On reflection, it'd probably be quite fun, in a mean sort of way ;)

Peter Sellick, your remark: “Faithful Christians, thinking that science cannot contradict the faith, attempt to produce a common narrative that includes the activity of God and, for example, the big bang. The question inevitably arises, did God ignite the big bang, a completely fanciful idea” reminded me of a brilliant YouTube posting at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9EVMzVQKTk.

Martin S, you’re post was a prime example of pure sophistry.

>>Truth #1: Christianity never demands to transfer guilt or punishment to an innocent individual.<<

You’re right. Christianity never demands the transfer of guilt or punishment to an innocent individual, because individuals are already born into sin by default through the concept of original sin.

>>Jesus WILLINGLY took on OUR sin (yours, mine and the world’s) so that we could be free to have a relationship with our Father in heaven.<<

In other words, a superior being is pacified by the bloody death of his son. Why couldn’t he just forgive every one? That would be more appropriate considering it was his failings that were the cause of the whole mess in the first place. I’d be very annoyed if my father put me through such pain because of his own mistakes.

>>Truth #2: Each of us are responsible for our own decisions in life.<<

An omnipotent god would know what was going to happen in advance and therefore, we are not responsible for the decisions in our lives since the existence of this god would mean that our actions were already pre-determined because of this god’s superior and all-seeing mind.

>>We are not pre-destined for doom by our parent’s bad choices.<<

But we are “pre-destined” for doom because of Adam and Eve’s bad choices, which are allegedly passed down to us through our parents and ancestors.

>>For a pathway to freedom, see Truth #1.<<

The Bible is not proof of anything and referring to it as though it had some authority is pointless when talking to someone who has the critical thinking skills to question it.

(Cont’d)

>>Secondly, a loving parent denies their immature child knowledge that is not useful. All knowledge carries responsibilities... and consequences.<<

This point of yours is self-refuting.

If the consequence of not believing in your god is hell, then this invisible “loving parent” has an obligation to make his existence undeniable knowledge. Otherwise, he is negligent.

>>Truth #3: No-one is forced to go to hell.<<

Those who find it impossible to believe without sufficient evidence are forced to go to hell because of their inability to believe in something that is not apparent in any way.

We do not choose what we believe in. No one can make themselves believe in something they don't. Not everyone can be indoctrinated into a religious belief; not everyone is going to hit "rock bottom" in life to find solace in this imaginary figure you're promoting.

The flaw in your comment here is the same as one of the major flaws in Pascal’s Wager.

>>It is a free choice for all<<

When there’s a severe punishment for those who don’t believe, it’s not a “free choice”. That’s like the ATO telling us that we have the “free choice” to not pay our taxes, but that we’ll go to jail if we make this choice.

With this sort of threat, the ability to choose does not make it a “free” choice.

>>Truth #4: Perhaps if you focussed more on the multitude of positive things Christ-followers have done you may see that God is in fact worthy of praise, not scorn.<<

'Good' does not necessarily equal 'True'.

And it is questionable as to whether or not the acts of Christians are always worthy of praise since the ulterior motive of conversion always seems to be there; along with an encouragement/discouragement of certain acts such as not using contraception; which has proven so hazardous in Africa.

There are terroroist organisations that provide aid to their people too. Does this mean their beliefs are true as well?

>>I suggest you go back to the drawing board on your beliefs because as they stand, they make no sense.<<

Ditto.

Another article that will split the readers. No one is going to change their interpretation of the the world after reading one article.

I just don't see why we need all these vague interpretation when science is so obvious.

A couple of points:

1) Recent studies translate genesis as God separated heaven from earth. Just google Ellen van Wolde for the new interpretation.

2) The Nicene creed and the trinity are not proven facts but ideologies established by force. The concept of the trinity was invented in the 4th century. The bishop Arius and had a different interpretation and the church was split. (A bit like the reformation) Emperor Constantine tried to find a compromise. Three successions later and the emperor Thedosius was a hardliner who fought the Arians with the sword not with the word. By this time the roman empire was split. Thedosius took his eastern half down Nicene track while the west roman empire remained 'multicultural'. Arianism in the western lands and North Africa disappeared with the advent Islam.

Islam treats Jesus as the prophet Issa (The Prophet of Love), conveniently not requiring the need for a trinity and centuries of hair splitting.

Peter what you are trying to do is like a physicist trying to explain what an atom is.Matter is really just another form of energy.We can only see the effects but never reach it's essence.Trying to define the forces of the universe in terms of your god concept,is just as futile.

My username will tell readers where I'm coming from, but I'm not posting to join an essentially sterile and ever-repeated "mass-debate".

I just want to draw attention to the work of Georges Lemaitre, a Jesuit priest and noted theoretical cosmologist early last century. He developed a theoretical model - a precursor of the Big Bang - which led Einstein to say in 1927, "your mathematics are correct, but your physics is abominable." Six years later, however, Einstein had changed his mind and said to Lemaitre, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened".

Of his own cosmological work, and the tension some thought should exist between it and his role as a Catholic priest, Lemaitre had this to say:

"Hundreds of professional and amateur scientists actually believe the Bible pretends to teach science. This is a good deal like believing that there must be authentic religious dogma in the binomial theorem."