do you know the truth about heaven and hell?

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by TheDarkSide:

This is from one site I found fast, its about the Granite theory.

 

 

A story about two friends from day one.

 

Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.

 

Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.

 

Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.

 

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

 

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

 

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

 

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.

 

These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.

 

The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.

 

One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.

 

These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.

 

Yes, my friend, it wasn't a big bang. It was a big AMEN (translated, "So be it.").

 

So, have we proven that evolution is dead and the Earth was created?

 

Well, it's faith isn't it? Either you believe in creation which requires a Creator, or you believe in evolution as a theory which ignores a creator. Basically, people who believe in the evolutionary theory either 1) deny scientific fact in order to deny that God exists, or 2) they have not studied well enough to see that evolution is not possible. Science makes it very difficult to believe in evolution because an instantaneous creation is perfectly supported. Evolution cannot be proven.

 

I had no problem with this until the last paragraph, where you seemed to lose it. A lack of scientific proof doesn't make something any more or less true. There is no proof that the theory of gravity is true, but most people would laugh at you if you said you didn't believe in it.

 

As for the existance of granite and it's unique chemical properties, I'll be the first to say I have limited knowledge of geology, but I'm willing to bet you have little knowledge of the last 6 billion years of astronomical activity. While the theory of "God did this" is one I can't disprove, you probably can't disprove the theory of "As the Earth was being formed by collections of astral debris and broken meteors collapsing under a shared a gravity, an immeasureable amount of radiation, derived from a nearby supernova, blanketed the developing planet's core, causing incredible reactions on a molecular level."

 

I have no answer about Granite because I know little about granite, but my lack of a theory, or even science's lack of a theory, doesn't mean that someone else's theory is correct.

 

As for the bit about evolution, I think you're lumping multiple theories together. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. One an believe in a creator and believe in evolution. Hell, my dad does.

 

In fact, the word "Evolution" actually is in itself a combination of several theories. Micro evolution is the theory that a creature will develop traits to best suit its surroundings(Darwin's Finches). Macro evolution is the theory that as micro-evolution occurs, eventually species will have changed to a point that their genetic code will no longer be capable of reproducing with each other. At that point, they've become two new species.

 

As for your point that I can't prove evolution, so accepting it is a form of faith, I suppose that's true in a sense, but that line of thinking calls into question all human experience. I'm typing on a keyboard right now. How can I prove this keyboard exists? I can't really. I have to have faith in my senses that I can see and touch the keyboard. I choose to believe in the keyboard.

 

One question I've always had for creationists was: How do you explain the COBE mission?

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

Drunk,

 

I don't worry to much about your atheism, God will reveal himself to you one day and there will be no denying his presence! It may not completely bring you over the evangelical aspect of some believers, but you will believe. Maybe it will take the birth of your first child, or a maybe you'll be out in nature and you will be overcome with a feeling of not being alone, I know there are many people in my church that had their first true spiritual experiece much later in life.

 

I am lucky that I was able to see God's work early in life.

 

That being said I wanted to address your issue with your basic argument of "if God truly existed how could he allow all these things to be carried out in the name of religion or Christianity etc." Thats not a direct quote, I am just paraphrasing an argument that many non-believers use and I feel is your reason for not believing.

 

In order for people to love God (God's ultimate plan) God had to create the capacity for unyielding and complete love within us as we are created in his image. Coming along with the capacity for unbridled love comes the potential for unimaginable evil. That is why such horrible things can be perpetrated by people against other people. In every belief, religious or scientific, there is a balance of good and evil, positve and negative.

 

As far as Jerry Falwell, there are also many people who misinterpret the Word of God and in my opinion, these people are more upsetting to God than murderers because they falsely lead believers away from God's true message, one of love. Much like the radical Mullahs in the Muslim faith that urge people to kill for Allah. They are intentionally misinforming believers as to the true nature of God.

 

God wants his people to love him, and He gives us the ability to do so, but with it came the ability to turn from Him completely.

 

I know i'm not going to sway you with this post, but I just want to share with you some things that I have learned and have strengthened my faith. I know as well that I am not perfect and maybe not the best exemplar of a "perfect Christain-life" that many holier-than-thou types believe we should all attain.

 

If you want to have a discussion or ask me any more issues you have with God I will be happy to answer them or talk about them. I enjoy playing apologist, and I know many people, believers and non-believers have numerous questions about God or Christianity in general.

 

My problem with religion, in terms of my personal beliefs, has nothing to with what people do or don't do in God's name. I should've been more clear about that. My issue with religion as a socio-political force is what religion does in God's name. My bit about Jerry Falwell was just me being ticked off that people like Falwell can make obscene money by being, essentially, loud-mouthed bigots. Osama Bin Laden is a hero of radical Islam for being a homicidal loud-mouthed bigot. And so on.

 

As for my personal belief structure, if you'd call it that, I doubt I'd go into it. The best summary I could give would be that I'm a stout believer in the church of "be a good person, just because you should be".

[Osprey 199]

I agree with your assessment of Falwell, any person that delights or wishes the harm or death of another human being and does so as a religious leader is downright awful in my opinion.

 

 

You say "be a good person just because you should be."

 

 

My next question to you is, why should you be a good person?

[Ned Ryerson 94]

Good post Osprey. I find that many people, myself included, shun away from religion because of all this laud noise. There are characters who just sign up for this board and throw bible quotes in your face, as if it were that simple. Nuts like Falwell and Pat Roberson (justified the deaths of Hurricane Katrina), and others who don't even promote actual discussion. Unfortunately, it is not that simple.

 

I grew up in a religious family, and from day one have been skeptical of religion. That doesn't mean I'm not curious though. For example, Donald Miller has written several good books (Blue Like Jazz being the best), where he explains religion and faith as a process without true answers. Either way, it is interesting, and worth looking into.

[Osprey 199]

quote:

Originally posted by WPMagic:

Good post Osprey. I find that many people, myself included, shun away from religion because of all this laud noise. There are characters who just sign up for this board and throw bible quotes in your face, as if it were that simple. Nuts like Falwell and Pat Roberson (justified the deaths of Hurricane Katrina), and others who don't even promote actual discussion. Unfortunately, it is not that simple.

 

I grew up in a religious family, and from day one have been skeptical of religion. That doesn't mean I'm not curious though. For example, Donald Miller has written several good books (Blue Like Jazz being the best), where he explains religion and faith as a process without true answers. Either way, it is interesting, and worth looking into.

 

I've read Blue Like Jazz. Amazing book.

 

I also hate how certain religious demagogues can ruin people's drive to grow spiritually and closer to God. People may be curious about Christianity for example, and they see guys like Falwell or the crazy Pastor in Iowa who picketed a gay ****/murder victim's funeral with signs signaling his entrance to Hell and think, why would I ever choose to believe in the same God as these people?

 

While verses in the Bible can be used to help illustrate points, they are mainly there to strenghten the arguments.

 

Like I said in a previous post, I think the institution of "religion" is ruining true spiritual growth. Honestly, in my belief, God doesn't care if you go to church every Sunday. God doesn't care if you donate money to the church. God doesn't care if you say five Hail Marys because you looked at a gorgeous woman and thought some X-Rated thoughts. All God cares is that you have a relationship with Him. Whatever that means to you.

 

I know people who pray the traditional way, and I know people who talk to God like they would a friend on the phone and all varieties in between.

 

I have looked into many faiths and Christianity is the only one to which the supreme diety has made the attempt to contact man, as opposed to the other way around. That strengthens my beliefs, maybe not anyone elses.

 

Im not saying everyone has to completely buy into the whole Christianity outlook as the only way to grow spiritually. I just don't want others to stunt that growth due to some loud-mouthed hate-monger who speaks from a Christian pulpit but does not represent the majority of believers or the true nature of God.

[Osprey 199]

Also WP, I don't think anyone can be a true believer unless they constantly ask questions and seek answers.

 

Those who claim to be spreading Christianity yet don't create a dialogue or promote discussion are in fact doing the opposite.

[Ned Ryerson 94]

A literal, no exceptions interpretation of the Bible shuns me away. People say, well the Bible said this, the Bible said that, and that is the way it is. However, I read my Bible like I read my Constitution... as a living, breathing document. In other words, it is open for interpretation, and more important, growth. The Bible is a combination of books written by many different authors, complied over a long period of time. To say that there were no errors and that the books that were ultimately left out are meaningless seems wrong.

[Natesroom 197]

Drunk let me weigh in here with some thoughts..

 

You seem well read have you ever heard of Ravi Zacharias or C.S. Lewis or Lee Stroebel? I challenge you to read one of their books if you were inclined to have a more concrete understanding than us tryine to debate atheisim or not. Though i do have a few quotes that might make you interested enough to read more of these authors.

 

"To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias

 

C's Lewis was professing atheist before he realized that he could just not explain away even the mere presence of some kind of infinite being.

 

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.--C.S. Lewis

 

also to not believe in any GOd then how can you believe in the difference of good and evil? by whose standards do you judge good or evil?

 

here is a story illustrating that point:

 

Student: There is too much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God!

 

Speaker: Would you mind if I asked you something? You said,

[Natesroom 197]

quote:

Originally posted by WPMagic:

A literal, no exceptions interpretation of the Bible shuns me away. People say, well the Bible said this, the Bible said that, and that is the way it is. However, I read my Bible like I read my Constitution... as a living, breathing document. In other words, it is open for interpretation, and more important, growth. The Bible is a combination of books written by many different authors, complied over a long period of time. To say that there were no errors and that the books that were ultimately left out are meaningless seems wrong.

 

Whoah WP i liked everything you posted until this comment...

 

if you don't believe that the bible is wholly complete and without error then what kind of god do you believe in? iF he cant deliver a bible complete then how powerful is he? if it full of error then that god isnt powerful enough to even deliver a fully infallable bible to his people. That would not make him omnipotent and so he could not be god. if the bible was full of error it would have been disproved long ago...

[Osprey 199]

I agree Nathan.

 

I think some of the confusion can be summed up in the differences between the Old and New Testament. When Christ arrived, he basically said that "this is how we are going to do things now."

 

No longer did the rules of Leviticus and the Talmud really apply in the literal sense. Sacrifices were not needed anymore. Strict rules as to how to build a temple were unnecessary. Christ became both.

 

I am using those examples as a proof that the Bible is flexible even within its own writing. God is infallible. His word wasn't flawed, but when He sent Christ to Earth the rules changed a little bit. Also, the quote WP used earlier from Ephesians about slaves, isn't relevant in our world today as we view slavery as a terrible practice.

 

As Christians we cant truly believe we can be masters over anyone, but at the time of the writing (Paul wrote Ephesians- 1 of the Pauline letters) there were slaves so through Paul God gave His word on the subject. Jesus taught against slavery and nowhere in the Bible does God counter that after Christ, but the context really doesn' apply today.

 

I am in agreement with you that the Word of God (the Bible) is infallible, but also that it has a relevance factor today different than at the time of its writing.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

My next question to you is, why should you be a good person?

 

Why not? Do you need a reason to be a good person?

 

If you believe my sense of right and wrong is based off the will of God, I can't really disprove that, or even make a coherent argument against it, since "God did it" isn't something I can disprove. What I believe is that each individual develops their own sense of right and wrong based off their own experiences, educations, development, and personal proclivities. Hitler thought himself a good man. I think he was a deranged sociopath.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Unfortunately Nathan, the only works I've read by any of those authors was the Narnia saga, which I read religiously in 4th grade. I think I stopped after the Silver Chair.

 

Anyway, to answer your points, I think there is a difference between saying: "There is moral law" and "There is absolute moral law."

 

Or, to turn the argument on itself. If there is moral law, there must be a moral lawgiver. If the moral law isn't absolute, it must be flexible to meet the needs of given situations. And if the moral law is flexible, than the lawgiver must be flexible. And if moral law is not flexible enough, it can fail, thereby the lawgiver can fail. By presenting absolute laws like: "Thou shalt not lie", we are presented with the moral internal crisis of "What if telling this lie will stop a murder?" Because that first law of "thou shalt not lie" must be flexible in this instance for a greater good, that being the prevention of the murder. And if there is good and evil, since we need one to know the other, there must also be degrees of good and evil.

 

Or, to take an approach I actually ascribe to, I'm the moral lawgiver. A lot of times I'm wrong. I interpret, I experience, I react. On and on forever.

 

And though he was a far smarter man than I'll ever be, I disagree with the Zacharias quote. To say I'm an atheist doesn't in my mind mean I must be omniscient. It simply means based off the things I've seen and experience, I have seen no evidence of God. In light of this lack of evidence, I go about my day based on the assumption that there is not a God. I don't need absolute intelligence to disprove God's existence. I simply have a lack of belief of his existence. I'm sorry if that sounds really pat.