PDA

View Full Version : the bible


speck of dust
04-06-2003, 06:26 PM
I just finished reading the epic 10 page thread about the history of the universe. Very interesting stuff. I was going to add this at the end, but instead I'll start a new one.

I don't want to offend anyone's belief system here, but I ask a simple question: Why do so many people in an educated society still find the need to believe in a book that was written 5000 years ago? What is so special about it? It's a bunch of stories created by nomads to justify their own existence and create law and order and a moral standard.

How can anyone with sound mind and logic actually convince themselves that just because it's written in a book then it really happened? In a time when communication didn't have the luxery of technology to spread news around the world, most people never even left their village and would believe any story a traveler told them. Isn't it logical to assume that rumors and gossip could easily get out of hand when there's no way to confirm it? Thus the spread of religion. That's why there are so many different kinds of religions. How can anybody possibly convince themselves that 'THEIR' religion is the 'one and only correct' religion. IN reality, all religions are an attempt to answer the question: why are we here and what happens when we die?

This simple truth is: NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING. We willl never know what happens when we die, UNTIL WE DIE. Period. Everything else is speculation and imagination. (Near Death Experiences are interesting to hear about, but again, no one can truly say what they are: the brain slowly turning off consiousness or the actual entrance into a higher dimension of spirits?)

5000 years from now our ancestors will find many books and stories written by us, will they hold them up as holy?

Perhaps they will. Imagine a situation where all society is destroyed in a war. (hmm...wonder how that could happen?)
All their books, their history, their technology, gone.
If the only thing that's left is a TV with Star wars playing in it, then those future people who figure out how to work it will think of this story they see as holy and the truth and will believe in the force. (not such a bad thing come to think of it, lol)....or they may find a book written in 1979 by someone who's convinced they were abducted by aliens, and then believe that person as a prophet! They'll have battles about faith and belief in this person, but no one will ever be able to verify it as the truth...(just as we can't with alien abductions today lol) It all sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? So why can't we apply that ridiculum to 5000 years ago? I mean come on, Moses went up to the mountain and God spoke to him the 10 commandments. God spoke??? why doesn't that happen now? Why could people part the red sea 5000 years ago, and turn water into wine and rocks into bread 2000 years ago, but no one can do anything remotely like that today? Anyone who goes up to a mountain and claims to hear god's voice will be considered crazy today. Just apply logic. Why would all this happen back then? What made those times so special? THe answer is what I said above: Without technology and communication to verify the truth, people in villages believed in anything. People believed that stuff happened, so they wrote it down, and now we believe it because they wrote it down, when the truth is nobody knows anything!

I understand the need to believe in SOMETHING. It's too mind boggling for many people to CONSIDER THE INFINITE POSSIBILITES of what the three dimensional universe really is and where human and animal life have purpose in that. But please, if there's a heaven, we're all going to it. Whatever creator there may be does not care about petty earthly disputes like money, stealing, infidelity, lying, or doubting the existence of something we have no proof of. One can even debate whether the creator cares if we kill each other or not. The creator lets animals in all walks of life kill each other, and bacteria kills us, so why should he care if we do it as well? Regardless, simple moral sense tells us that ending another life is wrong. Period. Our laws should always reflect that and we don't need the threat of hell to convince us. I don't want to be killed, therefore I don't want anyone else to be killed. End of story. Life in Jail or the death penalty is enough of a punishment in my mind. It would be nice and cool to think that murderers are also punished in the afterlife, but again, there's no proof. Any beliefs we have should be prefaced with "IT WOULD BE COOL IF...." because they're just beliefs. Not dogmatic truth.

Sorry for the rant, but in a world where religion continually starts wars and even our president believes God is on his side, thereby promising which soldiers go where when they're killed (a subtle form of jihad) this is relavent. Ideas and beliefs should be fun to talk about and speculate upon but never be worth killing over.

--dust

Eldritch
04-06-2003, 07:18 PM
That was one hell of a bomb to drop for a first post, Dust. Welcome to the forums.
I agree with almost everything you said, except for the part where you said the universe is 3 dimensional. According to Einstein, it's 4-D. :D
Who can say why people choose to believe what they believe? Religious folk are nice people, even if they are a bit inflexible with their beliefs sometimes, and the vast majority of them are very tolerant of other beliefs and viewpoints. I think that religion has had as much of a positive impact on the world as it has negative, and its intentions are generally good - teaching folks how to treat others with respect, moral values, etc. For most people, religion provides hope and helps them to cope with the possibility that we are alone, and that there's another reason we're here other than a freak accident billions of years ago.
Neither science nor religion have yet been able to answer humanity's 2 main questions (the ones you brought up): What happens after we die? Why are we here?
Religion has provided several different answers for the first question, but has no proof that any explanation is correct. Anyone could make up any explanation they like, and it'd be no more or less likely to be true because we just don't know.
Science has been working on the second question, and they don't have an answer either. Right now it just seems to be a random series of events that resulted in our being here, but they're still working on it.
Religion would have us believe that there's some higher purpose for our being here, and I think that's due to our egos - we want to have purpose, and we seek any explanation we can for it. Religion provides that explanation, which clearly resulted in it's popularity (especially in ancient times). Now that we live in a more secular age, it becomes harder and harder to rationalize putting faith in a story which has many qualities of a children's fairy tale.
But like I said, for better or worse, religion provides hope and a reason for being for many people - and I think that is worth something, misguided as it may seem at times.
[/rant]

speck of dust
04-06-2003, 08:15 PM
Thank you for welcoming me. I've only posted on Medal of Honor sites before. A friend who plays on my medal of honor server recommended I take a look at your forum. Great stuff. Right up my alley, being a science and spiritual buff. Science + Spirit is an equation I learned from the first movie I ever saw, which was Star Wars. The whole star wars mythology has meant more to me and taught me more than any religion under which I was raised with. I learned all the basics I need to know from those movies, as many in my generation have. Anyway, it appears I'm preaching to the chior with my thread...lol.....

And although there are who knows how many dimensions to the universe, the current physical one we can observe has just 3, the 4th being perhaps TIME, which as of right now is non-physical, although will probably prove to be otherwise in due... time...? lol :)

Anyway I just bought jedi outcast for my mac, and am loving the game. But I love all things Star Wars because of the IDEAS that existed in this galaxy so long ago and far away.

dark jedi 8
04-06-2003, 08:30 PM
welcome to the forums, you'lle find that its really great here!:)

Vahn_Fanelia
04-06-2003, 09:02 PM
Before I begin I would like to say how glad I am that this has not turned into a sort of degrading argumentative, malicious conducted thread (thus far) and of the simple question absent of malevolent motive presented by dust. Moreover, in efforts to continue such an environment I present this:

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience…" - 1 Peter 3:15-16 NIV

So thus I hope the integrity of this thread be retained by all with gentleness and respect for all views.
To state first I am a Christian and would like to put in my perspective and comments. I hope to present what I know and understand to my fullest ability although I am no "Bible scholar". Also I think I'm pretty sound in logic and mind ;)

Dust you have presented many good questions and to those good questions I hope I can provide some good answers. My algebra teacher was one of the most brilliant people I have ever met. He dove in the deepest realms of mathematics, physics and all other sciences. Now being a man of mathematics he was a Christian. In addition, in the world there are many scientists who are Christians, who are rational, who believe the Bible. In the notion which your opening question states is of why such people "still find the need" to believe in such a thing as the Bible. I will break that up into two parts of "Why believe in the Bible" and "Why people still believe it". Thumbing through the Bible, we can find numerous miracles and "impossible" and incredible things from water to wine to resurrection of Jesus. To the "rational" mind, how can one believe that this stuff is true? It contradicts science… Water cannot just "magically" turn into wine. No one can walk on water. That is physically impossible. It denies the laws of physics. Let us just focus on one "miracle" of Jesus' resurrection to begin. Jesus historically was a real person and his disciples were real. Christianity has a foundation that Christ was the Son of God and that he died for us and was resurrected. Now in the Bible, after Christ's resurrection, his disciples went out after witnessing that their Christ was alive and began to preach the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection. Excluding Judas, I think all 11 original disciples were martyred for their faith. Now let us think "logically". These disciples were going around telling the good news until one day for one of them, they were given this choice. Either deny your faith or die. Now if these disciples "made up" Jesus' resurrection, that it was all a lie… Why would they die for a lie? All eleven of them…Miracles do not "deny" science or contradict it. It is just that science cannot explain it. The famous duality of wave and particle properties is just non-intuitive. Science cannot explain why, but it happens. So why do people of this era still believe in the Bible? Even with all this science, etc. It is because it is the Word of God.

Now one of the harder questions is why only one way to Heaven? I will use the wonderful example a visitor pastor once preached (sorry I forgot who you were, but I still remember your message :)). Let us say one and only cure was discovered for AIDS. Now who in the world would go and complain…"What? There is ONLY one cure? Bah…" No one would do that. The kicker here is though that in reality we do not deserved heaven, there should not have been a way to heaven, and Christ should not have died for us. However, because of God's amazing grace, compassion and love, He gave us a way to Him, because we could never do it on our own.

In addition, sorry to burst bubbles, but not everyone is going to heaven and just "good works" or being a "good person" does not get you there. By faith alone, as Paul says. Only through Christ. In addition, God's is not apathetic to our lives. He cares and is always there.

Finally to dust and others who are interested, I suggest getting a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith", if you really want to investigate further upon these realms and maybe try and contacting a pastor in the area. In addition, Christianity is really about faith; there is nothing I can really do to "prove" this or that. Only if you give Jesus a chance will you see with a truly seeking and repentant heart.

Well I guess that is it for now. I guess my execution was a little winded, but I did not have too much time to edit this baby.

"I believe in God like I believe in the sunrise. Not because I can see it, but because I can see all that it touches" ~ C.S. Lewis

Eldritch
04-06-2003, 11:03 PM
Wow. What are the odds that we get 2 new people to the Forum, each with opposing viewpoints? Maybe it has something to do with our quota. Welcome to the forums, Vahn. Enjoy your stay. And since you presented a number of good points, I would like to present what I hope are equally good counter-points. :D
Originally posted by Vahn_Fanelia
My algebra teacher was one of the most brilliant people I have ever met. He dove in the deepest realms of mathematics, physics and all other sciences. Now being a man of mathematics he was a Christian. In addition, in the world there are many scientists who are Christians, who are rational, who believe the Bible.
There are indeed many scientists who believe in the bible. However, to be a true scientist, you cannot be nailed down to any one belief, especially in the absence of proof. The nature of science is to examine all things and take into account all possibilities, then determine which are likely to be true based on empirical evidence. Without such evidence, no scientist would believe in the biblical account of creation or it's various other "miracles."
Thumbing through the Bible, we can find numerous miracles and "impossible" and incredible things from water to wine to resurrection of Jesus. To the "rational" mind, how can one believe that this stuff is true? It contradicts science… Water cannot just "magically" turn into wine. No one can walk on water. That is physically impossible. It denies the laws of physics.
You said it, pal. I've got no objections here.
Let us just focus on one "miracle" of Jesus' resurrection to begin. Jesus historically was a real person and his disciples were real. Christianity has a foundation that Christ was the Son of God and that he died for us and was resurrected. Now in the Bible, after Christ's resurrection, his disciples went out after witnessing that their Christ was alive and began to preach the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection. Excluding Judas, I think all 11 original disciples were martyred for their faith. Now let us think "logically". These disciples were going around telling the good news until one day for one of them, they were given this choice. Either deny your faith or die. Now if these disciples "made up" Jesus' resurrection, that it was all a lie… Why would they die for a lie?
Since we're looking at it from a historical perspective, it might interest you to learn that historically (i.e. backed by evidence) the Apostles had nothing to do with the writing of the New Testament, including all the gospels and such. They were written almost 100 years after the death (and supposed resurrection) of Christ. What this means, obviously, is that what they did and/or saw is not a first hand account, but at best is second hand and more realistically third or fourth hand. Just like with folk/fairy tales, a story can begin rooted in the truth and end up being magical or even miraculous. So we cannot trust what the Bible tells us as historical fact - after all, it's a bit biased, eh?
Miracles do not "deny" science or contradict it. It is just that science cannot explain it. The famous duality of wave and particle properties is just non-intuitive. Science cannot explain why, but it happens. So why do people of this era still believe in the Bible? Even with all this science, etc. It is because it is the Word of God.
Miracles do contradict science. You said it yourself - it denies the laws of physics. Science cannot explain many things, but that doesn't stop it from seeking an explanation. Religion (Christianity specifically) just says, "Well, it's the word of God," or "It's God's design," and never seek further clarification. Many people in this era still believe in the Bible because it's easier than waiting for science to figure out something not understood.
Now one of the harder questions is why only one way to Heaven? Let us say one and only cure was discovered for AIDS. Now who in the world would go and complain…"What? There is ONLY one cure? Bah…"
I think that's a bit of a oversimplification. That's totally based on somehow knowing for sure that your way is the right way. What are you basing that on? The Bible? If there is ever one cure for AIDS, there would be evidence that the cure works. It'd be based on proof, not faith.
No one would do that. The kicker here is though that in reality we do not deserved heaven, there should not have been a way to heaven, and Christ should not have died for us. However, because of God's amazing grace, compassion and love, He gave us a way to Him, because we could never do it on our own.
Again, this is based on Christianity somehow knowing it's right and all the other religions of the world are wrong. It's not the oldest, nor is it the most original (half of it, after all, is based on Hebrew Scripture... what you Christians call the Old Testament). I'm wondering how you know you're right.
In addition, sorry to burst bubbles, but not everyone is going to heaven and just "good works" or being a "good person" does not get you there. By faith alone, as Paul says. Only through Christ. In addition, God's is not apathetic to our lives. He cares and is always there.
I commented on this in other threads before, but I'll say it again. God cannot have unconditional love for all mankind, as has been written many times, and then place a condition on entering Heaven (i.e. - through Christ). And somehow I doubt that God would forsake the Jews... the ones who he made a covenant with, the ones who received the commandments, the ones who are the chosen people of God, the ones who he led out of Egypt... forsake them all suddenly because some people created a new branch of Judaism that he liked more? It just doesn't fit, and it goes back to the question of "How do you know you're right?"
Finally to dust and others who are interested, I suggest getting a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith", if you really want to investigate further upon these realms and maybe try and contacting a pastor in the area. In addition, Christianity is really about faith; there is nothing I can really do to "prove" this or that. Only if you give Jesus a chance will you see with a truly seeking and repentant heart.
The majority of religions are about faith. How do you prove that you're right and others are wrong? If I choose the wrong one to have faith in, the compassionate God of the Christians will smite me into hell after my death.

Whew. Well, I'm eagerly awaiting your reply.

speck of dust
04-06-2003, 11:22 PM
Very, very nice post vahn. Thank you for putting it the way you did.

I respect all that Jesus stands for. My mother raised me Roman Catholic, and being the first religion I was exposed to, it always has a soft spot in my heart. However, as i grew older, and started to explore the simple questions I had as a child, such as 'what was going on in the rest of the world during and before the time of Jesus, what did people in other cultures worship?'....So I studied the other religions, many of which are older than Christianity.

My question to you Vahn is were you raised a Christian, or did you come to find it through a divine experience, or did you choose it after studying it's roots and where it came from?

I'm just curious to know more of where you're coming from.

For myself, the logic of "just because I was raised a Catholic" doesn't mean it should be any more true to the universe. There are many others who are raised Bhuddist, or Hindu, or Hari Krishna, and the idealogies that were compounded into their young brains as children will forever effect how 'valid' the religion is to them and the world. My mother is and Italian American who was raised in New York by her immigrant parents, who instilled in her all that their culture revolves around the Catholic Church. She passed this down to me, and it all seemed to be 'the way things work' in my young malleable mind.

But again, if I was born in China, or Iran, or on a Native American Reservation, my initial lessons on god and religion would be completely different and feel just as 'true', based on my hypothetical 'chinese' or 'arabic' or 'native american' heritage.

Do you see what I'm saying? I know that many eschew this logic and simply say that 'faith' overrides all boundaries, pointing out the countless conversions to Christ that many cultures have taken to. (But remember that most mass cultural religious conversions were successful only through inquisitions, colonializations, and 'missions' that were more about conquest of land and money than about faith. particularly the horrific methods of conversion, through torture, or maiming, slavery...etc... But that is another topic, that does not need to be gotten into here. I am fully aware that those are gross abuses and misinterpetations of the core positive messages of religion)

I think that Faith and Truth are two very different things. Just because you believe something doens't mean it's 'true'. And I mean True in it's most objective sense. Santa Claus was true to me as a child, because I believed him. But was he the 'truth' to reality? (Reality is probably not even true to reality, because who's to say what the hell reality even is?)

I hope I'm in no way demeaning Jesus by comparing him to Santa (but hey, put a little weight and age on him, and they sure do look alike...lol) :)

But you see my point? I'm just trying to show you where I'm coming from, since you were grateful enough to post your view. I'm not trying to convince the converted, but my mind is open as I think everyone else's should be.

If Jesus were to physically come down to Earth tomorrow and said: "Okay enough screwing around you idiots. I'm here. Let's DO THIS!" I'd be right there ready and willing to give him all my faith.

But in this day and age, I see the chances of Extra Terrestrials landing on our planet are slightly more probable. So let me put a hypothetical out there for you. If, as i said, tomorrow E.T.'s landed on your lawn and said..."Humans are the product of our genetic experiments. We left you behind 5000 years ago and now we're back to see how you're faring."

What would you do? If they asked you to get on their ship and they'll show you the answers of the universe, would you believe them? Would you give them the chance?

All I'm saying is, all things being equal, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. My mind is as open to Jesus coming down as it is to Aliens or Bhudda or Bacteria.

If the fact that I have an open and creative mind means that I'm not getting into heaven, then God is simply not being fair. I'd say that to his face if I saw him. How could he give me a mind and expect me not to have fun by using it?

--dust

p.s.

I look foward to your reply. :)

p.p.s.
I must have posted this as Eldritch was posting his....(I pretty much seem to have reiterated his points....OPEN MINDS THINK ALIKE :) lol...)

El Sitherino
04-06-2003, 11:24 PM
actually to the water to wine thing i once heard a very plausable theory to that. i cant remember it but it was very very possible. also people stop calling it the word of god. how do you know it's his word and not just some pcp addict writing down things after a trip? not saying they are just saying do you know god spoke to the authors while they wrote or have you heard god tell you yourself all these stories? if so if you are catholic or baptist you should ,according to the bible of your denomination, be put to death for hearing it before the pope, catholics, and the minister, baptists. isnt religious education fun ;)

munik
04-06-2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
how do you know it's his word and not just some pcp addict writing down things after a trip?Phencyclidine was first synthesized in 1926. That would be a clear indicator as to how you know it's not the writings of a pcp addict.

El Sitherino
04-07-2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by munik
Phencyclidine was first synthesized in 1926. That would be a clear indicator as to how you know it's not the writings of a pcp addict. well a drug addict of some sort then ;P

ET Warrior
04-07-2003, 01:02 AM
hmmm, I've alreayd debated my religious views TOO many times on this forum to even think about reading to uber long posts....sorry

Kain
04-07-2003, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
hmmm, I've alreayd debated my religious views TOO many times on this forum to even think about reading to uber long posts....sorry

Though ours are different, I couldn't agree more. For NooB, this guy was bold for starting ANOTHER one of these. Hope he dosen't wig out like some one ELSE who made a thread like this...

Luc Solar
04-07-2003, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
hmmm, I've alreayd debated my religious views TOO many times on this forum to even think about reading to uber long posts....sorry

Hehehe.. that goes for me as well. But it's cool to have fresh faces with fresh opinions debating. :thumbsup:

I'll just watch. :)

Reborn Outcast
04-07-2003, 07:37 AM
Well dust and vahn those were both good posts!

I am a Christian and I try real hard to be the right one to but... I've written at LEAST 2 pages of religious response in all the other threads so I'm spent. :D

ShockV1.89
04-07-2003, 11:29 AM
I just hope nobody, you know, deletes the thread?

Bonedemon
04-07-2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Well dust and vahn those were both good posts!

I am a Christian and I try real hard to be the right one to but... I've written at LEAST 2 pages of religious response in all the other threads so I'm spent. :D

You could make a link/reference to them......

ET Warrior
04-07-2003, 02:11 PM
Well, he COULD, if somebody hadn't deleted the thread that had all his long well-thought out responses in it ;)

Mandalorian54
04-07-2003, 06:52 PM
Your still going on about that deleted thread.:p



Well I know why people believe what may seem as foolish stories to you. It's because science cannot explain our existence.

when you see a book you know it was written by someone, it didn't just come into existence. A scientific FACT is that somthing cannot come out of nothing.

Kain
04-07-2003, 08:22 PM
Actually, science has done more of job than Genesis has. Tell me, Mandalorian. If God is everbeing, how did he become everbeing. Something cannot merely come into existance. Enlighten me as to how one all powerful being can come into being?

El Sitherino
04-07-2003, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by MydnightPsion
Actually, science has done more of job than Genesis has. Tell me, Mandalorian. If God is everbeing, how did he become everbeing. Something cannot merely come into existance. Enlighten me as to how one all powerful being can come into being? yeah what was here for this god to be here? *suddenly ceases to exist* son of a bitch! ;P

ShockV1.89
04-07-2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by MydnightPsion
Actually, science has done more of job than Genesis has. Tell me, Mandalorian. If God is everbeing, how did he become everbeing. Something cannot merely come into existance. Enlighten me as to how one all powerful being can come into being?

En garde!

But then, I'm likely being ignored...

Kain
04-07-2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
En garde!

But then, I'm likely being ignored...

by whom, might I ask?

Eldritch
04-07-2003, 10:11 PM
Mydnight, the very idea of an all powerful being who has always been here means that there was no one to create him/her. An eternal being would've always been here... It's a tough concept for some to get, but that's all there is to it - no one is needed to create the eternal being because they already existed, see?

And let's not be foolish about this and attack the other side as a way of prooving our own point(s). Don't mock the other side. Just argue your side - for example...
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
Well I know why people believe what may seem as foolish stories to you. It's because science cannot explain our existence.
I'd agree with that, but that doesn't stop science from trying to explain it. Just because they haven't solved it yet and religion thinks it has (without any hard evidence) isn't a good reason to throw it away.

Kain
04-07-2003, 11:43 PM
A single being that existed since eternity was but a flicker of space and time? Excuse me if it sounds a bit...I dunno...childish? not that I mean to call anyone here childish. The existence of one omnipotent and supreme being just seems more along the lines of fantasy or hallucations of a race aspiring to cope with what couldn't be explained at the time. Heathens, heretics, all made by a church who wanted power. Sadly, they did get power through the kings of old times. And what happened to those who said 'The earth revolves around the sun and the earth isn't the center of the universe'? I'd say religion is a way to keep order in an otherwise chaotic world, which isnt a bad thing by any means. But even in the most eutopian society, you'll have that one person who dosen't believe God casts lightning at us from above, but its an electrice attraction, and lighting dosen't even come from above. I'd trust theories and fossils before I trust a 5000 year old manuscript that's seen more change than a chameleon running through a city.

ShockV1.89
04-07-2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by MydnightPsion
by whom, might I ask?

It was a dig at M54. If you could read the huge thread that he deleted, you'd see he chose to ignore everything I said because I didnt try to prove every point I made with biblical verses. It's old news, and I probably shouldnt even bring it up. But I dont like him for it, and you asked. :D

Something had to start the universe, right? Maybe it was a god or supreme being of some sort, who knows?

But was it the christian/muslim god? I dont know. Like Mydnight said, the only real thing we could go by is a 5000 year old book. I, quite frankly, dont trust that book, especially when you consider the fact that it was written by man, who is inherently imperfect. Whats thatn you say? They were inspired to write by God, you say? In that case, I refer you to Muniks sig. Think God said that to me? Prove he didnt.

Nuff said.

Reborn Outcast
04-08-2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by MydnightPsion
A single being that existed since eternity was but a flicker of space and time? Excuse me if it sounds a bit...I dunno...childish? not that I mean to call anyone here childish. The existence of one omnipotent and supreme being just seems more along the lines of fantasy or hallucations of a race aspiring to cope with what couldn't be explained at the time. Heathens, heretics, all made by a church who wanted power. Sadly, they did get power through the kings of old times. And what happened to those who said 'The earth revolves around the sun and the earth isn't the center of the universe'? I'd say religion is a way to keep order in an otherwise chaotic world, which isnt a bad thing by any means. But even in the most eutopian society, you'll have that one person who dosen't believe God casts lightning at us from above, but its an electrice attraction, and lighting dosen't even come from above. I'd trust theories and fossils before I trust a 5000 year old manuscript that's seen more change than a chameleon running through a city.

Could science have been considered fantasy? We are still trying to figure out ways to do things that, to us as humans, seem impossibel and only a fantasy.

Eldritch
04-08-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Could science have been considered fantasy? We are still trying to figure out ways to do things that, to us as humans, seem impossibel and only a fantasy.
"Any smoothly functioning technology gives the appearance of magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Many things that are now commonplace to us would be perceived as magic or miraculous by people from the past. However, nowadays we are intelligent enough that we would know the difference between technology and fantasy. The majority of things today that science is trying to figure out are things that are not fantasy, but feasible.
So to answer your question more directly, science could have been considered fantasy in the past, but is much less likely to be confused now.

On another note, I notice that no one from the religion side has answered the questions I asked in my second post on this thread, which could mean a couple of things:
1 - You don't have an answer for the questions I asked. If this is the case, you've proved my point.
2 - You're ignoring my questions because you know the answer and you're afraid of it. This also would prove my point.
3 - You just haven't read it. I have a feeling this is the most likely case. :D

Mandalorian54
04-08-2003, 05:47 PM
Sience may not prove God exists, but it is the only explenation for our existence. To me it seems silly to believe we can funcion in an orderly way in this complex galaxy by a simple cell evovling into evrything. An All Powerfull Being seems more realistic than a tiny cell. Which do you think is more capable of producing life?

If man did indeed evolve, and this one cell did indeed multiply, then why is it that it seems the opposite today? the cells in our body produce a new cell with the death of two. Gravity weakens, man ages. Evrything degenerates, nothing gets younger it only gets older.

What could cause a cell to evolve? Why is it not demonstrateable?

You may ask why God is not demonstratable, but were Jesus' miracles not enough? The Bible's preservation is a miracle in itself.

The more I learn about science, the harder it seems for me to understand why people can believe somthing so contradictory to it.


A fairy tale is when a frog turns into a prince in an instant. Evolution is when a frog turns into a prince over millions of years.

To me, evolution seems like a fairy tale.

But believe it if you want, there are still people who believe the world is flat.

speck of dust
04-08-2003, 06:06 PM
Okay, wait, as I wrote my piece, Mandalorian posted his, so I'm changing this to respond to him.

I agree, there is much unexplained about the core energy of life that 'makes' us evolve and 'makes' stars form and, hell even gravity is still mysterious to us. Newton and Einstien could still both be wrong. There probably is a God-like energy or being who, like an artist, dips his brush in the cosmic paint and creates existence.

But the Bible is not apart of that. It's a book that was written by man who was speculating his own existence, just as we're speculating here.

For what we know about earth and societies and history and how mankind keeps records of his actions, we all know too well how fallable and fragile this is.

As far as technology and magic and fantasy go-- if a nuclear war destroyed all of society, most survivors would have no idea how to build a car or a computer or even a telephone from scratch. In fact, i'd wager that no one would be able to do much of anything, save build a few shelters. Perhaps Fire is the only thing we could muster up on our own. We'd be stuck riding horses stabbing fish with spears and roasting them over burning leaves. All our records and plans that are digitally stored, would be destroyed and erased. All the libraries, incinerated.

In a few generations the legend of a "technological society" would grow and would seem magical and god like. But we would know that they weren't gods, they were men who acheived great feats but somewhere went wrong and destroyed themselves. Maybe these future earthlings however would shun technology, calling it the destroyer of a great civilization. They would consider technology evil. It would be a new religion of sorts, whose sole purpose is to avoid the thing that tempted and destroyed us before. It's easy to see where this goes. 2000 years after that, something that was once concrete and man made as technology would be built into mythical religious proportions. When the reality of those of us who live in it now know that it's not.

The point is, NOBODY KNOWS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED two or five thouseand years ago. For all we know the Tower of Babel could have been a nuclear melt down or a spaceship or just a tall building that fell.

That's why for millenia the ruling bodies of all civilizations knew that the written word was the ultimate power, they knew that whoever wrote history had the power to change it make it suit whatever needs or wants they had. That's why they only taught the few privledged how to read and write, because the masses were the ones to be manipulated.

The Bible is no exception.

Say what you want about God giving the words to the Prophets to write them down, as likely as it sounds to you and as unlikely as it sounds to me, we can't prove either way what happened so long ago. But stories definitly change through time and through who tells it and who remembers it. Exaggerations, dramatic lisences, anything to make a story compelling and fit whatever agenda the teller has in telling it. One should look at the history of Catholicism, and see just how and why Constantin adopted it for the Roman Empire. There is a definite agenda there, in a falling Empire, to bring Eastern and Western Philosophy together in a monotheistic belief system. Rome was spreading itself thin at the time, this was it's last hope to Unite all the different cultures and lands they conquered.

You all know what I'm saying. I wish a religious person would speak up and counter my point....

ET Warrior
04-08-2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Eldritch
On another note, I notice that no one from the religion side has answered the questions I asked in my second post on this thread, which could mean a couple of things:
1 - You don't have an answer for the questions I asked. If this is the case, you've proved my point.
2 - You're ignoring my questions because you know the answer and you're afraid of it. This also would prove my point.
3 - You just haven't read it. I have a feeling this is the most likely case. :D

Your forgot number 4 - We read it but are not responding because we don't feel like writing a long post ;)



Although I actually haven't read it....:D

ShockV1.89
04-08-2003, 08:32 PM
If man did indeed evolve, and this one cell did indeed multiply, then why is it that it seems the opposite today? the cells in our body produce a new cell with the death of two. Gravity weakens, man ages. Evrything degenerates, nothing gets younger it only gets older.

Well, as far as the cells in our body go, the human body, while still in the womb, grows by cells splitting (I forget the term for this). So, in fact, humans coming from one cell does still happen. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the gravity and age thing...

You may ask why God is not demonstratable, but were Jesus' miracles not enough? The Bible's preservation is a miracle in itself.

Again, we have the assumption that the Bible is 100% correct and can be taken as a historical text.

And it's no miracle it survived. We have various Roman and Greek legends and myths that are in their original form. The fact that the bible is so widespread is more a testament to its status as the central religious document in the worlds predominant religion. But this says nothing to its authenticity.

A fairy tale is when a frog turns into a prince in an instant. Evolution is when a frog turns into a prince over millions of years.

To me, evolution seems like a fairy tale.

Erm... exactly how, in that analogy, does evolution become anything like the fairy tale you cited?

Kain
04-08-2003, 10:02 PM
Come now, Mandalorian. You look foolish with your post above. I'd nit-pick at it, but Shock beat me to it. How do we know that the Bible wasn't just a story to people 5000 years ago as Star Wars is a story to us? If within the next 5000 years, the world ends up like it did in Fallout, i.e. Humans hiding in giant vaults until the fallout recided until they rentered the world, making small tribes, and perchance one of these tribes finds a Star Wars-The Phantom Menace book. Well, wouldn't you think that they'd think this really happened by simply reading the text 'A long time ago...'. Its kinda like 'In the beginning...'. My point is, the book could have been some guys fantasy that he wrote down and then it was inherited by the Hebrews, then the Christians who added to it, and finally the Mulims who added to it. We can't prove this is wrong, but we can't prove its right, which is why religion goes on because all they have to say is 'Prove HE dosen't exist' and then we(non-religious) say 'Prove he does'. Its alot like abortion, but I'll leave it at that.

Eldritch
04-08-2003, 10:22 PM
It all goes back to my one question that no one has addressed yet - how do you know you're [meaning religion in general] right?

And don't say the Bible - that's been updated so many times and edited and has so many different versions (aside from not even being written by the people the stuff was supposedly happening to) that it doesn't count as proof. And even if it were historically accurate (which it's not), it'd be circumstantial evidence at best.
Science has put forth its theories based on evidence and/or observation... i.e. this is what we believe, and this is the hard evidence we have to back it up.
And for all of you religious types that find it so hard to put faith in science... I don't see you doubting and not using other forms of technology (read : science). You're all at least using a computer, or we'd never even read what you had to say. Many of you also probably use cars (or will sometime in the future) or ride in them. You're also likely to have flown on a plane or have watched a movie or a videotape/dvd.

You're so ready to accept and put faith into your religion without proof, yet you don't want to accept certain facets of science even when the proof is being put in your face? That's not only extremely selective, it's hypocritical.
"I won't put faith in science because it's not certain. But I'll put faith in religion, even when it's equally uncertain because some guys wrote a book about it thousands of years ago. And even though other people wrote books explaining the same thing, I don't like what they said so they're wrong."
Can you see how absurd this argument looks to a rational mind, let alone a logical one?

Eldritch
04-08-2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Your forgot number 4 - We read it but are not responding because we don't feel like writing a long post ;)



Although I actually haven't read it....:D
That falls under number 1 or 2 in my book. :D

Eldritch
04-08-2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
If man did indeed evolve, and this one cell did indeed multiply, then why is it that it seems the opposite today? the cells in our body produce a new cell with the death of two. Gravity weakens, man ages. Evrything degenerates, nothing gets younger it only gets older.
You do not get one new cell from two old ones dying. If we did that, we'd eventually waste away to nothing, essentially eating ourselves. You're right though... nothing gets younger, it gets older. Can you name anything that grows younger? I don't understand your point here.
What could cause a cell to evolve? Why is it not demonstrateable?
Stimuli. To the environment, to other cells, to anything. Just like you yourself will adapt to new conditions. It's not demonstratable because we don't have the power to reproduce millions of years of evolution in a single lifetime. However, science finds hundreds of thousands of new pieces of evidence for the fossil record each year, which includes some of the so-called "missing links," that are strong proof that evolution has taken place.
You may ask why God is not demonstratable, but were Jesus' miracles not enough? The Bible's preservation is a miracle in itself.
Consider the source. Shock countered this point best, so read his post.
The more I learn about science, the harder it seems for me to understand why people can believe somthing so contradictory to it.
You've made the case for science with that statement. How can so many people believe in something so contradictory to science?
A fairy tale is when a frog turns into a prince in an instant. Evolution is when a frog turns into a prince over millions of years. To me, evolution seems like a fairy tale.
Not according to the definition you just gave. If evolution happened in an instant, then it would be a fairy tale. The fact that evolution takes millions of years because the process is slow seems proof enough of that.
But believe it if you want, there are still people who believe the world is flat.
Those people have never seen an image of the Earth from space... :lol:

P.S. - Sorry for 3 posts, but there was just so much to say and so many excellent arguments to counter! Good job, guys... keep those synapses firing! :)

Reborn Outcast
04-08-2003, 10:50 PM
Ok, hope ya like this one Eldritch. :D

Originally posted by Eldritch
On another note, I notice that no one from the religion side has answered the questions I asked in my second post on this thread, which could mean a couple of things:
1 - You don't have an answer for the questions I asked. If this is the case, you've proved my point.
2 - You're ignoring my questions because you know the answer and you're afraid of it. This also would prove my point.
3 - You just haven't read it. I have a feeling this is the most likely case. :D

Maybe if you'de go back and read the epic 10 pager, you'll see why we don't want to post such huge things AGAIN. :D


Originally posted by Eldritch
It all goes back to my one question that no one has addressed yet - how do you know you're [meaning religion in general] right?

Wait wait WAIT!!!! Here we go again. You're stereotyping ALL Christians under the assumption that we believe that ALL science is false. We do not. Some might, others (like myself) don't.

Its called faith. The ability to believe in something that I have not seen with my own eyes or touched, is amazing to me. Faith. Am I forcing upon you that my religion is correct? No, I BELIEVE that it is correct but I would never go so far as to say that ALL of science is incorrect. I admit, there are some parts of science that I do not agree with.

Originally posted by Eldritch
And don't say the Bible - that's been updated so many times and edited and has so many different versions (aside from not even being written by the people the stuff was supposedly happening to) that it doesn't count as proof. And even if it were historically accurate (which it's not), it'd be circumstantial evidence at best.

Why do you say its not historically correct? Because you have other records from THAT SAME TIME PERIOD that state otherwise? And what right makes these historically correct? How do you know that the records weren't altered in order to keep a revolt from occuring? Your "proof" that the Bible is historically inaccurate is circumstancial evidence.

Originally posted by Eldritch
Science has put forth its theories based on evidence and/or observation... i.e. this is what we believe, and this is the hard evidence we have to back it up.
And for all of you religious types that find it so hard to put faith in science... I don't see you doubting and not using other forms of technology (read : science). You're all at least using a computer, or we'd never even read what you had to say. Many of you also probably use cars (or will sometime in the future) or ride in them. You're also likely to have flown on a plane or have watched a movie or a videotape/dvd.

Ahhhhh... you said this i.e. this is what we believe. I thought science doesn't believe in anything? I thought it was all hard proven facts, not beliefs. You're entering the realm of religion when you say believe, which you seem to hate. :D

Once again, you are putting forth a stereotype about all Christians when you say that we don't put faith (Ah wait, I thought people who trust in science and not religion don't HAVE faith. I thought they have hard facts. Once again, saying faith enters you into the realm of religion.), into science? Just because I am a Christian and believe in God with all my heart means that I cannot think science is correct? Evolution and God could have gone hand in hand. God could have started it, then partially controlled its course when the time arose but otherwise it could have been let free. I don't know. I don't know what God thinks, noone on this earth does, so who can say that He didn't do this?

The Bible is NOT a scientific tool? Does it tell people how to make DVD players? No, it tells them how to live their lives, therefore, comparing it to technology is impossible.

Originally posted by Eldritch
You're so ready to accept and put faith into your religion without proof, yet you don't want to accept certain facets of science even when the proof is being put in your face? That's not only extremely selective, it's hypocritical.

Once again, you stereotype the Christian believers as a WHOLE by saying that we disregard science completely. And once again, this is not true. And may I remind you that, no matter how much "evidence" evolution and everything has, it is STILL A THEORY!!!

Originally posted by Eldritch
"I won't put faith in science because it's not certain. But I'll put faith in religion, even when it's equally uncertain because some guys wrote a book about it thousands of years ago. And even though other people wrote books explaining the same thing, I don't like what they said so they're wrong."

Ever heard of dark matter? That is needed to complete the THEORY of the Big Bang. Ever heard of a scientists or spaceshuttle finding, seeing, bumping into or coming back with dark matter? I think not.

Originally posted by Eldritch
Can you see how absurd this argument looks to a rational mind, let alone a logical one?

Are you calling me non-rational or non-logical because I believe in God?

Eldritch
04-08-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Wait wait WAIT!!!! Here we go again. You're stereotyping ALL Christians under the assumption that we believe that ALL science is false. We do not. Some might, others (like myself) don't.
My question there has nothing to do with science. I'm simply wondering what makes you believe so strongly that your religion is right and others are wrong. And don't say faith, because other religions have just as much faith as yours, if not more.
Why do you say its not historically correct? Because you have other records from THAT SAME TIME PERIOD that state otherwise? And what right makes these historically correct? How do you know that the records weren't altered in order to keep a revolt from occuring? Your "proof" that the Bible is historically inaccurate is circumstancial evidence.
Because it's not a history book. It's a written version of the beliefs of a Jewish sect that was later called Christianity. There are no dates, unlike other historical documents from that time. And while I can't prove that the historical documents from that time weren't altered, many Christian scholars who have written about the history of the bible seem to think they are genuine. If you'd like a listing of books I suggest on the history of the Bible, i'll be more than happy to post them. The Bible was not written to educate people in the history of the time, it was written to teach lessons.
Ahhhhh... you said this I thought science doesn't believe in anything? I thought it was all hard proven facts, not beliefs. You're entering the realm of religion when you say believe, which you seem to hate. :D
Then you're not aware of what science truly is. Science is most simply the pursuit of truth. Pursuing that truth means that you never EVER stop questioning. The beauty of science is that it evolves as new information comes in. It's not all hard proven facts, and any scientist that says so is no true scientist. However, a little faith is required now and then, but it's never blind faith - it's always backed up with evidence. And all possibilities are considered... science just tends to go with the one that makes the most sense with the evidence.
Once again, you are putting forth a stereotype about all Christians when you say that we don't put faith (Ah wait, I thought people who trust in science and not religion don't HAVE faith. I thought they have hard facts. Once again, saying faith enters you into the realm of religion.), into science? Just because I am a Christian and believe in God with all my heart means that I cannot think science is correct? Evolution and God could have gone hand in hand. God could have started it, then partially controlled its course when the time arose but otherwise it could have been let free. I don't know. I don't know what God thinks, noone on this earth does, so who can say that He didn't do this?
I'm not putting forth any stereotypes, i'm simply responding to the viewpoints expressed in this thread. I happen to agree with you on part of this - I think, like any good scientist, that it's possible God exists and that he set in motion the Big Bang, evolution, etc. But I don't see any reason to believe in God over anything else without proof. And no one can say definitively that he didn't do this, but there's certainly no proof that he did.
The Bible is NOT a scientific tool? Does it tell people how to make DVD players? No, it tells them how to live their lives, therefore, comparing it to technology is impossible.
I'm not comparing the Bible to scientific tools or technology, so i'm not quite sure where you got that from. I agree that it's main purpose is to teach people how to live their lives (and that's it). I wasn't comparing the Bible to technology, I was saying that it's odd that people can attack science and try and prove it wrong when it comes to their faith, but love it when science/technology does something for their benefit (e.g. dvd players).
Once again, you stereotype the Christian believers as a WHOLE by saying that we disregard science completely. And once again, this is not true. And may I remind you that, no matter how much "evidence" evolution and everything has, it is STILL A THEORY!!!
As I said earlier - I'm not stereotyping, I'm responding to views expressed in this thread. I don't think you understand what 'Theory' is in the scientific sense. Theory (specifically, the Theory of Evolution) is not just someone's educated guess. It's a possible explanation based on the gathering of evidence. To date, Evolution has gathered millions of pieces of evidence; Creation doesn't even come close in that department. What I wonder is how many pieces of evidence will be required before religious folk stop dismissing it. I bet it'll be right around the time science turns it from theory into fact, or law.
Ever heard of dark matter? That is needed to complete the THEORY of the Big Bang. Ever heard of a scientists or spaceshuttle finding, seeing, bumping into or coming back with dark matter? I think not.
:lol: If you actually knew what dark matter was, you'd understand why it's impossible for scientists or a spaceshuttle to bump into any. And it's not necessary to capitalize 'theory,' as everyone knows it's just that. No one's accepting it as truth yet, but just like with evolution, the evidence is mounting and religion has yet to provide evidence for its explanation.
Are you calling me non-rational or non-logical because I believe in God?
No, I'm saying that this argument is irrational and illogical:"I won't put faith in science because it's not certain. But I'll put faith in religion, even when it's equally uncertain because some guys wrote a book about it thousands of years ago. And even though other people wrote books explaining the same thing, I don't like what they said so they're wrong."
Now that is a generalized, stereotypical Christian argument. ;)

BigTeddyPaul
04-09-2003, 06:27 AM
Hahahaha! I love these threads. I love the stuff Mandalorian says regarding cellular degredation and cellular evolution. Makes you think about such things as an appendix. What did it do? I know that people who do not have one are more prone to sickness but it had a more valuable attribute earlier before CELLULAR EVOLUTION went into effect and made the thing mostly obsolete. Same with the tail bone. What is up with that. It serves no purpose as far as I know besides knocking out our quarterback all year my Junior year. Those things couldn't have been part of a few million years of evolution could they?

There are many great articles on CELLULAR EVOLUTION and if you want to learn about them just go to a search engine.

Here is something to throw in the mix. Someone or some people have said that God is God and he is just there. Who said God did not evolve? Who says God is not an alien? Who said that God was not created in the supposed big bang? I don't recall anywhere in religious articles where it tells the origins of God.

Not as good as the other one but still fun to read.

According to Homer Simpson, when he took the crayon out of his brain, he found the formula that proved there was no God. Flanders immediately burnt it.

To answer your question there are a few parts: 1. People feel the need to have a reason to live. Most people don't want to accept that they are here for approx 65 years and then are nothing. Most religions provide an afterlife. 2. Humans are stubborn. Our forefathers died and lived their lives by this and so will we. 3. The Bible does try to teach most of the positive aspects of humanity and has consequences for failure.

People can convince themselves that their religion is the best because that is human nature. Religion is a BIG THING. It is one thing you don't want to get wrong. Also, most religions say they are the only right ones. Another aspect is ignorance. 95% of all Americans only know little of more than 3 religions. They might know Mormons can't have caffine or JW come to thier houses but do they know what the ultimate goal of Buddhism is? What about Catholic cardinal sins? Most don't. They are raised to believe in one religion and not others because they are right and people hate to admit that they might even be wrong.

Gone for a few days and look what happens at the Senate. 13 more hours and 43 minutes until hockey! Woot. It is 2 AM. I have to get up early. Night all.

I will reply to almost everyone and I am pretty sure I made some errors in there.

Have fun!

BigTeddyPaul

Homuncul
04-09-2003, 09:13 AM
The existence of one omnipotent and supreme being just seems more along the lines of fantasy or hallucations of a race aspiring to cope with what couldn't be explained at the time

Have you read Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality. A bit fanatic but you may like it

Humans are gods...
Morihei Ueshiba


Why do so many people in an educated society still find the need to believe in a book that was written 5000 years ago? What is so special about it? It's a bunch of stories created by nomads to justify their own existence and create law and order and a moral standard


First Point. Upbringing. It's stupid but it's the clue


First 5 years of your life you're out of free will. That's when the worst thing happens. You're told that god's everything and he created you instead your mommy having sex with your daddy on the back seat of their Ferrari and so on. You do not feel it till you're put to the extreme (for example forwarding an suggestion or a new theory). I was forced to memorize some passages from Bible at that age and I cryed at 11 after assuring myself that god doesn' exist. You grow up and you're told that the world wasn't created in 6 days and you feel embarrassed in school for saying that. You only then learn words like metaphor or myth and of course History of the Universe Forums.
And from that position Bible is so simple. It says you what to do while in science you have to do everything on your own. It is as simple as that. You can do mistakes and Bible says there are sins for which there's a death penalty. You see a man making mistakes while seduced by The Evil One (Darth Vader? No dear...) and wins at last earning his reward and salvation of his precious soul on the heavens. From this point of view there's no such thing as mistake or sin in science. It is always in move. One miscalculation leads to a new method or even creation of a brand-new idea.

Second point. Group Implement. Isn't that obvious.

Every human wants to feel that he belongs to something, that is more important than anything else for him: not to feel lost, not to be alone. In our daylife we all find some comunication circles: a job, our home, our hobby, Lucas Forums etc.. Belonging to any of these circles requires understanding of rules on which it all stands. I saw for example a sort of jealousy when I tryed to enter some groups that were unfamiliar with me. They hold a club. You partcipate, you must pay. They do not notice you, you try hard, you learn the rules and finally you succeed. Then you see another Bantha Fodder trying to catch up. You fight your own jealousy to this rookie and then you become best friends. (positive thinking)

The competion drives us to fight like our far far away ancestors (bacterias, toads, monkeys, grandpas and ofcourse clowns) did.
A very strong human stays alone and feels alright (for a shirt time), others go mad almost instantly.

And there is another thing here I'd like to talk about.


Extremism (It's not about arabic terrorists).

Let's go back to our upbringing and inheretence. If your father was great mathematician or astrophycisit and you've got his genes you're probably to become a matheatician (or a serial killer or anything else). Then if your mommy visitted a sunday church and after spent 10 years in the monastery and then was expelled for homosexual affair and finally got married your father then you're probably to have religious upbringing. In normal situation you would become a mathematician with simple religious beliefs. But your mommy was homosexualist that's why you won't.
Something has happened and you were forced to live as a priest. You would live this life with understanding that somehow you're truely good at something else. You would never say it to yourself directly. That's why you go to the library and find near the Bible a small esoteric book hidden. You start to read it and other books and see that these texts about emanations contain some number implications. Then (so many then) you read Tritemiy, become a kabbalist and try to find a way to control the world with some mystique powers of alchemy. That's an extremism resulted from your inheretence, group implementation and ofcourse upbringing.


Now think of it and try to change attitude to clowns for the time being

El Sitherino
04-09-2003, 09:16 AM
first i have mormon friends they can't have coffee they are allowed caffine. now about the tail bone, it is there from evolution. previous stages had little tails, kind of like a hamster or a baboon. in the next stage it will most likely be gone or near being gone.

Homuncul
04-09-2003, 10:22 AM
A couple of weeks ago I went to make a copy in my University and got acquainted with 2 professors who were working on the creation of some highly sophisticated diving maschine project and for an instant were discussing the way whales dive on a great depth and stay there for hours. After that these professor were never seen again. I suspected that they work on the government and they mouthed too much to me and were anihilated for that by some alien force.
They stopped me and asked if I had a minute to listen, so I did. They said that when was counted the possible depth and time a whale can support the result wasn't original: WHALES CAN'T DIVE. So they spoke about all mammals of this type (dolphins killer whale). The essence of the talk was in the way whale breathes, that there was something than just cellular acidification and there is another way whale actually breath. They also pointed that not only whales were having such anomalies: that yoga can be burried alive and then digged up alive.
The body of yoga can outlive by hibernating itself because of their mental control or anything but the brain is in need of oxigen constantly. That's the prolem because I had no time listen the answer to this

Can anybody help me in answering? Or just those suckers for me

ioshee
04-09-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Homuncul
...You're told that god's everything and he created you instead your mommy having sex with your daddy on the back seat of their Ferrari and so on...

Um... what model Ferrari has a back seat?

BigTeddyPaul
04-09-2003, 03:36 PM
About the mormons and caffeine I could be wrong. I know they aren't supposed to have soda and coffee so maybe it has something to do with liquids. Mormons are not my strong suit. Maybe you could ask them the rule so I could know for my own person.

And about the tail bone just something I throw out there to screw with people's minds. Not neccessarily true or even what I believe in. It is more just something to think about.

BigTeddyPaul

daring dueler
04-09-2003, 04:54 PM
faith doesnt say God creates us instead of sex, it says we wre created in spirit and put here by God. and most christian religions eccept the theory of evolution.

BigTeddyPaul
04-09-2003, 05:06 PM
Ohhhh. Most Christians believe in evolution. Bold statement. Must be a regional thing because I have found quite the opposite. People refute evolution in Christianity as far as I know. Some believe that God uses evolution to help create us but bunches still believe we have always been like this.

I am interested to see responses to that comment.

BigTeddyPaul

Thrackan Solo
04-09-2003, 05:34 PM
If any non-believers are here, then you should pick up a copy of the book by C.S Lewis Mere Christianity it is a book by an educated man with an interesting approach to the Bible and Christianity

BigTeddyPaul
04-09-2003, 05:38 PM
Shouldn't you recommend that to believers or at least tell people that it is more of a Christian book? Atleast tell them you are trying to help convert them instead of tricking them into it.

BigTeddyPaul

Thrackan Solo
04-09-2003, 05:47 PM
Here t is like THrawn studying pictures of races before he engages in military action, it is just a way to learn more about are religion,


faith doesnt say God creates us instead of sex, it says we wre created in spirit and put here by God. and most christian religions eccept the theory of evolution

Christians dont believe in evolution , and maybe he could get a better view if he reads this book

BigTeddyPaul
04-09-2003, 06:01 PM
And that is where the problem lies. To him he probably honestly feels that most Christians believe in evolution. You don't believe that. I don't know percentages on what the beliefs are but I am sure there is a fair percentage to both or atleast most believe in the possibility of both.

I do also believe in learning about most religions to better understand your own but you just told non-believers to read it. That implies to me that you want them to read it and maybe think about it and turn to Christianity. It is just you directed it toward non-believers when it is a pro-christian book.

BigTeddyPaul

Thrackan Solo
04-09-2003, 06:09 PM
Allright I had debated putting that and I guess I should have put everyone, but I just thought that Christians would allready know the stuff, forgive me.

Eldritch
04-09-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Christians dont believe in evolution , and maybe he could get a better view if he reads this book
You getting paid to promote that book or something? ;) Give it a rest, man. People will read it if they want to.

Thrackan Solo
04-09-2003, 08:10 PM
hey man I apologized sorry man you want to sacrifice me or something;)

BigTeddyPaul
04-09-2003, 08:19 PM
You don't have enough meat on you. Sorry.

EDIT TO RESPONSE BELOW: Funny man. Funny man.

BigTeddyPaul

Thrackan Solo
04-09-2003, 08:21 PM
*looks at chiseled body* I guess your right no meat only muscle:D

Pisces
04-10-2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul
Ohhhh. Most Christians believe in evolution. Bold statement. Must be a regional thing because I have found quite the opposite. People refute evolution in Christianity as far as I know. Some believe that God uses evolution to help create us but bunches still believe we have always been like this.

I am interested to see responses to that comment.

BigTeddyPaul

I believe in the 'half-way' point. There's somewhere where religion and evolution (science) had to meet. My vote, just before th big bang. God started it off then sat back and watched the universe. :D

EDIT: Damn, forgot to actual say I was Christian...I'm Christian. Catholic if you want to get specific.

speck of dust
04-10-2003, 02:30 AM
All of this stuff is fine, whether or not god got the big bang rolling or stirred the first soup of evolution, those are cool ideas that can be debated or believed. But my biggest beef is that if you say you are a Christian or Catholic or whatever various branch you worship, then you're saying that only you and your kind have an exclusive ticket to the afterlife, while the rest of us are doomed to rot in hell or purgatory or on Heavens front lawn (way outside the gates). That's the concept I despise. That God would rest the fates of all our souls on whether or not we believe an inconsistant poorly translated extremely subjective history book sounds extremely suspect, implausible, and very human, to me. The universe isn't the NFL, where only one predestined team wins the superbowl. The idea that only the chosen and faithful few go to heaven is such a ridiculously elitist concept, a 'master race' of faith.

If that's the case, then I summon Zeus and the rest of the polytheisitic titans to give your god a good fight in a game that he can't fix.

As lowly and human (and funny) as a multi deitic rumble sounds, so does your christian monopoly on the afterlife sound.

BigTeddyPaul
04-10-2003, 04:29 AM
Few points in regards to previous statements:

Personal belief from a Christian perspective: You believe Jesus died for your sins and accept him as your personal savior you are in. IF YOU HONESTLY believe that and follow that you are going to heaven. That is the bottom line. Nothing else really matters what you did. Lets say though that at age 18 you do this and at age 40 you are the opposite. That is like landing on go to jail and negates your earlier actions. Catholics do fall in the believing in Jesus category and thus go to heaven. Jews do not because they do not believe that Jesus was God's son. Kind of ironic that God's people don't get in isn't it. Those are my beliefs.

Now what you also said was polytheism which was in another missing thread. Now this is interesting. If you look at the Bible and the Christian faith it is yet is not monothiestic. There are polythiestic principles with the whole Holy Trinity thing going on. Most scholars believe this was to help get members from many pagan religions to join. It was sort of like a compromise to those who wanted to follow more than one god. I am being very breif in this but that is the gist.

It also sounds like you want to talk a little about predestiny and fate and the like according to the all powerful God who can control all. That subject I am not touching again as most people know my views. I am sure someone will go into it with you though.

BigTeddyPaul

Homuncul
04-10-2003, 09:32 AM
Um... what model Ferrari has a back seat?

Mondial 1982 ,for instance, the best. The Mondial 8s are considered one of the most reliable Ferraris. There're others...

Mandalorian54
04-10-2003, 05:54 PM
In response to some of all the posts:

The Bible was not just a history book by men, that is only your philosaphys(I have a feeling that's spelt wrong.) The Bible says that the Bible is God's word, that God physically told some such as Moses what to write, and others through the Holy Spirit.

In case you havent read it, you can see in the new testament, that what they say and what has happened was predicted in the old testament(some of it anyway, not all) And the Bible does not contradict itself. There are parts that may seem contradictory, but if you study it carefully you can desifer the significance and similarity.

And these people did not have access to each others manuscripts, and most of them never met each other.

Some manuscripts miraculously survived 2 thousand years in a cave before being found. And in those manuscripts can be found references of futer and past events coinciding with other parts of the Bible.


As for christianity, I see there are alot of different views, well I believe christianity in it's origional state. The solid foundations Jesus set through the Bible.

I almost can't understand why people go off believing some of these wierd things, like God set evolution in motion. Why do you believe that? do any scriptures tell of evolution? did some wise man claim God told him in a dream?

Basicly, I am just curiouse, I have never really been told why some people believe some things. So why do you believe that God set evolution in motion?

Kain
04-10-2003, 07:44 PM
How can someone have faith in a book written by man that says its the word of an all-powerful God that has been changed more than enough times over the past 5000 years? If I wrote a book and said 'God told me to write this and say it is His word', would anyone believe me? NO. The reason the Bible was believed in was because back in the day people needed explinations for what they feared or couldn't explain with VERY early alchemy. And then, people needed an excuse for power, so they claimed that this all powerful being gave them divine rights over man, and that their word is the word of God. And now, we have our Freedom of Religion, thought up BY Christians, and yet nowadays, it seems most Christians wouldn't want you to express any kind of will over who or what you do and don't worship. If we don't worship THEIR God, we go to THEIR Hell.

And about Hell, why is Hell in existance? Simply put, to put fallen angels and sinners to punishment. Now, who was the first fallen angel? Lucifer. Okay, now then, what did Lucifer want? He wanted to be God. So, what does God do for Lucifer's insubordination? Sends him to Hell, where Lucifer rules over fallen souls...whereas God rules over 'elevated' or 'righteous' souls. Hm, lets look at this again...*elevator music while you re-read it*...seems like all God did was give Lucifer his wish.

Reborn Outcast
04-10-2003, 07:45 PM
Ok, about the evolution thing... This is my personal belief and by no means does any other Christian have to agree with me.

I believe that God let evolution happen as well as he created all living things. BUT!!!!!!!!!!! I also believe that Christians should NOT spend all their time bickering about if God did or if he didn't. Isn't the purpose of the Bible to bring Christains to a deeper and more intimate relationship with God such as showing how much he loved us? Isn't it to show non-believes about how much he loves us? Do you think that someone who is interested in becomeing a Christian really cares about the evolution or creationalism debate? No, they care about understnading why God loves us the way he does and what has he done for them that would make them love HIM. Does God want us to concentrate on the evolution vs. creationism debate or does he want us to focus on having a deeper relationship with him? I think it is the latter.

Originally posted by Mandolorian54
I almost can't understand why people go off believing some of these wierd things, like God set evolution in motion. Why do you believe that? do any scriptures tell of evolution? did some wise man claim God told him in a dream?

In the Bible, Genesis, it says God created all the living things correct? It is now apparent by fossil evidence that some animals such as the modern day lion, were not around a while ago, while ANCESTORS of that lion were. I know Samuel or someone kills a lion but we're talking farther back than that. I believe that, yes, God created all the living things but he created them differently than they are today, and let the ADAPT to whatever their environment was. Take the flood for instance... the environment after the flood went down was probably a LOT different than it was before the flood... so, it is safe to assume that God let those animals adapt to their new environment.

And yes, it can go either way, since the Bible does not state explicitly that evolution did or did not happen, why would it be wrong for Christians to have different views on that?

ShockV1.89
04-10-2003, 07:48 PM
I dont know why I'm bothering here... I'll just be ignored. But I just love picking apart your posts...

The Bible was not just a history book by men, that is only your philosaphys(I have a feeling that's spelt wrong.) The Bible says that the Bible is God's word, that God physically told some such as Moses what to write, and others through the Holy Spirit.

First off... ok, so you believe that the bible is a history book. Right, I disagree, but whatever. I take issue with the second part of this quote. "The Bible says that the Bible is Gods word..." Do you see the bad logic here? I could use it again here "I'm right. Why? Because I said so." I didnt believe it when my sister said it, and I dont believe it now.

I almost can't understand why people go off believing some of these wierd things, like God set evolution in motion. Why do you believe that? do any scriptures tell of evolution? did some wise man claim God told him in a dream?

I pose a counter question. Does it have to be said in the scriptures to have any authenticity? Do wise men have to dream up everything in order for it to be true?

speck of dust
04-10-2003, 08:29 PM
Okay, now this is interesting. You should really look into the history of how and when the new testament was actually written. The emperor of Rome, Constantin, was concerned that Rome was losing a foothold as the all powerful empire and that all these polytheistic religions were separating people. So it wanted to adopt a monothesitic religion that was the official religion of rome that everyone could unite under. All descisions that are made to decide what rules are 'Canon' were beaurocratically made. There was a huge committe that decided on what went into the New testament and what didn't. That's why it's the only religion that's structured like a government, with priests, and bishops, and cardinals, and finally the pope.

The gospels were written long after Jesus had already died, and they took the best four that correlated with what the old testament predicted. Like a Hollywood screenplay, they were shaped and formed and re-written, until it was decided it was finished. In fact one can simply study history and research to find out what other cultures and religions influenced these writers of the new testament.

I say this not as an offensive non believer, but as an objective student of all religion. I just want to share with you some examples of similar Christ like stories, that existed hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus: (these are facts, they don't require faith)

Buddha

Although most people think of Buddha as being one person who lived around 500 B.C., the character commonly portrayed as Buddha can also be demonstrated to be a compilation of godmen, legends and sayings of various holy men both preceding and succeeding the period attributed to the Buddha.

The Buddha character has the following in common with the Christ figure:

* Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."
* He was of royal descent.
* He crushed a serpent's head.
* He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.
* He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."
* He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
* He was transfigured on a mount.
* Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
* He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
* Buddha was considered the "GoodShepherd", the "Carpenter", the "Infinite and Everlasting."
* He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."


Horus of Egypt

Not many people even know of Horus, but the stories of he and Jesus are strikingly similar. Horus and his once-and-future Father, Osiris, are frequently interchangeable in the mythos ("I and my Father are one"). The legends of Horus go back thousands of years predating Christ, and he shares the following in common with Jesus:

* Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
* He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.
* Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
* He had 12 disciples.
* He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
* He walked on water.
* Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
* He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
* He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
* He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys").
* Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."
* Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.


In fact, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis - the original "Madonna and Child" - and the Vatican itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra, who shares many qualities with Jesus and who existed as a deity long before the Jesus character was formalized. The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it replaced. Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to water to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier pagan mystery religions.

Mithra, Sungod of Persia

The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years. According to historians, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before the Christian era, "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan' religion of the times." Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:

* Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.
* He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
* He had 12 companions or disciples.
* He performed miracles.
* He was buried in a tomb.
* After three days he rose again.
* His resurrection was celebrated every year.
* Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
* He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
* He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
* His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
* Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
* His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."


Krishna of India

The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah are also many. In fact, a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was "Christna," which reveals its relation to '"Christ." It should also be noted that, like Jesus, many people have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna.

* Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One")
* His father was a carpenter.
* His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
* He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
* He was of royal descent.
* He was baptized in the River Ganges.
* He worked miracles and wonders.
* He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
* Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
* "He lived poor and he loved the poor."
* He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
* In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
* He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
* Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word."
* He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."
* He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
* His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."
* Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth.

There are many others, but those are the most popular and accessable.

I implore you to look at other historical records, just to get all the facts about the times and conditions under which the Bible was written and who influenced what. Just as Mandalorian says that the Bible doesn't contradict itself if you study it hard enough, none of the other religions really condradict the Bible if you study them hard enough. In fact it's clear, they influenced it.

Thrackan Solo
04-10-2003, 08:47 PM
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger
How can it be a cave/manger?:confused:
And why are you so adament about trying to prove their is no god? Does it frighten you that there might be a omnipresence that knows and is more powerful than you?

speck of dust
04-10-2003, 08:59 PM
Cave, meaning a dirty un-royal place to be born, just like the manger was. And why would you equate my questioning the Jesus story as me being a afraid of God? The existence of God does not depend upon the physical existence of Jesus, that much is clear. It's not the existence of God that I'm disputing, it's the written words of men who claim to 'know' God I dispute.

ShockV1.89
04-10-2003, 09:42 PM
Well said, Speck.

Your questioning basically follows my own. People often seem to interpret questioning the Bible as disbelief in God. They dont see that one can simply not know.

Kain
04-11-2003, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Does it frighten you that there might be a omnipresence that knows and is more powerful than you?

Does it frighten you and other Christians that there might NOT be an omnipresence that knows and is more powerful than you?

Eldritch
04-11-2003, 01:47 AM
Speck, despite that overwhelming well written post and fantastic list of facts a mile long, I have a feeling some of the Christians here are going to either use the excuse that Shock described (You're wrong because I say so) or they're going to attack the validity of the science behind it. Or, they'll avoid countering it and ask you a question that has no bearing on the topic, like Thrackan.
Like yourself, I'm a seeker of truth - that pursuit has led me to study many different types of faith and belief systems, and as a result I feel I have tolerance and an open mind for all different types of religion/belief systems. Funny that the Bible, which teaches tolerance of other faiths as one of it's messages, is a trait not found in many Christians (but not all).

Most Christians have never bothered to study the history of the Bible (or any religious text, for that matter). To add to what you said, even before Constantine, Christians were incorporating parts of other belief systems in order to attract more people to convert.

Mandalorian - Those 2,000 year old scrolls you're talking about that were recovered? I believe you're referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Interesting that you should bring that up, because the public has never seen them. The reason that we likely won't (if the church hasn't gotten rid of them already) is that they probably contain an earlier version of the Bible than has not undergone all the various revisions and edits and additions the modern Bible has, and contains information that contradicts or upsets the continuity of the current Christian religion.

speck of dust
04-11-2003, 07:08 AM
Thank you Eldritch and Shock...

Look I don't want to burst anyone's bubble here. Believe anything that feels right to you. I just like to peel the onion all the way before I commit my tears, know what I'm saying? Religion and science used to be intertwined. But science jumped far ahead because it's core maxim is to admit when it was mistaken and adapt to what is experimentially proven to be right. And since science is constantly poking holes in it's own conclusions, it's constantly changing and adapting it's laws. Changing and adapting are the two key components of GROWTH. Whether or not you believe in evolution on a grand scale, it's proven on a short term day to day basis that's how human beings grow, by changing and adapting. Whether it's their technology, or artistry, or their attitude, human beings progress by adapting new discoveries. I believe that religion should do the same. There are plenty of Scientists who get stuck in their ways and refuse to believe they're completely or even slightly wrong. I think that's bad science. And when religion refuses to bend or adapt, that's (dare I say) bad religion...

The truth is I wish the world was simple enough where a savior would come down and show humanity how to evolve into enlightened and loving divine beings. Or in star wars language, where there shall be ONE who will restore balance to the force. And who knows, maybe there is? I'll tell you what, if or when he ever comes, the first thing he'll do is educate himself with all the cultures and histories he can find, so he can do his job better. Because saving God's creatures means understanding them all, and not cutting anyone out.

I think I've said all i can on this topic for now. Time to give my lightsaber a rest, lol. Again I mean not to offend but to share what I've learned and what I'm continually discovering.

ioshee
04-11-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by speck of dust
...But my biggest beef is that if you say you are a Christian or Catholic or whatever various branch you worship, then you're saying that only you and your kind have an exclusive ticket to the afterlife, while the rest of us are doomed to rot in hell or purgatory or on Heavens front lawn (way outside the gates). That's the concept I despise...

The last I heard the official word from the Catholic Church is that they think almost any religious person is going to heaven.

What I don't understand is why people who think you are going to hell offend you. If you don't believe what they are saying then how can you be offended? It just seems like you are awfully hung up on a group of people you don’t have any respect for.

C'jais
04-11-2003, 03:28 PM
This is great....

I go on holiday for a week, and in the meantime three cool people and a cool thread appears.

Damn. Where are my stand-ins when I need them?

Skin? Wacky? Templar?

Anyway, great debate - keep it rolling until I get home, 'kay?

Eldritch
04-11-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by ioshee
The last I heard the official word from the Catholic Church is that they think almost any religious person is going to heaven.

What I don't understand is why people who think you are going to hell offend you. If you don't believe what they are saying then how can you be offended? It just seems like you are awfully hung up on a group of people you don’t have any respect for.
If you read his posts carefully, Speck has stated that he has great respect for all the different religions (and has studied them in-depth). But the behaviour of some of the followers and the way they choose to tell others that unless they accept Jesus they're going to hell comes off as a little self-rightious (sp?). Saying that indirectly implies that "I am right and you are wrong," and since hell isn't supposed to be a nice place, I'd take someone telling me that I'm going there as an insult, so why wouldn't I be offended?

ioshee
04-11-2003, 06:27 PM
I understand a little better now.

So you might not believe in trolls but if someone called you one it would be offensive right? Because trolls are not supposed to be nice? That makes sense if that is what you mean.

Thrackan Solo
04-11-2003, 06:28 PM
Self - righteous
and why dont you critcize Muslims for calling "non-muslims" infidels? Isnt that self -righteous?

ShockV1.89
04-11-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Self - righteous
and why dont you critcize Muslims for calling "non-muslims" infidels? Isnt that self -righteous?

That's very deserving of criticism. I dont think it's a question that thats an offensive and self-righteous thing to say. What's your point, exactly?

Reborn Outcast
04-11-2003, 06:47 PM
Eldrich, would you stop it.

Or, they'll avoid countering it and ask you a question that has no bearing on the topic

Speck has been giving all the good points, I've only seen you agree with him.







I'm being honest here.

Speck, I cannot counter those points that you made about the other religions. You have apparently studied a religion for many years or you're just good at copying and pasting off of websites. ;) Who am I to argue.
As the Bible says, If someone hits you, turn your other cheek. Trying to counter those points would be honorable but it would not be turning the other cheek.
Very good points but... this changes nothing in my mind. I don't care what all the other religions believe although it is rather interesting to see the simalarities with the other religions.
The God of the Bible is my one true God...

But...

I tip my hat to you as you have made the best arguments I have seen on this forum.
*Tips hat*

BigTeddyPaul
04-11-2003, 06:54 PM
He either knows his stuff or he knows a good site which knows its stuff.

BigTeddyPaul

Reborn Outcast
04-11-2003, 06:57 PM
Yes but the only counter arguement for that the I could come up with was "But they aren't right." I would rather tip my hat to him than make an arguement that is stereotyped for Christians.

El Sitherino
04-11-2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Self - righteous
and why dont you critcize Muslims for calling "non-muslims" infidels? Isnt that self -righteous? if they do that its not their being muslim but them being nationalistic. the prophet muhammed said to not criticize another religion or its followers.

speck of dust
04-11-2003, 11:44 PM
Thracken, I think that the Muslim religion could not exist without the Christian religion before it, nor could the Christian religion exist without the Jewish religion before it. The 'Big Three' are just extensions of each other. They all at times are self righteous and elitist. I think degrading outsiders as infidels, is similar to Christian's saying non believers will go to hell, and the Jews claiming to be the chosen people. This exlusion is where religion goes all wrong and starts wars and genocides and inquisitions. I think religion should look at humanity as a whole, at everyone being equal, their only differences lie in the cultures they grew up in. Tribalism and Territorialism are what screw it all up. Don't we all understand by now that they're all saying the same thing to the same god just in different languages? That's the only way to stop petty religious rivalries and remove the stain their wars leave on the modern world.

Right now the Islamic religion is facing a grave crisis in the eyes of the world, and I completely and utterly disagree and disapprove with many of their cultural practices and beliefs. But again, look at the history and the environment under which Muhammad started the religion (i'm not going to write another long post and get into it here) but if many Muslims did that, they would see that those ways are not relavent or necessary in todays world. Adapt and change, Adapt and Change.

Eldritch
04-12-2003, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by ioshee
So you might not believe in trolls but if someone called you one it would be offensive right? Because trolls are not supposed to be nice? That makes sense if that is what you mean.
Exactly.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Speck has been giving all the good points, I've only seen you agree with him.
I've stated several points that Speck has backed up. If you're only seeing me agree with him, you haven't read my posts. And way to turn the other cheek on me, by the way. Jesus would be proud. :rolleyes:
And no one's trying to change your mind, so it's kind of unnecessary to state that you are unmoved.
Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
Self - righteous
and why dont you critcize Muslims for calling "non-muslims" infidels? Isnt that self -righteous?
You could apply my statement to any person who exhibits the behavior I described (i.e. believe in what I believe or something bad will happen to you). I'm not limiting it just to Christians, or even just to religious folk, for that matter. Anyone can be "elitist."

Silent_Thunder
04-12-2003, 05:38 AM
Speck of dust, would you mind giving a link or source to validate some of those 'Jesus-like fables' you listed? I'm not questioning your validity, but I would like to see some of that myself.

I'm personally not going to comment on speck of dusts comments until a link or source is provided, but in the mean time I'd like to clear up a few things.

As a Roman Catholic we believe that the Bible is NOT absolute history. Some of the events of the Bible were written long after the events which that book occured in. Many of the stories found in the Bible are intentionally symbolic and have absolutely no historical value. Even some of the events and attributed words of Jesus may not have been done in the order which they are presented in the Bible, nor may they have been done in the same manner. In general, the times when you see Jesus speaking for a very long time in one instance in the Bible, it was, infact, not recorded and written down as such. Instead after Jesus' death the early members of the Church would say "The teacher used to say..." about certain instances or subjects. They would then attribute it to certain parts of the New Testament. Also, not everything is ment literally in the Bible: 1000 years, 40 days, 7 days, the number 6 all have much different meanings than simply the numerical value showen. A thousand years signifies a very long period of time, the number 7, perfection, the number 6, imperfection, ect. Those numbers are simply applied to certain dates or predictions, to add some symbolisiom to what is factual. This is not necissarily a flaw of the Bible, though I will not get into that today. I will attempt to answer the circlular debate which will surely arrise from such an assumption once the link which I requested is provided.

The teaches of the Catholic church do not say that everyone who is not a Catholic will go to hell. Those who see the Catholic church, and do SEE, but refuse to follow, will, without a special intervention from God, or a change of heart go to hell. That is to assume that they had total knowledge, but still refused. The same applies to other Christians. Anyone who is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic church (or have never been exposed to it), but follows the "Law of God which has been written on their hearts" which is basically the set of morals which everyone has will go to Heaven (atleast eventually). The Catholic faith does not say that all Catholics will go to Heaven. If you die in the state of a totally acknowledged mortal sin, have no intention of confessing it, then, without some special intervention, you will go to hell... Catholic or not. To put it simply (though somewhat compromised); anyone who is a moral person regardless of religion will go to Heaven, though it makes it harder for one who is not Catholic.

Eldritch, regardless of wether or not the Dead Sea Scrolls contain an 'unedited' version of the Bible should be irrelevent to you. In your own logic, why should you believe such a foolish thing? Why do you even believe those Dead Sea Scrolls exist?

Sience and Religion may have been intertwined by individuals that happened to be in one form of religion, and one aspect of sience. However, these are human beings no matter how you look at it. And human beings can be wrong; just because some members of a specific religion believed one thing to be sientificially proven -- through misinterpretion of their religion -- yet later on, that sience proves that theory false, does not bear any resmblance to the teachings of that religion.

The Catholic Church, for example does not specifically say anything about the truthfullness of theories in sience to be fact or fiction. Leave sience to what sience does, it cannot disprove the beliefs of the Catholic Church, nor does it benifit from discoveries made there in. While an individual can benifit from knowing sience aswell as their religion, the two do not have a natural tie, a tie which becomes severed when one ceases to change, while the other proves and disproves new theories. On the contrary, no matter how much sience changes, the Catholic Church can always work in harmony with it.

In the Catholic Church, nothing new can be added to part of the doctrine of the faith unless the Pope declares 'from the chair' that it is indeed unfailibly so. A Pope neither has the authority to, nor will declair that something such as evolution is fact or not. Neither view contradicts with the teachings of the faith. For example, our current Pope, Pope John Paul II did not approve of the USA's preemptive strike against Iraq. This does NOT reflect the belief of the whole Church, it DOES NOT does that mean that we must believe that, or else we are no longer Catholic. I personally believe that it was indeed a good idea, and has proven to be quite succesfuly in all fronts. Once again, a Pope would never declare something not directly relating to religion or not to be infailibly true or not. The Pope does not have all the information on the conflict; if he new everything that Bush knows, then I would hope that he would agree with it.

Anyways, this post is not ment to give an answer as to *why* the Catholic Church is the one true faith, and why all other faiths are wrong. Nor am I trying to say that the Bible is subject to change and editing. If I were to propose that with the ammount of information I gave in my above post it would only lead to a useless circular arguement. If and when I post again I will give more concrete knowledge and facts as to why we believe that the Catholic Church has the truth. This post is merely for correctly some of the misconceptions that have arisin in this thread.

Luc Solar
04-12-2003, 05:46 AM
speck of dust, some totally awesome info you presented. :thumbsup:

I thought I already knew it all... but that was.. interesting indeed. :)

Thrackan Solo
04-12-2003, 02:27 PM
I have a point to make, the impossibility of a non- created universe is enormous. I agree with you that it doesnt mean that the God is the God of Christianity, but the chances of everything coming together the way it did would be incredible odds. Wouldnt you think that the world would be off with something? The Periodic Table is evidence of a God, the organization of the chart and how it all falls together is no coincedence, if they came from nothing then how could they all fall together the way they do?

Tyrion
04-12-2003, 03:27 PM
It's random.

You would say the same thing if the Periodic Table was different, since you didnt know any other Periodic Table.

Eldritch
04-12-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Silent_Thunder
Eldritch, regardless of wether or not the Dead Sea Scrolls contain an 'unedited' version of the Bible should be irrelevent to you. In your own logic, why should you believe such a foolish thing? Why do you even believe those Dead Sea Scrolls exist?
It's not irrelevant to me, because as I've stated several times now, I'm interested in the truth, and am not limited to just science or just religion. I will continue to seek that truth from any source, regardless of whether it is religious or secular.
And I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls exist because it's existence has been confirmed by both science and the church... unless they're plotting something together, this is pretty solid evidence that they're real.
Originally posted by Thrackan Solo
I have a point to make, the impossibility of a non- created universe is enormous. I agree with you that it doesnt mean that the God is the God of Christianity, but the chances of everything coming together the way it did would be incredible odds. Wouldnt you think that the world would be off with something? The Periodic Table is evidence of a God, the organization of the chart and how it all falls together is no coincedence, if they came from nothing then how could they all fall together the way they do?
Your first sentence is a little confusing. I think you meant, "it's not likely that a higher being [God] didn't create the universe." If so, it's a double negative statement. If this isn't true, please correct me or restate your point more clearly.
The Periodic Table isn't evidence of a God - the organization comes from the scientists who organized it, not some naturally occuring position in nature. Not to mention that some of the elements are man-made.

BigTeddyPaul
04-12-2003, 07:24 PM
It depends on how you interpret the bible concerning the world. The Bible states that it took 6 days to create everything but it also says that a day in the presence of the Lord is like a thousand of ours so it could have taken six thousand years for everythig to be made.

Not necessarily the right way to view it but just something to be thought of.

Concerning the periodic table what are you talking about. There is a good of chance as some THING creating it as it jsut happened. Your viewpoint is not based on anyhting factual in the least. If you had some more evidence then I could see it but you provided nothing. A scientist who questions everyhting who rules out a god could say that the periodic elements could have been made with the same randomness as humans being made.

BigTeddyPaul

Ratmjedi
04-12-2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
This is great....

I go on holiday for a week, and in the meantime three cool people and a cool thread appears.

Damn. Where are my stand-ins when I need them?

Skin? Wacky? Templar?

Anyway, great debate - keep it rolling until I get home, 'kay?

Your welcome Cjais. Speck is a friend of mine on a server that I play MOH:AA on. I saw a nice big fancy post that I knew that you guys would like so I gave him a link when I posted when answering a question back. As for the other guys I don't know if they came with speck.

As for everything that you guys are posting I will just ignore it cause I kinda tend to flame in these threads.

:lsduel: :duel:

speck of dust
04-12-2003, 10:46 PM
Thracken, I tend to agree with the point you're making. There is such a beauty to the universe (the little of it that we can see and know) and a preciousness to it all that make it seem like a grand design. So many variables could have happened to make the universe nothing like the one we live in and inhospitable to stars, planets, and life. The way molecules interact with each other, the way stars dance around each other, and the way DNA adapts and effects life, there is a whole process going on that seems like they're all dancing to a similar piece of music. Now what that music is, or who orchestrated it, is the ultimate question. Us lowly little humans have tried to answer it through religion, science, philosophy, and art. Can we ever really answer it? Definitly not while we're alive. However, I'd like to think that we will 'know' it when we die. I'd like to think that the 'energy' that enters our being as the sperm enters the egg, and then recycles through out our bodies for the next nine months and ninety or so years, is part of that music. Call it a soul, call it electricity, I don't care what the words are. And I don't care who's playing the music or who wrote the music, as long as we're a part of it. This is what feels right to me, because it doesn't exclude anyone or anything and it leaves no room for the useless petty conflicts that often surround the issue of God.

Could I be completely wrong? 100%. Maybe it all really is random and there is no music or no dancing and no grand design to it. That is not an exciting Idea to me. But I won't deny it's possibility. It also doesn't fully play into what I know and see in life in general. In it's vaguest sense, I see that there is a 'design' all around us in nature. The food chain, is a design of sorts. The weather is a design of sorts. The earth, is an organism of sorts. Organism meaning organized parts that make the design of a funcioning whole. Everything on our planet seems to serves a purpose in this 'design'.

This could just be my subjective view, personifying nature into my own ideas of symmetry. But when i think of these ideas, of God being an artist creating or maintaining a beautiful masterpiece, my heart feels a tug of affirmation. Doesn't it to you guys?

Everything else is politics to me. Laws, economy, territory, those are the things that humans really need to think about and work out and, if they're ignorant enough, fight wars over. Communism vs. Capitalism, Democrats vs. Republicans, those are issues that can be solved by simply practicing them. But the religion thing cannot be solved (unless Jesus really does return, or if buddha comes down to gives us a reincarnation tour , or if Zeus makes a comeback on his lightning bolt). As I said, I hope that this non denominational God will make itself known to us when we die. I will go on believing that, because it's more meaningful to me than thinking our lightswitches are just flipped off when we die and we cease to be and experience nothing. But I accept that in a universe with endless possibilites, anything is possible.

Random design or God's design, it's a beautiful place to live.

munik
04-13-2003, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by speck of dust
Random design or God's design...I'd like to think it was random. It's kind of disheartening to think that such a supreme being such as God made man the way he is. For instance, if it was me, I know I could do a better job. Making sperm need to be a cooler temperature then the body thus having the testicles hang freely in a sack of skin, and then make them so sensitive...yep, that must have been the design of an infinitely wise being. Making the fetal position the pose of choice for protection, but then neglecting to maybe add another rib or some other bone to protect the kidney's...once again, the true sign of omnipotence. Toenails? You guessed it, absolute genius. I could go on for quite some time, but I reckon those are enough.

What is the point of making something that is so inherently flawed?

Silent_Thunder
04-13-2003, 02:05 AM
Speck of Dust, would you mind giving a link to the original post you made about those people who had very similar lives to Christ? Before I rebut those facts with any kind of arguement I would first like to give it the benifit of the doubt by understanding the original source better.

Eldritch
04-13-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Silent_Thunder
Speck of Dust, would you mind giving a link to the original post you made about those people who had very similar lives to Christ? Before I rebut those facts with any kind of arguement I would first like to give it the benifit of the doubt by understanding the original source better.
Well, the original source is probably from Speck's brain after having studied the religions in question, but here are a few links on the people he mentioned :
Buddha (http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/saints/buddha.htm)
Mithra (http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/mithra.htm)
Krishna (http://krishna.avatara.org/)

C'jais
04-13-2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by speck of dust
Religion and science used to be intertwined.

Before Templar goes ballistic over this, I'll just say it right here instead:

No. They have never been intwined. Science has only existed during the last 150 years, AFAIK.

As soon as Faith enters the building, Science leaves. Science concerns itself only with data, and the logical conclusions you can draw from that. The conclusions can be proven wrong with time, as new data supliments or substitutes the old, but as long as the right conclusion is made from the existing data, it can never be "wrong" in the scientific, logical way of things.

This is why Faith will never be fact. As soon as it's fact, there's no need to believe in it. As soon as it's redundant to believe in something, it has become natural.

Thus, there will always only be the natural in the universe. Everything else is a subjective expansion of it which occurs only in the head of the believer. Not that there's anything wrong with that - it's false and illogical, but who am I to judge based on this?

And when religion refuses to bend or adapt, that's (dare I say) bad religion...

As I can see you're very proficient in the history of religion, can I ask you this?

When has a certain religion ever adapted?

I'm aware that the pope accepts evolution (thank God), but it's still just a different interpretation of the same, outdated, useless texts. Or this is how you define adaptation? :confused:

Oh, and welcome to the forums, Speck! :thumbsup:

C'jais
04-13-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by speck of dust
The way molecules interact with each other, the way stars dance around each other, and the way DNA adapts and effects life, there is a whole process going on that seems like they're all dancing to a similar piece of music.

That "music" is nothing less than nature.

Why can nature simply not be beautiful in itself? Can we not just be content with the beauty we can see and stop looking for someone who orchestrates that music, or something that keeps the music playing after we're no longer there?

Why? Can we not just accept that the beauty of the music is that it plays by itself, and that everything is a part of that beauty, no matter how cacophonous it sounds?

People like Einstein tried to understand how the music played to its own notes with the correlation between energy and mass. The beauty of nature is how it plays, not why it plays. The beauty of a piece of music is that it plays the way it does, how the notes interact to generate a flowing rythm - not who made the music. So curse me if I don't have several posters of Mozart in my room. I'll accept my fate in hell if I don't want to idolize the guy who wrote the music. That's just shifting focus from what's important to who made it important.

I hope all of you will some day find that you're the same God you've been worshipping all along. But even if you don't, it doesn't matter - what matters is that we're sitting here and pondering about this. What matters is that it's impossible to throw the inner beauty of nature away. What matters is that it's possible to just for one second see yourself as part of it, flowing and rippling through the universe like everything else.

The beauty in humans is that they're capable of seeing the music in something as trite as nature. I think believing is a woundrous, beautiful thing to do. But to realize that there's no need to believe at all, to realize that all the beauty you will ever see is all around you, within your reach at all times, is even more beatiful to me.

Speck, even if there's no grand design to the randomness of nature, it can still be beautiful - right? We don't need to invent something supernatural in order to instruct us to see the beauty in the natural, s'all I'm sayin'.

Now, that's enough preaching of C'jaisism for today folks...

Homuncul
04-14-2003, 10:50 AM
I wanted to paste the whole post of C'jais as a quote but it's too large. Some notes are definitely needed here

Why can nature simply not be beautiful in itself? Can we not just be content with the beauty we can see and stop looking for someone who orchestrates that music, or something that keeps the music playing after we're no longer there?

To stop looking for is a mistake. Can orchestra play without it's conductor? perhaps possibly but improbably. Conductor is the essence of the opera, the same with God.
Somehow I feel that it is not God you're trying to question but the christian worshiple symbol of Him. If so, to find someone who orchestrates that music is as dear to you as to any believer. Let the worshipers have their idol.

I'll accept my fate in hell if I don't want to idolize the guy who wrote the music. That's just shifting focus from what's important to who made it important.

Idolization is a superstition. Only religious fanatics and dummies idolize God. Do you listen to them while making your decisions? (I doubt it). God is only what we perceive. If you don't agree with Bible interpretation there is no big problem with that.

The beauty in humans is that they're capable of seeing the music in something as trite as nature. I think believing is a woundrous, beautiful thing to do. But to realize that there's no need to believe at all, to realize that all the beauty you will ever see is all around you, within your reach at all times, is even more beatiful to me.

Atheism is a religion too but only illogically fanatic one and you ( Noble Jedi of knowledge and logic) must never try to step that way. That's where the Dark Side is. It's just another easy path. You do believe that nature does the trick then you can start a new religion from here because it is the nature you have just worshipped. Of course you didn't but some might say you idolize it.
And if I could just raise my lightsaber and cut all the absurd religions we have invented (like atheism) then I must admitt that against all better judgement Christianity and Many others would survive my stroke

People like Einstein tried to understand how the music played to its own notes with the correlation between energy and mass. The beauty of nature is how it plays, not why it plays.

Do you believe that Einstein wrote his general relativity just to check his statistical and mathematical skills. Or just tryed to marvel at his beautiful result or tryed to satisfy his ambitions by only proving that classics were wrong. I can't believe you do.

I hope all of you will some day find that you're the same God you've been worshipping all along

I love this part (can't help pasting again) and you're probably right about this. Great respect

C'jais
04-14-2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Homuncul
To stop looking for (God?) is a mistake.

Sure, if there were the slightest proof of the "design argument", it'd be silly to not look for the designer. However, with logic it's possible to deduce that the universe is not designed, but rather, it exists pure natural causes.

The food chain may look "designed" from a brief look at it - but upon closer inspection, it's easy to see that it's "merely" a natural reaction to predators and prey in any kind of environment. A watch found in the desert may look like it was designed to be there somehow, but upon closer inspection we can see that it's fabricated from natural materials from natural causes. No magic.

Everything so far has been able to be explained as natural. When we suspect something is supernatural, we research it and is explained as natural. Thus, soemthing which is supernatural can never exist, except as a concept in people's minds. This is why it is futile to search for God in the real world. This is why people must believe to realize God. Believing is the opposite of knowing - it's stepping outside of fact.

Can an orchestra play without it's conductor? perhaps possibly but improbably. Conductor is the essence of the opera, the same with God.

"Music" is a metaphor for how we perceive everything works together the way it does. It means there are no places where a higher power has to step in and correct impossible things to make everything flow smoothly. Everything interacts with everything. It's a beautiful music because, from simple natural causes, everything can be explained.

Move your hand. Drop a rock. Play an MP3 file. Make graceful movements on a dancefloor.

The beauty of these and all actions is that the "music" they produce is caused from itself. No outside director, only natural causes and products. Sure, put a God on top of all this if you want, but it is redudant. Why place a god in a universe which can exist by itself? Why put a designer on something which has designed itself? Why explain the universe with God when it can explain itself? Redundancy. Worthless redundancy to me.

Somehow I feel that it is not God you're trying to question but the christian worshiple symbol of Him.

I like the idea of a personal faith more than the outdated, dogmatic insitutition of Christianity. But it is both, really - it's just that Christians have this funny idea that some people are "damned" and whatnot. That's so funny.

Idolization is a superstition.

Faith is superstition. Christianity is a superstition.

Only religious fanatics and dummies idolize God.

Really? I thought God was one big idol in people's minds.

God is only what we perceive.

God is exactly what we do not perceive. God is what we'd like to perceive, but cannot. He's the redundant variable in the equation of everything that exists - he can be removed without causing any loss of anything at all. No loss of understanding. No loss of reality.

If you don't agree with Bible interpretation there is no big problem with that.

Yup. But if you don't agree with the accepted logical interpretation of things, there is a big problem. Like evolution.

Atheism is a religion too

It's not a religion, but don't worry - I'm agnostic if it makes you feel better about me.

but only illogically fanatic one and you

Less illogical than religions, but still flawed, yes.

You do believe that nature does the trick then you can start a new religion from here because it is the nature you have just worshipped.

Nature is the kinder god. I'm an agnostic naturalist.

Of course you didn't but some might say you idolize it.

Yeah, hehehe. True that.

But still, how can you idolize everything that is? Makes no sense to me.

And if I could just raise my lightsaber and cut all the absurd religions we have invented (like atheism) then I must admitt that against all better judgement Christianity and Many others would survive my stroke

Why that? Explain yourself. After all, Christianity has spawned far more fundamentalists and reality skewed individuals than atheism.

I love this part (can't help pasting again) and you're probably right about this. Great respect

Thank you. Same goes to you.

Homuncul
04-15-2003, 05:59 AM
Now check yourself

I hold to that there is an ultimate cause but it is different vision of God we're talking about. Have you ever heard a voice of God? Do you always see God as a superbeing looking like an old man all in white, shining like the sun (or something like that)? This is only a vision that comes from Bible or christianic painters. Science is another road to God. The ultimate cause God not just a simplified symbol which Bible carries. I too believe in accepted logical interpretation of things as Evolution and I myself hate words such as "divine" or "faith" and "religion". But that is really how they should be named only knowing that a line between being divine, faithful, religious or being sumreme,egoistic (in a theological way),fanatic is very short. That's where tolerable Christianity ends and untolerable begins. (same with Faith)

Science can not explain many things: superstring theory (yet), God etc. But that doesn't mean that these things are unknowable. Perhaps some day I will know God for I myself never in life had a revelation or a miracle to say exactly that God exists. To know thing is completely different from understanding it. We know for example a human genome but it gives us nothing because we can't understand what it says, it's like reading a foreighn book without knowing a language. But we move on: step by step, acid by acid, gene by gene - Hey, here comes the answer. So we will possibly never understand God but we would probably know. Don't you agree?

As soon as we remove God from understanding only pure facts will remain we have nothing to do with. It's just statistics which give no tendency rate or anything. And from that point any of us is a God himself because in the end we do not agree with asking a question and not recieving the answer.

Maybe there's nothing to talk about because as I see we both believe in Science as a complete understanding theory of Genesis which we can prove in thousands of ways but that doesn't really exclude God. Maybe on the contrary? And isn't agnosticism "an intellectual justification for a desregard of theology"?

Christianity introduces us with a superbeing and it's a knowledgable thing for instance. This is a reason it should be kept and any try of demytholization of God won't work. Myth is the primary base for any philosofy. God is necessary intellectually as well as politically, economically and so on. It will always be at least something you learn at school.

I understand perfectly that when a religious belief is concerned, argument is not the whole matter but it's the same shade of intolerance.You cut it from your understanding - you see better but not necessarily clearer.

speck of dust
04-15-2003, 10:40 PM
to Silent Thunder: the information I listed is based various studies I've made through college courses, libraries, bookstores, and yes the internet. I can find some books to tell you about and some websites as well.

to Cjais and Homuncul and Eldritch:

Well hell, it seems like we're all saying the same thing...lol....

C'jais, thank you for finally joining this little fray. And for welcoming me into the larger one.

I was just pointing out that when I look at nature, I see many things that indicate small pieces that make up a whole. The idea that we could just be metaphorical 'blood'cells' that make up planetary 'organs' that make up galactic 'systems' that make up a universal 'organism' is intriguing to me and fun to explore what that ultimate organism may be, and how many are there, and what's beyond them...etc... Science itself is sees the relationship between the microcosm and the macrocosm, the desire to connect them is inherent in string theory and any other 'theory of everything'. Why is it a stretch to think that the vibrations of the sun (which are often in synch with the vibration of the earth's core) aren't a manifestation of some higher dimensional intellegence, one that is beyond our comprehension? On a much smaller scale, even whales, dolphins and elephants, all have communication that is beyond our understanding. As humungous of a scale as the universe is, who's to say what's what? The ideas I'm talking about certainly aren't new, but they excite me and that's why I mentioned them. You could say that assigning an 'intellegence' to the universe is very human of me, but denying intellenge to something so much greater and complicated than you is even more human! :P

Again the only way that we'll know any of the answers to those bigger questions in the forseeable future is if an older more intellegent species (extra terrestrials) can come down and share it with us. So until then, we can all debate which answers seem rational to us and which ones don't.

Eldritch
04-16-2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by speck of dust
Again the only way that we'll know any of the answers to those bigger questions in the forseeable future is if an older more intellegent species (extra terrestrials) can come down and share it with us. So until then, we can all debate which answers seem rational to us and which ones don't.
That's assuming that they're not smarter than we are. :p
I would certainly hope that they were, though... having created technology advanced enough to bring them here from elsewhere in the Universe. :D

speck of dust
04-16-2003, 06:01 AM
But they would certainly be dumb enough to fly all that way, just to land here....

;)

Homuncul
04-18-2003, 03:24 AM
1. Does soul assumes life?

Soul in bible is the only criterium to consider human because they are the only ones who have it and nothing else. This is one of the most common contradictions between creationists and evolutionists as genetics show that everything alive is so similar that the assumption that only human have a soul and not everything that lives is ridiculius.
For example how could Cain leaving Eden find himself a wife? I heard recently a version that there exist some form of human-like creatures without souls
And that was the reason for the flood to destroy those half-souled he had progined (feels like having it with a monkey to me) so that only pure souls would remain.

2. Does science explains the Genesis in 6 days?

On one hand it could be considered as a metaphor of world's elementary, or maybe it's some sacred number which had a significance for the author. Or I heard another information that it has really happened in 6 days in the year 4004 BC and that days took different intervals of time. For example God created life in the first day but our scientific knowledge says that Universe started billions of years ago. So this explanation says that it took really a gay for creating life but God intentiously presuming our future curiosity made it the way for us to say light was created that long. The sanme with dinisaurs, he created them on the same day with all other animals almost immedeiately extincted them and made the way for us to find them and assume that they had died millions of years ago
For me, something is not right in this although time paradox is somehow bypassed

3.Does our knowledge of the Trinity suggests that God is a non-physical being?

That he exists independently from our space-time and so has the knoledge of future and past. And we're all already doomed for his sight. And we don't have to worry about our souls because everything is destined. I don't like it even more than I don't like the idea that God is within our space-time and so doesn't have knowledge of future and our soul salvation is an actual thing. In bible texts there are indications on both ideas.

What do you think?

C'jais
04-18-2003, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by Homuncul
1. Does soul assumes life?

Soul in bible is the only criterium to consider human because they are the only ones who have it and nothing else.

There's no evidence of "souls" in any way, and this is why we must assume, and work under the assumption that for all intents and purposes, souls do not exist.

2. Does science explains the Genesis in 6 days?

In 6 days? Not by a long shot.

In several billion years? Maybe, but probably not in the exact order given in the Bible - should we then begin to take seriously?

3.Does our knowledge of the Trinity suggests that God is a non-physical being?

He can't really exist in the physical world, can he? :p

Redundancy aside, if he's non-physical, he's non-existant. If he's "supernatural", he's omni-present and omni-powerful - conjures up a truckload of paradoxes faster than you can "Jesus Christ on a pogo stick" - one of 'em being that our lives are laid on a railroad track and we thus don't have any free will at all.

Of course, if he's physically present, what are we really worshipping then? Some alien?

BigTeddyPaul
04-18-2003, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by Homuncul
So this explanation says that it took really a gay for creating life


Bwwwahahahahaha! When I read this my cat looked at me funny because I was laughing so hard. One of the best typos I have read so far.

BigTeddyPaul

Homuncul
04-22-2003, 05:42 AM
Bwwwahahahahaha! When I read this my cat looked at me funny because I was laughing so hard. One of the best typos I have read so far.

I'm russian. For me "g" is english "d" so I apologize for making your cat look funny. And I feel myself very silly forwarding the theory that life was created by an ordinary gay without any proof. Still some votes from sexual minority are mine. That's encouraging

Kurgan
04-22-2003, 09:13 PM
It may come as a shock to some modern fundamentalists, but much of the bible is myth and metaphor.

How do I know this? In college I studied the early Christian church, specifically what are called the "Fathers."

Now I'm not a Doctor of Theology (yet!) but what this tells us is what early Christians were thinking and writing about the Bible and other teachings. Now granted, the Old Testament was written many centuries before by the Jews, but again, you can go back in history and read what people thought of it back then.

While Genesis is metaphor mixed with a bit of history (starting probably with Abraham, which most scholars believe was an actual historical figure), it is also not a book of science. The Ancients didn't have the benefit of our knowledge of biology, astronomy, geology, etc. Science simply didn't exist at the time.

So to pick up the Bible and conclude that the earth is only 6,000 years old (which is to be found nowhere in the Bible text, but is actually the back-of-envelope speculations of a medieval Bishop and others after him) or that dinosaurs didn't exist, or that evolution didn't happen, etc. is not a tenable position. I'm sorry, but it isn't. Many religious people, "bible believing" (not beating/bashing or thumping) Christians and Jews take science seriously and hold their spiritual beliefs on the other hand, without trying to force them into the same holes and fudge the figures to fit.

Studying early Christianity is something I wish more people did, because it would do a lot to clear away many of these misconceptions and misunderstandings between different religions and about the bible, etc.

I think some of these fundamentalists do more harm then good when they beat some half-baked idea they cooked up (or had fed to them by some fiery preacher they heard on the radio or tv) over the head of some poor sap who doesn't know the first thing about religion, and either confuses the heck out of him, or ends up having him "cursed to hellfire and damnation" (by the well-meaning missionary) and returning the favor with curses of his own.

People need to take the time to be honest with each other. If they can't agree, at least agree to disagree, but cut out the bull....

Anybody ever read those "Jack Chick" tracts well-meaning peopel are always dropping at bus stops and such? Those things are probably some of the worst examples of tossing theology into the blender and seeing who you can confuse with it... trust me, the real thing is FAR more interesting.

Studying the history (from several viewpoints) from learned scholars (PhD's) alongside the bible text is probably the best way to go about it. Reading the Gideon Bible in your hotel room is fun, but without knowing the backstory, it can be anyone's guess what it means... which helps explain why there are thousands of Christian denominations....

Kurgan
04-22-2003, 09:21 PM
The six day creation actually works backwards, because it allows modern day (at the time) people to pre-present the creation of the world (the universe) in their everyday lives.

A six day week, followed by the Sabbath, the day of rest, is laid out by God from the beginning. So thus our everyday routine is a constant reminder that we owe our existence to God.

In the Bible it says that to God "a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years a day" so maybe from that you could literally get "6,000 years" but that's still missing the point.

A "thousand" is just another way of saying "a whole lot" in ancient writings like this anyway.

Six is an imperfect number, but adding 1 to it makes seven, the number of perfection (God). So God at the end of the week, makes it perfect (or complete, whole, etc). A person is made whole (holy) by celebrating God's gift at the end (which is also the beginning of the next week, etc.).

These stories are laced with symbols, ignoring that and forcing it into literalism does great injustice to it.

BigTeddyPaul
04-22-2003, 09:24 PM
Right. Just like it says to forgive someone 777 times does not actaully mean that. The meaning is that you are supposed to keep on forgiving someone and not counting how many times you forgive them.

Oops Kurgan you pissed me off. Only 372 more times and then I never have to forgive you.

In a nutshell.

BigTeddyPaul

Kurgan
04-22-2003, 09:29 PM
Also, if we're having a debate about religion here, perhaps we should avoid loaded polemical terms like "heretic, superstition, idol" etc which are all prejorative in nature.

The term "Myth" is not, in the anthropological sense, it is a metahporical story that uses symbols, allegory, etc to teach a moral lesson(s), and not a literal statement of fact.

When I was in Boulder, CO a few weeks ago, I listened to a guy talk about how he felt that Nature was his religion. Quite interesting. In fact, there are many types of atheists and agnostics and they have as many different beliefs as you'll find in any religion. I would characterize them as a philosophy or ideology (although some atheists are just simply a-religious). A moral code is often akin to a religion, because much of it is non-rational in nature, and not necessarily quantifiable by science.

What is religion? That's a whole nothing topic...

Let us say that something being non-rational does not make it necessariliy "irrational" ...

Kurgan
04-22-2003, 09:33 PM
If you want to get technical, it was 70 x 7 times to forgive someone (490). ; )

Yes, I agree.

Also, people like to trot out the "number of the beast" which deals with numerology (most scholars agree it refers to Caesar Nero) varies from 666 to 616, depending on the language it was rendered in and translated from (the total equaling his name).

It's really fascinating stuff. Even atheists study the Bible, because much of our civilization has been influenced by it in some way or another, and billions of people use it for inspiration, even if they ignore parts of it or interpret it differently. It's one of the cornerstones of literature... the classic themes and characters are borrowed in modern stuff all the time.

BigTeddyPaul
04-22-2003, 09:39 PM
Arg. I am too excited about the three game 7s of hockey on in 20 minutes. Excuse my lapse in thinking. DANG! Now I only have 489 times left.

BigTeddyPaul

C'jais
04-22-2003, 10:17 PM
Nicely said Kurgan. All Christians in here ought to read it, as it's crucial to understanding the Bible, IMO.

Many people forget to use their common sense when reading. To me, the Bible is built on a fundament of myth and folklore, but to some people it's all God's spoken word. Some of what happened in the bible is real enough, and some of it is probably just a well intentioned myth to help people guide their lives according to the morals it preaches.

But what's so wrong with that? It doesn't take long to figure out that evolution is more plausible than young creationism, but why does that stop you from following the Bible? It doesn't - you can still be a good religious and moral person even though you've realized that not all the Bible preaches is factual truth.

EDIT: and yes, I've read the Chick tracks... makes for some good fun if you're bored and want to experience one ugly ogre of a Christian God. He's practically forcing people to believe.

Kurgan
04-24-2003, 05:31 AM
Nice that we agree on that. When all is said and done, that's pretty much what it boils down to.

I like to read about all the various theories on the bible, even the totally "out there" ones (the Beatles are the Antichrist, the Bible Code, etc), not because I believe them, but I like to see other perspectives, and when wrong, the ways to refute those arguments.

I think tolerance is needed in this world of ours, and I see a lot of religion bashing and radical fundamentalism on the 'net, so these types of talks are needed.

I think if people did more research, and thought with their hearts (so to speak) some of this could be avoided.

BigTeddyPaul
04-24-2003, 07:01 AM
Ever watch that lady and man at 11:30 on like CBS? Jack Van Impe and some woman. Funniest thing on TV. They get all these obscure references to current events and say stuff like how Saddam is laying down the foundation for the anti christ and how Acts 34:99 speaks about the SARS thingy. So unbelievably funny.

Anyways, those people once talked how like Bill Clinton can be found 77 times in the Bible using the Bible Code thingy. Hi larious of some of the other things. They also said that Waco and Flight 780 that crashed outside NY? was in there many times too.

The absolute best part is during the show they try to sell you useless God crap for like fifty dollars. God's servants my tookus.

BigTeddyPaul

Kurgan
04-24-2003, 07:11 AM
Even Jesus warned about "false prophets" and I'd say these guys probably qualify in that category.

A little healthy skepticism never hurts, especially when somebody is trying to sell you something.

Ever watch Robert Tilton (moved to 3am on BET)? 'Nuff said.

That guy's such a bafoon, I don't know how anyone would trust him with their money, and he quotes the Bible out of context to support his outrageous financial schemes, it's just sad.

Homuncul
04-24-2003, 07:40 AM
I'd like to explore (again) a little bit about Christian God from multiversal point of view. Please don't send me to the swamp.

There is no place for God in our space-time. He's not presenting here completely. He's like a sphere trying to get into 2-dimentional plane. He's only partly seen. And as he comes out of our space-time say to the 5-dimention (maybe more) he perceives our space-time completely. He sees our future-past, he can see inside us and through us (see parallel universes thread) and more he can perceive multiverse (if time is a multiverse too then it is even more obvious) so seeing all possible variations of space-time.
And what do we know about Christian God. He says (through others) that there would be a judgement day for every soul to go to hell or to heaven. But since he's the master of time and multiverse he had already decided every soul in billions of ways and he's of no need of such a day. Everything is already decided and so fighting for soul's salvation is useless.
But then there can be contradiction. Some might say that with your assumption taken it's easy to prepose that our universe is just one of the variations of his multiversal decisions. That leads to a new definition of Christian God (as presented in Bible). That it's merely a private occasion and lacks its devine completeness (as Bible points) in our space-time. And that God is too complex of a structure to be conservated in just book. And religion (if not a political weapon) is worthy only for education but not for dogmatisation of understanding structure of reality and God

If anyone's interested I can make some other examples (or you can make some on your own if someone agrees this crap)

Kurgan
04-24-2003, 11:01 AM
From that perspective, ancient writings like the Bible represent attempts to put the mind of God into understandable human terms.

If God knows the future, that doesn't necessarily mean that free will doesn't exist. If "the future is in motion" for example.

A multiverse concept is compelling, but I don't know if I buy it. Something like the movie "The One"? Seeing the equations would be one thing, explaining it philosophically would be another.

As a philosophical construct, a multiverse theory doesn't really help explain the existence of THIS universe (occam's razor comes to mind), and so without the equations to back it up, it sounds like a real leap of faith.

Kain
04-24-2003, 04:32 PM
Alright, these religious threads have gone on long enough. IF YOUR ALL SO SURE about your beliefs, then you shouldn't argue them with peoples whos beliefs are different! It seems like all these are for people who need others backing them so they dont feel like they could be wrong. And yes, I've posted in these threads before, and now I realize how dumb I was for arguing my opinion with another person. But I swear, how many more Chritian vs Non-Christian threads do we need?

Thrackan Solo
04-24-2003, 07:01 PM
You have a good point, I quit arguing a while ago, because it is pointless, we are all getting to far into it, Senate is supposed to be fun and its turning into a holy war almost. I think we all should just stop insulting Christians/Non Christians, and debate other subjects.

El Sitherino
04-24-2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by munik
I'd like to think it was random. It's kind of disheartening to think that such a supreme being such as God made man the way he is. For instance, if it was me, I know I could do a better job. Making sperm need to be a cooler temperature then the body thus having the testicles hang freely in a sack of skin, and then make them so sensitive...yep, that must have been the design of an infinitely wise being. Making the fetal position the pose of choice for protection, but then neglecting to maybe add another rib or some other bone to protect the kidney's...once again, the true sign of omnipotence. Toenails? You guessed it, absolute genius. I could go on for quite some time, but I reckon those are enough.

What is the point of making something that is so inherently flawed? sometimes your briliance astounds me.:)

Kurgan
04-26-2003, 06:27 PM
But I swear, how many more Chritian vs Non-Christian threads do we need?

As long as people with free minds feel the need to discuss these ideas with each other and express their differences, we'll most likely continue to see threads like these from time to time.

Now, as everybody knows, this forum is for "serious" discussions, and that's what they are. That doesn't mean we can't have fun, but nobody need attend who can't stomach a little controversy or debate. Right?

Now on the other hand, I'm not saying Christians and non-Christians need to "verses" each other, like conflict is a good thing, but perhaps these kinds of threads can help promote understanding. Every discussion need not end with agreement or compromise, but at least people have a chance to aire and test their ideas for others to see. It helps a person get out their thoughts and see if others can help them understand better.

For example, you may not agree with things I have said, but at least you can help understand what I believe, or why I choose to believe it, etc, rather than just assuming I'm a psycho or something. ; )

(PS: And if you think I'm a psycho, I'll have you know I'm perfectly sane and you have nothing to fear from me... unless you go trolling on my forums or something.... heh)