When did you accept God in your life, or realize you did not believe in him?

It's possible, but ranking the sun above the earth in any regard doesn't really fit with Moses' writing. Nothing I've seen that he wrote would hint that he might make that assumption, though that certainly doesn't disprove your hypothesis.

It must be one of the great ironies of our time and the greatest tragedy of Christianity that so many people have been lost their faith from the words and actions of other believers. It truly breaks my heart, and I know I've been part of that problem myself.

The two blows you took (your parents' divorce and your grandfather's Alzheimer's disease and subsequent death) are enough to shake anyone up. It's hard to believe in a loving God when you get your guts ripped out like that and your whole world gets turned upside down. Trust me, I've been there. I know what it feels like to have the things you've counted on your whole life to always be there suddenly get taken away or changed forever.

And as someone who knows, I can tell you with confidence that the God you were taught to believe in as a child, the God your grandfather believed in, is still there -- He always has been, and always will be. He hasn't changed, nor will He. Ever. If there's anything I can do to help you see and believe that again, please let me know.

 

You're a good guy Hasbeen.....even though i don't agree with you i think you are a real good guy and have a lot of respect for you.

 

I had forgotten about that acronym completely, and I was wondering where the heck Sly was going with that. Thanks, KJ.

 

Dude - honestly no, you have not. At least not on tbr.

I have never been more serious about anything I have said on this board.

 

Originally Posted by hasbeen99
It truly breaks my heart, and I know I've been part of that problem myself.


I think everyone can look back and see things we have said or done that we could have handled in a better way.

We've got to realize that bad things happen to good people and your faith in people is different than your faith in God. The last part of that is why I'm really not that keen on churches or organized religion like I used to be.

 

Sure, but I was referring to the order, not so much the classification. But as you pointed out, I've actually defeated my own argument with the information I presented about ancient Hebrew only being moderately concerned with chronological order of events.

I can see how you could get that impression from me in this thread (and probably a few others), in the context of the creation debate. But honestly, that's not really the way I look at it.

I'll freely admit there is FAR more science available for that genre than there is Biblical reference, and as as I've already admitted, the Biblical references are tenuous at best. The way I look at the two is that generally speaking, they tend to compliment each other (aside from the origin itself, which is in debate even in the scientific community). The more you dive into details, the more the two sides tend to part company in some areas -- I'll give you that. But given the uncertainty of both sides' evidence, to me it's always been a pretty fruitless debate. Natural science is not what a Christian (or Jew, for that matter) should be hanging their faith on, in my humble opinion. To do so would be to miss the point of the message of the Bible.

The real 'brass tacks' debates center around Jesus and the Gospels, in my opinion. Not coincidentally, that's also where the Bible is clearest in its message. No frills, no poetry, just straightforward prose (albeit in ancient Greek).

I respectfully disagree. I think a better illustration would be oil and vinegar. Or perhaps dance partners. Sometimes they blend together, sometimes they don't. Each has value in and of itself, but when mixed can become something even better.

 

You're probably not wrong about that, but there are still dogmatic shots being fired from both sides. There are certainly believers who cling to a literal interpretation of the creation account, and at the same time there are scientists who just as dogmatically cling to bad science and faulty theory. Then there are those in the middle, trying to look for common ground between both sides in an effort to find what's really true. I'd like to think I could be counted among those in the middle.

 

yeah, i understand. that's why i was warning about going down this road (providing evidence to support a conclusion of faith). i haven't seen to do it very often, and that's probably why i can respect your take on things. you've never tried to "prove it" before that i can recall. and not to say i disrespect sly's or vp's (or other's) faith, just that i enjoy arguing with them.

exactly.

one might say, the religion itself evolved.

well, yeah... maybe we'll have to disagree on that. i don't see how christian faith can really bring much to science. certainly scholarly exploration of the bible can be scientific, and i'm sure there's plenty of solid history in the bible, but you don't have to have faith to explore that information.

science can't prove or disprove faith and faith can't change science.

 

Well, yes and no.

I had thought the Red Sea was just a huge lake, much like Salt Lake or the the Black Sea. Turns out it actually is open to the Arabian Sea through a narrow channel to the south (at least today), making it a large bay.

When I think of oceans (especially with regard to large marine life like whales and such), I think of open water. Yes, the Red Sea most likely was home to some ocean-going marine life, but not the full spectrum of it like one would find on, say, the east or west coasts of the United States, or even the Mediterranean coast.

Here's a pic I found: