Me personaly, I interpret figuratively. Is that a bad thing? I always thought that was how we are supposed to interpret it. Kind of like the constitution. No one has ever said that I was "evil" or anything like that for it. Plus, that's how it was taught to me (figuratively) in the first place. Saying that Jesus is in my heart and other figurative statements like that lead me to believe a lot of things my Christain friends don't quite believe in.
Maybe I'm not quite Southern Baptist but that's where I've grown up and so that's really all I know. One thing I do know is that I AM a Christain. Anymore questions?

no, i was just curious because all ur arguments centered around the assumption the bible should have been taken figuratively. I have always felt that the only way christianity can survive is to have the bible taken this way. Becuz the simple fact is that 50 years down the road, it will become very hard to convince anybody that the world is only 5 thousand years old...etc

Oh ok. So I'm not the only person who thinks that way about it. Seriously, what kind of person would think the bible is all literal. I'm just shocked that you think the same thing. A lot of the people that I have talked to think that all christains take the bible literally but if that was so then I guess I wouldn't be a christian anymore.
Yeah, I believe in most of the theories because science was also created by God and so he should follow the laws of science in his creation.
I don't know if you understand exactly what I'm saying but at least I can feel like you believe the bible is figurative.
Sorry if I sounded rude in my answer but what I was trying to do is just tell you why I interpret figuratively. And thanks for asking before just assuming. I prefer people asking what I believe rather than telling me what I believe because no one truly believes exactly what I believe.
Capt. over and out!

I gather that by development of science and technology somehow religion will fade away. Well, we have plenty of science and etc. now--so how do you explain the growth of the religious right?
By the way a "designing" universe is no indication that divinity is behind it.

Basically what it comes down to is either people are going to run out of options and kill themselves or they will try to find another way. Survival instincts will attract paopole to God if nothing else.
And by the way. I don't think I ever said that religious populations will always outnumber nonreligious because I believe the opposite really. I don't like it by I myself believe that science may push relgion further and further back but no matter what I did say I'm saying now that God created science along with everything else. If all else fails read Revelations from the Bible. Maybe it will show you why I take the Bible figuratively. It's nonsense but I take it how I do and that's all there is to it. Excuse me if I ever said otherwise but I must not have been thinking straight at the time.
Capt. over and out!

Whoo hoo!

Can I be the first Agnostic to reply here?

I believe that one of the hardest things for people to ever admit is, "I don't know!"

I'm a programmer, so of course I work with lots of other programmers and other random smart people. For those of you in a similar situation, you can probably relate to this... If you ask MOST people how to do something, how something works, or any other question like that, you're bound to get some sort of rambling of what they 'think' or how it 'possibly' could work. What you'll RARELY get is, "I don't know, but maybe..."

I think this carries over to religion pretty easily, and is why I'm agnostic.

I don't know the truth, and I don't believe that anybody else does. I don't believe the Bible is anything more than a mistranslated collection of stories written a long time ago, but that doesn't mean I completely don't believe in some higher being... but heck if I know what that being (if it exists) is all about.

Some will say, "You just have to have faith!!"

I'm still a Bears fan, I think that demonstrates my ability to HAVE faith

despite the fact that im atheist, revalations still freaks me out a bit, vials from heaven? metal breasted horses spewing fire and brimestone? flying lotus? sounds familiar.... nuclear war anyone?

"there aren't any intelligent people who don't believe in God?"

Famous atheists: http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html

I don't know... how did you here that? I don't know. I believe in God. I don't know how everything works and I'm not saying I do. In fact I rely on other people's opinions to get me even thinking about most of these things. I'm sorry. I said I was done but I can't let someone think they have me figured out because I'm religious. If people would stop trying to understand me and just accept that I believe what I believe. It's not because I'm trying to take the easy way out of life. In fact I bet my life would be easier if I wasn't a Christian. You probably don't know what I mean but I don't want to explain. All I ask is that everyone who isn't interested in the new aethiest whatever to stop coming here and bad mouthing others. Read the original article that's what I'm trying to let go again.
Just one more thing. Machiavelli, you know I have never heard someone sum up Revelations that way before but of all the theories on how it'll end I like that one simple statement most. "...nuclear war anyone?" Maybe that is how it will all end but I can't tell until it comes that point.
I'm leaving. If you want to talk about anything that I've said in the past and try to put me down some more just go to the reply forum. I'm not getting any points from it or anything like that so don't worry about that. I'm just trying to leave this article to go where it was inteneded to go.
Capt. over and out!

There are a lot of inferences here based on my being aetheist some of them (accidently or deliberately) seem to suggest a ling between aetheism and morality - is that fair?

I am all for the disbelief in a deity. Once i see this "God" walk down the battle field and stop it, then i will believe

I mean think about it, before there was chirstianity, there were the aztecs and there beliefs.

One thing is for sure about religion, it will spark an unending discussion. There are plenty of intelligent people on both sides of the argument and niether can prove anything. At some point, we all have to admit that something came from nothing and noone knows for sure how.

Whether you are Christian or not, Jesus Christ existed and was a positive influence on men. Spreading ideas of morality like, don't kill, don't steal, etc. was a good thing in a time when it wasn't obvious that you shouldn't do those things. The violence that came about in the name of religion was all due to organized religion. Men who believe that their way of interpretting what "God" wants for mankind is the only way and they have to force others to see that or die are the problem with religion.

I respect anyone who is true to their convictions and doesn't cause harm to others. Best wishes.

The Bible was inspired by God; therefore true. If you believe that the bible is completely fictious then your wrong, as JillUser said. You can at least see it as a history book. I can probably defend Chrsitianity a little better than cpt. cornbread did. And the whole fairy tale thing is ther cuz i don't understand how things around me work or cuz i'm poor and low class.... well no. I'm actually an engineer who believe a lot in science and middle class. And I'd like to say that Einstien ws Jewish.

And all of my Christian friends /collegues are very intelligent, the same goes for my non-beliveing friends. No argument there cuz God has given us all gifts, just if we use them to glorify His name is the difference.

Now to answer the question on Creationism aka the Cosmological Argument.

1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
A. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
A. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
B. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God.

I'm also posting the Teleological Argument:

The teleological argument is also known as the argument from design. Quite simply, it states that a designer must exist since the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their order, consistency, unity, and pattern.
A typical analogy of this is the Watchmaker which was given by William Paley (1743-1805). The argument goes as follows. If you found a watch in an empty field, you would logically conclude that it was designed and not the product of random formation. Likewise, when we look at life and the universe, it is natural to conclude there is a designer see we see how perfectly the universe and life forms operate. The eye is typically used as an example of design. It is a marvelous development. In order for it to work there must be many different convergent parts that individually have no function but have value only in a designed whole. It is only in the combined total do they exhibit their total function. This function is by design.
Paley's argument is as follows:

Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.

The universe resembles human artifacts.

Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.

But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.

Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe. <--God

This argument is simple to understand and has merit since humans are designers by nature and it is natural to think in terms of things having purpose. It is also consistent with Rom. 1:20,

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
----
I think the teleological argument carries weight because it is consistent with Scripture. The Bible states that we are made in God's image. Therefore, there are certain things that we will resonate to. Even though the unbeliever suppresses the truth of God in his unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-32), the truth is still there.
Additionally, evolutionists have difficulty accounting for apparent design in objects like the eye, the heart, and the brain where many different parts come together to form the whole. These individual parts have no purpose except in the function of the whole. How can evolution account for these detailed congruent occurrences? So far, it can't.