Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mefustae on October 12, 2007, 04:47:25 am
-
Ann Coulter's always been a gibberish-spouting loon, but this is just so far beyond the pale it's downright unsettling:
She seems to want Jews to become Christians so they can be "perfected" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html), and she says this to a ****ing Jew on live television no less!
I don't know what's sadder; that she's anti-semitic and doesn't realize it, or that she probably won't lose any fans over this. Heck, she might have even found a whole new following in the skinhead community. :doubt:
-
I love the one guy so in shock and disbeleife at what he's hearing "You can't possibly — you're too educated, you can't — you're like my friend in —"
I want to say she just sort of got going and mis spoke, but if she did it probably wasn't by much.
"Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?"
:lol:
-
Ohh, I thought this was about Gore wining the Nobel peace prize.
-
I thought I heard somewhere Ann Coulter is a she-male.....
-
Opinions aside, after watching the Video. that woman either needs to start eating more healthily, or ease off on the Crystal meth...
-
two words
STUPID BLONDE!
-
How is this controversial? :confused: It's what Christians have believed for 2000 years.
Sure she may not be the most tactful person in the world, but she's correctly stating a belief.
-
How is this controversial? :confused: It's what Christians have believed for 2000 years.
Sure she may not be the most tactful person in the world, but she's correctly stating a belief.
My thoughts exactly.
-
Mine too.
Christians believe that the world would be better off if everyone was a Christian. It's not exactly news. Quite a few religions espouse that view. The funniest thing about the whole conversation is that Coulthard is admitting on live television to holding a view she's no-doubt previously complained about Muslims having.
-
The funniest thing about the whole conversation is that Coulthard is admitting on live television to holding a view she's no-doubt previously complained about Muslims having.
The difference is that Christians, by and large, don't go around forcing non-Christians to convert at gunpoint (at least, not anymore... they kinda did that in the Crusades, except it was swords and axes, not guns, but whatever), or killing non-Christians for believing in something else.
Anyway, it's not unheard of for Jews to believe in Jesus. Jesus was a Jew Himself; he didn't exactly "convert" to Christianity, you know. His 12 disciples were also Jewish; they just happened to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. I don't see how that makes them any less "Jewish" than the myriads of Orthodox Jews in Israel these days who go around with signs & stickers, proclaiming the late lubavitch rabbi Menachem Schneerson as Messiah.
Also, everyone needs to understand that much of the confusion around this issue is the lack of differentiation in many debates between "jewish" as a nationality/ethnic group, and "Jewish" as a religion. For example, I'm Jewish as far as ethnicity goes, and I believe in Jesus. What does that make me? The term most used these days is "Messianic Jew", which isn't recognized as Jewish (ethnic-wise!) by the rest of the Jews. Just because I believe a Jewish guy 2000 years ago is the Messiah, too! *humph* :p
-
if you believe in Jesus, doesn't that make you Christian? religion wise anyway. I've heard you refer to yourself as a messianic jew before, but I never quite got it (or I forgot). if you are a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ you are a Christian, if you happen to be something else in addition to that is irrelevant.
sorry for the slight tangent.
-
if you are a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ you are a Christian, if you happen to be something else in addition to that is irrelevant.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
-
I don't see how that makes them any less "Jewish" than the myriads of Orthodox Jews in Israel these days who go around with signs & stickers, proclaiming the late lubavitch rabbi Menachem Schneerson as Messiah.
I hope not, I'd hate to have a Messiah who's name sounds like someone sneezing... ;)
-
That Deutch guy clearly doesn't know how to host a show.
What I see here is a faliure to communicate on both sides, but that Deutch guy is twisting her words to a degree. And obviously she isn't the smartest and most tactfull person either..
Nothing new under the blue sky....move on.
-
That Deutch guy clearly doesn't know how to host a show.
It's american talk show, they're all like that.
-
/me doesn't know whether to be more appalled by Ann Coulter or the whole of the participants in this thread.
-
/me doesn't know whether to be more appalled by Ann Coulter or the whole of the participants in this thread.
/me is more appalled by most of the participants in this thread, rather than by Ann Coulter.
-
/me doesn't know whether to be more appalled by Ann Coulter or the whole of the participants in this thread.
I'll go with both.
As far as Ann Coulter goes... the words '****ing skin-head skank' sum her up perfectly.
-
/me doesn't know whether to be more appalled by Ann Coulter or the whole of the participants in this thread.
/me is more appalled by most of the participants in this thread, rather than by Ann Coulter.
*Trashman is appalled by the people who are appalled by this thread
-
/me doesn't know whether to be more appalled by Ann Coulter or the whole of the participants in this thread.
/me is more appalled by most of the participants in this thread, rather than by Ann Coulter.
*Trashman is appalled by the people who are appalled by this thread
/me likes the new tag
Really, though. *****...
-
The difference is that Christians, by and large, don't go around forcing non-Christians to convert at gunpoint (at least, not anymore... they kinda did that in the Crusades, except it was swords and axes, not guns, but whatever), or killing non-Christians for believing in something else.
The phrase that comes to mind is "on hiatus" :p
-
im surprised there are so many sticking up for her. its really messed up that first of all we only hear political opinions of the severe extremes. its not just the extreme conservatives. the extreme liberals piss me off just as much. and secondly and whats worse is that these extremists have a great many followers and supporters which creates more political division among any government and its people.
with everyones attention focused on the fringe extremes, no one is paying attention to the people on each side that actually agree with each other despite being members of different parties. those are the people who deserve the attention and are the ones who will actually place there vote in a manor that elects people who get stuff done. someone like blondie no lips there is probably just gonna vote for the conservative republican who hates non-christians, gays and abortion.
either way it seems the extremes got a hold on some people here and i will need to step up my plans for world annihilation.
-
A really good view on the whole thing:
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11274280.html
Worth a read if you've got the interest/time.
I'm actually surprised people aren't going after the host of the show for HIS comments. Coulter was paraphrasing the Bible, and the MSM jumps all over that, but Deusthshsthch or whatever his name is rants on about intolerant racist bigoted Christianity and no journalist blinks.
-
Ah, so someone did notice... :p :yes:
-
Of course the real irony is that this sort of tactic of completely blowing a situation out of proportion is exactly what Ann Coulter does herself. So I'm not gonna shed any tears over someone doing it to her. :D
-
That Deutsh guy is a douchebag. :p
-
What do you expect. He works for Fox!
-
So Anne Coulter cunningly fought back by confirming every single one of his prejudices?
Strange.
-
So Anne Coulter cunningly fought back by confirming every single one of his prejudices?
Strange.
Did you even read her responses?
What's so contraversal about what she said? that the world would be a better place if all were Christians?
What's contraversial in that? It's true.
In fact you could probably claim that for muslims/jews/atheist/budhists or any similar group. Since if all people would share the same faith (or lack thereoff), then there would be no bickering and fighting about religion (at least not as much as now).
Simple logic.
So PLASE, tell me what's so contravelrsal?
-
'Truth' is such a subjective point of view, I personally don't think the world would be a better place if we were all Christians at all.
Did I say that what she said was controversial, not from the Christian point of view it's not, but from a social point of view, stating that Jews are 'imperfect' when compared with Christians is pretty damn controversial.
As for the lack of arguments, both Protestant and Catholic are Christians, you can't honestly tell me they've got along wonderfully throughout history? I'm pretty sure a vast area of Europe would disagree, Eire and Northern Ireland in particular.
-
Double post, but as a slight aside, it's worth noting that any religion, once it dominates a large area tends to schism and start to attack itself, because there are no outside enemies, be it Protestant, CoE and Catholic or Sunni and Shiite or any other number of religions that have schismed, it seems to me that without external entities to attack, a religion soon falls to cannibalism, so a world that is entirely Christian probably wouldn't be all that different to a world that is mixed-religion, people will still be fighting over details and interpretations.
-
Follow the gourd!
Reject the gourd! Follow the shoe!
Sadly that's true Flipside. Anyway saying the world would be better if everyone was a Christian is a rather subjective view. Some of us quite like diversity and think that the idea of a world without any is pretty abhorrent.
Now if you want to claim a completely Christian world would be more peaceful that's another matter. But as Flipside points out it would only work if you actually got the Christians to agree on the exact flavour of Christianity and the only way to prevent people from deviating from that would be to start punishing and imprisoning those who disagreed so to be honest I don't think it would stay peaceful for long.
-
Did I say that what she said was controversial, not from the Christian point of view it's not, but from a social point of view, stating that Jews are 'imperfect' when compared with Christians is pretty damn controversial.
Hm...well...erm..not really contraversa eitehr..
sine practicly every religion belives they are right, the follower of those religion are "righter" then the followers of others, and thus, in a sense better... not more worthy or more worth mind you.
So to give you a basic comparison:
Devout beliver, good person - heaven penthouse
no beliver, good person - heaven
no beliver/beliver, bad person - hell
-
Sadly that's true Flipside. Anyway saying the world would be better if everyone was a Christian is a rather subjective view. Some of us quite like diversity and think that the idea of a world without any is pretty abhorrent.
Now if you want to claim a completely Christian world would be more peaceful that's another matter. But as Flipside points out it would only work if you actually got the Christians to agree on the exact flavour of Christianity and the only way to prevent people from deviating from that would be to start punishing and imprisoning those who disagreed so to be honest I don't think it would stay peaceful for long.
Well he did ask HER oppinion, which IS subjective. And to say the world wouldn't be diverse with only members of one faith is redicolous. There would only be one thing less to be diverse about, but there's still a kazzilion more.
Would hte world be at peace? Of course not.. but i don't really think any BIG religious fighting would occur (which does happen in the world now)
-
Hm...well...erm..not really contraversa eitehr..
sine practicly every religion belives they are right, the follower of those religion are "righter" then the followers of others, and thus, in a sense better... not more worthy or more worth mind you.
So to give you a basic comparison:
Devout beliver, good person - heaven penthouse
no beliver, good person - heaven
no beliver/beliver, bad person - hell
It's not so much what she said that's controversial, but the way she went about saying it. Stating a view is fine and dandy, but stating that view in a manner that makes you look like an anti-semite on live, national television is a different story.
Bloody hell, the woman wouldn't know tact if it bit her on the ass!
Would hte world be at peace? Of course not.. but i don't really think any BIG religious fighting would occur (which does happen in the world now)
Yeah, because Christians never start big wars. :rolleyes:
-
Exactly, it's all a question of perspective, look at the trouble it's caused between Jews and Islam, the Jews are perfectly justified in believing that they are right, the Muslims are also perfectly justified in believing the opposite, that's really the problem alas :(
If it was just belief it wouldn't be a problem, but it usually spills over into physical acts of aggression against those who think otherwise, which is why it is such a problem when people say things like this.
To be honest, it is controversial because people will make it controversial, as Mefustae states, controversy is not so much about what is said, it is about the reaction to it.
-
Oh, what's all this fuss about? The reality is that religion is only something you can use to explain phenomena that can't be explained otherwise. That, and the perfect means for controlling the masses and justifying wars and other unnecessary acts. Then again, saying that people who believe otherwise are inferior is somewhat rude, since some religions teach about equivalence between individuals and yadda-yadda-yadda. But don't get mad if you're religious people. I'm just following a simple plan in my existence.
Phase 1: Live
Phase 2: Die
Phase 3: Improvise
-
It's not so much what she said that's controvercial, but the way she went about saying it. Stating a view is fine and dandy, but stating that view in a manner that makes you look like an anti-semite on live, national television is a different story.
Bloody hell, the woman wouldn't know tact if it bit her on the ass!
I really dont' know if you can say that in a way that no one will find offensive.
ESPECIALLY if you say something that can be interpreted as anti-semitic.
I know this will sound racists but I've never seen a group so easilly offended as them. (the loudmouthed, overracting ones fcourse)
Yeah, because Christians never start big wars. :rolleyes:
Crusades? How long ago was that? Ancient history. Can you immagine something liek that happening now? I sure as hell can't...and another thing - that war wasn't against other Christians
-
Yeah, because Christians never start big wars. :rolleyes:
Crusades? How long ago was that? Ancient history. Can you immagine something liek that happening now? I sure as hell can't...and another thing - that war wasn't against other Christians
Constantinople disagrees.
-
as do the Cathars.
-
ancient history..
I'm asking you if you belive something like that could happen now.
-
if you believe in Jesus, doesn't that make you Christian? religion wise anyway. I've heard you refer to yourself as a messianic jew before, but I never quite got it (or I forgot). if you are a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ you are a Christian, if you happen to be something else in addition to that is irrelevant.
Not so much. There are certain other commonalities that are normally considered necessary to be considered a Christian faith. Most of them have to do with beliefs that have been held since the early church. Mormonism, for example, is debateable as a Christian faith, because they reject the Council of Nicea and the Nicean Creed.
-
Can you immagine something liek that happening now? I sure as hell can't.
Argument from personal incredulity seldom holds any validity. Just because you lack imagination doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
There are plenty of evangelicals in America who would be perfectly happy to start their own jihads. They'd have a lot more chance of getting their own way in a purely Christian country too.
-
ancient history..
I'm asking you if you belive something like that could happen now.
yes
-
what about ww1&2, all the major countries involved in those wars were christian dominated. screw the crusades. making everyone christian isnt gonna make the wars go away. religion is only a tiny variable in the forces which make people go to war. the egos of our leaders is by far a bigger variable. then you have nationalism, imperialism, natural resources, culture gaps, and many many other reasons to go to war.
on the other hand im sure there are wars all throughout history where the christians started/perpetuated it, someone brought up the crusades. note how the domanant religions in the world are the most aggressive. we have also seen what happens when we let religion run the show with the dark ages.
-
First of all, there is and never has been, and until the end of time as we know it, there will never be a Christian nation. Additionally, Nuke, what you said in that last statement is a bit skewed. First of all, it's not simply religion running the show, it's people running the show. People who have made said religion about things to do for the sake of doing them, rather than for the love of a most high God. Many of the later crusades, this was especially true. A corrupt pope, for example.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing things as a result of a love of God. It's when you lose sight of God, and are simply doing things blindly, that the problems begin.
-
Oof. Hit what I wanted to say right on the head... thx, G0atmaster! :D
-
Can you immagine something liek that happening now? I sure as hell can't.
Argument from personal incredulity seldom holds any validity. Just because you lack imagination doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
There are plenty of evangelicals in America who would be perfectly happy to start their own jihads. They'd have a lot more chance of getting their own way in a purely Christian country too.
I can guarantee you it would not. If pope were to call forth for a holy war, how many pople doi you think would answer the call? Very few indeed.
It's not religions that starts a war, it's the leaders of countries that do.
As for Jihads in america...against whom? And how many people would actulyl go to war simply becosue a religious leader said so?
you fail to see then it allways takes more to move people to fight. You need to make them belive they are in danger - their live,s their way of life, their children - take Iraq and the the war against terror as a example.
Only a few people are prepared to go to war for "faith" alone...
-
But generally one of those few people is the president.
-
First of all, there is and never has been, and until the end of time as we know it, there will never be a Christian nation.
If neither this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_see) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City) corresponds to your statement then surely this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States) will.
-
well you see he's defining "Christian State" not as a state run as a christ derived theocracy, but as "something that does not and did not exist". :)
-
It's not religions that starts a war, it's the leaders of countries that do.
As for Jihads in america...against whom? And how many people would actulyl go to war simply becosue a religious leader said so?
you fail to see then it allways takes more to move people to fight. You need to make them belive they are in danger - their live,s their way of life, their children - take Iraq and the the war against terror as a example.
Only a few people are prepared to go to war for "faith" alone...
Would hte world be at peace? Of course not.. but i don't really think any BIG religious fighting would occur (which does happen in the world now)
Kinda undermining your own argument there aren't you?
-
How so? I dont' see anything conflicting in those statements... :blah:
-
in the first statement, you say religion can not motivate people to fight, in the second you claim that "BIG" religious fighting is happening now.
-
there will never be a Christian nation.
So what is the Vatican then?
And correct me if I am wrong about this part, but when Rome converted to christianity didn't they surpress the old pegan religions?
-
in the first statement, you say religion can not motivate people to fight, in the second you claim that "BIG" religious fighting is happening now.
The first statement was plainly directed at the idea of a 'Christian jihad in America,' not the entire world. *Edit - Looks like I was wrong!
...and I think that's the most I'm going to touch this one.
-
in the first statement, you say religion can not motivate people to fight, in the second you claim that "BIG" religious fighting is happening now.
I said relgion ALONE couldn't motivate big wars...not anymore.
I guess I should have put quotes on religious wars, since there's allways omething else behind them. Jsut look at hte "religious" wars in the wrold today. Are they areally about religion? No way...
-
Yet you argued that if there was only one religion there would be less war. Then you say that religion does not play a large part in any on-going war and that they are fought for many differing reasons which have little to do with religion.
So if war and religion are only loosely linked how would everyone being a Christian have any effect on the number of wars?
Feel free to commence backtracking now. :p
-
Oh noes a Trashman vs Karajorma argument! :shaking: Take cover!
-
Nah. There's no venom left in me these days. I only do them now cause it's so much fun watching him paint himself into a corner.
-
Yet you argued that if there was only one religion there would be less war. Then you say that religion does not play a large part in any on-going war and that they are fought for many differing reasons which have little to do with religion.
So if war and religion are only loosely linked how would everyone being a Christian have any effect on the number of wars?
1. Christians are peacefull. (and becoming more peacefull over tiem. apareent trend)
2. War and religion may be loosly tied, but there still is a tie. With one faith there is one less reason to go to war and one more reason not to go to war. It's harder for anyone to take advantage of the less educated, simpler folk on the grounds of faith.
3. I didn't say there would be a huge difference, now did I? :p
-
Is there really a link between WWI&II and religion? Sure, in WWII some people might have argued that it was the "right thing to do" for the allies to fight Germany. But what it really boils down to is that Germans were the aggressors, and they wanted more territory. Come to think of it, what exactly was the motive for Hitler's expansion? Never mind, Look at WWI. Nationalism and an assassination, then a domino effect with declarations of war. The US civil war: The south was pretty much dissatisfied at the way the slavery was being handled, one state ceded, then others, then the US asked for troops, then more ceded. The US revolution: People didn't want to be (semi)ruled by someone who viewed them as a tool to boost the state's funds. There might be a connection in WW2 and the US revolution, but in WW2 it was a flawed reason to go into war. Pardon my lack of knowledge of non-America involved wars. Elsewhere it is just a coincidence. Unless it's obvious it's a holy war, I doubt there is much correlation.
Oh, and another tally for Godwin.
-
1. Christians are peacefull. (and becoming more peacefull over tiem. apareent trend)
Arguable. The large increase in peaceful Christianity is mostly linked to the large increase in secularism and a corresponding loss of power by the church. It's debatable how long that peacefulness would remain once Christians were the only ones left.
3. I didn't say there would be a huge difference, now did I? :p
Actually you did. You said that there were big wars being fought due to religion now and that they wouldn't be fought if the entire world was Christian. If you want to say that this was a mistake and you meant that there are wars being fought now which have a very small religious theme and that this theme wouldn't be there in a purely Christian world then I'll agree with you cause that's just common sense.
But even if you had a purely Christian world how would you keep it that way? How do you stop heresy? How do you stop schisms? Cause the only way to do that is to repress any other religions that start to spring up. Hardly most people's definition of the world being a better place.
-
What it really boils down to is what your opinion of Christianity is, and if an individual is actually following it.
Take this for example.
"I am absolutely convinced that if everyone adhered to the true teachings of Christ, wars would simply not exist and the world would become a better place for every last person."
While that hypothetical might very well be true, you have to remember we don't live in a perfect world. Even if something like that DID happen, there would be a 'falling away.' It would start with diverging opinions about doctrine, then a separation of the church, and then everything goes downhill from there and we'd end up right where we are now. Is the problem Christianity? That is purely a matter of theology. The point is... (hypothetically) that even though Christianity filled the world, someone along the line is going to decide they don't want to follow that anymore. They lose the teachings that keep in harmony with the world, and things slowly plummet out of control.
Now, in this example, would Christianity be to blame? Absolutely not. People can make their own decisions and decide not to follow whatever. You don't blame a religion for the acts of a person who don't choose to follow 'their religion.' BUT DONT CALL THE GUY WHO DIDN'T FOLLOW THE RULES A CHRISTIAN.
-
If one person is a catholic and one is a protestant, who is not a Christian?
-
Well, "Christian" means "little Christ"... in other words, a follower of Christ. One can be Catholic and be a true follower of Christ. One can also be a Catholic and not be a true follower of Christ. The same with Protestants. There are plenty of Catholics and Protestants who are not (and who are) true followers of Christ. Want a proof of who is and who isn't?
John 8:31,32
31So Jesus said to those Jews who had believed in Him, If you abide in My word [hold fast to My teachings and live in accordance with them], you are truly My disciples.
32And you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.
John 13:34-35 "Let me give you a new command: Love one another. In the same way I loved you, you love one another. This is how everyone will recognize that you are my disciples—when they see the love you have for each other."
Ah, here's another good one: (Luke 6)
27 “But to you who are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. 28 Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. 30 Give to anyone who asks; and when things are taken away from you, don’t try to get them back. 31 Do to others as you would like them to do to you.
32 “If you love only those who love you, why should you get credit for that? Even sinners love those who love them! 33 And if you do good only to those who do good to you, why should you get credit? Even sinners do that much! 34 And if you lend money only to those who can repay you, why should you get credit? Even sinners will lend to other sinners for a full return.
35 “Love your enemies! Do good to them. Lend to them without expecting to be repaid. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to those who are unthankful and wicked. 36 You must be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate.
Do Not Judge Others
37 “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and you will receive. Your gift will return to you in full—pressed down, shaken together to make room for more, running over, and poured into your lap. The amount you give will determine the amount you get back.[a]”
Footnotes:
1. Luke 6:38 Or The measure you give will be the measure you get back.
-
Well, "Christian" means "little Christ"... in other words, a follower of Christ. One can be Catholic and be a true follower of Christ. One can also be a Catholic and not be a true follower of Christ. The same with Protestants. There are plenty of Catholics and Protestants who are not (and who are) true followers of Christ.
Right, so suppose that the entire world was catholic and we had another protestant reformation. Who's going to judge and say whether these new protestants are "true Christians" or not?
-
Arguable. The large increase in peaceful Christianity is mostly linked to the large increase in secularism and a corresponding loss of power by the church. It's debatable how long that peacefulness would remain once Christians were the only ones left.
Actually its linked with Christianity maturing and abandoning it's agressive past, focusing on the true teachings of Christ.
Actually you did. You said that there were big wars being fought due to religion now and that they wouldn't be fought if the entire world was Christian. If you want to say that this was a mistake and you meant that there are wars being fought now which have a very small religious theme and that this theme wouldn't be there in a purely Christian world then I'll agree with you cause that's just common sense.
Let me clarify this - big religious wars have been fought in the past. The reasons behind them in most cases weren't religios, alltough the driving force was.
Back in Ye old days you had warmongerig priests that yearnd to burn hte heatens. Combine that with a uneducated mod and a greedy ruler and it's easy to see where it's going.
This just can't work today. Any priest calling for war would be kicked out of the Church and loose any credibility infront of the people.
In other words the real warmongers loose one relativly easy way to entice people to fight. There are others, but religion has allways awoken strong sentiments. Also the climate today is different.
Everything combined does equate to less fighting.
But even if you had a purely Christian world how would you keep it that way? How do you stop heresy? How do you stop schisms? Cause the only way to do that is to repress any other religions that start to spring up. Hardly most people's definition of the world being a better place.
I said the world would be a better place. I didn't say for how long. ;)
The point is since humans are imperfect and all, nothing good we make will hold.
If hte people TRULY follwed Christ teachings, the world would b a wonderfull place. Fat chance of tht happening tough..maby it will be better after the Second Coming :p
-
Lemme first apologize for my oversight of the Vatican. My mistake. Although, there's a number of issues with that, which are for another time. For now let me address Kara's question:
Yet you argued that if there was only one religion there would be less war. Then you say that religion does not play a large part in any on-going war and that they are fought for many differing reasons which have little to do with religion.
So if war and religion are only loosely linked how would everyone being a Christian have any effect on the number of wars?
Feel free to commence backtracking now. :p
Because the ideal Christian life seriously and drastically minimizes and even tries to eliminate the cause for all war. A man without pride has no reason to compete with his fellow man. It's something that could only work if everyone on the planet were truly Christian (and I don't mean corrupt, twisted people using other peoples' beliefs to incite them to an unjust cause), but I assure you, if some such phenomenon were to ever happen, we'd be living in a utopia. No greed, no pride, no murder... there wouldn't even be any reason for it! If everyone "gave to those who asked," there'd be no way to steal anything! The definition of theft would become null.
The evil in the sin of pride is not, as in envy, wanting what someone else has, but rather, wanting what someone else has because they have it. A greedy person wants a sum of money. A prideful person doesn't care so much about how much he has, only that he has more than the next man. Do you have any idea what a better place the world would become if just this were to be eliminated? That, my friend, is how the cause/effect relationship between Christianity and a decrease in war can come about without a direct correlation between the two.
-
...but I assure you, if some such phenomenon were to ever happen, we'd be living in a utopia. No greed, no pride, no murder... there wouldn't even be any reason for it!
Right! Because no Christian has ever been greedy, prideful, or murdered anyone. Ever! In fact, if such a thing were to occur, this entire line of argument would be shot to hell! But it hasn't, so it's not! Yippie!
If everyone "gave to those who asked," there'd be no way to steal anything! The definition of theft would become null.
The evil in the sin of pride is not, as in envy, wanting what someone else has, but rather, wanting what someone else has because they have it. A greedy person wants a sum of money. A prideful person doesn't care so much about how much he has, only that he has more than the next man. Do you have any idea what a better place the world would become if just this were to be eliminated?
So after decades of the United States extolling the virtues of Christianity and 'God' over the godless Soviets, a perfect Christian society would be communist!? Surely you jest!
In all seriousness, have you - as a Christian - ever been greedy? Have you ever been jealous? Have you ever shown pride in your own work? Of course you have, because they're human emotions. They're what makes us human, and as much a part of us as any vital organ. They're not going to suddenly disappear because everyone prays to the same bloke in the sky! Unless you're talking about brainwashing, which is a whole different story. But I don't think you're talking about brainwashing, because you probably aren't. Are you?
That, my friend, is how the cause/effect relationship between Christianity and a decrease in war can come about without a direct correlation between the two.
Then explain to me why dominantly Christian societies have experiences schisms in the past? Why are there so many people who disagree with what Christianity really means? Or by 'Christianity', you're merely referring to your particular type of Christianity, and if everyone agreed your version was accurate, there would be no wars.
That's all well and good, but personally... I prefer free will. It's silly, I know, but it's just the way I am.
-
Because the ideal Christian life seriously and drastically minimizes and even tries to eliminate the cause for all war.
So does the ideal Jewish life, the ideal Muslim life, the ideal Buddhist life, the ideal atheist life......
None of the major religions support war. They all want a peaceful life. Not just Christianity.
You've missed the point completely here. You're asking for two massive changes. You're asking for the world to be all Christian and you're asking for humanity to be ideal. It's actually the second one of those which would have the effect of reducing war and making the world a better place but you're trying to kid yourselves that it's the first one.
-
All good arguments. Wow, I somehow missed all of page 4 when I posted that. Anyway, now I'll answer your questions:
Right! Because no Christian has ever been greedy, prideful, or murdered anyone. Ever! In fact, if such a thing were to occur, this entire line of argument would be shot to hell! But it hasn't, so it's not! Yippie!
What you forget is that while yes, Christians do experience these shortcomings, true Christians try very hard (and are more often than not exceedingly successful, I might add) at overcoming them. I can say from experience on both sides of the coin that this is more true for Christians than non-Christians. Also, I was talking about Christians as described by Trashman and JR2 above, the so-called "Little Christs."
So after decades of the United States extolling the virtues of Christianity and 'God' over the godless Soviets, a perfect Christian society would be communist!? Surely you jest!
Maybe not Communist, but at least, MORE socialist than our current society. Remember, this only works if everyone agrees to it unanimously (which is why it will probably not happen this side of Eternity)
In all seriousness, have you - as a Christian - ever been greedy? Have you ever been jealous? Have you ever shown pride in your own work? Of course you have, because they're human emotions. They're what makes us human, and as much a part of us as any vital organ. They're not going to suddenly disappear because everyone prays to the same bloke in the sky! Unless you're talking about brainwashing, which is a whole different story. But I don't think you're talking about brainwashing, because you probably aren't. Are you?
No, not at all. I am by no means talking about brainwashing. I don't believe greed, jealousy, and pride are the true nature of human beings, I believe that came later. Pride was the first mistake Man ever made. And by it, all we call misery today was brought in. And not simply Man putting himself before other men, but man putting himself before God. All of what we call human history since the Garden of Eden has been a series of Man trying to replace God, Man trying to say he's as good as God, Man trying to put himself first. And Pride is the ultimate anti-God, because God is something which is immeasurably better than we are.
Just to clarify, I'm talking about the emotion of "I'm as good as he is," not simply being proud of something as in being affectionate of something or someone, nor am I talking about pleasure in being praised for something.
Here's what C.S. Lewis has to say on a Christian-based society:
If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, "advanced," but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old-fashioned-perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is why people who are fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for Christianity.
Then explain to me why dominantly Christian societies have experiences schisms in the past? Why are there so many people who disagree with what Christianity really means? Or by 'Christianity', you're merely referring to your particular type of Christianity, and if everyone agreed your version was accurate, there would be no wars.
That's all well and good, but personally... I prefer free will. It's silly, I know, but it's just the way I am.
There are many doctrinal differences which have little or no importance in the grand scheme of things, and then there are other, more important disagreements on big issues. I will point to what JR2 said about little Christs again for the definition of a Christian. There is no perfect theology except what is specifically stated by the Bible, which does leave some things open to interpretation (which gets wrapped up nicely in the book of Romans, BTW) , so I live by the following saying in that regard: "In essentials, unity. In nonessentials, liberty. But in all things, Charity." (That's Charity as in the biblical sense of the word "Love," BTW).
FYI, I'm all for free will. What, exactly, in the BIBLE (I'm not talking about what people have told you, but what have you actually read in the Bible) that makes you think Christians, or God, are against free will? While you're at it, let me ask you this: Why are you so vehemently against Christianity?
-
Because the ideal Christian life seriously and drastically minimizes and even tries to eliminate the cause for all war.
So does the ideal Jewish life, the ideal Muslim life, the ideal Buddhist life, the ideal atheist life......
None of the major religions support war. They all want a peaceful life. Not just Christianity.
You've missed the point completely here. You're asking for two massive changes. You're asking for the world to be all Christian and you're asking for humanity to be ideal. It's actually the second one of those which would have the effect of reducing war and making the world a better place but you're trying to kid yourselves that it's the first one.
Without Christ, there's no point.
My argument is this: Yes, it's two things. But you see, the first brings about the second.
Wasn't it Mohammed who said that apostates (that is believers who turn away) should be put to the sword?
And Jews... For one, the Jews are a race as well as a religion. According to the Jewish faith, the Israelites were THE chosen people of God. The children of Jacob and no others. The only way the whole world could become Jewish was if every non-Jew died out somehow.
And (at the slight risk of changing the subject of the debate) as for Atheists: If you live as though God exists, and God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite. If you live as though God does not exist, and God does not exist, your gain is finite, and therefore negligible.
If you live as though God does not exist and God truly does not exist, your gain is finite, and therefore negligible. But, if you live as though God does not exist, and God exists, you go to Hell, and your loss is infinite.
That's not a gamble I'm willing to take.
-
Without Christ, there's no point.
I'm NOT interested in a theological discussion. I'm not interested in religious arguments about how without Christ souls are in danger.
The discussion I'm interested in is whether or not a purely Christian world would have real-world visible effects on peace. And whether those effects would be greater than if the world was comprised of another religion or none at all.
My argument is this: Yes, it's two things. But you see, the first brings about the second.
How? Christianity is no better on paper than any other religion. In fact if I had to pick a religion that was likely to bring about world peace Christianity would be quite far down the list. The central tenets of for instance Buddhism (karma and search for truth) are much more likely to have that effect than the central tenets of Christianity (devotion to single omniscient deity).
Wasn't it Mohammed who said that apostates (that is believers who turn away) should be put to the sword?
The bible is equally full of brutality towards non-believers.
-
Bhuddism believes that the only way a person can ever truly be at peace is if they don't exist anymore, and the only way to do that is to climb the ladder of reincarnation to eventually achieve, not nirvanna, which is oneness with the Universe, but simply nothing. That is not a hopeful outlook whatsoever. Why work so hard to gain nothing? What a cruel universe indeed! How can there ever be a hope for peace in such a place?
If one truly follows the teachings of Christ, how can a war be fought by only one person? For Christ Himself says "Do not resist a wicked man."
No better on paper? Really now? When was the last time you heard of a man who wouldn't stay buried? When was the last time you heard of a man who could transform water into wine? Heck, if there were more people like Christ around, we wouldn't even have world hunger! He fed 5000 with a little bread and a couple fish.
-
Sorry for the double post again, but I just thought of another great example:
Where else, besides Christianity, do you have a man who went around persecuting, torturing and killing the followers of a specific teaching everywhere he went turn around and end up writing half of the doctrine for that religion? That's how. Look at the life of Saul (Paul). Forgive me for again treading into theological waters, but an experience with Christ changes people. It really does.
-
And (at the slight risk of changing the subject of the debate) as for Atheists: If you live as though God exists, and God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite. If you live as though God does not exist, and God does not exist, your gain is finite, and therefore negligible.
If you live as though God does not exist and God truly does not exist, your gain is finite, and therefore negligible. But, if you live as though God does not exist, and God exists, you go to Hell, and your loss is infinite.
That's not a gamble I'm willing to take.
I always laugh myself silly at such simple thinking. The question is always posed as a binary choice. God exists or he doesn't. It is nowhere near that simple. Suppose Allah is the true god and Christians go to hell while atheists go to limbo? Suppose the Hindus are correct? The Buddhists?
What if the bible is a test and you're supposed to use it to arrive at your own morality and think for yourself instead of slavishly following something you were told to do? What if THAT's how you get into heaven?
The whole "the odds are in my favour" argument is often posted by Christians and it's a pretty foolish one when it's examined even slightly. Besides believing in God to hedge your bets wouldn't get you into heaven anyway.
No better on paper? Really now? When was the last time you heard of a man who wouldn't stay buried? When was the last time you heard of a man who could transform water into wine? Heck, if there were more people like Christ around, we wouldn't even have world hunger! He fed 5000 with a little bread and a couple fish.
I always laugh when religious people start quoting their fairy stories as if they MUST be true. :lol:
Actually Hindu myths are a much better read on paper. The bible doesn't even have a monkey battalion let alone an army!
-
See, notice how I posted it under "as for atheists." The Bible defines such people as fools, and you say that this argument is a foolish one. No wonder. It's still not as foolish as Atheism, and at least brings the argument to some form of Theism. I didn't intend that statement to convert you. It's intended to show an atheist why Christianity is something that is at least worth a good going-over in their head.
What if? is the way to arrive at that morality simply to ignore it and thrash anyone who makes a slight mention of it?
I'm sorry for going here, but I guess this is where it's going. I would like to get back to the original topic (which I've tried pretty hard to stick to), but since we're here: What if? What if Christ really did rise from the grave? What if he did really forgive sins as he claimed? Do not, friend, make the mistake of claiming Christ as a good person and nothing more. Imagine I stole your car, and Joe Schmoe said "Dustin, I forgive you for stealing Kara's car." You would think him an idiot, wouldn't you? So would I. This person would have no right saying such a thing... unless he was in some way hurt more than you by my crime. How would this be possible if he were not God?
This leaves us with only three things Christ could have been: A lunatic, a demon, or God in the flesh. I believe in the latter. I'm not telling you what to believe by this, though.
-
See, notice how I posted it under "as for atheists." The Bible defines such people as fools, and you say that this argument is a foolish one. No wonder. It's still not as foolish as Atheism, and at least brings the argument to some form of Theism. I didn't intend that statement to convert you. It's intended to show an atheist why Christianity is something that is at least worth a good going-over in their head.
And what made you assume I haven't?
Your argument that it is a matter of a simple binary choice between belief in God and atheism is a foolish one. You'd first have to prove that Christianity is the only religion worth converting to, that it is above every other religion in the world. But if you did that you'd have succeeded in converting me at which point your argument (better known as Pascal's Wager) becomes moot anyway. That's why it's foolish. Not because belief in God is foolish but because the point at which you can claim that the choice is binary is the point at which it is no longer a choice at all.
What if? What if Christ really did rise from the grave? What if he did really forgive sins as he claimed?
Fine. Prove it. And I don't mean quote at me from the bible as if it must be true.
I'm sure you've heard all kinds of things about what atheists believe but the fact is judging from your responses you've probably never actually argued with someone who is a weak atheist (or even heard the term). The fact is that most atheists are weak atheists. That doesn't mean we say that God can't exist. It means that we say that there is simply no proof that elevates any religion above all the others so the only sensible point of view is to assume that they are all wrong until proof is found.
So yes I've considered that what if. Have you honestly considered that you might be wrong? Have you actually researched the other religions to prove that they are correct? Have you done so fairly and objectively without starting from the point of view that your particular sect of your particular religion is correct?
Cause I mentioned that Christianity was no better earlier and all you could do was quote the bible at me. If you had done that you should be able objectively state why Christianity is better than other religions. Cause right now I'm hearing nothing more than Christianity is better cause I believe it's true and therefore this stuff I believe to be true says it's better. That's a circular argument at best.
-
Bhuddism believes that the only way a person can ever truly be at peace is if they don't exist anymore, and the only way to do that is to climb the ladder of reincarnation to eventually achieve, not nirvanna, which is oneness with the Universe, but simply nothing. That is not a hopeful outlook whatsoever. Why work so hard to gain nothing? What a cruel universe indeed! How can there ever be a hope for peace in such a place?
Personally, I like to think of it this way: We didn't exist for the first 13.8 billion years the universe has been in existence, and i'm not hearing any complaints about that. In fact, I think you should be happy that you spent all that time not existing, otherwise you wouldn't have a nice planet and lots of other people here to call friends. Personally, the first 13.8 billion years I didn't exist breezed by so well that i'll have no problem doing the same for the next 13.8 billion years.
But then, i'm an atheist, and as such you can rest assured that i'll probably burn in the agonizing pits of Hell for entertaining such terrible, terrible thoughts. Y'know, exercising my free will to not believe in a religion. The Bible may extol the virtues of free will, just not too free, y'know? :rolleyes:
-
You've missed the point completely here. You're asking for two massive changes. You're asking for the world to be all Christian and you're asking for humanity to be ideal. It's actually the second one of those which would have the effect of reducing war and making the world a better place but you're trying to kid yourselves that it's the first one.
And youre assuming the fist one would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT WHATSOEVER? :rolleyes:
As for schims - different "branches" of chistianity are coming closer together recently, becoming united.
I don't know if you read the news, but they are closer then ever before, and some are starting to get integrated into the Catholic church.
-
How? Christianity is no better on paper than any other religion. In fact if I had to pick a religion that was likely to bring about world peace Christianity would be quite far down the list. The central tenets of for instance Buddhism (karma and search for truth) are much more likely to have that effect than the central tenets of Christianity (devotion to single omniscient deity).
Christianty preaches love to your fellow man. So any true follower would indeed try to bring peace to the world.
A untrue follower of whatever religion you can think of can allways mess up everything. The same holds true for Budhists too.
I always laugh myself silly at such simple thinking. The question is always posed as a binary choice. God exists or he doesn't. It is nowhere near that simple. Suppose Allah is the true god and Christians go to hell while atheists go to limbo? Suppose the Hindus are correct? The Buddhists?
ERm...Allah = Christina God = Jewish God.
They are all the same bloke, we just call him by a different name and have a few different rules and ceremnies. That is all.
What if the bible is a test and you're supposed to use it to arrive at your own morality and think for yourself instead of slavishly following something you were told to do? What if THAT's how you get into heaven?
This makes no sense. Not everyone can be right about their morality. If God made the bible as a test, then you acknowledge that there is a God. He also set some moral guidelines. If your own moral you came to yourself conflicts his, why would he reward you for it??
And slavishly?
Well if it makes you feel better thinking that you're somehow more free than a Christian, knock yourself out. Whatever rocks your boat dude.
-
ERm...Allah = Christina God = Jewish God.
They are all the same bloke, we just call him by a different name and have a few different rules and ceremnies. That is all.
Do you honestly think I didn't know that? :rolleyes:
But what if Allah is only letting Muslims into heaven and he's pretty pissed off at you not getting the change of name card he sent ~1300 years ago? Not to mention worship one of his prophets as if he were divine?
This makes no sense. Not everyone can be right about their morality. If God made the bible as a test, then you acknowledge that there is a God. He also set some moral guidelines. If your own moral you came to yourself conflicts his, why would he reward you for it??
I've always found it laughable that Christians insist that God works in mysterious ways and yet refuse to acknowledge the possibility that maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't then have had a great big book with all the answers in it in cleartext.
What if some of the stuff in the bible is meant to be there to teach you valuable morality lessons while other stuff is meant to be a test to see if you've understood the lessons?
-
I don't isist that he works in mysterious way.
And I understand what you mean. In a way all people are coming to their own moralit,y but ig God doesn't leave us any guidelines, then it would be cruel for him to punish those that came to the wrong morality, and unfair not to punish them.
So what I'm saying is that God left more than enough guideines, so you cna't realyl arrive at you OWN morality and expect to be correct. You can only arrive at HIS morality and still be correct, no?
-
I always laugh myself silly at such simple thinking. The question is always posed as a binary choice. God exists or he doesn't. It is nowhere near that simple. Suppose Allah is the true god and Christians go to hell while atheists go to limbo? Suppose the Hindus are correct? The Buddhists?
ERm...Allah = Christina God = Jewish God.
They are all the same bloke, we just call him by a different name and have a few different rules and ceremnies. That is all.
Uh, I really don't want to get too involved here :shaking: , but I just have to point you at the fact that you completely ignored Hindus, Buddhists and whatever else religions there might be...
Oh and "unfair not to punish them"? I thought one of you just stated he loves all of them? :confused:
And if god is so far beyond our comprehension (as someone stated a bit back in this topic), how should "his" (that word alone is making a picture, wasn't this somewhere in the bible said to, uhhm, rather be not so good an idea?) morality not be alike? So we would have to forever strive for more understanding - and STILL not get there?
Oh, welll - I guess I already posted far too much... :nervous:
-
Oh and "unfair not to punish them"? I thought one of you just stated he loves all of them? :confused:
I you do completely the opposite of what He wants...then yes, some punishment is in order.
-
Well, that doesn't answer the other 2 points...
And what you think "what is in order" can be completely thrown off with my 3rd point (though I have to admit - ANYTHING can get thrown off by that point if you leave it valid... not that I'd want to [well, mostly - I have to admit thinking about that point now and then, but usually don't come to much conclusions yet] , it's derived from your arguments, not mine)
-
And I understand what you mean. In a way all people are coming to their own moralit,y but ig God doesn't leave us any guidelines, then it would be cruel for him to punish those that came to the wrong morality, and unfair not to punish them.
Assuming for the moment that God exists, and that the bible is not a literal guide to morality but a test then yes I agree that it would be completely unfair for God to expect people to arrive at a suitably valid morality on their own. However if this was the state of affairs then it could easily be argued that the clues are there.
That being said the purpose of the test might not be to actually arrive at God's chosen morality so much as to try. It's an accepted part of Christian doctrine that to avoid sin is an impossibility but that it's the act of trying that is important. Could be this was similar.
So what I'm saying is that God left more than enough guideines, so you cna't realyl arrive at you OWN morality and expect to be correct. You can only arrive at HIS morality and still be correct, no?
Ah but why would a supreme deity have only ONE morality? :D Let me give you an example by going to one of the most divisive issues I can think of. What if both pro-choice and pro-life stances can be moral? What if what gets you into the afterlife is not which position you take but why you took it? If you're pro-life because you believe that the rights of the foetus take precedence over the rights of the mother then you get in. However if for a second you believe that women who got themselves pregnant deserve to have have to carry the child as a punishment then you're out.
Similarly if you were pro-choice because you don't care if the foetus is a life then you're out. If you're pro-choice because you're sure it isn't and the feelings of the mother should be respected then you're in.
The choices that got you in were examples of following teachings of Jesus (Love thy neighbour being the principal one I'm thinking of) that every good Christian says should be followed. The two that get you kicked out of heaven are examples of following dogma and red herrings in the bible or simply not giving a damn about the guidelines that should be followed.
Now I'm not getting all religious with the above. I simply find it funny that although almost all Christians, Jews and Muslims are prepared to reject parts of the morality of the bible (keeping slaves being one of the ones that immediately leaps to mind) very few are prepared to go a little further and ask if the entire point of the bible was to do that. :)
-
Interesting...I'n a way you're right.
The reasons behind ones decisions are of immense importance. But so are the decisions themselves.
To put it simply, both the reasons and hte action have to be right for you to be fully right, no?
-
Yep, you can do the wrong thing for the right reasons for partial credit though. But nothing would be gained by doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Intent would surely be a much larger deciding factor than outcome.
So being a good Christian just to get into heaven or avoid hell wouldn't work either. You'd have to be a good Christian for sake of being a good Christian.
-
Heeehee... You can tell who's got the swearing censors on...
-
And what made you assume I haven't?
Your argument that it is a matter of a simple binary choice between belief in God and atheism is a foolish one. You'd first have to prove that Christianity is the only religion worth converting to, that it is above every other religion in the world. But if you did that you'd have succeeded in converting me at which point your argument (better known as Pascal's Wager) becomes moot anyway. That's why it's foolish. Not because belief in God is foolish but because the point at which you can claim that the choice is binary is the point at which it is no longer a choice at all.
Nothing made me assume you hadn't, nothing about that was meant to address you specifically. It was meant to answer your question about an ideal atheist society being equal to an ideal Christian society.
What if? What if Christ really did rise from the grave? What if he did really forgive sins as he claimed?
Fine. Prove it. And I don't mean quote at me from the bible as if it must be true.
I'm sure you've heard all kinds of things about what atheists believe but the fact is judging from your responses you've probably never actually argued with someone who is a weak atheist (or even heard the term). The fact is that most atheists are weak atheists. That doesn't mean we say that God can't exist. It means that we say that there is simply no proof that elevates any religion above all the others so the only sensible point of view is to assume that they are all wrong until proof is found.
So yes I've considered that what if. Have you honestly considered that you might be wrong? Have you actually researched the other religions to prove that they are correct? Have you done so fairly and objectively without starting from the point of view that your particular sect of your particular religion is correct?
Cause I mentioned that Christianity was no better earlier and all you could do was quote the bible at me. If you had done that you should be able objectively state why Christianity is better than other religions. Cause right now I'm hearing nothing more than Christianity is better cause I believe it's true and therefore this stuff I believe to be true says it's better. That's a circular argument at best.
What? I understand that non-christians operate on a completely different belief system than I do, and I understand that quoting the Bible to someone who doesn't believe it's true is in most cases useless. However, in the context of what I said from the Bible, I was showing you the part of the Christian belief system that is strictly against violence towards others. And greed. Etc. I was simply showing why what Christians believe is, if anything, pacifistic. And FYI, I was an atheist, once.
And as far as proving to you that Christ did walk out of his tomb, that this is a real thing... well, if you don't believe the testimony of more than 500 people, the best I can do is show you my life, what I was and what I am, and the change that's come about as a result of the work of Christ in my life. Beyond that, I have nothing for you.
But if you wanna get back on the original topic of this thread, go ahead. If you wanna keep up with this, that's fine too. I'll leave it up to you.
But then, i'm an atheist, and as such you can rest assured that i'll probably burn in the agonizing pits of Hell for entertaining such terrible, terrible thoughts. Y'know, exercising my free will to not believe in a religion. The Bible may extol the virtues of free will, just not too free, y'know? :rolleyes:
Man, I have no idea where you're getting that Christianity =/= Free Will, but it is COMPLETELY off-base.
If God were against free will, why would He even allow you the concept of there being no God? Ponder that for a while.
-
What? I understand that non-christians operate on a completely different belief system than I do, and I understand that quoting the Bible to someone who doesn't believe it's true is in most cases useless.
Yet in your answer you've still failed to actually answer the questions which brought you into this thread (i.e why the world would be better if it were all Christian rather than any other religion.) and have continued to post those quotes as if they were somehow proof. They aren't. A Muslim could quote the Koran. A Jew could quote the Torah. Would you accept those quotes as proof that an all-muslim world would be more peaceful?
The only religion I can see proving that their religion would make the world more peaceful is Rastafarism. And then only cause everyone would be too stoned out of their heads to fight at least 6 days a year. :)
If you can provide empirical proof that you're correct go ahead. But you yourself have admitted that it's a waste of time trying to use scripture as empirical proof. So stop. Find something else.
However, in the context of what I said from the Bible, I was showing you the part of the Christian belief system that is strictly against violence towards others. And greed. Etc. I was simply showing why what Christians believe is, if anything, pacifistic.
What Christians believe is a whole spectrum ranging from outright genocide to unbelievably non-violent pacifism depending on the individual and the environment. And both sides can quote the bible to prove their arguments. What you're saying is that the world would be a better place if everyone took the good parts of the bible and ignore all the stuff about stoning people. That's fine. But you can make that argument with any religion because you're not just asking for everyone to be Christians. You're asking everyone to be the peaceful kind of Christian.
Now you have to prove that your idealised Christian is somehow more likely to bring about peace than an idealised Muslim or Buddhist or any other religion (well maybe not Satanist. :D I think we can be easily convinced that a world full of Satanists ideal or not would not be more peaceful).
And FYI, I was an atheist, once.
Just out of interest what kind of atheist were you. Cause I remember reading a survey once in which 3% of atheists said they believed in God. Which did nothing other than proving that 3% of the people asked what religion they were would probably have ticked the box marked Pizza if only there had been one.
And as far as proving to you that Christ did walk out of his tomb, that this is a real thing... well, if you don't believe the testimony of more than 500 people, the best I can do is show you my life, what I was and what I am, and the change that's come about as a result of the work of Christ in my life. Beyond that, I have nothing for you.
Then you have nothing. I can show you Muslims, Buddhists and a whole host of other people who turned their lives around cause of their conversion. You've not proved why your conversion was better than theirs. I'm sure they could argue just as passionately that their religion is better.
-
Yep, you can do the wrong thing for the right reasons for partial credit though. But nothing would be gained by doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Intent would surely be a much larger deciding factor than outcome.
So being a good Christian just to get into heaven or avoid hell wouldn't work either. You'd have to be a good Christian for sake of being a good Christian.
Well, I'm not so sure about the last one.
There's nothing wroing with wanting to go to Heaven really, soif that desire results in you doing good things, I see no problem.
After all, you can't spend your life doing good things unless it's not that hard for you to do them (as in - it fist your persona).
You can act like somone else and go against your "true" self for a while, but you ultimately can't keep that up.
Thus a person who sepnds his whole life doesng good things, becouse he wants to go to heaven, has done so also becouse he didn't have any problems being a good person in the first place.
-
Yet in your answer you've still failed to actually answer the questions which brought you into this thread (i.e why the world would be better if it were all Christian rather than any other religion.)
Hm...There area few religions that could be practicly as good as Christianity (in the above sense or a more peacefull world).
I can think of a few advantages it has tough:
1. Christianity is highly ordered. There exists a clear "chain of command" and hiaerarchy. Thus it makes it far more difficult for a priest or bishop somewhere to just start claiming something that goes contrary to the "higher-ups" and get away with it.
Something like what happens in the Middle East, where some Imam can convince a bunch of people to blow themselves up for Alah, despite the fact that other imams denonunce it, could not happen, simply becouse of it's structure.
2. Different parts of Christianity are coming togeter and the trend is increasing. Christinaity is slowly uniting.
At hte same time some other religions have strams that are tearing eachotehr appart (take a look at Iraq again, and the two groups, the Shiaa nad the Suunit (did I spell this right?))
What Christians believe is a whole spectrum ranging from outright genocide to unbelievably non-violent pacifism depending on the individual and the environment. And both sides can quote the bible to prove their arguments. What you're saying is that the world would be a better place if everyone took the good parts of the bible and ignore all the stuff about stoning people. That's fine. But you can make that argument with any religion because you're not just asking for everyone to be Christians. You're asking everyone to be the peaceful kind of Christian.
Erm..not really. Christianity denounces and fight vilence, it's what the Church preaches.
Anyone who calls for "outright genocide" as you put it can't call himself Christian.
Well, he can, but he isn't.
It's like a Klu Klux Clan member calling himself the follower of Marthin Luther King.
-
Well, I'm not so sure about the last one.
There's nothing wroing with wanting to go to Heaven really, soif that desire results in you doing good things, I see no problem.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to go to heaven but if you're doing good things just to get in then it's unlikely to count.
For instance donating all your money in your will to charity cause you won't need it after your dead so it might as well help you get in is likely to be regarded as a lot important than donating much smaller amounts when you're alive and can actually feel the loss.
-
Erm..not really. Christianity denounces and fight vilence, it's what the Church preaches.
Erm...
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21
-
Dunno..after all, you're still making sacrifices willingly and forging a btter world in the process.
Wanting to go to Heaven actually IS a very good thing. It's a powerfull motive and nothnig to be ashamed of. And it's practilcy impossible to be hte ONLY motive, for the reasons I stated before.
-
I even gave you an example of the sort of act I was on about. :p
Donating your money to charity after you die can be done for completely selfish reasons.
-
Actually TrashMan, I do somewhat disagree with you here. True following of "The Way" is done out of a love for Christ. Yes, Heaven's a great place, and I wanna go there, but that's not why I do what I do, and that makes all the difference.
It's not about what you do, Kara. Christ died for me, He can't love me any more than that, no matter what I do.
Erm..not really. Christianity denounces and fight vilence, it's what the Church preaches.
Erm...
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21
The entirety of the Old Testament is meant as an example to how incompatible with sin God is. Where it exists, it must be eliminated. When Sin happens, something has to die. This is illustrated throughout, whether it's public execution, atonement sacrifice in the Temple, or whatever. Until Christ came. He was the final, ultimate sacrifice, the end-all for death as a result of sin. He changed the causality of Sin=Death. So that no longer applies, not because Christ made it no longer true, but because he fulfilled it ultimately and entirely.
-
The entirety of the Old Testament is meant as an example to how incompatible with sin God is. Where it exists, it must be eliminated. When Sin happens, something has to die. This is illustrated throughout, whether it's public execution, atonement sacrifice in the Temple, or whatever. Until Christ came. He was the final, ultimate sacrifice, the end-all for death as a result of sin. He changed the causality of Sin=Death. So that no longer applies, not because Christ made it no longer true, but because he fulfilled it ultimately and entirely.
Okay, a few from the New Testament then...
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.-- Matthew 10:34-36
-
The entirety of the Old Testament is meant as an example to how incompatible with sin God is. Where it exists, it must be eliminated. When Sin happens, something has to die. This is illustrated throughout, whether it's public execution, atonement sacrifice in the Temple, or whatever. Until Christ came. He was the final, ultimate sacrifice, the end-all for death as a result of sin. He changed the causality of Sin=Death. So that no longer applies, not because Christ made it no longer true, but because he fulfilled it ultimately and entirely.
You might have a point there if it weren't for the fact that Jesus himself said that you should stone disobedient children.
So are you saying that everything Jesus said before he died is similarly void too?
-
Deuteronomy 21:
18A father and a mother may have a stubborn and rebellious son who refuses to obey them even after he has been punished. 19If a son is like that, his parents must drag him to the town gate, where the leaders of the town hold their meetings. 20The parents will tell the leaders, " This son of ours is stubborn and never obeys. He spends all his time drinking and partying."
21The men of the town will stone that son to death, because they must get rid of the evil he brought into the community. Everyone in Israel will be afraid when they hear how he was punished.
Well, consider this: Back then, you had the manifestation of God visible with your bare eyes in the center of your camp. And you still want to rebel? OK. And note that it said even after he was punished.
Oh, and let's have a little context here:
Matthew 10:16-36
16I am sending you like lambs into a pack of wolves. So be as wise as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17Watch out for people who will take you to court and have you beaten in their meeting places. 18Because of me, you will be dragged before rulers and kings to tell them and the Gentiles about your faith. 19But when someone arrests you, don't worry about what you will say or how you will say it. At that time you will be given the words to say. 20But you will not really be the one speaking. The Spirit from your Father will tell you what to say.
21Brothers and sisters will betray one another and have each other put to death. Parents will betray their own children, and children will turn against their parents and have them killed. 22Everyone will hate you because of me. But if you remain faithful until the end, you will be saved. 23When people mistreat you in one town, hurry to another one. I promise you that before you have gone to all the towns of Israel, the Son of Man will come.
24Disciples are not better than their teacher, and slaves are not better than their master. 25It is enough for disciples to be like their teacher and for slaves to be like their master. If people call the head of the family Satan, what will they say about the rest of the family?
The One To Fear
(Luke 12.2-7)
26Don't be afraid of anyone! Everything that is hidden will be found out, and every secret will be known. 27Whatever I say to you in the dark, you must tell in the light. And you must announce from the housetops whatever I have whispered to you. 28Don't be afraid of people. They can kill you, but they cannot harm your soul. Instead, you should fear God who can destroy both your body and your soul in hell. 29Aren't two sparrows sold for only a penny? But your Father knows when any one of them falls to the ground. 30Even the hairs on your head are counted. 31So don't be afraid! You are worth much more than many sparrows.
Telling Others about Christ
(Luke 12.8,9)
32If you tell others that you belong to me, I will tell my Father in heaven that you are my followers. 33But if you reject me, I will tell my Father in heaven that you don't belong to me.
Not Peace, but Trouble
(Luke 12.51-53; 14.26,27)
34Don't think that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came to bring trouble, not peace. 35I came to turn sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, and daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law. 36Your worst enemies will be in your own family.
-
Where does Jesus talk about anyone being stoned? The only thing I remember reading about that he said about stoning people was that "the one among you who is without sin should cast the first stone."
-
Well, as God incarnate, the three in one, God = Jesus = Holy Spirit ... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
John 1:1-17 (Amplified Bible)
Amplified Bible (AMP)
John 1
1IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [b]Himself.(A)
2He was present originally with God.
3All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.
4In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men.
5And the Light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness has never overpowered it [put it out or absorbed it or appropriated it, and is unreceptive to it].
6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.(B)
7This man came to witness, that he might testify of the Light, that all men might believe in it [adhere to it, trust it, and rely upon it] through him.
8He was not the Light himself, but came that he might bear witness regarding the Light.
9There it was--the true Light [was then] coming into the world [the genuine, perfect, steadfast Light] that illumines every person.(C)
10He came into the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him [did not know Him].
11He came to that which belonged to Him [to His own--His domain, creation, things, world], and they who were His own did not receive Him and did not welcome Him.
12But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name--(D)
13Who owe their birth neither to [c]bloods nor to the will of the flesh [that of physical impulse] nor to the will of man [that of a natural father], but to God. [They are born of God!]
14And the Word (Christ) became flesh (human, incarnate) and tabernacled (fixed His tent of flesh, lived awhile) among us; and we [actually] saw His glory (His honor, His majesty), such glory as an only begotten son receives from his father, full of grace (favor, loving-kindness) and truth.(E)
15John testified about Him and cried out, This was He of Whom I said, He Who comes after me has priority over me, for He was before me. [He takes rank above me, for He existed before I did. He has advanced before me, because He is my Chief.]
16For out of His fullness (abundance) we have all received [all had a share and we were all supplied with] one grace after another and spiritual blessing upon spiritual blessing and even favor upon favor and gift [heaped] upon gift.
17For while the Law was given through Moses, grace ([d]unearned, undeserved favor and spiritual blessing) and truth came through Jesus Christ.(F)
Footnotes:
1. John 1:1 In John's vision (Rev. 19), he sees Christ returning as Warrior-Messiah-King, and "the title by which He is called is The Word of God... and Lord of lords" (Rev. 19:13, 16).
2. John 1:1 Charles B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People: "God" appears first in the Greek word order in this phrase, denoting emphasis--so "God Himself."
3. John 1:13 Literal translation.
4. John 1:17 Richard Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament.
-
You might have a point there if it weren't for the fact that Jesus himself said that you should stone disobedient children.
So are you saying that everything Jesus said before he died is similarly void too?
Where the hell do you get that from??? :wtf:
You should learn to read between the lines.
-
that's what I said. Except, what do you mean by reading between the lines on that one?
-
Actually that one is my bad. I remember Jesus actually saying something about stoning disobedient children but it appears he was being sarcastic at the time. :D
But just to be clear on this. Any laws from the old testament is null and void unless restated in the new testament, right?
-
There are only two laws and nothing is above them.
The famous:
1 Love God with all your mind, all your heart and all your soul.
2. Love thy neighbour with all your mind, all your heart and all your soul.
Anything that contradicts this is null and void. Simple.
Oh, take the old testament with a little bit of salt. It has been carried over verbally for some time before being written down, so I doubt it's 100% the word of God.
-
Sorry but I don't see any reason to be anti-gay in those two so either you're missing at least one law or breaking the second one.
-
Sorry but I don't see any reason to be anti-gay in those two so either you're missing at least one law or breaking the second one.
That's because TrashMan left out a little bit when he was stating the rules:
There are only two laws and nothing is above them.
The famous:
1 Love God with all your mind, all your heart and all your soul.*
2. Love thy neighbour with all your mind, all your heart and all your soul.*
*God's Love™ is not applicable to Homosexuals, Arabs, Atheists, Non-Christians, or in the state of California
Anything that contradicts this is null and void. Simple.
-
In other words, Mefustae, God's love is not applicable to those who don't accept it.
I believe that whatever lifestyle a person leads, while it is somewhat indicative of a person's heart, the heart is indeed only fully visible to God, and He makes the final choice.
I wouldn't say there are no rules, they just aren't as important as they used to be. Instead of salvation/no salvation, it's more like, if you accept Christ's gift you're saved any which way you look at it. But the more you sin, the more responsibility you have for the man's crucifixion. And IDK about you, but I do NOT want that weighing much on my chest when I meet the man face to face. But for sure, we are saved by the Grace of God, and not by things we say/do/don't do.
And Trashman, the only things I consider a bit hazy are those pre-Exodus. I do believe sodom and gommorah did happen (high sulfur content in the soil in that locale, FYI), but as for the story of Adam and Eve, I believe the most important thing a person can take away from that is not simply the story of our origins, but the story of our fall and banishment from paradise. But just about every bit of scripture is backed up and corroborated a couple of times over, especially by the Dead Sea scrolls.
FYI I live in the state of California. And I know the love of God™.
Karajorma, I believe loving God includes doing your best to live up to His standards, which are none less than utter and total perfection.
-
Oh man... I just recently started taking Lunesta - this sleep aid thing... Reading all these posts about religion and philosophy.... the screen looks like an ocean. I'm tripping out man.
-
In other words, Mefustae, God's love is not applicable to those who don't accept it.
Nice. It doesn't matter what kind of person you are, just who you **** and who you pray to. Awesome.
...and He makes the final choice.
Exactly, it's his way or the highway... to hell, that is. Literally! Thankyou, Lord, for giving humanity such a wealth of choice! We should celebrate that we have been bestowed total freedom to choose whether we suffer eternally or not. Double awesome. :yes:
Now do you see the rift between free will and religion. God's Love is universal and complete, but you first need to do what he says to qualify for it. Am I the only one who sees the problem with that!? Why would He give us free will and then condemn us when we dare use it.
-
Eat from any tree in the Garden | Free Will
Except that one | Laws / Rules
If you eat from it, you will die | Punishment
"I can't eat from that tree! What kind of free will is that??" | Mefustae
So you are saying that because lying under oath is illegal and punishable by law, that we do not have free speech? Think on that a bit.
-
Eat from any tree in the Garden | Free Will
Except that one | Laws / Rules
If you eat from it, you will die | Punishment
"I can't eat from that tree! What kind of free will is that??" | Mefustae
So you are saying that because lying under oath is illegal and punishable by law, that we do not have free speech? Think on that a bit.
Back in the Garden of Eden, that would have been valid. Now, it's a much more complicated matter. We're not dealing with a binary choice like eating from the tree or not, lying under oath or not, etc. Moreover, you're ignoring both the severity and chronological factors here.
A more apt analogy would be: Do you have free speech when you have a list of things you absolutely cannot say under penalty of death? Or even: Is it free speech when you're always under oath?
-
...and He makes the final choice.
Exactly, it's his way or the highway... to hell, that is. Literally! Thankyou, Lord, for giving humanity such a wealth of choice! We should celebrate that we have been bestowed total freedom to choose whether we suffer eternally or not. Double awesome. :yes:
Now do you see the rift between free will and religion. God's Love is universal and complete, but you first need to do what he says to qualify for it. Am I the only one who sees the problem with that!? Why would He give us free will and then condemn us when we dare use it.
ERm...no.
God loves all and everyone who is good is saved.
But I see it's the wording it what confuses you.
"Rejecting God" doesn't mean refusing to belive in Him, it means rejecting the essence of what he is - love. Basicly it means acting without love or compassion.
So you can very well not belive in God and think anyone who does a idiot, but if you area good person then your soul will be saved. If not..well
Free will implies choice.... all choice..even the wrong one. But it also implies responsibility for your choices, no? ;)
-
A more apt analogy would be: Do you have free speech when you have a list of things you absolutely cannot say under penalty of death? Or even: Is it free speech when you're always under oath?
Can I walk around and start shouting that WHATEVER I want without punishment?
Every freedom has its limits - i's not absolute. Actions have consequences and we're inteligent enough to predict what those cnsequences will be.
Let's assume I walk around spitting out anti-Jew, anti-black, anti-(everything that isn't me) comments. Technicly we have a freedom of speech, but how long do you think I'll actually have legs to walk around after that? Is that free speech?
So basicly you have freedom, as long you're not hurting someone else with your freedom.
-
So basicly you have freedom, as long you're not hurting someone else with your freedom.
So being gay hurts God? God, an omnipotent, all-powerful being that created the universe, gets hurt when Sean loves Steve.
So, like, gay is God's kryptonite!
-
So being gay hurts God? God, an omnipotent, all-powerful being that created the universe, gets hurt when Sean loves Steve.
So, like, gay is God's kryptonite!
Did I say that? F'course not. Nothing can hurt God...at least not physicly.
People are born gay and God loves everyone.
If that gay in question is a good person - heaven. Simple as that. Alltough I'm not sure if he'll get the 5 star treatment :lol:
-
So being gay hurts God? God, an omnipotent, all-powerful being that created the universe, gets hurt when Sean loves Steve.
So, like, gay is God's kryptonite!
Did I say that? F'course not. Nothing can hurt God...at least not physicly.
People are born gay and God loves everyone.
If that gay in question is a good person - heaven. Simple as that. Alltough I'm not sure if he'll get the 5 star treatment :lol:
Thinking about it a bit, God is an idea, an omnipotence. Nothing can hurt Him but this is beside the point. I don't want to argue about this statement.
This whole argument is based around the beliefs in Christianity. What of the other religions?
-
After seeing the response the Christians got none of them have been stupid enough to claim on this thread that the world would be better off under them. :p
-
Mm, well since I'm not Christian, I end up having a more worldly perspective of events.
-
God loves everyone, period. His love is the means by which we can be saved.
What kind of person someone is is completely irrelevant as far as Heaven is concerned. Completely. A genocidal maniac has an equal "chance" of getting into Heaven as the most charitable, philanthropic person you could possibly meet. NO HUMAN BEING ALIVE TODAY IS "GOOD ENOUGH." We are ALL imperfect. The ONLY perfect man to ever grace this bright blue gem with His presence was Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, whatever you wanna call Him. So get the idea of "Good enough" out of your head right now, because I tell you, except for this one man, there IS no such creature, and it is by the nature of our God-given Free Will that this is so. We could be incredibly good or incredibly bad. He knew the risks when He made us. He thought it was worth it. Arguing with Him on that point is like a stream trying to rise above its source, we argue with the very thing that makes us able to reason at all.
And Mefustae, How the HECK can you receive a gift without accepting it? I mean, seriously, that's just common sense. Doing what He says to qualify for His love? He knocks on your door, you answer! Otherwise, it's incredibly difficult to carry on a conversation! Look at it this way. There are 1,000,000,000,000 steps to Heaven. Christ took 999,999,999,999 of them. And you say God doesn't love you because you have to take a single measly step towards Him? While He was literally tortured to death for you?
Now stop trying to poke holes in every single thing I say without putting at least a single iota of the intelligence I know you have behind it. I'm not here to argue with blind fools, but to shed light on the path for a seeker. If you have no interest in even giving my words an ounce of consideration, what are you still doing in this thread?
-
Why are you folks so worried about interpreting a fairy tell?
It gets us nowhere.
Of course, as long as you don't interpret hate, I have no objections.
-
that kind of comment in a thread like this is what gets us nowhere.
That is what they call "flamebait."
-
that kind of comment in a thread like this is what gets us nowhere.
That is what they call "flamebait."
No! You have uncovered my plan!
Just how I feel on the matter, feel free to say what you will.
-
If you have no interest in even giving my words an ounce of consideration, what are you still doing in this thread?
Discussing the original topic perhaps? :p
I notice that no one has managed to give me an answer to which rules in the bible still apply. Trashman's answer was far to general to be of any use.
-
Nah, I doubt it's that. Notice how after most of my posts, I say that we can get back on topic if you like, yet somehow, that doesn' t quite happen...
Actually, TrashMan's answer is all we get. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind soul and strength. Love others as yourself. These are the greatest of the commandments in that order. The real question is how far you're willing to go for that love. I would die for my God, and I would die for the stranger down the street. I would also kill for said stranger, but most likely only in a life-and-death situation. I guess in that way I break rule number 2, because I'd like to think that I wouldn't kill to save my own life, unless that someone else's immediate survival depended on my own. Although that's something I wonder about often. Also, I don't believe that since the events in the New Testament, God would ever instruct a man to kill another man without a darn good and blatantly obvious reason (I.E. a hostage situation or some such thing). I don't believe it's God's will for me to bomb an abortion clinic.
I'm sorry I can't be more specific than that. But that's just it. There are really no more rules to be followed. We aren't "saved" by following rules, we aren't "saved" by praying x amount of times a day, we aren't "saved" by saying a set of magic words with our eyes closed and our hands folded and heads bowed. We aren't "saved" by abstaining from sin, we aren't "saved" by avoiding the wrong words, we aren't "saved" by not having same-sex relationships, we aren't "saved" by not killing anyone, we aren't "saved" by being obedient to anyone or anything. We are "saved" because we are loved. We are obedient because we love. There is no greater connection between the two than that alone. Period.
-
Goatmaster, no. I'd much rather not advocate any religion or be advocated to.
Regardless, do you really question why you love the Lord?
-
I've questioned a lot of things concerning Christianity, but one thing I haven't is why I love the Lord.
He died for me, plain and simple. He got up off of that big white throne of His where he could sit all high and mighty, the entire Universe at his disposal, and instead he chose to be like me, a poor, wretched man, so that He could relate to me. That kind of love could simply not be expressed in words. And yes, while any man can do this, none can as perfectly as He did. And none could claim to be God like He did, at least not without backing it up, like He did. That's why I love Him. Why I believe, that's another matter entirely, one which I have questioned through and through. But never why I love. I know without a doubt the answer to that.
-
So again I'll ask the question. How does being homosexual have any effect on how much you love God or on loving others as you love yourself?
Or are you claiming that the whole anti-homosexual thing is only being done by those who aren't true Christians?
-
One thing that's always bothered me about this is...
Is it a sacrifice if you know you're going to resurrect three days later?
-
Hmm, what would be the difference between loving God and believing Him? In order to love something, you must believe it exits. This is besides the point.
Anyway, I understand perfectly that loving God is a given. How can that be construed?
So again I'll ask the question. How does being homosexual have any effect on how much you love God or on loving others as you love yourself?
Or are you claiming that the whole anti-homosexual thing is only being done by those who aren't true Christians?
-
One thing that's always bothered me about this is...
Is it a sacrifice if you know you're going to resurrect three days later?
It could be taken as a sacrifice if those close to the 'sacrifice' don't know he will be alive three days later. That's about as far as I can think of it as since normally, sacrifices stay dead.
-
I'm not homosexual, and as such, I'm not exactly qualified to answer it from their point of view.
But my views on that are, to be blunt: How can someone who claims to love God choose to live a lifestyle so contrary to what He's all about?
That's true for any "sinful" lifestyle, whether it involves alcoholism, domestic abuse, or whatever the case may be. But as I said before, only God can truly know a person's heart. Other people can only judge a person based on their actions, which is why we're told not to judge people at all. However, in loving others as ourselves, we ARE instructed to judge the person's actions. I.E. say I steal something, for example. I may become disappointed in myself for stealing. I may grow to hate the fact that I stole (whether because of the punishment it will get me or because I truly hate the fact that I stole is another matter entirely, but nonetheless). But rarely will you find a person who says they hate themselves because they screwed up, and usually they have other problems. You find people who hate the fact that they screwed up, but they don't hate themselves for their screwups. "Hate the sin, not the sinner," so to speak.
As for the sacrifice: "When the Heavens pass away, all your scars will still remain, and forever they will say, just how much You love me."
Let me list for you some of the ways in which the actions of Christ were indeed a sacrifice to Him:
First and foremost, if you had ultimate, omnipotent, uncontested power over the entire universe, how hard would it be for you to give it up? Christ left the Heavens to be a man. Last time I checked, God > Man.
Next, not only did He give up that, which in itself is a huge sacrifice, but He came as a poor carpenter's son, not as some grand, conquering king with an army! He lived in humbling poverty. He was born in a barn! He was tempted with the same temptations anyone on Earth faces, only he never gave in, a feat which no other human being in existence has come close to achieving.
And finally, His torture and execution for crimes against men which never even took place, and crimes against God which WE commit(ted). Make no mistake. Christ did not want to go through with it. He even asked God the Father to call it off if there was any other way His master plan could be fulfilled. Yet He was obedient till death, and then some.
-
and Asuko, loving God is construed by loving people. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at there.
-
One thing that's always bothered me about this is...
Is it a sacrifice if you know you're going to resurrect three days later?
That's not quite the entire story... God actually turned His back on His Son, and placed the sins of the world upon Him (His Son). Exactly how, I don't know, but Christ took on Himself our sins and accepted the punishment for them. Being God, He could take this and survive. His body was resurrected 3 days later... people's spirits don't actually cease to exist. (Well, and neither does the body.... it just changes form.)So again I'll ask the question. How does being homosexual have any effect on how much you love God or on loving others as you love yourself?
Or are you claiming that the whole anti-homosexual thing is only being done by those who aren't true Christians?
Matthew 19:4-6 (Amplified Bible)
4He replied, Have you never read that He Who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
5And said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be united firmly (joined inseparably) to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?(A)
6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder (separate).
Romans 1:16-2:29 (Amplified Bible)
16For I am not ashamed of the Gospel (good news) of Christ, for it is God's power working unto salvation [for deliverance from eternal death] to everyone who believes with a personal trust and a confident surrender and firm reliance, to the Jew first and also to the Greek,
17For in the Gospel a righteousness which God ascribes is revealed, both springing from faith and leading to faith [disclosed through the way of faith that arouses to more faith]. As it is written, The man who through faith is just and upright shall live and shall live by faith.(A)
18For God's [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.
19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.
20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(B)
21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [a]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.
22Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].
23And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],
25Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it).(C)
26For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [b]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
28And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,
29Until they were filled (permeated and saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, iniquity, grasping and covetous greed, and malice. [They were] full of envy and jealousy, murder, strife, deceit and treachery, ill will and cruel ways. [They were] secret backbiters and gossipers,
30Slanderers, hateful to and hating God, full of insolence, arrogance, [and] boasting; inventors of new forms of evil, disobedient and undutiful to parents.
31[They were] without understanding, conscienceless and faithless, heartless and loveless [and] merciless.
32Though they are fully aware of God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them themselves but approve and applaud others who practice them.
Romans 2
1THEREFORE YOU have no excuse or defense or justification, O man, whoever you are who judges and condemns another. For in posing as judge and passing sentence on another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge are habitually practicing the very same things [that you censure and denounce].
2[But] we know that the judgment (adverse verdict, sentence) of God falls justly and in accordance with truth upon those who practice such things.
3And do you think or imagine, O man, when you judge and condemn those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God's judgment and elude His sentence and adverse verdict?
4Or are you [so blind as to] trifle with and presume upon and despise and underestimate the wealth of His kindness and forbearance and long-suffering patience? Are you unmindful or actually ignorant [of the fact] that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repent ([c]to change your mind and inner man to accept God's will)?
5But by your callous stubbornness and impenitence of heart you are storing up wrath and indignation for yourself on the day of wrath and indignation, when God's righteous judgment (just doom) will be revealed.
6For He will render to every man according to his works [justly, as his deeds deserve]:(D)
7To those who by patient persistence in well-doing [[d]springing from piety] seek [unseen but sure] glory and honor and [[e]the eternal blessedness of] immortality, He will give eternal life.
8But for those who are self-seeking and self-willed and disobedient to the Truth but responsive to wickedness, there will be indignation and wrath.
9[And] there will be tribulation and anguish and calamity and constraint for every soul of man who [habitually] does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek (Gentile).
10But glory and honor and [heart] peace shall be awarded to everyone who [habitually] does good, the Jew first and also the Greek (Gentile).
11For God shows no partiality [[f]undue favor or unfairness; with Him one man is not different from another].(E)
12All who have sinned without the Law will also perish without [regard to] the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged and condemned by the Law.
13For it is not merely hearing the Law [read] that makes one righteous before God, but it is the doers of the Law who will be held guiltless and acquitted and justified.
14When Gentiles who have not the [divine] Law do instinctively what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, since they do not have the Law.
15They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] [g]decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving [h]thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them]
16On that day when, as my Gospel proclaims, God by Jesus Christ will judge men in regard to the things which they conceal (their hidden thoughts).(F)
17But if you bear the name of Jew and rely upon the Law and pride yourselves in God and your relationship to Him,
18And know and understand His will and discerningly approve the better things and have a sense of what is vital, because you are instructed by the Law;
19And if you are confident that you [yourself] are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, and [that
20You are] a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the childish, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--
21Well then, you who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you teach against stealing, do you steal (take what does not really belong to you)?
22You who say not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery [are you unchaste in action or in thought]? You who abhor and loathe idols, do you rob temples [do you appropriate to your own use what is consecrated to God, thus robbing the sanctuary and [j]doing sacrilege]?
23You who boast in the Law, do you dishonor God by breaking the Law [by stealthily infringing upon or carelessly neglecting or openly breaking it]?
24For, as it is written, The name of God is maligned and blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you! [The words to this effect are from your own Scriptures.](G)
25Circumcision does indeed profit if you keep the Law; but if you habitually transgress the Law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26So if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be credited to him as [equivalent to] circumcision?
27Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the Law will condemn you who, although you have the code in writing and have circumcision, break the Law.
28For he is not a [real] Jew who is only one outwardly and publicly, nor is [true] circumcision something external and physical.
29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and [true] circumcision is of the heart, a spiritual and not a literal [matter]. His praise is not from men but from God.
-
meh, I like the language of the NIV better, but that all pretty much hits the nail on the head.
-
Yah, well, if you click the link in the "author" tag, once you are in the site, you can switch to the version you like... personally, I can understand the KJV, but that's 2-300 yr old English, and I didn't want to inflict anyone with that.
EDIT: and yeah, NIV is usually pretty easy to understand.... if anyone is scratching their heads, click the link, select New International Version, and click "Update", that might help.. there are also a ton of other versions. (Lots of different languages, too! ;) )
-
But my views on that are, to be blunt: How can someone who claims to love God choose to live a lifestyle so contrary to what He's all about?
Why is it contrary? You're claiming that there are only two laws (or at least Trashman is and you seem to be agreeing with him). Being gay breaks neither of them. Stealing hurts the person you stole from. Domestic abuse obviously hurts the person you abuse. Who does being gay hurt? Only people who aren't obeying the whole "Treat others and you would treat yourself" rule.
So where is homosexuality outlawed then?
-
After seeing the response the Christians got none of them have been stupid enough to claim on this thread that the world would be better off under them. :p
Eh? It would be better...far better than under you for instance :lol:
So again I'll ask the question. How does being homosexual have any effect on how much you love God or on loving others as you love yourself?
Or are you claiming that the whole anti-homosexual thing is only being done by those who aren't true Christians?
IIRC, the Churchs position on it is that homesexualims isn't normal....isn't natural (and I'm not talking in the stictly natural sense...so what if it happens in nature. A lot of bad things happen in nature too, that's no reason to embrace them).
Basicly, it's not being born gay that's bad..it's giving in to the wrong urges...it's not like it's a very big deal in the end.
Assuming hte Church interpretation is right and the indulging inot said acts really is sinfull, it still wouldn't be so bad that the person is sent ot hell automaticly. It would be a minor transgression at best, and it's not like ppl don't do minor transgressions only rarely.
-
One thing that's always bothered me about this is...
Is it a sacrifice if you know you're going to resurrect three days later?
Well, you still feel the pain, you still are haited and beaten up. So yes.
-
But my views on that are, to be blunt: How can someone who claims to love God choose to live a lifestyle so contrary to what He's all about?
Okay, that's the party line, but what do you think.
A more pressing question is: Why? I get that God has said that it is 'sinful', but does the fact that he's an omnipotent superbeing mean he's above explanations? Moreover, Kara raises a good point in that homosexuality doesn't hurt a soul. This is why i'm not too fond of religion; nobody has the sense to ask 'why?'.
IIRC, the Churchs position on it is that homesexualims isn't normal....isn't natural (and I'm not talking in the stictly natural sense...so what if it happens in nature. A lot of bad things happen in nature too, that's no reason to embrace them).
Basicly, it's not being born gay that's bad..it's giving in to the wrong urges...it's not like it's a very big deal in the end.
Assuming hte Church interpretation is right and the indulging inot said acts really is sinfull, it still wouldn't be so bad that the person is sent ot hell automaticly. It would be a minor transgression at best, and it's not like ppl don't do minor transgressions only rarely.
'Interpretation'? We're talking about condemning a pretty damn group of people, and it's coming down to a matter of interpretation!? So is the Church pushing its own agenda, or the will of God?
-
Everything in life is open to interpretation really...more or less.
Don't forget one isn't coneming the people, but rather the bahaviour.
As to why and whom does it hurt...well, maby God sees the bigegr picture.
Maby he thinks/knows homosexuality is simply bad for humanity in general, for their moral and spiritual development.
Many things can be harmfull in the long run, in ways different than you'd think, while seemingly harmless.
-
Many things can be harmfull in the long run, in ways different than you'd think, while seemingly harmless.
Interesting thought: What if God is harmful in the long run? I mean, God teaches his followers to ignore any who would try to sway you from the path, to obey him absolutely, and rewards you for pledging your allegiance. How exactly do you know that God isn't a charlatan or some other type of bad guy? He never feels like He has to explain anything to his followers, a classic example of megalomania.
What if God is essentially an Ori? He gains strength from worship, and this whole 'heaven' thing is just a ruse to get more groupies?
-
You've been watching too much Sci-fi.
Gaining strength from worship? How would even that work?
God is God. He's he creator of the universe, the Alpha and Omega. I guess he can be bad for you if you piss him off :lol:
-
Gaining strength from worship? How would even that work?
God "created the universe"? How would even that work?
God can see all and hear all? How would even that work?
God can see the "real you"? How would even that work?
God is all powerful, all knowing, everlasting, etc? How would even that work?
Ad infinitum...
You ask for an explanation from me, while ignoring the massive logical fallacies and impossibilities sitting right in front of you. Why are my outlandish claims any different from the outlandish claims of someone 2000 years ago? Age =/= Reliability.
-
The definition of God implies omnipotence..as such, your worship is inconsequental.
-
Yes but where did your definition of God come from? According to you, from God. :lol: So if God is lying to you about his motives he could just as easily be lying to you about what God is.
Whether you agree with Mefustae's point or not you can't simply dismiss it with a dictionary reference explanation of what God is without looking at whether whoever wrote the dictionary might have a vested interest in an inaccurate definition.
IIRC, the Churchs position on it is that homesexualims isn't normal....isn't natural
But why is that the Church's position? You've told me that there are only two laws in the bible. This is not defined by either of those laws. The simple fact that should be obvious to anyone is that there are more than the two laws in the New Testament. However if you're going to continue with this farce let me try another method.
The Church's position on black people is that they are wrong and unnatural. Now prove me wrong. Prove that the bible doesn't say that. And do it in a way that shows me why that same argument doesn't apply to homosexuals. You can only use your two laws.
-
The Church's position on black people is that they are wrong and unnatural. Now prove me wrong. Prove that the bible doesn't say that. And do it in a way that shows me why that same argument doesn't apply to homosexuals. You can only use your two laws.
Careful! You'll make him explode!
-
If you belive in immortal sci-fi aliens then do. That's not my problem.
Any "entity" that created the universe would have unimmaginable power. So why would it need worship?
If it didn't create the universe, then that entity is constranied by it, and thus by it's laws. So immortality and "gaining power from worship" are fairy tales.
How do I know everything is not a lie? I don't. How do you know everything YOU know isn't a lie?.
As for your second part.
Protecting humanity, not only from physical harm but also moral one then doesn't fall under the "love" category according to you?
Whatever man...whatever.
-
Protecting them from what?
You've failed to explain what is the danger here. Except that God would damn you. Even if you loved him and your fellow humans.
-
Religion only seeds distrust and disagreement.
There is nothing wrong with homosexuals being who they are. The only reason I see behind Christianity's position on the matter is reproduction. Way back when people wanted sex, but they didn't have condoms, and didn't want kids. So what did they do? Joe ****ed John. They got their pleasure, and they didn't have a kid to worry about.
This was seen as a threat to the whole "go forth and prosper" idea in some of the (totally human, not being driven by a divine "power") religious writer's eyes, and was "outlawed".
Masturbation is seen in the same light, but to a lesser extent.
So there, that's my reasoning behind it, no moral problems in it. Of course that's not magical enough an explanation for some, so I'm sure it will be thrown aside as nonsense.
-
Yes but where did your definition of God come from? According to you, from God. :lol: So if God is lying to you about his motives he could just as easily be lying to you about what God is.
Whether you agree with Mefustae's point or not you can't simply dismiss it with a dictionary reference explanation of what God is without looking at whether whoever wrote the dictionary might have a vested interest in an inaccurate definition.
IIRC, the Churchs position on it is that homesexualims isn't normal....isn't natural
But why is that the Church's position? You've told me that there are only two laws in the bible. This is not defined by either of those laws. The simple fact that should be obvious to anyone is that there are more than the two laws in the New Testament. However if you're going to continue with this farce let me try another method.
The Church's position on black people is that they are wrong and unnatural. Now prove me wrong. Prove that the bible doesn't say that. And do it in a way that shows me why that same argument doesn't apply to homosexuals. You can only use your two laws.
Regardless of what the Church says, GOD'S position on homosexuality is that it is wrong and unnatural, it is completely against His intentions for us. You're right, God could be lying about who God is. By that logic, any man who tells you he is not a liar or that he is telling the truth is obviously lying! So how do you, sir, trust anyone? The answer is by their actions. God Himself shaped me and my life. While I was still His enemy, he died for me. While I was actively working against Him, He died for me. Who does that but a man so filled with love it doesn't matter that I'm so against Him!
You think God, the Creator of the Universe, the possessor of the ultimate "I-can-do-whatever-I-want" badge, has anything to gain by misleading men? Tell me you aren't serious.
In Leviticus, God talks about Homosexuality, beastiality, and all manner of other sorts of perverse acts and tells us in no uncertain terms that they are disgusting, unnatural, and should not be done.
A homosexual doesn't follow this. The black man in your example is committing no such sin by simply being black. Also, regardless of whether its from birth or not, a homosexual can avoid having same sex relationships. A black man has no active part in the color of his skin the way a man has over his sexuality.
That's besides the point though. Both the black man and the homosexual are loved by God.
God's motives were revealed in our creation. They were further reinforced when He TOOK our death penalty. IDK how much more transparent God could possibly be.
-
Religion only seeds distrust and disagreement.
There is nothing wrong with homosexuals being who they are. The only reason I see behind Christianity's position on the matter is reproduction. Way back when people wanted sex, but they didn't have condoms, and didn't want kids. So what did they do? Joe ****ed John. They got their pleasure, and they didn't have a kid to worry about.
This was seen as a threat to the whole "go forth and prosper" idea in some of the (totally human, not being driven by a divine "power") religious writer's eyes, and was "outlawed".
Masturbation is seen in the same light, but to a lesser extent.
So there, that's my reasoning behind it, no moral problems in it. Of course that's not magical enough an explanation for some, so I'm sure it will be thrown aside as nonsense.
If that's the case, where, pray tell, does adultery fit in? That seems to be contrary to that belief. I mean, if everyone went around having sex with everyone else's spouse, we'd be a whole lot more reproductive.
There's more to it than just that, man.
-
No, the only reason adultery is against the rules is because it would result in jealousy and violence. Possibly even lowering the human population.
-
Regardless of what the Church says, GOD'S position on homosexuality is that it is wrong and unnatural, it is completely against His intentions for us.
How do you know that?
In Leviticus, God talks about Homosexuality, beastiality, and all manner of other sorts of perverse acts and tells us in no uncertain terms that they are disgusting, unnatural, and should not be done.
The Old Testament is full of all manner of acts for which you should be stoned. Leviticus also says that you should put children who curse you to death. It's chock full of things which are disgusting and unnatural. Yet Jesus himself sarcastically repeated that injunction as proof that it was no longer valid as a result of the new covalent that God was forming with man via his death and resurrection.
So we can safely discount Leviticus as proof of what is disgusting and unnatural. Especially given that both yourself and Trashman used exactly that argument to counter Ghostavo's post about stoning disobedient children.
In fact the whole reason we're having this debate is because I'm sick and tired of Christians quoting morals from the Old Testament when it suits them and then claiming that the same morals have been superseded by the new covenant with Christ when it doesn't. Pick one and stick with it! Or at least have the grace to explain why you're picking and choosing between things that God finds disgusting in the Old Testament.
So I ask you again.
But just to be clear on this. Any laws from the old testament is null and void unless restated in the new testament, right?
-
In fact the whole reason we're having this debate is because I'm sick and tired of Christians quoting morals from the Old Testament when it suits them and then claiming that the same morals have been superseded by the new covenant with Christ when it doesn't. Pick one and stick with it! Or at least have the grace to explain why you're picking and choosing between things that God finds disgusting in the Old Testament.
So I ask you again.
But just to be clear on this. Any laws from the old testament is null and void unless restated in the new testament, right?
First you have to understand that just like any other world religion, each faction/sect has their own view on scripture and their own interpretation of it. Even geographically individual churches and the people in them will have differing opinions about doctrine. Don't assume just because you've read the Bible and decided on your own that it doesn't make sense and has loads of contradictions that you know what an individual Christian believes. The difference is, you don't walk outside and see Christians stoning children who curse or hanging homosexuals wherever they are found.
If you WANT this to turn into a theological discussion, then so be it, but be prepared to receive all kinds of differing opinions regarding it.
-
I'll settle for having Trashman and GOatmaster's position on the matter in black and white so they can't rescind or go back on it later.
-
First you have to understand that just like any other world religion, each faction/sect has their own view on scripture and their own interpretation of it. Even geographically individual churches and the people in them will have differing opinions about doctrine. Don't assume just because you've read the Bible and decided on your own that it doesn't make sense and has loads of contradictions that you know what an individual Christian believes. The difference is, you don't walk outside and see Christians stoning children who curse or hanging homosexuals wherever they are found.
If you WANT this to turn into a theological discussion, then so be it, but be prepared to receive all kinds of differing opinions regarding it.
That's what makes Christianity, as well as most religions, so ridiculous IMO.
They can use whatever rule best suits their side of an argument at the time, and deny the other rules as "improperly interpreted", or they can just claim "I don't believe that part". All of this being in a book written thousands of years ago, translated many times, and not complete. The versions of the Bible present today have been edited without remorse by the Catholic church and other people/institutions to give them a power push when they needed it. If I were a Christian myself, I wouldn't hold it to be of much value.
So really, there is no "right" answer to the question from a religious standpoint. TrashMan and G0atmaster will continue falling back on obscure rules and rescinding them until they feel they've won.
-
That's what makes Christianity, as well as most religions, so ridiculous IMO.
They can use whatever rule best suits their side of an argument at the time, and deny the other rules as "improperly interpreted", or they can just claim "I don't believe that part". All of this being in a book written thousands of years ago, translated many times, and not complete. The versions of the Bible present today have been edited without remorse by the Catholic church and other people/institutions to give them a power push when they needed it. If I were a Christian myself, I wouldn't hold it to be of much value.
So really, there is no "right" answer to the question from a religious standpoint. TrashMan and G0atmaster will continue falling back on obscure rules and rescinding them until they feel they've won.
I actually agree with you (at least to a certain extent). I would strongly disagree that it is "ridiculous." But it certainly is a problem. But it is the same problem that plagues virtually every aspect of the human condition.
For the most part, however, the majority of Christians agree (as do other world religions), on base doctrine. Its -usually- the smaller things that are argued.
-
But just to be clear on this. Any laws from the old testament is null and void unless restated in the new testament, right?
Tehnicly, IIRC Christ said that he didn't come to re-write everything, but to fill in the blanks..or something in that matter.
One thing to note kaj, thousands of theologists have debatated this issue back and forth before coming to a decision. The Churchs public views aren't the product of someones whim, but of a long (and sometimes heated) debate.
-
No kidding. Wars have been fought over this stuff.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity (love).
Exactly what TrashMan said. You don't get it. Homosexuality is bad. Being disobedient is bad.
Only, people don't have to get publicly executed for it anymore, because Christ was the end-all public execution. That's what I believe. It's the same as what I've been saying all along. God loves homosexuals. God hates homosexuality.
The laws of the Old Testament are not void. Neither, for that matter, are their punishments, generally speaking. It's just not the one who commits the crime who gets punished anymore. Christ's crucifixion counts for all the dove and lamb sacrifices, all the stonings, beatings, lashings and executions that have ever and ever need to be carried out, according to God's law. The real question is, how much of Christ's punishment do you want to have in your name? (also something I stated before)
Cmon, people, you gotta at least read what I say in order to try and poke holes in it.
-
So by that argument all the old stuff in the Old Testament is still valid? So women are committing a sin by wearing men's clothing? By having a period? By having sex during their period? By being raped and not screaming for help?
According to what you're saying those sins still sins, right?
While I'm at it why is slavery no longer considered moral?
-
point to me verses that say having a period is a sin.
Why was slavery ever considered moral?
Anyway, all of this is besides the point! It's not about avoiding sin for the sake of avoiding sin. It's about loving God. If something as silly as not having sex with a woman while she's having her period is going make you want to stay out of the Kingdom of God, you seriously need to reevaluate your priorities.
-
Being disobedient is bad.
So is the self-evident purpose of this mentality being taught to the masses clear enough for you all now?
Christ's crucifixion counts for all the dove and lamb sacrifices, all the stonings, beatings, lashings and executions that have ever and ever need to be carried out, according to God's law.
Ooookay there batman slow down. You're saying if Christ was never crucified we would have to have committed even more atrocities against our fellow man in the name of god?
-
That's what makes Christianity, as well as most religions, so ridiculous IMO.
They can use whatever rule best suits their side of an argument at the time, and deny the other rules as "improperly interpreted", or they can just claim "I don't believe that part". All of this being in a book written thousands of years ago, translated many times, and not complete. The versions of the Bible present today have been edited without remorse by the Catholic church and other people/institutions to give them a power push when they needed it. If I were a Christian myself, I wouldn't hold it to be of much value.
So really, there is no "right" answer to the question from a religious standpoint. TrashMan and G0atmaster will continue falling back on obscure rules and rescinding them until they feel they've won.
This is what Muslim radicalists are using to justify their Jihad, and what some Christians are using to vindicate their decision of retaliating.
-
Being disobedient is bad.
So is the self-evident purpose of this mentality being taught to the masses clear enough for you all now?
Christ's crucifixion counts for all the dove and lamb sacrifices, all the stonings, beatings, lashings and executions that have ever and ever need to be carried out, according to God's law.
Ooookay there batman slow down. You're saying if Christ was never crucified we would have to have committed even more atrocities against our fellow man in the name of god?
"The wages of Sin is Death..." That's exactly what I'm saying. Where there is sin, there is death. Death came into the world because of one man's pride. "But the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." Hence, that's no longer necessary, the fine has been paid.
-
point to me verses that say having a period is a sin.
Leviticus 15:19 onwards
19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.
24 " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.
25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.
Anyway, all of this is besides the point! It's not about avoiding sin for the sake of avoiding sin. It's about loving God. If something as silly as not having sex with a woman while she's having her period is going make you want to stay out of the Kingdom of God, you seriously need to reevaluate your priorities.
Yes but based on what you seem to be saying loving God does not preclude slave trading but does preclude being gay. Or a woman wearing men's clothes apparently.
-
So is the self-evident purpose of this mentality being taught to the masses clear enough for you all now?
..said the kettle to the pot. :lol:
Ooookay there batman slow down. You're saying if Christ was never crucified we would have to have committed even more atrocities against our fellow man in the name of god?
Did he say that?
You're strething this pretty far. No, it doesn't mean that.
You seem to forget that those were different times and different approaches were required. I wouldn't also be surprised if a few local customs or laws were also written down. That is also why the New Testament takes precedence.
@ Kaj, where does ti say she is comitting a sin? It's sez she is unclean.
Back in those days the Bible was more than just a spiritual handbook, it was also a life guidebook. So clean your sheets and clothes. That a bad thing according to you? Oh, lets not forget how supersitsious people were back then.
-
@ Kaj, where does ti say she is comitting a sin? It's sez she is unclean.
Back in those days the Bible was more than just a spiritual handbook, it was also a life guidebook. So clean your sheets and clothes. That a bad thing according to you?
True, that. :nod:
-
@ Kaj, where does ti say she is comitting a sin? It's sez she is unclean.
Back in those days the Bible was more than just a spiritual handbook, it was also a life guidebook. So clean your sheets and clothes. That a bad thing according to you? Oh, lets not forget how supersitsious people were back then.
I knew I should have only posted the first and last verses. :rolleyes:
28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.
-
So is the self-evident purpose of this mentality being taught to the masses clear enough for you all now?
..said the kettle to the pot. :lol:
:wtf: Yeah er... what? I fail to see the point you're making mate, how am I being hypocritical?
Ooookay there batman slow down. You're saying if Christ was never crucified we would have to have committed even more atrocities against our fellow man in the name of god?
Did he say that?
You're stretching this pretty far. No, it doesn't mean that.
You seem to forget that those were different times and different approaches were required. I wouldn't also be surprised if a few local customs or laws were also written down. That is also why the New Testament takes precedence.
Well - yes he did say that and also responded with:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Where there is sin, there is death.
Also, in regards to the New Testament taking precedent, I think certain Protestants would have issue with you on that assertion.
-
About sin being punishable by death, that's what I thought you meant by "atrocities," stoning people for prostitution, poking peoples' eyes out for stealing livestock, things like that.
-
About sin being punishable by death, that's what I thought you meant by "atrocities," stoning people for prostitution, poking peoples' eyes out for stealing livestock, things like that.
That pretty much sums up my definition in this context.
-
yes, the crucifixion of Christ took care of that.
-
So is, therefore, capital punishment unnecessary?
-
So is, therefore, capital punishment unnecessary?
Doesn't matter.
If we're bringing God into the equation, I think only he has the ultimate knowledge of judgment.
-
I personally don't believe in capital punishment, but for an almost entirely different reason. Remember, the State is not a Christian one, but in a Christian society, there would be no place for capital punishment. There'd even be no place for the crimes that are punished by capital punishment in our current social model.
-
BUt from your point of view Christians should be against, not for the death penalty then?
-
I personally don't believe in capital punishment, but for an almost entirely different reason. Remember, the State is not a Christian one, but in a Christian society, there would be no place for capital punishment. There'd even be no place for the crimes that are punished by capital punishment in our current social model.
Which brings us back the ultra-far fetched notion that all humans, everywhere, ever, will stop acting like dicks just because they mumble to the same bloke. Being Christian does not eliminate crime, in fact it'd probably encourage it what with the "we don't mind that you stole, we forgive you!" stuff.
-
Personally I support capital punishment. But the fact that people can be hanged for technicality does piss me off. :doubt:
-
I don't think Christians should be for the death penalty, personally. Although there's nothing in the Bible that expressly forbids it, I simply don't feel we have the right to cut a person's life short. Many people accept Christ in prison. I feel we need to give them as much opportunity to do so as possible.
That's one way to look at it, Mefustae, however, it's more than mumbling to some bloke in the sky, it's a way of life. One which very strongly frowns on being a dick.
-
That's one way to look at it, Mefustae, however, it's more than mumbling to some bloke in the sky, it's a way of life. One which very strongly frowns on being a dick.
Society in general frowns on murder, theft and rape, but that doesn't stop anything. Why would a Christian society be any different?
-
That's one way to look at it, Mefustae, however, it's more than mumbling to some bloke in the sky, it's a way of life. One which very strongly frowns on being a dick.
Society in general frowns on murder, theft and rape, but that doesn't stop anything. Why would a Christian society be any different?
I've only vaguely been following this thread. I'm a huge Theology nut, especially in the realm of tying doctrines to real life. Christian belief is a lot more than teaching the things society already tells you not to do. It can get pretty detailed. But if you don't read the bible or get involved in that kind of stuff, you'll never know. It is usually the small and simple things that make all the difference in the end. That kind of stuff society just doesn't get.
........... ***passes out***
-
Society in general frowns on murder, theft and rape, but that doesn't stop anything. Why would a Christian society be any different?
Cause again he's assuming a society where not only is everyone a Christian but that they are ideal too. And as I said right from the start a society of ideal people has no crime regardless of the religion.
-
Society in general frowns on murder, theft and rape, but that doesn't stop anything. Why would a Christian society be any different?
Christians frown upon it even mroe..le'ts not forget the minor transgressions.
One doesn't simply switch for a nice kid to a cold-bloded murdered. A whole chain of bad decisions and influences pawes the way to that.
A christian society would indeed be better in some respects, as ti woukd positivly influence and encourage ppl from day 1.
-
Good parenting would have that effect anyway.
Even when the church did have power the world wasn't the utopia that you paint a Christian world to be simply because most people simply paid lip service to the values espoused by the church and largely ignored it during every day life.
-
That's one way to look at it, Mefustae, however, it's more than mumbling to some bloke in the sky, it's a way of life. One which very strongly frowns on being a dick.
Before we end up in a Plato like debate on the ideal society/state I think I should point out just how much I roofled at this line. :D
-
It might be worth being careful to say that a Christian society is not necessarily an ideal society. America might be a Christian society by majority but it is quite certainly not an ideal society.
Also, be careful in saying that a Christian society is placed over other societies. That's just a biased assumption.
-
It hit me today like a freight train, the perfect way to answer your question, Mefustae.
That's one way to look at it, Mefustae, however, it's more than mumbling to some bloke in the sky, it's a way of life. One which very strongly frowns on being a dick.
Society in general frowns on murder, theft and rape, but that doesn't stop anything. Why would a Christian society be any different?
Here's why: According to the Bible, which all Christians believe, Christ, who all Christians do their very best to be like, was telling what the Day of Judgement would look like:
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
In other words, W are not only to treat others as we would treat ourselves, but as we would treat Christ Himself. Here's lyrics to a song I heard that further illustrates this point. It's called "Under Bridges" by a band called Brave Saint Saturn:
Yesterday while walking,
Beneath an overpass,
I saw the figure of Jesus,
Standing barefoot on broken glass.
His beard was graying,
The smell of urine filled the air,
Asking if I had some change,
Anything that I could spare.
Emaciated,
His shaking fists balled up,
Influenza and pneumonia,
Begging God to take his cup.
So different from his pictures,
Breathing air through yellowed tubes,
Jesus Christ, dying of AIDS,
Can look right through you.
And all have hated,
Crucified and walked away,
The Savior of the prostitutes,
Drunkards, rapists, and the gays.
Under bridges,
With hands raised,
From the ghettos they praise his name.
Broke and crippled in the dark of night,
Raise your voices to Jesus Christ,
Hallelujah.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to murder, rape or steal from Christ, even in my worst enemy.
P.S. America is by no means a Christian society. Let me tell you that right now.
-
Was medieval Europe a christian society then?
-
It hit me today like a freight train, the perfect way to answer your question, Mefustae.
*Snip*
But the fact remains that you're not talking about a Christian society, you're talking about a perfect society that happens to be Christian. The Bible doesn't hold a monopoly on the "do unto others" school of thought, and society in general encourages everyone to think this way. In fact, modern society does a heck of a lot more to discourage misbehaviour in that it punishes transgressions in the here and now, rather than presenting the theoretical possibility for punishment in the afterlife. When I was a kid, I didn't steal because I knew that I would get spanked, not that I would someday be punished in a vague fashion.
Would you prefer we lock up someone for committing triple homicide, or we just politely inform them that they will face judgement in the future and let them on their way?
-
G0atmaster, belief in something and practicing something are completely different things.
I understand what you mean by that a Christian society would not want to have crimes occur. The thing is this applies to most societies in general.
I believe the difference you're trying to pick up is that a Christian society would more likely follow certain ideals such as anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage. Is that more or less what you're trying to say?
-
1. Medieval Europe was more of a Christian society than today's America, but I do not believe it was a Christ-centered society, that is a society centered around the instructions Christ left for us.
2. it may not be the only "do unto others" group, but it is the founder of that philosophy. As for a perfect society that happens to be Christian... A completely Christian society would be just that, and nothing less. It is not possible for such a thing to occur on this side of Eternity, but if everyone on Earth suddenly dropped everything and lived by the teachings and examples Christ laid down for us, we would literally have Heaven on Earth. Now, I don't know what society you've been living in, but from what I can tell, the American mentality is not "do unto others," but rather a combination of "it's not happening if it's not happening here," "What's in it for me," and "if it feels good, do it." That's what I see today coming out of this great country.
For your other point, Mefustae, I would much prefer a world where triple homicides were unheard of. It takes two people to fight. I'd rather not face evil with evil. Call me crazy, but I am a firm believer that if evil is left to run its course, much like a wildfire, it will eventually burn itself out and cease to exist. If I offer my possessions freely, I needn't worry about theft any longer. By your own logic, we should have the death penalty for even the pettiest of crimes in order to eliminate crime.
Asuko, not exactly. That would be true, but I was talking about simply why the world would be a better place if everyone were a Christian.
-
it may not be the only "do unto others" group, but it is the founder of that philosophy.
The concept of Karma which is fundamental to Buddhism says much the same thing and got there way before Christ was born. And I doubt that it was the first religion to get there either. While there may be differences in the way they are written or the punishment for breaking the rules functionally they are the same.
As for a perfect society that happens to be Christian... A completely Christian society would be just that, and nothing less.
So would a complete society of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or atheists if you use the same definitions you are using for Christians. You seem to be having trouble realising that the perfection comes from the people being perfect, not from any inherent superiority of Christianity.
Let me make it easier for you. You claim that a Christian society would be perfect because everyone would "do unto others". Now tell me why a society which completely believed in Karma would do any less well?
-
Asuko, not exactly. That would be true, but I was talking about simply why the world would be a better place if everyone were a Christian.
Ah yes, the end of the flame war at last. Let reason rule.
I also happen to believe that a completely Christian society would not be a perfect society. Part of the reason why we tend to have different religions is because we are all different. That is also another reason why it is hard to have a unified society. We would not always agree with all of our ideals.
Going into what little of psychology I know, we always have an id that reflects our impulsive, yet often riskier actions, and a superego that combats that by trying to follow the rules. In between is the ego that balances both of them. A good/bad complex perhaps?
-
Because in the case of Kharma, you're trying to reach up to the heavens with your actions, you're attempting to make yourself better. You do what you do because you feel you have to, not because you want to. You're not a better person for it, you're merely doing what you have to to get by. In Christianity, and Christianity is unique in this, God reaches down to the people, not the other way around. God befriends Man, God gives freely to Man. And for this, for what God has done for us, we love Him. We strive to go above and beyond what we have to to simply get by in eternity. We aren't reaching for Heaven, we've been reached by God. I'm having a mild bit of trouble articulating exactly what I want to say, but that's the basic jist of it.
-
And why would that have any appreciable effects on Earth?
-
In Christianity, and Christianity is unique in this, God reaches down to the people, not the other way around. God befriends Man, God gives freely to Man. And for this, for what God has done for us, we love Him. We strive to go above and beyond what we have to to simply get by in eternity. We aren't reaching for Heaven, we've been reached by God. I'm having a mild bit of trouble articulating exactly what I want to say, but that's the basic jist of it.
Oh, so being a good Christian has nothing to do with the threat of eternal damnation in the firey pits of hel after you die. Nothing at all. Right. :rolleyes:
-
If someone is does good by threat of punishment, or possibility of reward, they are not good people.
-
Oh, so being a good Christian has nothing to do with the threat of eternal damnation in the firey pits of hel after you die. Nothing at all. Right. :rolleyes:
No. It doesn't. You're saved regardless. :p It's called "eternal security"... although, if you misbehave enough, God may cut your life short and bring you home early. And, since you love God, you don't want to do that, as it would cut your service short, and your actions would disgrace His name.
And why would that have any appreciable effects on Earth?
'cause God is omnipresent. You can't hide from Him. He knows not only what you're doing, but why you are doing it, and your thoughts as well.
-
No. It doesn't. You're saved regardless. :p It's called "eternal security"... although, if you misbehave enough, God may cut your life short and bring you home early. And, since you love God, you don't want to do that, as it would cut your service short, and your actions would disgrace His name.
Wow, really? So, you're saying if I live a good life, take care of my family and help others, but prefer to remain atheist... i'll still go to heaven?
Sweet! :)
'cause God is omnipresent. You can't hide from Him. He knows not only what you're doing, but why you are doing it, and your thoughts as well.
But then why do crimes take place even though there are security cameras watching? Does God have a hotline to Chubb Security (http://www.chubb.com.au/)?
-
'cause God is omnipresent. You can't hide from Him. He knows not only what you're doing, but why you are doing it, and your thoughts as well.
So does karma. Even if I believe that belief in Christianity makes you a better person than Buddhism (and I don't. I think that Goatmaster's response was a load of completely biased bull****) I'm still failing to see how it matter in the slightest whether you do good things on Earth because you love God or simply so that good things will happen to you.
The end result would be the same. Everybody doing as many good things for each other as they could. I'm not seeing an appreciable difference.
-
jr2, Goatmaster, and TrashMan are strict believers for one reason or another, most likely because that's all they've heard growing up and are not going to listen to any of you in the "uninformed" opposition. It's no use trying to use reason to prove anything to them, they've got on that self-righteous high their religion provides, and they're loving it.
Or they may be really good trolls, and if they are, I commend their efforts. :p
-
The target is not the people who are talking, but the people who listen.
-
The target is not the people who talking, but the people who listen.
Oh, you're right. >_>
Can't believe I missed that.
-
The target is not the people who talking, but the people who listen.
Eh... likewise. :rolleyes:
-
jr2, tell me what makes you right in everything you've said so far.
-
Eh... likewise. :rolleyes:
Anyone who claims that the world would be better off under their religion for non-theological reasons is so far gone that there is no hope of reaching them. It's plainly obvious to most reasonable religious people that when it comes to real world effects the old differences between a world of ideal Buddhists, ideal Muslims or ideal Christians would only be in terms of the religious ceremonies performed.
The amount of crime, war and all the other ****ty things in the world would be pretty much the same for all of them since what makes the world peaceful is not the religion itself but the fact that they are following it perfectly.
Have I tried to argue the world would be better off under atheists than Christians in the thread? My point was simply that it wouldn't be any better under Christians than any other religion because when it comes down to it the central message of all the major religions is "don't be dickheads to each other". And a world full of people not being dickheads is going to be indistinguishable from any other world full of people not being dickheads.
Now you can argue until you're blue in the face that the world full of other religions would all go to hell so it's a bit of a bugger for them after they die. Frankly I couldn't give a stuff. The argument was whether the Earth would be better. Not what happens once you're off it.
-
jr2, Goatmaster, and TrashMan are strict believers for one reason or another, most likely because that's all they've heard growing up and are not going to listen to any of you in the "uninformed" opposition. It's no use trying to use reason to prove anything to them, they've got on that self-righteous high their religion provides, and they're loving it.
Or they may be really good trolls, and if they are, I commend their efforts. :p
Swantzy old boy, a pitiful low stabb that was indeed..
Implying we are to stupid to think for ourselves or too brainwashed. Typical...
Have I tried to argue the world would be better off under atheists than Christians in the thread? My point was simply that it wouldn't be any better under Christians than any other religion because when it comes down to it the central message of all the major religions is "don't be dickheads to each other". And a world full of people not being dickheads is going to be indistinguishable from any other world full of people not being dickheads.
Maby...maby not. There's no way to know.
-
Swantzy old boy, a pitiful low stabb that was indeed..
Implying we are to stupid to think for ourselves or too brainwashed. Typical...
Strange, I can't find the word 'stupid' or 'brainwashed' anywhere in Swantz' post. Looks like he was just calling you lads self-righteous, are you trying to say you aren't being self-righteous while trying to advocate the 'obvious' massive benefits of an entirely Christian world?
-
jr2, Goatmaster, and TrashMan are strict believers for one reason or another, most likely because that's all they've heard growing up and are not going to listen to any of you in the "uninformed" opposition. It's no use trying to use reason to prove anything to them, they've got on that self-righteous high their religion provides, and they're loving it.
Or they may be really good trolls, and if they are, I commend their efforts. :p
Swantzy old boy, a pitiful low stabb that was indeed..
Implying we are to stupid to think for ourselves or too brainwashed. Typical...
Check Mefustae's post.
I didn't imply you were stupid, I implied you were devoted.
-
Have I tried to argue the world would be better off under atheists than Christians in the thread? My point was simply that it wouldn't be any better under Christians than any other religion because when it comes down to it the central message of all the major religions is "don't be dickheads to each other". And a world full of people not being dickheads is going to be indistinguishable from any other world full of people not being dickheads.
Maby...maby not. There's no way to know.
Then why have you spent 11 pages arguing that you do know? :p
-
Check Mefustae's post.
I didn't imply you were stupid, I implied you were devoted.
Notice he first got the implication that he was being called stupid. He is very defensive after all.
-
jr2, Goatmaster, and TrashMan are strict believers for one reason or another, most likely because that's all they've heard growing up and are not going to listen to any of you in the "uninformed" opposition. It's no use trying to use reason to prove anything to them, they've got on that self-righteous high their religion provides, and they're loving it.
Or they may be really good trolls, and if they are, I commend their efforts. :p
Excuse me, sir. You make gross assumptions here. For your information, I was an extreme atheist for the first fourteen years of my life. Self-righteous? I never once claimed to be perfect. To the contrary, I am a wretch of a man. I'm better than I was, but I'm not perfect, nor do I think myself better than you for any reason.
Anyway, back on topic.
Yes, Kara, I believe there would be a distinct difference between them, mainly in the motivation for the behavior, which, I find Christianity's reason for moving people to do good to be leaps and bounds higher than any other belief system or structure or whatever.
Mefustae, that's not what I'm saying at all. If you were a PERFECT person, you could go to Heaven without accepting Christ's sacrifice at all. But I assure you, there is no perfect person on Earth- not you, not me- besides Jesus Christ. If that's what you mean by "Good Person," and you think yourself capable of it, then by all means, try. But I would warn you that you've grossly overestimated your own capabilities. As I said before, though, you do need to accept a gift given to you in order to receive it. The gift is being offered freely, someone else payed the price for it.
-
Maby...maby not. There's no way to know.
Then why have you spent 11 pages arguing that you do know? :p
[/quote]
I never used the word "know", now have I.
Alltough I do belive Christianity has at least one practical advantage over most todays religions - it's very well organized and structured.
And such structure and "chain of command" makes it harder for any loony priest to proclaim his interpretation of the word of God as the right one and get a buch of followers ready to blow themselves up.
-
Alltough I do belive Christianity has at least one practical advantage over most todays religions - it's very well organized and structured.
And such structure and "chain of command" makes it harder for any loony priest to proclaim his interpretation of the word of God as the right one and get a buch of followers ready to blow themselves up.
*cough*
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/399/450pxbentoxvi3010052007rt7.th.jpg) (http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=450pxbentoxvi3010052007rt7.jpg)
-
You have got to be kidding me.
Alltough I do belive Christianity has at least one practical advantage over most todays religions - it's very well organized and structured.
And such structure and "chain of command" makes it harder for any loony priest to proclaim his interpretation of the word of God as the right one and get a buch of followers ready to blow themselves up.
Judaism and Islam both have such organization and structure. What sort of completely broad misconception have you brought up?
Also, be aware that it is extremist idiots that make people blow themselves up.
-
Yes, Kara, I believe there would be a distinct difference between them, mainly in the motivation for the behavior, which, I find Christianity's reason for moving people to do good to be leaps and bounds higher than any other belief system or structure or whatever.
Who gives a toss as to the motivation. The end results would be the same. And we're discussing end results here.
If the world is more peaceful because everyone is nice, or everyone is peaceful cause they're **** scared of going to hell or everyone is peaceful because they believe in karma it doesn't matter in the slightest. Because the topic was whether the world would be more peaceful, NOT what the motivation would be for it.
And the reason for that is cause no matter whether you believe Christianity is better there are more people in the world who think it's worse than what you believe. And quite frankly there's absolutely no point in getting into a stupid argument about who is right.
You've claimed that the world would be more peaceful under Christianity and you've yet to provide a single reasoned argument as to why.
-
Alltough I do belive Christianity has at least one practical advantage over most todays religions - it's very well organized and structured.
And such structure and "chain of command" makes it harder for any loony priest to proclaim his interpretation of the word of God as the right one and get a buch of followers ready to blow themselves up.
*cough*
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/399/450pxbentoxvi3010052007rt7.th.jpg) (http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=450pxbentoxvi3010052007rt7.jpg)
I don't get it what's that supposed to mean.
-
I stopped reading about halfway through page 11, but...
According to my dad, my great-grandpa, used to say, "There are horse thieves in every religion."
Take that how you will...
-
Alltough I do belive Christianity has at least one practical advantage over most todays religions - it's very well organized and structured.
And such structure and "chain of command" makes it harder for any loony priest to proclaim his interpretation of the word of God as the right one and get a buch of followers ready to blow themselves up.
*cough*
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/399/450pxbentoxvi3010052007rt7.th.jpg) (http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=450pxbentoxvi3010052007rt7.jpg)
I don't get it what's that supposed to mean.
You know there are catholics who would blow themselves up if he said it should be done.
-
You also know that's right up there with getting hit by lightning in an underground bunker on the probablity scale.
-
Sweet! :)
'cause God is omnipresent. You can't hide from Him. He knows not only what you're doing, but why you are doing it, and your thoughts as well.
But then why do crimes take place even though there are security cameras watching? Does God have a hotline to Chubb Security (http://www.chubb.com.au/)?
I'd bet that is because people are really quite a stupid creature.
-
You also know that's right up there with getting hit by lightning in an underground bunker on the probablity scale.
But it's possible! :p
-
You also know that's right up there with getting hit by lightning in an underground bunker on the probablity scale.
It is at the moment. But Trashman is trying to claim his religion is inherently safer due to rigid structure. Putting a man at the top of the structure who is theoretically infallible is not a model of perfect stability.
-
Mefustae, that's not what I'm saying at all. If you were a PERFECT person, you could go to Heaven without accepting Christ's sacrifice at all. But I assure you, there is no perfect person on Earth- not you, not me- besides Jesus Christ. If that's what you mean by "Good Person," and you think yourself capable of it, then by all means, try. But I would warn you that you've grossly overestimated your own capabilities. As I said before, though, you do need to accept a gift given to you in order to receive it. The gift is being offered freely, someone else payed the price for it.
If you look at the post I was replying to when I said that, you'd see that jr2 was attempting to imply that I would be "saved regardless", which I took to the extreme to mean that he was suggesting that God actually loved us enough to provide salvation regardless. But as you say, He doesn't, and his love remains ultimately conditional.
Also note that I never said I would try to be "perfect". I merely asked if I would go to Heaven if I were a good person - charitable, kind, good to thy neighbor and all that jazz - but still prefer to keep an open mind about the universe. Apparently, this isn't the case. Perhaps you could enlighten me on something, and you'll have to forgive me for the rather loaded question: Does a good, atheistic man go to hell while a criminal who repents his sins and pledges his belief in Jesus Christ go to heaven?
Further, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word 'free', as there is a price in gaining God's supposedly all-encompassing love. Nothing is free, nothing at all, every reaction must have been initiated by an equal and opposite action: You see, you need to believe in him. In a cultural vacuum, that wouldn't be a problem. However, we don't live in a religious vacuum, we live instead in a world with many different cultures and belief systems. As such, one would need to sacrifice a part of your culture, and the culture of your forebears, just to gain access to something that jr2, Trashman, and even yourself have repeatedly said is free. Of course, that's not even going into the rules and regulations required for keeping God's "free" love, which is a whole 'nother tray of crackers.
-
yeah, I personally don't agree with many aspects of catholicism. Yet as JR2 pointed out, most Catholics are indeed Christians.
Karajorma: I didn't say the motivation for Christians has to do with them being afraid of Hell, far from it. I said it has to do with loving God. Which is a far greater and stronger motivation, which would keep people from straying from the Christian ideal more than say, the ideal of Kharma. That's another point: As per the doctrine of most Kharma-based religions, if someone screws up, they're reincarnated as a lower person, someone who is worse off in life than they were before, and if they do good, they wind up being reincarnated as a more successful, higher-up person, until one achieves some sense of Enlightenment, whether it's oneness with the Universe, as in Hinduism, or if it's complete nothingness, as in Bhuddism, isn't it? Well then, so what if I screw up now? I have an infinite number of lives to get to where I'm going anyway, right? Even if I drag myself down to the level of a snail, the only way to go when you're at the bottom is up, right? So who cares if I kill a person for their money now, I'll just do better next time around, right? Are you beginning to see how Love is a better motivation for love?
Mefustae: You're right, that is quite a tray of crackers. Thanks for getting into it! :-) Let me try to explain it a little bit better:
Mefustae, that's not what I'm saying at all. If you were a PERFECT person, you could go to Heaven without accepting Christ's sacrifice at all. But I assure you, there is no perfect person on Earth- not you, not me- besides Jesus Christ. If that's what you mean by "Good Person," and you think yourself capable of it, then by all means, try. But I would warn you that you've grossly overestimated your own capabilities. As I said before, though, you do need to accept a gift given to you in order to receive it. The gift is being offered freely, someone else payed the price for it.
If you look at the post I was replying to when I said that, you'd see that jr2 was attempting to imply that I would be "saved regardless", which I took to the extreme to mean that he was suggesting that God actually loved us enough to provide salvation regardless. But as you say, He doesn't, and his love remains ultimately conditional.
He's right. you are saved regardless. It is not conditional, unless you think that it is a condition that a gift freely given must be received. I have this nicely wrapped present that I intend to give you on Christmas Eve. A million dollars. Now in order to be able to add that million dollars to your bank account, you need to take it into your hands, do you not? That is the only condition on God's love. Receive the gift freely given.
Also note that I never said I would try to be "perfect". I merely asked if I would go to Heaven if I were a good person - charitable, kind, good to thy neighbor and all that jazz - but still prefer to keep an open mind about the universe. Apparently, this isn't the case. Perhaps you could enlighten me on something, and you'll have to forgive me for the rather loaded question: Does a good, atheistic man go to hell while a criminal who repents his sins and pledges his belief in Jesus Christ go to heaven?
What you fail to realize is that, to a perfect being, the only person you could call a "good person" is one who has no bad in him. You can not stand before God and call yourself a good person and expect to be taken seriously if you have done any wrong in your entire life. Yes, a good atheistic man would go to Hell while a criminal who repents of his sins and calls on the name of the Lord does indeed go to Heaven. The only exception I can possibly think of is a very shaky one indeed, one which I can only even consider the possibility of because it is simply not explained in full in Scripture. You see, in the Bible, Heaven is described as a place where there are "people from every nation." Some take this to mean that the Apocalypse won't happen until the so-called "Good News" is heard all around the world. Others take it to mean that even people who do not hear about Christ, and thus could not possibly be followers of Him, wind up in Heaven. I take it to be a little of both. But it's not much to stand on, not to mention that you, having heard of Christ's sacrifice and still being in refusal of it, would not be able to stand on this at all.
Further, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word 'free', as there is a price in gaining God's supposedly all-encompassing love. Nothing is free, nothing at all, every reaction must have been initiated by an equal and opposite action: You see, you need to believe in him. In a cultural vacuum, that wouldn't be a problem. However, we don't live in a religious vacuum, we live instead in a world with many different cultures and belief systems. As such, one would need to sacrifice a part of your culture, and the culture of your forebears, just to gain access to something that jr2, Trashman, and even yourself have repeatedly said is free. Of course, that's not even going into the rules and regulations required for keeping God's "free" love, which is a whole 'nother tray of crackers.
If there is no other part of my post you read, read this!!!
No. I understand freedom and free gifts perfectly. You seem to have a failing at understanding the word "gift." I can offer you lunch at my expense instead of yours. That is a gift. Yet you need to 1. take me up on it and 2. eat the food before you can obtain nourishment from it. The gift of salvation is no different. Christ paid the cost of life. He offers said life to you free of charge. It is not a so-called "free lunch." He paid for it. It's free to you, however.
Yes, a relationship with Christ changes you. That is the whole basis of our contribution to this entire thread. The change is indeed, for the better though. It doesn't happen for any reason other than your own willingness to make it happen, however. Although, I would ask: upon realizing fully what Christ did for us, and what it means, who would be left unchanged? That's not a question for you to answer at this point in your life.
Rules and regulations? You say that like there's hundreds, yet there are two: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength," which, again, if you fully accept what Jesus did for you, there's really no way NOT to do this, and the second is simply what Christ states as the sole unforgivable sin, blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This is the only thing in the entire Bible, out of all of the laws of Moses, the ten commandments, the entire book of Leviticus, this is the one thing which you can not be redeemed from by the sacrifice of Christ. It doesn't say why, and is speculated about by many.
Is it really so costly for you to accept a gift? Wow, birthdays and Christmas must have really sucked for you as a kid...
-
Are you beginning to see how Love is a better motivation for love?
Considering that under Christianity I can do whatever the **** I like and repent at the end, no.
And don't give me the explanation that no "true" Christian would do that, cause no "true" Buddhist would do what you claimed either.
-
He's right. you are saved regardless. It is not conditional, unless you think that it is a condition that a gift freely given must be received. I have this nicely wrapped present that I intend to give you on Christmas Eve. A million dollars. Now in order to be able to add that million dollars to your bank account, you need to take it into your hands, do you not? That is the only condition on God's love. Receive the gift freely given.
Okay, let's stay with that analogy for a second. You have a gift, I don't know what it is but you're telling me that it's incredibly good. You want to give me the gift, but the problem is that i'm already holding a gift that I believe to be really cool. I can only hold one gift at a time, so I need to discard the gift I have right now and take you at your word that your gift is of equal or greater value. You may be giving me the gift for free, but I have to sacrifice something to receive it. Therefore, the gift is not truly free on my end.
Seeing as you seem to have completely ignored my point from my previous post: Christianity ain't the only religion in the world, and in accepting the love of God you must let go of any faith you may have for any other belief system. In many cases, that belief system will be entwined with cultural aspects of your life, which it seems as though you must give up just to receive this "free" gift. See what I mean?
Yes, a good atheistic man would go to Hell while a criminal who repents of his sins and calls on the name of the Lord does indeed go to Heaven.
See Kara's post for what's wrong with this picture. Honestly, how can you not see a problem with this? God doesn't care how you live or treat your fellow man; all He cares about is whether or not you're on His side. What a jerk! :doubt:
No. I understand freedom and free gifts perfectly. You seem to have a failing at understanding the word "gift." I can offer you lunch at my expense instead of yours. That is a gift. Yet you need to 1. take me up on it and 2. eat the food before you can obtain nourishment from it. The gift of salvation is no different. Christ paid the cost of life. He offers said life to you free of charge. It is not a so-called "free lunch." He paid for it. It's free to you, however.
See above for why you have to actually give up something to accept this "gift". By definition, that is known as a "price". As such, a gift with a price can no longer be considered "free".
Yes, a relationship with Christ changes you. That is the whole basis of our contribution to this entire thread. The change is indeed, for the better though. It doesn't happen for any reason other than your own willingness to make it happen, however. Although, I would ask: upon realizing fully what Christ did for us, and what it means, who would be left unchanged? That's not a question for you to answer at this point in your life.
But then why do Christians still commit crimes? Is it because they know full well that God only requires their allegiance to get into Heaven? What could it be? If believing in God makes you a good person, then why do we have all these supposedly good people acting like dicks? As such, why would a population entirely composed of people like this be any better than the hodgepodge of religions and beliefs that make up the world today?
Rules and regulations? You say that like there's hundreds, yet there are two: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength," which, again, if you fully accept what Jesus did for you, there's really no way NOT to do this, and the second is simply what Christ states as the sole unforgivable sin, blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This is the only thing in the entire Bible, out of all of the laws of Moses, the ten commandments, the entire book of Leviticus, this is the one thing which you can not be redeemed from by the sacrifice of Christ. It doesn't say why, and is speculated about by many.
What, so murder is fine as long as you keep faith in God the whole time? Rape is acceptable as long as you don't use the Lord's name in vain when you come? No, of course not. There are rules, and there are regulations. To say it's only "believe in him and don't blaspheme him" is like saying that "don't be a dick" is the only law in society. It's not totally incorrect to say that, but you're also not saying a whole lot.
Is it really so costly for you to accept a gift?
No, it isn't, but I don't have all that much to lose by accepting God. If I were, say, Native American or something, i'd have to let go of my traditional beliefs and the culture of my ancestors if I want to get into Heaven. It's all well and good for someone like you, too deep into the system to have any thought otherwise, but for people on the outside the Cake doesn't look as appetizing as you're making it out to be.
-
The holy spirit is a wanker.
Now I've said that I can tell the Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on my door that I'm past saving. Cool! :p
-
Now I've said that I can tell the Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on my door that I'm past saving. Cool! :p
No no, what you do is you invite them in for tea. They'll be so confused and scared, they won't know what's what. Then, you give 'em the mace!
-
Actually my cousin is one so last time she was here and they called I told them "No thanks, we've already got one." Confused the hell out of them. :D
-
You know there are catholics who would blow themselves up if he said it should be done.
HM...maby a few.
How many would blow themselves up if their local priest or bishop said so, and the pope said otherwise tough?
It is at the moment. But Trashman is trying to claim his religion is inherently safer due to rigid structure. Putting a man at the top of the structure who is theoretically infallible is not a model of perfect stability.
There is no model of perfect stability, but a rigid structure is better at keeping it's fartherst members in check (so they don't talk nonsese to the people). A priest simply can't call forth a holy crusade like many imams are doing atm. Simply becosue of him being under such scrutiny from above.
-
Are you beginning to see how Love is a better motivation for love?
Considering that under Christianity I can do whatever the **** I like and repent at the end, no.
And don't give me the explanation that no "true" Christian would do that, cause no "true" Buddhist would do what you claimed either.
ERm...no you can't. The remorse has to be true remorse, not a planned one.
"Oh, I'll go killing and robbin, and then say I'm sorry to get off the hook" doens't work
Also, remorse doesn't wipe the slate 100% clean. You'd prolly wouldn't got to Heaven, but rather purgatory..at least for a while.
I don't know how it works exactly (who does), but if God's judgemnt is just, then there's no way to "trick His system". there are no loopholes.
Yes, a good atheistic man would go to Hell while a criminal who repents of his sins and calls on the name of the Lord does indeed go to Heaven.
Actually, no. This is wrong. God is just, and each person will be rewarded or punished by it's merrits. A good atheistic man will probably go to heaven.
-
Yes, a good atheistic man would go to Hell while a criminal who repents of his sins and calls on the name of the Lord does indeed go to Heaven.
Actually, no. This is wrong. God is just, and each person will be rewarded or punished by it's merrits. A good atheistic man will probably go to heaven.
Case in point, a disagreement between two Christians! Clearly, an entirely Christian society would be just as susceptible to conflict as we are now.
Actually my cousin is one so last time she was here and they called I told them "No thanks, we've already got one." Confused the hell out of them. :D
Heh, nicely done! :lol:
-
ERm...no you can't. The remorse has to be true remorse, not a planned one.
"Oh, I'll go killing and robbin, and then say I'm sorry to get off the hook" doens't work
Also, remorse doesn't wipe the slate 100% clean. You'd prolly wouldn't got to Heaven, but rather purgatory..at least for a while.
I don't know how it works exactly (who does), but if God's judgemnt is just, then there's no way to "trick His system". there are no loopholes.
So? It does undermine Goatmaster's point about how Christianity is inherently going to be more peaceful and loving that Buddhism. The number of people who would think that they could get away with being a wanker and repenting would likely be similar to the number of Buddhists who would think "Well I can piss around in this life and work my way back up in my next one as a cockroach"
i.e no true Christian or Buddhist would ever think of doing it.
-
Case in point, a disagreement between two Christians! Clearly, an entirely Christian society would be just as susceptible to conflict as we are now.
Do you see any agression between me and him?
We can disagree on a lot of things, but that doesn't matter really, since neither of us really care to change the otehr ones mind. Even if we did, we wouldn't try to do it on a violent way.
-
Excuse me, sir. You make gross assumptions here. For your information, I was an extreme atheist for the first fourteen years of my life. Self-righteous? I never once claimed to be perfect. To the contrary, I am a wretch of a man. I'm better than I was, but I'm not perfect, nor do I think myself better than you for any reason.
Are your parents/family members religious? Do you live in a religious town?
Are there any means by which you could be fed religious rhetoric?
By self righteous, I mean you're convinced you're right. You're convinced you're belief is the only one that should be followed.
Sorry to reply to this so late.
-
By self righteous, I mean you're convinced you're right.
That would be self-assured. Self-righteous means you set yourself up as your own authority regarding what's right and wrong, which G0atmaster is not claiming to have done.
-
Case in point, a disagreement between two Christians! Clearly, an entirely Christian society would be just as susceptible to conflict as we are now.
Do you see any agression between me and him?
We can disagree on a lot of things, but that doesn't matter really, since neither of us really care to change the otehr ones mind. Even if we did, we wouldn't try to do it on a violent way.
Aggression is not needed in order to have a conflict of ideas.
-
Aggression is not needed in order to have a conflict of ideas.
No, but a conflict that doesn't end up in agression isn't much of a conflict to begin with, no?
Are your parents/family members religious? Do you live in a religious town?
Are there any means by which you could be fed religious rhetoric?
By self righteous, I mean you're convinced you're right. You're convinced you're belief is the only one that should be followed.
You relise the same line of reasoning could be applies to atheists too, don't you? Jsut replace religios with atheist
-
No, but a conflict that doesn't end up in agression isn't much of a conflict to begin with, no?
Conflict is conflict. It's already been stated several times by yourself, Goatmaster and Jr2 that an entirely Christian world would be peaceful and without conflict, and yet you've just demonstrated that you disagree with a fellow Christian. While it may just be a small disagreement, i've seen violence break out over smaller things, and fights always start with the little things.
I think we've ultimately proven that an entirely Christian society would be just as prone to conflict as we are now. End of discussion.
You relise the same line of reasoning could be applies to atheists too, don't you? Jsut replace religios with atheist
Except that there's a major difference. Religion dictates "you're wrong, we're right", whereas atheism is more "you're wrong, deal with it".
-
I said peaceful. I didn't say without conflict, merely without conflict of magnitude. You see, aggression is not needed for conflict, but aggression most definitely is needed for war. If we can disagree without breaking out in a flame war, that ought to further support our claims, am I right?
Swantz: No, my mom was raised catholic but is presently an atheist. My step-dad's the same. My dad was raised catholic as well, but is more of a pantheist/do what works for you type that sometimes attends catholic mass. I don't live in a "religious" town, frankly I don't even know there is such a thing outside of the Vatican City and the Amish country. Depends on what you mean by "religious rhetoric." I go to church, but I make sure what my pastor tells me is backed up by the Word of God. My pastor is not the chief piloting force in my walk with God. Yes, I am sure I'm right, but I wouldn't call it self-anything. My belief doesn't come from myself in any way except that God's existence is evident simply because of certain events in my life. I would not be a Christian today if it were not for these things playing out in exactly the right way at exactly the right time, and with the sheer number of events that took place to lead me to where I am today, the possibility that it is all some accident, just one big coincidence is incredibly miniscule next to the possibility of a guiding, divine force guiding my life. This belief is also backed up by much of the natural world. There are SO MANY things, just plain oddball things, in the way some things work one way, and another in others, which science has revealed to us, which point directly to God. Water has to behave EXACTLY the way it does or life is not possible. Electrons have to behave EXACTLY as they do, or life is not possible. Did you know that water, a substance that weighs approximately 18 AMUs, exists as a liquid at room temperature, CO2 weighs 44 AMUs. Yet, water, the heavier substance, exists as a liquid at room temp, whereas CO2 exists as a gas. If this were not possible, blood would be impossible. If water did not arrange the crystalline structure it does when it freezes, as many other molecules do not, even polar ones, it would not float as it freezes. If this were to be the case, life as we know it would not be possible.
So assuming that, statistically speaking, a creator is FAR more likely to be the driving force behind life than a coincidental series of events, and such a force has been evident in my life, I can only assume that one such being would guide me to Himself, as He has. I can give you the full, detailed story of every way that God has influenced my life if you want, but sadly, it takes up WAY more room than even this post will, and will probably bore most people who read it before they're halfway done.
Karajorma, as far as Christianity permitting anything as long as it's followed up by repentance, I don't call that Love, I call that taking advantage of someone's sacrifice, which I assure you, has NO place in God's kingdom. I see what you're getting at, but your argument is flawed, because the Bible itself directly speaks out against this behavior. Where is this the case in the doctrine of reincarnation?
Mefustae:
Okay, let's stay with that analogy for a second. You have a gift, I don't know what it is but you're telling me that it's incredibly good. You want to give me the gift, but the problem is that i'm already holding a gift that I believe to be really cool. I can only hold one gift at a time, so I need to discard the gift I have right now and take you at your word that your gift is of equal or greater value. You may be giving me the gift for free, but I have to sacrifice something to receive it. Therefore, the gift is not truly free on my end.
Seeing as you seem to have completely ignored my point from my previous post: Christianity ain't the only religion in the world, and in accepting the love of God you must let go of any faith you may have for any other belief system. In many cases, that belief system will be entwined with cultural aspects of your life, which it seems as though you must give up just to receive this "free" gift. See what I mean?
while it is true that you do need to let go of other... things, other ways of life, other religions, other belief structures, leave all and follow God, in other words, I say "you must let go of that money before I can give you my million dollars," in keeping with our analogy, are you really losing anything when you find out all the money you're holding onto so tightly is counterfeit? How hard is it to let go of nothing in order to gain something infinitely good? Yes, you believe your $1,000,000 is good and real, and you only have my word that my thing is better, but if, in fact, your $1,000,000 is counterfeit, you lose nothing by burning it and taking my gift of a real million. So you lose a wad of paper and gain a ton of cash. What a heavy toll!
See Kara's post for what's wrong with this picture. Honestly, how can you not see a problem with this? God doesn't care how you live or treat your fellow man; all He cares about is whether or not you're on His side. What a jerk!
It's not a matter of whether or not you're on His side. It matters whether or not you accept His sacrifice. His gift.
A side note: TrashMan, a good, atheistic man who has some imperfection who has heard the Word of God and has not accepted it will NOT find his own way into Heaven. John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Ephesians 2:4-9 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
I do care to change your mind, but only because what you say is contrary to the Bible. Yes God is just. But His law says that where Sin is, Death will follow. If this is the case, any sinful man (FYI ALL people except Christ) deserve death. Christ offers to take this from us, however. That is the ONLY way Man can avoid death.
But then why do Christians still commit crimes? Is it because they know full well that God only requires their allegiance to get into Heaven? What could it be? If believing in God makes you a good person, then why do we have all these supposedly good people acting like dicks? As such, why would a population entirely composed of people like this be any better than the hodgepodge of religions and beliefs that make up the world today?
There are many reasons. People forget what God's all about. People twist Scripture in their own minds and in the minds of others. One could even sanely make the argument that no true Christian would commit a crime, except in a case where the Law goes against God. The truth is, we are still works in progress. I for one, don't believe perfection will come to Man until the day we die, or the second coming of Christ, whichever comes first.
What, so murder is fine as long as you keep faith in God the whole time? Rape is acceptable as long as you don't use the Lord's name in vain when you come? No, of course not. There are rules, and there are regulations. To say it's only "believe in him and don't blaspheme him" is like saying that "don't be a dick" is the only law in society. It's not totally incorrect to say that, but you're also not saying a whole lot.
It's not about faith at all, it's about love! How many times do I need to say, LOVE the Lord your God, and Love your neighbor as yourself! LOVE LOVE LOVE! Faith, prophetic gifts, musical talents, all things which can be used to serve God in some form or another, are NOTHING without Love. Paul talks about this in 1 Corinthians 13. Love must be the single greatest driving force. Love is what motivated Christ to die on the cross. The Law is nothing without Love. Now where do you begin with Love, and where do you end? You say there's stuff I'm not telling you. Do you want me to spell out all the different ways you can love a spouse/girlfriend/significant other as well?
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?" Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
The holy spirit is a wanker.
Now I've said that I can tell the Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on my door that I'm past saving. Cool!
Yes, you can also print it out as evidence, take it with you to the Throne of God, and say it to His face when you meet Him. And I'll be sad, because I couldn't hang out on the far side of Eternity with someone as cool as you.
Except that there's a major difference. Religion dictates "you're wrong, we're right", whereas atheism is more "you're wrong, deal with it".
Except, Atheism has the ultimate payout of either never knowing you were right, because the point where you find out you cease to exist, or an "Oh crap, I'm wrong!" as your not-so-famous last words. Sorry, not for me.
Also, we have not proven that an entirely Christian society would be as prone to conflict as we are now. First of all, the question was, "would the world be a better place?" and the answer is "yes." Our little "conflict" is a completely non-violent one, completely void of hatred or anger or malice of any kind, and, more likely than not, because one of the said "dis-agreers" was more likely than not slightly misinformed.
Your turn. :nod:
-
This belief is also backed up by much of the natural world. There are SO MANY things, just plain oddball things, in the way some things work one way, and another in others, which science has revealed to us, which point directly to God. Water has to behave EXACTLY the way it does or life is not possible. Electrons have to behave EXACTLY as they do, or life is not possible. Did you know that water, a substance that weighs approximately 18 AMUs, exists as a liquid at room temperature, CO2 weighs 44 AMUs. Yet, water, the heavier substance, exists as a liquid at room temp, whereas CO2 exists as a gas. If this were not possible, blood would be impossible. If water did not arrange the crystalline structure it does when it freezes, as many other molecules do not, even polar ones, it would not float as it freezes. If this were to be the case, life as we know it would not be possible.
So assuming that, statistically speaking, a creator is FAR more likely to be the driving force behind life than a coincidental series of events
Anthropic principle : Were the universe not the way it were then we wouldn't be around to notice it. There's nothing mystical about it. You hit the nail on the head earlier. Life as we know it. Were the universe different we might get life but not as we know it but because it is the way it is we get life as we know it.
And don't give me that whole "liquid water is needed for life" spiel cause there are a lot of scientists who will disagree with you and complain bitterly about the idiocy of assuming that it is.
A good example is if I dealt you a hand of cards. Your argument is similar to saying "The chances of me holding this particular set of cards is billions to one. So you must have chosen which cards to give me. There's no way it could be random!" You've completely missed the point that there were billions of other combinations I could have given you.
-
G0atmaster, good. At least you aren't just one of those "I'm Christian because it's convenient/all I've ever known" people. I respect you for that. I'm assuming you aren't on it for that bandwagon feeling, because you don't just spew scripture and say "YOU'RE WRONG!" which shows you have thought this through. I've got to say I don't see any reason for a driving force to be needed in this universe though. I mean, why fill in what is basically a knowledge gap with a story that is likely made up to help keep people under control, and happy, long ago? Many of the stories in the Bible are very similar to myths used by earlier Pagan belief systems. One such example of these recycled stories is that of Jesus Christ. It is basically identical to the story of the Egyptian god Horus, who existed around 3000 years before Christ.
Of course, I can't prove or disprove anything faith based, so I don't know if there is much reason in going on.
I question your classification of yourself though, you don't seem like a Christian, you seem more like a deist.
-
Conflict is conflict. It's already been stated several times by yourself, Goatmaster and Jr2 that an entirely Christian world would be peaceful and without conflict, and yet you've just demonstrated that you disagree with a fellow Christian. While it may just be a small disagreement, i've seen violence break out over smaller things, and fights always start with the little things.
I think we've ultimately proven that an entirely Christian society would be just as prone to conflict as we are now. End of discussion.
No it isn't. Christains solve their disagreements peacefully, ergo, it's not a conflict.
Besides, I'm right in what I wrote..jsut checked it.
You relise the same line of reasoning could be applies to atheists too, don't you? Jsut replace religios with atheist
Except that there's a major difference. Religion dictates "you're wrong, we're right", whereas atheism is more "you're wrong, deal with it".
I don't see no difference.
-
No it isn't. Christains solve their disagreements peacefully, ergo, it's not a conflict.
Northern Ireland?
-
A side note: TrashMan, a good, atheistic man who has some imperfection who has heard the Word of God and has not accepted it will NOT find his own way into Heaven. John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Ephesians 2:4-9 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
I do care to change your mind, but only because what you say is contrary to the Bible. Yes God is just. But His law says that where Sin is, Death will follow. If this is the case, any sinful man (FYI ALL people except Christ) deserve death. Christ offers to take this from us, however. That is the ONLY way Man can avoid death.
Well, after speaking with my uncle about it I still hold this as incorrect.
God is just you say. God is love you say. It's true.
He aslo said "whatever you do to one one of my brothers, you do to me". We know he's just and fair. So I see no reason why good, honest people whole LIVED by his word (without actually believing in him) would not get a deserved reward.
-
No it isn't. Christains solve their disagreements peacefully, ergo, it's not a conflict.
Northern Ireland?
Europe in World War I? Europe in World War II?
-
No it isn't. Christains solve their disagreements peacefully, ergo, it's not a conflict.
Northern Ireland?
Europe in World War I? Europe in World War II?
Well, those too, but I was aiming for something where religion was a bit more involved. :P
-
The Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. The constant persecution of women. The entire middle ages are made up of Catholic and Protestant clashes. The Jacobite uprising as one example, the clash between the English monarchy and the Vatican another example.
That being said the point is being missed - you're human. Human beings don't have infinite reason, regardless of how pious they are. They eventually snap.
-
Agreed. Given enough pressure, anyone can break.
-
A side note: TrashMan, a good, atheistic man who has some imperfection who has heard the Word of God and has not accepted it will NOT find his own way into Heaven. John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Ephesians 2:4-9 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
I do care to change your mind, but only because what you say is contrary to the Bible. Yes God is just. But His law says that where Sin is, Death will follow. If this is the case, any sinful man (FYI ALL people except Christ) deserve death. Christ offers to take this from us, however. That is the ONLY way Man can avoid death.
Well, after speaking with my uncle about it I still hold this as incorrect.
God is just you say. God is love you say. It's true.
He aslo said "whatever you do to one one of my brothers, you do to me". We know he's just and fair. So I see no reason why good, honest people whole LIVED by his word (without actually believing in him) would not get a deserved reward.
There is no "Living by the Word" without knowing who Christ is, and there is no knowing who Christ is without calling Him either a lunatic, a demon or Lord. The first two would give no person a reason to listen to what He has to say. Therefore, the only people who can possibly get into Heaven are those who are perfect, and those who love Christ.
The Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. The constant persecution of women. The entire middle ages are made up of Catholic and Protestant clashes. The Jacobite uprising as one example, the clash between the English monarchy and the Vatican another example.
That being said the point is being missed - you're human. Human beings don't have infinite reason, regardless of how pious they are. They eventually snap.
Christian: adj. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
Did you know Hitler called himself a Christian at the beginning of the Third Reich? Is that the example you will focus on when describing Christians? I choose to live up to this definition I just pulled from the American Heritage Dictionary. Christ is perfect. That is whose qualities I intend to manifest.
Well, those too, but I was aiming for something where religion was a bit more involved. :P
You say these words: "Where religion was a bit more involved." I believe it is a sad day indeed that the followers of Christ forget that it is Christ alone that makes them better, and not the things they do, this "religion" they practice. I don't believe in Religion. I believe in Christ. Christ was not a genocidal maniac. Nor shall I ever be.
Kara, I didn't miss the point. I do not believe other combinations could possibly bring about this thing called life. There are many other environments within observable distance from our own that do NOT harbor life. Hundreds of examples on our own planet. Millions more on the next. If there are 3,000,000,000 possible combinations the Universe could take shape as, and only 100,000 of them harbor life, it's still no small miracle we happen to be one of the 100,000. Beyond that, that life could be exactly as it is to harbor humanity! Beyond that, for my own example, to foster the kind of life I have had to lead me right where I am. I'm not talking about a series of events leading to one of many outcomes. Certain things in my life have brought me here, that if just one, just one of them were even under slightly different circumstances, I might live 150 miles away from where I am. I might have gone over the edge in 7th grade. My parents might not be divorced. I would not have the friends I have now, not one, but three of whom had a part to play in my conversion to Christianity. If I hadn't been transplanted when I was 11, I'd still have my old friends in the city, many of whom are mixed up in drugs, which i might have gotten caught in the middle of. I probably would have never been faced with the question of "why not, what have I got to lose?" that eventually got the "nothing" answer it was looking for. I believed in things. I realized they were far less supported than this thing called Christianity, and had far more evidence pointing to them being counterfeit than this Jesus character. So I gave them up for something real. And lost nothing in the process. And gained a life of abundance beyond measure. Not immediately, I might add, I'm still a work in progress.
Wow, I really didn't intend to give so much of my life story there.
-
There are many other environments within observable distance from our own that do NOT harbor life.
Yet there are at least 3 candidates within our system which scientist consider viable possibilities. Namely Europa, Mars and Titan.
If there are 3,000,000,000 possible combinations the Universe could take shape as, and only 100,000 of them harbor life, it's still no small miracle we happen to be one of the 100,000. Beyond that, that life could be exactly as it is to harbor humanity!
It's not a miracle at all. It's simple probability.
There are other much better explanations which unfortunately are more complex but the multiverse one is good point to start at.
Let's say the big bang created this universe. Let's say that other big bangs have created other universes. There is no connection between universes, they're completely distinct. If the chance of life is 1 trillion to one and there have been 100 trillion big bangs then the chance of one of those universes having had the conditions for life is pretty good.
If you multiply that number a lot then the chance of human life goes up. If you multiply that number even more the chance of YOU goes up.
At no point however does this stop being simple statistics. It's not a miracle that you're in the universe you exist in. There are an unimaginably large number of universes you don't exist in where you aren't there to wonder about it.
Let me give you an analogy. Tomorrow you walk into a shop and buy a lottery ticket cause you feel lucky. The next day you win. Did you actually win cause of some supernatural event or force (like luck)? If you hadn't won you'd have simply thrown away the ticket and thought "oh well" before going on with your life. But cause you did win that feeling you had gets elevated to a special place. You ignore all the other times in your life you felt lucky and bugger all happened and concentrate on the one time you felt lucky and something good happened.
But it's all simple statistics. Someone was going to win and this time it simply happened to be you.
When it comes to the universe and life you've made the assumption that it's improbably for humans to exist. That's like saying only you could win the lottery and therefore it's a miracle that you did. You've ignored the fact that someone would have to win.
Similarly you've ignored the possibility of "life but not as we know it".
-
Kara, I didn't miss the point. I do not believe other combinations could possibly bring about this thing called life. There are many other environments within observable distance from our own that do NOT harbor life. Hundreds of examples on our own planet. Millions more on the next. If there are 3,000,000,000 possible combinations the Universe could take shape as, and only 100,000 of them harbor life, it's still no small miracle we happen to be one of the 100,000. Beyond that, that life could be exactly as it is to harbor humanity! Beyond that, for my own example, to foster the kind of life I have had to lead me right where I am. I'm not talking about a series of events leading to one of many outcomes. Certain things in my life have brought me here, that if just one, just one of them were even under slightly different circumstances, I might live 150 miles away from where I am. I might have gone over the edge in 7th grade. My parents might not be divorced. I would not have the friends I have now, not one, but three of whom had a part to play in my conversion to Christianity. If I hadn't been transplanted when I was 11, I'd still have my old friends in the city, many of whom are mixed up in drugs, which i might have gotten caught in the middle of. I probably would have never been faced with the question of "why not, what have I got to lose?" that eventually got the "nothing" answer it was looking for. I believed in things. I realized they were far less supported than this thing called Christianity, and had far more evidence pointing to them being counterfeit than this Jesus character. So I gave them up for something real. And lost nothing in the process. And gained a life of abundance beyond measure. Not immediately, I might add, I'm still a work in progress.
Wow, I really didn't intend to give so much of my life story there.
You really missed Kara's point by far.
If the conditions for life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to complain. If we had evolved diferently due to diferent conditions, we would be having this same discussion as to why we didn't evolve as "humans". Basically you are putting the cart in front of the horse.
If I throw a dice say... 20 times and get a set of results. The number of combinations is huge (on the order of 10^15, far larger than the number of combinations you proposed for the universe) which makes the probability of each specific result extremelly small, and yet a specific one always comes out, obviously. Would you call it a miracle too that I got a random sequence of numbers?
EDIT:
Damn you Kara and your typing speed.
-
while it is true that you do need to let go of other... things, other ways of life, other religions, other belief structures, leave all and follow God, in other words, I say "you must let go of that money before I can give you my million dollars," in keeping with our analogy, are you really losing anything when you find out all the money you're holding onto so tightly is counterfeit? How hard is it to let go of nothing in order to gain something infinitely good? Yes, you believe your $1,000,000 is good and real, and you only have my word that my thing is better, but if, in fact, your $1,000,000 is counterfeit, you lose nothing by burning it and taking my gift of a real million. So you lose a wad of paper and gain a ton of cash. What a heavy toll!
And what if the $1,000,000 is fake? What then? I would have just been cheated out of a very real $1,000,000, and all i'd have is a pile of scrap paper and one heck of a migraine. Boy howdy, that there sure is one hell of a toll!
There are many reasons. People forget what God's all about. People twist Scripture in their own minds and in the minds of others. One could even sanely make the argument that no true Christian would commit a crime, except in a case where the Law goes against God. The truth is, we are still works in progress. I for one, don't believe perfection will come to Man until the day we die, or the second coming of Christ, whichever comes first.
Wait, so then, you agree that a Christian society would not be better? The original discussion was whether this current world would be better if everybody followed Christianity, and it seems as though you've taken this to mean humanity would instantly resemble the Christian Übermensch. Now you freely admit that humanity is "imperfect", and that's why we commit crime even though we try to follow God. By your own statements, it would seem that a world of Christians would be just as conflict-prone as we are now. Finally, logic prevails. :)
It's not about faith at all, it's about love! How many times do I need to say, LOVE the Lord your God, and Love your neighbor as yourself! LOVE LOVE LOVE! Faith, prophetic gifts, musical talents, all things which can be used to serve God in some form or another, are NOTHING without Love. Paul talks about this in 1 Corinthians 13. Love must be the single greatest driving force. Love is what motivated Christ to die on the cross. The Law is nothing without Love. Now where do you begin with Love, and where do you end? You say there's stuff I'm not telling you. Do you want me to spell out all the different ways you can love a spouse/girlfriend/significant other as well?
So those Ten big laws that bloke brought down from the mountain are moot as long as you've got a particular chemical unbalance in your brain? Anyway, what about Christians who commit crimes out of love for God? Burning a "witch" at the stake kind of breaks the "thou shalt not kill", but it is okay because it was done out of love for God?
Except, Atheism has the ultimate payout of either never knowing you were right, because the point where you find out you cease to exist, or an "Oh crap, I'm wrong!" as your not-so-famous last words. Sorry, not for me.
I'm not going to play the game until the teams start playing nice.
-
Bla bla bla bla bla...
tl;dr.
It's kinda funny how the devout agnostics are the only ones who are right. Placing all of their beliefs in that no idea can EVER be proven, positive or negative, sounds the most reasonable to me. Science and religion are both invalid ways to base your life around. After all, who is man to say God had a son? Who is man to say God did not? Who is man to say "I am the son of God"? Who is man to say "I am not the son of God"?
Face it people, you both fail.
-
There is no "Living by the Word" without knowing who Christ is, and there is no knowing who Christ is without calling Him either a lunatic, a demon or Lord. The first two would give no person a reason to listen to what He has to say. Therefore, the only people who can possibly get into Heaven are those who are perfect, and those who love Christ.
A few priests I talked to tend to disagree.
Accepting Christ means more than just beliving in Him - it means accepting the good lifestyle. A good, mercifull and charitable person, wether he actualyl belives in Him or not, is still following Christs teachings (love they neighbour), at least partially.
Now, I'm not saying the belivers and non-belivers would get the same treatement up there. You seem to think of Hell, purgatory and Heaven as being 3 "fixed" places with little varriance in them. IMHO I think there's a lot of varriance in them, so everyone gets EXACTLY what he deserves.
Thus, both of us could be good people, we both belive and then we die.
Wouldn't it make sense that if you were a slightly better person than me, you get a slightly beter treatement? Wouldn't that be just? Thus your Heaven would be slightly better than mine... or something like that.
Thaat said, I myself do look at the universe, it's laws and it's beauty and I simply cannot belive all of it is just there by purce chance.
-
Thaat said, I myself do look at the universe, it's laws and it's beauty and I simply cannot belive all of it is just there by purce chance.
So you just throw in the towel, say 'God did it', and sit back with a satisfied grin on your face?
How disappointing.
-
It's kinda funny how the devout agnostics are the only ones who are right. Placing all of their beliefs in that no idea can EVER be proven, positive or negative, sounds the most reasonable to me.
That's actually a description of science too.
Science and religion are both invalid ways to base your life around. After all, who is man to say God had a son? Who is man to say God did not? Who is man to say "I am the son of God"? Who is man to say "I am not the son of God"?
Face it people, you both fail.
You've of course missed the fact that you can be both agnostic and an atheist/theist. You'd better clarify what you mean by agnosticism before making any further claims as to it's validity.
-
Hmm, just got up to speed on this... at least I didn't get a headache this time :doubt: .
OK, as far as someone being able to be unconditionally saved, yeah, it's true. BUT... to be saved, you have to actually mean it when you ask Christ to save you. Remember, God knows every last thought you have. If you are trying to get a get out of jail free card, there is a verse (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%206:7-8;&version=31;) for you: "Be not deceived, God is not mocked". I think it'd be impossible to truly believe and put your trust in Christ to save you for your sins, and then go out and live a life of sin willfully.
And, as far as "blaspheming the Holy Spirit": I can do a bit more research on that, but one of the best explanations I've heard of is that it actually means ignoring the Holy Spirit's call (to salvation) until you die.
OK, I did a bit of checking, here's what I've got:
First, the reference(s):
Luke 12:8-10
8"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. 9But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. 10And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
Matthew 12:31-33
31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. 33"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.
Now some notes:
Dr. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Matthew
12:32 not be forgiven him. The unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted in various ways, but the true meaning cannot contradict other Scripture. It is unequivocally clear that the one unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (John 3:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:18;&version=31;); 3:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:36;&version=31;)). Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible. "My spirit shall not always strive with man," God said long ago (Genesis 6:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:3;&version=31;)). Jesus added: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:44;&version=31;)). In the context of this particular passage (Matthew 12:22-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:22-32;&version=31;)), Jesus had performed a great miracle of creation, involving both healing and casting out a demon, but the Pharisees rejected this clear witness of the Holy Spirit. Instead they attributed His powers to Satan, thus demonstrating an attitude permanently resistant to the Spirit, and to the deity and saving Gospel of Christ.
Dr. John MacArthur, D.D.
Matthew:
12:31 the blasphemy against the Spirit. The sin He was confronting was the Pharisees' deliberate rejection of that which they knew to be of God (cf. John 11:48 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011:48;&version=31;); Acts 4:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204:16;&version=31;)). They could not deny the reality of what the Holy Spirit had done through Him, so they attributed to Satan a work that they knew was of God. (v. 24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:24;&version=31;); Mark 3:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%203:22;&version=31;))
12:32 it will be forgiven him. Someone never exposed to Christ's divine power and presence might reject Him in ignorance and be forgiven -- assuming the unbelief gives way to genuine repentance. Even a Pharisee such as Saul of Tarsus could be forgiven for speaking "against the Son of Man" or persecuting His followers -- because his unbelief stemmed from ignorance (1 Tim. 1:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Tim%201:13;&version=31;)). But those who know His claims are true and reject Him anyway sin "against the Holly Spirit" -- because it is the Holy Spirit who testifies of Christ and makes His truth known to us (John 15:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26;&version=31;); 16:14,15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:14-15;&version=31;)). No forgiveness was possible for these Pharisees who witnessed His miracles first-hand, knew the truth of His claims, and still blasphemed the Holy Spirit -- because they had already rejected the fullest possible revelation. See notes on Heb 6:4-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%206:4-6;&version=31;); 10:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%2010:29;&version=31;).
Luke:
12:10 blasphemes against the Holy Spirit. This was not a sin of ignorance, but a deliberate, willful, settled hostility toward Christ -- exemplified by the Pharisees in Matt. 12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:22-32;&version=31;), who attributed to Satan the work of Christ (cf.11:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2011:15;&version=31;)).
-
Thaat said, I myself do look at the universe, it's laws and it's beauty and I simply cannot belive all of it is just there by purce chance.
So you just throw in the towel, say 'God did it', and sit back with a satisfied grin on your face?
How disappointing.
Threw in the towel? :wtf:
As in giving up? On what?
You're dissapointed? Heh..not my problem. :p
-
This argument is moot.
-
There was no real argument in the first place. :p
-
Threw in the towel? :wtf:
As in giving up? On what?
Rather than bothering to search for how the universe came into existence, how things evolved and the immutable causes that have created so much around us... you say 'God did it', and that's that. It's disappointing because you lack the drive to find out how we got here, instead choosing a copout answer and putting your feet up like you've accomplished something by coming to this contrived conclusion.
-
JR2, There's that, and there's also the story in Acts where the couple states that they sold their property and gave everything over to God, when in fact they kept a fairly large quantity to themselves, thus they lied to the Holy Spirit about it.
Trashman: I guess this is one place where we somehat drastically differ. I don't believe in any kind of tiered Heaven or Hell, and I have barely any inklings of understanding or belief in Purgatory, as I haven't read any Scripture on such a place. Although I haven't exactly read the whole Bible yet.
The Bible does say that a person will get thier reward, what they give up will be given to them 100 fold, what they take will be taken from them 100 fold, but read what Revelation has to say:
After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice:
"Salvation belongs to our God,
who sits on the throne,
and to the Lamb." All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12saying:
"Amen!
Praise and glory
and wisdom and thanks and honor
and power and strength
be to our God for ever and ever.
Amen!"
Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?"
I answered, "Sir, you know."
And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore,
"they are before the throne of God
and serve him day and night in his temple;
and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.
Never again will they hunger;
never again will they thirst.
The sun will not beat upon them,
nor any scorching heat.
For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd;
he will lead them to springs of living water.
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." -Revelation 7:9-17
This is what the Bible says about Christians, those who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb and made them white.
Now here's what the Bible says about those who are not Christians, and their judgement:
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
-Revelation 20:11-15
Now you might say, "Well, who's name is in the book of life?" Read:
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."
He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long. He measured its wall and it was 144 cubit thick, by man's measurement, which the angel was using. The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20the fifth sardonyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of pure gold, like transparent glass.
I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
-Revelation 21:1-27
Bla bla bla bla bla...
tl;dr.
It's kinda funny how the devout agnostics are the only ones who are right. Placing all of their beliefs in that no idea can EVER be proven, positive or negative, sounds the most reasonable to me. Science and religion are both invalid ways to base your life around. After all, who is man to say God had a son? Who is man to say God did not? Who is man to say "I am the son of God"? Who is man to say "I am not the son of God"?
Face it people, you both fail.
I agree. Any normal man saying "I am God" or "I am the son of God" would be chalked up as crazy in my book. However, when one dies, and is indeed most certainly dead, for several days, and then gets up and walks around a bit more, He tends to get a little bit more credibility to me.
Thaat said, I myself do look at the universe, it's laws and it's beauty and I simply cannot belive all of it is just there by purce chance.
So you just throw in the towel, say 'God did it', and sit back with a satisfied grin on your face?
How disappointing.
So you just throw in the towel, say "It's by pure chance," and sit back with a satisfied grin on your face, then mock those who attribute it to a being who is indeed fully capable of doing all that and more?
How very disappointing indeed.
Do you have any idea how many things in the Universe that scientists know full and well about that just plain simply don’t make sense? There are more to come. Even if we did figure out every single law and every single method by which the Universe is run, what then? The sheer awesomeness of it all will be an even greater testament to the existence of God! Saying "God made it" is not a copout, but simply a very logical conclusion one can draw based upon what we know to be true as of right now. I am of the school of thought that science does not attempt to disprove or deny a creator, but rather support His existence.
-
so your a complete moron who thinks that if something is not directed by intelligence it's complete chance, how dis... actually I'm used to it.
-
INTELLIGENT DESIGN!
-
so your a complete moron who thinks that if something is not directed by intelligence it's complete chance, how dis... actually I'm used to it.
*feels like smacking a certain someone* Please keep personal insults to a minimum. Let me help:
so your a complete moron who thinks that if something is not directed by intelligence it's complete chance, how dis... actually I'm used to it.
*sigh* Here we go again. Can't say I'm ready, but I'm game... sorta.
-
So you just throw in the towel, say "It's by pure chance," and sit back with a satisfied grin on your face, then mock those who attribute it to a being who is indeed fully capable of doing all that and more?
How very disappointing indeed.
Do you have any idea how many things in the Universe that scientists know full and well about that just plain simply don’t make sense? There are more to come. Even if we did figure out every single law and every single method by which the Universe is run, what then? The sheer awesomeness of it all will be an even greater testament to the existence of God! Saying "God made it" is not a copout, but simply a very logical conclusion one can draw based upon what we know to be true as of right now. I am of the school of thought that science does not attempt to disprove or deny a creator, but rather support His existence.
Ever heard of Occam's razor? The scientific method? Well, your idea of science is not science at all. Since you have already made the conclusions and are trying to support them. That's not science. That's... well... what creationism is.
-
Ever heard the phrase "science falsely so called"?
-
Ever heard the phrase "science falsely so called"?
No? :nervous:
-
You hear it a lot when real scientists talk about Creation Science. :p
-
What else could it be Bobboau?
Swantz, that's exactly right. I fail to believe that consciousness could come from unconsciousness. That life could somehow form out of a vacuum. That sentience could simply "be" without something else sentient making it so. I do indeed believe that God Himself is the starting point of the whole Universe. By what means this came about, I fail to understand exactly. Whatever we can come up with, however, I believe will only point more toward a creator than away.
Ghostavo, you say that what I do is not called science, but creationism. You say I am going against the scientific method. Well, how about this for scientific method? This is the actual thought process I went through when becoming a Christian, BTW:
You can't get something from nothing, according to science, correct? Well, every moron on this planet can notice that we indeed have this thing called sentience, called intelligence, called life, called matter, called energy, and many other things. They must have come from somewhere. That is indeed a fact. FROM THIS FACT, I have drawn the conclusion that God is the starting point, the Alpha, the cause for the effect that is the Universe. A universal cause. The cause of all effects. The starting point (which is really sort of a mis-phrasing, as God exists outside of time, he really has no starting point, so do not ask where God came from, He simply is and always has and always will).
I am not making conclusions and trying to support them. I have found things which have no explination outside of an intelligent creator, and am as such, drawing that conclusion based on the facts I and others (Christians and otherwise) have observed within the natural universe.
-
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called, 21 which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
That's what Evolutionism is. :p I can sling labels, too.
EDIT: And, G0atmaster, heh, that's ok, according to them, we are just a bunch of random chemicals and electrical signals gone haywire. All of your responses are random based on your surroundings and pre-established patterns. Likewise for them. Really, we can't be blamed for not seeing the truth that we are animals, and share a common heritage with earthworms, now, can we? It's all random chemicals bouncing around inside our heads. *snort*
-
Pity they aren't correct labels then.
"Evolutionism", is defined by the OED as "[t]he theory of evolution, evolutionary assumptions or principles". Creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in a misleading sense in order to suggest that evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate.
Do you have any idea how many things in the Universe that scientists know full and well about that just plain simply don’t make sense?
Just because something isn't understood now doesn't mean it always won't be. And even if it isn't ever explained that doesn't mean you should jump to a conclusion about God having had to do it.
Saying "God made it" is not a copout, but simply a very logical conclusion one can draw based upon what we know to be true as of right now.
3000 years ago people wouldn't have understood the natural processes that caused it to rain. Saying "It rains because God opens the sky to make it rain" would also have been the logical conclusion (using your example of logic) based on what they knew was true. But it's wrong.
Can't you see what a cop out it was to say that? Can't you see how giving that answer is just throwing in the towel? The more scientific answer however would be correct, "I don't know why it rains yet so I'm not going to say God did it. I'm simply going to say we don't know yet and do my best to try to understand the cause."
These days we know that anyone who thinks it rains because God opens the sky to let the rain in is an idiot but when it comes to other scientific questions there are plenty of people willing to instantly give God the credit for it because we don't know the answer yet. It's likely that their views will turn out to be as ignorant and wrong as the ancient people who believed God made it rain. Actually they'll be more ignorant, cause people like me told them it was a stupid assumption to say "God did it" when you haven't got enough proof in either direction.
So you just throw in the towel, say "It's by pure chance," and sit back with a satisfied grin on your face
Nope. That's the huge difference. Science doesn't throw in the towel. It's always trying to find the cause. Religion on the other hand thinks it knows the cause so there is no need to look for it. Sure you can tell me philosophers will keep debating the question of "Why God did it" but the question of how loses importance.
Swantz, that's exactly right. I fail to believe that consciousness could come from unconsciousness.
I fail to believe that water could turn invisible. I fail to believe water could rise up into the sky and turn into clouds. I fail to believe water could float in the sky as water until it suddenly and for no reason falls out of the sky.
Arguments from personal incredulity are worthless. Why it rains can be explained scientifically Yet if you talked to someone 3000 years ago they'd give you the same sort of arguments I just wrote (probably shortly before they stoned you for being a witch or heretic!).
-
I fail to believe that consciousness could come from unconsciousness.
Put another way, you should be able to remember being inside your mother's womb from the moment you were concieved.
Since consciousness cannot come from unconciousness, there must therefore be some kind of continuity of consciousness, since by most religious standards and hence presumably your own that is a seperate human life and not a part of the female body. Otherwise you're going to start losing ground on an abortion debate. It's a vicious cycle, innit?
But you don't remember. You can't. You weren't concious at the time. You developed conciousness from unconciousness, eventually.
's not gonna fly, partner.
Yes, I'm nitpicking here, but this is how the internally contradictory arguments creationistic and intelligent design people present work. It makes a suitable microcosm for the arguments as a whole. So go. Bring on your pseudoscience and invalid arguments. We've seen them before, we'll see them again.
-
Karajorma: That is absolutely not true at all! For your example, I say God did open the sky and make it rain. I could go into further detail if I so desired, or if my audience so desired, and explain how God designed the molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, which combine in such a way that they have an extra pair of electrons, which force the other electrons, those that bond said atoms together, into a bent shape that allows for an incredible degree of polarity with a significant dipole moment. This allows water to be a liquid at certain temperatures where heavier molecules are not, thus allowing for such molecules to precipitate in the absence of a certain degree of pressure, and clump together in droplets that gravity then prevails over to bring said water back to the ground, which is what we call rain. And in doing so, we have a perfect, in-depth look at how rain is created, and I don't need to omit the fact that God Himself designed water molecules to function this way, that God devised the fact that opposites attract and alikes repel, that God decided that matter should attract other matter, thus creating a substantial gravitational pull when a large concentration of mass is in one place. Or the fact that God decided there should be people to even come up with these explanations.
Like I said, I believe science points all the more to God, not away from Him.
The question of how is still just as important as ever. For that matter, so is knowledge itself. To which I say, who needs knowledge to come up with cures for disease when disease didn't exist? I ask the question, what are we doing with this knowledge? We are trying to make better lives for ourselves. Why are we doing this? Because life sucks right now. People die. Diseases are a reality. Age is an inescapable thing. People start the process of dying from the moment they are concieved. If this were not the case, such knowledge would be a mad waste of time. It would be completely unnecessary. This is a perfect example of man trying to find something to replace God. Himself.
I never noticed it before now, but this goes right back to the Garden of Eden. Man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thinking he could be just like God, that he wouldn't need God anymore. Let me tell you right now that this will never be the case. We simply aren't good enough. This goes back to the original thread topic because, man, without God, will never be capable of creating a utopian society. That is, Heaven on Earth. Man cannot make such a thing. Yet He is trying to with each technological advance he makes. Technology, which would be entirely relevant if Man had not sinned, thus bringing death itself into this world.
ngtm1r: Actually, I would say that I myself was not conscious, no. Yet man is a conscious being. And being man, in the early stages though I was, was destined for consciousness, having been begotten by a conscious being. Consciousness begets consciousness. Life begets life.
-
Cop out.
You want science to explain everything and then simply stick God in at the start. But it's a cop out. If you can explain everything without God then you don't need God at all.
And as for your you never get something for nothing argument isn't God a great big something for nothing? Instead of actually answering the question you've simply pushed it back one remove and said God has always existed and is unexplainable. You haven't explained complexity at all. You've simply invented something more complex and ducked the question of how it exists.
-
Blimey, what have I set in motion!? :p
Karajorma: That is absolutely not true at all! For your example, I say God did open the sky and make it rain. I could go into further detail if I so desired, or if my audience so desired, and explain how God designed the molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, which combine in such a way that they have an extra pair of electrons, which force the other electrons, those that bond said atoms together, into a bent shape that allows for an incredible degree of polarity with a significant dipole moment. This allows water to be a liquid at certain temperatures where heavier molecules are not, thus allowing for such molecules to precipitate in the absence of a certain degree of pressure, and clump together in droplets that gravity then prevails over to bring said water back to the ground, which is what we call rain. And in doing so, we have a perfect, in-depth look at how rain is created, and I don't need to omit the fact that God Himself designed water molecules to function this way, that God devised the fact that opposites attract and alikes repel, that God decided that matter should attract other matter, thus creating a substantial gravitational pull when a large concentration of mass is in one place.
I know of the particles you've mention, and have actually seen them individually (electron microscopes are really cool, btw). I've detected the gravitational and electromagnetic forces you've mentioned in a physics course I did last semester. I've studied the varying things rain does, how it does it, and why. However, i'm yet to see this "God particle" you've mentioned. Is it an electromagnetic force like gravity? Or is it the possible force behind "dark energy", the theorized force that keeps the universe expanding. If so, then could you point me towards the published papers on the subject?
Like I said, I believe science points all the more to God, not away from Him.
I disagree with you, but I respect your conclusion. And might I just add that it's awesome that you've kept your wits about you and stayed the hell away from Intelligent Design. Too bad a lot more Christians aren't like you. :)
The question of how is still just as important as ever. For that matter, so is knowledge itself. To which I say, who needs knowledge to come up with cures for disease when disease didn't exist? I ask the question, what are we doing with this knowledge? We are trying to make better lives for ourselves. Why are we doing this? Because life sucks right now. People die. Diseases are a reality. Age is an inescapable thing. People start the process of dying from the moment they are concieved. If this were not the case, such knowledge would be a mad waste of time. It would be completely unnecessary. This is a perfect example of man trying to find something to replace God. Himself.
I don't suppose you could clear up what you mean here? Not sure of the point you're making, but i'd like to take a crack at discussing it.
I never noticed it before now, but this goes right back to the Garden of Eden. Man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thinking he could be just like God, that he wouldn't need God anymore. Let me tell you right now that this will never be the case. We simply aren't good enough. This goes back to the original thread topic because, man, without God, will never be capable of creating a utopian society. That is, Heaven on Earth. Man cannot make such a thing. Yet He is trying to with each technological advance he makes. Technology, which would be entirely relevant if Man had not sinned, thus bringing death itself into this world.
Woah! Let's pull over to the side of the arrogance turnpike! Not only is your little paragraph here anti-thought, it's anti-human. All we've accomplished, all we've fought and struggled to achieve, everything we've created with only the sweat and blood of our brow: We did it. We invented the wheel, we constructed thousands of vastly complex written and spoken languages, we've learned what makes us tick and been able to live longer with every generation, we've even been able to shed the confines of this Earth and travel into space! So much we've accomplished, all on our own. Now, if you want to cheapen those monumental achievements by saying we pale in comparison to a Heavenly Spirit, the same God who has done exactly dick for us throughout all recorded human history, that's entirely your choice. But you should keep in mind that in doing so, you're marginalizing how utterly awesome we all are. But then, that's just how it always seems to work: The underlings do all the work, and the Big Boss gets all the credit. :doubt:
If you want to live by the notion that God is the ultimate provider of everything we need, then go live out your own little Garden of Eden and dick around naked in the bush without even the basic knowledge of what plants to eat. That's all the Big Guy has provided for us, He even actively denied our advancement with the whole "Tree of Knowledge" debacle. On the other hand, if you want to live on what humanity has provided you, then continue as you are. Just do me a favor and attribute credit where it's due.
-
]Rather than bothering to search for how the universe came into existence, how things evolved and the immutable causes that have created so much around us... you say 'God did it', and that's that. It's disappointing because you lack the drive to find out how we got here, instead choosing a copout answer and putting your feet up like you've accomplished something by coming to this contrived conclusion.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You assume too much Sir.
You think I didn't look into it? I love science. I love reading all sorts of things, especially about the universe.
Thing is, nothing I found out trough sience contradicts in any way my belief that God is the creator...in fact, it only reinforces it.
Trashman: I guess this is one place where we somehat drastically differ.
I wouldn't call this drastic at all.
Ever heard of Occam's razor? The scientific method?
What has that got do do wth anything?
Occams razor sez the simplest solution are MOST OFTEN true.
1. no certanty in that argument..most often, not allways.. and IIRC, this is a theroy in itself, never realyl proven
2. why do you think universe jsut creating itself is simpler thant being created by God? I see no logic in the way "simplicity" is rated here...
Actually they'll be more ignorant, cause people like me told them it was a stupid assumption to say "God did it" when you haven't got enough proof in either direction.
Well, technicly, since God created the universe and everything in it, including hte clouds, and the wind, then in some sense he did do it. :p
You want science to explain everything and then simply stick God in at the start. But it's a cop out. If you can explain everything without God then you don't need God at all.
But you won't be able to explain everything. Never.
-
You assume too much Sir.
You think I didn't look into it? I love science. I love reading all sorts of things, especially about the universe.
Thing is, nothing I found out trough sience contradicts in any way my belief that God is the creator...in fact, it only reinforces it.
On previous occasions you have claimed that evolution alone can not give rise to intelligence and that abiogenisis is not possible.
Mefustae's description is not incorrect.
Well, technicly, since God created the universe and everything in it, including hte clouds, and the wind, then in some sense he did do it. :p
That wasn't what I was talking about and you know damn well it wasn't. Even if I accept your assertion that God created those things it is not the same as him personally having to open the sky every time it rains.
But you won't be able to explain everything. Never.
So? I'd rather have best guess that explained some of the subject matter than a completely incorrect explanation that covered everything.
2. why do you think universe jsut creating itself is simpler thant being created by God? I see no logic in the way "simplicity" is rated here...
Saying that God created everything is not simpler. You're sticking God in as a fait accompli without realising that the existence of a supernatural being capable of creating the universe is actually a more complex being than the rest of the universe. Somehow God has managed to exist outside of space time. Somehow he's capable of creating the universe. Somehow he's capable of understanding it. Somehow he's capable of knowing everything.
God is not simple. In fact you are probably blaspheming against him if you claim you believe he exists but say he is. :p
-
2. why do you think universe jsut creating itself is simpler thant being created by God? I see no logic in the way "simplicity" is rated here...
Please, please tell me you're joking. Occam's Razor offers that it is prudent to choose the simplest of options. You have presented two theories: The universe came into existence by itself, and the Universe came into existence with the guidance of an omnipotent being. As there is no evidence for either case, it is entirely logical to choose the simplest option, the one with the fewest components. Thus, logic dictates that the Universe just popped into existence by itself, as no evidence exists to suggest anything more than this simple, basic premise.
Is it a perfect idea? Hell no! But nobody is trying to argue that the Universe likely popped into existence by itself, only that it is the simplest and therefore most logical conclusion to make based on the apparent dearth of information. Why introduce more layers to it, ie. God, without anything to prompt such an addition? You find evidence, you add to the theory. You don't find evidence, you don't add to the theory. That's how science works. Logic prevails. :)
Edit: Damn Kara, you beat me to it. And you just had to use Italian or whatever that is. Showy bastard. :nervous:
-
On previous occasions you have claimed that evolution alone can not give rise to intelligence and that abiogenisis is not possible.
Mefustae's description is not incorrect.
It is, and so is yours (as usual). I don't recall ever making such claims tough. I said it is my personal BELIEF that I find that HUMAN INTELIGENCE is highly unlikely to have jsut happened by itself. I never staited it as a fact.
But you won't be able to explain everything. Never.
So? I'd rather have best guess that explained some of the subject matter than a completely incorrect explanation that covered everything.
Assuming it's incorrect. And assuming that science even has plausable guesses on all subjects.
2. why do you think universe jsut creating itself is simpler thant being created by God? I see no logic in the way "simplicity" is rated here...
Saying that God created everything is not simpler. You're sticking God in as a fait accompli without realising that the existence of a supernatural being capable of creating the universe is actually a more complex being than the rest of the universe. Somehow God has managed to exist outside of space time. Somehow he's capable of creating the universe. Somehow he's capable of understanding it. Somehow he's capable of knowing everything.
God is not simple. In fact you are probably blaspheming against him if you claim you believe he exists but say he is. :p
[/quote]
I don't see how it's more complex. I see it in fact as a simpler solution. You see it as more complex. Simplicity, especially on some subjects, isn't something that can be objectivly rated.
God is as simple and complex as he wants to be (indeed, he can be both simple and complex at the same time).
And you'd be the LAST person in the world I'l listed to what talking about blasphemy....well, allmost the last.
-
Simplicity is key. God didn't create it all, he started it all. The Big Bang happened, yet its occurrence violates every law of science we have. There had to have been an outside force. God did it. And when he did, he created Eden in the center of our galaxy. However, not forseeing the pure gravitational force holding our galaxy together, he ended up being trapped there. For countless years, he became angrier and angrier, and eventually tried killing William Shatner when he came to visit.
Seriously guys, haven't any of you seen Star Trek V?
-
It is, and so is yours (as usual). I don't recall ever making such claims tough. I said it is my personal BELIEF that I find that HUMAN INTELIGENCE is highly unlikely to have jsut happened by itself. I never staited it as a fact.
But that's just the point. It's a belief. You have no science to back it nor have bothered to look, nor have bothered to try to understand how it could have happened without divine intervention.
Which is exactly what Mefustae was complaining about.
Assuming it's incorrect. And assuming that science even has plausable guesses on all subjects.
It seems a valid assumption. There is no proof it is correct. And every other major religion has a different theory of equal validity. Better to go with the plausible guesses of science.
And if you want to claim they're implausible you have to provide evidence other than gut instinct and bible quotations for why they are implausible.
I don't see how it's more complex. I see it in fact as a simpler solution. You see it as more complex. Simplicity, especially on some subjects, isn't something that can be objectivly rated.
Don't give me that bull****. God creating the universe is absolutely the more complex of the two. Not a matter of opinion. If you take two theories, God created the big bang and the Big Bang just happened. Then you subtract everything after the big bang away (since it's the same) you're left with two things. Explaining God and how he could start the big bang or explaining how it could start itself. The latter is obviously the easier one of the two. It's not easy but since God seems to play by the rules of physics in all cases then having someone come up with a way to fake a big bang so well that it can't be detected as a fake is more complex than it simply happening for real.
Any theory involving God creating the universe must first explain where God came from. You have to explain all the complexity of God. And to do that you must get into the whole how he has always existed. Otherwise why not simply say "The universe has always existed" and be done with it?
-
But that's just the point. It's a belief. You have no science to back it nor have bothered to look, nor have bothered to try to understand how it could have happened without divine intervention.
Which is exactly what Mefustae was complaining about.
You two can complain all you want, I don't care. But DON'T tell me what I did or didn't do in my spare time or what I bothered to do. You have no friggin clue (as usual).
I read as much scientific artiles as you do, if not more. I found nothing that contradicts my belief and nothing that supports the contrary.
So why should I NOT belive it?
It seems a valid assumption. There is no proof it is correct. And every other major religion has a different theory of equal validity. Better to go with the plausible guesses of science.
And if you want to claim they're implausible you have to provide evidence other than gut instinct and bible quotations for why they are implausible.
Science has more than once tried several different theories about the creation of the universe.
AFAIK, no one is yet even remotely without holes, and most are redicolous enough that even if it were no God, I would rather chose the Flying Spaghetti Monster over them.
Don't give me that bull****. God creating the universe is absolutely the more complex of the two. Not a matter of opinion. If you take two theories, God created the big bang and the Big Bang just happened. Then you subtract everything after the big bang away (since it's the same) you're left with two things. Explaining God and how he could start the big bang or explaining how it could start itself. The latter is obviously the easier one of the two. It's not easy but since God seems to play by the rules of physics in all cases then having someone come up with a way to fake a big bang so well that it can't be detected as a fake is more complex than it simply happening for real.
Any theory involving God creating the universe must first explain where God came from. You have to explain all the complexity of God. And to do that you must get into the whole how he has always existed. Otherwise why not simply say "The universe has always existed" and be done with it?
I'm giving you that "bull****" and you're gonna like it young man, coause you ain't getting anything else. :p
God created the universe IS simple.*poof* like that. He's omnipotent, all knowing, all powerfull. There's nothing to explain...partially becosue God can't be fully explained.
Science can't explain what happened before the Big Bag. God likes to paly by hte ruels, but he created the rules. There is nothing to "fake", as those rules weren't there before.
-
I'm giving you that "bull****" and you're gonna like it young man, coause you ain't getting anything else. :p
Oh dear, you really do make this too easy sometimes. :rolleyes: :p
God created the universe IS simple.*poof* like that. He's omnipotent, all knowing, all powerfull. There's nothing to explain...partially becosue God can't be fully explained.
And therefore too complex.
Simple things can be explained easily. Complex things can't. You claim that God can't ever be explained which therefore makes him infinitely complex.
Science can't explain what happened before the Big Bag.
there was no before the Big Bang. Time and space didn't exist.
God likes to paly by hte ruels, but he created the rules. There is nothing to "fake", as those rules weren't there before.
However the universe always obeys the rules of physic right up until the big bang. Even though it doesn't have to if it was created.
-
Wait a second... Kara, you believe the big bang is easier to understand if it was caused by something that contradicts the laws of nature, than it is to understand it was caused by an external force? How?
I believe in God if God believes in EVE.
-
God contradicts the laws of nature.
And then you still need to explain why he cares about your sex life.
-
God created the universe IS simple.*poof* like that. He's omnipotent, all knowing, all powerfull. There's nothing to explain...partially becosue God can't be fully explained.
And therefore too complex.
Simple things can be explained easily. Complex things can't. You claim that God can't ever be explained which therefore makes him infinitely complex.
He is GOD. That is an explanation in itself. And it doens't get any simpler and easier than that.
Science can't explain what happened before the Big Bag.
there was no before the Big Bang. Time and space didn't exist.
Not as we know them anyway. So your'e saying there was nothing. There was nothing. But that contradicts the basic law of energy conserrvation. Something can't come forth from nothing.
That means something must have been there before the Big Bang.
Science is impotent when it comes to explaining this...it's becouse GOD(TM)
However the universe always obeys the rules of physic right up until the big bang. Even though it doesn't have to if it was created.
If it's created to obey the rules then it has to. Read above. God however, doesn't. God made hte laws...he can change them at will, go around them, break them and make you think he never broke them in the first place.
-
God created the universe IS simple.*poof* like that. He's omnipotent, all knowing, all powerfull. There's nothing to explain...partially becosue God can't be fully explained.
And therefore too complex.
Simple things can be explained easily. Complex things can't. You claim that God can't ever be explained which therefore makes him infinitely complex.
He is GOD. That is an explanation in itself. And it doens't get any simpler and easier than that.
You'd have to explain what is god and how he can do what he can. If you can explain the universe without a supernatural being, then you are better off without it. We don't atribute supernovas on god's cough or a kitten being killed on you masturbating (because surely god hates that). Again, Occam's razor.
Science can't explain what happened before the Big Bag.
there was no before the Big Bang. Time and space didn't exist.
Not as we know them anyway. So your'e saying there was nothing. There was nothing. But that contradicts the basic law of energy conserrvation. Something can't come forth from nothing.
That means something must have been there before the Big Bang.
Science is impotent when it comes to explaining this...it's becouse GOD(TM)
The current laws of physics only hold up to the beginning of the universe because of the singularities involved. So it doesn't contradict anything. The current theory predicts it's own downfall.
1000 years ago it was people like you that would say that a non-religious knowledge base would be impotent to explain natural phenomena so...
However the universe always obeys the rules of physic right up until the big bang. Even though it doesn't have to if it was created.
If it's created to obey the rules then it has to. Read above. God however, doesn't. God made hte laws...he can change them at will, go around them, break them and make you think he never broke them in the first place.
And you still think god is simple? You are making all these descriptions and you still don't see how mind boggling complex those descriptions are?
-
He is GOD. That is an explanation in itself. And it doens't get any simpler and easier than that.
Okay, it rains cause invisible giants are pissing on us. Simple right?
As long as I don't have to explain who the giants are, what they eat and drink, how they are invisible or why they like giving everyone golden showers.
You've ignored the question of what God is and claimed that a complex being can just have existed outside the universe, ignoring its rules, interacting with it at will and called that simple. It's nonsense plain and simple. God is by very definition so complex that the human mind can not understand him. If God was simple the human mind could understand him. Yet you have instead given a schizophrenic explanation about how he is simple but too complex to understand but simple but complex. And when pressed you simply shout HE'S GOD! as if that gives you carte blanche to make ridiculous statements :rolleyes:
God is complex. It's ludicrous to suggest anything else. Yet in order to not have to face up to Occam's Razor you simplify his creation to the level of a child's statement and claim that it is somehow valid. It's not. And it's a complete logical fallacy to claim that it is. If you disagree with the idea of Occam's Razor then disagree with it. It's only a philosophical tool anyway. But don't make nonsensical and contradictory generalisations and then use that to somehow claim that you fit the definition of the simplest explanation.
Besides as I have stated twice now the Steady State theory is actually simpler than both the Big Bang Theory and Creationism. It simply states that the universe has always existed. Since you disagree that the Big Bang could have happened without God you've already discounted most of the arguments that lead scientists to favour the Big Bang over Steady State anyway so therefore even if you don't believe in the Big Bang without divine intervention it still isn't the simplest choice.
Not as we know them anyway. So your'e saying there was nothing. There was nothing. But that contradicts the basic law of energy conserrvation. Something can't come forth from nothing.
The law of conservation of energy and mass is only a law of this universe. It would not apply to the Big Bang. Again it is foolish to apply the laws of physics that apply to this universe to a time when this universe didn't exist. The big bang created those laws of physics. They didn't exist before the universe did.
If it's created to obey the rules then it has to. Read above. God however, doesn't. God made hte laws...he can change them at will, go around them, break them and make you think he never broke them in the first place.
That's kinda my point. Doing all that is complex behaviour.
-
The idea of God is simple (alltough God himself is infinitly complex). One doesn't have to explain the world Omnipotent.
As soon as you say a omnipotent being created the universe, it's self-explained. In this respect, it's very simple, since details don't matter (since God doesn't necessarily follow the physical laws).
However, when you claim the universe created itself, since universe follows hte laws of physics, that has to be explained.
But allright, let's say it's not simpler. What does that prove? Nothing. Occams razor is in reality totaly worthless.
-
No it isn't self explained any more than my invisible giants example. The idea of invisible giants is simple. But there is a lot of hidden complexity.
And like I said the universe having always existed is still a simpler explanation that avoids the need for a god to have created everything.
-
Do you not realize that you guys are arguing in circles? Do you also not realize that neither of you are basing your arguments around reason, but rather absurdities?
-
And I suppose you actually believe that we can never come to a conclusion about anything? That God is unsearchable and unknowable? That right and wrong are completely and wholly subjective?
Then sir, why live?
-
Umm... to have as much fun as possible. For tomorrow, we die. :rolleyes: That mindset tends to breed problems. The only reason to behave is so that you can live a bit longer to have fun longer. Dirty little secret: It doesn't satisfy you.
-
And I suppose you actually believe that we can never come to a conclusion about anything? That God is unsearchable and unknowable? That right and wrong are completely and wholly subjective?
We have a winner. Man cannot fathom truly finding or knowing God, whether or not he exists. Right and wrong are absolutely subjective, so much that right and wrong are invalidated once you change your frame of reference.
-
You forgot the *ding* *ding* *ding*.
-
Is life's sole purpose life itself, then, according to you? What, then, is your motivation in life? What cause are you willing to die for? What makes being alive worth it?
If right and wrong are truly subjective, we might as well simply throw out the concept entirely. How do you draw a line to determine when murder is acceptable, or thievery, or rape?
Let me say, you are at least the first person I have met who calls themself an agnostic and actually lives up to the definition of the word.
Anyway, what it seems to me that you are saying then, is that no criminal on Earth should be prosecuted, because from their perspective, they had a darn good reason for what they did. It's OK the insane, psychopathic, environmentalist cult leader blew up the city of LA. He was only trying to save the planet from all the cars there! Is that correct?
And what of Christ? What do you make of His existence, and the prophecies, and the miracles he preformed, and the resurrection?
-
Is life's sole purpose life itself, then, according to you? What, then, is your motivation in life? What cause are you willing to die for? What makes being alive worth it?
Living, reproducing, and furthering who we see as our own. Just like every other animal on the planet.
If right and wrong are truly subjective, we might as well simply throw out the concept entirely. How do you draw a line to determine when murder is acceptable, or thievery, or rape?
We have instincts to protect and treat our fellow man fairly. This is the only way we could have survived as a species. When we were thrown out into the planes of Africa, we had no physical superiority beyond our thumbs. We had to work together as a social group to achieve any degree of survivability, and to work together, we had to be able to treat each other with some degree of respect. So the "me and only me" trait didn't work out to well, and was shaved off. We then formed feelings for revenge. This was essentially an early form of what we call justice. Triggering a revenge mechanism is seen as wrong, while not doing so, isn't.
Anyway, what it seems to me that you are saying then, is that no criminal on Earth should be prosecuted, because from their perspective, they had a darn good reason for what they did. It's OK the insane, psychopathic, environmentalist cult leader blew up the city of LA. He was only trying to save the planet from all the cars there! Is that correct?
In his eyes, he was getting revenge, saving himself and everyone he cared for. On the other hand, he triggered feelings for revenge in many more people than him and his group. He is wrong by majority vote. :p I'm guessing that after that, the majority would eliminate the minority, serving "justice".
The majority always rules.
And what of Christ? What do you make of His existence, and the prophecies, and the miracles he preformed, and the resurrection?
There is no definitive proof Christ existed other than the Bible you know. It's also a funny thing to note the striking similarities between the story of Christ, and the story of the Egyptian god Horus. Horus appearing about 3,000 years before the supposed birth of Christ. Horus is only one example I may add, there are many more occurring before the birth of Jesus.
-
It's also a funny thing to note the striking similarities between the story of Christ, and the story of the Egyptian god Horus. Horus appearing about 3,000 years before the supposed birth of Christ. Horus is only one example I may add, there are many more occurring before the birth of Jesus.
Calling them striking is greatly stretching a point. More than greatly stretching, honestly. Aside from the fact both died and came back there's really not that much similar about them at all. (Horus died and came back more than once, for that matter.)
-
It's also a funny thing to note the striking similarities between the story of Christ, and the story of the Egyptian god Horus. Horus appearing about 3,000 years before the supposed birth of Christ. Horus is only one example I may add, there are many more occurring before the birth of Jesus.
Calling them striking is greatly stretching a point. More than greatly stretching, honestly. Aside from the fact both died and came back there's really not that much similar about them at all. (Horus died and came back more than once, for that matter.)
Bah, what I get for trusting what I saw in a film. :p
-
And like I said the universe having always existed is still a simpler explanation that avoids the need for a god to have created everything.
Except that it couldnt have existed forever as it breaks all the known laws, which the universe is subject to and God isn't.
From the Big Bang onward, the explanation for both cases are the same - heat and pressure creating heavier and heavier elements, grouping into clusters, etc, etc..
The only difference is between the very inital moment of creation. "God did it" nicely circumvents all laws of physics and does offer a simple explanation..God created the laws of physics. How? He just did. You don't explain how since you don't know how.
It existing from the begining not only breaks a hellova lot of rules and laws, but any theories science hase come up with so far are flawed and contradictory (as stated by my own physics professor) - meaning it has no explanation.
Right and wrong are absolutely subjective, so much that right and wrong are invalidated once you change your frame of reference.
Wrong. "Oppinions are like asses.. everyone has one." Having a oppinion on what is right and wrong doesn't mean you're right or that there isn't a ture right and wrong that overrired everyone elses (a.k.a. - Gods right and wrong)
There is no definitive proof Christ existed other than the Bible you know.
IIRC; there are mentions of him written by some romans..including some testemonies by some roman soldiers or something.
-
And like I said the universe having always existed is still a simpler explanation that avoids the need for a god to have created everything.
Except that it couldnt have existed forever as it breaks all the known laws, which the universe is subject to and God isn't.
From the Big Bang onward, the explanation for both cases are the same - heat and pressure creating heavier and heavier elements, grouping into clusters, etc, etc..
The only difference is between the very inital moment of creation. "God did it" nicely circumvents all laws of physics and does offer a simple explanation..God created the laws of physics. How? He just did. You don't explain how since you don't know how.
What's the diference between "God did it." and Karajorma's "Invisible giants piss from the sky to make rain." then?
Both "explain it" and circumvent all laws of physics and offer a "simple" explanation according to your logic. Giants piss from the sky to make rain. How? They just do. You don't explain since you don't know how.
-
NOW we have the understanding of meteorology to say that's not where rain comes from. But 3000 years ago they didn't.
So 3000 years ago people could use that explanation and claim that some one talking about water turning invisible was talking much more complicated nonsense which didn't explain everything and that their invisible giants were simpler.
But if you go forward to our time you soon see who was wrong.
-
Another title change?
Ok, this time it has got to be you kaj!. B.t.w. - I said "bull****" .. notice the ""
What's the diference between "God did it." and Karajorma's "Invisible giants piss from the sky to make rain." then?
Both "explain it" and circumvent all laws of physics and offer a "simple" explanation according to your logic. Giants piss from the sky to make rain. How? They just do. You don't explain since you don't know how.
Well, if the giants are omnipotnet then it's also a simple solution. But then again, simple and elegant solution are very often totaly wrong :lol:
Let's jsut drop it guys. The whole Occams Razor isn't really worth this and besides, it does go off-topic..
Wait, what was this thread about again??? :wtf:
-
Another title change?
Ok, this time it has got to be you kaj!. B.t.w. - I said "bull****" .. notice the ""
You never apologised for accusing me of doing it last time so I figured I was owed a freebie anyway. :p
-
I didn't? :wtf:
*checkes thread*
Blimey, you're right. :eek:
In that case I aplogize now. :o
-
Too late. :p
-
TrashMan, saying "God did it" is not a simple solution no matter how elegant you try to say it is.
It's like people asking how life began and someone saying "It came from another planet!".
Does it answer the problem? No, it just adds further questions to the problem. Not only does that someone have to explain how life was carried but the first question wasn't answered at all.
By saying "God did it" you not only have to explain how god did it, but still have to explain what he did, further adding questions into a problem that still wasn't solved by saying "God did it".
If you have a problem with Occam's razor, that's fine (sort of...), but looking at where it got us so far I don't see much of a problem with it...
-
Too late. :p
I still think you might have indirectly contributed to my first title change. :drevil:
You didnt have to do it yourself, you could have peruaded a admin into doing that. Devious...subtle, but devious.
-
Nope. I had nothing to do with it at all.
-
Nope. I had nothing to do with it at all.
Maybe you did it, but just in a way far too complex for us to understand. Thus, we can safely conclude that you obviously did it, and move on with out lives.
-
Dang, I haven't been able to keep up with the last couple pages very well. I post very early morning, leave for school, get home and there's like 30 replies! Dang! Let's see here...
Kara (in response to your first post after the top of page 15): God is not a great big something from nothing. There was never any nothing. Ever. God existed for as long as existence existed. God simply is. He did not become, He did not appear. He always was, is and will forever be. I do not say that if we find out everything we will have no need for God. I'm saying if we stayed with God from the beginning, we would never have had any reason to find out everything in the first place. If we find out everything, then it will indeed be proven to be true that man does have need of God. That is a vastly-denied law of nature, just as much as Aerodynamics, or Motion, or Conservation laws.
Mefustae (next post): Blimey, what have I set in motion!? :p
:) In short, the revelation and explanation of the greatest love story ever played out, in a way you can hopefully understand and respect, and on some level, relate to.
Karajorma: That is absolutely not true at all! For your example, I say God did open the sky and make it rain. I could go into further detail if I so desired, or if my audience so desired, and explain how God designed the molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, which combine in such a way that they have an extra pair of electrons, which force the other electrons, those that bond said atoms together, into a bent shape that allows for an incredible degree of polarity with a significant dipole moment. This allows water to be a liquid at certain temperatures where heavier molecules are not, thus allowing for such molecules to precipitate in the absence of a certain degree of pressure, and clump together in droplets that gravity then prevails over to bring said water back to the ground, which is what we call rain. And in doing so, we have a perfect, in-depth look at how rain is created, and I don't need to omit the fact that God Himself designed water molecules to function this way, that God devised the fact that opposites attract and alikes repel, that God decided that matter should attract other matter, thus creating a substantial gravitational pull when a large concentration of mass is in one place.
I know of the particles you've mention, and have actually seen them individually (electron microscopes are really cool, btw). I've detected the gravitational and electromagnetic forces you've mentioned in a physics course I did last semester. I've studied the varying things rain does, how it does it, and why. However, i'm yet to see this "God particle" you've mentioned. Is it an electromagnetic force like gravity? Or is it the possible force behind "dark energy", the theorized force that keeps the universe expanding. If so, then could you point me towards the published papers on the subject?
First of all, I seriously doubt you've seen sub-atomic particles. Even electron microscopes can't see that level. That's off-topic though. I never mentioned a "God particle." God is the author of particles. If, when the LHC at Cern comes on line, the Higgs Boson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson) (a super-dense particle that is believed to have created matter itself) is found to exist, I would say that this is the force by which God authored our universe. Also somewhat off-topic. My point is, rather than a so-called "God Particle," I'm saying that the process which these particles that make up matter go through to bring us this thing called a universe, and existence, the incredibly precise, wondrous way these particles interact, is authored by God Himself. Hopefully this quote from a favorite song of mine will shed some more light on it: From "Missing" by Olivia the Band: The growing grass, the blowing wind, the shooting stars you see
If you look close enough you'll notice that they're all written by me
God is not the process, He devised it.
Like I said, I believe science points all the more to God, not away from Him.
I disagree with you, but I respect your conclusion. And might I just add that it's awesome that you've kept your wits about you and stayed the hell away from Intelligent Design. Too bad a lot more Christians aren't like you. :)
Oh believe me, I'm no disclaimer of Intelligent Design. I just believe it's insignificant next to the fall of Man, the sacrifice of Christ to redeem Man, and the love God showed in 1. creating Man in the first place, and 2. suffering to redeem us and allow us to clean the slate, so we may once again stand before Him and not be destroyed by our own wickedness. I also believe that the prime function of the first two chapters of Genesis, actually the whole of the Old Testament in fact, rather than to explain how we came to be (while true, it is of secondary, even tertiary importance), is to explain how Man fell from glory, and why we desperately need the cleansing blood of the Lamb.
The question of how is still just as important as ever. For that matter, so is knowledge itself. To which I say, who needs knowledge to come up with cures for disease when disease didn't exist? I ask the question, what are we doing with this knowledge? We are trying to make better lives for ourselves. Why are we doing this? Because life sucks right now. People die. Diseases are a reality. Age is an inescapable thing. People start the process of dying from the moment they are concieved. If this were not the case, such knowledge would be a mad waste of time. It would be completely unnecessary. This is a perfect example of man trying to find something to replace God. Himself.
I don't suppose you could clear up what you mean here? Not sure of the point you're making, but i'd like to take a crack at discussing it.
The thing I am getting at here is that Man's original sin, the thing that got us kicked out of paradise, was the delusion that we could be just as good as God, that we could possibly not need God anymore. and I quote: f you can explain everything without God then you don't need God at all.
This kind of blasphemy is the destroyer of souls. It is by this thought process that Man arrived at the wretched place He is in at this very moment. By this thought alone, death was allowed to enter the world. By this thought alone, Man was kicked out of Eden, and because of this mentality, Christ was crucified. Society today is governed by the idea that "I am as good as he!" But no one who says this actually believes it. You never hear the rich man say this of the beggar. It's made only by those who feel themselves some what inferior, and it expresses the fact that they refuse to accept that, and therefore, resentsit. It makes people resent any kind of superiority in others anywhere. They even begin to suspect others of feeling superior to them. To quote CS Lewis on the subject, "Here's a fellow who says he doesn't like hot dogs- he thinks himself too good for them no doubt." We come up against the inescapable feeling of inferiority when confronted with the idea of God. Thus we run from the idea. A man who cannot let go of his pride cannot stand before God because he simply won't. It's said that the gates of Hell are locked from the inside. I believe this is somewhat true, at least on this level. Karajorma makes a perfect example of this by what he said. "...you don't need God at all." Because, of course, Man is all we ever need to be. We're just as good as God, after all... the Nuclear Bomb shows us that (sarcasm). No, I say men cannot be trusted with the secrets of the Universe. It's for good reason that God didn't want us to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We're too proud for that kind of charge.
I never noticed it before now, but this goes right back to the Garden of Eden. Man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thinking he could be just like God, that he wouldn't need God anymore. Let me tell you right now that this will never be the case. We simply aren't good enough. This goes back to the original thread topic because, man, without God, will never be capable of creating a utopian society. That is, Heaven on Earth. Man cannot make such a thing. Yet He is trying to with each technological advance he makes. Technology, which would be entirely relevant if Man had not sinned, thus bringing death itself into this world.
Woah! Let's pull over to the side of the arrogance turnpike! Not only is your little paragraph here anti-thought, it's anti-human. All we've accomplished, all we've fought and struggled to achieve, everything we've created with only the sweat and blood of our brow: We did it. We invented the wheel, we constructed thousands of vastly complex written and spoken languages, we've learned what makes us tick and been able to live longer with every generation, we've even been able to shed the confines of this Earth and travel into space! So much we've accomplished, all on our own. Now, if you want to cheapen those monumental achievements by saying we pale in comparison to a Heavenly Spirit, the same God who has done exactly dick for us throughout all recorded human history, that's entirely your choice. But you should keep in mind that in doing so, you're marginalizing how utterly awesome we all are. But then, that's just how it always seems to work: The underlings do all the work, and the Big Boss gets all the credit. :doubt:
Again with the pride. Actually, if you look in the first few books of the Old Testament, people used to live lives many times greater than ourselves now. The oldest man on record lived to be approximately 1075 years old, if memory serves. Adam was intended to live forever. Death only became a factor when he screwed up.
This was, admittedly, heard in a comic strip publication, but it'll serve well for the point I'm trying to make: A scientist living many years from now, was feeling particularly puffed-up about a certain research project he'd been working on for years, and had just finished. He went outside, and said to no one in particular, "Ha, we've come so far, we don't even need God anymore!" Suddenly he hears a voice, saying "How's this?" It belonged to God. The man says "Look, you're so great because you made us from dirt, supposedly. Well look here, so can I!" And he reaches down, and picks up a clump of dirt, and begins to work. Seconds later, God speaks again: "Hey! Get your own dirt!" The man leaves, dejected. Yes, we do pale in comparison to God.
If you want to live by the notion that God is the ultimate provider of everything we need, then go live out your own little Garden of Eden and dick around naked in the bush without even the basic knowledge of what plants to eat. That's all the Big Guy has provided for us, He even actively denied our advancement with the whole "Tree of Knowledge" debacle. On the other hand, if you want to live on what humanity has provided you, then continue as you are. Just do me a favor and attribute credit where it's due.
As I said, we cannot be trusted with anything greater. We've proven that already. The mere fact that conflict is the greatest motivation we have for "progress" shows us that. We'll learn how to use our knowledge to destroy each other before we use it to make ourselves better. Or perhaps that's just it. We make ourselves better before we make society better. Back to pride and competition. It's not about doing better as a species. It's about doing better than them. If that's anti-human, then I am ashamed to be a member of the human race. I believe that, soon and very soon, humanity's big ego trip will come to a close. And it will most likely be by something we do to ourselves.
About that Garden of Eden bit you stated, Mefustae: If I could, I would. But I am a wretched man not fit to stand in God's presence. And I don't believe I will be perfect this side of eternity.
Next post I will respond to: Swantz's on page 16. The other posts before it I would very much like to respond to, but I can hardly follow them once we started saying God is both complex and simple, and when invisible, peeing giants came into the equation. I do support most of what TrashMan said, though.
Swantz:Is life's sole purpose life itself, then, according to you? What, then, is your motivation in life? What cause are you willing to die for? What makes being alive worth it?
Living, reproducing, and furthering who we see as our own. Just like every other animal on the planet.
So according to you, nothing sets man apart from any other animal on the planet, aside from opposable thumbs? Why don't the Great Apes have a thriving, advanced civilization like we do? Why do we come up with spiritual ideas if there is no human spirit, no soul?
If right and wrong are truly subjective, we might as well simply throw out the concept entirely. How do you draw a line to determine when murder is acceptable, or thievery, or rape?
We have instincts to protect and treat our fellow man fairly. This is the only way we could have survived as a species. When we were thrown out into the planes of Africa, we had no physical superiority beyond our thumbs. We had to work together as a social group to achieve any degree of survivability, and to work together, we had to be able to treat each other with some degree of respect. So the "me and only me" trait didn't work out to well, and was shaved off. We then formed feelings for revenge. This was essentially an early form of what we call justice. Triggering a revenge mechanism is seen as wrong, while not doing so, isn't.
So you speculate. What evidence do we have that primitive man did any of this?
Anyway, what it seems to me that you are saying then, is that no criminal on Earth should be prosecuted, because from their perspective, they had a darn good reason for what they did. It's OK the insane, psychopathic, environmentalist cult leader blew up the city of LA. He was only trying to save the planet from all the cars there! Is that correct?
In his eyes, he was getting revenge, saving himself and everyone he cared for. On the other hand, he triggered feelings for revenge in many more people than him and his group. He is wrong by majority vote. :p I'm guessing that after that, the majority would eliminate the minority, serving "justice".
The majority always rules.
So majority determines what is just? That doesn't seem very subjective to me. Not only that, but it goes to show that all of mankind has it hard-coded in them a baseline idea of right and wrong. An objective morality. A conscience. One can ignore it, one can say they don't have one, but in one moment, they'll be stealing from someone, claiming that they live by a different moral code than their victim, thus their victim's complaints are irrelevant, and in the next moment they'll be telling someone who steals from them that stealing is wrong. CS Lewis has some very good things to say on this subject.
And what of Christ? What do you make of His existence, and the prophecies, and the miracles he preformed, and the resurrection?
There is no definitive proof Christ existed other than the Bible you know.
As TrashMan said, there are other records. Besides that, the Bible is truth enough. Do you have any idea how many testimonies from individuals backed it up? FAR more than enough to convict a man of murder in federal court. "Proof beyond reasonable doubt," I believe the phrase is?
Ghostavo: Except for miracles, God doesn't circumvent ANY rules. He wrote them. He doesn't even circumvent the relationship between Sin and Death. TrashMan, saying "God did it" is not a simple solution no matter how elegant you try to say it is.
It's like people asking how life began and someone saying "It came from another planet!".
Does it answer the problem? No, it just adds further questions to the problem. Not only does that someone have to explain how life was carried but the first question wasn't answered at all.
By saying "God did it" you not only have to explain how god did it, but still have to explain what he did, further adding questions into a problem that still wasn't solved by saying "God did it".
If you have a problem with Occam's razor, that's fine (sort of...), but looking at where it got us so far I don't see much of a problem with it...
But you see, the Bible has an answer for both. God scooped up dust (the Hebrew word for which is "Adamah," which sounds remarkably like the Hebrew word for Man, "Adam." FYI, it could be seen to mean atoms, molecules, etc.) formed Man from it, and "breathed" life into Man. (notice here also, the Hebrew word for "Breath" is strikingly similar to the words for "soul" and "wind" and "air." Thus one could infer that God gave Man a piece of His own soul, which allows for sentience, intelligence, morality, and a great many other things Humans have that are exhibited by no other species on this big blue marble.) So there you go! That's how life came to be. Again, it matters not in the big scheme of things.
-
Ghostavo: Except for miracles, God doesn't circumvent ANY rules. He wrote them. He doesn't even circumvent the relationship between Sin and Death. TrashMan, saying "God did it" is not a simple solution no matter how elegant you try to say it is.
It's like people asking how life began and someone saying "It came from another planet!".
Does it answer the problem? No, it just adds further questions to the problem. Not only does that someone have to explain how life was carried but the first question wasn't answered at all.
By saying "God did it" you not only have to explain how god did it, but still have to explain what he did, further adding questions into a problem that still wasn't solved by saying "God did it".
If you have a problem with Occam's razor, that's fine (sort of...), but looking at where it got us so far I don't see much of a problem with it...
But you see, the Bible has an answer for both. God scooped up dust (the Hebrew word for which is "Adamah," which sounds remarkably like the Hebrew word for Man, "Adam." FYI, it could be seen to mean atoms, molecules, etc.) formed Man from it, and "breathed" life into Man. (notice here also, the Hebrew word for "Breath" is strikingly similar to the words for "soul" and "wind" and "air." Thus one could infer that God gave Man a piece of His own soul, which allows for sentience, intelligence, morality, and a great many other things Humans have that are exhibited by no other species on this big blue marble.) So there you go! That's how life came to be. Again, it matters not in the big scheme of things.
I was using abiogenesis as an analogy. But if you insist...
Those descriptions do jack **** to describe how life was formed nor do they describe what was done, merely the end product (see the point?). Therefore, logically, they are as valid as the previous "Giants piss from the sky to make rain".
Amusingly, if you insist in saying that there can't be something from nothing and then say that god doesn't violate this by saying he has always existed, why can't the same be said for the universe?
-
Title change!
-
But you see, the Bible has an answer for both. God scooped up dust (the Hebrew word for which is "Adamah," which sounds remarkably like the Hebrew word for Man, "Adam." FYI, it could be seen to mean atoms, molecules, etc.) formed Man from it, and "breathed" life into Man. (notice here also, the Hebrew word for "Breath" is strikingly similar to the words for "soul" and "wind" and "air." Thus one could infer that God gave Man a piece of His own soul, which allows for sentience, intelligence, morality, and a great many other things Humans have that are exhibited by no other species on this big blue marble.) So there you go! That's how life came to be. Again, it matters not in the big scheme of things.
Okay, God created us. But he created us wrong. We're prideful, we're violent, aggressive, brash. We wage war with our brothers as easily as we breathe, and we capable of evils far too dark to even imagine. Yep, God cocked up. Does God clean up his mistake? Nope. All the power of the universe, and he couldn't be stuffed. Does he take responsibility for the things he's created? Nope. All the power in the universe and he can't make a loaf of bread for a starving child in Ethiopia.
Logically, we're looking at two options: God doesn't exist, or God exists but is a total jerk. Any way you look at the situation right now, you come down to those options.
Title change!
Bah. Mister hoighty-toighty admin with his nigh-on puerile titles. Why don't you just go with "I'm totally assassin!", you know you want to.
...:p
-
As TrashMan said, there are other records.
Where?
Besides that, the Bible is truth enough.
Only Young Earth Creationists claim that it is literally true. Most other Christians accept that it must be interpreted.
Even then it's only true because you believe in it. There is no proof that the bible is true. You are mistaking your faith in it for proof.
Do you have any idea how many testimonies from individuals backed it up?
No. How many? Provide these witnesses you speak of or their testimony is hearsay.
-
Okay, God created us. But he created us wrong. We're prideful, we're violent, aggressive, brash. We wage war with our brothers as easily as we breathe, and we capable of evils far too dark to even imagine. Yep, God cocked up. Does God clean up his mistake? Nope. All the power of the universe, and he couldn't be stuffed. Does he take responsibility for the things he's created? Nope. All the power in the universe and he can't make a loaf of bread for a starving child in Ethiopia.
Logically, we're looking at two options: God doesn't exist, or God exists but is a total jerk. Any way you look at the situation right now, you come down to those options.
What makes you think he created us wrong? We are as he wanted us to be. Could HE have made us better? Sure... Why didn't he?
I can think of a lot of reasons.
First of all, he gave us a UNRESTRICTED freedom of choice - which in itself is a double edged sword, as we can make wrong decisions. But if he took that away from us, would we really have a full freedom of choice?
Secondly, why doesn't he intervene? Why should he? He did it in the past and Max still faltered in his faith.
We are like children - there comes a time one has to let go and let the child learn from his own mistakes, even if it's painfull.
-
Could HE have made us better? Sure... Why didn't he?
I can think of a lot of reasons.
Could you tell us a few of those reasons?
-
Secondly, why doesn't he intervene? Why should he? He did it in the past and Max still faltered in his faith.
We are like children - there comes a time one has to let go and let the child learn from his own mistakes, even if it's painfull.
Oh, so God's just a neglectful dad. Makes sense.
Boy, how I wish the mother got custody. :doubt:
-
I like how all this is culminating in the Christians essentially arguing that God's a benevolent lab tech and we're an experiment.
Makes me wonder where the control group is... :nervous:
-
Dolphins.
That's why they're laughing at us all the time.
-
Secondly, why doesn't he intervene? Why should he? He did it in the past and Max still faltered in his faith.
We are like children - there comes a time one has to let go and let the child learn from his own mistakes, even if it's painfull.
Oh, so God's just a neglectful dad. Makes sense.
Boy, how I wish the mother got custody. :doubt:
Neglectfull? Oh, no...You're just a spoiled brat. :p
-
Ghostavo:
Ghostavo: Except for miracles, God doesn't circumvent ANY rules. He wrote them. He doesn't even circumvent the relationship between Sin and Death. TrashMan, saying "God did it" is not a simple solution no matter how elegant you try to say it is.
It's like people asking how life began and someone saying "It came from another planet!".
Does it answer the problem? No, it just adds further questions to the problem. Not only does that someone have to explain how life was carried but the first question wasn't answered at all.
By saying "God did it" you not only have to explain how god did it, but still have to explain what he did, further adding questions into a problem that still wasn't solved by saying "God did it".
If you have a problem with Occam's razor, that's fine (sort of...), but looking at where it got us so far I don't see much of a problem with it...
But you see, the Bible has an answer for both. God scooped up dust (the Hebrew word for which is "Adamah," which sounds remarkably like the Hebrew word for Man, "Adam." FYI, it could be seen to mean atoms, molecules, etc.) formed Man from it, and "breathed" life into Man. (notice here also, the Hebrew word for "Breath" is strikingly similar to the words for "soul" and "wind" and "air." Thus one could infer that God gave Man a piece of His own soul, which allows for sentience, intelligence, morality, and a great many other things Humans have that are exhibited by no other species on this big blue marble.) So there you go! That's how life came to be. Again, it matters not in the big scheme of things.
I was using abiogenesis as an analogy. But if you insist...
Those descriptions do jack **** to describe how life was formed nor do they describe what was done, merely the end product (see the point?). Therefore, logically, they are as valid as the previous "Giants piss from the sky to make rain".
Amusingly, if you insist in saying that there can't be something from nothing and then say that god doesn't violate this by saying he has always existed, why can't the same be said for the universe?
Because evidence has shown us that the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate as the years go by. Logically speaking, then, there must have at some point been a time of 0 expansion.
Mefustae:
But you see, the Bible has an answer for both. God scooped up dust (the Hebrew word for which is "Adamah," which sounds remarkably like the Hebrew word for Man, "Adam." FYI, it could be seen to mean atoms, molecules, etc.) formed Man from it, and "breathed" life into Man. (notice here also, the Hebrew word for "Breath" is strikingly similar to the words for "soul" and "wind" and "air." Thus one could infer that God gave Man a piece of His own soul, which allows for sentience, intelligence, morality, and a great many other things Humans have that are exhibited by no other species on this big blue marble.) So there you go! That's how life came to be. Again, it matters not in the big scheme of things.
Okay, God created us. But he created us wrong. We're prideful, we're violent, aggressive, brash. We wage war with our brothers as easily as we breathe, and we capable of evils far too dark to even imagine. Yep, God cocked up. Does God clean up his mistake? Nope. All the power of the universe, and he couldn't be stuffed. Does he take responsibility for the things he's created? Nope. All the power in the universe and he can't make a loaf of bread for a starving child in Ethiopia.
Logically, we're looking at two options: God doesn't exist, or God exists but is a total jerk. Any way you look at the situation right now, you come down to those options.
Not true at all! Pride was something that was added after the fact. It was the Serpent in the Garden of Eden that first suggested to Man that "If you eat of this tree which God has told you not to eat of, you will be like gods!" Pride was first present in Satan, not in Man. God didn't make the mistake. We did. And as far as "cleaning it up," what should He do? Set back the clock and pretend nothing ever happened? What's to keep it from happening again, and again, and again, and again? We would never learn from our mistake. Instead, He sends Christ to pay for our mistake. He judges us, and then serves our sentence Himself. As for starving children in Ethiopia, again, our mistake. "It is by human avarice or human stupidity, not by the churlishness of nature, that we have poverty and overwork."
--CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain
Here's something else he has to say on the subject: "If the universe is so bad...how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator?"
Karajorma: 500 people witnessed Christ resurrected. The books in the Bible were written in the same time period as the events were happening. Many people who were alive in the time of Jesus read the Gospels. All the people who were alive at the time and saw these events with their own eyes. Many wrote about them. If the content of the books were false, I doubt very much that they would have ever gotten off of the ground due to public outcry. I really don't know enough about the history to say much more than that, though, I'm afraid.
Trashman's correct. God gave us free will. Steel Prophet, one such reason He did so is because He wanted something greater than a bunch of toys that moved when He pulled the strings. He wanted creatures that flocked to Him of their own power. Because of this free will, Man can be incredibly good or incredibly evil. We failed Him, yet He still loved us and thus sent Christ to redeem us. God knew the risks, and was willing to take them. We can take it most assuredly that it was worth it, because God did. To argue with that would be to argue with the very source of your power to reason.
Oh believe me, God is not neglectful. A day is coming when all of humanity except those who have been made clean in the blood of the Lamb will feel the full bearing of God's wrath. The children will be punished for their bad behavior. But when that day comes, it will be a total removal of any mystery that God exists. At that point, saying you believe in Him would be like saying you'd like to have a seat when you're no longer capable of standing. It would be like waiting until the end of a war to start fighting, because you want to make sure you pick the winning side. I don't think too highly of preaching about doom and gloom rather than hope and love, but this is my motivation for doing this. I don't want you to face that day with "oh crap, I was wrong!" in your head. Also, I guess that doesn't defeat my purpose. The hope and love aspect comes in to play in that you can sidestep all of that entirely.
-
500 people witnessed Christ resurrected. The books in the Bible were written in the same time period as the events were happening.
No they weren't. Even Christian biblical scholars put the date of the earliest at least 20-30 years after the resurrection.
Many people who were alive in the time of Jesus read the Gospels. All the people who were alive at the time and saw these events with their own eyes. Many wrote about them. If the content of the books were false, I doubt very much that they would have ever gotten off of the ground due to public outcry. I really don't know enough about the history to say much more than that, though, I'm afraid.
So in other words you can't provide a single contemporary recording of the life of Jesus apart from the Bible. Not even the records of the Romans?
-
actually, the books are said to have been written at circa 40-60 AD. the crucifiction was at about 36 AD. About 24 years at most.
let me get back to you on the second part after doing some research.
-
actually, the books are said to have been written at circa 40-60 AD. the crucifiction was at about 36 AD.
Says you. That's at least 3 years later than every date for the crucifixion I've heard before.
Of course it's especially funny that this supposedly well witnessed event can't even have the year placed definitively.
-
500 people witnessed Christ resurrected. The books in the Bible were written in the same time period as the events were happening.
No they weren't. Even Christian biblical scholars put the date of the earliest at least 20-30 years after the resurrection.
Sheesh...TIME PERIOD...not second.
Most of the people/vitnesses were still alive after 20-30 years
So in other words you can't provide a single contemporary recording of the life of Jesus apart from the Bible. Not even the records of the Romans?
IIRC, there are roman records telling that Jesus did in fact exist and was crucified. Romans were neet bookeepers, even when it comes to whom they killed today.
Of course it's especially funny that this supposedly well witnessed event can't even have the year placed definitively.
History generally has problems with exact dates of ancient events...
-
A few things I know about the subject:
1) There just is one and uncertain proof of Pontius Pilatus' existance, some sort of epitaph found in Italy;
2) The Greek "Stauros" has been translated with the Latin "Crux". While "Crux" identificates the Roman Cross(the most famous one, symbol of Christianity), "Stauros" is...some sort of column made of wood(please forgive my poor English, I don't know how to translate grosso bastone di legno conficcato nel terreno. It's probable that Jesus has been executed with a "Stauros", not a "Crux". The "Crux" has been introduced later;
3) Christianity was, at the beginning, much different. Symbols like the Trinity have been introduced later(Jesus and God were separate entities). The importance of the Holy Mary was different(she almost reaches God's level now, though I can confirm that many people prefer her to God);
4) The Gospels have been written many, many years after the episodes we're taking in consideration. This explains the light differences between any of the Gospels and the others;
5) There are the way too many coincidences. I'm refering to Mithra: too similar to Jesus. The point is that Mithra came before...;
6) With Jesus, all of a sudden, God becomes peaceful;
7) It was a snake to convince Adamus and Eva to eat the apple, the Devil isn't mentioned. Most people think it was him, but there are no references;
8) According to the dochtrine, there's no Purgatorio in the afterlife. Mostly thanks to Dante, however, people think there is a place in which souls try to become pure. They even pray for souls who are supposed to stay there, I can confirm that;
-
Holy Mary having a God-like status? :wtf:
Nah, she has no real power to speak off (in that sense) but she is a motherly figure, a saint of a sorts and people find it somehow easier to pray to her to put in a good word for them by God. Alltough as a "mother" of Jesus she does have quite a stature and influence, I'll give you that.
-
A few things I know about the subject:
1) There just is one and uncertain proof of Pontius Pilatus' existance, some sort of epitaph found in Italy;
you mean proof outside of the Bible, that is?
2) The Greek "Stauros" has been translated with the Latin "Crux". While "Crux" identificates the Roman Cross(the most famous one, symbol of Christianity), "Stauros" is...some sort of column made of wood(please forgive my poor English, I don't know how to translate grosso bastone di legno conficcato nel terreno. It's probable that Jesus has been executed with a "Stauros", not a "Crux". The "Crux" has been introduced later;
That's of little importance, really. He came a poor man in a poor family, lived the life of your average Joe without all the mistakes, was tortured to death for telling who he really was, someone they knew was coming, and then walked out of the grave.
3) Christianity was, at the beginning, much different. Symbols like the Trinity have been introduced later(Jesus and God were separate entities). The importance of the Holy Mary was different(she almost reaches God's level now, though I can confirm that many people prefer her to God);
Jesus and God were never completely separate entities. Jesus Himself first introduced the idea of the Trinity by claiming to be THE "I Am" spoken of in the Old Testament. Mary is not different. She was a human being.
4) The Gospels have been written many, many years after the episodes we're taking in consideration. This explains the light differences between any of the Gospels and the others;
No they were not. 20-30 years is NOT a long time, for one. Secondly, that's the time they started appearing widespread. They were probably in the process of being written while the events took place.
5) There are the way too many coincidences. I'm refering to Mithra: too similar to Jesus. The point is that Mithra came before...;
What is Mithra?
6) With Jesus, all of a sudden, God becomes peaceful;
What's your point? Jesus is the shining example of God's love for Man.
7) It was a snake to convince Adamus and Eva to eat the apple, the Devil isn't mentioned. Most people think it was him, but there are no references;
I said the serpent. Satan has many names. I wonder what Serpent is in Hebrew.
8) According to the dochtrine, there's no Purgatorio in the afterlife. Mostly thanks to Dante, however, people think there is a place in which souls try to become pure. They even pray for souls who are supposed to stay there, I can confirm that;
This is something about the Catholic faith that has baffled me.
-
Kara, do you really think that someone that didn't exist could so drastically influence our culture, our calendar, our way of life, our ideals, everything about us in such a way for so long? Our very nature pays testimony to God. Our culture is a testimony to Christ.
-
Kara, do you really think that someone that didn't exist could so drastically influence our culture, our calendar, our way of life, our ideals, everything about us in such a way for so long? Our very nature pays testimony to God. Our culture is a testimony to Christ.
Our culture is dramatically influenced cause Christianity managed to become the dominant religion in the western world which happened to become dominant over the rest of the world.
There are 1 billion Hindus. I guess that means that Rama exists too then? :rolleyes:
Oh and I have never said Jesus didn't exist. It's quite probably that there was a holy man of that name. The middle east was crawling with them at the time.
What I doubt was that he anything more than a priest who got very very lucky with how many people believed him.
Sheesh...TIME PERIOD...not second.
Most of the people/vitnesses were still alive after 20-30 years
Were they still alive 50 years later? Cause that's the average figure for the gospel of John.
IIRC, there are roman records telling that Jesus did in fact exist and was crucified. Romans were neet bookeepers, even when it comes to whom they killed today.
Prove it. Where are the records?
History generally has problems with exact dates of ancient events...
I can tell you the day Julius Caesar was killed. I can tell you the day Pompeii was destroyed. I can tell you when the day the battle of Zama was fought. Are you seriously telling me that with all your hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection and expert Roman bookkeeping you can't even give me the ****ing year?
-
I know the day Caesar died, too. Let's see the sources you cite for those three examples you listed. Give me the day, then tell me were you got your information and why you think it is reliable.
A holy man of the name "Jesus Christ?" For one, Jeshuah, the name Christ was given in Hebrew, literally means "YHWH saves." YHWH is the name given to God which the Israelites thought was too holy to even be spoken. Christ means "Annointed One" or "Messiah." I guarantee you that if someone were walking around with the name Jesus Christ, he'd be taken as a LOT more than just a Holy man. I also doubt it was a very common name.
So you don't doubt the existence of Jesus. What is it you do doubt, then? The miracles He performed? The prophecies He fulfilled? What do you take Christ as, and what about Him (at least, Him perceived by us Christians) do you have a problem with?
-
Sheesh...TIME PERIOD...not second.
Most of the people/vitnesses were still alive after 20-30 years
Were they still alive 50 years later? Cause that's the average figure for the gospel of John.
I write something and refine it till I die. The book slowly circulates but it's not untill after 20 years that it's noticed. Does it matter that by that time I'm long gone? Does it make my testimony written there any less ture?
Prove it. Where are the records?
Dunno. Read it in a magazine some time ago..romans did keep neet books, alltough a lot of it is destroyed. Dunno how accurate that is, but still. What about the Ku'ran? It also sez Jesus was a real person.
I can tell you the day Julius Caesar was killed. I can tell you the day Pompeii was destroyed. I can tell you when the day the battle of Zama was fought. Are you seriously telling me that with all your hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection and expert Roman bookkeeping you can't even give me the ****ing year?
And there are a hunderd events and people whose exact years and dates you CAN'T give me. Your point?
-
I know the day Caesar died, too. Let's see the sources you cite for those three examples you listed. Give me the day, then tell me were you got your information and why you think it is reliable.
For Pompeii we have the writings of Pliny the Younger. Who went on to become a famous author of the day. It's pretty easy to explain why it's reliable. It's the day Pliny the Elder died. (well he died that week during the eruption, I can't be bothered to check on which exact day).
For Caesar you could write a book of the accounts of his death. Here's a list from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28Caesar%29#Ancient_historians.27_writings).
For Zama you have the excellent Roman book keeping that Trashman has already acknowledged.
Now let's see your source for the date of 36 AD cause as I said before that's 3 years later than any souce I've heard (Even before we ignore the fact that biblical dating is off by about 4-6 years given that Herod ****ing died in 4 BC!)
So you don't doubt the existence of Jesus. What is it you do doubt, then? The miracles He performed? The prophecies He fulfilled? What do you take Christ as, and what about Him (at least, Him perceived by us Christians) do you have a problem with?
I think, as I said before that he's a priest who got very very lucky and still has people following his religion 2000 years later. Siddhārtha Gautama is the only other one who has been that lucky that comes to mind.
I write something and refine it till I die. The book slowly circulates but it's not untill after 20 years that it's noticed. Does it matter that by that time I'm long gone? Does it make my testimony written there any less ture?
It certainly makes it a lot harder to verify! Which is what got us onto the age of the gospels in the first place if you remember.
Dunno. Read it in a magazine some time ago..romans did keep neet books, alltough a lot of it is destroyed. Dunno how accurate that is, but still.
Would you convict a person of murder based on that? Cause that was the level of proof that was claimed. Beyond reasonable doubt. Would you consider "I read something...I think...But it might have been destroyed...and I don't know how accurate it is" as beyond reasonable doubt?
What about the Ku'ran? It also sez Jesus was a real person.
I'm supposed to take the word of someone who lived 600 years later and a thousand miles away as proof?
I can tell you the day Julius Caesar was killed. I can tell you the day Pompeii was destroyed. I can tell you when the day the battle of Zama was fought. Are you seriously telling me that with all your hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection and expert Roman bookkeeping you can't even give me the ****ing year?
And there are a hunderd events and people whose exact years and dates you CAN'T give me. Your point?
You're claiming to have contemporary Roman writings about the crucifixion and you can't even give me the year? And you don't see this as a flaw in your argument that there are contemporary writings about Jesus other than the bible? Even though Roman writings are often accurate to the day?
If you can't give me the year how do you even know that they're about Jesus at all and not some other guy with a similar name?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
-
Hey, um, don't bring any other religious texts into this.
At this point, it doesn't really matter whether Jesus existed. Christianity came into being and that's it.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Even other Christians question the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. The second passage is more widely held by Christians to be true.
And he still isn't contemporary anyway. The man was born after the crucifixion.
-
I don't recal lever claiming anything beyond the shadow of doubt. You're confusing me with G0atmaster.
History allways has been a murky thing and I dont' even belive far better documanted events beyond the shadow of a doubt. Writtne things can allways be forged. Witnesses can allways lie. Book cna allways be re-written.
But one has to belive something, either way.
But let me ask you things then - you don't belive the Bible, the KuRan or any other later source as being accurate...so what or whom would you belive? :wtf:
-
But let me ask you things then - you don't belive the Bible, the KuRan or any other later source as being accurate...so what or whom would you belive? :wtf:
How about an accurate historical document that hasn't been rewritten, revised, and subjected to the twisted wills of a thousand different men over the past few thousand years?
-
I don't recal lever claiming anything beyond the shadow of doubt. You're confusing me with G0atmaster.
Actually I'm not. GOatmaster claimed that level of proof so I first wanted to prove him wrong when you jumped in and decided to argue too. At least we can both agree that he is wrong and that there isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt.
But let me ask you things then - you don't belive the Bible, the KuRan or any other later source as being accurate...so what or whom would you belive? :wtf:
I'll take the evidence of multiple contemporary sources all saying the same thing. If I don't have that I'm not going to take anything historical as fact. So given that the bible is the only contemporary source (and even that is sketchy since only one of the gospels is definitely written by one of the apostles) it wouldn't meet the standard that I'd considered needed for a historical record that can stand on it's own. And that's even before I consider the facts that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof and that there is obviously an issue of bias.
-
I don't recal lever claiming anything beyond the shadow of doubt. You're confusing me with G0atmaster.
Actually I'm not. GOatmaster claimed that level of proof so I first wanted to prove him wrong when you jumped in and decided to argue too. At least we can both agree that he is wrong and that there isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt.
I didn't arge that level of proof, I just argued that there is some proof.
I'd be a fool to claim that it's proof beyond question.
I myself belive it, but that hardly qualifies it.
As I said, history is iffy..I don't put much faith in historical documents (the details) in general.
-
You're entitled to believe whatever you wish. It's when people claim that there is evidence other than the bible that my hackles are raised.
-
Dammit, I give up. This topic has been moot for the last x pages. Goodbye.
-
Who are you?
Also, the Quran is more accurate (the first five books, anyway) than the bible. The word of the Bible has been translated, retranslated, butchered, added to, cut from, and manipulated to serve the will of the Church. It is considered blasphemous, by contrast, to modify the Quran in any way. Furthermore, I don't think anybody with half a brain would argue against the fact that Jesus did indeed exist. He existed, there is no question about that. I also don't think anybody with half a brain's worth of knowledge about the Bible would argue for many elements in its pages. For example, "May he who is without sin cast the first stone" has been disproven. It was not in the original script, nor in many of the translations following. It was merely a speculation against what Jesus may have done or said under certain circumstances. It was fairly popular to write ideas of that nature in that era, and many side-scripts were incorrectly merged with the scripture.
So with that logic, it probably isn't the best idea to hold the Bible as the most accurate of testaments to God.
-
Who are you?
Also, the Quran is more accurate (the first five books, anyway) than the bible. The word of the Bible has been translated, retranslated, butchered, added to, cut from, and manipulated to serve the will of the Church. It is considered blasphemous, by contrast, to modify the Quran in any way. Furthermore, I don't think anybody with half a brain would argue against the fact that Jesus did indeed exist. He existed, there is no question about that. I also don't think anybody with half a brain's worth of knowledge about the Bible would argue for many elements in its pages. For example, "May he who is without sin cast the first stone" has been disproven. It was not in the original script, nor in many of the translations following. It was merely a speculation against what Jesus may have done or said under certain circumstances. It was fairly popular to write ideas of that nature in that era, and many side-scripts were incorrectly merged with the scripture.
So with that logic, it probably isn't the best idea to hold the Bible as the most accurate of testaments to God.
First of all, I know the particular story in John ch. 8 is only in one copy of the early manuscripts, and is not backed up in the earliest, most reliable ones. That doesn't necessarily mean it was changed. As far as the Bible's accuracy goes... Every Jew is taught the ins and outs of the Hebrew language from age 8 on IIRC. There are so many people who would be able to tell a fake translation at first glance, it is HIGHLY improbable that anyone could pull such a deception off. Furthermore, the Bible itself is a collection of other pieces of scripture, holy books and other collected writings that claim to be "inspired." I don't really know much about the process that went into the canonization of the current Bible, but from what I understand, ALL of what's in there now (besides that piece from John, which most bibles make a note about, btw) have been backed up and corroberated by other works, such as the Dead Sea scrolls.
-
You're entitled to believe whatever you wish. It's when people claim that there is evidence other than the bible that my hackles are raised.
There is evidence other than a Bible, only it's not perticulary solid...
That's another matter alltogether.
-
As far as the Bible's accuracy goes... Every Jew is taught the ins and outs of the Hebrew language from age 8 on IIRC. There are so many people who would be able to tell a fake translation at first glance, it is HIGHLY improbable that anyone could pull such a deception off.
Fake translation of what exactly? The Dead Sea scrolls date from 200 BC at the earliest and nothing exists that is older so there is plenty of time for the old testament to have been ****ed around with well before they were written. As for the New Testament there's nothing that covers that either. The oldest surviving copy of the NT is from the 4th century and has already been translated into Greek.
Furthermore, the Bible itself is a collection of other pieces of scripture, holy books and other collected writings that claim to be "inspired." I don't really know much about the process that went into the canonization of the current Bible, but from what I understand, ALL of what's in there now (besides that piece from John, which most bibles make a note about, btw) have been backed up and corroberated by other works, such as the Dead Sea scrolls.
The Dead Sea Scrolls also contains other books which are strangely missing from the bible.
And as I say before just because the dead sea scrolls from 200 BC match what we have now doesn't mean it matches what was written 2000 BC.
-
What I meant was, we have a collection of books, I.E. the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Syriac texts, etc. that have been around for who knows how long. The Dead Sea scrolls corroborate just about everything in those.
-
Except the New Testament of course. :p
And as I said I suspect that any major fiddling of the OT would have been done long before the time of Jesus.
-
I can tell you the day Julius Caesar was killed. I can tell you the day Pompeii was destroyed. I can tell you when the day the battle of Zama was fought. Are you seriously telling me that with all your hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection and expert Roman bookkeeping you can't even give me the ****ing year?
Actually, the date of the destruction of Pompeii is being discussed. Recent findings demonstrate the Pompeii was destroyed in October-November, not during Summer(was it in August)? People who copied Roman texts(many hundred years after the collapse of the Empire) changed some parts of the texts themselves.
-
Now that's quite interesting. Cause the date Vesuvius actually erupted is undisputed as far as I know.
Which does make you wonder why anyone would sit under an erupting volcano for a month and a half. :D
-
Okay, God created us. But he created us wrong. We're prideful, we're violent, aggressive, brash. We wage war with our brothers as easily as we breathe, and we capable of evils far too dark to even imagine. Yep, God cocked up. Does God clean up his mistake? Nope. All the power of the universe, and he couldn't be stuffed. Does he take responsibility for the things he's created? Nope. All the power in the universe and he can't make a loaf of bread for a starving child in Ethiopia.
One of the great philosophical questions of existence. The obvious answer to be thrown at you, of course, is that God gave us free will and the right to choose. We were given infinite power without infinite perspective, this is what happened. It is a measure of his respect for our right to self-determine that he refuses to intervene.
On the other hand, there is also another classic question. I once heard it phrased as "Nevermind why God would create a universe filled with such evil. Why would God create a universe at all? He is complete unto himself, isn't he?"
-
:D
Many things are open to changes. Did you hear of those pyramids in Bosnia? They could re-write the history of the human species.
Or that other theory according to which the Sphynx preceeds the Egyptian civilizations of thousands of years.
:nervous:
One of the great philosophical questions of existence. The obvious answer to be thrown at you, of course, is that God gave us free will and the right to choose. We were given infinite power without infinite perspective, this is what happened. It is a measure of his respect for our right to self-determine that he refuses to intervene.
On the other hand, there is also another classic question. I once heard it phrased as "Nevermind why God would create a universe filled with such evil. Why would God create a universe at all? He is complete unto himself, isn't he?"
Meh. The man is far from being perfect because of evolution(I'm refering to its physical aspect). Why do we have the remnants of the tail? Why do we oftentimes have problems with our teeth, caused by the evolution of our brain(with negative influences on our mouth)?
-
Many things are open to changes. Did you hear of those pyramids in Bosnia? They could re-write the history of the human species.
How? They're no older than Stonehenge.
Or that other theory according to which the Sphynx preceeds the Egyptian civilizations of thousands of years.
Yeah, that one's bollocks.
-
It's starting to sound to me like it takes a LOT less blind faith to believe in Christ than it does to believe a lot of the stuff our culture takes for granted these days.
-
Just cause it sounds that way doesn't mean it is that way.
It still takes a **** load of faith.
-
Yeah, because Christians never start big wars. :rolleyes:
Crusades? How long ago was that? Ancient history. Can you immagine something liek that happening now? I sure as hell can't...and another thing - that war wasn't against other Christians
[/quote]
Isnt Bush a Christian? :doubt:
-
'cause God is omnipresent. You can't hide from Him. He knows not only what you're doing, but why you are doing it, and your thoughts as well.
Yea yea, just like Santa :lol:
He knows when you're sleeping he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake.
Ed
-
Excuse me, sir. You make gross assumptions here. For your information, I was an extreme atheist for the first fourteen years of my life.
Of your LIFE? Because young teenagers arent impressionable? Why were you an atheist?
-
mkay... two pointless posts.
Impressionable nothing. I investigated for six months before making my decision
-
mkay... two pointless posts.
Impressionable nothing. I investigated for six months before making my decision
So why were you an atheist and what changed your mind?
-
You know there are catholics who would blow themselves up if he said it should be done.
HM...maby a few.
How many would blow themselves up if their local priest or bishop said so, and the pope said otherwise tough?
Maybe I missed it but can we all remember groups like Christian Indentiy the terrorist cult. Or the Neo Nazi party which are all fundamentalist right wing Christians last time I checked, the KKK are the same. How about the abortion doctor murderers.
They dont seem to commit suicide as often, but that doesnt make too much of a difference when showing the nutty side to Christianity.
-
You can't get something from nothing, according to science, correct?
Only up to a point. In the quantum realm you can and its why talking about the first cause of the big bang is a moot point.
Well, every moron on this planet can notice that we indeed have this thing called sentience, called intelligence, called life, called matter, called energy, and many other things. They must have come from somewhere. That is indeed a fact.
Well yes, but its not a very groundbreaking thought.
FROM THIS FACT, I have drawn the conclusion that God is the starting point, the Alpha, the cause for the effect that is the Universe. A universal cause. The cause of all effects. The starting point (which is really sort of a mis-phrasing, as God exists outside of time, he really has no starting point, so do not ask where God came from, He simply is and always has and always will).
You mean you made the huge leap to claim some invisible omnipotent deity created the entire universe with us on a small planet orbiting an insignificant looking star which for some unknown reason has the overwhelming urge for his sentient creations to worship him for all eternity for some reason.
I am not making conclusions and trying to support them.
Then what reason do you make the leap of logic from "everything must have come from somewhere" to "The Bible God created everything". Heck, tell me what logical reason you have for assuming a deity of any kind
I have found things which have no explination outside of an intelligent creator, and am as such, drawing that conclusion based on the facts I and others (Christians and otherwise) have observed within the natural universe.
I awaite.
-
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called, 21 which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
That's what Evolutionism is. :p I can sling labels, too.
Even Answers in Genesis probably the largest Creationist organisation in the world says this doesnt refer to Evolution and says Creationists should not say it does.
-
Hey, know what? Every mode of thinking is flawed!
1. Most Christians lack tolerance with respect to homosexuals thanks to certain passages in the Old Testament that say homosexuals must be put to death.
2. Most Muslims lack tolerance with respect to other major religions, thanks to their ****ing maniacal theofascist leaders in the Middle East.
3. Most atheists lack tolerance with respect to any major religion thanks to this perceived belief that everyone who belongs to other religions are attempting to force their beliefs down their throats.
Well...except Buddhists. They're just sitting on the sidelines keeping to themselves and being possibly the most peaceful human beings on the planet.
And for the love of God (no joke intended), Ed, why can't you just use the Edit button?
-
Well...except Buddhists. They're just sitting on the sidelines keeping to themselves and being possibly the most peaceful human beings on the planet.
You kidding right? They are siting back, learning this sweet karate stuff and soon they are gonna take over the world! ;)
-
Hey, know what? Every mode of thinking is flawed!
1. Most Christians lack tolerance with respect to homosexuals thanks to certain passages in the Old Testament that say homosexuals must be put to death.
That most certainly is NOT true. Last I checked, it was just the Westboro Baptist Church, which most certainly does NOT follow the teachings of Christ.
And for the love of God (no joke intended), Ed, why can't you just use the Edit button?
Hear hear!
-
And for the love of God (no joke intended), Ed, why can't you just use the Edit button?
I would have had all the replies been to the same person, but I'll try.
That most certainly is NOT true. Last I checked, it was just the Westboro Baptist Church, which most certainly does NOT follow the teachings of Christ.
The Old Testament god did say Homosexuals should be put to death, and you think Jesus is the same god.
And you make th No True Scotsman Fallacy anyway, btw.
-
Hey, know what? Every mode of thinking is flawed!
1. Most Christians lack tolerance with respect to homosexuals thanks to certain passages in the Old Testament that say homosexuals must be put to death.
That most certainly is NOT true. Last I checked, it was just the Westboro Baptist Church, which most certainly does NOT follow the teachings of Christ.
Christians outside of the WBC are plenty intolerant of homosexuals. Who do you think is driving the campaigns to make same sex marriage illegal in most red states? WBC is just the most annoying and most violent of all.
Bear in mind, I'm Christian, so in no way do I hate the church, but the way a lot of Christians treat homosexuals just fills me with disgust, because Christianity is supposed to be a religion of tolerance, acceptance, and forgiveness, not one of exclusion, hatred, and bigotry, which is what a lot of active Christian groups seem to be turning it into and what the Roman Catholic church had made it during the Middle Ages.
God, whatever happened to "love your neighbor as yourself"? Or are we really just too obsessed with finding people to hate in this world that we can't just learn to get along with each other?
-
I, for one, HATE homosexuality. I hate it with a passion. It disgusts me.
That said, I have nothing against homosexuals.
I wouldn't say I'm for making gay marriage illegal. I would, however, like a distinction to be made between marriage by the Church and marriage by the State.
As far as "love your neighbor as yourself," think about how you love yourself. You screw up. You make stupid choices. You look back on things you did and say "What an idiot I was!" But you don't hate yourself. This is what I believe that thing means. Love others the way you love yourself. You hate the fact you make mistakes, but you don't hate yourself for your mistakes.
That said, a person can love you despite of your mistakes. But that doesn't mean they don't wish you to mke them better.
-
Life is short, it's chaotic and it's hard. If Mike likes Steve, so what? Isn't it great that two people have found each other, gotten to know each other, and fallen deliriously in love? What kind of person would want to deny someone's happiness? What could be more mean, more hateful, than arbitrarily trying to prevent two people from enjoying the greatest feeling on Earth just because "it just don't sit right with me"? If Susan and Kate want to spend the rest of their lives together, what ****ing business is it of anyone to object to that?
If you're a homophobe, more power to you. I'll strongly disagree, but you're perfectly entitled to your beliefs. Just don't try to attach it to any religion, it just plain cheapens it and spreads a lot of hate that the world could really do without. :doubt:
-
I never said it was any business of mine. I just aid I hated it.
I'm not gonna go in and try to break up every homosexual couple in the world. The world is not a very God-loving place. That's its choice alone. As much as I want it to change, I can't force it to.
-
Many things are open to changes. Did you hear of those pyramids in Bosnia? They could re-write the history of the human species.
How? They're no older than Stonehenge.
But they're much more complex than Stonehenge. We know of the old British civilizations, but I can find nothing(without considering the newly discovered pyramids) of a civilization in Bosnia.
I, for one, HATE homosexuality. I hate it with a passion. It disgusts me.
That said, I have nothing against homosexuals.
I wouldn't say I'm for making gay marriage illegal. I would, however, like a distinction to be made between marriage by the Church and marriage by the State.
As far as "love your neighbor as yourself," think about how you love yourself. You screw up. You make stupid choices. You look back on things you did and say "What an idiot I was!" But you don't hate yourself. This is what I believe that thing means. Love others the way you love yourself. You hate the fact you make mistakes, but you don't hate yourself for your mistakes.
That said, a person can love you despite of your mistakes. But that doesn't mean they don't wish you to mke them better.
I don't like homosexuals, either. I know I have been influenced by local traditions(by "local" I mean the place where I live, not Italy in general) and I don't know if I'm doing the right thing. I mean, in North Italy you can find homosexuals kissing each other while here it's impossible.
And homosexuals can't have children, how can two homosexuals be an alternative to two eterosexuals? :doubt:
The Old Testament god did say Homosexuals should be put to death, and you think Jesus is the same god.
And you make th No True Scotsman Fallacy anyway, btw.
Blah blah, the teachings change. People no longer want to be Christian because they see the Christian religion as a bunch of rules to respect, like "Go to the Church!", "Don't have sex before marriage!" and many, many others. The true dochtrine is different. You can spend your life far from a Church, but you can remain a more than valid Christian. You can have sex before marriage and there's nothing wrong with it as long as you respect your partner(one partner is allowed, more not...it's immoral). I'm not Christian but I consider many teachings of Christianity as something valid.
Hey, know what? Every mode of thinking is flawed!
1. Most Christians lack tolerance with respect to homosexuals thanks to certain passages in the Old Testament that say homosexuals must be put to death.
2. Most Muslims lack tolerance with respect to other major religions, thanks to their ****ing maniacal theofascist leaders in the Middle East.
3. Most atheists lack tolerance with respect to any major religion thanks to this perceived belief that everyone who belongs to other religions are attempting to force their beliefs down their throats.
Well...except Buddhists. They're just sitting on the sidelines keeping to themselves and being possibly the most peaceful human beings on the planet.
And for the love of God (no joke intended), Ed, why can't you just use the Edit button?
1) Read above, then talk to a true Christian. A true Christian doesn't trust the Bible at 100%, it's a book written by humans(who are not perfect!) thousands of years ago.
There are things that take precedence over the so called rules. "Supporting each other" takes precedence over "Kill the homosexuals!" and "Love" takes precedence over "Don't have sex before marriage!". "Respect God and the others, and behave well" takes precedence over "Go to the Church!". I have talked with Christians who have heads full of teachings taken from the Bible and I can guarantee that they're pretty far from your stereotyped idea of "Christian".
2) Things are going to change, I think. I heard of the first transmission in "Muslim territory" in which a sexuologist(I hope I spelt it in the right way) talked about sex.
3) Meh, a true atheist should keep his/her/its mouth closed. About the Buddhists...they aren't that peaceful. I watched a video time ago: a nice fight between Buddhists and people bleeding.
mkay... two pointless posts.
Impressionable nothing. I investigated for six months before making my decision
So why were you an atheist and what changed your mind?
Meh, people want illusions. They can't accept the fact that this planet is florid thanks to a coincidence. They can't of Earth as an insignificant place in this Universe...and more important, they can't think of feelings as the result of chemical processes.
-
Eh, ye old "I don't agree with homosexua-----""HOMOPHOBE!!!111ONEONE"
I am with G0atmaster in his persuasion....
Oh, did I mention, I've worked with several homosexuals, and none of them would say I'm a homophobe, or that I hate them? :p
You see, when we say "I hate homosexuality", we are just not also saying "I hate all sins... idolatry, adultery, thievery, etc, etc."
Even though some of us still slip up and do some of those things.
We don't hate people who do them.
In fact, if we did, that would be a worse sin, because, according to Jesus, hating one's brother is equal to murder. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. :)
-
Isnt Bush a Christian? :doubt:
Nah, he's a idiot.
And don't be fooled, the real reason for all wars in the middle east are liquid - oil and water.
Only up to a point. In the quantum realm you can and its why talking about the first cause of the big bang is a moot point.
:wtf:
Excuse me, I took an course in quantum mechanics and Idon't recall hearing anything even remotely similar to that.
-
Isnt Bush a Christian? :doubt:
Nah, he's a idiot.
And don't be fooled, the real reason for all wars in the middle east are liquid - oil and water.
Oh I know the Bush government is covering up the real reasons for the war in the middle east, but that doesnt mean he isnt a Christian. You cant keep saying that Christians dont do bad things and whenever someones shows an example of a Christian doing just that just say they arent real Christians.
On a side note, whats water got to do with the war? Ive not heard that one.
:wtf:
Excuse me, I took an course in quantum mechanics and Idon't recall hearing anything even remotely similar to that.
Then excuse my ignorence as I havent. I will humbly accept my error if you will accept G0atmasters argument that something cannot come from nothing logic is flawed when we look at the quantum relm. As you are no doubt aware things are very different at that level.
Ed
-
You see, when we say "I hate homosexuality", we are just not also saying "I hate all sins... idolatry, adultery, thievery, etc, etc."
Even though some of us still slip up and do some of those things.
Dont you see how insulting this is? You dont choose who you are attracted to. If you think you can, why dont you try it! To say its the same as adultery and theft it makes out its they are the same thing. Homosexuality is as natural as hetrosexuality. You dont choose to be attracted to girls, you just are. You dont choose to be attracted to some girls more than others, you just are. And before you start to say its unnatural if that were true we should find no examples of this in nature, but nature is full of examples of homosexual animals. We are part of nature. I know you would rather imagine us as magically created completely seperate from them damned dirty animals, but we are, in every objectively measureable way possible; animals.
We don't hate people who do them.
You dont look down on cheaters, theives and murderers?
-
Hate ≠ look down on. There is a big difference. Nice try though. No, we don't hate cheaters, thieves and murderers.
And no, people are not "born" homosexual; it is a result of their decisions, which are often influenced heavily by their environment... I wish they were "born" that way... we might have a cure. (Consider: homosexuals cannot have children!) Although, I'm sure you feel the same way about Christians. :p
-
Hate ≠ look down on. There is a big difference. Nice try though. No, we don't hate cheaters, thieves and murderers.
Fine, but you would say you look down on them, right? Becuase you see to the rest of the world the same way one looks down on theives rapists and murders could be called "hate". Maybe you have a different definition of hate to most people, but I and a lot of others would call it hate. Calling it hate then becomes semantics, comparing homosexuality to these terrible crimes is the issue.
And no, people are not "born" homosexual; it is a result of their decisions, which are often influenced heavily by their environment... I wish they were "born" that way... we might have a cure. (Consider: homosexuals cannot have children!) Although, I'm sure you feel the same way about Christians. :p
Homosexuals can and do have children, either from a past marriage or relationship which didnt work because they were "living a lie" ie. trying to act like they were hetrosexual. Or by using sperm doners either from friends or from a sperm bank. This is irrelevant though, please address the fact that if homosexuality is unnatural why we have homosexual animals. As far as I can see this debate really hinges on this.
-
Animals have also been known to attack their young. Is that therefore natural? Besides, if you're trying to say people are born homosexual, it would be a self-solving problem, as the genes responsible would be eliminated...
Biology's Declaration
The "Dual Sin" of Homosexuality
Many people fail to see that the sin of homosexuality is different from other sins in the sense that it is the only one (aside from bestiality, to my knowledge) that involves dual wrong, moral and biological. Not only is the practice of homosexuality a sin but it also violates God's created order in biological sexuality.
Strictly from a scientific perspective, we all know that same-sex couples are biologically incapable (by design) of having sexual intercourse and producing children. The sexual organs were designed by God to complement each other and work together for mutual pleasure and species reproduction. The question then comes to mind that if God truly wanted same-sex couples to engage in sexual activities and so forth, why did He not allow them the ability to procreate as heterosexual couples usually can? Surely the omnipotent God could have made it possible if He so chose.
Homosexuals are well aware of this biological problem and it is not surprising that they generally choose to ignore this problem and its logical implications. The usual retort is that some heterosexual couples can’t have kids either. But the fact that some heterosexual couples may have a defect that hinders normal reproduction doesn’t prove anything for the same-sex couples’ case.
For even if the reproductive organs don’t work properly in some heterosexual couples, the fact remains that the biological function of the sexual organs was designed to work only in a certain way, i.e., heterosexually. And no amount of deceptive rhetoric or Scripture distortion or straw man arguments or emotional appeals can do away with this fact. Biology joins with the Bible to condemn homosexuality as both morally and biologically aberrant.
Homosexual Animals?
Weak attempts have been made to draw conclusions in favor of the homosexual lifestyle from the animal kingdom. Popular books have tried to say that since there are animals that perform homosexual acts, we can conclude from this that homosexual behavior is somehow "natural" and not abnormal. But the same problem from biological design remains even if we grant that some animals perform "homosexual" acts.
No two males or females can reproduce. Sperm and sperm (or egg and egg) cannot provide for the continuance of the race, whether animal or human. Homosexuality by its very nature is self-defeating, for if every creature were to forsake the created order, in time all male/female gendered species would die out. Ultimately, then, homosexuality on a broad scale in this context is synonymous with death.
Another problem ignored by those who try to argue this way is the fact that animals are not the moral creatures that we are. A male dog will "hump" a human's leg in an attempt to perform a sexual act. But is this animal cognitively attempting to commit bestiality, or was the animal simply reacting to certain environmental stimuli out of instinct? It is completely asinine to try to argue for homosexuality from the animal world because animals will attempt to have sex with just about anything when properly stimulated. We know this for a fact without any deep scientific studies. They mainly act on instinct and environmental stimulus, not human moral and cognitive principles. This argument is seriously flawed because people have simply forced human morality and cognition on mere animals. It has no validity whatsoever and in no way validates human homosexuality.
Possible Causes of Homosexuality
In discussing the possible causes of homosexuality, one has to be careful to note that homosexuality is not monolithic. All homosexuals do not share the same experiences and all do not “become” homosexual by the same means. Despite the widespread myth that people are “born” with a homosexual “orientation” that is unchangeable and “natural,” the fact remains that there are about 6 basic potential causes for homosexuality. One of these causes, from a Christian theological perspective, is the sinful nature and is the ultimate cause of all sinful acts and behaviors. We’ve already covered this area so there is no need to repeat the Biblical points here. We will now look at these potential causes in this order:1- People Choosing to be"Gay," 2- Bad Relationship with Male or Female Parent, 3 -Hormonal Imbalance in the Womb, 4- Genetic Defect, and 5- Demonic Activity.
1-People choosing to be “gay”
There are those who want us to believe that you cannot “choose” to be homosexual, just as you cannot “choose” to be African-American. However, the problem is that you have to assume that being “gay” and being born into a particular racial category are somehow equivalent. Yet no one has ever chosen to be Chinese or Irish or African. You are either born that way or you’re not. But I think a good number of people, myself included, have known or do know people who have chosen a homosexual lifestyle.
Women will talk about going out with other women because they’ve been hurt emotionally so much by men. And we know that there are some men out there who will pull the “switch” on women for the same reason. For those homosexual men and women who actually chose to have relations with the same sex, it cannot be said that their “orientation” is caused by genetics and being born a certain way. Since there are some who can make this choice, and no one can make such a choice regarding his or her ethnic background, it would seem that homosexuality cannot be equated with ethnicity in an attempt to justify it as some do.
2- Bad Relationship with Male or Female Parent
Some have argued that one of the reasons for homosexuality is because a male had a bad relationship with his father, or a female had a bad relationship with her mom. The person who seeks to find fulfillment in the same sex is simply trying to attain the love from the same sex he or she did not get from that parent. This argument is based on extensive psychoanalytic research, and it reveals:
“That in the lives of their patients there was unusually often an emotional mismatch between the child and same-sex parent (such as a father who subtly or overtly rejects a son who has many ‘feminine’ traits); or an emotional mismatch between the child and the opposite sex parent; or sexual abuse of a child by either the same sex or opposite sex parent; and most often the rejection of a child by same-sex peers.” (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 104, by Jeffrey Satinover, Baker Books, 1996).
Although I am sure this argument has some validity, it would seem that it has an obvious flaw. There are perhaps millions of people who have not become homosexual but did not have a good relationship with a parent. So what explains this? The answer is simple. As stated earlier, homosexuality is not monolithic. There may be some who are attracted to the same sex for this particular reason, but this does not explain those who do not fall into this category.
3 -Hormonal Imbalance in the Womb
There is evidence that another component in the formation of homosexual “orientation” could be intrauterine environmental conditions. In other words, the conditions in the womb during fetal development. Dr. Satinover remarked about the research of Gunter Dorner:
“In 1991 Gunter Dorner, one of the major researchers of the prenatal hormonal influences on sexuality, published a review of the studies on the subject to date. He concluded that a prenatal abnormality in hormones – perhaps caused by undue stress to the mother – will cause later homosexual behavior.” (p. 101). Dr. Satinover also noted that this conclusion has been "vigorously disputed" and that “…no hormonal difference has ever been discovered between homosexuals and heterosexuals (as is dramatically the case between males and females)…” (p. 102).
However, Dr. Satinover further explained that research done by behavioral neurologist Norman Geschwind and Ronald Galaburda proposed that “homosexuality might be an intrauterine developmental abnormality that is not necessarily hormonal in nature” (p. 102). They found that at least one cause of left-handedness was “an abnormal autoimmune effect during pregnancy” (p. 102). They also noted that left-handedness appeared to be more common among homosexuals. This research has also been disputed, but it seems that there is a remote possibility that there is a link between homosexuality and developmental autoimmune abnormality. Perhaps more detailed and comprehensive research, done without bias or activist agenda, will help us better understand this potential cause of homosexuality.
4- Genetic Defect
After looking at some of the research and pondering the implications, I cannot help but feel a sense of awe at all the variables involved. My initial impression was that, if homosexuality is genetic at all, then it was perhaps a genetic defect, much like sickle-cell anemia. People are born with sickle-cell, but this does not mean they were meant to be that way. It is a genetic defect that needs correcting, not something to be praised or paraded as something to take "pride" in.
From the research so far, it seems that we simply do not know enough about the workings of human genetics to accurately determine the cause or causes of homosexuality from a genetic perspective.
But my “prediction” on this is that if we do find a clearly defined, conclusive genetic link to homosexuality, it will turn out to be a genetic defect. It simply makes sense in light of what we already know about human sexuality and biology. There are only two sexes, not three or four, despite artificial attempts of people create new genders (like “bisexual”) or to have their gender changed.
The little conundrum that homosexuals find themselves in is that they want to be able to say their lifestyle is “normal” and should be accepted because they are “born” that way. Yet if genetic research should find that they are born that way as a result of a genetic defect, they will be faced with the undeniable fact that their condition is something abnormal that should be “corrected.” It is a catch-22 indeed, but it is one that they will have to deal with if later research should prove homosexuality is tied to a genetic defect.
5- Demonic Activity
This last possible cause of homosexuality is perhaps too popular in some Christian circles. Some would argue that all homosexuality is demonic in nature, meaning that they think demon spirits are behind it. While it is entirely possible, from a Biblical point of view, that demons are indeed involved in homosexuality, it does not make sense to argue that all homosexuality is demonic based on what we know so far from the Bible and science.
The Bible tells us that all are sinners (Romans 3:23). We don’t need demons to help us sin. We can do it all by ourselves quite well. But, the Bible also tells us that satan and his demons do indeed involve themselves in our affairs in order to tempt us and provoke us to sin and disobey God. Jesus was tempted by satan himself in Matthew 4. According to Ephesians 2:1-3 we find that satan, the “prince of the power of the air,” is the “spirit” who now works in the “sons of disobedience.”
Satan influenced Peter to even try to “rebuke” Jesus for stating the fact that He would suffer and die and be raised up (Matthew 16:22). Satan himself is said to have “entered” Judas and used him to betray Jesus into the hands of the Romans (Luke 22:3, 47, 48). We even have the testimony from both Testaments that idol worship, the worship of a false god, is tantamount to demon worship (Deuteronomy 32:17; 1 Corinthians 10:20).
So these and other passages demonstrate that demons are active in the world and seek to influence us into disobedience against God’s revealed will. Therefore, since the Bible declares homosexuality against God’s will and biological design, it is no wonder that demons would also get involved with promoting homosexuality just like any other sin.
But we must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that homosexuality is any more demonic than any other sin. It is not. It may be different and people may be treating it as if it is something to be proud of by having parades and so forth, but this does not mean it is more demonic or any worse sin in God’s eyes than any other.
-
's not even listed among the mortal ones, for crying out loud. :p
-
Animals have also been known to attack their young. Is that therefore natural?
It sure isnt unnatural, but that doesnt mean its not immoral if humans did that. But to clarify the reason for bringing up homosexual animals is to refute the argument that homosexuality is unnatural becuase it has no apparent reproductive value. However, since there are homosexual animals we can see this is irrelevant.
At the same time it also goes some way to refute the religious idea that a humans are choosing to be gay, since if that were true and its unnatural then homosexual animals must also be "choosing" to be gay as well and therefore must be sentient and have a soul just like humans do in order to have the free will to do so. Since if they didnt choose to be homosexual, they wouldnt be at all if we use the same logic.
And I asked you before, can you personally choose to be sexually attracted to someone of the opposite sex? Can you even force yourself to be attracted to someone you're not attracted to even if they are of the same sex?
And just in case you thought I forgot, the reason why killing your children and homosexuality isnt the same is that homosexuality doesnt hurt anyone. Really, whats wrong with being gay if you just put aside your opinion that its icky.
The article you quoted may be right in that one of the causes of homosexuality may be hormonal imbalence in the womb, but that doesnt mean they need to be "corrected". In fact that also shows its not unnatural.
Besides, if you're trying to say people are born homosexual, it would be a self-solving problem, as the genes responsible would be eliminated...
Yet as we can see from the rest of the animal kingdom, that is demonstratively not the case.
-
Animals have also been known to attack their young. Is that therefore natural? Besides, if you're trying to say people are born homosexual, it would be a self-solving problem, as the genes responsible would be eliminated...
Actually, if it were genetic, the extreme hatred towards them in the past probably kept them making it with the ladies for fear of death. Hence, the genes were carried down, producing more homosexuals. :p
Of course, I think it's neither genetic nor choice. I think it's due to hormones pre-birth.
-
Reproductive failures? I think it bears relation to getting involved in 20-page internet debates.
-
Well its not unnatural, but that doesnt mean its not immoral. But to clarify the reason for bringing up homosexual animals is to refute the argument that homosexuality is unnatural becuase it has no apparent reproductive value. However, since there are homosexual animals we can see this is irrelevant.
No, it's not, and see my comment at the end.
At the same time it also goes some way to refute the religious idea that a humans are choosing to be gay, since if that were true and its unnatural then homosexual animals must also be "choosing" to be gay as well and therefore must be sentient and have a soul just like humans do in order to have the free will to do so. Since if they didnt choose to be homosexual, they wouldnt be at all if we use the same logic.
This is a logically bankrupt argument; you need not have a soul if sentient, for starters, nobody ever said that and a lot of religions have argued some group or another doesn't have a soul at various points.
But leaving aside the philosophical implications, you need not be sentient to "choose" as it were. A lab rat in a maze can go left or right. This is a choice, and it makes one. You can condition an animal (or a person) to do irrational things. Environmental factors need to be examined in these cases, as does the fact that pure random chance plays a factor.
And I asked you before, can you personally choose to be sexually attracted to someone of the opposite sex? Can you even force yourself to be attracted to someone you're not attracted to even if they are of the same sex?
I can't vouch for the latter, but the former? Certainly. I've done it before; several of my relationships have had a "convincing myself" stage. Perhaps I'm strange; perhaps I grew a little too cynical about people in general. Still, it proves it can be done. Equally germane, you can chose not to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex, and we do it all the time.
Besides, if you're trying to say people are born homosexual, it would be a self-solving problem, as the genes responsible would be eliminated...
Yet as we can see from the rest of the animal kingdom, that is demonstratively not the case.
Is it? The point he makes is valid. It ought to be self-eliminating. But it apparently isn't, which leads to the fact that they must be reproducing, wtfbbqlol and so on.
So maybe we're all a bunch of idiots sitting here arguing about homosexuality in animals when the animals in question were bisexual. We've drawn pretty little pictures in our head in black and white. This is normally considered A Bad Thing, yet here, somehow, we've decided that black and white is shiney and works. We believe it feverantly.
I suspect this to be all delusional.
I think in the end the choice thing isn't wholly wrong, in that in our rush to create the black-and-white shiney-ness (on both sides of the coin here) a lot of people on one side or other have managed to force down a part of themselves, which perversely proves the point that you can make a choice at least in a negative sense.
The irony here is that if genetic it may well end up being self-eliminating for humans because of our insisting on that shiney black-and-white duality, thus smacking everyone across the face and "proving" the argument you just tried to refute "correct."
-
FYI, there aren't any "real" homosexual animals as far as I've seen. There's no doubt there are animals that are attracted to the same sex, but there is NEVER real intercourse. They are moving around but they don't actually "stick it in". I've seen female animal attempting to "hump" male ones.
And yes, there is a lot of things in nature that I would never want to happen. Some insects kill their partner during/after sex and eat it..God knows I wouldn't want that.
Ergo, methinks homosexuality is genetic in nature, as the vast majority (if not all) homosexuals claim it's not by choice, but they have always been like that.
EDIT - quantum level is all strange and not very well understood, but show me a article or research study that shows something can just come out of nothing... We don't know allsmot anything about strings themselves, but I bet no scientist will claim they appear just out of nowhere.
-
FYI, there aren't any "real" homosexual animals as far as I've seen. There's no doubt there are animals that are attracted to the same sex, but there is NEVER real intercourse. They are moving around but they don't actually "stick it in". I've seen female animal attempting to "hump" male ones.
Where did you hear that? Lets just take one other ape, the bonobo. These animals have a very sexual society and exbit just about every perversion humans engage in, and yes they do "stick it in" and I challenge you to find any credible source that says they dont.
And yes, there is a lot of things in nature that I would never want to happen. Some insects kill their partner during/after sex and eat it..God knows I wouldn't want that.
But its not unnatural for those insectes to do that. If you are going to say homosexuality is unnatural you have to accept what using that word will mean for your argument.
Ergo, methinks homosexuality is genetic in nature, as the vast majority (if not all) homosexuals claim it's not by choice, but they have always been like that.
And so it cannot be compared to theft, murder or adultery which are all more of less a choice rather than something one is born with such as your ethnicity.
EDIT - quantum level is all strange and not very well understood, but show me a article or research study that shows something can just come out of nothing... We don't know allsmot anything about strings themselves, but I bet no scientist will claim they appear just out of nowhere.
The whole logic put forward is that you cannot get something from nothing, but noone suggested there was "nothing" before the big bang. That is the point. OTOH your side believes everything was poofed out of nothing in more of less its present form by magic words spoken by a cosmic deity.
Ed
-
This is a logically bankrupt argument; you need not have a soul if sentient, for starters, nobody ever said that and a lot of religions have argued some group or another doesn't have a soul at various points.
But leaving aside the philosophical implications, you need not be sentient to "choose" as it were. A lab rat in a maze can go left or right. This is a choice, and it makes one. You can condition an animal (or a person) to do irrational things. Environmental factors need to be examined in these cases, as does the fact that pure random chance plays a factor.
One of the main claims of Christianity is that humans have a choice either to serve god or to go against him. My point was that if homosexuality isnt natural AND it is a free choice, then BECAUSE we see it in other animals this must mean (for those two points to be true) that the animals were choosing to engage in the FREE CHOICE of being homosexual.
And the very people that put forth the idea that homosexuality is unnatural will almost always say humans are gods special creation because god gave them free will. And becuase of that free will we deserve to be punished when we "choose" sin. They will believe that animals just act in instict and cannot choose to go against that instict. In which case, that instict shows that homosexuality is natural.
I can't vouch for the latter, but the former? Certainly. I've done it before; several of my relationships have had a "convincing myself" stage. Perhaps I'm strange; perhaps I grew a little too cynical about people in general. Still, it proves it can be done. Equally germane, you can chose not to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex, and we do it all the time.
So then if its such a hard thing to do to convince yourself you are attracted to someone even of the opposite sex, why do you think anyone would put themselves through the hardship of trying to do that for their same sex? Think about the bullying by their peers, rejection by their parents. People commit suicide over this and yet you are saying they choose to fancy people of their own gender. You think they'd choose to be in one of the most hated groups in all of history?
Is it? The point he makes is valid. It ought to be self-eliminating. But it apparently isn't, which leads to the fact that they must be reproducing, wtfbbqlol and so on.
It might not be genetic. One theory is that its due to chemical imbalences or something in the womb. Whatever the case, homosexuality exists in nature and therefore the argument that it would weed itself out is demonstratively not true. The only question now is WHY not.
So maybe we're all a bunch of idiots sitting here arguing about homosexuality in animals when the animals in question were bisexual.
So youve just decided all animals that exibit homosexual behavior are bisexual in order to pretend again that humans are different.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
I think in the end the choice thing isn't wholly wrong, in that in our rush to create the black-and-white shiney-ness (on both sides of the coin here) a lot of people on one side or other have managed to force down a part of themselves, which perversely proves the point that you can make a choice at least in a negative sense.
The irony here is that if genetic it may well end up being self-eliminating for humans because of our insisting on that shiney black-and-white duality, thus smacking everyone across the face and "proving" the argument you just tried to refute "correct."
I dont understand what point you're trying to make here.
-
Animals have also been known to attack their young. Is that therefore natural?
Yep. Look up Preying Mantis if you have trouble believing that it isn't. Plenty of animals will kill and even eat their own young. It doesn't happen in primates that much because there is a significant investment in the rearing of young.
Besides, if you're trying to say people are born homosexual, it would be a self-solving problem, as the genes responsible would be eliminated...
By your logic we should have eliminated every single genetic disease that kills people before breeding age too. That's obviously not true so your entire argument is already proven false on this alone.
OH and while I'm at it, Edward for ****'s sake stop double posting.
-
Yep. Look up Preying Mantis if you have trouble believing that it isn't. Plenty of animals will kill and even eat their own young. It doesn't happen in primates that much because there is a significant investment in the rearing of young.
:nod:
Lions and bears oftentimes kill puppets. I know of some Eagles "kill" the weakest young: they let the strongest one kill it.
By your logic we should have eliminated every single genetic disease that kills people before breeding age too. That's obviously not true so your entire argument is already proven false on this alone.
:yes:
-
Wow, this one's gonna be huge.
The Old Testament god did say Homosexuals should be put to death, and you think Jesus is the same god.
And you make th No True Scotsman Fallacy anyway, btw.
Blah blah, the teachings change. People no longer want to be Christian because they see the Christian religion as a bunch of rules to respect, like "Go to the Church!", "Don't have sex before marriage!" and many, many others. The true doctrine is different. You can spend your life far from a Church, but you can remain a more than valid Christian. You can have sex before marriage and there's nothing wrong with it as long as you respect your partner(one partner is allowed, more not...it's immoral). I'm not Christian but I consider many teachings of Christianity as something valid.
The important thing in Christianity is Christ. As far as your marriage thing, in marriage, two lives merge. In sex, two bodies become one. In the Hebrew culture, sex was what "sealed the deal," and without it, a couple were not considered married. However, I believe problems do arise on a spritual level as well as others, when people become one in this way, and not every other way, just as divorce is akin to cutting off a piece of oneself. This is also why I believe there should be a distinction between marriage in the eyes of the State and marriage in the eyes of God.
Hey, know what? Every mode of thinking is flawed!
1. Most Christians lack tolerance with respect to homosexuals thanks to certain passages in the Old Testament that say homosexuals must be put to death.
2. Most Muslims lack tolerance with respect to other major religions, thanks to their ****ing maniacal theofascist leaders in the Middle East.
3. Most atheists lack tolerance with respect to any major religion thanks to this perceived belief that everyone who belongs to other religions are attempting to force their beliefs down their throats.
Well...except Buddhists. They're just sitting on the sidelines keeping to themselves and being possibly the most peaceful human beings on the planet.
And for the love of God (no joke intended), Ed, why can't you just use the Edit button?
1) Read above, then talk to a true Christian. A true Christian doesn't trust the Bible at 100%, it's a book written by humans(who are not perfect!) thousands of years ago.
I'm sorry sir. I respect you, but that is a blatant falsity. The Bible is indeed the Word of God through and through. There are places when men wrote down their own thoughts, rather than ones inspired by God, and it is noted of that (take Paul, for example. Many times he says "I say (I, not God)..." and "I say (God, not I)..." Just about any other time, we can take the Bible as the Word of God.
There are things that take precedence over the so called rules. "Supporting each other" takes precedence over "Kill the homosexuals!" and "Love" takes precedence over "Don't have sex before marriage!". "Respect God and the others, and behave well" takes precedence over "Go to the Church!". I have talked with Christians who have heads full of teachings taken from the Bible and I can guarantee that they're pretty far from your stereotyped idea of "Christian".
I don't know so much about your tiered system of rules there, but I agree, true Christians are generally rather far from the modern stereotype.
mkay... two pointless posts.
Impressionable nothing. I investigated for six months before making my decision
So why were you an atheist and what changed your mind?
Meh, people want illusions. They can't accept the fact that this planet is florid thanks to a coincidence. They can't of Earth as an insignificant place in this Universe...and more important, they can't think of feelings as the result of chemical processes.
Mostly true. Rather than simply feelings, I can't think of sentience as a chemical process brought on by random happenstance from an unconscious universe.
And yes, there is a lot of things in nature that I would never want to happen. Some insects kill their partner during/after sex and eat it..God knows I wouldn't want that.
But its not unnatural for those insectes to do that. If you are going to say homosexuality is unnatural you have to accept what using that word will mean for your argument.
Edward Bradshaw: Cmon man, you've honestly never heard of anyone making the "Genetic predisposition to violence" argument to explain why they killed someone? (sarcasm) Seriously, they shouldn't go to jail! It's in their genes that they HAVE to kill someone, right? It's not their fault! (sarcasm off)
Here's a little piece of Scripture for you to mull over for a bit. The end of the first chapter in the book of Romans, detailing the full extent of the wrath of God:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 1:18-32
IDK about you, but that sounds a whole lot like humanity as it is today. Furthermore, the Bible tells us that when a man turns to Christ, God's wrath is no longer upon him. Therefore, we are indeed, without excuse. Also, Karajorma, Mefustae, notice the second sentence in that chunk of Bible there. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." I think that very much supports my belief that science indeed points straight to God.
-
And no, people are not "born" homosexual; it is a result of their decisions, which are often influenced heavily by their environment... I wish they were "born" that way... we might have a cure. (Consider: homosexuals cannot have children!) Although, I'm sure you feel the same way about Christians. :p
It's this kind of thinking that makes me genuinely hate somebody. Here's a reality check for you, pal. You have NO RIGHT to insist upon ANYTHING! Why? Because you don't know! You being a christian gives you even less of that right, as that breaks the first commandment. I don't know whether your lack of knowledge, or your lack of abstract thinking offends me more. You base your entire train of thought on 'because someone or something said so'... Yet even when proven wrong, you still blindly follow the blind man, who himself follows another blind man.
You fail on so many levels that I'm not even going to bother explaining it.
EDIT: G0atmaster, do you know what Word of God means? Because by the way you wrote your post, it doesn't look like you do.
-
Yet even when proven wrong, you still blindly follow the blind man, who himself follows another blind man.
You fail on so many levels that I'm not even going to bother explaining it.
Funny how you should quote something Christ Himself said.
Besides, you don't know him. Who knows, he may have been homosexual at one point in his life, and may indeed know a thing or two about it.
YOU have no right to assume he doesn't, just because he's a Christian. I could point out a great many assumptions I have about you right now, but they're all probably unfounded, so I'll leave them out.
As far as your "someone or something said so" argument... You believe the world is round. Why? Because "Someone or something said so." Get off your high horse. You're becoming the thing you likely stereotype us as.
EDIT: The Word of God is the Bible, words written down that have been inspired by God Himself. All scripture (the Bible) can be taken as such.
-
I think that very much supports my belief that science indeed points straight to God.
Even abiogenesis?
As far as your "someone or something said so" argument... You believe the world is round. Why? Because "Someone or something said so." Get off your high horse. You're becoming the thing you likely stereotype us as.
EDIT: The Word of God is the Bible, words written down that have been inspired by God Himself. All scripture (the Bible) can be taken as such.
Are you kidding me? :lol:
The fact that the world is round can be proved without opening that book of which you speak.
Now prove that the bible is the word of God without quoting the bible and you might have a point.
-
let's see, a theory whose own author states that the notion of it is completely absurd, which cannot be observed by any single human being, and has not been observed by us anywhere, so basically an idea with no substantial backing of any kind? I wouldn't call that science, friend. There isn't even anything related to the scientific method about that. THAT'S what I would call blind speculation.
My question was not whether or not it could be proved, but rather, have you proven it to yourself without the testimony of another human being? If not, then why is it such a stretch for us to believe in the Bible?
To answer your challenge, prove it otherwise. Show me something that says definitively that the remains of Christ have been found and I'll believe He didn't leave His grave. What law says the burden of proof must be placed on me?
-
Besides, you don't know him. Who knows, he may have been homosexual at one point in his life, and may indeed know a thing or two about it.
Whether or not a person knows something doesn't have much to do about whether a person experienced it or not.
YOU have no right to assume he doesn't, just because he's a Christian. I could point out a great many assumptions I have about you right now, but they're all probably unfounded, so I'll leave them out.
I didn't say he doesn't have the right to insist because he's a christian, I said he doesn't have the right because he doesn't know. I also didn't say because he is a christian he doesn't know.
As far as your "someone or something said so" argument... You believe the world is round. Why? Because "Someone or something said so." Get off your high horse. You're becoming the thing you likely stereotype us as.
I don't believe the world is round because someone else said so, I believe it is round because the massive amount of data regarding it. I may disagree that the world is round, but it doesn't give me the right to insist that it is flat.
The Word of God is the Bible, words written down that have been inspired by God Himself. All scripture (the Bible) can be taken as such.
OK, I would consider that a valid description of The Bible... So long as you pay attention to the word 'inspired'. I've known a lot of people who don't understand that Word of God means Word about God, not God's Word.
-
let's see, a theory whose own author states that the notion of it is completely absurd, which cannot be observed by any single human being, and has not been observed by us anywhere, so basically an idea with no substantial backing of any kind? I wouldn't call that science, friend. There isn't even anything related to the scientific method about that. THAT'S what I would call blind speculation.
What the **** are you on about? :wtf:
My question was not whether or not it could be proved, my question was, have you proven it to yourself without the testimony of another human being? If not, then why is it such a stretch for us to believe in the Bible?
If you follow that logic there is very little you can prove to be true. But the difference is that there are living people who have seen Earth from space. There are no living people who have talked to Jesus (well at least not any that have heard him physically answer (well none who you'd believe anyway)) so the only evidence is a book.
To answer your challenge, prove it otherwise. Show me something that says definitively that the remains of Christ have been found and I'll believe He didn't leave His grave. What law says the burden of proof must be placed on me?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
If you want to say I have to prove you wrong then what about the Hindu that says "Prove ME wrong." or the Sikh or the Muslim or the Buddhist. I can't prove any of them wrong yet some or all of them must be wrong. The only logical answer is to say you must prove yourself correct or else your claim has no validity.
Otherwise by your own argument the other religions are just as right as you are.
-
Besides, you don't know him. Who knows, he may have been homosexual at one point in his life, and may indeed know a thing or two about it.
Whether or not a person knows something doesn't have much to do about whether a person experienced it or not.
You're right. I was saying that he may have experienced it, therefore may know a thing or two about it from experience.
YOU have no right to assume he doesn't, just because he's a Christian. I could point out a great many assumptions I have about you right now, but they're all probably unfounded, so I'll leave them out.
I didn't say he doesn't have the right to insist because he's a christian, I said he doesn't have the right because he doesn't know. I also didn't say because he is a christian he doesn't know.
Oh my bad, you said being a Christian he has even less of a right because he breaks the first commandment. Let's see, "You shall have no other gods before me." How does that violate THAT? My point was: How do you know he doesn't know?
As far as your "someone or something said so" argument... You believe the world is round. Why? Because "Someone or something said so." Get off your high horse. You're becoming the thing you likely stereotype us as.
I don't believe the world is round because someone else said so, I believe it is round because the massive amount of data regarding it. I may disagree that the world is round, but it doesn't give me the right to insist that it is flat.
OK, so because quite a few somethings or someones said it, you believe the world is round. Same with the Bible. The same can be said about Antarctica. How do you know there is a frozen tundra on the southernmost portion of the planet if you've never been there?
The Word of God is the Bible, words written down that have been inspired by God Himself. All scripture (the Bible) can be taken as such.
OK, I would consider that a valid description of The Bible... So long as you pay attention to the word 'inspired'. I've known a lot of people who don't understand that Word of God means Word about God, not God's Word.
Wrong. 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is God-breathed[/u] and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
-
let's see, a theory whose own author states that the notion of it is completely absurd, which cannot be observed by any single human being, and has not been observed by us anywhere, so basically an idea with no substantial backing of any kind? I wouldn't call that science, friend. There isn't even anything related to the scientific method about that. THAT'S what I would call blind speculation.
What the **** are you on about? :wtf:
Go google what Charles Darwin had to say about the human eye. Also, when did you last see a species give birth to a completely different species? This is the claim that abiogenesis makes, isn't it? That a couple chemicals combined just right to form the RNA of the first one-celled bacteria, which eventually evolved into all the life we have today?
My question was not whether or not it could be proved, my question was, have you proven it to yourself without the testimony of another human being? If not, then why is it such a stretch for us to believe in the Bible?
If you follow that logic there is very little you can prove to be true. But the difference is that there are living people who have seen Earth from space. There are no living people who have talked to Jesus (well at least not any that have heard him physically answer (well none who you'd believe anyway)) so the only evidence is a book.
Your only evidence about a lot of things is simply a book. Is there anyone alive today who had a conversation with, say, Galileo? How then, do we know he lived? Your reasoning is flawed. My point was that darn near everything in life takes some degree of faith and trust. Why is it such a stretch to trust what was said about God and Jesus and not Leonardo and Galileo and Copernicus and even Einstein?
To answer your challenge, prove it otherwise. Show me something that says definitively that the remains of Christ have been found and I'll believe He didn't leave His grave. What law says the burden of proof must be placed on me?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
If you want to say I have to prove you wrong then what about the Hindu that says "Prove ME wrong." or the Sikh or the Muslim or the Buddhist. I can't prove any of them wrong yet some or all of them must be wrong. The only logical answer is to say you must prove yourself correct or else your claim has no validity.
Otherwise by your own argument the other religions are just as right as you are.
Proof has been put forth to the same degree to equally extraordinary scientific fact, yet everyone considered "intelligent" takes it as fact. Why is Jesus so different?
Edit: Sorry for double-posting.
-
On Evolution:
Go google what Charles Darwin had to say about the human eye.
Do you know what he said? Becuase I know the part you're talking about and it has been famously dishonestly quote mined where they omit the relevant proceeding sentences. Are you sure you want to dig that up?
Also, when did you last see a species give birth to a completely different species?
1. We have hundreds of examples of speciation in both in the lab and in nature. But we both know you wont accept them, because when you say "species", you really mean "kind". A term that is never ever defined by Creationists. Its just a way they can move the goal posts back whenever they like. Creationists like using scientific terms and changing their definitions to suit them.
2. No one says one species will "give birth to" a "completely" different species. The addition of the words "give birth to" and "completely" reveals you are being disingenuous. Evolution never proposes such a thing happening.
This is the claim that abiogenesis makes, isn't it?
No. Abiogenesis isnt Evolution. Evolution isnt abiogenesis.
That a couple chemicals combined just right to form the RNA of the first one-celled bacteria, which eventually evolved into all the life we have today?
First you misrepresent Evolution then you claim its abiogenesis which misrepresents that as well, then you say its all the same. I think you need to be more honest or go and learn something about the subjects.
On Homosexuality:
Edward Bradshaw: Cmon man, you've honestly never heard of anyone making the "Genetic predisposition to violence" argument to explain why they killed someone? (sarcasm) Seriously, they shouldn't go to jail! It's in their genes that they HAVE to kill someone, right? It's not their fault! (sarcasm off)
I snipped the rest of your post because it was just Bible quotes and we are talking about science. You guys are claiming homosexuality is unnatural. That we are gods special creation and given free-will and because of that free will we can choose to be homosexual or not in the same way one can "choose" to commit theft, adultery, murder etc.
The facts show homosexuality is natural. I asked, I think it was Jr2, what is wrong with homosexuality other than you think it is icky? How does it hurt anyone? Im not talking about what some homosexuals get up to, not all of them are promiscuous. Specifically, how does homosexuality hurt people? We know why theft is wrong, we know why adultery and cheating on your partner is wrong and its self explanatory as to why murder hurts people. But if you're going to continue to compare it to those immoral acts, you'll need to show how they are comparable. And remember, you cant say its unnatural. All you have is the Bible, thats all you have, where god says homosexuals should be put to death and that you think boys kissing boys is icky.
Ed
-
Oh my bad, you said being a Christian he has even less of a right because he breaks the first commandment. Let's see, "You shall have no other gods before me." How does that violate THAT? My point was: How do you know he doesn't know?
I've not studied The Bible the same way you have (which is fairly obvious), but I have attended many sermons. There were some differences in the way the preachers described the first commandment, but the one major theme that they all shared was along the lines of 'There is only one God, and only he has the right of judgment and absolute truth.' Insisting something is so without any reasoning behind it is a violation of that idea. Get it now?
OK, so because quite a few somethings or someones said it, you believe the world is round. Same with the Bible. The same can be said about Antarctica. How do you know there is a frozen tundra on the southernmost portion of the planet if you've never been there?
That's a valid viewpoint, but there is something missing. The evidence. The Bible is a document of Faith, not science. It is merely testimony from many a man, but there is no evidence to support it. Now that's not to say that makes The Bible false, it just means it cannot be held absolute. Most (if not all) discoveries were based on faith. Just like with Christianity, there are believers and non-believers to every quest for truth. And unless God come today and bring his children home, we cannot know today of his existence. As for the antarctic, it follows the rules of logic and existence, so I know it to be so. However, believing that only the established rules of logic and existence are valid is an act of faith.
Wrong. 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is God-breathed[/u] and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Interpret and present it any way you choose, but the fact of the matter is that God did not write the many books of the Bible, man did.
-
Go google what Charles Darwin had to say about the human eye.
Who gives a **** what Darwin had to say? Science is not a religion. Darwin's words are not sacrosanct. He was completely wrong about certain things (hereditary for instance - since he hadn't read Mendel's work on peas he had no idea about genetics). You can talk about Darwin and what he said until you're blue in the face and no one will give a damn. If you're not talking about modern evolutionary theory you're simply wasting your breath.
Also, when did you last see a species give birth to a completely different species?
I can point you at scientific papers in which scientists have seen speciation under laboratory conditions if you want. And I'm not just talking about single celled life either. If you're looking for one species giving birth to a different species in one generation though you have no idea how evolution works.
This is the claim that abiogenesis makes, isn't it? That a couple chemicals combined just right to form the RNA of the first one-celled bacteria, which eventually evolved into all the life we have today?
No that's not what abiogenesis claims. In fact that would be absurd.
Your only evidence about a lot of things is simply a book. Is there anyone alive today who had a conversation with, say, Galileo? How then, do we know he lived?
It's not a book. It's lots of books. Some written by people in the catholic church who would have no reason to invent Galileo as he was considered to be a heretic.
Now earlier in this thread I asked for other proof of the existence of Jesus other than the bible and the best you could do was to hem and haw while Trashman mentioned that he'd read something about some Romans saying something in a magazine. I very much doubt even that much is true but to claim that it is even remotely close to the level of proof for the existence of Galileo is ridiculous.
My point was that darn near everything in life takes some degree of faith and trust. Why is it such a stretch to trust what was said about God and Jesus and not Leonardo and Galileo and Copernicus and even Einstein?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Why don't you believe what was said about Rama? Amaterasu? Buddha?
I've asked you that sort of thing several times and every time you've ducked the question. Funny how your arguments about shifting the burden of proof suddenly become null and void once we start bringing other religions you don't follow into the mix.
Proof has been put forth to the same degree to equally extraordinary scientific fact, yet everyone considered "intelligent" takes it as fact.
NOTHING in science is taken as a fact. You're already wrong there. But even without that word you are still wrong. You like to claim equivalence between certain scientific theories and the proof of Christ's existence but that's still incorrect. There is NO proof of Christ's existence other than the bible and the apocrypha and even Christians consider the latter suspect.
All scientific theories are based on observable data. In the case of Jesus there is no observable data.
-
On Evolution:
Go google what Charles Darwin had to say about the human eye.
Do you know what he said? Becuase I know the part you're talking about and it has been famously dishonestly quote mined where they omit the relevant proceeding sentences. Are you sure you want to dig that up?
Also, when did you last see a species give birth to a completely different species?
1. We have hundreds of examples of speciation in both in the lab and in nature. But we both know you wont accept them, because when you say "species", you really mean "kind". A term that is never ever defined by Creationists. Its just a way they can move the goal posts back whenever they like. Creationists like using scientific terms and changing their definitions to suit them.
2. No one says one species will "give birth to" a "completely" different species. The addition of the words "give birth to" and "completely" reveals you are being disingenuous. Evolution never proposes such a thing happening.
This is the claim that abiogenesis makes, isn't it?
No. Abiogenesis isnt Evolution. Evolution isnt abiogenesis.
That a couple chemicals combined just right to form the RNA of the first one-celled bacteria, which eventually evolved into all the life we have today?
First you misrepresent Evolution then you claim its abiogenesis which misrepresents that as well, then you say its all the same. I think you need to be more honest or go and learn something about the subjects.
Interesting you should say that, because you give no discription of what you mean by "abiogenesis," then. I gather it means life from no life. The most common theory by which that happened is evolution from single-celled organisms. You call me dishonest, but I was asking you. I wasn't making statements as if I knew them. Abiogenesis is a relatively new term for me. Until a few days ago it wasn't even a part of my vocabulary except via the Greek roots, so forgive me.
On Homosexuality:
Edward Bradshaw: Cmon man, you've honestly never heard of anyone making the "Genetic predisposition to violence" argument to explain why they killed someone? (sarcasm) Seriously, they shouldn't go to jail! It's in their genes that they HAVE to kill someone, right? It's not their fault! (sarcasm off)
I snipped the rest of your post because it was just Bible quotes and we are talking about science. You guys are claiming homosexuality is unnatural. That we are gods special creation and given free-will and because of that free will we can choose to be homosexual or not in the same way one can "choose" to commit theft, adultery, murder etc.
The facts show homosexuality is natural. I asked, I think it was Jr2, what is wrong with homosexuality other than you think it is icky? How does it hurt anyone? Im not talking about what some homosexuals get up to, not all of them are promiscuous. Specifically, how does homosexuality hurt people? We know why theft is wrong, we know why adultery and cheating on your partner is wrong and its self explanatory as to why murder hurts people. But if you're going to continue to compare it to those immoral acts, you'll need to show how they are comparable. And remember, you cant say its unnatural. All you have is the Bible, thats all you have, where god says homosexuals should be put to death and that you think boys kissing boys is icky.
Ed
Ed, did you even read the rest of my post? It's quite relevant to the topic. Basically it says that people were insistent to go against God's will, so, being the free-will-loving God He is, He let them dive headfirst into their perversions and depravity as part of His wrath. When someone accepts the gift of Christ, God's wrath is no longer on them, thus they are no longer victims of depraved minds.
In a sense, I guess that means my beliefs on homosexuality are more of, rather than a genetic thing (which has not been proven, btw), it's a spiritual sickness of sorts, only cured by the grace of God. Just because it's exhibited by many people doesn't make it right. Just because it's done by animals, doesn't make it right. Are we to be like animals, then? No!
You want more than the Bible to say "boys kissing boys is icky?" I can't do that without my post losing all taste by describing human sexual anatomy and how it's supposed to work. If that's what you want, I'll go there. But I think you're a little old for a sex talk.
How is a genetic predisposition to violence any different from a genetic predisposition to homosexual tendencies?
The person who gets hurt by this sin is the same who is chiefly hurt by all sin: God Himself. How is God hurt? God is perfect. God cannot stand imperfection to be in His presence. When we sin, no matter what it is, we are no longer able to stand in God's presence and yet draw breath. It just doesn't work. Now, when God, being perfect, says that something is imperfect, we can usually take His word as right, because arguing with Him is like cutting off the tree limb on which you sit. You think this is absurd? How then could Christ claim to forgive sins if He were not the chiefly injured party? That'd be like Joe Schmoe coming up and forgiving me for stealing YOUR car. It'd be asinine if not true!
Oh my bad, you said being a Christian he has even less of a right because he breaks the first commandment. Let's see, "You shall have no other gods before me." How does that violate THAT? My point was: How do you know he doesn't know?
I've not studied The Bible the same way you have (which is fairly obvious), but I have attended many sermons. There were some differences in the way the preachers described the first commandment, but the one major theme that they all shared was along the lines of 'There is only one God, and only he has the right of judgment and absolute truth.' Insisting something is so without any reasoning behind it is a violation of that idea. Get it now?
As I said, he may have some reasoning behind it after all. For all you know, I may have some experience on the subject matter. The point is, you can't assume we don't.
Oh, and I'd be careful in taking somebody's word over the Bible. That's how fanaticism and wars and the like happen.
OK, so because quite a few somethings or someones said it, you believe the world is round. Same with the Bible. The same can be said about Antarctica. How do you know there is a frozen tundra on the southernmost portion of the planet if you've never been there?
That's a valid viewpoint, but there is something missing. The evidence. The Bible is a document of Faith, not science. It is merely testimony from many a man, but there is no evidence to support it. Now that's not to say that makes The Bible false, it just means it cannot be held absolute. Most (if not all) discoveries were based on faith. Just like with Christianity, there are believers and non-believers to every quest for truth. And unless God come today and bring his children home, we cannot know today of his existence. As for the antarctic, it follows the rules of logic and existence, so I know it to be so. However, believing that only the established rules of logic and existence are valid is an act of faith.
CS Lewis responds to this better than I ever could: Another possible objection is this. Why is God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil? Why is He not landing in force, invading it? Is it that He is not strong enough? Well, Christians think He is going to land in force; we do not know when. But we can guess why He is delaying. He wants to give us the chance of joining His side freely. I do not suppose you and I would have thought much of a Frenchman who waited till the Allies were marching into Germany and then announced he was on our side. God will invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realise what it will be like when He does. When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks on to the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else-something it never entered your head to conceive-comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side. There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realised it before or not. Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last for ever. We must take it or leave it.
Wrong. 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is God-breathed[/u] and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Interpret and present it any way you choose, but the fact of the matter is that God did not write the many books of the Bible, man did.
Actually, any way I can possibly interpret or present it, it still says the same thing: The author of the so-called "Holy Books" is the Spirit of God Himself. The word for "Air" "Breath" and "Soul" are very similar in Hebrew. Therefore, any way you look at it, either God spoke the words, or God's Spirit wrote the words. That is the truth.
Go google what Charles Darwin had to say about the human eye.
Who gives a **** what Darwin had to say? Science is not a religion. Darwin's words are not sacrosanct. He was completely wrong about certain things (hereditary for instance - since he hadn't read Mendel's work on peas he had no idea about genetics). You can talk about Darwin and what he said until you're blue in the face and no one will give a damn. If you're not talking about modern evolutionary theory you're simply wasting your breath.
Why don't you detail modern evolutionary theory for me, so I have a better understanding of what you think it is? I simply was under the impression that it was heavily based on Darwin's works, particularly "The Origin of Species," and wished to point out that the writer of this theory which modern theory is more or less based on had some things to say about his own ideas.
Also, when did you last see a species give birth to a completely different species?
I can point you at scientific papers in which scientists have seen speciation under laboratory conditions if you want. And I'm not just talking about single celled life either. If you're looking for one species giving birth to a different species in one generation though you have no idea how evolution works.
I never said in one generation. I do believe in microevolution, that is, adaptation. I do not believe, regardless of time, that one species could ultimately change enough to become classified as a completely different species, ESPECIALLY beginning from single-celled organisms, double-especially since such organisms exist today, mainly because change happens due to need, and if the changes NEEDED to happen, the old versions would have died out.
This is the claim that abiogenesis makes, isn't it? That a couple chemicals combined just right to form the RNA of the first one-celled bacteria, which eventually evolved into all the life we have today?
No that's not what abiogenesis claims. In fact that would be absurd.
Tell me what it is, then. Obviously I'm way off-base, and would like to fix that.
Your only evidence about a lot of things is simply a book. Is there anyone alive today who had a conversation with, say, Galileo? How then, do we know he lived?
It's not a book. It's lots of books. Some written by people in the catholic church who would have no reason to invent Galileo as he was considered to be a heretic.
Not a book, but lots of books? That's your argument? There are four (that's 4, not 1) books in the Bible that are first-hand (or would it be second-hand? Which is more correct in this context?) accounts of the life of Christ. That's multiple books. Beyond that, there are numerous (that's many many) prophecies detailing His life hundreds of years before He was born. After His life, there were many books written about Him by those that followed Him (the remainder of the New Testament). If you believe in Galileo Galilee because there were many books written about him, surely this is enough to convince you of the existence of Christ?
Now earlier in this thread I asked for other proof of the existence of Jesus other than the bible and the best you could do was to hem and haw while Trashman mentioned that he'd read something about some Romans saying something in a magazine. I very much doubt even that much is true but to claim that it is even remotely close to the level of proof for the existence of Galileo is ridiculous.
So now you're saying it's indeed based on the amount of proof and not the kind of proof? Because there's a ton of people in Africa who say AIDS can be cured by raping babies. I know, my argument here is bordering on absurd. I'm merely trying to draw a comparison with a very clear-cut example.
My point was that darn near everything in life takes some degree of faith and trust. Why is it such a stretch to trust what was said about God and Jesus and not Leonardo and Galileo and Copernicus and even Einstein?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Why don't you believe what was said about Rama? Amaterasu? Buddha?
I've asked you that sort of thing several times and every time you've ducked the question. Funny how your arguments about shifting the burden of proof suddenly become null and void once we start bringing other religions you don't follow into the mix.
What do you believe now? What extraordinary proof have you been given that leads you to believe that is true? Because I tell you, God's given me quite a bit of extraordinary proof, except it only applies to my own life, really. I've already given you a piece of my life story, though, and you didn't like it very much.
Proof has been put forth to the same degree to equally extraordinary scientific fact, yet everyone considered "intelligent" takes it as fact.
NOTHING in science is taken as a fact. You're already wrong there. But even without that word you are still wrong. You like to claim equivalence between certain scientific theories and the proof of Christ's existence but that's still incorrect. There is NO proof of Christ's existence other than the bible and the apocrypha and even Christians consider the latter suspect.
All scientific theories are based on observable data. In the case of Jesus there is no observable data.
So basically you're saying there are absolutely no laws of the Universe which science has proven and are taken as fact? The law of gravity? The law of conservation of momentum? The laws of aerodynamics? None of this is taken as fact? Many theories, even, are taught as fact today.
To answer your question about other religions: A god too proud, too high and mighty, too unloving to take me in is hardly worth my time. Yet that's what my God did. He made me, I screwed up, and he reached down to lift me up to Him. My God is mighty, yet humble. My God graceful and loving. My God is perfect. Instead of me trying to climb some ladder of good works to get to God (as in other religions), God comes down and lifts me up. I don't believe that God will love me because I'm a good boy. I believe God has and will continue to make me good because He loves me. To use Lewis's metaphor, the greenhouse does not attract sunlight because it is bright, but is bright because the sun shines on it.
-
Interesting you should say that, because you give no discription of what you mean by "abiogenesis," then. I gather it means life from no life. The most common theory by which that happened is evolution from single-celled organisms. You call me dishonest, but I was asking you. I wasn't making statements as if I knew them. Abiogenesis is a relatively new term for me. Until a few days ago it wasn't even a part of my vocabulary except via the Greek roots, so forgive me.
He didn't give a description because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. You brought it up out of nowhere and, while it would be interesting to continue along that thread, it would be best for the current discussion that we talk about abiogenesis at a later date. Several people have made it clear that it is unrelated to the topic at hand, let's leave it at that.
In a sense, I guess that means my beliefs on homosexuality are more of, rather than a genetic thing (which has not been proven, btw), it's a spiritual sickness of sorts, only cured by the grace of God. Just because it's exhibited by many people doesn't make it right. Just because it's done by animals, doesn't make it right. Are we to be like animals, then? No!
Aside from the fact that we are members of the animal kingdom, the whole "spiritual sickness" thing is kind of unsettling. I don't know, it's just really creepy to have someone put it that way. :wtf:
You want more than the Bible to say "boys kissing boys is icky?" I can't do that without my post losing all taste by describing human sexual anatomy and how it's supposed to work. If that's what you want, I'll go there. But I think you're a little old for a sex talk.
How is a genetic predisposition to violence any different from a genetic predisposition to homosexual tendencies?
Thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious. The parts don't fit together in that way. Like trying to put two Legos together using only the knobbly bits on top, it just won't fit. Although I don't really see how that makes it "immoral", whatever that means.
You might say the two genetic predispositions are different because one hurts people, the other doesn't. Let's reiterate; Violence hurts people. It hurts people, people get hurt. Homosexuality... doesn't? Hmm, let's think about this, how does homosexuality hurt people? Quite the conundrum, we've got here.
The person who gets hurt by this sin is the same who is chiefly hurt by all sin: God Himself. How is God hurt? God is perfect. God cannot stand imperfection to be in His presence. When we sin, no matter what it is, we are no longer able to stand in God's presence and yet draw breath. It just doesn't work. Now, when God, being perfect, says that something is imperfect, we can usually take His word as right, because arguing with Him is like cutting off the tree limb on which you sit. You think this is absurd? How then could Christ claim to forgive sins if He were not the chiefly injured party? That'd be like Joe Schmoe coming up and forgiving me for stealing YOUR car. It'd be asinine if not true!
Ah, we finally have it: Christians aren't homophobes, God is a homophobe. Good to know. :)
Why don't you detail modern evolutionary theory for me, so I have a better understanding of what you think it is? I simply was under the impression that it was heavily based on Darwin's works, particularly "The Origin of Species," and wished to point out that the writer of this theory which modern theory is more or less based on had some things to say about his own ideas.
Why don't you look it up? Kara doesn't have to explain it.
Tell me what it is, then. Obviously I'm way off-base, and would like to fix that.
Why don't you just wiki it? Hell, you brought it up as a talking point, so are you trying to tell us you tried to use it in your argument while you didn't actually know very much at all about it? Bad form, mate.
Not a book, but lots of books? That's your argument? There are four (that's 4, not 1) books in the Bible that are first-hand (or would it be second-hand? Which is more correct in this context?) accounts of the life of Christ. That's multiple books. Beyond that, there are numerous (that's many many) prophecies detailing His life hundreds of years before He was born. After His life, there were many books written about Him by those that followed Him (the remainder of the New Testament). If you believe in Galileo Galilee because there were many books written about him, surely this is enough to convince you of the existence of Christ?
Oh, don't be obtuse. You know exactly what he meant. Let's put it this way: A wide spectrum of eyewitness accounts, published papers, and otherwise accurate sources all point to a man named Galileo actually existing.
On the other hand, all accounts of Jesus' life are far older, have been admittedly tampered with over the hundreds of years since they were written, and are of questionable quality as a purely historical source by any account.
Surely you must see the difference between the two cases as both the quality and amount of sources present, not to mention the accuracy when cross-checked with other source and soforth.
So now you're saying it's indeed based on the amount of proof and not the kind of proof? Because there's a ton of people in Africa who say AIDS can be cured by raping babies. I know, my argument here is bordering on absurd. I'm merely trying to draw a comparison with a very clear-cut example.
...Yeah, i'm not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. :wtf:
What do you believe now? What extraordinary proof have you been given that leads you to believe that is true? Because I tell you, God's given me quite a bit of extraordinary proof, except it only applies to my own life, really. I've already given you a piece of my life story, though, and you didn't like it very much.
Oh, don't be like that. It was very noble of you to present your life story openly on the forum, and we respect that. However, you seem to have misunderstood the concept of "proof". Now, let's get back to the question at hand:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The burden of proof lies on you, and for the record; gut feelings don't qualify as proof. Sorry.
So basically you're saying there are absolutely no laws of the Universe which science has proven and are taken as fact? The law of gravity? The law of conservation of momentum? The laws of aerodynamics? None of this is taken as fact? Many theories, even, are taught as fact today.
Fun fact (pun intended, :P), there actually exists more recorded evidence for the modern theory of evolution than for Gravity.
You seem to have a deep misunderstanding for how science works. While many of these ideas are taught as fact, at their heart each is only a theory based on the best evidence modern science possesses. Each of those seemingly immutable laws is just the best explanation humanity could come up with given what we've seen. Nothing is taken as fact as there is always the possibility of something in the future coming along and giving us a new idea on how things work. Accepting things as pure fact without question is religious people do. Accepting that we only know as much as we know and that our ideas could be fundamentally changed at any point is what a man of science will do.
Urgh, sorry, that came out sounding really anal. Meh, having a Biology final a few hours ago will do that to you. :p
-
Stand back, B.Sc in Genetics/Immunology 'a comin'! =)
I admit, I skimmed, but I want to clear up three things right now.
1. The nature of scientific "laws."
2. Abiogenesis.
3. Evolution.
1. Scientific Laws.
The scientific method is based upon creating hypotheses, observing or testing data while controlling for as many variables as possible while manipulating a variable of interest, and examining results for significance (usually statistically) to determine if a generalizable explanation of the phenomenon is produced. Your hypothesis can be false, or it can be supported by the data. A hypothesis CANNOT be true. Truth implies it acts that way 100% of the time in every circumstance.
When hypothesis gain greater support through many experiments, they often become theories. Gravity is still a theory. The three "laws" of thermodynamics are still theory. Kinetic molecular theory (the foundation of modern chemistry, physics, and biology) is still theory. Evolution is still theory.
When a theory gains enough supporting evidence, it is often called a law. That does not mean it is always true, but it does mean that either the violations of it are extremely specific or unknown altogether.
Now, theory in science does not mean theory in lay-terms. Scientific theory is a cohesive, sound collective of facts which explain a phenomenon. It being theory does not mean it isn't relevant or a very important discovery for understanding our world. That's a criticism levelled at evolution all the time - "it's still a theory!" So is gravity, yet I don't see people trying to walk on their roofs and walls.
2. Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis merely states that life came from its chemical components - that simple replicating chemical system were the precursors to the first form of life on Earth. It does not go beyond that.
It's important to note that many of the proposed reactions necessary to create simple replicating biological systems can at present be done in a lab, and dear old Craig Venter of the Human genome project is hard at work on the rest of them.
The foundation of abiogenesis is this: all life is characterized by the ability to reproduce itself. Therefore, the simplest biological system could have easily existed in a primordial soup and merely consisted of self-replicating ribozymes (background: RNA can act as an enzyme, cutting, splicing, and even replicating itself). RNA is quite reactive and quite unstable, so mutations or changes to the chemical structure could have other effects. The characteristic cell membrane and organelles in eukaryote cells would have come much later. Truthfully, a ribozyme capable of self-replication is probably the beginning of life on Earth. Different ribozymes mixing in the chemical soup that used to cover the plant could work in conjunction, each beginning to perform specific functions upon which the others depended. The process simply grew in complexity for there, culminating in cells we know today. Interestingly, there is evidence that prokaryotes (that is, bacteria) are actually a more recent evolutionary product than eukaryotes, the idea being that both developed from Archaea.
3. Evolution
Evolution merely states that life forms change over time. If you deny that, quit reading because you're an idiot. We can watch how organisms change and diverge into new species over a course of a few years under controlled circumstances. Evolutionary theory existed well before Charles Darwin - Darwin's contribution was a mechanism. Previously, people had all kinds of theoris about how life evolved, but Darwin was the one who suggested natural selection.
Natural selection is the process by which some organisms die before reproducing, while others reproduce before dying. Which of the two options depends on how well that organism is adapted to its environment. Those that survive and reproduce pass along their genes to the next generation, while those that die do not. Thus, each successive generation of a species contains genes from only a subset of the possible parentage. EVOLUTION OCCURS ONLY AT THE SPECIES LEVEL BETWEEN GENERATIONS. Organisms are adapted, or not, when they are born. They do not suddenly acquire new characteristics part way through their life span. Evolution typically takes several generations, but can be observed at the phenotypic level (visible traits) in as little as one. Genotypic evolution (the evolution of the genes a species carries) occurs every generation, gradually. The discrepancy between phenotypic and genotypic evolution is why we see punctuated equilibirium in the fossil record - genotypic changes must "add up" before we see a phenotypic change - one gene mutation does not equate to one physical trait most of the time (although for some specific genes it does). Thus, the "gap in the fossil record" is not really a gap at all, but rather the effect of cumulative changes in genetic sequence required to produce a visible change. Example: Physically, we are identical to our ancestors of 100,000 years ago. Genetically, disease, famine, and interbreeding have produced significant genetic changes in Homo sapiens.
Natural selection is visible in a lab within populations that have swift generational time: bacteria, viruses, flies, eels, and worms are all examples of this. We can also point to artifical selection as an example of how evolution occurs - isolated populations breed, and specific traits are passed along to the offspirng of each subsequent generation. Dogs, for example, are a single species which have been selected for when reproducing to produce specific traits, which we call breeds.
The underlying mechanism for natural selection is genetics, which has only been well understood for approximately 50 years (the history of genetics extends only back into the mid 1800s). Humans, as one examply, have about 110,000 genes, coding for millions if not billions of proteins. This occur because genes can be "spliced" to produce different RNAs and thus different proteins. Thus, a single mutation can affect several different proteins, which can in turn affect several different bodily systems. The result is that a single mutation in combination with other mutations can produce drastic changes in the visible phenotype over a single generation.
One more thing: When species evolve, they evolve through either cladogenesis or anagenesis: in cladogenesis, we get two (or more) distinct species emerging from one. In anagenesis, the single species merely changes such that it can no longer be classified as the same species that it was. IN ALL FORMS, WHEN A SPECIES EVOLVES THE ORIGINAL ANCESTRAL SPECIES NO LONGER EXISTS. You seem to think that the ancestor sticks around - it doesn't.
If you still either don't get it, or refuse to believe, I'll grab you a well-executed study where a group of researchers stuck a species of lizard into a new environment and over the course of less than 5 years saw it evolve into two distinct species (part of the definition of species is that they no longer interbreed).
You cannot believe in so-called "microevolution" without accepting "macroevolution." They are not two distinct concepts, but rather two halves of the same whole. I hear this argument from the anti-evolution crowd all the time and it simply screams that you don't actually know what you're talking about, but may have read a book or two or listen to a lecture by somebody else on why you shouldn't believe evolution.
People who don't "believe" in evolution don't understand what evolutionary theory actually says, means, or how it works. A little education would go a long way for those lost souls. There isn't a debate - there are merely religious people who refuse to accept science, and everyobody else who is tired of arguing with them. No serious scientist bothers to debate it anymore because it is a truly worthless endeavour. Thus why I'm not arguing against varied forms of Creationism, but rather explaining evolution.
Oh, I just saw this so I'm adding point 4:
Homosexuality.
All evidence to date points to homosexuality being a product of biology, likely in the nervous system. It is not heritable, but rather appears to be a condition that results from varied forms of early developmental biology. Little known fact: We do not have only two sexes. Religion and science both coined the idea that two sexes are all that exist, but sexual identification both mentally AND biologically spans a wide variety of forms. Intersex, a concept which genetics has brought into the limelight, is a condition where some biological sexual characteristics are male and some are female, in varied proportions (this is not hermaphromatism).
The sole factor that determines sex is a single androgen, a hormone called testosterone. Babies exposed to higher levels of testosterone develop male sexual characteristics; if exposed to lower levels, they develop the default, female characteristics. Chromosomally XY people can be female. Chromosomally XX people can be male. XX/XY is not a law, just the typical default organization scheme nature has produced. In addition, each part of the body must be exposed to the correct hormonal levels in order to develop according to its "assigned sex." Intersexed individuals are a product of androgen exposure in some parts of the body during development, but not others. Conceivably (and this has been hypothesized but not yet tested), homosexuality may result from centers of the brain responsible for sexual attraction being exposed to an amount of androgen different from the rest of the body. Homosexuality can therefore be lumped as a form of intersex, a biologically normal condition that occurs quite frequently in human populations. Homosexuality is therefore absolutely normal, and a product of how we develop.
To top it off, homosexuality has only become a "category" of person since approximately the year 1750. Prior to that, homosexuality was merely a behaviour which various socieites accepted or not depending on their cultural norms. 5th century Athens was a society that accepted limited homosexual practices under certain conditions. A modern culture, the Sambians, practice same-sex sexual acts as a matter of growing up, but it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
In short, your nonsense is a political agenda promoted by primarily religious institutions to bar the practice of pleasure as a phenomenon which they controlled (gee, do I sound like Foucault yet? :P) in order to further control the daily lives and practices of the population they included as part of their organization. In large part, the Catholic Church condemns homosexuality as it does birth control merely because they believe sexual union should produce children, which in turn will grow up to be good little Catholics and donate money to their local church.
The modern conception of homosexuality is a political lie created by both religion and science to further dominate and control vulnerable populations of people.
And that, my friends, is a synthesis of biology, philosophy, and a little bit of sociology thrown in for good measure =)
EDIT: Holy crap, I just looked back at page 20 and saw some of the BS people are spouting about homosexuality and I am genuinely terrified that you guys are not only quoting it but might be believing it. But let me put your minds at rest again:
-Homosexuality is probably not genetic, because there is no indication it is heritable. Breeding has nothing to do with it; conditions can be genetic and not be passed on but still crop up because of little things known to us genetics types as SNPs, or point mutations. In essence, random changes to DNA which occur throught a cell's lifespan.
-As a developmental condition, homosexuality is a variation on intersex, a natural biological condition which makes the Church and conservative moral types freak right the hell out. What, sexual characteristics are fluid and on a gradual scale, not absolute? Madness! Oh wait, so was a heliocentric model of the solar system. Oops.
-Cure for homosexuality? Believe it or not, sexual acts do not exist solely for reproductive reasons my friends. There's plenty of sex, both human and animal, that occurs for a wide variety of reasons that have nothing to do with procreation. I hear homosexuality and cure in the same sentence and I have these horrible flashbacks to eugenics.
-Saying hate the sin, not the sinner, is a cop-out, an attempt to disguise intolerance of diversity and difference under a cloak of Faith. Fact of the matter is that everyone's biology is different in many ways and none is "more right" than any other.
-Because it pissed me off, Captain Jack*ss's analysis of homosexuality as something akin to sickle cell anemia is not only totally wrong, but betrays an underlying ignorance of biology in the first place.
Did I mention I can't WAIT to hear some of the responses to this post? I'm ready boys... I've got PubMed fired up and I'm ready to go, so take your best shot and just pray you got it right because I swear if someone tries to make a biological argument and muffs it up I will crucify them alive in text, pun intended. You have been warned :)
-
So is gravity, yet I don't see people trying to walk on their roofs and walls.
You've never been to anyone's 21st? :p
-
So is gravity, yet I don't see people trying to walk on their roofs and walls.
You've never been to anyone's 21st? :p
I'm from Canada, it's 18 or 19 up here =)
And usually that point comes when all rationality has been suspended by alcohol.
Wait...
alcohol = religion?
*runs*
-
I dont understand what point you're trying to make here.
No. I don't suppose you would. You managed to miss it or ignore it consistantly.
-
Oi! Keep it civil ngtm1r.
When a theory gains enough supporting evidence, it is often called a law. That does not mean it is always true, but it does mean that either the violations of it are extremely specific or unknown altogether.
While I pretty much agree with everything else I think this bit needs further explaining or it looks like a law is a higher standard that a theory.
A law is basically a part of a scientific theory which can be summed up in a line or two. In general a law makes predictions about what will be observed under the circumstances described. The law states what will happen, but you have to look at the theory to hear why it happens.
For instance Newton's law of universal gravitation states that "Gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared." You'd have to look at the theory to see why that is true.
So as you can see a law is not higher standard of proof than a theory. It's simply a good way of predicting what will occur. Theory is as good as it gets when it comes to explanations.
Why don't you just wiki it? Hell, you brought it up as a talking point, so are you trying to tell us you tried to use it in your argument while you didn't actually know very much at all about it?
To be fair actually I brought it up to refute his claim that everything science does points to God's work. Commonly even Christians who believe in evolution will draw the dividing line at abiogenesis and claim that it's not true.
-
While I pretty much agree with everything else I think this bit needs further explaining or it looks like a law is a higher standard that a theory.
A law is basically a part of a scientific theory which can be summed up in a line or two. In general a law makes predictions about what will be observed under the circumstances described. The law states what will happen, but you have to look at the theory to hear why it happens.
For instance Newton's law of universal gravitation states that "Gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared." You'd have to look at the theory to see why that is true.
So as you can see a law is not higher standard of proof than a theory. It's simply a good way of predicting what will occur. Theory is as good as it gets when it comes to explanations.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at but I see I was somewhat ambiguous in my rush to get to the biology =)
-
Interesting you should say that, because you give no discription of what you mean by "abiogenesis," then. I gather it means life from no life. The most common theory by which that happened is evolution from single-celled organisms. You call me dishonest, but I was asking you. I wasn't making statements as if I knew them. Abiogenesis is a relatively new term for me. Until a few days ago it wasn't even a part of my vocabulary except via the Greek roots, so forgive me.
He didn't give a description because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. You brought it up out of nowhere and, while it would be interesting to continue along that thread, it would be best for the current discussion that we talk about abiogenesis at a later date. Several people have made it clear that it is unrelated to the topic at hand, let's leave it at that.
No, actually, Kara brought it up in its current context. I stated that science backs up God's existence, and he asked, "Even abiogenesis?" That's how this little tangent started. But I tend to agree that it should be saved for later, if ever, because it really is a matter of no significance next to a risen Christ.
In a sense, I guess that means my beliefs on homosexuality are more of, rather than a genetic thing (which has not been proven, btw), it's a spiritual sickness of sorts, only cured by the grace of God. Just because it's exhibited by many people doesn't make it right. Just because it's done by animals, doesn't make it right. Are we to be like animals, then? No!
Aside from the fact that we are members of the animal kingdom, the whole "spiritual sickness" thing is kind of unsettling. I don't know, it's just really creepy to have someone put it that way. :wtf:
Yes, we are classified as animals under current our current taxonomy model, yet I think you'd agree we are quite a bit set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, even our closest genetic cousins, the great apes. They've demonstrated a capability to develop and use tools, they have demonstrated a capability to adopt a language, yet they are so incredibly different from us, so... I'd almost use the term unwilling to develop the way we have, into cultures and societies. I (as would any Christian) would argue that we are indeed very different, as the Bible tells us, we have a piece of God's own soul within us that so defines us. Our very humanity, if you will, is from God. Except for pride. That comes from ourselves at the instigation of Satan (the Serpent).
You want more than the Bible to say "boys kissing boys is icky?" I can't do that without my post losing all taste by describing human sexual anatomy and how it's supposed to work. If that's what you want, I'll go there. But I think you're a little old for a sex talk.
How is a genetic predisposition to violence any different from a genetic predisposition to homosexual tendencies?
Thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious. The parts don't fit together in that way. Like trying to put two Legos together using only the knobbly bits on top, it just won't fit. Although I don't really see how that makes it "immoral", whatever that means.
You might say the two genetic predispositions are different because one hurts people, the other doesn't. Let's reiterate; Violence hurts people. It hurts people, people get hurt. Homosexuality... doesn't? Hmm, let's think about this, how does homosexuality hurt people? Quite the conundrum, we've got here.
Well, for one, if every human on Earth were homosexual, humanity would cease to exist within a generation, much the same way it would if everyone were an axe-murderer.
The person who gets hurt by this sin is the same who is chiefly hurt by all sin: God Himself. How is God hurt? God is perfect. God cannot stand imperfection to be in His presence. When we sin, no matter what it is, we are no longer able to stand in God's presence and yet draw breath. It just doesn't work. Now, when God, being perfect, says that something is imperfect, we can usually take His word as right, because arguing with Him is like cutting off the tree limb on which you sit. You think this is absurd? How then could Christ claim to forgive sins if He were not the chiefly injured party? That'd be like Joe Schmoe coming up and forgiving me for stealing YOUR car. It'd be asinine if not true!
Ah, we finally have it: Christians aren't homophobes, God is a homophobe. Good to know. :)
LOL, that's funny. Not really true, though. God, like myself, hates homosexuality but not homosexuals. God doesn't hate gays any more than he hates murderers, rapists, and genocidal maniacs. God loves them all. Christ died for them all. God hates all sin, and loves all people. However, as Lewis says, "Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but Love cannot cease to will their removal."
Why don't you detail modern evolutionary theory for me, so I have a better understanding of what you think it is? I simply was under the impression that it was heavily based on Darwin's works, particularly "The Origin of Species," and wished to point out that the writer of this theory which modern theory is more or less based on had some things to say about his own ideas.
Why don't you look it up? Kara doesn't have to explain it.
Indeed I shall.
Tell me what it is, then. Obviously I'm way off-base, and would like to fix that.
Why don't you just wiki it? Hell, you brought it up as a talking point, so are you trying to tell us you tried to use it in your argument while you didn't actually know very much at all about it? Bad form, mate.
Read above. You are mistaken. Kara brought it up in the present context.
Not a book, but lots of books? That's your argument? There are four (that's 4, not 1) books in the Bible that are first-hand (or would it be second-hand? Which is more correct in this context?) accounts of the life of Christ. That's multiple books. Beyond that, there are numerous (that's many many) prophecies detailing His life hundreds of years before He was born. After His life, there were many books written about Him by those that followed Him (the remainder of the New Testament). If you believe in Galileo Galilee because there were many books written about him, surely this is enough to convince you of the existence of Christ?
Oh, don't be obtuse. You know exactly what he meant. Let's put it this way: A wide spectrum of eyewitness accounts, published papers, and otherwise accurate sources all point to a man named Galileo actually existing.
On the other hand, all accounts of Jesus' life are far older, have been admittedly tampered with over the hundreds of years since they were written, and are of questionable quality as a purely historical source by any account.
Surely you must see the difference between the two cases as both the quality and amount of sources present, not to mention the accuracy when cross-checked with other source and soforth.
Indeed I do not see a difference. Both happened a long time ago, both well before our lifetimes, or that of a number of generations countable on one hand. Probably even two hands. So why do you take it for granted that the story of Galileo was tampered with less than the story of Christ? There are many, many accounts of Christ, with, generally speaking, the same opportunity to tamper with them as the stories about Galileo.
Until the various councils compiled the list of books considered canon, what you had were a set of books. Each "book" of the Bible was indeed a separate writing. Thus, in the Bible, you do have many, many sources making claims about Christ, and His life. The four gospels are the most obvious. Each of them is a separate account of the life of Christ from separate people. In this collection of books, we have, in several of the books, prophecies of Christ's coming. We have several people talk about Christ after His time on Earth. In the Gospels we have the testimony of all those who saw Him post-execution. We even have the testimony of one who strongly persecuted members of the early Church, had them dragged from their homes, beaten, and executed in the name of a God he thought he knew, then after an encounter with Christ, turned around and wrote half of the New Testament, and wound up being beheaded because of his belief in Christ. Wow, that's not very well articulated. There's something I wanna say with that, but I'm having trouble doing it. Sorry about that.
What do you believe now? What extraordinary proof have you been given that leads you to believe that is true? Because I tell you, God's given me quite a bit of extraordinary proof, except it only applies to my own life, really. I've already given you a piece of my life story, though, and you didn't like it very much.
Oh, don't be like that. It was very noble of you to present your life story openly on the forum, and we respect that. However, you seem to have misunderstood the concept of "proof". Now, let's get back to the question at hand:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The burden of proof lies on you, and for the record; gut feelings don't qualify as proof. Sorry.
Not really gut feelings, more a statistical analysis of the events in my life and how they've led me to who I am today.
Let me try to tackle this another way. I tell you God loves you. You want proof? Your heart yet beats, despite an evil in your heart I can't even guess about. You have your problems, I have mine. These problems are enough for us (you and me) to deserve death. And that is what we'd get but for the gift of God. How do I know this? The Bible. Why would I believe the Bible over, say, the Qaran? Because within the Bible is the greatest love story ever told. The Bible tells of a God who creates a universe and fills it with life. God wishes for this life to amount to something, and in order to do that, it must have free will. God gives this life free will, but this life is deceived into thinking it could be as good as God, if not better. From this error in judgement, we have all of human history. From this erro in judgement, we have death. Despite this, God loved us so much, He became one of us and died our death, so we might be freed from it to spend Eternity with Him. In this, we have God reaching down to pick up the pieces of a vase that knocked itself off the table, putting them back together, and bringing it to life. No other religion, belief structure, whatever, is there something so beautiful as this love.
And if I'm wrong, if there is no God, no Heaven, well, when I get to the point where I find out, I won't really care, because I won't exist anymore.
And if I'm wrong, I come back reincarnated as a beetle or whatever, I won't care because I'll have another chance. Or if I find myself confronted by a god who is angry with me because I wasn't perfect here on Earth, well, there's nothing I can do about that now, because I first told a lie to my mommy when I was 4. And I refuse to start reaching up at something that is unattainable on the off chance that I might make it to some form of paradise. If that's what a god requires of me, I'll have none of it, because there is no love there. That's a god who is too proud for his own people.
So basically you're saying there are absolutely no laws of the Universe which science has proven and are taken as fact? The law of gravity? The law of conservation of momentum? The laws of aerodynamics? None of this is taken as fact? Many theories, even, are taught as fact today.
Fun fact (pun intended, :P), there actually exists more recorded evidence for the modern theory of evolution than for Gravity.
You seem to have a deep misunderstanding for how science works. While many of these ideas are taught as fact, at their heart each is only a theory based on the best evidence modern science possesses. Each of those seemingly immutable laws is just the best explanation humanity could come up with given what we've seen. Nothing is taken as fact as there is always the possibility of something in the future coming along and giving us a new idea on how things work. Accepting things as pure fact without question is religious people do. Accepting that we only know as much as we know and that our ideas could be fundamentally changed at any point is what a man of science will do.
Urgh, sorry, that came out sounding really anal. Meh, having a Biology final a few hours ago will do that to you. :p
I understand. I know that all laws are subject to change based on new discoveries.
But at this time, how many people do we have attempting to rewrite and redefine and rediscover Gravity? Any new evidence to the contrary of the current model will likely happen by accident. We've accepted Gravity, and have moved on, and will continue to do so until we find reason to redefine it. Thus, while it is subject to change, we are not constantly trying to establish that it's true. And rightly so. To do so would be insane.
woah crap, while I wrote that, there were 6 new replies! Lemme catch up
-
MP-Ryan, you probably won't want to hear a word I want to say, but thanks for the info.
Also, you should know that I am not catholic.
SO Karajorma, to answer your original question about Abiogenesis: So it creates some of the processes necessary for life. 1. that's still a very long way from life, and 2. There's still the VERY present issue of sentience, consciousness and intelligence.
-
Yes, we are classified as animals under current our current taxonomy model, yet I think you'd agree we are quite a bit set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, even our closest genetic cousins, the great apes. They've demonstrated a capability to develop and use tools, they have demonstrated a capability to adopt a language, yet they are so incredibly different from us, so... I'd almost use the term unwilling to develop the way we have, into cultures and societies. I (as would any Christian) would argue that we are indeed very different, as the Bible tells us, we have a piece of God's own soul within us that so defines us. Our very humanity, if you will, is from God. Except for pride. That comes from ourselves at the instigation of Satan (the Serpent).
Good grief.
The great apes aren't our closest genetic cousins, for starters.
Second, our development comes from a long lineage of primates and arguably the reason Homo sapiens sapiens has "developed" today is the advent of science and medicine and control of physical death which coincided with and enhanced the population boom. That boom allowed rapid advancement of human societies from paleolithic and neolithic cultures a mere 7000 years ago to our current state of affairs today. Humans are capable of complex spatial analysis and problem solving. There are many species that are actually better at these things than we are too.
Humans are an evolutionary oddity because we do not adapt to the environment, but rather adapt the environment to us. That doesn't dismiss us as distinct from other species, though. Evolutionarily, there are species that are much "fitter" and better adapted to their ecological niches than we are. We merely think we're fantastic because our evolutionary lineage has brought us to a level of sentience which few other species have met. But as I said already, we're not terribly different from our ancestors of 100,000 years ago. The key difference is we no longer struggle for survival, and thus have time to devote to our own self-importance.
Pride is derived from increased confidence in our own decision-making, which is productive in a communal society. That's called behavioural evolution.
Oh, and that Serpent of yours? Its derived from an ancient fear of snakes conditioned and biologically programmed into primates. Really, religion's use of a serpent to signify evil comes from our own evolutionary past and biological anxieties. But if you'd rather believe a snake spoke to a woman who mothered the entire human race in God's image (a ludicrous proposition in literal terms, but a great metaphor), go for it.
Also, you should know that I am not catholic.
Never said you were - I was pointing out a particular doctrine's origin.
SO Karajorma, to answer your original question about Abiogenesis: So it creates some of the processes necessary for life. 1. that's still a very long way from life, and 2. There's still the VERY present issue of sentience, consciousness and intelligence.
1. No it's not. Life is self-propagation. Nothing more.
2. Sentience, consciousness, and intelligence are abstract psychological terms that apply only to very few species, if at all.
To summarize: Neither of those two statements mean a thing for validity of abiogenesis.
-
Pride, that is the idea of "I'm as good as you," the desire to have things not simply for the sake of having them, but rather having more than the next person, is not at all based on our confidence in our own decision-making. It is in fact a degree of immaturity, and a failure to realize that, in the end, we are indeed all human.
Genesis talks of that programming taking place. So I guess it's the Chicken or the Egg argument. Did that characterization of the Deciever as a serpent happen because primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents, or do primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents because the embodiment of evil took the form as one to deceive us into thinking we were better than we were?
You say a level of sentience which few other species have met. What other species have been sentient on the same level we are?
-
Pride, that is the idea of "I'm as good as you," the desire to have things not simply for the sake of having them, but rather having more than the next person, is not at all based on our confidence in our own decision-making. It is in fact a degree of immaturity, and a failure to realize that, in the end, we are indeed all human.
OR... its based on a natural competition for resources in which the more aggressive/assertive and confident individual will secure greater resources and have a great chance of passing on his/her genes through reproduction. Pride is a very functional emotion for propagation in a species, despite what religion may say about it.
Genesis talks of that programming taking place. So I guess it's the Chicken or the Egg argument. Did that characterization of the Deciever as a serpent happen because primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents, or do primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents because the embodiment of evil took the form as one to deceive us into thinking we were better than we were?
I really hope you aren't interpreting Genesis as literal. How old do you think the Earth is? ALL primates species have a natural inborn fear of most reptiles, especially snakes. They have it from basically the instant they're born - it isn't learned from their parents. My evolutionary phylogeny is a tad rusty, but we can safely say the original primate ancestor lived well over a million years ago (radiocarbon dating; genetic polymorphism and mitochondrial DNA mutation rates; I say a million not as a reasonable figure but simply to show that it dates back before even the earlist estimates of Genesis, in reality it is probably closer to 100 million). Genesis, it seems to me, is plotted anywhere between 3500 and 130,000 years ago, depending on the religious institution and individual. Even operating on a metaphorical intepretation of Genesis, fear of snakes came from biological imperatives of survival, not a conception of evil. If you're operating on a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis then I'm wasting my time.
You say a level of sentience which few other species have met. What other species have been sentient on the same level we are?
What do you consider sentience? Chimps and gorillas are both entirely self-aware, form communities, are capable of complex problem solving and spatial analysis, and exhibit rational approaches to behaviour. SSome species of porpoise have even more complex social groups than do humans, are capable of group communication and coordination over huge distances, can solve problems, and spatially orient.
There's no question, we are very well adapted to use our brains but to say that we're smarter because other species are unwilling to show complexity in behaviour is entirely erroneous.
-
You say a level of sentience which few other species have met. What other species have been sentient on the same level we are?
Remember, sentience isn't some amazing thing. When you get right down to it we're nothing more than squishy machines. Incredibly complex and with a good couple billion years of development under our belts, but machines nonetheless. Sentience is just a coalescence of different traits that have arisen in our species, there's nothing mystical or extraordinary about it.
radiocarbon dating;
Actually, Carbon-14 is usually only used in archeology due to the relatively short half-life, which restricts accurate readings to about 50,000 years or so IIRC. You're probably thinking of Uranium or Potassium-Argon dating techniques. Just FYI. ;)
-
Actually, radiocarbon is only used in archaeology due to the relatively short half-life of around 6000 years. You're probably thinking of Uranium or Potassium-Argon dating. Just FYI. ;)
No, I'm thinking radiocarbon dating shows that humans and primates diverged much more than 6000 years ago, or the time YECs believe Genesis occurred =)
Best estimates for phylogenetic trees come from the molecular clock (known rate at which random mutations in DNA occur), not fossil dating, as it turns out.
No worries though, I'm not screwing up my dating techniques =)
-
Best estimates for phylogenetic trees come from the molecular clock (known rate at which random mutations in DNA occur), not fossil dating, as it turns out.
Damn, now that's interesting. I really oughta do an evolutionary biology course next year. This ecology crap is waaay overrated.
-
Interesting you should say that, because you give no discription of what you mean by "abiogenesis," then. I gather it means life from no life. The most common theory by which that happened is evolution from single-celled organisms. You call me dishonest, but I was asking you. I wasn't making statements as if I knew them.
You just did! You claimed what the most common theory for life from no life is and then completely arsed it up. If you don't know what abiogenesis is then ask but don't try to tell people who know better what it is.
To make it clear evolution covers everything from the appearance of the first life form onwards. Abiogenesis covers how that first life came about. What counts as that first life is something of a grey area. Abiogenesis is also based on the principle of natural selection. It wasn't chance that led to the first self replicating life form.
The reason I brought up abiogenesis is because there is absolutely no good reason why anyone who isn't a young earth creationist should dispute evolution. Especially in the case of Catholics since the pope has stated that evolution is correct.
However the pope and many Christians who do believe in evolution draw the line at abiogenesis claiming that God created the first single celled organisms and then let evolution get on with it. This is of course little more than a redrawing of the religion/science battlelines. The proof for evolution has grown strong enough that the church was making itself look foolish by trying to claim it wasn't true. So the church has pulled back from it's "Man was created fully formed" position to "God created the first life" instead of retreating to a more sensible line of "You explain the physical and we'll explain the philosophical"
Why don't you detail modern evolutionary theory for me, so I have a better understanding of what you think it is? I simply was under the impression that it was heavily based on Darwin's works, particularly "The Origin of Species," and wished to point out that the writer of this theory which modern theory is more or less based on had some things to say about his own ideas.
Richard Dawkins explains it far better than I ever could in The Selfish Gene. He has a very strongly atheist style of writing but that shouldn't stop you from understanding the theory in much greater detail.
Trying to understand evolution based on Darwin is like trying to understand subatomic physics based on Newton. Yes a lot of what he said still applies and the basics of his theory aren't completely wrong but the theory has been improved so much in the intervening time that you're going to come across lots of occasions where the theory seems to be flawed because you are using modern data but old theories.
I never said in one generation. I do believe in microevolution, that is, adaptation. I do not believe, regardless of time, that one species could ultimately change enough to become classified as a completely different species, ESPECIALLY beginning from single-celled organisms, double-especially since such organisms exist today, mainly because change happens due to need, and if the changes NEEDED to happen, the old versions would have died out.
That's a really poor understanding of evolution there.
1. I can show you cases of one species becoming a different one under laboratory conditions in years or months. If a small change of species can happen on that time scale then it's pretty obvious that lots of similar changes over millions of years would lead to a completely different species. If I start with a fruit fly and breed one million different species from it then the ones I end up with is going to be very different from my starting point simply because there are only so many ways of having different flies before I have to start saying "This isn't a fruit fly any more, it looks and acts nothing like a fruit fly."
Not a book, but lots of books? That's your argument? There are four (that's 4, not 1) books in the Bible that are first-hand (or would it be second-hand? Which is more correct in this context?) accounts of the life of Christ.
Second hand. Biblical scholars pretty much universally agree that at least one of the gospels wasn't written by any of the apostles.
That's multiple books.
They share common authorship though. Have you not noticed that parts of the gospel are repeated verbatim in other books. That means that we're already dealing with known plagiarists. Hardly the basis for undivided trust. Certainly a reason to be suspicious as to the authenticity of the gospels. Especially as the writings all are by people who have a certain bias. They all believe in Christ. I pointed out that there is evidence of Galileo's existence from people who have every reason to hush up his existence because they believed him to be a heretic.
Where are the roman records of Jesus' existence? Or the Hebrew ones from people who didn't become Christians?
So now you're saying it's indeed based on the amount of proof and not the kind of proof?
No. It's based on both quantity and quality of proof. You have little of either.
What do you believe now? What extraordinary proof have you been given that leads you to believe that is true? Because I tell you, God's given me quite a bit of extraordinary proof, except it only applies to my own life, really. I've already given you a piece of my life story, though, and you didn't like it very much.
In other words you have no external proof. Hindus and Muslims could give similar proof that they are correct yet you'd have me believe that they are wrong and you are right. Why? Why should I trust your gut instinct while decrying theirs?
So basically you're saying there are absolutely no laws of the Universe which science has proven and are taken as fact? The law of gravity? The law of conservation of momentum? The laws of aerodynamics? None of this is taken as fact?
Absolutely none of it if fact. There is no such thing in science. Science simply states "This is the best explanation we have so far. It could be wrong but every other explanation we have so far seems to be more wrong"
Many theories, even, are taught as fact today.
Simply because there are no competing theories which explain the evidence as well and it gets incredibly tiresome to explain that everything is a theory. Not to mention that it's best to maintain a good teacher image of actually knowing the truth when teaching something.
When there are several competing possibilities all of which explain the facts you'll find that none of them are taught as fact. If someone came up with a credible theory of gravity different from our current understanding then you'd soon find scientists stopped treating gravity as a fact.
To answer your question about other religions: A god too proud, too high and mighty, too unloving to take me in is hardly worth my time. Yet that's what my God did. He made me, I screwed up, and he reached down to lift me up to Him. My God is mighty, yet humble. My God graceful and loving. My God is perfect. Instead of me trying to climb some ladder of good works to get to God (as in other religions), God comes down and lifts me up. I don't believe that God will love me because I'm a good boy. I believe God has and will continue to make me good because He loves me. To use Lewis's metaphor, the greenhouse does not attract sunlight because it is bright, but is bright because the sun shines on it.
I didn't ask for your personal philosophy. I asked you to explain why you claim that there is better evidence for your religion than others. You've done nothing to prove that your religion does have better evidence. You've simply ducked the question and said "my God is the bestest!!!!1111" :rolleyes:
-
Best estimates for phylogenetic trees come from the molecular clock (known rate at which random mutations in DNA occur), not fossil dating, as it turns out.
Damn, now that's interesting. I really oughta do an evolutionary biology course next year. This ecology crap is waaay overrated.
Skip evo-bio and take developmental biology. My developmental genetics class was the best class of my entire undergraduate degree (it was actually a graduate-level class). Wrapping your head around that stuff will make your head spin.
Random mind-boggling question of the day (bonus points to anyone who figures it out without looking anything up): Using humans, flies, fish, and chickens as examples, why is it that...
1. Early in development, gene expression in all four species is basically identical but they physically look entirely different.
2. At mid-stages of development, gene expression in all four species is entirely different, yet the embryos all look virtually identical.
3. At late stages of development, gene expression in all four species varies widely for particular genes (some identical, some different) and the embryos all look entirely different.
If you have a dev-gen class offered at your school, take it =)
-
Trying to understand evolution based on Darwin is like trying to understand subatomic physics based on Newton. Yes a lot of what he said still applies and the basics of his theory aren't completely wrong but the theory has been improved so much in the intervening time that you're going to come across lots of occasions where the theory seems to be flawed because you are using modern data but old theories.
Ain't that the truth. Darwin believed in a cellular democracy of inheritance - genetics was unknown in mainstream circles at the time (hilariously enough, Darwin actually had a copy of Mendel's findings in his desk that he never looked at) so Darwin proposed that each cell split off "gemmules" which went to the gonads and then combined to form gametes. Thus, each cell in the body "voted" on what traits the offspring would have. That was one of his kookier ideas.
Genetic recombination makes much more sense, but the gemmule theory is always good cocktail party conversation in academic circles =)
-
Yeah, I'd heard the story about Mendel before. The real irony being that Darwin knew that there was something wrong with his original theory and not realising that the answer was sitting around on his desk waiting to be read. :)
That said gemmules might be an interesting idea for an alien race. It's one of those "Our DNA doesn't work that way but whatever they use might do"
-
On Evolution:
Interesting you should say that, because you give no discription of what you mean by "abiogenesis," then. I gather it means life from no life.
In 4 words yes abiogenesis is to put it simply, life from non life. But it isnt one species giving birth to another completely different species. Thats Evolution and a total misrepresentation of that as well.
Why dont you read some information about what it is you dont agree with. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif)
How could you be so misinformed yet so sure of yourself that you're right? How can you so adamentally disagree with something you know nothing about?
The most common theory by which that happened is evolution from single-celled organisms.
Thats not abiogenesis, and if your starting points are "single celled organisms" then thats evolution. But its still not one species giving birth to abother completely different species. Oh and FYI theres a lot of complex chemical steps before you get to the first replicating organism.
You call me dishonest, but I was asking you.
I said either you are being dishonest for misrepresenting these subjects or you are painfully ignorent, to put it more harshly.
Oh and I notice you said "I never said in one generation." to someone else. Well, this is whats called dishonesty because you said exactly that. A species giving birth to another completely different species would be one generation and I find it hard to believe you wouldnt know that.
I wasn't making statements as if I knew them. Abiogenesis is a relatively new term for me. Until a few days ago it wasn't even a part of my vocabulary except via the Greek roots, so forgive me.
Theres nothing wrong with that, but you still felt you could talk with complete assurance that you knew it was false despite not knowing anything about it. Why?
On Homosexuality:
Ed, did you even read the rest of my post? It's quite relevant to the topic. Basically it says that people were insistent to go against God's will, so, being the free-will-loving God He is, He let them dive headfirst into their perversions and depravity as part of His wrath. When someone accepts the gift of Christ, God's wrath is no longer on them, thus they are no longer victims of depraved minds.
Thats what I said, isnt it? That we are Gods special creations and had been given free will to choose to either sin or not sin, right?
The point being that if its unnatural and humans are choosing be be homosexual then animals must also have free will and are also choosing to be homosexual as well.
In a sense, I guess that means my beliefs on homosexuality are more of, rather than a genetic thing (which has not been proven, btw), it's a spiritual sickness of sorts, only cured by the grace of God. Just because it's exhibited by many people doesn't make it right. Just because it's done by animals, doesn't make it right. Are we to be like animals, then? No!
No no, Im not going to let you move the goal posts. If its "done by animals" then homosexuality IS natural. If you accept that and then argue that its natural but not moral then we can talk about it, but until you do that and still insist homosexuality is unnatural then Im going to continue to show how damaging it is to your position.
You want more than the Bible to say "boys kissing boys is icky?" I can't do that without my post losing all taste by describing human sexual anatomy and how it's supposed to work. If that's what you want, I'll go there. But I think you're a little old for a sex talk.
"Boys kissing boys" was refering to anal sex actually, but even here your argument fails since hetrosexual couples also engage in the same sex acts. So once again I have to ask, how does homosexuality hurt people? You dont like the idea of two men having sex. I dont either, but its none of my business. I dont like the idea of people drinking blood or pissing on each other. If they want to do that kind of thing in their own time thats their business so long as its not hurting anyone. Homosexuals arent hurting little kids, they arent hurting each other. How specifically do homosexuals hurt people?
sHow is a genetic predisposition to violence any different from a genetic predisposition to homosexual tendencies?
If it can be shown that you are genetically predisposed to hurting people then you need to be stopped form hurting people. But homosexuals arent hurting people. Its a natural phenomena as evidenced throughout the animal kingdom. Some people are attracted exclusively to members of their own sex. Some are attracted to both. You keep comparing that to all these horrible crimes, yet I keep challenging you to show how its in anyway the same and you keep ignoring me.
The person who gets hurt by this sin is the same who is chiefly hurt by all sin: God Himself. How is God hurt? God is perfect. God cannot stand imperfection to be in His presence. When we sin, no matter what it is, we are no longer able to stand in God's presence and yet draw breath. It just doesn't work. Now, when God, being perfect, says that something is imperfect, we can usually take His word as right, because arguing with Him is like cutting off the tree limb on which you sit. You think this is absurd? How then could Christ claim to forgive sins if He were not the chiefly injured party? That'd be like Joe Schmoe coming up and forgiving me for stealing YOUR car. It'd be asinine if not true!
So your idea that you hate homosexuals is entirely religous in nature and has no objective verifiable reasons whatsoever.
We all knew that anyway, but I finially seem to have got it out of you.
One more thing: When species evolve, they evolve through either cladogenesis or anagenesis: in cladogenesis, we get two (or more) distinct species emerging from one. In anagenesis, the single species merely changes such that it can no longer be classified as the same species that it was. IN ALL FORMS, WHEN A SPECIES EVOLVES THE ORIGINAL ANCESTRAL SPECIES NO LONGER EXISTS. You seem to think that the ancestor sticks around - it doesn't.
Wait, what do you mean the ancestral species no longer exists? They might more likely die out, but this is obviously not true completely. Its why you get ring species, for example. Then again you do seem to understand this though when you go on to talk about the lizards example, so what did you mean above? :confused:
-
And no, people are not "born" homosexual; it is a result of their decisions, which are often influenced heavily by their environment... I wish they were "born" that way... we might have a cure. (Consider: homosexuals cannot have children!) Although, I'm sure you feel the same way about Christians. :p
It's this kind of thinking that makes me genuinely hate somebody. Here's a reality check for you, pal. You have NO RIGHT to insist upon ANYTHING! Why? Because you don't know! You being a christian gives you even less of that right, as that breaks the first commandment. I don't know whether your lack of knowledge, or your lack of abstract thinking offends me more. You base your entire train of thought on 'because someone or something said so'... Yet even when proven wrong, you still blindly follow the blind man, who himself follows another blind man.
I do so love it when people who don't believe in absolutes try to prove their point. By your logic, there can be no one who can insist on anything, because no one knows everything... so please... stop insisting.
You fail on so many levels that I'm not even going to bother explaining it.
EDIT: G0atmaster, do you know what Word of God means? Because by the way you wrote your post, it doesn't look like you do.
It means literally "Message of God" IIRC
I do have some stuff to show you guys... might be a few weeks before I can get it all spooled up though.
-
It's a real pity Godwin's law doesn't cover people who can't quote properly. :p
-
Wait, what do you mean the ancestral species no longer exists? They might more likely die out, but this is obviously not true completely. Its why you get ring species, for example. Then again you do seem to understand this though when you go on to talk about the lizards example, so what did you mean above?
By definition, an evolved species cannot exist at the same point in time as its ancestor. If something that looks like the ancestor still exists, it's a new species (e.g. cladogenesis has occurred).
That's one of, if not THE, most common error even educated people make when talking about evolution - when a species evolves it becomes a new species. Creationist types say all the time they don't believe we are descendent from monkeys. That's an incorrect statement because we both came from a common primate ancestor which died off when the lineage split.
Even if we look at bacterial evolution; when one species gives rise to a new one, the precursor has died out - it is no longer the same species because genetically it is different from the original species by virtue of the loss of part of its gene pool.
It's a misconception because human minds have extreme difficulty comprehending the time distances involved in most evolutionary branchings, but typically populations become genetically isolated first (either by virtue of geography or behaviour) and then speciation occurs.
Reversions DO occur to produce close-to-ancestral forms, and convergent evolution can also bring about mixing of populations, but evolution is a progression of adaptation characterized by the emergence of new species. Ancestral lineages die off when new species diverge from it by virtue of the actual definition of speciation. This is also why the subspecies classification system has come into more predominant use because we can see isolated populations which have no gene flow between them, YET the populations are not distinct species because they can still interbreed and produce viable offspring.
-
Wait, what do you mean the ancestral species no longer exists? They might more likely die out, but this is obviously not true completely. Its why you get ring species, for example. Then again you do seem to understand this though when you go on to talk about the lizards example, so what did you mean above?
By definition, an evolved species cannot exist at the same point in time as its ancestor. If something that looks like the ancestor still exists, it's a new species (e.g. cladogenesis has occurred).
But what reason would it automatically die out necessarily? What if a new species evolves and gets seperated from the original species, but the original species environment doesnt change and so they dont evolve any signifcant changes. Arent you saying then that the original species MUST die out?
-
Or more simply. There are a number of cases of speciation being observed under laboratory conditions. Are you saying that as soon as the scientist can prove that speciation has occurred he instantly has to rename the original species used in the experiment and that everyone now has to use that new name?
-
Or more simply. There are a number of cases of speciation being observed under laboratory conditions. Are you saying that as soon as the scientist can prove that speciation has occurred he instantly has to rename the original species used in the experiment and that everyone now has to use that new name?
And even if that was the case the original species didnt die out you just renamed it.
-
I think MP-Ryan meant population rather than species.
As in once a particular population of the species evolves, that particular population doesn't have members of the ancestral species.
-
I think MP-Ryan meant population rather than species.
As in once a particular population of the species evolves, that particular population doesn't have members of the ancestral species.
If thats what he meant what does he mean about the ancestral "population" always dying out? I dont see any reason why that has to be necessaily true in all cases of evolution. I keep thinking I must be misunderstanding because it doesnt make sence to me.
-
Pride, that is the idea of "I'm as good as you," the desire to have things not simply for the sake of having them, but rather having more than the next person, is not at all based on our confidence in our own decision-making. It is in fact a degree of immaturity, and a failure to realize that, in the end, we are indeed all human.
OR... its based on a natural competition for resources in which the more aggressive/assertive and confident individual will secure greater resources and have a great chance of passing on his/her genes through reproduction. Pride is a very functional emotion for propagation in a species, despite what religion may say about it.
That WOULD be true if it were a matter of obtaining the resources required to survive. But it's not at all. It's about getting more than the next person. Wanting, rather than to be simply good, to be better. As Lewis puts it: The sexual impulse may drive two men into competition if they both want the same girl. But that is only by accident; they might just as likely have wanted two different girls. But a proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but just to prove to himself that he is a better man than you. Greed may drive men into competition if there is not enough to go round; but the proud man, even when he has got more than he can possibly want, will try to get still more just to assert his power. Nearly all those evils in the world which people put down to greed or selfishness are really far more the result of Pride.
Genesis talks of that programming taking place. So I guess it's the Chicken or the Egg argument. Did that characterization of the Deciever as a serpent happen because primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents, or do primates have a pre-programmed fear of serpents because the embodiment of evil took the form as one to deceive us into thinking we were better than we were?
I really hope you aren't interpreting Genesis as literal. How old do you think the Earth is? ALL primates species have a natural inborn fear of most reptiles, especially snakes. They have it from basically the instant they're born - it isn't learned from their parents. My evolutionary phylogeny is a tad rusty, but we can safely say the original primate ancestor lived well over a million years ago (radiocarbon dating; genetic polymorphism and mitochondrial DNA mutation rates; I say a million not as a reasonable figure but simply to show that it dates back before even the earlist estimates of Genesis, in reality it is probably closer to 100 million). Genesis, it seems to me, is plotted anywhere between 3500 and 130,000 years ago, depending on the religious institution and individual. Even operating on a metaphorical intepretation of Genesis, fear of snakes came from biological imperatives of survival, not a conception of evil. If you're operating on a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis then I'm wasting my time.
Whether or not Genesis is taken to be literal is insignificant next to a risen Christ. So is the whole question of how we came to be, for that matter. I believe the primary intent of Genesis is to illustrate how we (humanity) came to be in our present state of dispair.
And that's all the time I have for now. My ride's waiting for me. I'll respond to the rest tonight when I get home.
-
I think MP-Ryan meant population rather than species.
As in once a particular population of the species evolves, that particular population doesn't have members of the ancestral species.
If thats what he meant what does he mean about the ancestral "population" always dying out? I dont see any reason why that has to be necessaily true in all cases of evolution. I keep thinking I must be misunderstanding because it doesnt make sence to me.
Heh, perhaps I'm not being clear.
Speciation is either:
1. Anagenesis - a single species undergoes changes such that it can be classified as a new species with no other derived lineages.
2. Cladogenesis - a single species diverges into two or more new lineages.
Have you ever seen an evolutionary tree? If you look closely, you will see that there is no taxon for the original species any longer, because it forms new one(s). The ancestral lineage can continue INTO a new lineage with another derivation forming a second taxon, but it doesn't remain the same.
Think of it this way - as a tree branch grows it gradually gets narrower and produces different structures near the top. The top of a single branch is qualitatively different than the bottom of the same branch. Meanwhile, when a branch splits into two the original branch is no longer there - two distinct new branches emerge. This is how evolution works at the species level. When one species diverges off in a historical lineage, the remaining lineage or taxon is no longer the same as it was prior to divergence.
Ancestral species do not exist at the same point in time as their derivations. To take a concrete example, the common ancestor of the ape and human lineages cannot exist today, because its divergence actually produced the new taxa. It is possible that one of these new taxa more closely resembles the original ancestral species than the other, but it is NOT the actual ancestor because it is qualitatively different from it.
To move down to the petri dish level, let's say I snag a population of good old C. elegans on a medium. I then physically divide them and then do nothing to population 1 but apply selective pressures to population 2. Population 2 will lose individuals due to selection pressure, but some of them survive. These few survivors will be adapted to the selection pressure. I wash, rinse, repeat for 100 generations, all the while keeping population 1's environment constant. At t=101, population 2 will likely have sufficient genetic changes courtesy of mutation and homozygosity in the population that it can be classified as a new species, incapable of interbreeding viably with a standard C. elegans population. Meanwhile, population 1 has not been subjected to selection pressures but it is a closed population, not interbreeding with a larger C. elegans population. By the same virtues of random mutation and closed mating, this population will also be fundamentally different from a regular population of C. elegans, and could be classed as a new species. Now, in that example we still have C. elegans all over the world in its regular form, so the common ancestor of these two lineages does exist, but that is only because this is an artificial recreation of an extremely small blip in evolutionary time.
In real-world scenarios, the entire population of the species around the world is subject to different geographic or behavioural segregations in population which lead to closed breeding populations in which speciation occurs. One population does not remain constant while another changes. In transitory time, we will see multiple populations which derive into new species co-existing. In evolutionary time scales (that is, hundreds of thousands or millions of years). the period of co-existence is a tiny blip in time. Thus, for practical purposes of evolutionary discussion, an ancestral species does not exist at the same time of its derived lineages.
Even in the human lineage, the transition from Australopithecus to modern Homo sapiens sapiens (through its various other ancestors) was relatively short in the evolutionary time scale, but the periods in which intermediate populations between species or derived species co-exist with ancestral species are very short - remember, the ancestral species is undergoing natural selection which transforms it, over generations, into the newly derived species.
Really grasping this requires people to get their heads wrapped around the sheer massive time scale involved, number of individuals, and the combinatorial effects of silent genetic changes which all contribute to how species change over time.
But rather than explain all of that, it is much simpler to state that in terms of evolutionary time, ancestral and derived lineages do not co-exist; for speciation to occur, the ancestral species ceases to exist and a new species or multiple species are derived from it.
If you still don't quite get it, I'll dig up an example of Drosophila taxa to demonstrate the concept visually.
-
That WOULD be true if it were a matter of obtaining the resources required to survive. But it's not at all. It's about getting more than the next person. Wanting, rather than to be simply good, to be better.
Ever seen wolves take a kill from a bear in the wild? They will do it even if they're not particularly hungry at the moment and they'll continue to guard it well after they've eaten their fill. Is that pride? They take because they can, not out of need (at first glance).
There is a very good biological reason for pride as Lewis defines it (which isn't really pride, but anyway...), and its called natural selection. The organism that can take at will and retain resources is much more likely to survive and reproduce than the organism that eats its fill and move along (and before any ecology people jump on me, yes, I know, there's much more to resource competition than that but I'm making a point).
Ever notice how many prideful people tend to do economically and socially better than humble people? Our biological roots are still with us - much as we may resent the by-products of the emotion of pride as immoral and unreasonable, we also have a begrudging envy (oops, there's another functional sin) of the position pride can afford an individual if directed productively.
Here enters the tautology of evolution: If a behaviour or emotion exists today, there's probably either a good reason for it which confers selective advantage to individuals exhibiting it, or it has no negative effects on survival. This holds true for all the deadly sins (what are they again, wrath, sloth, envy, pride, lust, gluttony, and greed). A wrathful individual will survive a fight. A slothful individual will rest whenever possible to conserve strength and resources. A prideful individual will be confident/assertive/aggressive, capable of taking what it wishes. A lustful individual will spread its genes and reproduce as much as possible (I mean, this one is dead obvious). An envious individual will not be content with the status quo, but seek to better itself. A gluttonous individual will be well-nourished with many resources available. A greedy individual will take and hold as much as possible so that it commands the resources necessary to compete and survive.
Arguably, one reason for Christianity's opposition to the seven deadly sins is that they are traits which refer back to our basic biological nature, while Christianity presents a construction of man as a chosen species, above all the rest. Which is nonsense - we're a product of our evolutionary history, just like every other species on the planet.
Genghis Khan was a prideful individual - he is also the ancestor of 1 of every 200 men alive on this planet today. Pride seems to have gotten his genes in a pretty good position =)
Whether or not Genesis is taken to be literal is insignificant next to a risen Christ. So is the whole question of how we came to be, for that matter. I believe the primary intent of Genesis is to illustrate how we (humanity) came to be in our present state of dispair.
Now you're backpedaling. The risen Christ wasn't part of this discussion. I was pointing out the likely origin of serpent symbolism, and you were claiming the natural biological fear of snakes in all primate species (that's humans, chimps, monkeys, apes, etc) is because it is associated with evil. You haven't addressed that yet - do you honestly believe that all primate species fear reptiles, and especially snakes, because humans have come to associate them with evil due to mythology?
-
Heh, perhaps I'm not being clear.
Speciation is either:
1. Anagenesis - a single species undergoes changes such that it can be classified as a new species with no other derived lineages.
2. Cladogenesis - a single species diverges into two or more new lineages.
Have you ever seen an evolutionary tree? If you look closely, you will see that there is no taxon for the original species any longer, because it forms new one(s). The ancestral lineage can continue INTO a new lineage with another derivation forming a second taxon, but it doesn't remain the same.
Think of it this way - as a tree branch grows it gradually gets narrower and produces different structures near the top. The top of a single branch is qualitatively different than the bottom of the same branch. Meanwhile, when a branch splits into two the original branch is no longer there - two distinct new branches emerge. This is how evolution works at the species level. When one species diverges off in a historical lineage, the remaining lineage or taxon is no longer the same as it was prior to divergence.
I appreciate you taking the time but Im still not sure I understand. I appreciate the ancestor species will evolve as well, but you said the ancestor species necessarily dies out when a new species develops.
Imagine a group of humans were isolated on an island for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Imagine that they could no longer breed sucessfully with humans so are therefore a new species of human. According to youself, wouldnt the ancestor species of human be dead?
Seeing as how we can observe speciation in a lab, what happens if we see a species split into two seperate species. The original species is still the same species it was before, so why would it have to die out just because a new species was formed?
You said you need to get your head around the idea of all these millions of years, but Ive heard reports about species evolving in the last 1000 years in nature.
Ed
-
"Dies out" was a poor choice of worlds. No longer exists is a better way of putting it - the ancestral species has become the new one, or several new ones.
Imagine a group of humans were isolated on an island for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Imagine that they could no longer breed sucessfully with humans so are therefore a new species of human. According to youself, wouldnt the ancestor species of human be dead?
It is dead. The rest of the human population would have changed in that time period as well. Thus you would have two new species derived from Homo sapiens (or perhaps two subspecies of Homo sapiens). Nothing is truly static in evolution, not even "throwbacks" like the caelocanth. Even if physical change is not apparent, genetic transition has occurred.
Something else to remember is that as population size grows, evolution slows down because the gene pool is so large. Today, the lineage of Homo sapiens is evolving at a slower rate than ever before in its history.
Seeing as how we can observe speciation in a lab, what happens if we see a species split into two seperate species. The original species is still the same species it was before, so why would it have to die out just because a new species was formed?
This is what I was driving at in my C. elegans example - the original is no longer the same as it was before the split. Even in the absence of selection pressure, a closed population undergoes genetic changes leading to speciation. It may still LOOK like the common ancestor for many many years, but technically it is not. The common ancestor ended at the time of true divergence (when no members of either population could successfully mate and produce viable progeny). Die out, as mentioned above, is an incorrect term, but useful for a simplistic overview.
You said you need to get your head around the idea of all these millions of years, but Ive heard reports about species evolving in the last 1000 years in nature.
There's different levels of evolution. For example, there's evolution in terms of the divergence of reptiles and mammals from common ancestors, and then there's evolution in terms of fruit fly species diverging into unique ecological niches.
Evolution is a matter of time scale. Large-scale evolution is the most difficult to understand, while small scale evolution of new individual species (or even traits within a single species) is relatively simple. hence why people often say they believe in micro-evolution but not macro. Technically, they aren't distinct concepts, but rather different time scales. Amalgamating the two is the hardest intellectual task of all, because it requires you to think in both small and big picture at the same time.
Every divergence also has lag time - periods where individual populations are discernable but new species don't actually exist yet. This is the period in which you will begin to see both common ancestor and divergent forms in the same time scale, but no matter how recently or quickly divergences occur, the lag time is only a tiny tiny fraction of that. That's also why we see puntuated equilibrium in evolution through the fossil record - changes occurring very rapidly producing new forms from an ancestral species in a relatively short span of time with the total disappearance of the ancestral species.
http://chervil.bio.indiana.edu:7092/allied-data/lk/phylogeny/Drosophilidae-Tree/
Click start, then navigate through the trees. You'll see how the ancestral line always disappears when divergence occurs.
I'm looking for some other examples, but most of this is copyrighted work from journals that I can't reproduce here.
-
Ok i think I understand you and that we're probably just using different words and describing things in different ways so that it seems like we dont agree. Anyway thanks for taking the time :)
So G0atmaster are you coming back?
-
Imagine a group of humans were isolated on an island for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Imagine that they could no longer breed sucessfully with humans so are therefore a new species of human. According to youself, wouldnt the ancestor species of human be dead?
Strange thought since a species survives for about 2 millions of years.
-
Imagine a group of humans were isolated on an island for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Imagine that they could no longer breed sucessfully with humans so are therefore a new species of human. According to youself, wouldnt the ancestor species of human be dead?
Strange thought since a species survives for about 2 millions of years.
*raises eyebrow*
Some species have been around for several hundred million years... they've changed very little since the Cretaceous period (some species of fish).
Other species last less than a decade.
There isn't really a meaningful average =)
-
Erm, I wasn't refering to living fossils. I was refering to evolved species like some Dinosaurs: they were usually replaced by more effective reptiles.
I doubt the humans can survive for hundreds of millions of years! :P
-
Erm, I wasn't refering to living fossils. I was refering to evolved species like some Dinosaurs: they were usually replaced by more effective reptiles.
I doubt the humans can survive for hundreds of millions of years! :P
The dinosaurs lineages didnt die out completely, birds are modified dinosaurs and in cladistic terms are still dinosaurs today.
-
First I want to apologize for a semi-necro. I said I'd reply, and gosh dangit I will, if it takes me a month to do so! I'll start with Ryan's post to me.
That WOULD be true if it were a matter of obtaining the resources required to survive. But it's not at all. It's about getting more than the next person. Wanting, rather than to be simply good, to be better.
Ever seen wolves take a kill from a bear in the wild? They will do it even if they're not particularly hungry at the moment and they'll continue to guard it well after they've eaten their fill. Is that pride? They take because they can, not out of need (at first glance).
No, that is not pride. From what I understand, wolves bury any spare meat after eating their fill. They aren't saying to the bear, "I'm better than you" by taking the kill, but merely ensuring an abundance of resources in the future. If it were pride, the wolves would take the food from the bear, and waste it, dumping it downstream or throwing it to another animal just to make the bear mad, to prove to the bear that it could.
There is a very good biological reason for pride as Lewis defines it (which isn't really pride, but anyway...), and its called natural selection. The organism that can take at will and retain resources is much more likely to survive and reproduce than the organism that eats its fill and move along (and before any ecology people jump on me, yes, I know, there's much more to resource competition than that but I'm making a point).
As I said, that's not true Pride. True Pride is where one animal has a mound of meat that it could never possibly eat in a million years, yet is still chasing another animal away from a single dead rabbit, just to prove to that other animal that it is better. Pride is what causes the jocks to hate the nerds in a class that isn't graded on a curve. It's the anger at someone else for showing any evidence of possibly having a benefit of society, because it might infringe on your getting noticed. Pride is competition for the sake of competition alone.
Ever notice how many prideful people tend to do economically and socially better than humble people? Our biological roots are still with us - much as we may resent the by-products of the emotion of pride as immoral and unreasonable, we also have a begrudging envy (oops, there's another functional sin) of the position pride can afford an individual if directed productively.
Economically maybe. But the Proud man will climb over the top of everyone ahead of him with the help of his good friend, and then turn and stab his friend in the back because he climbed up with him and is on the same level, and his Pride won’t let him settle for anything less than the top. That's not what I call socially healthy. Also, this thing you call envy, at the last part of that paragraph, is pride in us. Pride is something that, the more we have ourselves, the more of it we hate in others. Pride is, at its very nature, competitive, whereas other sins are competitive only by accident. But I've already touched on that aspect of it enough, I think. Another name Lewis gives it is "Self-Conceit." This is also why Pride is the greatest sin of all. When a man is faced with God, he is faced with something his Pride won’t let him accept, because there is no way he will be better than Him
Here enters the tautology of evolution: If a behaviour or emotion exists today, there's probably either a good reason for it which confers selective advantage to individuals exhibiting it, or it has no negative effects on survival. This holds true for all the deadly sins (what are they again, wrath, sloth, envy, pride, lust, gluttony, and greed). A wrathful individual will survive a fight.
A wrathful individual will bring fights his way more often. Wrath is not a measure of one's ability to fight, but rather one's affluence to starting fights.
A slothful individual will rest whenever possible to conserve strength and resources.
A slothful individual grows fat and lazy, thus making resources harder to obtain.
A prideful individual will be confident/assertive/aggressive, capable of taking what it wishes.
He will also be the object of hatred of every other prideful individual on the planet. He will also grow arrogant, thinking he can best anyone, until the day comes when he finds someone he cannot, and that will be his doom.
A lustful individual will spread its genes and reproduce as much as possible (I mean, this one is dead obvious).
And, as a byproduct, will destroy lives, spread desease, cause overpopulation problems, and have a whole lot of people angry at them.
An envious individual will not be content with the status quo, but seek to better itself. A gluttonous individual will be well-nourished with many resources available.
You forget the social interactions that take place in these acts. Generally, if you're invited to a Thanksgiving dinner, and you, by yourself, eat all the turkey, you probably won't be invited back, thus limiting your access to said resources.
[/quote]
A greedy individual will take and hold as much as possible so that it commands the resources necessary to compete and survive.
That's if it thinks that said resources alone can keep others from coming after you. Additionally, the phrase "you can't take it with you" comes to mind. You will cease to survive eventually, regardless of the resources you accumulate. I doubt a shelter of dollar bills would save a person from bullets for very long.
Arguably, one reason for Christianity's opposition to the seven deadly sins is that they are traits which refer back to our basic biological nature, while Christianity presents a construction of man as a chosen species, above all the rest. Which is nonsense - we're a product of our evolutionary history, just like every other species on the planet.
I believe we are indeed set apart. When was the last time you saw a dog mulling over whether or not it was the "right" thing to do to bark at the mailman? The "myth" of Genesis states that God breathed life into Adam. I believe God gave humankind a piece of His own soul, by which we are capable of all of our moral decision-making that rises above mere instinct.
Genghis Khan was a prideful individual - he is also the ancestor of 1 of every 200 men alive on this planet today. Pride seems to have gotten his genes in a pretty good position =)
Define "Good position." Kahn is long dead. What does he care how many people are related to him?
Whether or not Genesis is taken to be literal is insignificant next to a risen Christ. So is the whole question of how we came to be, for that matter. I believe the primary intent of Genesis is to illustrate how we (humanity) came to be in our present state of dispair.
Now you're backpedaling. The risen Christ wasn't part of this discussion. I was pointing out the likely origin of serpent symbolism, and you were claiming the natural biological fear of snakes in all primate species (that's humans, chimps, monkeys, apes, etc) is because it is associated with evil. You haven't addressed that yet - do you honestly believe that all primate species fear reptiles, and especially snakes, because humans have come to associate them with evil due to mythology?
I've never seen any other primate species besides humans interact with snakes, so I wouldn't know. That much might be genetic. Mice are afraid of snakes too, aren't they? Also, what of people who aren't afraid of snakes? There are many of them.
Something else I'd like to ask you: What makes you believe that there is no God? Actually, scratch that, that's just an assumption I've made. What do you believe as far as God?
Oh, and I have found, in Revelation, where it does reveal that the Serpent is indeed Satan.
Revelation 12:7-12
And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
They overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short."
Satan, the deceiver of nations. Take it as a metaphor, take it word for word, take it however you like. This is how it goes, though. Satan deceived Man in the first days, "Did God really say you'd die if you ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? He is merely afraid of you! You could become just like Him if you eat the fruit of this tree!" So we ate of the tree of knowledge. What do we have now? We have diseases that are highly resistant to our medicines. We have a climate shift which many claim is due to us, and is allegedly going to destroy us. We have enough nukes to obliterate the world 20 times over at least. We have death. We've been deceived into thinking knowledge would save us, when we merely destroy ourselves with it. War is the single greatest driving factor to our "progress" as a species. Our greatest motivation for making ourselves better is killing one another. What beautiful things we've used this knowledge for! /sarcasm
I believe we've already signed our own death warrant, and that's what God was trying to save us from in the Garden of Eden, when He told us not to eat. Some say God wanted to make us blind, I say God knew we either weren't ready to see, or weren't meant to.
That's my philosophy on the matter, anyway. And the present state of the World backs it up. 5 minutes to Midnight, last I checked.
-
I still have to question how Satan exists if god is all knowing, all powerful, etc.
-
The dinosaurs lineages didnt die out completely, birds are modified dinosaurs and in cladistic terms are still dinosaurs today.
Yours is a generalized statement. Please note that there have been many dinosaurs and only a few of them can be considered the precursors of modern birds. The others vanished.
I still have to question how Satan exists if god is all knowing, all powerful, etc.
We need bad buys to contend with.
-
We need bad buys to contend with.
Might I suggest eBay?
-
Heh, Mobius, that's an answer to "why" not a "how" question. Regardless, that's not what I believe on the matter:
Satan and God are not two equal, opposite forces. The traditional story (that I have yet to read in the Bible) goes that Satan started out as an angel, Lucifer, who was the first being to develop a sense of pride. He saw himself as being as good as God. He spread the belief of this possibility to humanity, and we made it a part of who we are, which is why we were banished from God's presence.
This pride is allowed for because of Free Will, which our perfect God made perfectly.
-
The dinosaurs lineages didnt die out completely, birds are modified dinosaurs and in cladistic terms are still dinosaurs today.
Yours is a generalized statement. Please note that there have been many dinosaurs and only a few of them can be considered the precursors of modern birds. The others vanished.
Well sure, but that doesnt really change anything about my post.
Heh, Mobius, that's an answer to "why" not a "how" question. Regardless, that's not what I believe on the matter:
Satan and God are not two equal, opposite forces. The traditional story (that I have yet to read in the Bible) goes that Satan started out as an angel, Lucifer, who was the first being to develop a sense of pride. 0
Actually the "traditional" story is nothing of the kind. "Satan" means "an adversary who resists" or "the opposer". But Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub and the Snake in Eden were all originally different chararacters, it was around the time of King James where all these were eventually implied to be the same entity.
Beelzebub in the New Testament is a kind of nickname given to the god Baal of the Old Testament story . The snake in Eden was originally a companion for Lilith which was Adams first wife in the Talmudic legend, and wasnt ever intended to be Satan at all. Later on the serpant was recast as Lilith herself in disguise, later still Lilith was removed and with the New Testament it would imply Satan and the snake were the same person.
Lucifer is the latin translation of "Helel ben Shahar", which means "son of the morning" or "light-bearer". Its important to understand why this is significant and how astrology played a part in forming these ancient myths. For example in Canaanite mythology, Shahar and Shalim are two of the gods of their pantheon. They are twins, "the dawn and the dusk". Baals nephew is the son of Shahar, his name is Helel, which means "the light-bearer". What they thought was a star was of course was Venus, but they didnt know that at the time. This inspired the legend in Isaiah which explains how Helel, the son of the morning, tried to usurp his fathers thrown and was cast down forever doomed to never quite get as high in the sky as the other "gods".
-
This from Wikipedia:
"In mainstream Christianity, the Devil is named Satan, sometimes Lucifer. He is a fallen angel who rebelled against God, and is now roaming the Earth. He is often identified as the serpent in the Garden of Eden, whose persuasions led to original sin and the need for Jesus Christ's redemption. He is also identified as the Accuser of Job, the tempter of the Gospels, and the dragon in the Book of Revelation. Traditionally, Christians have understood the Devil to be the author of lies and promoter of evil. Many other Christians (especially liberal Protestant denominations) however, view the devil metaphorically. Much of the popular history of the Devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology."
Lucifer was called the "Morning Star," and Satan is seen in Job to have been in God's presence, where he was named the "Accuser."
In Revelation, he's called "The great dragon... that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray."
As for Lilith, the only biblical refrence i can find is apparently, according to Wiki, one in Isaiah, where she isn't even called by name.
-
This from Wikipedia:
"In mainstream Christianity, the Devil is named Satan, sometimes Lucifer. He is a fallen angel who rebelled against God, and is now roaming the Earth. He is often identified as the serpent in the Garden of Eden, whose persuasions led to original sin and the need for Jesus Christ's redemption. He is also identified as the Accuser of Job, the tempter of the Gospels, and the dragon in the Book of Revelation. Traditionally, Christians have understood the Devil to be the author of lies and promoter of evil. Many other Christians (especially liberal Protestant denominations) however, view the devil metaphorically. Much of the popular history of the Devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology."
That is the mainstream view today, yes. But all those characters were ORIGINALLY all different characters.
Lucifer was called the "Morning Star," and Satan is seen in Job to have been in God's presence, where he was named the "Accuser."
Im confused why you mixed those stories as if that shows you're right. Yes, Satan is the accuser, or opposer or adversary. But Lucifer real name is Helel ben Shahar and means "son of the morning star", he is the son of Shahar "the dawn" from the Canaanite panetheon. Isaiah is reciting this legend in order to make his point. Satan and Lucifer were never originally the same character.
Since you link to Wikipedia perhaps I shall as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
In Revelation, he's called "The great dragon... that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray."
Its true that the New Testament created this idea and the idea that Beelzebub was a just another name for Satan. But Beelzebub, which was probably a nickname or a intentional butchering of Ba'al was never meant to be Satan in the Old Testament either and may have actually existed in some respect as he is written in the Sumerian King List the oldest known syllabic text where Gilgamesh is also mentioned.
Btw regarding that section of Revelations, the New Testament also shows Jesus calling the Pharisees serpants, is he calling them all sons of the devil? Job 1:6 seems to show that god didnt know where satan came from and wasnt a "fallen angel" while Job 26:13 actually credits god with the construction of the serpent and all the evil inflicted upon Job is credited to "the LORD" rather than "Satan.
As for Lilith, the only biblical refrence i can find is apparently, according to Wiki, one in Isaiah, where she isn't even called by name.
You need to look into the deeper into the origins of the Bible. Enuma Elish, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Code of hammurabi. Noah and the flood isnt originally from the Bible neither is the 10 commandments. In fact we even have the Code of Hammurabi unlike the Biblical legend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
-
Lilth is more a figure in Jewish tradition then Christian. Since they share a lot of books it's not uncommon to confuse them, but you need to understand, they're not the same thing even in the books they share. The Bible never had much mention of her at all from when it was first assembled.
So no, it's not the original translations Edward, perhaps the original source material, but so far as the Biblical record is concerned, Lilth isn't out there.
-
Lilth is more a figure in Jewish tradition then Christian. Since they share a lot of books it's not uncommon to confuse them, but you need to understand, they're not the same thing even in the books they share. The Bible never had much mention of her at all from when it was first assembled.
So no, it's not the original translations Edward, perhaps the original source material, but so far as the Biblical record is concerned, Lilth isn't out there.
While the Bible doesnt mention Shahar and Shalim either, the origin of Lucifers name (Helel ben Shahar) shows where this story really came from. But even then the story doesnt imply this Lucifer was meant to be Satan.
My main point was that all these characters were all originally different people, not all the different names for the "the devil". The serpant was never meant to be Satan and nothing implies it was. Yes if you look into the origins of the myth the serpant is indeed Lilith taken from another earlier legend. But even in the OT the snake and Satan are always referred to as different until the New Testmant where we can see this change I was talking about where beelzebub (ba`al zebub) also receives the treatment of this blurring together the concept of Satan as all these names being just different names for the same character.
Historically the belief that the serpant was Satan rather than Lilith hadent been so firmly established in popular culture as we can see from a lot of medieval art. Its even depicted on the Notre Dame Cathedral and the Sistine Chapel Ceiling as the serpant having the body of a woman.
http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/lilith/images/ChristianLilith-03.jpg
http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/lilith/images/ChristianLilith-01.jpg
http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/lilith/images/ChristianLilith-04.jpg
http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/lilith/images/ChristianLilith-08.jpg
http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/lilith/images/ChristianLilith-06.jpg
http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/lilith/images/ChristianLilith-07.jpg
-
I've never seen any other primate species besides humans interact with snakes, so I wouldn't know. That much might be genetic. Mice are afraid of snakes too, aren't they? Also, what of people who aren't afraid of snakes? There are many of them.
It's a fear that has gradually been reduced alongside the reduction of threat over time (which is more evidence for an evolutionary connection).
All I'm pointing out here is that Biblical (and its precursor) legends did not emerge in a vacuum or spontaneously in the written testaments of this new religion called Christianity, but rather come from a long line of historical reasonings, most of which can be traced to a biological root, much as Ed has been pointing out in some recent posts.
Christianity didn't actually invent anything new when it came along roughly 2000 years ago; rather, it cobbled together pagan, Roman, Greek, Near Eastern (including Mesopotamian), Jewish, Egyptian, Minoan, Mycenaean, and Etruscan legend, architecture, art, tradition, celebrations, and general history into a whole intentionally designed to pull supporters from these faiths. Literally ALL of the Christian holidays are derived from other religious traditions (Christmas is merely the most obvious and frequently cited). The image of Christ himself is stolen too; the original depictions of Christ were literal copies of the Greek God Apollo, and the East-West axis of Churches faces the rising son because Christ is associated with the light of day unto the world, a stolen quality of Apollo. The Good Shepherd image is stolen from the Near East where it was a sacrifice-bearer.
So yeah... careful what you read in the Bible as absolute truth. Most of it comes from much older traditions.
-
So which of the religions then did Christianity steal the part where God comes down to save the people He created from themselves? Which one has a God who's willing to take His peoples' punishment for wrongdoing onto Himself so that we might be able to stand with Him pure and holy?
Christian holidays are not derived from pagan ones, but rather adopted the overall themes and dates in an attempt to avoid persecution. Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ, not some pagan winter god. Easter is a celebration of the Resurrection, which took place just after Passover, much like easter does today. It was moved from the actual date of the resurrection of Christ to the time of the festival of Esther, who, IIRC, is the pagan god of fertility. However, what is celebrated by a Christian observing Easter is indeed the resurrection of Christ.
As far as Apollo goes, Christ is "The light of the World," not the pilot of the fire chariot that drags the sun across the sky, as Apollo was said to be. Christ tells us to be the same. He tells us to be shining lights left out for the whole world to see. Do you then claim that my own image as such is stolen from Apollo? I don't claim to be God, now.
You claim 1 in 100 people are related to Ghengis Khan. Where did you get this statistic? I think that's a little high. In any event, you said it was because of his pride. Well, here's a statistic for you: Abram, of the Old Testament, was a humble person, who, at the ripe old age of 99, didn't have any legitimate children. Yet God insisted He would make Abram "the Father of nations." I'm sure you're aware, your genetics don't get passed down too well if you don't have any kids. Yet Abram believed in God, and fathered two kids, Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was illegitimate, had with his wife's servant Hagar, at his wife's insistence, because she was afraid she'd never give him any kids, despite what Abram said God had told him (Abram was 86 at this time, so it's not hard to imagine why she would be getting worried). God, keeping true to His promise, made Ishmael the father of the Arabic people, whom, as the Bible tells us, are indeed having a difficult time finding peace with their fellow men. Isaac, as I'm sure you know, fathered Esau and Jacob. Esau had his own little nation, and Jacob... well, Jacob is the father of the Jews. So basically, every single arabic person, every single semitic person, every single descendant of Edom (that's the people of Esau), are all carrying Abraham's genes. The Israelites, the majority of the population of the Arabian peninsula, Egypt, that entire region is full of Abraham's descendants. Just as God promised. Even after God told him to sacrifice his own son, which, Abraham had faith enough to do.
I don't know where you're getting your info, but some of it's a quite a bit off. Are you being so ignorant, then, to claim that Christ did not exist? That is a fallacy I believe to be beyond you. You still haven't answered my question: What do you believe?
-
Easter is a celebration of the Resurrection, which took place just after Passover, much like easter does today. It was moved from the actual date of the resurrection of Christ to the time of the festival of Esther, who, IIRC, is the pagan god of fertility. However, what is celebrated by a Christian observing Easter is indeed the resurrection of Christ.
Funny, I've grepped the bible extensively and I've yet to find the words chocolate, rabbit and egg in the same verse. :confused:
Perhaps you can find me the relevant passage.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter
Explains alot.
-
That is the mainstream view today, yes. But all those characters were ORIGINALLY all different characters.
And you know that how exactly?
Le'ts me guess - you can read minds of the long dead? God told you?
Funny, I've grepped the bible extensively and I've yet to find the words chocolate, rabbit and egg in the same verse.
Perhaps you can find me the relevant passage.
You read the Bile? :0 I though it burned you whenever you touched it... Oh, you must be using those oven mints I sent you?
-
That is the mainstream view today, yes. But all those characters were ORIGINALLY all different characters.
And you know that how exactly?
Le'ts me guess - you can read minds of the long dead? God told you?
Did you ignore the rest of my post? Because if we read the stories as they are written and research the origins we can see that is indeed the case. You can ignore all the evidence if you like but Lucifer was never meant to be Satan, sorry. I realise your faith allows you to hide in incredulity though.
-
Funny, I've grepped the bible extensively and I've yet to find the words chocolate, rabbit and egg in the same verse.
Perhaps you can find me the relevant passage.
You read the Bile? :0 I though it burned you whenever you touched it... Oh, you must be using those oven mints I sent you?
I didn't say I read it. I said I grep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grep)ped it. :p
-
If you want help grapping, go get E-Sword (http://www.e-sword.net) - it's free (as it should be!).
-
Did you ignore the rest of my post? Because if we read the stories as they are written and research the origins we can see that is indeed the case. You can ignore all the evidence if you like but Lucifer was never meant to be Satan, sorry. I realise your faith allows you to hide in incredulity though.
You base your assumptions on names only. So what if some legend/story written before it had a charachter with a same name. Does that automaticly means the charachter was stolen? Especially since a lot of charachters in mythology/religion are also symbolic in nature, so names for them usually follow that patter.
big bady = betrayer/liar/dark one/whatever = words in language X that convey the meaning of that word.
You're "evidence" is of low quality, to say the least.
-
So which of the religions then did Christianity steal the part where God comes down to save the people He created from themselves? Which one has a God who's willing to take His peoples' punishment for wrongdoing onto Himself so that we might be able to stand with Him pure and holy?
Actually, that type of legend is apparrent in several Greek myths. Their gods were very meddlesome, but they also intervened positively in the lives of humans as well. Christianity is a new twist on the old Faith... which is a theme throughout.
Christian holidays are not derived from pagan ones, but rather adopted the overall themes and dates in an attempt to avoid persecution. Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ, not some pagan winter god. Easter is a celebration of the Resurrection, which took place just after Passover, much like easter does today. It was moved from the actual date of the resurrection of Christ to the time of the festival of Esther, who, IIRC, is the pagan god of fertility. However, what is celebrated by a Christian observing Easter is indeed the resurrection of Christ.
The original resurrection/redemption story in Christian mythos is actually Jonah and the Whale/Great Fish. Christ's story came later. Christian holidays are based upon pagan dates, essentially modifying the function of existing festivals to suit the new religion. This happened extensively in later converted countries, such as Ireland. Christianity had an ingenious method of conversion: take their old faith, add your new elements to the story, and wait. Most of the pagan religions had multiple Gods, so adding one more to the set was an easy leap for them. Establishing the primacy of one in particular also wasn't unheard of. Eventually, that primacy coupled with the rest of the Faith weeded out the old gods entirely. Christianity (and indeed all religions) used a concept called synchratism in its development, wherein exisiting symbols, dates, festivals, architecture, etc are reinvented with new meaning. Thus, it's not difficult for the populace to accept the change to the new religion as if it were a completely new Faith. Christianity in the late days of Rome was viewed as just another religious sect/cult, similar to others such as the Cult of Bacchus, and it was only when the empire began to collapse that various successive emperors began the systematic presecution of Christians. At the same time, Christianity offerred new and eternal hope to a people witnessing the destruction of their empire.
As far as Apollo goes, Christ is "The light of the World," not the pilot of the fire chariot that drags the sun across the sky, as Apollo was said to be. Christ tells us to be the same. He tells us to be shining lights left out for the whole world to see. Do you then claim that my own image as such is stolen from Apollo? I don't claim to be God, now.
You miss my point - Christ's image is derived from Apollo because of that same association with sunlight. It wasn't hard for the Romans (and other religions) to accept a new God associated with the light, especially as Christ was originally cast as a youthful figure which bore a striking resemblence to Greek depictions of Apollo. I'm not saying he serves exactly the same role in religion as Apollo did. Once again, synchratism.
You claim 1 in 100 people are related to Ghengis Khan. Where did you get this statistic? I think that's a little high.
You can think it all you like. It's 1/200 men, and it came from a genetics study not three months old. I'll dig it up for you if you want to read it yourself.
I didn't originally respond to that, but evolutionary fitness is defined by survival of your genes. Khan did pretty ****ing well, I'd say.
In any event, you said it was because of his pride. Well, here's a statistic for you: Abram, of the Old Testament, was a humble person, who, at the ripe old age of 99, didn't have any legitimate children. Yet God insisted He would make Abram "the Father of nations." I'm sure you're aware, your genetics don't get passed down too well if you don't have any kids. Yet Abram believed in God, and fathered two kids, Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was illegitimate, had with his wife's servant Hagar, at his wife's insistence, because she was afraid she'd never give him any kids, despite what Abram said God had told him (Abram was 86 at this time, so it's not hard to imagine why she would be getting worried). God, keeping true to His promise, made Ishmael the father of the Arabic people, whom, as the Bible tells us, are indeed having a difficult time finding peace with their fellow men. Isaac, as I'm sure you know, fathered Esau and Jacob. Esau had his own little nation, and Jacob... well, Jacob is the father of the Jews. So basically, every single arabic person, every single semitic person, every single descendant of Edom (that's the people of Esau), are all carrying Abraham's genes. The Israelites, the majority of the population of the Arabian peninsula, Egypt, that entire region is full of Abraham's descendants. Just as God promised. Even after God told him to sacrifice his own son, which, Abraham had faith enough to do.
Marvelous. And not a solitary shred of evidence for the story outside a couple of religious texts which we know (not speculate, know, thanks to the meticulous way the Vatican has kept records) were altered for political reasons several times throughout the development of Christianity (in particular). One elderly man fathering a few kids isn't exactly a miracle either - while men's fertility is reduced with aging, it's not entirely eliminated, so it's entirely possible for a man over ahundred to father some kids... providing of course the old man can actually have intercourse with a woman, so maybe a little divine assistance (or blue pills) are necessary to the equation.
I don't know where you're getting your info, but some of it's a quite a bit off. Are you being so ignorant, then, to claim that Christ did not exist? That is a fallacy I believe to be beyond you. You still haven't answered my question: What do you believe?
None of my info is "off," my info just doesn't solely come from a political book roughly 1800 years old.
There is a remarkable amount of evidence for a carpenter living in the Roman province of Judea around the first century BCE, so I accept the existence of the person Jesus. Do I accept him as the manifestation of God on Earth? Nope. Do I think he was born to a virgin mother? THEORETICALLY speaking, parthenogenesis would be possible in humans with a really odd genetic mother, and the offspring would be visually male while genetically female (heh, I'd love to see the Christian reaction to that bit of information were testing possible), but it's unlikely (and I'm not even going to bother explaining how its theoretically possible either; it'll take too long and you won't understand it anyway). Much more likely is dear old Mary got herself knocked up either by her husband or someone else and proceeded on as normal to raise a healthy, loving son - her divinity was probably only established well after the death of Christ. Unfortunately, most of the records we have of Mary and Joseph exist solely in the Bible, a document I don't exactly trust for its historical accuracy.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think some of Christianity's lessons are valuable, particularly as many of them are echoed by other religions and they attempted to promote harmony and peace, but the institution of Christianity as it has developed is corrupt, closed-minded and self-serving, terribly unlike the original teachings of Christ. The same goes for Islam.
I'm agnostic. I believe there are higher powers in the universe which we do not understand and are not, at our current evolutionary and intellectual level, capable of understanding (this is one of the fundamental problems I have with religions: if there are Gods, who the hell are we to presume we understand their wishes, beliefs, or abilities?). I do not refer to those powers as Gods because I have no evidence that they are thinking or willfull beings; those powers may be merely the fundamental laws of the universe itself and may just exist, not actually be. At any rate, I certainly do not believe in any organized religion because most of them are so concerned with masking the truth for their own political ends (the Catholic Church is primarily a political organization, and has been since at least the 5th century CE) that they miss the big picture, and that saddens me.
The Biblical tales are great metaphors and contain important lessons for living what anyone could call a relatively good life, but the political baggage accompanying it has twisted the message so far that its almost unrecognizable. What should it matter to Christians if the story of Eden is a metaphor for the creation and fall of mankind, rather than an exact historical recollection? It shouldn't - but religion is now doctrine and for some stupid reason some people feel that the Bible must be literal and precise in order for its lessons to be valid. That isn't the case.
I'm sure even some of the most strict atheists around here will agree with me that religions contain valuable messages for a good life at their very core, but it's all the other crap that comes with them which turns them off. It certainly does for me. That said, I have nothing against the people who participate in organized religions unless they deem it necessary to intervene with factual understanding for the political purposes of doctrine. As far as belief, I don't give a flying **** what people believe, so long as it doesn't harm others.
-
You base your assumptions on names only. So what if some legend/story written before it had a charachter with a same name.
Its not just a different legend written before it having a similar name, it is the name written in the Bible. Helel ben Shahar means "son of the morning star". That is what Lucifer means.
-
I'm sure even some of the most strict atheists around here will agree with me that religions contain valuable messages for a good life at their very core, but it's all the other crap that comes with them which turns them off.
I'd be surprised if there were any who wouldn't say that.
-
There's also an interesting story of Akhenaten, who tried to install monotheistic worship in Egypt, much to the priests chagrin, and his right-hand man, who allegedly fled the country, returned, attempted another coup and got exiled to prevent civil war.
-
Do I think he was born to a virgin mother? THEORETICALLY speaking, parthenogenesis would be possible in humans with a really odd genetic mother, and the offspring would be visually male while genetically female (heh, I'd love to see the Christian reaction to that bit of information were testing possible), but it's unlikely (and I'm not even going to bother explaining how its theoretically possible either; it'll take too long and you won't understand it anyway).
The "tests" for virginity, especially in that day and age, are veeeeery inaccurate.
Really though, why couldn't Mary have been knocked up by a Roman soldier with a small wang? I'd like to see anyone find a Jewish girl who would tell everyone she was raped by a Roman soldier back then. So I don't see her telling anyone it happened.
Doesn't even have to be a Roman soldier, could've been anyone.
You don't need to delve into weird genetics with that explanation. :p
-
So which of the religions then did Christianity steal the part where God comes down to save the people He created from themselves? Which one has a God who's willing to take His peoples' punishment for wrongdoing onto Himself so that we might be able to stand with Him pure and holy?
Actually, that type of legend is apparrent in several Greek myths. Their gods were very meddlesome, but they also intervened positively in the lives of humans as well. Christianity is a new twist on the old Faith... which is a theme throughout.
Name an episode where the Greek gods decide to punish the Greeks for a wrongdoing against them, and then decide they love the people so much they take the punishment upon themselves. I knew the Greek gods took the form of animals and men according to their myths, yet they never expressed such love as this. None of them died for men. To them, messing with people was a hobby, something to keep them occupied when they got bored of sitting on thrones on Olympus. My God prefers my company. Is there any other system where this love is present?
Christian holidays are not derived from pagan ones, but rather adopted the overall themes and dates in an attempt to avoid persecution. Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ, not some pagan winter god. Easter is a celebration of the Resurrection, which took place just after Passover, much like easter does today. It was moved from the actual date of the resurrection of Christ to the time of the festival of Esther, who, IIRC, is the pagan god of fertility. However, what is celebrated by a Christian observing Easter is indeed the resurrection of Christ.
The original resurrection/redemption story in Christian mythos is actually Jonah and the Whale/Great Fish. Christ's story came later. Christian holidays are based upon pagan dates, essentially modifying the function of existing festivals to suit the new religion. This happened extensively in later converted countries, such as Ireland. Christianity had an ingenious method of conversion: take their old faith, add your new elements to the story, and wait. Most of the pagan religions had multiple Gods, so adding one more to the set was an easy leap for them. Establishing the primacy of one in particular also wasn't unheard of. Eventually, that primacy coupled with the rest of the Faith weeded out the old gods entirely. Christianity (and indeed all religions) used a concept called synchratism in its development, wherein exisiting symbols, dates, festivals, architecture, etc are reinvented with new meaning. Thus, it's not difficult for the populace to accept the change to the new religion as if it were a completely new Faith. Christianity in the late days of Rome was viewed as just another religious sect/cult, similar to others such as the Cult of Bacchus, and it was only when the empire began to collapse that various successive emperors began the systematic presecution of Christians. At the same time, Christianity offerred new and eternal hope to a people witnessing the destruction of their empire.
Name one such cult that has been such an unstoppable force to have endured for over two millenia. Do you have any idea how many people believed Christianity was on the decline, how many believed it was going to be gone within a short time, only to have been proven wrong by God? In addition, let me show you an example where this methodology of slow, reverse-assimilation you claim to have been conducted by Christians is shown to not be the case. It's from the Bible, yes, but seeing as that is the book we as Christians are to follow as our example of the way things ought to be done, you should be able to take it on faith regarless of what you believe about the origins of the book:
Acts 17:16-32
While Paul was waiting for [Silas and Timothy] in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.
As you can see, the people of Athens thought at first that Paul was doing just what you described. However, he was not. He was there to set them straight, all at once. Also interesting, is that this idea of resurrection seemed foreign to them. To the rest of your arguments, read the passage. Paul's words address them better than mine could.
Also, I fail to see your connection between Jonah and Christ. Jonah runs away from God's commands, and last time I checked, never comes back from the dead. According to the Bible, Jonah was alive inside of the fish.
As far as Apollo goes, Christ is "The light of the World," not the pilot of the fire chariot that drags the sun across the sky, as Apollo was said to be. Christ tells us to be the same. He tells us to be shining lights left out for the whole world to see. Do you then claim that my own image as such is stolen from Apollo? I don't claim to be God, now.
You miss my point - Christ's image is derived from Apollo because of that same association with sunlight. It wasn't hard for the Romans (and other religions) to accept a new God associated with the light, especially as Christ was originally cast as a youthful figure which bore a striking resemblence to Greek depictions of Apollo. I'm not saying he serves exactly the same role in religion as Apollo did. Once again, synchratism.
The same could be said, however, about any Greek god, because they all have qualities that are are attributed by Christians to the work of God. The Greeks even had an "unknown god!"
You claim 1 in 100 people are related to Ghengis Khan. Where did you get this statistic? I think that's a little high.
You can think it all you like. It's 1/200 men, and it came from a genetics study not three months old. I'll dig it up for you if you want to read it yourself.
I didn't originally respond to that, but evolutionary fitness is defined by survival of your genes. Khan did pretty ****ing well, I'd say.
So then, you'd say it's the species that has the drive to survive, not the individual. Ghengis, then, at least on an evolutionary instinctual level, didn't care much for his own survival, but rather the passing on of his genes. Is that right?
In any event, you said it was because of his pride. Well, here's a statistic for you: Abram, of the Old Testament, was a humble person, who, at the ripe old age of 99, didn't have any legitimate children. Yet God insisted He would make Abram "the Father of nations." I'm sure you're aware, your genetics don't get passed down too well if you don't have any kids. Yet Abram believed in God, and fathered two kids, Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was illegitimate, had with his wife's servant Hagar, at his wife's insistence, because she was afraid she'd never give him any kids, despite what Abram said God had told him (Abram was 86 at this time, so it's not hard to imagine why she would be getting worried). God, keeping true to His promise, made Ishmael the father of the Arabic people, whom, as the Bible tells us, are indeed having a difficult time finding peace with their fellow men. Isaac, as I'm sure you know, fathered Esau and Jacob. Esau had his own little nation, and Jacob... well, Jacob is the father of the Jews. So basically, every single arabic person, every single semitic person, every single descendant of Edom (that's the people of Esau), are all carrying Abraham's genes. The Israelites, the majority of the population of the Arabian peninsula, Egypt, that entire region is full of Abraham's descendants. Just as God promised. Even after God told him to sacrifice his own son, which, Abraham had faith enough to do.
Marvelous. And not a solitary shred of evidence for the story outside a couple of religious texts which we know (not speculate, know, thanks to the meticulous way the Vatican has kept records) were altered for political reasons several times throughout the development of Christianity (in particular). One elderly man fathering a few kids isn't exactly a miracle either - while men's fertility is reduced with aging, it's not entirely eliminated, so it's entirely possible for a man over ahundred to father some kids... providing of course the old man can actually have intercourse with a woman, so maybe a little divine assistance (or blue pills) are necessary to the equation.
Are you kidding me? So all of the Jews alive today, and all of the Arabians who call Jacob and Ishmael their ancestors are not proof enough? That's a lot less of a feat to believe than to go so far as to say that they all came from the same primordial organism. Just because people care more to do a study on the genes of Ghengis Khan (which, btw, where did they get a sample to compare modern people to in this study?) than on the genes of Abraham doesn't make it any less of a possibility.
FYI, to believe in common ancestry on a species level is to believe in common ancestry on the level of racial and ethnic groups.
I don't know where you're getting your info, but some of it's a quite a bit off. Are you being so ignorant, then, to claim that Christ did not exist? That is a fallacy I believe to be beyond you. You still haven't answered my question: What do you believe?
None of my info is "off," my info just doesn't solely come from a political book roughly 1800 years old.
There is a remarkable amount of evidence for a carpenter living in the Roman province of Judea around the first century BCE, so I accept the existence of the person Jesus. Do I accept him as the manifestation of God on Earth? Nope. Do I think he was born to a virgin mother? THEORETICALLY speaking, parthenogenesis would be possible in humans with a really odd genetic mother, and the offspring would be visually male while genetically female (heh, I'd love to see the Christian reaction to that bit of information were testing possible), but it's unlikely (and I'm not even going to bother explaining how its theoretically possible either; it'll take too long and you won't understand it anyway). Much more likely is dear old Mary got herself knocked up either by her husband or someone else and proceeded on as normal to raise a healthy, loving son - her divinity was probably only established well after the death of Christ. Unfortunately, most of the records we have of Mary and Joseph exist solely in the Bible, a document I don't exactly trust for its historical accuracy.
That may be, but according to said Bible, Joseph at first didn't believe Mary, he thought she had had sex with some random person (they weren't even married yet, btw), and Joseph was going to call off the marriage quietly (which, btw, was opposite of the custom. Most men, when they found out their wives-to-be were messing around, embarassed and disgraced them publicly), but then had a sudden, inexplicable change of heart. IDK how much you know about Jewish culture, but from what I understand, sex sealed the deal on marriage, especially at that time. If Mary had had sex with someone else, her marriage to Joseph would then be less meaningful. Neither of them would be able to take it as true marriage, because of their cultural background.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think some of Christianity's lessons are valuable, particularly as many of them are echoed by other religions and they attempted to promote harmony and peace, but the institution of Christianity as it has developed is corrupt, closed-minded and self-serving, terribly unlike the original teachings of Christ. The same goes for Islam.
This is, to a point, what I believe, too. FYI, I serve Christ, not the Church. However, Christ was not simply a good moral teacher. He claimed to be God. If he were lying about that, we can't take him as a good moral teacher, because he would be a liar. He claimed to forgive sins. How asinine would it be of me to forgive, say, Karajorma for emptying your bank account? That's what Christ claimed to be able to do. By this claim, he implied that he was the chief person harmed by such acts. That was the basis of His entire method of teaching, as well as what He taught, thus making every bit of it void if He were not, in fact, God. Christ can be a lunatic (in which case, we shouldn't listen to a word He says), a demon (even more so!), or God. He did not simply seek to create harmony between men, but between men and God.
I'm agnostic. I believe there are higher powers in the universe which we do not understand and are not, at our current evolutionary and intellectual level, capable of understanding (this is one of the fundamental problems I have with religions: if there are Gods, who the hell are we to presume we understand their wishes, beliefs, or abilities?). I do not refer to those powers as Gods because I have no evidence that they are thinking or willfull beings; those powers may be merely the fundamental laws of the universe itself and may just exist, not actually be. At any rate, I certainly do not believe in any organized religion because most of them are so concerned with masking the truth for their own political ends (the Catholic Church is primarily a political organization, and has been since at least the 5th century CE) that they miss the big picture, and that saddens me.
The Biblical tales are great metaphors and contain important lessons for living what anyone could call a relatively good life, but the political baggage accompanying it has twisted the message so far that its almost unrecognizable. What should it matter to Christians if the story of Eden is a metaphor for the creation and fall of mankind, rather than an exact historical recollection? It shouldn't - but religion is now doctrine and for some stupid reason some people feel that the Bible must be literal and precise in order for its lessons to be valid. That isn't the case.
I'm sure even some of the most strict atheists around here will agree with me that religions contain valuable messages for a good life at their very core, but it's all the other crap that comes with them which turns them off. It certainly does for me. That said, I have nothing against the people who participate in organized religions unless they deem it necessary to intervene with factual understanding for the political purposes of doctrine. As far as belief, I don't give a flying **** what people believe, so long as it doesn't harm others.
You touch upon one of the greatest and saddest deceptions of Satan to date. I suppose we have a few corrupt popes to thank for that. I would agree with you that these powers might not even be thinking, willful beings, that they are entirely impersonal, the likes of which we cannot begin to comprehend in our present state, except for the fact that one called "God" became one of us.
You say you have no evidence that they are willful beings, but do you have any evidence to the contrary? You say we can't begin to understand them. Then why is one easier to believe than the other?
The Catholic Church in general has definitely gone way outside of what's true. There are many things the RCC puts out that I vehemently disagree with. It makes many claims which are contrary to what they claim to be their central foundational texts. They don't see it, and most of their followers don't care enough to open their eyes to it. Paying for penance, for example, is a disgusting practice in my eyes. They take this place, called Purgatory, which is only ever talked about in one book of the Apocryphal writings, whose very inspirations are highly questionable, and they tell people that their souls and the souls of their loved ones who believe in Christ can stay there for an indefinite amount of time, suffering. This time can be shortened by their prayers and by paying penance to the Church. Christ Himself denounced this practice in the NT.
Believe me, if I could, I would rewrite the organization called the RCC based on what God tells us. It's as much, if not moreso, of a tragedy for me as it is for you.
I've also said it's of little importance how we came to be (like what you said about Genesis being a metaphorical or literal account). I really don't care. The greatest purpose it serves is to show us our fall, and the entire Old Testament shows us why we need to "wash in the Blood of the Lamb." It all sets up a beautiful picture that shows us why we need Christ. You don't go to Hell for not accepting Christ. You go to Hell because you fail to live up to God's standards. Christ is our way out of that punishment. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you, but the reason you go to jail is not because you don't take the get-out-of-jail-free card.
I do disagree with you on ther importance of the Bible. It's not a collection of things meant to show people how to live better lives. It's meant to show people that they need grace, and then offer it to them.
I'm sure even some of the most strict atheists around here will agree with me that religions contain valuable messages for a good life at their very core, but it's all the other crap that comes with them which turns them off.
I'd be surprised if there were any who wouldn't say that.
I was once an atheist. It's because of that "other stuff" that the valuable message even exists, at least in the case of Christianity. Also, that other stuff didn't turn me off to it, it rather wouldn't let me go. I was a rather reluctant convert. I was in a sermon at a camp when the person preaching asked if their was anyone who was ready to put their faith in God. I wasn't. I didn't stand up, I didn't go up to the front, I sat there. Then I thought to myself, "Why not?" And for three days, I didn't have an answer, besides the fact that I didn't want to give up the atheism I'd held onto for 14 years, simply because it was familiar. I knew it was worthless compared to eternity with a God who loved me, but even so, I was reluctant to give up that part of me. So I didn't. But I couldn't stop asking myself, "why not?" I talked to some people about what I did believe, realized truly how imcomparably worthless it was, and got rid of it for something better. But for three days, all I could think about was "why not live forever? Why not be loved? Why should death be the end of it all? Why shouldn't there be a point to life?" I didn't have an answer. I still don't. Do you?
-
You went to a camp?
You basically volunteered to be brainwashed?
:wtf:
How about going to some Islamic camps now, or some Jewish camps? Maybe even some Buddhist or Hindu camps?
If you seek any kind of real truth, you won't just look at Christianity and decide "this is right".
-
:lol:
Why not delude yourself?
Why not believe your fairy stories must be true?
Why not? Cause I don't see a single good reason why I should.
-
:lol:
Why not delude yourself?
Why not believe your fairy stories must be true?
Why not? Cause I don't see a single good reason why I should.
These people do seem to have an easier life than the rest of us though.
-
The "tests" for virginity, especially in that day and age, are veeeeery inaccurate.
Really though, why couldn't Mary have been knocked up by a Roman soldier with a small wang? I'd like to see anyone find a Jewish girl who would tell everyone she was raped by a Roman soldier back then. So I don't see her telling anyone it happened.
Doesn't even have to be a Roman soldier, could've been anyone.
You don't need to delve into weird genetics with that explanation. :p
No.
You see, it wasn't Jesus who was the divine creation, but Mary. Since God needed a perfect host body for his creation (Jesus) he wouldn't do anything funky, just create a completely new, purebreed (think Arabian horse) body. And such Mary was created.
Now this gives us some ontological problems but I solved them. Since the quest for divinity and God requires to some extent becoming similar to your God, it would also mean that a feminine body that is... soiled by another man's touch is not, in fact, what God thinks of as perfect. Instead, it is the body of a virgin. This, obviously, means that when you are to follow Bible you have to have sex, but can only do it with virgin, otherwise it is a sin because... Well anyways. Now, sex with virgin is not as far-fetched as you'd like to think, but supply economics come in play about now and now we're in deep trouble, because we have roughly 1:1 ratio with males and females, and since every female is pretty quickly - some might even say hastily, but let's assume for a while that all men are steeds they are - ...deprecated, then we run out of virgins. Since God basically commands you to have sex, but (as we have established here) only sex with a virgin is morally sound, we're in trouble. Fear not! Catholic church is on the right track, because by banning contraception we effectively skyrocket the amount of pregnancies, and therefore also the number of future virgin womans which men can have sin-free sex (albeit only once).
But. Still, the ratio is 1:1. What to do? There are obviously far too many men in this calculation. The solution is simple: let's send them all to wage war on heretics, schismatics and other subhuman filth. By artificially raising the mortality rate among young males we will, in just a few decade, have a completely satisfactory relation of virgin females and lusty men. And so God's kingdom will come.
QED
-
These people do seem to have an easier life than the rest of us though.
So do most domesticated animals.
-
This is, to a point, what I believe, too. FYI, I serve Christ, not the Church. However, Christ was not simply a good moral teacher. He claimed to be God. If he were lying about that, we can't take him as a good moral teacher, because he would be a liar.
You know though he said he was the son of god, not god himself, just like many other god-men legends both at the time and before him. If Jesus was literally god, not just the son of god, I'd think I'd find it rather strange to try make Jesus' constantly talking to himself asking for himself to help himself make sence.
Then I thought to myself, "Why not?" And for three days, I didn't have an answer, besides the fact that I didn't want to give up the atheism I'd held onto for 14 years, simply because it was familiar. I knew it was worthless compared to eternity with a God who loved me, but even so, I was reluctant to give up that part of me. So I didn't. But I couldn't stop asking myself, "why not?" I talked to some people about what I did believe, realized truly how imcomparably worthless it was, and got rid of it for something better. But for three days, all I could think about was "why not live forever? Why not be loved? Why should death be the end of it all? Why shouldn't there be a point to life?" I didn't have an answer. I still don't. Do you?
Well it would be lovelly wouldnt it, of course from my point of view even if Biblical tales were true it would still be one of the most pointless existences I can possibly imagine. But I digress, just because its nice to think there is "more" to life doesnt mean there is. If you want to decide to believe in god or the Bible just beacuse it makes you feel warm and fuzzy thats fine, but thats not a good enough reason for me to believe and it isnt for a lot of other people either.
-
Name an episode where the Greek gods decide to punish the Greeks for a wrongdoing against them, and then decide they love the people so much they take the punishment upon themselves.
There are several (especially in the more tragic of the Gods and their offspring) but I don't recall details offhand. You can look them up as easily as I can. I don't have the time to go digging again right now. Sifting through classical Greek mythology is not my favorite of past-times. Regardless, the idea of a God saving individuals from thesemlves is not one that Christianity invented, merely adopted.
Name one such cult that has been such an unstoppable force to have endured for over two millenia.
[...] only to have been proven wrong by God?
*blink* That doesn't even address the point. Arguably, Christianity endured because of the social circumstances of the period, much in the same way that Islam has endured, and Judaism has endured, and so on in the Eastern religions. As for being proven wrong by God, you call it God, I'll call it the forces of social change... *shrug*
It's from the Bible, yes
Not interested unless you've got other factual evidence. I'm not debating the intricacies of theology.
Also, I fail to see your connection between Jonah and Christ.
Jonah's story is the original metaphorical resurrection/redemption myth in Christianity. There are others from other cultures before him as well.
The same could be said, however, about any Greek god, because they all have qualities that are are attributed by Christians to the work of God.
Did you even read what I've been posting, or are you so deep in that fairy tale of yours that you aren't comprehending? Visual depictions of Jesus in the 3rd and 4th century CE = visual depictions of Apollo. They changed again in the Byzantine Empire to a more familiar bearded Christ (though of a different quality in the depictions, e.e Hagia Sophia in Istanbul) we see today.
So then, you'd say it's the species that has the drive to survive, not the individual. Ghengis, then, at least on an evolutionary instinctual level, didn't care much for his own survival, but rather the passing on of his genes. Is that right?
Tell you what, you go educate yourself on evolution and then we'll discuss Khan's genetic heritage. Ditto goes for your quip at testing a little later.
Are you kidding me? So all of the Jews alive today, and all of the Arabians who call Jacob and Ishmael their ancestors are not proof enough?
Uh, no. People can call themselves whatever they like, and do so frequently for political purposes.
FYI, to believe in common ancestry on a species level is to believe in common ancestry on the level of racial and ethnic groups.
No, it's not. But good try.
That may be, but according to said Bible, Joseph at first didn't believe Mary, he thought she had had sex with some random person (they weren't even married yet, btw), and Joseph was going to call off the marriage quietly (which, btw, was opposite of the custom. Most men, when they found out their wives-to-be were messing around, embarassed and disgraced them publicly), but then had a sudden, inexplicable change of heart. IDK how much you know about Jewish culture, but from what I understand, sex sealed the deal on marriage, especially at that time. If Mary had had sex with someone else, her marriage to Joseph would then be less meaningful. Neither of them would be able to take it as true marriage, because of their cultural background.
I sincerely hope you find a girl as innocent and naive as yourself my friend, because otherwise you're in for a world of nastiness. It's called lies, deceit, deception, pick your word. People did it then just as now.
However, Christ was not simply a good moral teacher. He claimed to be God.
According to the faith my parents attempted to raise me in, Christ is the son of God. The Trinity is a particularly Catholic thing. Claiming Christ IS god is fallacious, because there is no consensus even among Christians.
You say you have no evidence that they are willful beings, but do you have any evidence to the contrary? You say we can't begin to understand them. Then why is one easier to believe than the other?
I have no evidence that says aliens didn't populate the Earth. Should I believe that then? Come on. No evidence against something doesn't mean it should be believed as a matter of Faith. I see no logical evidence against gravity, but I don't think the theory of gravity is a perfect understanding.
I was once an atheist.
You're 18.
No offense, but at 18 most people know precisely squat about the world. I daresay you didn't understand atheism nor do you probably understand all of your religion or its history, or even science for that matter, as is becoming more and more evident.
But for three days, all I could think about was "why not live forever? Why not be loved? Why should death be the end of it all? Why shouldn't there be a point to life?" I didn't have an answer. I still don't. Do you?
Alternatively:
The matter and energy that make me up do exist forever (thermodynamics). I'm loved by many people in my life; the opinions of mythical beings don't really matter a damn to me. Deaht is not the end of it all, merely the end of a single human life as it is so simply defined. There is a point to live - to live, and to allow your children and their children to live.
I don't need to put on my irrationality cap and hop on the Faith bandwagon to justify my existence, and frankly I don't understand people who do. I fully admit that I don't know everything, nor can I ever know everything, and a God, Gods, higher powers, flying spaghetti monsters, whatever may exist out there somewhere - but I'm not going to live my life as if their opinion (should they indeed have one) counts, especially as its preached to us by other people on Earth so wrapped up in their insecurities and power games that they could never be trusted.
Insecurity seems a pretty poor reason to shove rational thinking to the wind and jump on the bandwagon of what amounts to a 2000-year-old-cult-turned-political-bureaucracy.
-
I'd like to point out that Mary being a virgin is a mistranslation .
-
Source or details?
-
Source or details?
Well I should be more specific. Matthew says mary was a "parthenos" which means virgin. He quotes Hebrew text from Isaiah:
"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" - Mat 1:22-23
He says Isaiahs prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus, expect whoever wrote Matthew has mistranslated the Hebrew word "almah" as meaning virgin. Almah just means young woman. If Isaiah had actually meant to say virgin he could have used the word they actually had for that which was "betulah". In the King James they actually changed Isaiah to say virgin to make it fit Matthew.
But not only that the prophecy in Isaiah was never referring to Jesus in the first place but rather it was regarding the situation at the time. They'll probably claim it does, despite the evidence because they dont want to believe the writer of Matthew distorted the Hebrew texts in order to create legend, just like its so difficult to get them to accept that the story regarding Lucifer isnt actually anything to do with Satan.
-
Interesting.
-
Aren't there supposedly birth records that say Jesus had brothers and sisters or is that just another internet claim?
-
Aren't there supposedly birth records that say Jesus had brothers and sisters or is that just another internet claim?
Considering that it's pretty well established there's not much if any physical evidence of the J-man himself, I doubt it...
-
The bible does refer to Jesus having brothers and sisters but the meaning is sketchy as their is no word for cousin in Aramaic and the word for brother\sister was usually used. There are branches of Christianity that believe that Mary remained a virgin to her dying day. Dogma sums up my feelings on that point.
Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility.
-
The "tests" for virginity, especially in that day and age, are veeeeery inaccurate.
Really though, why couldn't Mary have been knocked up by a Roman soldier with a small wang? I'd like to see anyone find a Jewish girl who would tell everyone she was raped by a Roman soldier back then. So I don't see her telling anyone it happened.
Doesn't even have to be a Roman soldier, could've been anyone.
You don't need to delve into weird genetics with that explanation. :p
No.
You see, it wasn't Jesus who was the divine creation, but Mary. Since God needed a perfect host body for his creation (Jesus) he wouldn't do anything funky, just create a completely new, purebreed (think Arabian horse) body. And such Mary was created.
Now this gives us some ontological problems but I solved them. Since the quest for divinity and God requires to some extent becoming similar to your God, it would also mean that a feminine body that is... soiled by another man's touch is not, in fact, what God thinks of as perfect. Instead, it is the body of a virgin. This, obviously, means that when you are to follow Bible you have to have sex, but can only do it with virgin, otherwise it is a sin because... Well anyways. Now, sex with virgin is not as far-fetched as you'd like to think, but supply economics come in play about now and now we're in deep trouble, because we have roughly 1:1 ratio with males and females, and since every female is pretty quickly - some might even say hastily, but let's assume for a while that all men are steeds they are - ...deprecated, then we run out of virgins. Since God basically commands you to have sex, but (as we have established here) only sex with a virgin is morally sound, we're in trouble. Fear not! Catholic church is on the right track, because by banning contraception we effectively skyrocket the amount of pregnancies, and therefore also the number of future virgin womans which men can have sin-free sex (albeit only once).
But. Still, the ratio is 1:1. What to do? There are obviously far too many men in this calculation. The solution is simple: let's send them all to wage war on heretics, schismatics and other subhuman filth. By artificially raising the mortality rate among young males we will, in just a few decade, have a completely satisfactory relation of virgin females and lusty men. And so God's kingdom will come.
QED
Do you mean "your god" as in my god?
I don't have one of those.
-
Oh noes a Trashman vs Karajorma argument! :shaking: Take cover!
Nah. There's no venom left in me these days. I only do them now cause it's so much fun watching him paint himself into a corner.
Just thought I'd bring this up. :D
-
The bible does refer to Jesus having brothers and sisters but the meaning is sketchy as their is no word for cousin in Aramaic and the word for brother\sister was usually used. There are branches of Christianity that believe that Mary remained a virgin to her dying day. Dogma sums up my feelings on that point.
Bethany: Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. Mary was a virgin.
Rufus: Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility.
Pfft. ..Like there aren't people who remain virgins till they die today..in this day and age (sexual revolution and the overinflated importance of sex).
If it can happen today it's even more believable that it could have happened before.
-
Overinflated importance of sex? You do realise that there's a cultural crisis in the west where couples are having less sex due to the pressures of work and thus resulting in more depression?
-
Pfft. ..Like there aren't people who remain virgins till they die today..in this day and age (sexual revolution and the overinflated importance of sex).
If it can happen today it's even more believable that it could have happened before.
1. Sex is even more repressed today than it ever was in the Victorian era (see Foucault, M. "A History of Sexuality")
2. The legal (in religious terms) and spiritual consummation of marriage requires sexual intercourse. No intercourse, no consummation, marriage isn't valid.
Joe and Mar got it on at least once. Mary != virgin.
-
The Bible states that Joseph and Mary did not have relations until after Jesus was born. After Jesus was born, it can be assumed true, because Jesus had brothers.
-
Pfft. ..Like there aren't people who remain virgins till they die today..in this day and age (sexual revolution and the overinflated importance of sex).
If it can happen today it's even more believable that it could have happened before.
1. Sex is even more repressed today than it ever was in the Victorian era (see Foucault, M. "A History of Sexuality")
2. The legal (in religious terms) and spiritual consummation of marriage requires sexual intercourse. No intercourse, no consummation, marriage isn't valid.
Joe and Mar got it on at least once. Mary != virgin.
1. Bollocks. P0rn and naked bodies can be seen on every street corner.
2. Where did you get that? And if so, what of it?
Unless you can somehow prove your statement it's as valid as the dirt under my fingernails.
-
@ number 1: I'd say it depends on what country you live in. In Japan the only thing that really happened since 1945 is that you can't walk in naked to a public bath. But a lot of countries are more open about sex than America, even if the country has improved a lot since the 50s.
Ryan might have an interesting point. I'd wish he'd go into detail about this Victorian era stuff. I hate it when someone actually posts an intellectual comment on the Internet but their post is still shorter than their signature. Enlighten us, please.
-
As far as consummation is concerned, it's a mixed bag. There are laws regarding anullment of the marriage if there is some reason that it cannot be consummated. That law itself is an interpretation of far older laws that, whilst not in the Bible, have certainly been around for the same length of time. There is mention in Corinthians of a wife or husband not able to fulfill their obligations through 'deception', but no mention of sexual intercourse being the 'final confirmation.'.
Catholics believe strongly that Mary, Joseph and Jesus were all Virgins till the day they died, personally, I find that hard to believe, the purpose of marriage was to procreate, even the Bible says that making a good match is more important than being in love. There was a very definite social pressure on Joseph in particular to produce progeny, only having one son, one who doesn't even see Joseph as the father, would be a massive humiliation to him, the worst fate of any family around that time was for the bloodline to die out, there would have been too much social and familial pressure on both Joseph and Mary for something like that to happen.
-
Catholics believe strongly that Mary, Joseph and Jesus were all Virgins till the day they died, personally, I find that hard to believe, the purpose of marriage was to procreate, even the Bible says that making a good match is more important than being in love.
Nobody said anything about Joseph. He gets a rather short shrift, honestly, since he's not mentioned much if at all in the sections dealing with Jesus' final days. Arguably, he disowned his son by then, because he would not even pay to have him buried. Or he was dead. Pick one, really. He might even have divorced and remarried, since Mary was wandering around Jerusalem alone apparently.
As for Mary, the whole virgin until she died is a commonly held belief, enough to have entered popular lexicon, but when you get right down to it with somebody really familar with Catholic theology, as I once did with a priest from the local parish, you realize it is just that. It is a belief, or an assumption. There is no real evidence to support it either way. For all the evidence in the textual record Mary could have held wild orgies after Jesus' early life and then reformed for her return during the section dealing with his death.
-
Exactly, just because it didn't specifically say she did, does not mean she did not, after all, the focus of the Bible was Jesus, as you say, there is remarkably little detail on them after they had done their 'job' (introduced Jesus to the world).
-
Pfft. ..Like there aren't people who remain virgins till they die today..in this day and age (sexual revolution and the overinflated importance of sex).
If it can happen today it's even more believable that it could have happened before.
1. Sex is even more repressed today than it ever was in the Victorian era (see Foucault, M. "A History of Sexuality")
2. The legal (in religious terms) and spiritual consummation of marriage requires sexual intercourse. No intercourse, no consummation, marriage isn't valid.
Joe and Mar got it on at least once. Mary != virgin.
1. Bollocks. P0rn and naked bodies can be seen on every street corner.
Wherever you live, I'm moving there...
-
He didn't say it was female bodies or hetrosexual porn.
Which I tend to feel answers a great deal.
-
That was either below the belt or he lives in Hillcrest.