Creation vs. Evolution

[SlipZtrEm]

I'm going to ignore this until you learn the difference between excessively condescending statements that have nothing to do with what I actually posted and sensible debating. Exorcet seems to know the difference, which is why I replied to him. It's clear to me you want me off this site, but banning me would first require me to snap and insult you. I'm smarter than that. Try again.

The name attached to the post is of no importance to me: I'm responding to the content. Whether you're on the site or not is also not something I'm terribly concerned with.

My comment is about the hypocrisy of not believing in something when presented with proof, but believing in something when proof is absent.

Common sense is what I perceive. Science is what other people figure out and then tell me to believe.

This is the problem: you're looking at science as another belief system. Belief doesn't enter into the equation.

That's not what Christians believe at all- we believe the only path to salvation is through Christ; believing he is the son of God who died for our sins. It is good to have the lesser details, such as the details of creation, accurate, but in the end all humans sin and can still be saved. The truth is good, but the only truth we really need is Christ.

Which sidesteps the point I believe @Exorcet was getting at: if there's already a bunch of errors in the Bible with regards to evolution/creation, how do you know what else is or isn't truth?

 

[JMoney]

Better.

This is the problem: you're looking at science as another belief system. Belief doesn't enter into the equation.

The only difference between science and religion, as I see it, is that there is hard evidence for science. That being said, I'm not a scientist, and I guessing nobody else is on this thread either. If I can doubt religion, which is what someone else tells me to believe, I can doubt science, which, like religion, is something someone else tells me to believe. Common sense is something else- common sense is what makes sense to me directly. I don't need someone to tell me not to cross the interstate on foot because common sense tells me I shouldn't. Common sense is different to everyone, however- to me a bone in the ground for hundreds of millions of years doesn't make sense, while to you an invisible omnipotent being doesn't make sense. Science isn't the reason you disbelieve God; it's your own perception.

if there's already a bunch of errors in the Bible with regards to evolution/creation, how do you know what else is or isn't truth?

I'm not saying there are any errors in the Bible; it just doesn't address dinosaurs directly. There's always the possibility of the story of creation being figurative, and that the days described in Genesis 1 were actually millions of years. The Bible never specifically states the age of the Earth after the first few chapters of Genesis; if it did, then I definitely wouldn't believe in dinosaurs. But because the Bible is never specific about dinosaurs or the age of the Earth, so I don't believe either is all that important. I believe I'll find out the truth in heaven, but for now it doesn't really matter.

 

[dylansan]

That being said, I'm not a scientist, and I guessing nobody else is on this thread either.

I think you'd probably be surprised about that.

If I can doubt religion, which is what someone else tells me to believe, I can doubt science, which, like religion, is something someone else tells me to believe. Common sense is something else- common sense is what makes sense to me directly. I don't need someone to tell me not to cross the interstate on foot because common sense tells me I shouldn't. Common sense is different to everyone, however- to me a bone in the ground for hundreds of millions of years doesn't make sense,

That's the thing about science - you don't have to listen to anyone because scientists always describe the methods they used to come to the conclusions they have. Scientific papers are never just lists of opinions by lab technicians. Every part of the experiment is described and other scientists go over it to make sure the method is valid and the results can be trusted. Everything else is just a matter of understanding the methods themselves.

You're quite free to study the different kinds of dating methods used on bones, and decide for yourself whether applying it to the data we have would give the same answers that scientists agree on.

Unless you think scientists might be lying about the data itself, but that's another matter entirely. Regardless, science is designed to be repeatable, so if you really wanted to know for sure you could go find your own bones or have someone you trust borrow some old bones and do some tests to decide for yourself. If your results don't match the current accepted data, you could even try to publish a paper. Other scientists would then be happy to point out any mistakes you made in reasoning/methodology, if any. And anything they tell you, you could verify as well. If you kept doing this your understanding would keep getting better until you had an informed opinion on the age of dinosaurs. And it's in the realm of possibility that you'd make a discovery which changes the opinion of science in the process.

That would of course take quite a lot of effort, but you get out what you put in.

I personally, being a Physics major, choose to trust the scientists, at least on the things that are agreed upon, simply because I can't be well versed in every field of science, and I know that plenty of people would do anything to disprove a well accepted theory. Any theory that withstands the efforts of so many to change it is probably pretty stable. As far as I know there haven't been any accepted papers which demonstrate that the idea of evolution is incorrect, despite the efforts of many. And it's not because of a bias, but simply a lack of thorough methods and statistically meaningful data. For that matter, I've never heard of any scientists doubting that dinosaurs were millions of years old.

while to you an invisible omnipotent being doesn't make sense. Science isn't the reason you disbelieve God; it's your own perception.

I don't want to speak for Slipztrem here, but I have a feeling it's not an invisible omnipotent being that doesn't make sense, just that the one from the bible doesn't make any. He's probably also willing to accept it if there were evidence, but he hasn't come across any yet.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I don't want to speak for Slipztrem here, but I have a feeling it's not an invisible omnipotent being that doesn't make sense, just that the one from the bible doesn't make any. He's probably also willing to accept it if there were evidence, but he hasn't come across any yet.

Nailed it. It certainly isn't my perception that makes me a non-believer, @JMoney - if perception were the culprit, it'd stand to reason you wouldn't believe either, since you've had no direct proof of God either - it's science. If there were some way of proving (in the scientific, peer-reviewed, repeatable way) any gods existed - be it the Christian one or the thousands of other options on the wheel - I would be open to listening, because it would cease to be simply a belief.

@dylansan also touches on the whole other issue of how some can believe in one particular Magic Sky Person over another Magic Sky Person, but that's probably best saved for the God thread itself before this veers too far off the topic of evolution.

 

[Imari]

That being said, I'm not a scientist, and I guessing nobody else is on this thread either.

You're wrong. There's another one right here.

 

[wfooshee]

The only difference between science and religion, as I see it, is that there is hard evidence for science. That being said, I'm not a scientist, and I guessing nobody else is on this thread either. If I can doubt religion, which is what someone else tells me to believe, I can doubt science, which, like religion, is something someone else tells me to believe.

No, no, no, no, no!!

Doubting is PART of science! Any idea that comes across your desk as a scientist MUST BE QUESTIONED, not blindly accepted. There is never ANY level of belief involved.

Doubting is NOT part of religion. See John 20:29 for the be-all end-all verse about it for Christians. You're not allowed to question. You're not allowed to doubt. You are required to accept what is given you on faith and faith alone, without evidence or support. You grow up being drilled with this "knowledge" until you regard it as fact, and are even afraid to question it, for fear of eternal punishment.

THAT is the difference between religion and science.

Your "disbelief" of scientific matters is nothing short of willful ignorance. You choose to doubt what you see, but not in the scientific method of aiming to verify or disprove, but in the religious method of, "Nope! Can't be like that! Not possible! Contradicts what I already know!" without ever bothering to consider the mountains of evidence and knowledge supporting the matter.

"Common sense" is NOT a reasonable, repeatable, measurable, quantifiable, testable, falsifiable method of formulating your understanding of the world. "Common sense" tells you that the Earth is stationary and all the things we see in the sky move around it. "Common sense" tells you that the Earth is flat, and there's an edge out there somewhere.

People here who doubt "religion" do so not because it conflicts with anything they perceive, they do so because when they start the process of questioning, of examining evidence and methods, of collecting facts and reviewing them, they find that there's nothing to look at! With nothing to look at, the premise presented is disproven, automatically. If you can't back up your statement, then your statement is conjecture. Period. "Belief" doesn't enter into it.

Feel free to tell us what you believe, but never present a belief system as factual knowledge with nothing to back yourself up with beyond "It says so right here."

 

[DQuaN]

I can doubt science, which, like religion, is something someone else tells me to believe.

Just thought I'd reiterate this point.

No, no, no, no, no!!

 

[Touring Mars]

Science is what other people figure out and then tell me to believe.

Please don't confuse science with its advocates and practitioners... science is categorically not what people say it is. Science itself is dispassionate, indifferent, objective and self-correcting. Scientists and science advocates, on the other hand, are often subjective and there is frequent disagreement between scientists even when presented with the same set of facts. Ultimately though, science doesn't depend on what people think is true or false - that is solely dictated by evidence.

That said, the public understanding of science relies on good science communication, and some people are more influential than others - some, like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson are excellent science communicators, but that is no guarantee that they are always right. Also, knowing what the evidence is and what it means is something that a lot of non-experts in any particular field understandably struggle with, and therefore rely on other scientists to explain it and communicate it clearly. Incidentally, there are plenty of professional scientists here, but the fact remains that someone with a Ph.D in genetics might struggle with a paper on quantum mechanics or astrophysics, and vice versa.

That is why it is such a disgrace to see people deliberately misrepresent evidence and publish articles with the intention of misleading the general public for their own ends - there is no better example of this than the creationist literature. How can one tell what is real science and what is pseudoscience? That is not as easy as it sounds - the creationist literature has evolved over the years to mimic the real scientific literature in such a way as to blur the lines sufficiently for a non-expert audience, creating an appearance of legitimacy. Fortunately, however, it is not too difficult to distinguish real science from something masquerading as real science. Most importantly, one can ask the question: can the scientific method be applied to the claims being made in this paper? If the answer is no, then it is not real science and should be considered with extreme caution. Also, who are the authors and who is publishing the work, and do they cite other creationist authors/papers?

Ultimately, it is completely up to you whether or not you are convinced by the science - but it is wise to remember that not every author is an honest broker, and people (on both sides of any debate) often have their own agendas. Being able to sort the wheat from the chaff takes experience, effort and a healthy does of skepticism - but at the end of the day it really boils down to what you consider to be more significant - cold hard facts or your own beliefs.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The only possible reference to dinosaurs the Bible gives is a passage in Job 40 and 41; in Job 40 God describes an animal called a "Behemoth".

View attachment 345843

Another creature, the Leviathan, is described in Job 41:

View attachment 345848

Some have interpreted these two creatures as species of dinosaurs.

Or crocodiles.

 

[PeterJB]

I dismissed the creation myth straight away because of dinosaurs. Like all young boys I loved dinosaurs, and when I was first told about the Genesis account of creation, my first thought was "Hold on, that's not right, where are the dinosaurs? In these books I've been reading it says they lived long before the people of Genesis did." I'm still a Christian, I just don't take a literalist view of the creation account.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm still a Christian, I just don't take a literalist view of the creation account.

As a genuine question; do you therefore believe in the Divine Creator and, if not literally, how do you believe he Created?

 

[MatskiMonk]

No, no, no, no, no!!

I kind of see what JMoney is getting at. At college, I went, I sat down, I listened to my Physics lecturers and I accepted what they told me. They could have been making a lot of stuff up, and I would not have known, because it's not practically feasible to question every single thing you are told, and you are just expected to accept it - mostly because that's what you are graded against in your exams. The majority of Joe Public do just believe what they are told when it comes to scientific things, because beyond what they've learned by the age of 16, they wouldn't know any better.

 

[PeterJB]

As a genuine question; do you therefore believe in the Divine Creator and, if not literally, how do you believe he Created?

I do believe in a Divine Creator, I don't claim to know the exact details of His methods but I believe that evolution is fundamentally true, and that He is responsible for the Big Bang, or whatever may have come before it that we haven't discovered yet.

 

[JKgo]

.....Behemoth? In the bible? Really?

I don't remember reading about this creature in the bible before....??
Unless it's a Final Fantasy Wiki....
(Just kidding.)

 

[Com Fox]

I kind of see what JMoney is getting at. At college, I went, I sat down, I listened to my Physics lecturers and I accepted what they told me. They could have been making a lot of stuff up, and I would not have known, because it's not practically feasible to question every single thing you are told, and you are just expected to accept it - mostly because that's what you are graded against in your exams. The majority of Joe Public do just believe what they are told when it comes to scientific things, because beyond what they've learned by the age of 16, they wouldn't know any better.

The same goes for Christianity and what you get taught in Christian Schools, everyday at mine when I was in year 2 was praying, reading a quote from a bible, have a story about the bible and pray to end the day (along with the usual stuff every school teaches you). Anything can be said to someone and stretch truth. I don't agree with all of the science theories but the ones I do have believeable evidence and proof to make it hard to deny the claim. I don't even believe half of what my friends say without there being proof or I google it to see if it was true.

 

[PeterJB]

.....Behemoth? In the bible? Really?

I don't remember reading about this creature in the bible before....??
Unless it's a Final Fantasy Wiki....
(Just kidding.)

Maybe it was this:

 

[JMoney]

Your "disbelief" of scientific matters is nothing short of willful ignorance. You choose to doubt what you see, but not in the scientific method of aiming to verify or disprove, but in the religious method of, "Nope! Can't be like that! Not possible! Contradicts what I already know!" without ever bothering to consider the mountains of evidence and knowledge supporting the matter.

Not believing in science certainly isn't willful ignorance. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, not the lack of belief. Because I have an understanding of science (though I admit, not a perfect one), I'm not really ignorant of it.

Doubting is NOT part of religion. See John 20:29 for the be-all end-all verse about it for Christians. You're not allowed to question. You're not allowed to doubt. You are required to accept what is given you on faith and faith alone, without evidence or support. You grow up being drilled with this "knowledge" until you regard it as fact, and are even afraid to question it, for fear of eternal punishment.

John 20:29 regards belief in Christ as our savior, which is what I just said is the key to salvation. Not believing Christ died for your sins would result in eternal punishment. Believing in the other parts of the Bible is a different matter.

I dismissed the creation myth straight away because of dinosaurs. Like all young boys I loved dinosaurs, and when I was first told about the Genesis account of creation, my first thought was "Hold on, that's not right, where are the dinosaurs? In these books I've been reading it says they lived long before the people of Genesis did." I'm still a Christian, I just don't take a literalist view of the creation account.

So what part about a man rising from the dead after three days sounds more likely than God creating the world in 7 days? Neither is supported by evidence, and both events are described in the same book. Why choose to only believe in the main idea of Christianity, but not other ideas of it?

 

[Denur]

So what part about a man rising from the dead after three days sounds more likely than God creating the world in 7 days? Neither is supported by evidence, and both events are described in the same book. Why choose to only believe in the main idea of Christianity, but not other ideas of it?

Good question. 👍

 

[TheCracker]

So what part about a man rising from the dead after three days sounds more likely than God creating the world in 7 days? Neither is supported by evidence, and both events are described in the same book. Why choose to only believe in the main idea of Christianity, but not other ideas of it?

The old and new testaments may be now classed as the same book but there's probably 600+ years between them both being written. Even within Christianity there's plenty who'll take the old testament's teachings with a pinch of salt.

 

[PeterJB]

So what part about a man rising from the dead after three days sounds more likely than God creating the world in 7 days? Neither is supported by evidence, and both events are described in the same book. Why choose to only believe in the main idea of Christianity, but not other ideas of it?

Eyewitness accounts for one. Technically the Bible is more of a library or anthology of books rather than one singular book. There's several centuries between the writing of Genesis and the writing of the Gospels. For me the creation account and Adam and Eve is more about man's disobedience from God rather than a literal scientific (or in this case unscientific) account of the creation of the universe. With the resurrection, there were eyewitnesses to Jesus before his ascension, and after this they went enthusiastically to spread the Good News, and most of them ended up dead, seems a bit silly to me to be willing to die for something which you know to be wrong. I find it interesting that you say that neither event is supported by evidence, then why do you believe in them?

 

[DQuaN]

John 20:29 regards belief in Christ as our savior, which is what I just said is the key to salvation. Not believing Christ died for your sins would result in eternal punishment. Believing in the other parts of the Bible is a different matter.

Really? REALLY?

I like to think of myself as a good man. I have good morals. I try to live my life well and love my fellow man. But because I don't believe in Christ, when I die I will be placed in hell to suffer in AGONY for all ETERNITY??!!!!

And you think that this is a fair and just god? He's a psycho and I will have nothing to do with such wacked out beliefs.

So what part about a man rising from the dead after three days sounds more likely than God creating the world in 7 days? Neither is supported by evidence, and both events are described in the same book. Why choose to only believe in the main idea of Christianity, but not other ideas of it?

They're both preposterous.

 

[Carbonox]

To have a bone existing in the ground for hundreds of millions of years seems pretty far-fetched to me. Common sense tells me that an organic substance wouldn't stay in the ground untouched for that long. It just sounds unrealistic to me.

Fear not, it's a lot more realistic to those doing active research on the subject.

 

[DCP]

The bible says that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Some people actually believe this...

Many people believe this, I mean, there are at least 7 billion people in this world, who know one knows a thing what they think and believe. You'll believe we are indoctrinated, and we believe you are indoctrinated. We'll always disagree when it comes to this, fortunately, else no arguing and laughing...

If the age of the earth wasn't an issue, I believe the bible didn't need to give the genealogies of the people.
It didn't have to tell us they lived for 600-900 years old, and if it didn't have a world wide flood, then we wouldn't need to believe all the flood legends that have popped up throughout history.

Fittingly "again", the bible says people will be ignorant of the flood. This book never ceases to amaze me.

65 million year.

Now you see why we laugh, because only God saw that far back, if He created everything that far back.
I don't believe so, because even JC believed in a young earth, rightfully so, because He created it.

The only possible reference to dinosaurs the Bible gives is a passage in Job 40 and 41; in Job 40 God describes an animal called a "Behemoth".

View attachment 345843

Another creature, the Leviathan, is described in Job 41:

View attachment 345848

Some have interpreted these two creatures as species of dinosaurs.

Personally I don't have an opinion on dinosaurs; I neither believe they existed nor do I deny their existence; I admit that I don't know. If they did existed, I believe they probably did live alongside humans but certainly not for millions of years; that's where I take issue with the existence of dinosaurs, and not only because I believe the Earth is only about 10,000 years old. To have a bone existing in the ground for hundreds of millions of years seems pretty far-fetched to me. Common sense tells me that an organic substance wouldn't stay in the ground untouched for that long. It just sounds unrealistic to me. Recorded history only goes back a few thousand years, so it's pretty hard for humans to realize just how long a hundred million years is. It's 100,000 millennia. That's an incredibly large figure, and my unbiased opinion leads me to believe that it is foolish to come up with such a conclusion for the age of a bone based only on carbon dating.

To me, an invisible, all-powerful being is far, far more logical than an organic bone sitting in the ground perfectly preserved for 100,000 millennia. So if dinosaurs existed, I don't think they existed nearly that long ago, and yet you can't ignore the fact that it doesn't make sense for humans to have lived at the same time as a T-Rex. Thus, I don't really believe or disbelieve in dinosaurs. I'd rather spend my time focusing on the more important parts of the Bible. I really don't think my opinion on the Earth's age will affect my salvation.

And yes, my opinions on this matter have changed. You could probably go back and find some of my old posts in this thread that contradict what I just posted.

Something crazy, is that dinosaur actually means terrible lizard. I think as far back as 1890, the word dinosaur never existed in the English dictionary. Two baby like dinosaurs could fit comfortably in the ark.
With so much of undiscovered land, sea and lakes, this world is massive, and plenty can still be found.
Who's to say terrible lizards aren't still around? Who's actually looking? Who's hiding or denying it to protect their theory? http://www.forbidden-history.com/dinosaurs-in-archaeology.html

All I know is, he is the destroyer of souls, full of pride, and the greatest deceiver man will ever know.

the prince of this world (John 12:31 & 14:30 & 16:11)

a demon able to enter into a human body (John 13:27)

god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Belial (2 Corinthians 6:15)

prince of the powers of the air, the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2)

power of darkness (Colossians 1:13)

an adversary, like a roaring lion who walks about seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8)

If you don't see him, then he is already in you. Yeah, even Ripleys won't believe it.


Oh, just to add, the bible said that before the flood, all creatures big and small never ate meat.
I'd still be scared though...

 

[Famine]

I mean, there are at least 7 billion people in this world

I don't believe you. That number's far too big to make any sense. It's probably only about 7,000.

Two baby like dinosaurs could fit comfortably in the ark.

Of which species? Over 1,000 dinosauriform species have been documented thus far - not including the tens of thousands of bird species that directly descend from therapod dinosaurs.

Or was it just the one species and all the others evolved from it? Oh, snap.

(not to mention the point that they wouldn't need to - they were dead 50 million years before the first hominidae)

 

[mistersafeway]

Not believing in science certainly isn't willful ignorance. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, not the lack of belief. Because I have an understanding of science (though I admit, not a perfect one), I'm not really ignorant of it.

For wilful ignorance focus more on the "ignor", hence wilful.

John 20:29 regards belief in Christ as our savior, which is what I just said is the key to salvation. Not believing Christ died for your sins would result in eternal punishment. Believing in the other parts of the Bible is a different matter.

Then why believe the Earth is roughly 10,000 years old in complete opposition of all evidence?

So what part about a man rising from the dead after three days sounds more likely than God creating the world in 7 days? Neither is supported by evidence, and both events are described in the same book. Why choose to only believe in the main idea of Christianity, but not other ideas of it?

There's no evidence directly contradicting the resurrection of Jesus, but plenty against, for example, the Tower of Babel (a god will destroy any building above a couple of hundred feet tall, riiiiight).

With the resurrection, there were eyewitnesses to Jesus before his ascension, and after this they went enthusiastically to spread the Good News, and most of them ended up dead, seems a bit silly to me to be willing to die for something which you know to be wrong.

Silly and belief go together rather well.

Fittingly "again", the bible says people will be ignorant of the flood. This book never ceases to amaze me.

Really? To me that says that somewhere down the line someone translating/rewriting The Bible noticed that people were pointing out how full of 🤬 it was and added references to atheists being fools.

I don't believe so, because even JC believed in a young earth, rightfully so, because He created it.

Citation very much needed. Putting words in the mouth of your god is a great way to eternal punishment.

 

[Dennisch]

Now you see why we laugh, because only God saw that far back, if He created everything that far back.
I don't believe so, because even JC believed in a young earth, rightfully so, because He created it.

Good thing that I can go outside and do the research myself. Unlike having a book telling me a lovely story that holds zero evidence what so ever.
So, keep on laughing.

 

[JMoney]

I like to think of myself as a good man. I have good morals. I try to live my life well and love my fellow man. But because I don't believe in Christ, when I die I will be placed in hell to suffer in AGONY for all ETERNITY??!!!!

Despite all of your good deeds, you, like me, is guilty of sin and deserving of Hell. But because I have surrendered and accepted Christ as my savior, I can receive forgiveness for those sins through salvation.

And you think that this is a fair and just god?

Yes, "just" because He punishes those who sin without regret, and "good" because He offers a chance for anyone to saved as long as they accept His forgiveness.

Eyewitness accounts for one. Technically the Bible is more of a library or anthology of books rather than one singular book. There's several centuries between the writing of Genesis and the writing of the Gospels. For me the creation account and Adam and Eve is more about man's disobedience from God rather than a literal scientific (or in this case unscientific) account of the creation of the universe. With the resurrection, there were eyewitnesses to Jesus before his ascension, and after this they went enthusiastically to spread the Good News, and most of them ended up dead, seems a bit silly to me to be willing to die for something which you know to be wrong. I find it interesting that you say that neither event is supported by evidence, then why do you believe in them?

Because Christianity makes perfect sense to me- I simply don't need evidence to accept God as my savior. Upon my accepting of Christ I have felt the Holy Spirit in my soul, so I know God is real. There's no outward evidence of it, but that doesn't mean I can't believe it.

Citation very much needed. Putting words in the mouth of your god is a great way to eternal punishment.

You mean the eternal punishment you don't believe in?

 

[Com Fox]

Despite all of your good deeds, you, like me, is guilty of sin and deserving of Hell. But because I have surrendered and accepted Christ as my savior, I can receive forgiveness for those sins through salvation.

So, if I went on a rampage and killed lots of people. I'll still go to heaven if I accept Christ as my saviour... While a doctor, could've saved hundreds of lives could still go to helk because he didn't accept it...

This is one of the confusions that got me out of Christianity..., If anything this makes Satan sound nicer by accepting anyone while God only accepts the believers. It's like you can only use Youtube if you're subscribed to Pewdiepie.

 

[DCP]

Not believing in science certainly isn't willful ignorance. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, not the lack of belief. Because I have an understanding of science (though I admit, not a perfect one), I'm not really ignorant of it.



John 20:29 regards belief in Christ as our savior, which is what I just said is the key to salvation. Not believing Christ died for your sins would result in eternal punishment. Believing in the other parts of the Bible is a different matter.



So what part about a man rising from the dead after three days sounds more likely than God creating the world in 7 days? Neither is supported by evidence, and both events are described in the same book. Why choose to only believe in the main idea of Christianity, but not other ideas of it?

Only one reason why, whether one eventually figures it out or not, is the trust in man.

@RESHIRAM5
So, if I went on a rampage and killed lots of people. I'll still go to heaven if I accept Christ as my saviour... While a doctor, could've saved hundreds of lives could still go to helk because he didn't accept it...

This is one of the confusions that got me out of Christianity..., If anything this makes Satan sound nicer by accepting anyone while God only accepts the believers. It's like you can only use Youtube if you're subscribed to Pewdiepie.

If if's and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a...
Don't try to answer your own understanding. The God of wonders knows every mans heart.
He said, that the heart is wicked, and most deceitful. Every other man would disagree by his own standard.
This one thing that got you out of Christianity is all an excuse. The bible says man is without excuse, because every man has the imprint of God. Every man knows very well that he does wrong. The guilt hits him, but he thinks no one can seem him, so he does it the next and the next time, until he is exposed.
Whatever truly got you out, will be revealed to you, on a day you wished you were never born.
Just remember, you have the opportunity to change all that. Drop the porn mate, if that's the weakness...

Satan may be a nice guy to you, but in his home, you are like a snow ball tossed into the sun.

 

[mistersafeway]

You mean the eternal punishment you don't believe in?

And? Why do I need to believe to point out that people shouldn't speak for their god? It leads to idiocy like assuming that adding up all the ages in The Bible proves the age of the Earth because nobody objected when it was first done a millennium and a half after Jesus, someone who never claimed to be a god, allegedly lived.