I'm not sure one should dismiss God anymore

[Robert]

So do you think people go to hell if they can't believe such a thing?

I am not sure if an atheist who acknowledge the need of a 'christ' without believing in the existence of such a 'christ' would go to hell.
I hope not for sure.

Original sin is that man wanted to be his own god, being autonomic, have control of the concepts of good and evil himself. If someone acknowledge that such a control would be better in the hands of any god, while believing that such a god doesn't exist and we therefore have to live with the imperfect situation that we have to take control ourselves, then this person is, imho, not living up to the original sin anymore.

[MikeH]

No-one's going to hell, it isn't real.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think the 'standard' version of hell is real either.

Doesn't mean that sin doesn't have consequences. You can believe that even if you don't believe in God.

JM

[MikeH]

There are some fundamental rules that we need to have to operate as modern civilisations. eg. You can't live in cities if everyone is busy defending their family from someone bigger coming and clubbing them over the head while they sleep to steal their yak meat. The non-religious of the 10 commandments would fall in that category.

There are also some social conventions that are useful for preventing things like emotional distress and inbreeding.

Most religions define a superset of those two things and suggest breaking them is 'sin' in some form. But since we've developed secular law, which also cover those and define the consequences for breaking those rules, and how they are policed, we don't need religion to do it for us.

[MRT144]

I think I should try and repair my relationship with God. My life and mental health really has turned to a ****ed up direction since abandoning HIM. I'll try praying today for the first time after a long while.

So your racism was caused by falling out with God?

[Cort Haus]

No-one's going to hell, it isn't real.

But I've seen it on television.

[Jon Miller]

Sin is about more than what you do, it is about what you want to do, who you are. Not just your actions. "Laws" can never provide a solution to it.

Being cruel to someone is a sin, there is no law about it and should be no law about it.

JM

[David Floyd]

The problem is, our physical observations of the world (things we KNOW our true because we can test and observe them) cast serious doubt on a fundamentalist/literal interpretation of the Bible. I shouldn't have to enumerate them, but I'll start with astronomy, which is the most obvious example.

So the question, then, is how (JM/Plomp/BK/Hera/etc) do you reconcile the distance of stars from the Earth with the Genesis-implied Young Earth? Additionally, if you concede that astronomy DOES dictate an Old Earth/Old Universe, then do you also dismiss science in other ways (such as evolution), and if so, why?

To me, the only answer is the tired old "appearance of age" fallacy, which simply makes no sense.

[Jon Miller]

Genesis is presented as a story, a true story, but not a scientific description or discussion of the creation of the world/universe/etc. What purpose would have that been to people 4000 years ago (a scientific description)? What religious purpose would that serve now? The message given was given in a way that the people of the time could understand, and the message wasn't about star formation/how lightning works/etc (which isn't what God and religion are about anyways).

You are misapplying genesis. To be fair, so have Christians for 100s of years.

I don't know what you mean about "appearance of age"?

The idea that God create the world 7000 years ago, or whatever, but at a certain stage in it's stellar and biological evolution makes perfect sense. In fact, that makes by far the most sense if He 7000 years ago wanted the universe to be how it is now, with the laws and historical position that we have now. If He had decided 7000 years ago that He wanted the universe to be how it is now in 7000 years, then the physical laws/etc of the universe would have to be very different.

JM

[David Floyd]

The problem with "appearance of age" doctrine is that God has no reason for doing so. He may have the capability, but the act of doing so only hurts himself, in the sense that it does indeed make it very difficult to believe the universe is 7000 (or, for that matter as little as 7 BILLION) years old. Why handicap yourself, and/or your potential followers, if you are a "Good, just God"? Why create a universe where it makes more sense to DISBELIEVE than to BELIEVE? After all, if God created us, he created both intelligence and science. If God created those things, clearly he intended for them to be used. If we use those things, and our obvious, observable conclusions are that a 7000 year old universe is a load of ****, whose problem is it, really, if we are wrong? The person who created a system to trick us, or the people who used our God-given abilities to arrive at the best possible conclusion?

As for misapplying Genesis, I am not, at least not as a fundamentalist in the US would apply it. If you don't believe me, go ask a Southern Baptist.

[Jon Miller]

How could the universe be like it is now, yet not appear to be 14 billion years old?

JM

[David Floyd]

Exactly my point, sir!

We have several methods that accurately measure astronomical distance. We know with 100% certainty the speed of light. What's more reasonable to assume? That the Universe IS the age that it appears to be, or that a Sky Wizard only wants us to THINK it's that old?

[Jon Miller]

Actually, we don't know 100% certainty the speed of light throughout history. In fact, there are some interesting theories which state that it changes.

Why must it be because God wants us to think it is XXX old, rather than God wanted the universe in a certain way, and for it to be that way then the processes had to be the ones we have today? (giving us our current understanding that the universe is XXX old)

I don't even consider the process of the formation of the universe to be a fundamentally religious question, btw. It is others who think it is the interesting question with respect to religion.

JM

[David Floyd]

You think the speed of light changes throughout history???

I assume you also don't buy into Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics, yes?

[Berzerker]

Genesis is describing this planet's "history" from its primordial state (Tehom, Tiamat - a water covered world) to its rebirth from a massive collision that created "Light/Day" and night, ie spin, and a new orbit - a new "sky". A clue in Genesis suggests this new orbit was - is - closer to the Sun, there was darkness upon the face of the deep before God began "creation". Judging by the Moon's cratering, I'd say it was a witness to that collision. We now have evidence of oceans or seas going back 4.4 bya and we have evidence of a post-formation collision ~4 bya and "Late Heavy Bombardment" (LHB) plastering the Earth/Moon system possibly triggering plate tectonics (how did God reveal the "Earth"?) and life itself. Genesis says the "Earth" was there before creation, but it was submerged under the waters. So Earth is not this planet, its the land that became "dry". This is what Genesis says God created, not the waters or this planet or the universe.