Christians: For believers and non-believers alike - Page 9

On June 14 2012 06:18 superbarnie wrote:


Anyways, if you don't think it is a big sacrifice thats no problem. If God can save humanity with less pain then why not?

I don't know what is a fundie but I will try to answer these questions. I enjoy the modern conveniences very much. As for the next part of the question I don't know what you mean by most of it? Are you refering to evolution? If so, then i would like to point out that evolution is far from being "most of science". And I don't see how it is relevant to the first part of the question since evolution hasn't gave me any improvements to my life, yet. Maybe I'm not one of these "fundies" you speak of, since I do believe in "much of it" (science). For example, I have nothing against Ohms Law, the quadratic formula, moores law etc.

On June 14 2012 06:50 Chocolate wrote:

Then imo it would be better to just kill all babies and fetuses before they are born since that will ensure that they go to heaven. If you truly loved your child, why not just kill them and send him or her to heaven rather than let them live and possibly mess up and go to hell. As Jesus, said, (paraphrasing), "do unto others as you would have done unto you." And the 10 commandments don't count, they are God's laws for the Israelites, not Christians.

On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote:
I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and say his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.

My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.

And not five minutes later....

On June 14 2012 05:44 superbarnie wrote:


If I ripped out all your hair , nails and teeth( if u have baby teeth), it would be nothing since it grows back right?

On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote:
I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and say his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever.

My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.

(4) For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods ; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. (5) They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

Fundie is short for fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are those who take every word of the bible literally, and are most often criticized for clinging on to the Genesis story as if it were true. Now, there are obviously many different facets of science, and some of them genuinely have nothing to do with Christianity, but you might not know that tons of different sciences are very connected to each other.

For example, you do not believe in evolution ( think), yet you use drugs engineered by scientists that manipulated the DNA of certain bacteria to make the best yields. This small term evolution is pretty big proof that genetics is quite real and offers good benefits. On another note, dogs are also evolved. Over thousands of years, humans have bred dogs with desirable characteristics in an attempt to gain more offspring with those desirable characteristics (like not shedding or barking). This is essentially human guided evolution, as the genetic mutations and traits that lead to the most reproduction become more common because we allow it to happen.

On a broader but more related note, you have DNA and genetics in general. How would you feel about medicine made specifically for people with a certain gene, or an ancestor with a medical problem? Essentially, undesirable traits are passed on to offspring, which has an actual effect on their lives such to the point that they need medicine. Is that not evolution right in front of you, that bad traits decrease chances of survival? What about the genetic relationship between primates and humans. Do you believe that God just made us the way we are currently? Then what explains the obvious similarities in DNA between us and bonobos. Not only is our DNA similar, but we as a result have similar traits (living in clans, very social, social hierarchy, faces are similar, bone structure is similar.) There are also fossils that genetically tie humans together with extinct hominids and thus to the primates that exist today, what do you think of those?

This leads to fossils in general- if the world is only 6 thousands years old, why are there so many bones of wild animal throughout the Earth, even in Antarctica, which would not have been inhabitable for them in that time? How do you feel about geology? On one hand, it can help save your life by warning you of an incoming earthquake or volcanic eruption, but on the other, it claims that the earth is over 4 billion years old. What about radioactivity? The same science that gives us electricity, extremely powerful weapons, studies stars, and basically what constitutes most of matter, also promotes the half-life theory, that over a certain period of time, the amount of atoms of certain unstable isotopes that will decay in large quantities can be estimated quite precisely. Fossils, geology, and the half-life theory all validate that the Earth is in fact extremely, as in billions, of years old.Last edit: 2012-06-14 06:44:29

On June 14 2012 06:50 Chocolate wrote:

Then imo it would be better to just kill all babies and fetuses before they are born since that will ensure that they go to heaven. If you truly loved your child, why not just kill them and send him or her to heaven rather than let them live and possibly mess up and go to hell. As Jesus, said, (paraphrasing), "do unto others as you would have done unto you." And the 10 commandments don't count, they are God's laws for the Israelites, not Christians.

I'm using the exact same logic he has used so far, not really trolling so much as trying to get him to examine his (or her) views and hopefully adopt more rational (imo) ones.

On June 14 2012 07:07 superbarnie wrote:


Well, then i guess i am a fundie, since I believe that Genesis is true. Id rather believe that the entire bible was false than believe parts of it are true and parts of it are false. Because if that were the case then it wouldnt be holy book which means that even the parts that are presumably true might not be true too.

Remeber, dna theory != evolution theory. Genetics do not confirm that evolution is true.

Somewhat related stuff - the "father of modern genetics" was an austrian friar who was named Gregor Mendel. i am pretty sure he was a christian. This is proof that Christianity is not a "mental retardant" as some else stated in the thread.

On June 14 2012 07:12 superbarnie wrote:


The 10 commandments isn't the only passage that say that murder is unacceptable, and anyways im prolife so i believe that solution would be unacceptable.

On June 14 2012 07:03 Omnipresent wrote:

Unless you're seeing something I'm not, this is the only mention of either children or "the innocent" in Jeremiah 19.


+ Show Spoiler +

If that's the justification for children and those who die before birth getting into heaven, let me just say I'm unimpressed.

On June 14 2012 07:26 Caller wrote:
i just sure as fuck hope that you aren't eating seafood and working on sundays, because if the bible is 100% perfect, ur dun goofed

On June 14 2012 07:26 superbarnie wrote:


Heres another one then

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

On June 14 2012 07:27 Chocolate wrote:

Those laws were for the Israelites, sorry. Nice try, Atheism

Babies don't know right and wrong, so how can they be righteous or wicked? The son will not share the guilt of the father, so???

On June 14 2012 07:29 Caller wrote:

not an atheist, sorry

and that wasn't regarding you, that was to superbernie, who was talking about how the bible must be 100% accurate for it to be a holy book

the book was a series of writings, some derived from holiness, some derived from humans that are flawed.

On June 14 2012 07:31 Chocolate wrote:

No that's what he said before when I asked him the same thing Just trying to lighten his load, if you know what I mean.

On June 14 2012 07:26 superbarnie wrote:


Heres another one then

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

On June 14 2012 07:54 Multiplex wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if superbarnie is being disingenuous in this conversation but this may be due to the fact that I've never met a bona fide fundamentalist christian before.

Only one question really: how may we ask God?

On June 14 2012 06:03 Omnipresent wrote:
1. Respect for someone's opinion does not mean blind acceptance of it. If someone presents their ideas, and they are unsound, it's my job to point to it. If someone expresses their ideas and are unclear, it's my responsibility to seek clarification. The most useful way is to ask pointed questions about vague aspects of his/her position. I'm willing to answer such questions about my positions. Others should be as well.

2. Remember, I think I have the correct answers here, or at least the most rational ones. I'm willing to be wrong, but others must demonstrate it.

3. You've perfectly misunderstood the money-in-the-trunk-of-my-car hypothetical. There are three claims at play here: 1. the money definitely exists. 2. the money definitely does not exist. 3. There's no reason to think the money exists, therefor I should not hold the positive belief that it does. You're conflating numbers 2 and 3. I'm not forced to assert the opposite of your claim. I'm allowed neutral ground. I don't have to choose. Neutrality is the default position when considering all claims, including those on the issue of god.

4. I really don't see my aggression here, and I don't think the other posters do either. I've been thanked by other posters for my tone and careful argumentation, both in the thread and via PM. I'm not trying to tell you how awesome I am. I just want you to know that others don't seem to share your apparent offence at what I'm saying or how I'm saying it. I suspect something has been lost in the text between you and I, and you're imprinting presumed characteristics about me onto my statements.

5. I don't believe for a minute that you're an atheist.

On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote:
What does this say? That we are using a set of beliefs as the foundation of our thought process, at all times, much like science requires axioms that are not proven and yet necessary for what we built on top of it.
As there can not be evidence of evidence, there are fundamental things that can't be proven and that we must believe in : I believe I live in a world I share with beings that are similar to me, that my mind is contained in my skull and that all that is outside of it has an independent existance, or even better, I believe that I am awake and that what I perceive is reality.

Faith is not only limited to religion. Beliefs are at the core of everything. Debates can oly occur in common grounds, fields that are supported by beliefs that are shared by both participants. As for the question of God, the divergence exists at the base itself, and consequently it's something that can't be debated.

On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote:
2) Objective truth, what? What an open, skeptical mind, truly.

On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote:
You have a flawed conception of human judgement.
What's an infant's natural state? Ignorance.
The moment I describe a unicorn to a child, he or she must make a choice : doest it exist, or does it not? You see this in a negative/positive dichotomy, but what if I don't advocate that the unicorn exists and simply describe it? In that case, my statement is neutral : "do you think that some horses have horns"? The child here must provide an answer, and no matter what choice was made, it must be justified.

Once again, you skip previous logical steps and rush onto hasty conclusions. In this case, you suppose that the neutral state is a world without a God, and that UdderChaos is the one introducing a new element into the picture. This isn't neutral at all.

I would've guessed you understand basic logic.

On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote:
2) Rigorously speaking, you're a believer too. Your arguments fall apart.