Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know I'm butting in here but yes, there is a religion with a heaven/hell outcome that accepts all religions. I present you with Trinitarian Universalism.
It's no secret that I am a universalist. However, GCS, I don't don't believe as I do IN SPITE OF the Bible, but BECAUSE of it.
Basically, the original Greek and Hebrew writings of scripture DO NOT SAY eternal punishment in relation to hell. It says an age of correction. The Bible as we now know it was mistranslated by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate. It has since been used as a powerful deterrent to any who would question the Christian faith--how do they dare do so, when the punishment is an eternity in hell?
So basically, someone like myself believes the vast majority of orthodox Christianity, but according to a proper translation of the scriptures, the purpose of hell is remedial, and temporary.
Eventually, all God will reunite all of His creation back to Himself.
P.S. Universalism doesn't espouse all other religions--but realizes that all will come to God either directly through true Christianity, or via a corrective experience in the afterlife.
LOL! How did I know someone was going to respond
I have another question. Would Hitler still hate the Jews if they were both in heaven together?
I have another question. Would Hitler still hate the Jews if they were both in heaven together?
No. He is or will be going through a period of correction and the power and love of God will purify him like everyone else, but he will be in for a bit of nastiness 1st, IMO.
How can it be possible for many atheists to believe that life came from non-life, and then turn around and discredit the notion of an Immaculate Conception?
Because there is empirical evidence for the former, and no evidence whatsoever for the latter.
Quote:
Objectively & scientifically speaking, isn't it infinitely more possible and more likely that a living virgin could have conceived Jesus the Messiah, by a miracle of God, than for life to have originated from the primordial soup of non-life by random accident and without God's help?
Science is neutral on the existence of God. Science studies natural phenomena only, so you are not speaking scientifically.
The vast differences in belief between the various religions and sects shows that faith is anything but objective.
If the chromosomes of life can come from non-life as claimed, then the chromosomes of Jesus can similarly originate from the Immaculate Conception, and any opinion to the contrary is not being scientifically objective & honest. One [un]scientific explanation for the miracle of the origin of a life form is as valid as the other. Intellectual dishonesty seems to be the hallmark of atheism, especially in light of other known observed miracles. True scientific theory wouldn't ignore supernatural possibilities just because the supernatural phenomenon is not currently understood. There are plenty of unexplainable phenomenon beyond the realm of current science.
If the chromosomes of life can come from non-life, then the chromosomes of Jesus can similarly come from the Immaculate onception, and any opinion to the contrary is not scientifically objective. One scientific explanation for a miracle of origin is as valid as the other. Intellectual dishonesty seems to be the hallmark of atheism, especially in light of other known observed miracles.
If the chromosomes of life can come from non-life as claimed, then the chromosomes of Jesus can similarly originate from the Immaculate Conception, and any opinion to the contrary is not being scientifically objective & honest. One [un]scientific explanation for the miracle of the origin of a life form is as valid as the other. Intellectual dishonesty seems to be the hallmark of atheism, especially in light of other known observed miracles. True scientific theory wouldn't ignore supernatural possibilities just because the supernatural phenomenon is not currently understood. There are plenty of unexplainable phenomenon beyond the realm of current science.
I'm afraid it is you who seem to misunderstand biology. What I'm talking about had no chromosomes to begin with. This article explains it a little better. I must say: I'm a little disappointed someone else already thought of this
The Nova interview doesn't shed any new light.
I believe that at some point, there's an intersection where science and God meet. After all, as the Creator, it is God's universe, and science and biology do emanate from God.
Since by definition God is "all", everything flows and is interconnected with God. So nothing exists that is truely independent from Him. He set the parameters of our physical universe, and then some.
Biology is only a limited set of knowledge that belongs to a much greater body of knowledge, and of which all scientific knowledge is only a subset. Humans are so much more than just simply biology, and I think that even scientists would admit that there are just too many complex, interlinking and unquantifiable variables and possible realities.
It all amounts to too many variables that defy any rationality without there being a coherant and divine director, and that's why most scientists do have faith. They realize that there is simply too much perfection in the known universe for it to be random.
Personally, I don't care whether atheists believe in God or not. If He wanted atheists to believe, he would convince them Himself. As a matter of fact, He may very well have a purpose for atheists to not believe in Him, probably so that if religion starts running people off of a steep cliff en mass, then there will still be some people left behind to do his will. After all, we are all proverbially our brother's keepers.
So this whole discussion is not really about being right or wrong, it's about having different perspectives of the same reality. If all of our perspectives are vaid from our own vantage points, then together they all compose a small part of the whole truth. We're all seeing the same thing but just viewing it from different angles. So therefore, we all end up on different sides of the fence. The fence is very similar to a living membrane, and in order for it to even exist, there needs to be something/someone on each side of it to give it definition. Ideas and people pass through it back and forth, but the fence currently is what it is.
Since it's not likely to change or end in our reality anytime soon, we'll just have to agree to disagree and exist here as friends on different sides of it.
If everything is true, just believe in what you believe, and either God, or ourselves, or both, will end up sorting it all out in very end.
Peace!
If the chromosomes of life can come from non-life as claimed, then the chromosomes of Jesus can similarly originate from the Immaculate Conception, and any opinion to the contrary is not being scientifically objective & honest. One [un]scientific explanation for the miracle of the origin of a life form is as valid as the other. Intellectual dishonesty seems to be the hallmark of atheism, especially in light of other known observed miracles. True scientific theory wouldn't ignore supernatural possibilities just because the supernatural phenomenon is not currently understood. There are plenty of unexplainable phenomenon beyond the realm of current science.
Yes, there are plenty of things science cannot currently explain. Other than that, I can't make much sense of the post. One thing is certain, and I'll repeat myself, science only studies natural phenomena. Scientifically, anything that remains unexplained is simply that - unexplained. Unexplained phenomena do not equate to the supernatural.
Quantum physics, molecular and evolutionary biology, bio-chemistry can explain or attempt to explain how inert matter materialized from nothing, and, against incalcuable odds, became living organisms. But can evolutionary biology, quantum mechanics, neurobiology, or any discipline explain how the inert became the living organisms and then the living organisms became conscious and self-aware? RE: Strong Anthropic Principle
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
