ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

I Strayed Away From God

I strayed away from God too much. I searched different religions to "find the true one" and now I am confused. My faith is so weak like never before. How can I reconcile with God? How can I get back to Him? What am I to do and how?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Sin & Repentance Quiz
 ---Agnes on 6/28/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (16)

Post a New Blog

Evolution is a disastrous idea for nature. Imagine a fish with lumpy unformed legs, it won't help him swim at all. When his descendants reach the beach walk stage, they won't be able to run fast enough to escape the preditors. They won't have developed a big enough mouth to scare preditors away. Please go back and come up with another idea. Also, the cells would have to talk to each other and say 'Hey make sure little baby has the same mutation' and they would have to be able to predict 'Pass this along! These cells are going to be legs in 14 million years or so, so keep reproducing this apparent random mistake.'
---frances008 on 10/7/08

I'm Serious, what method was used for 'evolution'. Was it natural selection: but that would lead to fewer not more species. Even today we do not know all the species on the planet. Still, many have gone extinct due to not being able to survive the environment. Was it mutation: but mutation never increases the amount of information in the genome. I await your reply. The law of entrophy, shows that all things were created and are moving gradually towards corruption, and extinction. No new species have ever popped up, no matter how hard scientists have tried to make them. What about the first life forms. How can life be created from non-life by scientists in a controlled experiment. Please take your time answering.
---frances008 on 10/6/08

Just tell Him you're sorry and ask him to help build your faith. Put yourself among other Christians that walk the good walk and learn from them. I heard a quote once that rings so true. "When you feel as if you're so far from God, ask yourself, who walked away." Jesus says that He'll never forsake us or leave us. Just turn back to God and ask for help and forgiveness.
---Paul on 8/24/08

Didn't need to "dig", this stuff is readily available for anyone that's willing to actually look it up. Here are the links in order of generation:

osteolepis - eusthenopteron - panderichthys - tiktaalik - elginerpeton - obruchevichthys - acanthostega - ichthyostega - hynerpeton - tulerpeton - pederpes - eryops

Notice how there are many transitional species? Look them up and you can see there are only small differences between the species.

But this isn't "proof". It's evidence supporting the theory.
---im_serious on 8/22/08

Also Kenny, they aren't "missing" anymore if we find them. I think you mean "transitional fossils".
---liam on 8/22/08

im serious,
Please explain the missing links that have been found that prove a lizard came from a fish. I'll patiently wait while you dig.
---Kenny on 8/21/08

"Making Sense of Grand Canyon's Puzzles" from the NY Times describes a few theories that geologists have. These are hypothesis that have yet to be tested. These theories also make predictions about other details that might be found in the GC but so far, they are lacking physical evidence to say for certain. If they find such evidence, they can then say "okay, my theory appears to fit the evidence, let's test it some more!" you know, SCIENCE!

You say geologists can't explain it and after some looking I found two possible explanations? Keep in mind that "flood did it" is also only a possible explaination, but it doesn't account for features seen elsewhere in the GC.
---liam on 8/21/08

Warwick, I'm getting tired of arguing with you and your misrepresentations of science. It's like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a 10 year old. It is very frustrating.

The kind of "science" you are talking about is the same thought processes that brought us such great theories as homeopathy, phrenology, astrology, psychics, psychic surgeons, dowsing, crystal healing, and Kinoki foot pads. Don't be ignorant about your world. God gave us minds for a reason.

---liam on 8/21/08

Warwick- This change you want to be shown isn't expected in evolution (thus my comment on pandas and poodles). What's predicted are multiple changes such as the one I referred to, combining with other changes and eventually a fish has become a lizard. That's what transitional species are. So, the mechanism predicted in evolution has been observed.

It's kinda funny. Long ago, the argument against evolution was "You can't find missing links." Now that they have been found, you're saying "You haven't seen it happen." Now that it has, it's, "But that wasn't a jump without a missing link."

As for an adaptation causing lost information, nope. Where are you getting this from?
---im_serious on 8/20/08

Liam if I gave sources you would most likely
ridicule them. Do some looking and you will find information. I think the geologist Dr Steve Austin wrote about it. But he's a creationist and I suppose you would say not to be listened to.

In the meanwhile just as an hypothetical exercise can you suggest how rock can be bent 90 degrees without cracking? Remember we are talking of very thick and very old rock.

I have been the the GC and the Kaibab Upwarp is real. Maybe you should take a trip and you will see that it is a serious challenge to long-ages evolutionary thinking. Maybe that's why evolutionists don't write about it.

Gotta go last minute packing before leaving for France.
---Warwick on 8/20/08

Warwick: "For one kind to become another kind would require ..."

Are you saying that new information cannot get into the system? What about genetic mutations? DNA is Turing complete (a computer science term) which basically means that *any* protein is possible to manufacture in a cell. With mutations, all proteins and thus all viable organisms are possible to create even if the genetic information is not originally in the system. You also don't loose or gain massive amounts of DNA from one generation to the next so you would never expect to see a fish give birth to a panda. If you misinterpret the theories, of course they're going to appear wacky!
---liam on 8/20/08

Uhg, Warwick: do you assume that since scientists disagree about the details of the Kaibab Upwarp, this implies all the theory is wrong?! I just read a lot of information about it and yes, geologists disagree about the sources and are working on theories---but scientists disagree about a lot of things, it doesn't mean scientists are "BAFFLED"and need to start form scratch. What you're saying seems very much like "Physics can't explain gravity and quantum mechanics simultaneously, therefore, gravity is wrong." Uhm ... NO. Gravity works very well. Evolution and geology work as science---you cannot dispute their predictions and applications. Again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding in science.
---liam on 8/20/08

Warwick: cite your sources first. I can't find the details of what you are talking about in any journal (not even in "Answers") so how can I respond? I'm not a trained geologist so I don't know all the details of their theories either. I can make guesses but that's all they would be.

As I scientist, I would have to critically look at the evidence.
---liam on 8/20/08

Warwick: Sorry, I misspoke. The wedge document is not the origin of ID movement.

If someone can present a testable ID prediction that evolution theory cannot make (not evidence after the fact - I'm talking about the whole scientific method done in a controlled environment), I will be more likely to accept some of the theories. Otherwise, we're talking about philosophy.

Before someone claims otherwise, I should point out a simple example: the original evolution theory necessitates speciation (or at least something very, very close to it) and we observe it in fruit flies, however, ID does not necessarily predict the variation of species. Variation was added to the theory to explain the observation of changes at least within species.
---liam on 8/20/08

imserious you did an Olympic standard jump there, hopping from adaptation to the appearance of a totally new kind of creature.

Adaptation can be observed and artificially replicated, but plays no part in the imagined microbe-to-man evolutionary story.

Adaptation's the name of the process where certain creatures have genetic information which can be selected so as to give them survival advantage. Those without the ability to adapt are unlikely to survive so the nett effect is loss of genetic information.

For one kind to become another kind would require the generation of large amounts of new,specific genetic information, the opposite of adaptation which brings about a nett loss of information and introduces nothing new.
---Warwick on 8/20/08

Liam you have skipped away from the discussion of the Kaibab Upwarp. Please explain how this rock could bend 90 degrees without cracking?

You can go and have a look at it.

Answer please.
---Warwick on 8/19/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes

My high school teacher that "taught" us evolution would tell us about a few cases in the 70's where people thought they found missing links, but they were either hoaxes or mistakes (uncovered and shown by evolutionists, not creationists). Then, he would conclude that evolution was false because of the missing links. And as thus he continued to "teach" evolution for around 25 years. He didn't know how evolution and science works either.
---im_serious on 8/19/08

Warwick: "It is by faith that all of us believe our view of origins."

I'm okay with your view here. This is besides the point though. Actually, we can argue the details of evolution all we want, but ID is not science because they start with their conclusions and make the data fit. Science works like "Hey, I wonder how this works? Let's take it apart and find out". Science will not settle with the conclusion "God did it" because that doesn't tell us anything we didnt know before.

I said this already today but I wanted to say it again: read The Wedge document by the Discovery Institute. This is the origin of the Intelligent Design movement. They start with a conclusion. Not science.
---liam on 8/19/08

Warwick: was that your attempt at citing sources? Repeating what you said earlier? Find me a scientific-ish paper that provides a statement of the problem and some data. I haven't found one yet (I admit I haven't had a lot of time to look, but a quick search on google scholar didn't give me much and neither did AiG).

You may have lectured about evolution for 15 years but to what capacity? Do you go to christian schools, say there's no evidence for evolution and call it education? This doesn't mean you understand science.

Saying that "I believe that the biblical account is accurate and here's some instances where this idea fits" is not science.

What do you believe science is?
---liam on 8/19/08


Pandas don't have poodles, if thats what you think evolution says. A member of a species will have a change, something new to the species. If the change leads to a stronger member or to greater reproduction rates, the change becomes dominant. Then another change, and another, and fish transition to land animals, or mammals to whales. These changes, how they occur, and the order they occur have been found in fossils of transitional species. And now, a transition has been seen to happen exactly as predicted. This is not a variation that's available for selection (as you were saying), this is a NEW feature. So, evolution has been seen to happen.

As I asked jerry, do you have any arguments where evolution is wrong?
---im_serious on 8/18/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Depression

Atheist by working with one kind such as dogs we can select features which are already within their genetic information. Let's breed smaller dogs: start with a largedog and select the smallest of their progeny and breed them, then select the smallest of their progeny and breed them. Eventually we'll breed all largness genes out and have a small dog which can no longer produce large dogs.

We've selected already existing genetic information and deleted other information. We commenced with dogs and ended up with dogs. That doesn't explain how one 'kind' can evolve into another 'kind'. This would require large amounts of totally new and specific genetic information, while the above example shows the small dogs each losing information.
---Warwick on 8/18/08

Liam I understand evolution well having lectured on it for more than 15 years.

What I am endeavouring to point out is that speciation/ adaptation has no part to play in microbe-to-man evolution. Speciation can be scientifically verified while the appearance of life etc cannot and is therefore a belief about the past. In reality the available evidence better suits Biblical creation.

You talk of theories and beliefs but no matter how elegant they are they are only ideas.

It is by faith that all of us believe our view of origins.
---Warwick on 8/18/08

Liam the Kaibab Upwarp is a reality and as explained is a serious problem for long-ages-evolutionary ideas.

How can rock bend 90 degrees without cracking?

Please consider this reality and explain how this can happen.

Unless someone can show how rock can bend without cracking it's strong evidence, even proof that the imagined hundreds of millions of years do not exist.

The evidence is the millions/billions of years don't exist here and in other places. This therefore is solid evidence that the vast amounts of time evolutionists consider necessary for the appearance of life, and all we see, likewise doesn't exist. Strong evidence against evolutionary belief.

And also strong evidence for Biblical creation.
---Warwick on 8/18/08


I have never understood your "kind" argument. You seem okay with the idea of dogs being one "kind" and the idea that breeders using the dog "kind" have over the centuries manage to come up with everything from a teacup poodle to a St. Bernard. What is so hard about taking the next step and imagining changes that preclude interbreeding amoung "kinds"? I mean imagine the poodle and St.Bernard combination, physically that not going to happen---how long before biologically it can't.

"Within a creatures genetic information lies a great amount of possible variation, which can be selected to accommodate changes in environment."---Huh?
---atheist on 8/18/08

Send a Free Spanish Ecard

Warwick, regarding the lizards: you're talking about evolution again and you have no idea what you're talking about because you don't know the details of evolution. Evolution does explain speciation. VERY WELL. Evolution explains genetic information theory. VERY WELL. I'm never going to claim this is proof for evolution theory---but if that's the way you're interpreting it, you obviously don't understand science. Evolution is complicated because life is complicated. Either learn the complicated details or don't try to disprove evolution.
---liam on 8/18/08

imserious variation within a 'kind' does not produce new 'kinds' of creatures. Within a creatures genetic information lies a great amount of possible variation, which can be selected to accommodate changes in environment.

No one has seen any totally new, specific genetic material arise which would lead to a new kind. No matter what adaptive changes occur the lizards are still lizards, and not on the way to becoming other than a lizard.
---Warwick on 8/18/08

Warwick: Tom Vail is the one who argues that there is a "90 degree bend" problem in the formation of the Grand Canyon---exactly the point your bring up. The observation was created by him. I cannot yet find any geologists who say this feature causes them problems. I am trying to respond to the details of your statement but you neglected to cite your sources. I must locate these before I can discuss this further.

Evolution is a theory and not an ideology. If you ever study the theory of evolution in detail, you will know that. If you believe evolution is an ideology because scientists do not find plausible/applicable evidence for ID, then you don't know how science works.
---liam on 8/18/08

God is not about religions, he is about relationships. He wants you to understand that, and your journey is leading you to strength in that truth. Be aware Satan "masquerades as an angel of light" (2 Cor.11:14) and plants doubt in the minds of believers (Gen.3:1-5) God provided a way for us to realize his grace and enter into a relationship with him, in Jesus. Repentance of sin, Faith in Jesus, and acceptance of him as lord of your life is salvation. Use discernment, anyone teaching works or deeds to salvation is teaching false doctrine. Once you have accepted Christ and dedicate your life to him, you are saved forever.
---AWat on 8/18/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study

jerry6593: You totally missed the point made my im_serious. He was saying that evolution and abiogenesis are unrelated. He stated some evidence of evolution (I looked up those lizards---pretty cool) and said evolution is not a matter of faith because there is clear cases of it happening (See also the work done by Diane Dodd).

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is only a *plausible and natural* method for the development of life. Maybe God did it via supernatural forces, but that explanation won't tell us anything new about the world---but studying a naturalistic abiogenesis will give us insight about how things work (so we can develop applications). I hope people can see the difference between those cases.
---liam on 8/18/08

To make it plainer, I'm saying faith as in "I think so without any evidence or support" (or, like religion, even if the evidence goes against it) while you mean faith as "I think so with evidence but just haven't 100% proven it". That's not an argument that evolution is wrong, which is exactly why I made that analogy with QM. It's simply a statement that every aspect of the theory hasn't figured out all the holes (why it's called a *theory*), which it never will (just like QM), and this is no more damaging to evolution than the holes in QM since it's based on other evidence (paleontology, genetics, anthropology, biology, biochem, geology, etc).

Now, do you have any actual arguments where evolution is wrong?
---im_serious on 8/18/08

You recognize your mistake, repent of this, and get back on track. Fasting can help to bring the flesh under subjection, along with reading the word, and prayer. Holy Communion is also designed to bring us closer to the Lord. Forgiving oneself, is harder than asking God to forgive us. Do not continue to beat yourself up, just do what you know is right.
---gayla on 8/17/08

Liam I was referring to Grand Canyon research done by geologists.

Evolutionist: anyone who believes in naturalistic evolution.

At the Kaibab Upwarp are deep layers of sediment-now rock-bottom-Tapeats Sandstone(resting upon metamorphic Vishnu Schist)-upper is Kaibab Limestone. These rock layers are bent 90 degrees uncracked!

In evolutionary terms there's 300 million years between the layers so all would have hardened to rock in a fraction of that time.

The puzzle for evolutionsts:how can rock bend 90 degrees without cracking?

No puzzle for creationists who believe they were deposited in a short period of time and bent while still plastic, when the Vishnu Schist cracked and uplifted..

Over to you!
---Warwick on 8/16/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses

I'm not serious: "nor will it be any more surprising to find out abiogenesis works than when that particle was found. Why? Because evolutionists have left nothing to faith."

Your optimistic speculation that you will one day understand abiogenesis IS nothing but pure, blind FAITH! You have NO scientific evidence whatsoever upon which to base this speculation - only your atheistic religious convictions. And you then have the audacity to claim "evolutionists have left nothing to faith." Good grief!
---jerry6593 on 8/16/08

Scientists have good, plausible theories about abiogenesis based upon molecular dynamics, non-linear dynamics, chaos and computer theory. It's easy to show mathematically (and with a computer) that complicated patterns can develop out of pure randomness and selection rules. Research done by Jim Crutchfield (UC Davis physics - look it up) shows that very simple models of molecules can grow into larger molecules that reproduce themselves (one criteria for life). The paper is called "Objects that create objects". If you look at these theories and understand them, it is by no stretch of the imagination that this is a very plausible way in which life developed ... no lightning, no mud and certainly no metaphysical force required.
---liam on 8/15/08

No, I specifically replied to the two points you made: why not knowing HOW abiogenesis works is not an issue and that evolutionists views are not based on faith (I think liam answered the grand canyon thing well, so I moved on). And I will continue to defend evolution, but you need to be specific as well.

But, I'm assuming you want an instance where we've SEEN evolution happen (aside from easy microevolution like color change)? How about when the lizard Podarcis sicula was taken to a new island, and in 36 years (w/o human contact) natural selection had lead to new organ structures called cecal valves (among other changes) which enabled better digestion of the vegetation in their new environment?
---im_serious on 8/15/08

imserious you believe evolution to be a proven fact. What 'proof', as distinct from evidence, can you offer for the naturalistic appearance of life and that this life has evolved into all the life we see around us.

You have made numerous unsuported generalizations but I ask you to be specific.
---Warwick on 8/15/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis

2/3 Then when Ambulocetans natans is found, you say, "Fine, but what about bats?" Now that Onychonycteris finneyi is found, your holes are dwindling, and you exclaim, "abiogenesis hasn't been shown." Evolutionists don't "admit" they dont know HOW it happened, it's not a secret it's not known. But IF it happens is grounded on the extremely well-supported theory of evolution. Not knowing how abiogenesis works is no bigger a hole than the one in the electroweak theory when physicists thought there should be Z bosons but had never seen one, nor will it be any more surprising to find out abiogenesis works than when that particle was found. Why? Because evolutionists have left nothing to faith.
---im_serious on 8/14/08

Warwick, I when you say "Evolutionist" I suppose you mean Geologist. You point out some ID evidence that was introduced by Tom Vail (not a scientist, a GC tour guide) about sediment deposits in the GC. It's very easy to find real research (supported by experiments and data taken from the GC) that shows that geology can explain what is seen there. For one example I found, search for "Waves and Sandbar Erosion in the Grand Canyon: Applying Coastal Theory to a Fluvial System". There's also a silly youtube video that explains more evidence against Kent Hovind's arguments that you used about two people looking at the GC called "Why the Grand Canyon wasn't formed quickly". I won't repeat their arguments here.
---liam on 8/14/08

imserious we can only speculate about the past as we can't test it by the scientific method of testability- repeatability-observability.

At the Grand Canyon there's massive layers of now sedimentary rock bent 90 degrees. Evolutionists say these layers were deposited over hundreds of millions of years. Therefore the sediments would have hardened to rock and would crack if bent, which hasn't happened.

I believe in the world-wide flood of Noah. Therefore these massive deposits of sediment, now bent, fit within the Biblical story, having been deposited quickly and bent while plastic.

This isn't proof of the Biblical flood but consistent evidence and solid evidence against the evolutionary view.
---Warwick on 8/13/08

My first post isn't going through because it included links, but I was saying that there is lots of evidence supporting evolution on wikipedia (search "evidence for evolution") and you can also find arguments against evolution on wikipedia (linked on the "evidence" page).
Also, there is a lot of evidence supporting the idea that the grand canyon was not created by a flood. People run computer models for a vast number of parameters and show that fast megafloods do not make structures like the GC (lookup "Channeled Scablands" on wikipedia for an example of what megafloods can create). The Scablands page also mentions how scientists rejected the claims about metaflooding, but agreed with enough tangible evidence.
---liam on 8/13/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma

Actually, an evolutionist looking at the Grand Canyon would say: Although it seems the Grand Canyon would take millions of years to make, I'm not so sure. We should check.

Then, to those scientists that say it took millions of years, he would say: What tests did you make? What parameters did you use? What assumptions did you make? What models did you use? Why? Have others checked your results and ran their own tests? Did they agree? Are there any implications that contradict your results? etc etc.
---im_serious on 8/12/08

How can your faith truly be weak if you continue to seek him out? He is religion, not all these different churches. Maybe you should leave those alone for a while and just seek Him. You'll find him then you'll know which church is best for you. I went to all kinds of churches and got confused. I went to my church, the bible, and learned His religion. He is not inside a building or particular verse. He is in us and all around us. He is the entire bible. All your answers are there. I nstill don't have a church, but I try to live every day in him and know it will come
---friend on 8/12/08

This is in addition to my other post regarding "evidence": As a scientist who is knowledgeable about both evolution itself and the apparent objections to to evolution, I am willing to discuss/debate any of the *specific* objections to evolution (one at a time). This in no way means I am against religion (quite the opposite), but it concerns me when religious-minded people make claims about evolution when they only know of the few mistakes/hoaxes that appear in the media but completely ignore the vast scientific discoveries and changes that have been made since the mid 1800s.
---liam on 8/12/08

jerry6593, I'm not oddment, nor did I say I was a male. I have been able to support myself without turning to trickery. Although, I am surprised to have a possible supporter. I'm still not sure if oddment is for me or just against you.
---im_serious on 8/12/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol

Imserious I wrote 'the idea that everything came about by chance random processes is a belief not supported by proof.'

Evidence isn't proof and is interpreted. Consider two scientists at the Grand Canyon viewing the evidence:

Evolutionist says- wow look at what a little water (Colorado River) did over millions of years!

Creationist (thinking Noah's Flood) says- wow look at what a lot of water did in a short period of time! Each interpreted the evidence through his world-view. We cannot go back and see what happened in the past and we cannot assume the forces we see working today worked in the distant past.

Therefore we cannot 'prove' what happened in the past, so our view of the past is held by faith.
---Warwick on 8/12/08

Warwick, sorry, didn't get reference for Irenaeus.

in the First Apology of Justin Martyr, ch 66, he says that Mithra having a Eucharist was the devil's pre-imitation of Jesus, or as I've heard it put, a "diabolically inspired pre-cognitive mockery" of Jesus before he was born. Their borrowing from this religion to convert its followers is not surprising because Mithraism had become very popular amongst the Romans in the 1st century CE while Christianity was forming. Mithra had the same birthday, had communion, and ascended to heaven with a promise to return. Also, in Mithraism, Sunday was holy, not Saturday... why is it that the Sabbath switched days for Christianity when Jesus rested on Saturday?
---im_serious on 8/12/08

1/3 Take Quantum Mechanics (QM). It is riddled with concepts physicists have not been able to say why they happen. This is why research continues. And it should be expected with difficult subjects such as these. But do you say, "Ah, there are still unknowns, therefore if you think QM is right, it's only by faith"? No, because you look around and see how the theory has been put to use to make such great things as the computer you're using.

The only reason you think that evolution requires faith is you've ignored the evidence. Twenty years ago, you could have reasoned "Ah, but you don't have the link between land mammals and whales."
---im_serious on 8/12/08

You don't need confuse. No matter what far away from God you have been through, remeber Jesus is only one who can save you and bring you back. Do not seek people or religous, but seek Jesus Christ. Act 2:38 Peter said unto them Repent, and be baptized every one of youin the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him Verily , verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
---Joce on 8/12/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery

oddment: Now there's an odd name! Are you also "I'm Serious?" If not, why get so spun up over my remarks to him? I must thus assume that you are either the same person, or you believe the same rot. You say there is much scientific evidence for evolution, but you can't seem to produce a single bit of it. You say also that the Bible is a ficticious, contrived work. Why should you be given any credance in fields that you obviously know nothing about?
---jerry6593 on 8/12/08

jerry6593: It is an extremely feeble argument to simply state that someone has no knowledge of the Bible or the sciences without any supporting evidence. Unless you do support your claims, I and any intelligent individual should reach the logical conclusion that the reason you don't know where to begin is because you, yourself have little knowledge of the Bible or the sciences.
---oddment on 8/11/08

Hi Warwick,
Thought reference for Irenaeus was in "Against Heresies" but am not seeing it at moment, will track down references soon...

First I will respond to the "lack of evidence" you refer to. Theories (such as evolution, which was thought of as early as 2600yrs ago) do not get accepted in the scientific community without strong evidence and support. After biological knowledge of the world had accumulated enough, Darwin's explanation and support for the theory with robust evidence caused it to be accepted in the science community. As new discoveries come, they have supported evolution. If not, evolution would have been rejected. So I'm not sure what you're referring to about evolution not being supported.
---im_serious on 8/11/08

turn away from sin and self and face GOD and believe in THE LORD JESUS and by his Grace you will be forgiven. We are all sinners none of us are perfect.
---joe on 8/10/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion

I know this.unless you believe in jesus,I will see God cast you into the lake of fire.and too know what I know you must first believe in jesus.the bible confounds the mind of the non believer,and makes no sense.but too the believer it makes perfect sense,thats your problem.
---tom2 on 8/10/08

I'm Serious: You can't be serious! Please stay away from Bible topics. Your ignorance of the Bible (and the sciences) is overwhelming. I wouldn't know where to start.

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
---jerry6593 on 8/9/08

"First off, they're not my gods."

But you are using them to justify what you believe. So, in a way, they ARE gods, for you (o:

Counterfeits are used by Satan to make it look like there is not real religion . . . like how terrorists try to flood the world with fake American money, in order to discredit U.S. cash so they can weaken the American economy.

Jesus is real. There are strategic counterfeits, and God is *personal* with His children, unlike those "other" "gods" AND the counterfeit "God" that "Christian" groups make to look distant.
---Bill_bila5659 on 8/8/08

More bickering in this Blog. You either accept God and Jesus who offers eternal life through dying to self and accepting Him as your personal savior or you don't. And to continue a lifelong intimate obedient walk of love with God. It is by faith, and the recognition that something did not come from nothing that we know we are created. So, faith in God the creator requires less of a mental leap than trying to debate matters that bare no common sense and fuel "go no where" extraneous discussions.
---Robert on 8/8/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause

Imserious the idea that everything came about by chance random processes is a belief not supported by proof. Even the evidence for it is very poor. Evolutionary scientists openly admit they've no idea how life came from non-life, but 'believe' it did. Religious men!

You can believe it if you like but it's by faith you do so.

So someone made the 10 commandment tablets and just turned up to the assembled multitude and said-here they are, God gave them to me! Remember those who received these commandments were the same as saw the power of God bring the mighty nation of Egypt to its knees. Did this same man do all the miracles in Egypt too?

Justyn Martyr and Iraneus saw parallels with other religions? Where did you get this?
---Warwick on 8/8/08

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were two very early church contemporaries that acknowledged the Christian parallels to other religions. As for the 10 Commandments, no, I wouldn't imagine they would just appear. I'd imagine they were made by humans, then legend of their "miraculous creation" would change that story. The idea that only Christians don't make fantastic stories up is not working.

I sidestepped your question about my beliefs earlier on purpose (wasn't ready to change topics), but now you're right, time for the table to turn. I'd say the theory of Evolution is correct. However, if you wish to dispute it, please support your claims as I have for each claim I made about Christianity.
---im_serious on 8/8/08

Imserious so we are followers of a made up religion. Who made it up and how did he/they make it up with none of their contemporaries noticing that? Do you imagine that, for example, one day the 10 Commandment tablets just appeared and someone made up the story that they were received from God by Moses? Too incredible for words.

I would like to hear your comments upon this.

But over to you, what do you believe is fact about our origins. A straight forward answer, as oppopseed to a philosophical one would be nice.
---Warwick on 8/6/08

Warwick- yes, the founders of all other religions were confused, but not the disciples. And Isaiah is much more vague than Nostradamus, and even Nostradamus can be interpreted to predict whatever you want.

But then you said stuff that made me so disappointed I didn't want to come back here. Nothing predates Jesus? Your faith in the Bible is not blind because the Bible tells you it isn't?!

Tom2, I've already read and then addressed Luke in my earlier posts. I don't feel like reiterating.

You guys haven't been able to address a fraction of my points because you have never questioned your made-up religion. I'm not sure why I'm surprised or so completely disappointed. Maybe because I had hope you guys knew what you believed.
---im_serious on 8/5/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals

Imserious, you can't be serious! Do you imagine we don't read Scripture? The apostles were confused and made it up-nonsense!

The OT looks forward to the coming Messiah telling us everything which would happen to Him, exactly that which happened to Him. For one example read Isaiah Ch. 53-the OT contains over 1000 references to the coming Messiah.

BTW nothing predates Jesus as He's the eternal creator, heathen ideas being distortions of Scripture, not the other way around. God predates them all.

We accept Scripture by faith but as Romans 1.20 says it isn't a blind faith as our Creator God has left plenty of evidence of Himself in what He created, so much that 'men are without excuse.'
---Warwick on 8/1/08

3/3 When Jesus died, the apostles were confused because it didn't fit their idea of the Messiah, so they created new doctrines, such as Jesus having to die for our sins. As discussed earlier, the idea of the resurrection came in later, even possibly stolen from other religions (they had at least 36 options) just like they did with Christmas from Mithraism (among other things, like Easter). Stealing from other religions is not uncommon in Christian history to convert people over.

But the most important part is they were willing to die for Jesus because they were positive he was the Messiah. It was the Messiah part that was key. They DID have something to gain: ruling positions in the coming paradise for their faithfulness (Matt. 19:28).
---im_serious on 8/1/08

tom2- I think this is the post you're referring to, so I made the changes according to what you said...

Arguing that Jesus is true because only he satisfies his own criteria to be saved is circular reasoning. Belief you need Jesus to be saved comes from Jesus saying so. No other prophet/Messiah/god can save you because they don't fit the criteria set by Jesus.

But I didn't confuse them. It's the same argument.
---im_serious on 7/31/08

2/3 Jesus was among many in his day starting new religions, and those other cult leaders AND their followers were killed, which is why Jesus disciples knew to run and were afraid. It was a time when Roman rule was making the Jews yearn deeply for a Messiah. Those followers from the other cults were willing to die for false Messiahs, and Jesus' disciples were no different.

Also I decided to see if you were right about the uniqueness of a man dying and rising in a religion. I searched, expecting at most 1 or 2, but found 36 examples pre-dating Jesus where their gods (as men or deities) died and rose again. 36! I'm still reeling from that.
---im_serious on 7/31/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting

Well, I don't know how you did that. I really don't want to know either.
---catherine on 7/31/08

OH, RIGHT! It wasn't flat earth theory that got Galileo in trouble, it was heliocentrism. The churched condemned him saying, "The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves... is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith." So my statement should be, "Just as heliocentricity was reasoned against because it contradicted Christian view..."

Also, I am giving you guys a try. I've said many of my reasons for saying religion is made up. I guess I'd like to hear support for why I'm wrong and the Bible is truth (other than "it's belief" or "the Bibles says it's truth so obviously it is").
---im_serious on 7/31/08

I wasn't a christian and one day I prayed to God saying, "God, please, give me faith in the Bible. I want to read it and believe it. I want to become a christian as my father is one and my grandparents." I started to read the Gospel and I believed. Later I started to attend church where I repented and asked the believers to pray for me. After that the pastor of the same church baptised me in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. I think this is the way to salvation. God leads different people to himself differently, but if you believe him with an honest heart and ask him to show you the right way, he will.
---elena5773 on 7/31/08

iam serious,no christianity doesn,t say so jesus said IAM THE WAY THE TRUTH THE LIFE NOONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME your confusing mans beliefs with the truth of jesus christ.
---tom2 on 7/31/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers

Tom2 and Warwick-

I replied before your messages got shown...

OK, I'll go check out Luke and Washington Irving.

Also, Warwick, can you elaborate on "The available evidence better supports Biblical creation than the alternative"?
---im_serious on 7/31/08

1/3 Confusion because my second paragraph ('Post#2', they weren't shown in order, they came 3-1-2) was probably shown after you wrote?

Arguing that Christianity is true because only it satisfies Christianity's criteria to be saved is circular reasoning. Belief you need to be saved from your sins comes from Christianity saying so. No other religion can save you because they don't fit the criteria set by Christianity. Similarly, only Islam satisfies the criteria of Islam to go to paradise: believing in Muhammad as the prophet of God. Their reasons for being right are no different from Christianity's. And then both sides think the other is wrong for the same reasons. Nothing makes Islam false that doesn't also pertain to Christianity.
---im_serious on 7/31/08

I strayed away from God too much. - You are in God my brother.
To find the true one. - True religion is the Lord.
My faith is so weak like never before. - Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?
How can I reconcile with God? - if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Gen 1:2 Right from the start the Spirit of God covered us.
Simply believe God!
---Frank on 7/30/08

ok i see now,you consider the gospels as stories,or legends.not actual eyewitness luke,the begining,he speaks of questioning eyewitnesses to get to the facts at the begining of the gospel.this is not fabrication,or storytelling.but an account by a doctor,turned believer ,historian.if you choose not to believe thats your choice ,I choose to believe the message of and about jesus.thats the real difference between us.
---tom2 on 7/30/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce

imserious people search for information which casts doubt upon Scripture. Their motivation, I believe is that they don't want to submit to God and seek excuses so as not to believe. Be careful that you're not one of these.

You asked questions Christians would not answer: please give us a try.

The 'round earth theory' comes from Scripture, and observation. Anyone at the seaside can see the earth's round. The idea Christians believed in a flat earth was invented by Washington Irving, as a little research will show.

The uniqueness of Scriprure is that it's ultimate reality being the Word of the God who created everything.

The available evidence better supports Biblical creation than the alternative.
---Warwick on 7/30/08

you have missed my point about eyewitness testimony of the apostles.uneducated men,who had nothing to gain accept death, and recounting a account of a dead man being resurrected,and ascending into in God ,and accepting jesus and realizing we need saved is all thats required.and though there are many beliefs,there is only one truth,and it resides in jesus christ.this story you speak of is so far out in left field.a man dies and is raised.thats why no other religion proclaims this.
---tom2 on 7/30/08

...after crucifixion (orig. ended at Mark 16:8, some manuscripts have different end stories). Next gospels (Matt. and Luke) were written 50yrs after (John- 60yrs). Knowing that legends easily turn fact in less time, and major stories (like crucifixion/rise) differ with agenda, per gospel, (amongst MANY reasons) they are clearly legends turned "eyewitness" accounts. Eyewitness testimony is least reliable thing used in court, considered just above hearsay (gospels were hearsay because written by disciple's followers).

Of course nobody is willing to die for a lie. It was because they thought Jesus was Christ (possibly even reasoned he ascended, as Pope PiusXII did for Mary), the end times were imminent (as Jesus did...
---im_serious on 7/29/08

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.