There are 3 choices, 3 votes for X-Vermilion-X's debate

Religion, God, and Faith

Your view on the subjects of Religion, God, and Faith.

• God

  Nice post X-Vermilion, but just as much as you believe in what you have posted the exact opposite can be said and be just as true in return. Your post is a never ending line of posts that have been made on this board since it began. So, quite honestly your post is like all posts regarding God, whether pro or con, 100% opinion only. Since it is your opinion then it may be your truth but in respect it may not be the same truth for everyone else. It does not make your post any more true or false in reference to the others. In fact, it makes your post exactly likely everyone elses...filled with personal opinion.

  Voted for by Energizer Bunny.

  View 29 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • X-Vermilion-X
    March 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Actually, I don't really think there is a god, because that would prove so many others simply flat out wrong. There can't be more then one religion, and instead of battling between them deciding which ones are wrong, its just easier to deny them all. Because science is proving every day answers to things previously unexplainable. On the other hand, religion is simply based on the morals of the past. It's evolution... with knowledge comes realization.
  • Newest Faith
    March 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Yeah, but when you think about it, everything could have been created by God, just to fit into place like how it does and make sense in a scientific point of view, in one part of the bible, it mentions that some events will not happen until knowledge has been increased!
  • Newest Faith
    March 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    And sense that prediction was made in the past, knowledge, as far as I am concerned, has greatly increased, and I believe that God has purpose for everything, maybe being able to scientifically prove everything is just God's way of making things easier for us to understand!
  • X-Vermilion-X
    March 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Yes. But just likely there have been things proved wrong by silence in the bible. Saying in the bible that some events wont happen until knowledge has been increased is simply saying that if its proven scientifically, its got to be right. There's too much to leave to question about it. Surreal Shadows, have you read the bible?
  • Newest Faith
    March 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I am working on it right now. I have been a Christian all of my life, read some of the Bible, and know enough about Christianity to debate about it!
  • X-Vermilion-X
    March 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Tell me... does god have a purpose for war, murder, and the death of the innocent? You can't blame this on evil, because by going by what your saying, god created everything, so he would have created evil? Then why would a god create suffering and pain? Why would a god be so concerned that humans worship him and his beliefs, rather than living on their own?
  • Newest Faith
    March 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Well, war, murder, and the death of innocent are caused by the sins of others. He didn't create evil for humans, but when we disobeyed God, which was discovering good and evil, that brought on our suffering! And he wants us to worship so that we may be rewarded when we die!
  • 
    Energizer Bunny
    March 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    "I don’t really think there is a god, because that would prove so many others simply flat out wrong." ---------------------------------------------- I think you miss the point. Proving others to be simply flat out wrong is not the purpose. Let's say there is a God for the purpose of this topic and you believe in something else then what difference does it matter what you believe in for there is no "little bit wrong" as compared to what?...."a whole lot wrong". Honestly, right and wrong has very little to do with it. "There can’t be more then one religion" -------------------------------------------- why did you mention religion? We are talking about God. It makes no difference whether you believe in Him or not religion will not help you. Religion will make you self-centered instead of God-centered. "Because science is proving every day answers to things previously unexplainable" ----------------------------------------- In relation to what...God? HHuummmm, I don't think so. In fact, as most people who study philosophy in college learn...some of the greatest philosophers in the world were Chrisitans and believed philosophy supported and often proved a Creator had to exist. Archaeological excavations are in fact bringing new findings to light and science itself is helping to verify the Bible little by little as time continues on. "On the other hand, religion is simply based on the morals of the past." ---------------------------------- Do you know why? Because religion is not God. It's man's attempt to reach out to God. Again, you are getting organized religion confused with the topic at hand---God. "It’s evolution… with knowledge comes realization" -------------------------------------- Maybe you should read alot more and you would realize the supposed theory of evolution is becoming less realistic as time continues on. Oh, knowledge is nothing without wisdom. Wisdom is applying the knowledge. But at least you are asking questions and seeking though. That is a start. Take care...
  • 
    keyman7
    March 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Energizer Bunny

    bravo
  • X-Vermilion-X
    March 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    From what I believe, with knowledge come two things. Better clarity and deeper ignorance. With more knowledge, you are able to see some things clearer, but on the other hand, you are more ignorant to the things you misbelieve. The topic of God is simply something that will probably never be answered. People see God as a higher power. A reason for creation and a hope for after death, a being to pray to, to make wrongs ok. There are simply those that will always refuse to believe the idea simply because they haven't seen any aspect of it in real life. Many people use the bible as a proof in god, but anyone could have 'created' a religion by writing a book like the bible in the past. One reason many refuse to disbelieve in God, is because they don't like the idea that when they die, there will be nothing and that when the ones they love die, they will never see them again. So they are christians, or some other religion so that way if by some chance they are right, they won't have to suffer, and if they're wrong then they tried. Some people won't believe in God unless they see solid proof, which isn't likely. Another way people try to prove god by the bible is by predictions and such from the bible. They use passages to describe things that happen, although it is stated in a complete different way. The bible may say something, and something may happen in similar aspects, and they say that the prediction was true. The whole subject of God and religion is a personal opinion, and a hope for some. If you don't have doubt in God, then nothing anyone says will change your view.
  • Newest Faith
    March 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Well, when you think about it...

    Actually, if you were to look into such text as the torah, you would note that a very lot of major events that have happened throughout history have been predicted with great accuracy. That is one reason to show the existance of God, but as usual, I'm sure you will find a way to counter and say it isn't! And also, if you think that the original text of the Bible may have been created in modern times, they dated the original scripture to exact times, and most of them are really old! I'm not sure, but many of them were within 100 years of 1 A.D. either way.
  • 
    Energizer Bunny
    March 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    1+1=2....not something else

    You seem to persist in discussing the Bible and religion instead of your topic--"God". Well, have it your way then.... ------------------------------------------- There are many books today that claim to be the Word of God. The Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, The Book of Mormon, and other religious works all claim to be divinely inspired. The Bible claims to be the only book that is divinely inspired and that all other claims of inspiration from other works should be ruled out. Does the Bible confirm its exclusive claim to be the Word of God? The totality of evidences presents a strong case for the divine inspiration of the Bible. The strongest argument for the divine inspiration of the Bible is the testimony of Jesus. Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God and confirmed His claims through His sinless, miraculous life and resurrection. The events of His life have been recorded in the four Gospels, which have proven to be historically accurate and written by first century eyewitnesses. Since Jesus is God incarnate, whatever He taught is true, and anything opposed to His teaching is false. Jesus confirmed the Old Testament and promised that the Holy Spirit would inspire the apostles in the continuation of His teaching and in the writing of what would become the New Testament (John 14:25-26 and John 16:12-13). The apostles demonstrated that they came with the authority of God through the miracles they performed as Jesus and the Prophets did before them. The book of Acts, which records the miracles of the apostles, has also proven to be a historically accurate record written by a first century eyewitness. Many religious books claim to be divinely inspired, but only the Bible has evidence of supernatural confirmation. We have seen that Jesus, being God incarnate, affirms the inspiration of the Bible. Another evidence of supernatural confirmation is the testimony of prophecy. The biblical authors made hundreds of specific prophecies of future events that have come to pass in the manner they were predicted. No book in history can compare to the Bible when it comes to the fulfillment of prophecy. There are nearly one hundred prophecies made about Jesus in the Old Testament, prophecies such as His place of birth, how he would die, His rejection by the nation of Israel, and so on. All these prophecies were made hundreds of years before Jesus ever came to earth. Because of the accuracy of the prophecies, many skeptics have believed that they must have been written after A.D. 70—after the birth and death of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem. They have thereby tried to deny that they are even prophecies. However, in 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. These scrolls contained the book of Isaiah and other prophetic books. When dated, they were found to be written from 120 to 100 B.C.,{3} well before Jesus was born. It would have been an incredible accomplishment for Jesus to have fulfilled the numerous prophecies. Some say these prophecies were fulfilled by chance, but the odds against this would be exceptionally large. It would take more a greater leap of faith to believe in that chance happening than in the fact that Jesus is God and these prophecies are divinely inspired. The record of prophecy is thus evidence for the unique and supernatural origin of the Bible. No doubt it can be as hard as you wish it to be or as simple as God intended for it to be. Yes, God leaves room for doubt, and He even allows it for he desires for it to be each person's personal decision. If you think about it especially from your realistic and scientific point of view, there could be no other sensible way. It's not rocket science. Sometimes we, as humans I think, look past the most obvious and reasonable answer right in front of our face to see the more complicated one in the backhground. We are not willing to accept the true simplicity of God. No, we wish for it to be more complicated than it really is. Actually, seeing the direction this particular topic is taking reminds me of a famous quote: "Simplicity is just on the other side of complexity."
  • Newest Faith
    March 12, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    That makes for a really good arguement for the Bible, now that you said that, I have more proof :D Thanks for saying that, as I couldn't have thought of it lol!
  • Christopher Chanco
    April 9, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    To X - Vermilion - X

    I read a true story about Albert Einstein from one of the posts on this website. God did not create evil, in fact evil does not exist on it's own, it's us humans who create evil and cultivate it. Evil is propagated because of the absence of God in our hearts. Here is the story: Did God create everything that exists? Does evil exist? Did God create evil? A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!" "God created everything?" The professor repeated. "Yes Sir, he certainly did," the student replied. The professor added, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil." The student became quiet and did not answer the professor's hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that (God) was a myth. Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?" "Of course," replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?" "What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The other students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied, "In fact, Sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has, or transmits, energy, and heat is what makes a body, or matter, have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat." The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?" The professor responded, "Of course it does." The student replied, "Once again you are wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present." Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said, we see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil. To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light." The professor sat down. The young man's name -- Albert Einstein -
  • 
    Energizer Bunny
    April 9, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Excellent

    My friend you have spoken very wisely! Very nice points you have mande.
  • Joao Camilo
    April 10, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Do you realise that Einstein notion of God as like Spinoza's and thus, he was not religious, almost atheist and that this is story is another little faery internet tale ? Oh, no. You are the people who think evolution is less less realistic because non-scientists say so . Funny.
  • • 
      Xelgaroth
      May 27, 2007
      Edit | Reply
      Oh my, how ignorant you are, Joao Camilo. I strongly advise you to go and read some books on evolution and its innacuracies and flaws before you make such bold generalizations. I recomend that you look into an event called The Cambrian Explosion.
  • ExistentialTheist
    April 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Joao

    Was Einstein's God Spinozan just because of your say so or do you actually have something to offer that will substantiate this? Spinoza had a very definitive concept of God, whereas Einstein simply believed that one existed but was in many ways mysterious if not incomprehensible for our present minds. Einstein also gave some weight to the continuation of consciousness after death in some form or another. Just because Einstein's God was narrowly defined DOES NOT mean that Einstein considered him unimportant or any less probable. There is very little in his description that can be argued to be tantamount to atheism. As for your last comment I cannot even begin to guess at what you might be implying, other than the fact that you are terribly oversimplifying views of religious folk, blanketing them all under one label. Rather unnecessarily condescending post.
  • • Joao Camilo
      April 12, 2006
      Edit | Reply
      Einstein god was the god of nature. When he moved to USA and was accused of atheism he replied with his belief in Espinoza's God. Which is a the good God for those who want to say I do not want a religion, leave me in peace with my own mind. Einstein just stated that was his god... With my last phrase I will clealy imply that creatinists often try to imply evolution theory is rotting but open the Science of this month - A scientific magazine, not some joke creationists do - and one the cover subjects is the discovery of fosille that is transitional species of aquatic and terrestrial species. So much for evolution turning to be unrealistic. Get up - the god of Eistein is merelly nature, 99% atheist.
    • • ExistentialTheist
        April 13, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        Well only the two most well known Einstein quotes refute that interpretation: -Religion without science is blind, sciene without religion is lame. and -God does not play dice Who on earth thinks that the theory of evolution is rotting? You realize not even close to the majority of people who believe in God consider evolution false, don't you? As I mentioned before, just because Einstein's God was narrowly defined DOES NOT mean that he was unimportant or any less probable for Einstein. He was not resigned to atheism, but actually believed in God, and, which I will agree with you on, did not want to subscribe to a religion. Einstein believed in God but simply did not want to assign him qualities, but rather chose a complete suspension of judgment on this part. I would say we have pretty decent evidence of transition species without that issue of Science-- they're called amphibians. What I'm seeing is you are somehow connecting the debate about Einstein's theology to the debate over whether evolution occurred to the debate about the very existence of God. You're dealing with three separate issues there-- pretty important to recognize that.
      • • Joao Camilo
          April 14, 2006
          Edit | Reply
          No, the quotes do not refute the "interpretation" (while it was actually an answer to Einstein not an interpretation but well). For once, playing quotes out of contest do not work. And Second, Spinoza god did not played dices either. Actually in this debate a member said evolution theory is getting less realistic. Easy, just read it. Einstein God was never part of his science. Please find and single scientific work of Einstein where God had anything or is quoted. You wont find - that is the evidence that his God had little to do with his science. That pretty decent evidence is against those who can claim - not you by the way - evolution is refuted or is not a fact. I am glad you reckon the clear evidence. I arrived and found the mix in.
        • • ExistentialTheist
            April 18, 2006
            Edit | Reply
            I never once argued that Einstein's God was not part of his science. I argued that Einstein's God was a bigger part of his overall cosmology (which does not simply include his scientific cosmology). I am aware that Einstein did not necessarily suppose it was the God of Judeo-Christianity, but I believe the concept of God was important to him, yet nonetheless it is no small surprise that God is left out of his scientific works since, as religious scientists often say: "science is a game we play where we try to get as far as we can without invoking the name of God". Einstein clearly recognized that his mind was well-suited to uncovering new truths about the scientific universe. He did not write much about sociology either, but it is easy to assume that sociological concepts played an important role in his everyday life.
          • • Joao Camilo
              April 20, 2006
              Edit | Reply
              You had no argument but answered me and In my post I was talking about science (I do a direct refenrece about Sciencists there) and the only argument I gave about Einstein personal god is that was an vague, not secular, not religious kind of god? (Exactly because he is a scientist in first place and unlike you say, he did as far without caring about god, because a god scientist just do not care about the religious limits when working out) - unlike the little story told who put einstein invoking concepts like evil (with his a moralization of God) that is not fit with his God ?
            • • ExistentialTheist
                April 28, 2006
                Edit | Reply
                huh?!?!?
              • • Joao Camilo
                  April 28, 2006
                  Edit | Reply
                  You are talking as if you had an argument and forgeting I was the one answering a point here - What you argued Is not relevant since I does not apply/agree/disagree to what I was answering previously.
                • • ExistentialTheist
                    May 2, 2006
                    Edit | Reply
                    fair enough
                  • • Joao Camilo
                      May 2, 2006
                      Edit | Reply
                      By the way, as not relevant I mean, not relevant to answer my previous post; not as "not relevant, burn it, no one wants to read, etc." Obviously I am not one to tell the relevancy of what you write.
      • ExistentialTheist
        April 13, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        As an additional note on Einstein, try reading some of his later interviews....his embrace of a more personal God much later in life is apparent.
  • 
    Energizer Bunny
    April 11, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    ExistentialTheist

    Exceptional post. Very well explained.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: