because it sounds like I will accept on faith anything that a biologist tells me. This is not the case. I have, however examined the widely accepted evolutionary arguments and think there is a pretty good basis for them.
I do, however, think that many people misunderstand the theory of evolution and this is where some disbelief of it comes from. I would be happy to take further questions about my evolutionary inclinations.
Q1 - No, of course not. Most of my family and friends are religious. I don't understand why they believe what they believe so it sometime seems a little odd to me, but I recognize people have differing opinions and don't hold it against them.
Q2 - Sure. I don't believe that anyone can be 100% certain about something. I believe that they can logically be 99.99% sure, but 100% is being foolhardy to me. I think challenging one's own beliefs is a method of personal growth. I would never say that it is impossible that there is a god, but saying I think it's possible isn't the same thing as saying I think it's probable
Q3 - Why would I get angry? I do think that that is how things got where they are today. I'm wary of the world "believer" because it sounds like I will accept on faith anything that a biologist tells me. This is not the case. I have, however examined the widely accepted evolutionary arguments and think there is a pretty good basis for them.
I do, however, think that many people misunderstand the theory of evolution and this is where some disbelief of it comes from. I would be happy to take further questions about my evolutionary inclinations.
M
@Didymos: thank you for your question.
Because I take a literal definition to the word "understanding". In order to be understanding of people it requires you to understand what it is they're thinking. Some people don't understand how atheists can still believe in morality or love, etc. it seems to me that these are important topics and this seemed like as good a place as any to discuss them. If people don't care, they are more than welcome to ignore my post. However, based simply on the number of replies I've had, I don't think it's conceited to suspect some people in this community might be interested in learning what I think about certain aspects of our world and how we deal with it.
I respect your opinion that it is just a phase. Many people tell me this, perhaps you are right. However, I know many lifelong atheists that were told this decades ago so the certainty that everyone eventually comes around seems misplaced.
I also disagree that it is a boring worldview although you are welcome to think so. I think the world (let alone the universe) is intricate, beautiful, and wonderful enough on its own that I don't miss the notion that there is a supernatural being behind it all.
Because I take a literal definition to the word "understanding". In order to be understanding of people it requires you to understand what it is they're thinking. Some people don't understand how atheists can still believe in morality or love, etc. it seems to me that these are important topics and this seemed like as good a place as any to discuss them. If people don't care, they are more than welcome to ignore my post. However, based simply on the number of replies I've had, I don't think it's conceited to suspect some people in this community might be interested in learning what I think about certain aspects of our world and how we deal with it.
I respect your opinion that it is just a phase. Many people tell me this, perhaps you are right. However, I know many lifelong atheists that were told this decades ago so the certainty that everyone eventually comes around seems misplaced.
I also disagree that it is a boring worldview although you are welcome to think so. I think the world (let alone the universe) is intricate, beautiful, and wonderful enough on its own that I don't miss the notion that there is a supernatural being behind it all.
Umm... maybe if I used an analogy where you went into a black themed chat room and started a thread that said "I'M A MEMBER OF THE KKK. ASK ME ANYTHING." you could understand how offensive and silly your question is posed on a site where people express a deep love for Jesus and want to fellowship with other people who love the Lord.
Maybe, if you just came here and watched us and asked questions of us it would be less offensive and perhaps God would use us to soften your heart and open your understanding about Him.
Hi Matthew, thanks for sharing your thoughts and reasons with us and giving believers the opportunity to ask your point of view. Yes the world is magnificent, the beauty of the world is amazing and something you don't have to believe in the Lord to be able to see, you must have a wonderful heart, something even some believers have difficulty finding
I find a lot of religious people are so driven by the literature that they fail to acknowledge the spirit and therefore interpret the literature differently from what the spirit meant to, or hang too much on an experience of someone else from within it. I'm not sure you will understand what I'm trying to say but I am religious and have a belief in the supernatural because of experiences. I come from a very atheist background and didn't find it in any way boring or drab, you could say I transitioned basically overnight to become this religious nut but I don't believe it should be forced onto people. My partner is an atheist and he concludes that I'm nuts, I would love for him to be drawn to the Lord but I in no way force it on him though I do defend my God and beliefs if he's being an ass about it. (before I get blasted for saying ass I mean the donkey lol)
Wow, this turned out to be a lengthy thanks didn't it... Anyhu, I have no point, just a babble, have a great day and may you indulge in the wonders of the world/universe
Btw if you should have any questions feel free to ask too
I find a lot of religious people are so driven by the literature that they fail to acknowledge the spirit and therefore interpret the literature differently from what the spirit meant to, or hang too much on an experience of someone else from within it. I'm not sure you will understand what I'm trying to say but I am religious and have a belief in the supernatural because of experiences. I come from a very atheist background and didn't find it in any way boring or drab, you could say I transitioned basically overnight to become this religious nut but I don't believe it should be forced onto people. My partner is an atheist and he concludes that I'm nuts, I would love for him to be drawn to the Lord but I in no way force it on him though I do defend my God and beliefs if he's being an ass about it. (before I get blasted for saying ass I mean the donkey lol)
Wow, this turned out to be a lengthy thanks didn't it... Anyhu, I have no point, just a babble, have a great day and may you indulge in the wonders of the world/universe
Btw if you should have any questions feel free to ask too LovelyU.........I read your testimony, and I'm wondering why you are "unsure" if you are "saved" or not?
If the Holy Spirit moves upon our spirit and brings us under conviction of our sin filled lives, and if we sincerely and contritely ask God to forgive our sins, and ask Jesus to become our Lord and Saviour............then we are saved.
We kneel down a sinner, but we rise a blood bought, born again child of the King.
What's to be unsure of?
If the Holy Spirit moves upon our spirit and brings us under conviction of our sin filled lives, and if we sincerely and contritely ask God to forgive our sins, and ask Jesus to become our Lord and Saviour............then we are saved.
We kneel down a sinner, but we rise a blood bought, born again child of the King.
What's to be unsure of?
Please know I respect you and your beliefs... My question is kinda strange I think. Take into account my age...
So I wonder why did you join a Christian group if you don't believe? I mean it's cool and you are welcome here. But like I'm kinda confused it would be like me joining a group of people that believed in vampires. Maybe not though that's why I'm asking....
Please know I'm not asking you to leave or saying you shouldn't be here.. I'm just really curious.
Thanks and much love,
lexi
So I wonder why did you join a Christian group if you don't believe? I mean it's cool and you are welcome here. But like I'm kinda confused it would be like me joining a group of people that believed in vampires. Maybe not though that's why I'm asking....
Please know I'm not asking you to leave or saying you shouldn't be here.. I'm just really curious.
Thanks and much love,
lexi
Also another question and this one I've asked so many people like teachers and stuff.
I don't say evolution is wrong in that things evolve I believe God designed them to evolve as their environment changes around them. But my question is if things evolved into life as we know it where did the first bigger things come from? I live in a very remote part of the planet allowing me to watch tons of nature. I saw a baby moose just this morning. So, that said babies die without their mothers.Baby moose, baby ducks, baby bears, and baby humans all need their mothers or at least a parent to survive. So birds are close to prehistoric creatures... But birds have to even have a parent to hatch. So, let us examine this thought... Cell evolves to fish,, fish to reptile,,, reptile finally becomes bird.. But it can't be baby bird cause baby bird would die without mother bird to feed it.... So that means it evolved into two, one male, one female birds that could mate and care for baby birds. I feel it's more likely from a logic stand point that God created two of everything fully grown, than that evolution made that happen.... Yes it's kinda the classic which came first the chicken or the egg.. But obviously it's the chicken and egg can't hatch itself... Or feed itself once it hatches. Thus since you can't have a chicken without an egg the chicken obviously came from a creator. I have faith that is God. An evolutionist has faith it's a random occurrence.
Back to the question... How does that make sense? Something evolved into a full grown something else? Or am I lost and in need of better education? That is possible of course..
Thanks and please know I'm not trying to argue or be rude or anything..
again much love,
lexi
I don't say evolution is wrong in that things evolve I believe God designed them to evolve as their environment changes around them. But my question is if things evolved into life as we know it where did the first bigger things come from? I live in a very remote part of the planet allowing me to watch tons of nature. I saw a baby moose just this morning. So, that said babies die without their mothers.Baby moose, baby ducks, baby bears, and baby humans all need their mothers or at least a parent to survive. So birds are close to prehistoric creatures... But birds have to even have a parent to hatch. So, let us examine this thought... Cell evolves to fish,, fish to reptile,,, reptile finally becomes bird.. But it can't be baby bird cause baby bird would die without mother bird to feed it.... So that means it evolved into two, one male, one female birds that could mate and care for baby birds. I feel it's more likely from a logic stand point that God created two of everything fully grown, than that evolution made that happen.... Yes it's kinda the classic which came first the chicken or the egg.. But obviously it's the chicken and egg can't hatch itself... Or feed itself once it hatches. Thus since you can't have a chicken without an egg the chicken obviously came from a creator. I have faith that is God. An evolutionist has faith it's a random occurrence.
Back to the question... How does that make sense? Something evolved into a full grown something else? Or am I lost and in need of better education? That is possible of course..
Thanks and please know I'm not trying to argue or be rude or anything..
again much love,
lexi
I am a creationist... But no offence, your question needs more weight... I can tell you are very pleased with this question, and can tell you have thought about it a lot...
But what you are doing is selling short his ideal of evolution... Lets say we have a really big dog race... And every dog on earth is really big... But the queen is getting old and loves lap dogs so she tells her servants to breed only the smallest dogs... Within 10-15 years the dogs which were about 3 feet tall are now only 1 foot... (BTW this really happened in history)
What you are now saying is evolution is null and void because a small dog + a small dog = a small dog... And a Big dog + a big dog = a big dog...
You are forgetting it is change over time...
So it would be a single celled organism goes into a very simple organism into something else and something else, into a bird, and then into a chicken... That is the evolutionary concept... So I guess by evolution standpoint the chicken came first, for it was Bird X's egg then a deformed bird X (the chicken) was hatched...
I firmly believe evolution is fallible and can go into how and why, primordial soup is always a fun place to get the convo started... But I just thought I should answer your question...
Everything is a small change off the one before, just like a big dog can raise a small dog... A bird X can raise a chicken
But what you are doing is selling short his ideal of evolution... Lets say we have a really big dog race... And every dog on earth is really big... But the queen is getting old and loves lap dogs so she tells her servants to breed only the smallest dogs... Within 10-15 years the dogs which were about 3 feet tall are now only 1 foot... (BTW this really happened in history)
What you are now saying is evolution is null and void because a small dog + a small dog = a small dog... And a Big dog + a big dog = a big dog...
You are forgetting it is change over time...
So it would be a single celled organism goes into a very simple organism into something else and something else, into a bird, and then into a chicken... That is the evolutionary concept... So I guess by evolution standpoint the chicken came first, for it was Bird X's egg then a deformed bird X (the chicken) was hatched...
I firmly believe evolution is fallible and can go into how and why, primordial soup is always a fun place to get the convo started... But I just thought I should answer your question...
Everything is a small change off the one before, just like a big dog can raise a small dog... A bird X can raise a chicken
That kinda helps... Still don't get how if it all came from one place it be ame separate things.. If birds evolved why into so many things? Just seems to make no logical sense but I think that is because I'm missing how slowly this happened which is why it can't be recreated, thus is a theory not a scientific fact...
Thanks for the explanation... I will correct you on only one point, I am not pleased with the question, it simply was a question. I had thought about it a lot because having grown up around animals, for one we breed dogs, it just confuses me. I under stand how dog breeds work as you pointed out but they always stay dogs.. My limited misunderstanding of the theory of evolution is to blame for me not getting how a puddle of stuff eventually became so many things. Basically science can say it but to me it defies logic based upon the perceptions from my very limited life expeiriance.
Anyhow I see what you are saying still don't buy evolution on that level. As stated I get things evolve, I get that man can mess with dogs be breeding only runts to make a smaller breed... Just don't see fish becoming birds, for one thing if they did well why can I still go catch fish like our native salmon? It's not really a question you need answer. After all the composer of this theory once believed all frogs could live in water and drowned many a tree frog proving himself wrong.
But to clarify I was saying its null and void because whatever came to be first was not a baby! Has nothing to do with dogs or sizes... Fish are the only animal I know which can survive without a parent caring for them. Point being okay bird has mutant chicken baby and cares for it that's fine... What cared for its parents.. Then it's parents even if evolved at some point an animal has to be the first animal. It had to be created grown enough to care for itself.. So the question is still in evolution how did the first baby whatever animals survive?
Again thank you for a well concluded explanation But still my answer seems to me unanswered.
Thanks for the explanation... I will correct you on only one point, I am not pleased with the question, it simply was a question. I had thought about it a lot because having grown up around animals, for one we breed dogs, it just confuses me. I under stand how dog breeds work as you pointed out but they always stay dogs.. My limited misunderstanding of the theory of evolution is to blame for me not getting how a puddle of stuff eventually became so many things. Basically science can say it but to me it defies logic based upon the perceptions from my very limited life expeiriance.
Anyhow I see what you are saying still don't buy evolution on that level. As stated I get things evolve, I get that man can mess with dogs be breeding only runts to make a smaller breed... Just don't see fish becoming birds, for one thing if they did well why can I still go catch fish like our native salmon? It's not really a question you need answer. After all the composer of this theory once believed all frogs could live in water and drowned many a tree frog proving himself wrong.
But to clarify I was saying its null and void because whatever came to be first was not a baby! Has nothing to do with dogs or sizes... Fish are the only animal I know which can survive without a parent caring for them. Point being okay bird has mutant chicken baby and cares for it that's fine... What cared for its parents.. Then it's parents even if evolved at some point an animal has to be the first animal. It had to be created grown enough to care for itself.. So the question is still in evolution how did the first baby whatever animals survive?
Again thank you for a well concluded explanation But still my answer seems to me unanswered.