Hello.

Directing question #1: Does God exist?
I believe she does. I do think that god is a woman too.
Directing question #2: How can we prove God exists (or) Do we need to prove God exists?
Prove she doesnt.

God is a very interesting topic. Im glad i can now post here. Different cultures have different gods, but who is to say that we all dont worship the same god. (I'm going to go under the assumption that the roman/greek gods are not involved in this blog so im leaving them out of it.) Recently I've become alot more faithful, every since I actually met someone I deeply care about, I think about things with alot more context. A rose isnt a rose anymore. For awhile, I lost faith, I wondered how god could allow things to happen in this world. But realized that most problems with the world we can only blame ourselfs. war, famine, poverty, murder, racism. These are all problems we created, not god.

Another topic i'd like to add to this blog, is church, I myself do not believe in it. My own opinion is that god is everywhere, and praying once a week doesnt make a difference in the end. Plus the church is getting corrupt with power and greed as of late. Share your opinions and thoughts =)

peace out everyone.

The truth is the truth

When I read the post below this one, I knew that I should set it straight, and show a more truthful and fuller story, for one who truly seeks the truth and wants the knowledge, it should be given in the correct way.
All too often, stories and conclusions are made up, because of failure to research.
In my opinion, if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, you then go directly to the source.
The same thing should apply when seeking any answer.
So I take it upon myself to show you the truth about what the Church teaches in regards to this subject.
I understand that we can all be misled, and all have rights to our opinions, but before one forms an opinion, one should always seek the answers.
By seeking the truth, you will most definetly find the truth.
So here I give you a more correct and detailed article:

This is written by John Thavis and you can find it at www.catholicnews.com

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools alongside Darwinian evolution, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.The article said that in pushing intelligent design some groups were improperly seeking miraculous explanations in a way that creates confusion between religious and scientific fields.At the same time, scientists should recognize that evolutionary theory does not exclude an overall purpose in creation -- a "superior design" that may be realized through secondary causes like natural selection, it said.The article, published in the Jan. 17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna in Italy.The article noted that the debate over intelligent design -- the idea that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by an intelligent designer rather than adaptive evolution -- has spread from the United States to Europe.The problem with intelligent design is that it turns to a "superior cause" -- understood though not necessarily named as God -- to explain supposed shortcomings of evolutionary science. But that's not how science should work, the article said."If the model proposed by Darwin is held to be inadequate, one should look for another model. But it is not correct methodology to stray from the field of science pretending to do science," it said.The article said a Pennsylvania judge had acted properly when he ruled in December that intelligent design could not be taught as science in schools."Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," it said.From the church's point of view, Catholic teaching says God created all things from nothing, but doesn't say how, the article said. That leaves open the possibilities of evolutionary mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection."God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous interventions that point in this or that direction," it said.What the church does insist upon is that the emergence of the human supposes a willful act of God, and that man cannot be seen as only the product of evolutionary processes, it said. The spiritual element of man is not something that could have developed from natural selection but required an "ontological leap," it said.The article said that, unfortunately, what has helped fuel the intelligent design debate is a tendency among some Darwinian scientists to view evolution in absolute and ideological terms, as if everything -- including first causes -- can be attributed to chance."Science as such, with its methods, can neither demonstrate nor exclude that a superior design has been carried out," it said.From a religious viewpoint, it said, there is no doubt that the human story "has a sense and a direction that is marked by a superior design."

"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

I found this article interesting. It just came out yesterday and explains that even the Catholic Church believes there's more evidence for evolution than for Intelligent Design.

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.
Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion.
A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.
The ID movement sometimes presents Catholicism, the world's largest Christian denomination, as an ally in its campaign. While the Church is socially conservative, it has a long theological tradition that rejects fundamentalist creationism.
"Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the demand it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," said the article in the Tuesday edition of the newspaper.
Evolution represents "the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth" and the debate in the United States was "polluted by political positions," wrote Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at Italy's Bologna University.
"So the decision by the Pennsylvania judge seems correct."
EVOLUTION CONFUSION
Confusion about the Catholic view of evolution arose last year when both the newly elected Pope Benedict and his former student, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, said humans were part of an intelligent project designed by God.
An article by Schoenborn in the New York Times in July seemed to signal a Church shift toward intelligent design because it played down a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul that evolution was "more than a hypothesis."
This triggered a wave of "Vatican rejects Darwin" headlines and attacks from scientists, Catholics among them, who argued that had been proved man evolved from lower beings.
Schoenborn later made it clear the Church accepted evolution as solid science but objected to the way some Darwinists concluded that it proved God did not exist and could "explain everything from the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."
The Church, which has never rejected evolution, teaches that God created the world and the natural laws by which life developed. Even its best-known dissident, Swiss theologian Hans Kueng, echoed this in a recent book in Germany.
Schoenborn said he spoke up because he shared Benedict's concern, stated just before his election last April, that a "dictatorship of relativism" was trying to deny God's existence.
TENET OF FAITH
Pennsylvania Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design was a version of creationism, the belief that God made the world in six days as told in the Bible, and thus could not be taught without violating a ban on teaching religion in public schools.
It was not science, despite claims by its backers, he said.
This literal reading of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is a tenet of faith for evangelical Protestants, a group that has become politically influential in the United States.
Many U.S. Catholics may agree with evangelicals politically, but the Church does not share their theology on this point. Intelligent design has few supporters outside the United States.
While not an official document, the article in L'Osservatore Romano had to be vetted in advance to reflect Vatican thinking.
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute -- the main think tank of the ID movement -- said on its website that reading the Osservatore article that way amounted to an attempt "to put words in the Vatican's mouth."

To me, God exists

Throughout thousands of years, people have believed God exists. People with all kinds of intellectual status.
Of course, just because God is believed in, that doesn't make him real.
But the fact that ageless amounts of people are so convinced that there is a God, doesn't that make you wonder that maybe there is something more?
Lets look at the earth.
Our planet is located just the right distance from the sun, exactly. If we were a little further from the sun, we would freeze, any closer and we would burn.
And when I write "a little further, or a little closer" I mean even a fraction of a distance.

The earth is a perfect environment for living, it's the perfect size.
The size of earth and it's corresponding gravity contains oxygen and nitrogen gases, which extend about 50 miles above the earth's surface, if earth was smaller, the atmosphere we have would be impossible.

Now lets look at the moon. That too is the perfect size for the gravitational pull. The moon causes the ocean tides, it causes important movements in the ocean, so the waters do not stagnate and also, it's the cause to why our oceans do not spill out everywhere.

Then we have water, no one can survive without it, not human, animal or plant. We are even made up of 80% water, although it could be 70% I can't quite remember, nor be bothered to find out. My point here is, we have what we need on this earth, perfectly to survive.
Did you know that water freezes from the top first and then down so fish can survive in winter?
I cannot see how earth was created so perfect, so round and so beautiful by a strike of lighting, or the big bang theory. And if it was made that way, then I believe God was the cause.
We have the bible to look toward, although a lot of people disregard that as rubbish, but it had over 40 writers.
Living in different continents, not all knowing each other and having met. It was also written in 3 different languages originally. But the message remains the same.
Its the top selling book in the world, translated into the most languages than any book ever and science cannot prove against it, it is in fact scientifically accurate.
Then we have Jesus, what proof did he give in his time that he was God?
Miracles happened, raising of the dead, why would such a good kind hearted man who preached love, lie about something like this? it was surely not for money, nor for the royal treatment that he never got. The only crown he wore was of sharp and painful thorns.
Jesus told us of God being loving and kind, and taught us to be the same.
He taught us to accept everyone as they are, the poorest, the lowest and dirtiest of people, he told us to love. How many times do we see homeless dirty people and want to talk to them?
Of all the teachers of religion, it's only through Jesus that you will see God reaching toward humanity.
I find what I have written to be something to think about, regardless of what you like to believe, I am showing you the "me" that believes.
I would surely like to hear other opinions, I can only speak for myself.

Faith Power

"God ain't gonna put nothing on you that you can't bear, no matter how hard it is."
-- P. Diddy

JUST MY VIEW

In the Bible, Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of mankind as being in the "Image of God," which usually leads to a discussion of the qualities of God that can be seen in mankind. For example, God is The Creator, and although man requires pre-existing materials to "create" new objects such as buildings, vehicles, artwork, and gadgets of all kinds, he is capable of creating objects for his use or pleasure from his imagination that have never been seen before. Emotions attributed to God's character can also be seen in man. Man has the ability to love, hate, and become jealous, and through the power of the Holy Spirit he can express these emotions in appropriate ways. Forgiveness is another quality that man shares with his Creator. But these human characteristics are reflections of God's nature given to mankind at the time of creation. Is "what makes us human" the combined characteristics that we share with animals and the attributes of being created in God's image? Or is there more?

--taken from HERE


The observations mentioned above certainly contribute to our human character, but the following paragraphs give some of the unique aspects of humanity not attributable to any other part of creation, but to the present outworking of "what makes us human" and the choices we make.

The question arises then, if evolution is so solidly proven,why must students be shielded from other views? Why not present all the pertinent facts and encourage the students to think critically, as a good scientist should? Would this not be a good educational technique? Would this not produce better citizens and scientists?

Evolutionists purport that there is no real science supporting intelligent design, that ID is just religion, or at least a "backdoor" to religion. But the facts are that many scientists, through observation and experimentation and based on the scientific evidence and data they’ve obtained, have come to the conclusion that life has been designed, not created by mere chance from nothing.

Science involves conducting research, using the scientific method in various disciplines, and reporting on the data and results. There’s no religion in the facts. Such things have recently been discovered. Groundbreaking evidence about rock dating, carbon-14 in diamonds, excess helium within zircons, and other geologic data supporting a young earth. Ultimatly this science is available for scrutiny by critical thinkers—that students, specifically, are able to evaluate the evidence and formulate their own beliefs If the science points to a designer, so be it. But if the evidence suggests otherwise, then so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.

Perhaps avoidance of these kinds of data exposes a basic insecurity in their position and has long held that evolution cannot stand the test of science—it must avoid the light of open inquiry. Only by limiting the debate can they hope to maintain their monopoly on education. Yet, it serves us well to recognize that the debate involves a deeper issue than just control of academic content. If evolutionists admit that science does indeed support intelligent design, then they are admitting that there is a possibility of a Creator. Perhaps what evolutionists are truly afraid of are the implications of the presence of a higher power. Higher power means higher authority and, ultimately, higher accountability.

--taken from HERE


So my answers are as follows.
The Bible is the Truth.
We are created in Gods image therefore we must have been created by God.
As for the now, believe what you want to believe, to each thier own. I am not going to stand and be a hypocrite and put down the beliefs in which a being holds true to thier own. Would that not be wrong in the Christian scheme of things? Love one another, accept that people faulter and that we are not perfect. We learn from our mistakes and imperfections, these are the things that make us seek knowledge that in turn help us grow.These are experiences in life that give us strength in mind, body and spirit. Make us a unique individual. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Walk tall and show your strength in spirituality, be open and grow in you own spirit and be the best you can be here on earth until times end. God is in everything!

One question? If evolution holds to be true why is it that some "apes" evolved and others were left to maintain thier physical appearance and emotional and mental state? Where as us humans,(evolved apes) grew in all aspects.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20

My answers

Recently I added a response in the post below titled "Origins".
Seenie did that also.
I read both of our responses carefully and thought that they were too good to be down there, so I decided to put mine up on here as a proper post. If you have time to do so Seenie, I think yours should be up here too.
So basically my response to "Origins" is this: (with some minor editing)


Is evolution the truth, or is the account of the bible truth?
After many years of personal questioning, I came to the conclusion that I believe that God is the creator of the heavens and earth. How? I don't know, it could be something similar to evolution or not, I should say a type of evolution since I'm not an evolutionist at all, I'm very much a creationist, but I am open minded to the how's.
It would be very closed minded of me to shrug off scientific and evolutionary thoughts. I also respect different views.
Life had to start somewhere, now, to go from a barron lifeless state to a planet filled with life, there are a number of stages that we would have to pass through, being:
1.)Early atmosphere: We need to have a favorable environment for life to evolve and to be sustained.
2.) Simple organic molecules:
We need a means of constructing the building blocks to life
3.) Large macro-molecules (DNA,RNA etc): Some of the simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large molecules.
4.) Biological systems:
biological systems, such as energy conversion must be constructed.
5.) Living Cell: All these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell.

So when we examine this very carefully, we see that there are huge problems, it would require a large leap of faith to believe that they ever happened. But for those who do believe in this, that's fine, I am just offering my opinions an conclusions, also, what has brought me to these conclusions.
So if a person wants to explain the origin of life with no supernatural means, they would need to have a plausible explanation for each of these steps.

SO where in fact did we come from?
Personally, I will say God.
where is the evidence? To me, everywhere. There are some fascinating facts relating to the great flood, especially when we study fossils and many different things, including how the world "was" before now.

What does this mean for matters of the now?
I don't know exactly. I can only offer my beliefs to go with that question, to be the best persons we can be while we are here on earth. Try to have a good heart and keep with things that are good. And to continue to form a relationship with God.

BTW the origins of life thing I got from some other studies, I didn't come up with them on my own, or make them up, they can be found on the net too.


So let there be no question about it, i'm very much a Christian who believes that we are here today because we are God's creation.

*note: The Statements that I have made on the example of the origins of life, where I outlined the steps to making a single living cell can be found here

Origin

Directing questionS

Is evolution the truth, or is the account of the bible the truth?

Where, in fact, did we come from?

And what does that mean for matters of the now?

Concept

Can you conceive of a God with intention?
Does this concept include a God with a mind beyond the capacity of your own?
Does this certain uncertainty figure into your mind when you compose your worldview, or your communication?




Hi. I'm Patrick. I'm a terminal agnostic.
I think it would be arrogant of me to conceive that I could ever conclude my investigation of reality without examining all of reality, this and only this that any conceivable God has chosen fit to offer.

Welcome to GOD CONFERENCE

This is the idea: Through a philosophical multilogue of religious theme, participants in this forum will further their inquiry into what it means to share this planet with people of so many diverse beliefs.

Most times these beliefs are contrary, and so it gives rise to many questions about the intent of any possible creator, as well as questions as to our capacity to comprehend such notions.

Directing question #1: Does God exist?
Directing question #2: How can we prove God exists (or) Do we need to prove God exists?
Directing question #3 to #infinity: to be announced by members as they participate.


I have some points I've gathered from my own mistakes for those who'd like to engage in what will ultimately become debates in many situations.


How we answer directing questions can oftentimes have two contexts. For some of us, it is personal, while for others, it is ultimate. Sometimes its logical, and sometimes its abtract. Attack, defence: questioning, answering; it goes on.

My focus varies considerably for the tasks at hand as I'm sure yours may.

Feel free to identify your context in your writing through the use of differentiating terms such as "It is true that.." or "I find it to be true that..." How you manage this *directly affects* the latitude of the response another person can sensibly compose.


Consider your evidence wisely. What is evident about it? How accessible is it?


Lastly, in the case of nettiquette, if you feel like your point is valid, then it will be valid regardless of whether you make your attacks personal or not.

By all means, feel free to make it personal, I'm just saying...

*Personally*, I think it's foolish to try and make things personal when you're having a competition of ideas. The only thing *more foolish* than that is to assume someone's attack of your point is intended personally when this assumption is not given directly by the written body in question, for it shows a great, and exploitable vulnerability. Basically, high road/low road. Y'all know the deal.


PS: Do you have any ideas on what constitutes best practices in a religiously themed forum? Let's talk about your ideas too. As soon as you join this blog, it's yours.