What is your religion?

[Revdyer]

Didn't the Rev say that the Bible should not be considered as a factual, literal document, but instead should be seen as an allegorical and metaphorical document that describes and portrays the complex and variagated world-view that is Christianity?


Thanks for the nice words. Thanks, jacques, too. I just try to tell the truth as I've experienced it.

In passing, "allegorical" is a technical term that I am rather shy of. I don't think there is much allegory in the Bible as we have it. There is, however, parable, a much more interesting (to me) literary genre. And there are plenty of places and ways in which the Bible is "factual," (it is, after all, in the Hebrew records, the primary historical document we have for the eras of the monarchies of the eleventh to fifth centuries before the common era), but not in the sense of a rigid inerrancy.
Revdyer, your posts in this thread inspire me. Yes, the Bible/Torah is NOT a tool for bullets, but a tool for love. It sickens me that so many wars have been waged over RELIGION of all things! Religion should be used to make peace and love, not war and hate.Thanks, BMS. Unfortunately, the day of Shalom has not yet arrived. But we hope and pray and work for that peace.

[Penitus]

I hope to change my mind someday, but something amazing, inspiring, wonderful, and commendable like "let's work for peace" easily turns into "let's tolerate x" which turns into "let's tolerate almost everything." Then evil gets its foot in the door, and society slides a little bit more into sin.

I'm all for peace and unity of all religions, as well as atheists, agnostics, and so forth, but I also refuse to compromise my Christian values.

Let the Matt bashing commence, because I'm clearly insane.

[Jotun]

Real Time with Bill Maher

New Rules: A Religious Test (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/09/bill_maher_new_31.html)

The religion part begins after a few jokes and takes up the last half of the clip.

[Jotun]

I hope to change my mind someday, but something amazing, inspiring, wonderful, and commendable like "let's work for peace" easily turns into "let's tolerate x" which turns into "let's tolerate almost everything." Then evil gets its foot in the door, and society slides a little bit more into sin.

I'm all for peace and unity of all religions, as well as atheists, agnostics, and so forth, but I also refuse to compromise my Christian values.

Let the Matt bashing commence, because I'm clearly insane.

The Taliban feels the same way. If you just obey their rules, no problem. All they're doing is refusing to compromise their religion.

[jaques]

I hope to change my mind someday, but something amazing, inspiring, wonderful, and commendable like "let's work for peace" easily turns into "let's tolerate x" which turns into "let's tolerate almost everything." Then evil gets its foot in the door, and society slides a little bit more into sin.

I'm all for peace and unity of all religions, as well as atheists, agnostics, and so forth, but I also refuse to compromise my Christian values.

Let the Matt bashing commence, because I'm clearly insane.

You're not insane. You're just not willing to believe in the power of teaching by example.

You prefer the method of compelling people over the method of leading them.

And you believe, for some reason, that it's your business to be concerned about everyone else's sin, as opposed to just your own.

There's nothing insane or, sadly, unusual about that.

[Chimpy]

I think part of this may fall under the fact that the Lord says many times that he judges nations (I don't have the scripture on me, but I can find it for you) as well as indivisuals. From this standpoint- we must try and keep our nation clean or lose God's favor -the view that we should try and stop other people's sin is rationalized.

P.S. Did I spell that last word right?

[brickman1444]

This is a great thread! If it hasn't been discussed already, what are you guys's opinions on The Secret? I beleive it's a load of, um, poo.

[jaques]

I think part of this may fall under the fact that the Lord says many times that he judges nations (I don't have the scripture on me, but I can find it for you) as well as indivisuals. From this standpoint- we must try and keep our nation clean or lose God's favor -the view that we should try and stop other people's sin is rationalized.

P.S. Did I spell that last word right?

Why is it that Christians so often seem worried about whether their nation is judged as sinful, but so rarely seem worried about whether it is judged as peaceful, loving, merciful, charitable, just, or kind?

P.S. You did spell "rationalized" right. But you spelled "individuals" wrong. :P

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

This is a great thread! If it hasn't been discussed already, what are you guys's opinions on The Secret? I beleive it's a load of, um, poo.
The Secret is fine as long as you understand that you can't alter reality with your mind - the positive thinking part is dandy though.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

I think part of this may fall under the fact that the Lord says many times that he judges nations (I don't have the scripture on me, but I can find it for you) as well as indivisuals. From this standpoint- we must try and keep our nation clean or lose God's favor -the view that we should try and stop other people's sin is rationalized.
This thinking truly scare's me.

[Dictatorbilbo]

I think part of this may fall under the fact that the Lord says many times that he judges nations (I don't have the scripture on me, but I can find it for you) as well as indivisuals. From this standpoint- we must try and keep our nation clean or lose God's favor -the view that we should try and stop other people's sin is rationalized.
This thinking truly scare's me.

And it's everywhere...

[Penitus]

I hope to change my mind someday, but something amazing, inspiring, wonderful, and commendable like "let's work for peace" easily turns into "let's tolerate x" which turns into "let's tolerate almost everything." Then evil gets its foot in the door, and society slides a little bit more into sin.

I'm all for peace and unity of all religions, as well as atheists, agnostics, and so forth, but I also refuse to compromise my Christian values.

Let the Matt bashing commence, because I'm clearly insane.

You're not insane. You're just not willing to believe in the power of teaching by example.

You prefer the method of compelling people over the method of leading them.

And you believe, for some reason, that it's your business to be concerned about everyone else's sin, as opposed to just your own.

There's nothing insane or, sadly, unusual about that.

Great observations. It is true that I am trying to look out for all, even if that means through the law.

I consider that to be an extension of the law anyway. It's hard to deny that Judeo-Christianity has a ton of influence on the laws of most societies in the world have today. I just want to take it a few steps further. For example, taking the USA to its pre-abortion days through ministry, voting pro-life, etc.. If that means that I'm intolerant, then I'll be nice and comfy being intolerant.

[Fezzikthedoor]

I hope to change my mind someday, but something amazing, inspiring, wonderful, and commendable like "let's work for peace" easily turns into "let's tolerate x" which turns into "let's tolerate almost everything." Then evil gets its foot in the door, and society slides a little bit more into sin.

I'm all for peace and unity of all religions, as well as atheists, agnostics, and so forth, but I also refuse to compromise my Christian values.

Let the Matt bashing commence, because I'm clearly insane.

You're not insane. You're just not willing to believe in the power of teaching by example.

You prefer the method of compelling people over the method of leading them.

And you believe, for some reason, that it's your business to be concerned about everyone else's sin, as opposed to just your own.

There's nothing insane or, sadly, unusual about that.

Great observations. It is true that I am trying to look out for all, even if that means through the law.

I consider that to be an extension of the law anyway. It's hard to deny that Judeo-Christianity has a ton of influence on the laws of most societies in the world have today. I just want to take it a few steps further. For example, taking the USA to its pre-abortion days through ministry, voting pro-life, etc.. If that means that I'm intolerant, then I'll be nice and comfy being intolerant.

Uhh....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Practice your religion all you want, but the moment you ask the government to enforce a law simply based upon your personal creed you have implicitly crossed the line. Always think what life would be like if the jackboot were on the other foot:

If, for example, I were to say that all women should not be allowed to wear a miniskirt, had such a law passed at a State or Federal level, and then said that the rational for it was right there in the Koran and that "if not wanting women to dress as whores is wrong then I don't want to be right" I suspect you'd have a problem with it.

Conversly, if the only justification you can offer in a nation that does not have a state religion--regardless of the influences of the law--is religious, it doesn't make you intolerant, it makes you a member of a tolitarian regime in waiting.

[jaques]

Great observations. It is true that I am trying to look out for all, even if that means through the law.

I consider that to be an extension of the law anyway. It's hard to deny that Judeo-Christianity has a ton of influence on the laws of most societies in the world have today. I just want to take it a few steps further. For example, taking the USA to its pre-abortion days through ministry, voting pro-life, etc.. If that means that I'm intolerant, then I'll be nice and comfy being intolerant.

You may be comfy being intolerant, but in no way are you justified in claiming that it is "nice."

[Chimpy]

Why is it that Christians so often seem worried about whether their nation is judged as sinful, but so rarely seem worried about whether it is judged as peaceful, loving, merciful, charitable, just, or kind?



I think it is all viewed under one umbrella. If you follow this kind of thinking, a peaceful, kind, and just nation would not have a problem being sinful in the first place.

Personally, I am much less concerned about the prominence of homosexuality or stuff of that ilk as I am of the general lowering standards of our society. In my eyes, a society should be God fearing. America is the opposite of that right now. Where we should be humble, we are proud. Where we should be selfless, we are self serving. Where we should build strong communities, we worship the individual. America has become a place where it is all about how much you can stand out, a country that idolizes he who can break the most rules.

We live in a country where someone can get murdered on the street and not have a neighbor stop by and help them. We care no longer for those around us; it is Gimme, Gimme, Gimme! every day of the week. And while we seek for our country and kinsmen to give us more and more, people in turn find themselves hating the institution that provides it for them. You will be hard pressed to find someone proclaiming how lucky they actually are.


So how does this tie into faith? Iif you look at the scriptures (mainly the Old Testament, but if you are LDS you find this as a prominent theme in the Book of Mormon too) a clear pattern can be seen among the nations God has blessed. They start out as God fearing and morally correct. Because of this, they are blessed with prosperity. Over time they begin to take their prosperity for granted, and soon they are a prideful, sinful nation. At this point God punishes them for their sinful nature and we start back on square one.

(Interestingly, this kind of progression is supported by quite a lot of historians. Many nations are brought down by their pride throughout the course of mankind.)

Now I, and most Christians, have question to ask ourselves. We see the horrible amount of pride and hate (and the further moral problems such selflessness causes) in our country. Then we see the scriptures saying that this leads to the downfall of many blessed nations. What do we do? Do we stand by and let immorality grip the country? Or do we force others to believe and behave as we do?

It is a hard, lose-lose question. But it is an important one. It is the one question every Christian leader and politician has to come to terms with before they ascend to office. Because there is precious little time to decide once your there.

[johnny139]

Because, though America has roots in religion, it was born as a country WITHOUT religion. ANY other country in the world, and at some point since it's foundation, religion has been a central point. America doesn't listen to the word of God because it never has to. It's like giving the Bible to a kid that was raised not knowing what the word "God" means. Why should he listen to some stuffy old book?

America has never NEEDED to have God. The government has never said that you need to read the Bible, or go to church. As a result, the people's belief has waned - I'm sure a good portion of the people that call themselves Christian don't go to Church or pray.

That's just how it is.

[jaques]

Why is it that Christians so often seem worried about whether their nation is judged as sinful, but so rarely seem worried about whether it is judged as peaceful, loving, merciful, charitable, just, or kind?



I think it is all viewed under one umbrella. If you follow this kind of thinking, a peaceful, kind, and just nation would not have a problem being sinful in the first place.

Personally, I am much less concerned about the prominence of homosexuality or stuff of that ilk as I am of the general lowering standards of our society. In my eyes, a society should be God fearing. America is the opposite of that right now. Where we should be humble, we are proud. Where we should be selfless, we are self serving. Where we should build strong communities, we worship the individual. America has become a place where it is all about how much you can stand out, a country that idolizes he who can break the most rules.

We live in a country where someone can get murdered on the street and not have a neighbor stop by and help them. We care no longer for those around us; it is Gimme, Gimme, Gimme! every day of the week. And while we seek for our country and kinsmen to give us more and more, people in turn find themselves hating the institution that provides it for them. You will be hard pressed to find someone proclaiming how lucky they actually are.


So how does this tie into faith? Iif you look at the scriptures (mainly the Old Testament, but if you are LDS you find this as a prominent theme in the Book of Mormon too) a clear pattern can be seen among the nations God has blessed. They start out as God fearing and morally correct. Because of this, they are blessed with prosperity. Over time they begin to take their prosperity for granted, and soon they are a prideful, sinful nation. At this point God punishes them for their sinful nature and we start back on square one.

(Interestingly, this kind of progression is supported by quite a lot of historians. Many nations are brought down by their pride throughout the course of mankind.)

Now I, and most Christians, have question to ask ourselves. We see the horrible amount of pride and hate (and the further moral problems such selflessness causes) in our country. Then we see the scriptures saying that this leads to the downfall of many blessed nations. What do we do? Do we stand by and let immorality grip the country? Or do we force others to believe and behave as we do?

It is a hard, lose-lose question. But it is an important one. It is the one question every Christian leader and politician has to come to terms with before they ascend to office. Because there is precious little time to decide once your there.

So your solution to the fact that this country has become too prideful and selfish is to believe you have the right to force others how to think and act?

Dude, your very solution shows that you're part of the prideful problem, not part of the solution.

Isn't it the meek who shall inherit the Earth? I'm not sure how "meek" it sounds to go around trying to force your beliefs on others.

[Chimpy]

Hmm. I did not say that too well. I don't support the whole "Force others to believe what I do." That is not the way to do it. My intention was to show the dilemma Christian policy makers are in. it is wrong to force our points on the populace, but it is bad to have an immoral country.

EDIT: Because, though America has roots in religion, it was born as a country WITHOUT religion. ANY other country in the world, and at some point since it's foundation, religion has been a central point. America doesn't listen to the word of God because it never has to. It's like giving the Bible to a kid that was raised not knowing what the word "God" means. Why should he listen to some stuffy old book?

America has never NEEDED to have God. The government has never said that you need to read the Bible, or go to church. As a result, the people's belief has waned - I'm sure a good portion of the people that call themselves Christian don't go to Church or pray.

That's just how it is.

I never said that everybody needs to believe in God. That is not what is meant when I say "God Fearing." Rather, the God fearing problem manifests with the irreverant selfish attitutes on pretty much everything in American society.

[Bloody the Marro Stinger]

Hmm. I did not say that too well. I don't support the whole "Force others to believe what I do." That is not the way to do it. My intention was to show the dilemma Christian policy makers are in. it is wrong to force of our points, but it is bad to have an immoral country.
Not in a country where freedom is well valued. Having a National Religion is like saying to all the other religions in a "free" country "You're screwed".
Of course, chances are I'm completely misunderstanding you.

[johnny139]

Because, though America has roots in religion, it was born as a country WITHOUT religion. ANY other country in the world, and at some point since it's foundation, religion has been a central point. America doesn't listen to the word of God because it never has to. It's like giving the Bible to a kid that was raised not knowing what the word "God" means. Why should he listen to some stuffy old book?

America has never NEEDED to have God. The government has never said that you need to read the Bible, or go to church. As a result, the people's belief has waned - I'm sure a good portion of the people that call themselves Christian don't go to Church or pray.

That's just how it is.

I never said that everybody needs to believe in God. That is not what is meant when I say "God Fearing." Rather, the God fearing problem manifests with the irreverant selfish attitutes on pretty much everything in American society.

Is that a problem of faith, or of people? Most people in America are Christian, unless I'm mistaken, and we aren't any less selfish or egotistical. America is prideful and, sometimes, stupid. No religion will change that.

[Chimpy]

*sigh*

I do not support a national religion. I never have, never will.

Let me use a quote from earlier in this thread to exemplify my views.

Practice your religion all you want, but the moment you ask the government to enforce a law simply based upon your personal creed you have implicitly crossed the line

What is a personal creed? I think it is fair to say that everybody's choices are decided by their own values. Now, my values are religious in nature. So does that mean that they are invalid?

It is always hard to legislate morality, as everybody has a different definition of it. Even so, governments do it all the time. Take illegal drugs. Why are they banned? Why can't I just say: "I want to take drugs and you do not have the right to tell me otherwise!"

We face the same debacle with religion. A large majority thinks certain actions are morally questionable. Does that give them the right to outlaw such actions?


That is the real question behind the whole mess. Where do you draw the line?

[Jotun]

So how does this tie into faith? Iif you look at the scriptures (mainly the Old Testament, but if you are LDS you find this as a prominent theme in the Book of Mormon too) a clear pattern can be seen among the nations God has blessed. They start out as God fearing and morally correct. Because of this, they are blessed with prosperity. Over time they begin to take their prosperity for granted, and soon they are a prideful, sinful nation. At this point God punishes them for their sinful nature and we start back on square one.

(Interestingly, this kind of progression is supported by quite a lot of historians. Many nations are brought down by their pride throughout the course of mankind.)


"Mormonism is just Scientology without the celebrities." - Bill Maher

Nothing you said is true at all. Just as Rome didn't fall apart because of homosexuality, excessive pride or sin was not the reason Rome fell either. Rome's fall is very complex and not even totally understood by historians, but I seriously doubt that any historian with any reputability would sum up nearly any fall of a nation as having only one or two sources. One more example of religious folks wanting things to be black and white. Sorry, but the world is much more complex than that.

Obviously, as always, there is ZERO proof that God had any part to play.

[Jotun]

I think it's time for some Carl Sagan quotes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) to add more hope and reason to this thread:

"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'"

"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge."

[Chimpy]

You are correct, you really cannot say "X happens because of Y" in history. If you wanted me to, I could get really specific as to why or how nations rise and fall. However, I think you could pin Rome's arrogance and general lack of community was a big part of it.

Consider this: Rome sees itself as the big number one. It was a nation absorbed in a Pride complex. Romans had very little humility and could not picture a world where they were not on top. The Romans had a characteristic life of luxury. At the same time, they had no loyalty to their country, province, or neighbors. At their end they were no longer the country of great, proud armies, but a sick, corrupt, selfish morass.

When disaster did come, Romans were shocked. They had spilt their society apart, and now that the fabric of life was torn they could not stitch it back together. They were powerless to stop the dissolution of their empire.


I am not saying that God sent the Huns or the Visigoths towards Rome. While I do think the idea that a prideful society is a doomed society applies to Rome, I don't think it is best used in the spiritual sense.

[Warning: I am going into pure Mormon mode in a minute. My thought process might not fit that of all Christians.]

Rather, this should be reserved for countries that the Lord has specifically blessed. (Blessed refers to two things: prosperity, and the gospel.) The Israelites had prophets walking the Earth showing them how blessed they were and instructing them how to keep those blessings. In the modern day we also have prophets that tell us what we can do to have favor with the Lord. Now if Americans have been granted such a blessing as to have the Lord speak to them directly, and then they turn around and ignore it, I cannot see anything but a reprimand from the Lord.

EDIT: Jotun, I like those quotes. Personally, I have no problems with them. In fact, I can think of very few people in my faith who don't. I once knew a Mormon bishop who was also a physisist. He told me that the amazing things he saw and learned about the Universe only made his faith grew. In my view, science only helps us understand God that much more.

[jaques]

Hmm. I did not say that too well. I don't support the whole "Force others to believe what I do." That is not the way to do it. My intention was to show the dilemma Christian policy makers are in. it is wrong to force our points on the populace, but it is bad to have an immoral country.


There is no dilemma. Christian policy makers can make the obvious choice to lead, persuade, and teach instead of judge, lecture and browbeat.

Here are the steps:

1) Christians lead good, faithful lives in which they are tolerant and charitable while testifying to the tremendous positive impact of their faith on their own lives.
2) Nonbelievers either take them up on the great promise of Christianity (go to step 15), or they don't (go to step 3).
3) The nonbelievers either don't do anything all that bad (go to step 15) or they drive the nation into immorality (go to step 4).
4) God judges the nation harshly, and visits upon it a variety of calamities.
5) Christians who have kept the faith are prosperous throughout the calamities, even as the nation overall suffers.
6) Nonbelievers observe that Christians are prosperous and happy even while disaster prevails.
7) Nonbelievers either begin to listen to Christians (go to step 15) or they don't (go to step 8).
8) Eventually, nonbelievers become so outraged by the suspiciously good fortune of the Christians that they begin persecuting them.
9) A wrathful God sends even greater disaster upon the nation.
10) Seeing their lot in life turn ever more horrific, the nonbelievers either relent and begin to listen to the Christians (go to step 15) or they begin to kill them all (go to step 11).
11) The Christians turn the other cheek and allow themselves to become martyrs.
12) Some among the nonbelievers see the astonishing power of Christian faith and take it up themselves.
13) Either these new converts become the majority (return to step 1) or they too are killed (go to step 14).
14) Purged of Christianity through the willful malice and immorality of these heathens, the nation brings upon itself its own destruction, either through invasion by other, more prosperous (and presumably more Christian) nations, or through God's direct intervention. (Return to step 1 or go to step 15, whichever is more appropriate.)
15) Everything works out fine, with all the Christians going on to heaven and all the nonbelievers being doomed to hell.


Early Christians understood this process and had the true faith to let themselves be martyred in order to serve as an example to others. They had no fear of death, because they truly believed themselves to be eternal beings with a guarantee of blissful, infinite existence in the bosom of the Lord.

Many of today's Christians, though, cannot see the big picture. They cannot think as eternal beings. They do not recognize that any amount of persecution and pain in this world is totally insignificant, given their status of eternal salvation.

They somehow, in their arrogance, believe that if they do not legislate and coerce others into following their particular interpretation of the Bible's moral code, then their all-loving, all-caring, benevolent God will allow Christianity to perish off the face of the Earth.

They do not, in short, trust God to keep his door open to his children.

[Jotun]

Jotun, I like those quotes. Personally, I have no problems with them. In fact, I can think of very few people in my faith who don't. I once knew a Mormon bishop who was also a physicist. He told me that the amazing things he saw and learned about the Universe only made his faith grew. In my view, science only helps us understand God that much more.

That's good to hear. Despite my personal feelings on religion, it is good to hear that not every Christian believes the world is 6,000 years old and that we just magically appeared despite all the evidence of evolution.

I don't have it but there is a quote about how if one truly wants to understand God then they should study how the universe works. Makes sense to me.

[Ullar]

I am a mix of Islam and Catholicism (take it easy I am trying to be better in my spelling and grammer damn public schools don't teach this stuff anymore)

[Jotun]

I am a mix of Islam and Catholicism (take it easy I am trying to be better in my spelling and grammer darn public schools don't teach this stuff anymore).

You did quite well, Ullar. I believe the only thing you forgot is a period.

[Chimpy]

There is no dilemma. Christian policy makers can make the obvious choice to lead, persuade, and teach instead of judge, lecture and browbeat.

Here are the steps....



Now your list is nice and all, but it takes a couple of assumptions that skew your point.

For example, who says that the true Christians would be totally exempt from the "punishments" everybody else is getting? Are they not both part of the same nation?

Also, for clarification's sake, are you saying that if God does reprimand countries, and the Saints realize that he will do so, they should not try and stop it? What is worse, the loss of immoral (as defined by the Christians) acts and liberties, or death on a large scale?




Many of today's Christians, though, cannot see the big picture. They cannot think as eternal beings. They do not recognize that any amount of persecution and pain in this world is totally insignificant, given their status of eternal salvation.

They somehow, in their arrogance, believe that if they do not legislate and coerce others into following their particular interpretation of the Bible's moral code, then their all-loving, all-caring, benevolent God will allow Christianity to perish off the face of the Earth.

They do not, in short, trust God to keep his door open to his children.

I think that last part is a great quote. In the end, I really do agree with you. If I was a congressman, and I had to vote on something such as Gay Marriage, I really cannot see myself voting against it. I am just trying to highlight the conflicting problems a lot of the politicins can have.


But, I do want to ask a question to the public. Can you guys tell me what the difference is between:


* A law that prohibits robbery

*A law that prohibits the consumption of alchalol

And

*A law that prohibits same sex marriage



I here many people say "you shouldn't make laws based on religious values." Yet, for me, each one of those are religious values. Where is the line drawn as to what you can and cannot legislate?

P.S. I didn't spell check this one. Forgive me.

[Bloody the Marro Stinger]

There is no dilemma. Christian policy makers can make the obvious choice to lead, persuade, and teach instead of judge, lecture and browbeat.

Here are the steps....



Now your list is nice and all, but it takes a couple of assumptions that skew your point.

For example, who says that the true Christians would be totally exempt from the "punishments" everybody else is getting? Are they not both part of the same nation?

Also, for clarification's sake, are you saying that if God does reprimand countries, and the Saints realize that he will do so, they should not try and stop it? What is worse, the loss of immoral (as defined by the Christians) acts and liberties, or death on a large scale?




Many of today's Christians, though, cannot see the big picture. They cannot think as eternal beings. They do not recognize that any amount of persecution and pain in this world is totally insignificant, given their status of eternal salvation.

They somehow, in their arrogance, believe that if they do not legislate and coerce others into following their particular interpretation of the Bible's moral code, then their all-loving, all-caring, benevolent God will allow Christianity to perish off the face of the Earth.

They do not, in short, trust God to keep his door open to his children.

I think that last part is a great quote. In the end, I really do agree with you. If I was a congressman, and I had to vote on something such as Gay Marriage, I really cannot see myself voting against it. I am just trying to highlight the conflicting problems a lot of the politicins can have.


But, I do want to ask a question to the public. Can you guys tell me what the difference is between:


* A law that prohibits robbery

*A law that prohibits the consumption of alchalol

And

*A law that prohibits same sex marriage



I here many people say "you shouldn't make laws based on religious values." Yet, for me, each one of those are religious values. Where is the line drawn as to what you can and cannot legislate?

P.S. I didn't spell check this one. Forgive me.
Just to be a devil's advocate...
Tell me how consumption of alcahol is a relgious value? I'm not seeing it. Then again, I'm not Christian...

[Dictatorbilbo]

But, I do want to ask a question to the public. Can you guys tell me what the difference is between:


* A law that prohibits robbery

*A law that prohibits the consumption of alchalol

And

*A law that prohibits same sex marriage



I here many people say "you shouldn't make laws based on religious values." Yet, for me, each one of those are religious values. Where is the line drawn as to what you can and cannot legislate?.

Yes; 2 directly harm other people in a readily measurable concrete sense, whereas 1 does not.

Now your list is nice and all, but it takes a couple of assumptions that skew your point.

For example, who says that the true Christians would be totally exempt from the "punishments" everybody else is getting? Are they not both part of the same nation?

Also, for clarification's sake, are you saying that if God does reprimand countries, and the Saints realize that he will do so, they should not try and stop it? What is worse, the loss of immoral (as defined by the Christians) acts and liberties, or death on a large scale?

Of course, you are making enormous assumptions yourself. :)

I could not reconcile myself with a god that acted in that manner. And, despite these arguments, the constitution still mandates the seperation of church and state. While the interpretation of this varies, this does not change the fact that it is still there.

[Ullar]

I am a mix of Islam and Catholicism (take it easy I am trying to be better in my spelling and grammer darn public schools don't teach this stuff anymore).

You did quite well, Ullar. I believe the only thing you forgot is a period.
Thanks! And Do'h!

[jaques]

Now your list is nice and all, but it takes a couple of assumptions that skew your point.

For example, who says that the true Christians would be totally exempt from the "punishments" everybody else is getting? Are they not both part of the same nation?
My argument takes for granted what most Christians take for granted -- that God does show at least some measure of favoritism to those who appropriately worship him. So even if the Christians within this hypothetical nation aren't completely sheltered from the punishments, they will be relatively better off than the nonbelievers.
Also, for clarification's sake, are you saying that if God does reprimand countries, and the Saints realize that he will do so, they should not try and stop it? What is worse, the loss of immoral (as defined by the Christians) acts and liberties, or death on a large scale?

Death on a large scale is meaningless when measured against eternity. Half the people who've ever lived are alive today, so we're talking about maybe 14 billion people in all of history. Say they average 100 years of life each (throwing in some Methuselahs for good measure :wink: ), and you've got 1.4 trillion person-years of life. One person in heaven is an infinite number of person-years of afterlife. So all the life/death in all of history is mathematically minute compared to even one person's afterlife.

If Christians use authoritarian legal dictates to impose their morality on others, it will inevitably lead to some people rejecting Christianity who otherwise would be saved. Even one person suffering for eternity in hell is a greater quantity of suffering than all human suffering that has ever occurred throughout history.

So yes, the Saints presumably would prefer massive Earthly suffering over the alienation of even a single soul from salvation.

They do not, in short, trust God to keep his door open to his children.

I think that last part is a great quote. In the end, I really do agree with you. If I was a congressman, and I had to vote on something such as Gay Marriage, I really cannot see myself voting against it. I am just trying to highlight the conflicting problems a lot of the politicins can have.

I hugely appreciate your compliment here, and your attempt to create perspective.

But, I do want to ask a question to the public. Can you guys tell me what the difference is between:


* A law that prohibits robbery

*A law that prohibits the consumption of alchalol

And

*A law that prohibits same sex marriage



I here many people say "you shouldn't make laws based on religious values." Yet, for me, each one of those are religious values. Where is the line drawn as to what you can and cannot legislate?

P.S. I didn't spell check this one. Forgive me.

Dictatorbilbo hit this nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. Mundane laws should be calculated to minimize mundane harm. They should thus be based on mundane, materialistic evidence, and there's no such evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage would cause harm.

[Chimpy]

I have personally seen families break apart on this issue. The damage done there was much worse than any robbery I have seen.

P.S. I really can't accept the arguement "Well, that is just because of the intolerance of our society- it doesn't count." If that is true, then I say Drunk Driving shouldn't be a crime. After all, if only drunk drivers drove on the road in our culture, nobody would get hurt. (Yes, I know its a stretch, but it proves my point.)

[Revdyer]

It truly saddens me that in such a short time the question of "How can we reach an awareness of God together?" has turned into "How can we condemn each other?" You all should be ashamed. I am. I am almost ready to repent of trying to talk in an open manner with you people who claim to love God. But, you don't, you claim only to be right, not to love. Shame on us all.

And this on Yom Kippur.

[Chimpy]

It truly saddens me that in such a short time the question of "How can we reach an awareness of God together?" has turned into "How can we condemn each other?" You all should be ashamed. I am. I am almost ready to repent of trying to talk in an open manner with you people who claim to love God. But, you don't, you claim only to be right, not to love. Shame on us all.

And this on Yom Kippur.

Revdyer... I am confused. I am not sure how I- or anyone posting in the last few pages -has turned into condemning each other. However, I will apologize now if I offended anybody wh is reading this thread. If my words are detrimental to the progress of this thread, I think I will have to bow out.

[Bloody the Marro Stinger]

It truly saddens me that in such a short time the question of "How can we reach an awareness of God together?" has turned into "How can we condemn each other?" You all should be ashamed. I am. I am almost ready to repent of trying to talk in an open manner with you people who claim to love God. But, you don't, you claim only to be right, not to love. Shame on us all.

And this on Yom Kippur.
Cheers for Yom Kippur!
May the new year of Jewish and Christian tradition be blessed! :drunk:

[Jotun]

I have personally seen families break apart on this issue. The damage done there was much worse than any robbery I have seen.

P.S. I really can't accept the argument "Well, that is just because of the intolerance of our society- it doesn't count." If that is true, then I say Drunk Driving shouldn't be a crime. After all, if only drunk drivers drove on the road in our culture, nobody would get hurt. (Yes, I know its a stretch, but it proves my point.)

Break apart on what issue? Gay marriage? You can start backpedaling now if that's what you meant, but I'm getting ahead of the conversation because you may have been talking about something else. I'll wait for your response.

Drunk driving isn't so bad. At least I don't have to take a taxi and look like a drunk. --- Joking Alert!!

I can make jokes about drinking and driving because my best friend was killed by a drunk driver. And no I'm not kidding.

[jaques]

I have personally seen families break apart on this issue. The damage done there was much worse than any robbery I have seen.


If your threshold for outlawing something is "families have broken apart over this issue," you're going to have to outlaw everything.

Or, more accurately, you'll have to outlaw the one true source of families breaking apart, which is the selfishness of the individual family members.

[Dictatorbilbo]

It truly saddens me that in such a short time the question of "How can we reach an awareness of God together?" has turned into "How can we condemn each other?" You all should be ashamed. I am. I am almost ready to repent of trying to talk in an open manner with you people who claim to love God. But, you don't, you claim only to be right, not to love. Shame on us all.

And this on Yom Kippur.

Revdyer... I am confused. I am not sure how I- or anyone posting in the last few pages -has turned into condemning each other. However, I will apologize now if I offended anybody wh is reading this thread. If my words are detrimental to the progress of this thread, I think I will have to bow out.

Unfortunately, the only thing that can fuel a discussion like this is dissent and argument... Perhaps we should change the focus of this thread to prose and poetry expressing the joy and sheer profundity of the universe? I like that...

we watch the ripples
spread across the tranquil pond
it reflects the sky

:)

[Jotun]

Unfortunately, the only thing that can fuel a discussion like this is dissent and argument... Perhaps we should change the focus of this thread to prose and poetry expressing the joy and sheer profundity of the universe? I like that...

we watch the ripples
spread across the tranquil pond
it reflects the sky

:)

I so hate haikus
They make me want to vomit
Jump under a bus

[Agent Minivann]

Early Christians understood this process and had the true faith to let themselves be martyred in order to serve as an example to others. They had no fear of death, because they truly believed themselves to be eternal beings with a guarantee of blissful, infinite existence in the bosom of the Lord.

Many of today's Christians, though, cannot see the big picture. They cannot think as eternal beings. They do not recognize that any amount of persecution and pain in this world is totally insignificant, given their status of eternal salvation.

They somehow, in their arrogance, believe that if they do not legislate and coerce others into following their particular interpretation of the Bible's moral code, then their all-loving, all-caring, benevolent God will allow Christianity to perish off the face of the Earth.

They do not, in short, trust God to keep his door open to his children.
I really like that statement. It may just be the way I read it, but the only problem I have with it is the implied notion that being martyred is something that is a conscious choice. There are people that "play the martyr", but they aren't martyrs. Keeping "playing the martyr" in mind, you could also take that whole statement and change a few words, and reasonably describe the guy who straps a bomb to his body in the Middle East. Both the "Christian Legislator" and the suicide bomber have lost sight of what their faith truly teaches, IMHO.

[jaques]

Early Christians understood this process and had the true faith to let themselves be martyred in order to serve as an example to others. They had no fear of death, because they truly believed themselves to be eternal beings with a guarantee of blissful, infinite existence in the bosom of the Lord.

Many of today's Christians, though, cannot see the big picture. They cannot think as eternal beings. They do not recognize that any amount of persecution and pain in this world is totally insignificant, given their status of eternal salvation.

They somehow, in their arrogance, believe that if they do not legislate and coerce others into following their particular interpretation of the Bible's moral code, then their all-loving, all-caring, benevolent God will allow Christianity to perish off the face of the Earth.

They do not, in short, trust God to keep his door open to his children.
I really like that statement. It may just be the way I read it, but the only problem I have with it is the implied notion that being martyred is something that is a conscious choice. There are people that "play the martyr", but they aren't martyrs. Keeping "playing the martyr" in mind, you could also take that whole statement and change a few words, and reasonably describe the guy who straps a bomb to his body in the Middle East. Both the "Christian Legislator" and the suicide bomber have lost sight of what their faith truly teaches, IMHO.

Unfortunately, suicide bombers (as well as ordinary people who "play the martyr") have helped destroy the positive value of the word. My discussion of martyrdom was meant to focus on that value, which is a form of passive resistance.

Because human beings have a survival instinct, true martyrdom does contain an element of conscious choice. Unless terribly beaten down, any human being will feel the instinct to fight or run when faced with death. A true martyr does consciously choose to let death happen, although I did not mean to imply that true martyrs seek death out.

The true martyr would say, "My faith tells me to turn the other cheek, and I will hold fast to that faith, even if it means my death."

[jaques]

I so hate haikus
They make me want to vomit
Jump under a bus


:) :) :) :) :)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Penitus]

Great observations. It is true that I am trying to look out for all, even if that means through the law.

I consider that to be an extension of the law anyway. It's hard to deny that Judeo-Christianity has a ton of influence on the laws of most societies in the world have today. I just want to take it a few steps further. For example, taking the USA to its pre-abortion days through ministry, voting pro-life, etc.. If that means that I'm intolerant, then I'll be nice and comfy being intolerant.

You may be comfy being intolerant, but in no way are you justified in claiming that it is "nice."

Indeed. It's the opposite of nice. I'm not a nice guy, Jesus wasn't a nice guy, and I don't like nice guys.

[Fezzikthedoor]

Jesus wasn't a nice guy

Huh? I mean...huh?
Jesus vs. the Romans:
:nkick:

[Penitus]

Maybe we have a different idea of what "nice" means.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Jesus wasn't a nice guy

Umm.. Explain please?

[brickman1444]

Jesus wasn't a nice guy

Que?

[Penitus]

When I mention that Jesus wasn't a nice guy, I don't mean that he was a jerk. I just mean that he "told it like it was." He's sort of God's Andrew Dice Clay. In our culture, it's not uncommon to see images of Jesus portrayed as a wimpy, cowardly, unassertive male (e.g., South Park). The Bible presents quite a different picture. Here's just some examples:

-Jesus was a carpenter (Mk 6:3), a fairly active job.
-He walked into the temple and physically drove out moneychangers, overturning tables and whatnot (Jn 2:15; Mk 11:15-19).
-Openly rebuked the Jewish authorities for being hypocrites (Mt 23:29-33 and many others).
-When the soldiers came to arrest him, he simply mentioned who he was and made them cower with fear (Jn 18:6).
-Jesus did things like walk into the temple, read something from the Old Testament, and says "This is about me," knowing full well they're going to attempt to kill you (Lk 4:16-30).
-Jesus gets scourged (Jn 19:1, that is, whipped with a whip that has pieces of rock, glass, or metal sewn into the leather) only to carry a cross a few hours later.
-Jesus promises to vomit lukewarm Christians (Rev 3:16).
-Jesus is described as a lion (Rev 5:5)

etc.

Even if you completely think Jesus is a lie and Christianity is a hoax, you must admit, the literature of the Bible doesn't present Jesus as a hippie or a cuddly anything.

[monkeyfish]

While we're on the topic of religion, I'm proud to say I get confirmed at my Lutheran Church next month!! :D

[Dictatorbilbo]

Oh. So you meant nice as in soft/wimpy, whereas we meant nice as in kind/benevolent. Ok then.

[Penitus]

Oh. So you meant nice as in soft/wimpy, whereas we meant nice as in kind/benevolent. Ok then.

Yeah, I should have made that clear from the beginning.

Also, I just noticed that your username isn't Doctorbilbo.

[theats]

revdyer-
I would first like to applaud you on your representation as a relationship in a much more structured way than I had, pages ago. I would secondly like to clarify that I do not go around beating people over the head with my bible, and by that I mean trying to force God over them. I attempt to let them see and experience the love of God by what they see in me. I always am the last in line, if I get lunch at all; I always hold the door open for everyone, and expect nothing in return. I am NOT bragging on the forum right now (for any readers who would see this as hypocrisy). As far as me only taking part of the bible as truth, you may have misunderstood me. I just think that we should not worry over something as trivial as when moses went to the top of the mountain, or if the "sea of reeds" or the "red sea" was crossed. The point of the passage is that they got out of Egypt and received the ten commandments. Understand, however, that greater attention must be paid in the new testament gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, as there are more details, in fact, some deatails lead me to believe that peter was fat, as he is always the last one to arrive at the scene.

Dictatorbilbo and the anti-theats league

I would first like to apologize for any harsh words I may have said to you, and I ask your forgiveness. On a more serious note, however, I am asking in the most polite way possible that you would read my posts as if they were written by a normal human being, without simply dismissing it as mindless drivel (netherspirit, i am sorry for my year and a half of this!)
or a "steaming pile of nonsense". I read your scholarly scientific support links. I would expect you to do the same for me. Bear in mind, however, that there is no one with living memory back that far, and I trust written records more than vague, theoretical time studies.

[HSisforcoolkids]

While we're on the topic of religion, I'm proud to say I get confirmed at my Lutheran Church next month!! :D

I was confirmed in the Lutheran church. I showed up in khakis and a green polo, and all the other guys had on white shirts with ties. I felt like a total weenie. My dad ran home and got the white shirt and tie for me, just in time for all of the pictures to be retaken. Too bad I didn't know that I would never look at those pictures again.

Being confirmed is a cool right of passage in the Lutheran church though, as long as you've taken your classes seriously and whatnot. Congratulations monkeyfish.

[monkeyfish]

While we're on the topic of religion, I'm proud to say I get confirmed at my Lutheran Church next month!! :D

I was confirmed in the Lutheran church. I showed up in khakis and a green polo, and all the other guys had on white shirts with ties. I felt like a total weenie. My dad ran home and got the white shirt and tie for me, just in time for all of the pictures to be retaken. Too bad I didn't know that I would never look at those pictures again.

Being confirmed is a cool right of passage in the Lutheran church though, as long as you've taken your classes seriously and whatnot. Congratulations monkeyfish.
I have been and thanks.

[jaques]

I apologize in advance for what's going to be a bit of a gruff post.If that means that I'm intolerant, then I'll be nice and comfy being intolerant.

You may be comfy being intolerant, but in no way are you justified in claiming that it is "nice."

I'm not a nice guy, Jesus wasn't a nice guy, and I don't like nice guys.

Then why did you claim to be one?

I must say, Penitus, inconsistencies like this make you seem to be one of those people who just likes to argue and be contrary. Somehow, you want to believe that by arguing and being contrary, you are simultaneously upholding the spiritual values of your faith. But I think it's entirely possible that you've just seized upon Christianity as a belief system that allows you to be argumentative and contrary toward other people, thus enabling you to feel superior to them.

Whether Christianity is true or not, you are not doing good things with your Christianity in the way that you behave on this forum -- at least not in my opinion.

Not that my opinion, or anyone's other than your own, matters to you.

[theats]

Christianity is not based on tolerance, but love. It is out of love of a persons soul that we encourage people not to sin. Its not because we don't like them, it because we don't want them to go to hell. Believe me, If I didn't care for you people, I would have NEVER posted here.

[Revdyer]

When I mention that Jesus wasn't a nice guy, I don't mean that he was a jerk. I just mean that he "told it like it was." He's sort of God's Andrew Dice Clay. In our culture, it's not uncommon to see images of Jesus portrayed as a wimpy, cowardly, unassertive male (e.g., South Park). The Bible presents quite a different picture. Here's just some examples:

-Jesus was a carpenter (Mk 6:3), a fairly active job.
-He walked into the temple and physically drove out moneychangers, overturning tables and whatnot (Jn 2:15; Mk 11:15-19).
-Openly rebuked the Jewish authorities for being hypocrites (Mt 23:29-33 and many others).
-When the soldiers came to arrest him, he simply mentioned who he was and made them cower with fear (Jn 18:6).
-Jesus did things like walk into the temple, read something from the Old Testament, and says "This is about me," knowing full well they're going to attempt to kill you (Lk 4:16-30).
-Jesus gets scourged (Jn 19:1, that is, whipped with a whip that has pieces of rock, glass, or metal sewn into the leather) only to carry a cross a few hours later.
-Jesus promises to vomit lukewarm Christians (Rev 3:16).
-Jesus is described as a lion (Rev 5:5)

etc.

Even if you completely think Jesus is a lie and Christianity is a hoax, you must admit, the literature of the Bible doesn't present Jesus as a hippie or a cuddly anything.
I would agree, Pentius that the Biblical image of Jesus is stronger than some of the cultural images commonly presented.

You do have some factual errors in a couple of your statements.
In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called a "tekton" which means "worker" or "technical worker" not "carpenter" (or, more rightly, bigger than carpenter, including stone-mason, cabinet maker, and most other kinds of builders). A small point, but if you're trying to say "carpenters are strong guys" (I worked my way through college framing houses) this doesn't quite do that.

In Luke 4, Jesus is in a synagogue in Nazareth, invited to teach, not in the Temple. It was common practice to invite visiting men to expound the text for the day. The "This is about me" would be quite a loose translations of "Today this writing is fulfilled." (Jesus' interpretation was unique, but not particularly Andrew Dice Clay-ish, to use your term.)

The Revelation metaphors, written sixty or seventy years after Jesus' death, are not particularly helpful in looking at the historical man from Nazareth.

Most Roman scourges were simple leather (but, still, I wouldn't want to be beaten with one). There were embedded ones, but they were quite rare.

John 18:6 says that when Jesus admitted that he was who they were looking for they "stepped back;" no word about cowering (which would imply fear, not just surprise at his honesty or some such).

So...I don't disagree with your main point, but would wish that we would be more careful in our use of "proof" so as not to say what is not in the texts and the contexts of our sources and thereby confuse or mislead people.

He did call people play-actors (hypocrites) and did turn over the tables in the Temple courtyard. I don't think you can say that Jesus actually attacked anyone physically, though, from our texts.

On a different note: theats, I appreciate that your intentions are good and that you must be a nice guy.

[theats]

hypocrites(HIP-AH-CRUH_TEES), if I remember correctly, is "one who hides behind a mask". that is an actor, a poser Christian.

Good luck on your cancer, reverend dyer. I also was not referring to finding deep answers about Jesus being as easily attainable as a simple Google search. I was merely saying that some of the more factual based things, such as any old testament stuff, could be found with a simple search.

[Penitus]

Then why did you claim to be one?

I must say, Penitus, inconsistencies like this make you seem to be one of those people who just likes to argue and be contrary. Somehow, you want to believe that by arguing and being contrary, you are simultaneously upholding the spiritual values of your faith. But I think it's entirely possible that you've just seized upon Christianity as a belief system that allows you to be argumentative and contrary toward other people, thus enabling you to feel superior to them.

Whether Christianity is true or not, you are not doing good things with your Christianity in the way that you behave on this forum -- at least not in my opinion.

Not that my opinion, or anyone's other than your own, matters to you.

What we have here is a breakdown in communication. When I said I was nice and comfy being intolerant [of evil], I didn't mean that it was nice. "Nice and comfy" is apparently only a local phrase and has nothing to do with the quality of one's character.

[Penitus]

You do have some factual errors in a couple of your statements.
In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called a "tekton" which means "worker" or "technical worker" not "carpenter" (or, more rightly, bigger than carpenter, including stone-mason, cabinet maker, and most other kinds of builders). A small point, but if you're trying to say "carpenters are strong guys" (I worked my way through college framing houses) this doesn't quite do that.

In Luke 4, Jesus is in a synagogue in Nazareth, invited to teach, not in the Temple. It was common practice to invite visiting men to expound the text for the day. The "This is about me" would be quite a loose translations of "Today this writing is fulfilled." (Jesus' interpretation was unique, but not particularly Andrew Dice Clay-ish, to use your term.)

The Revelation metaphors, written sixty or seventy years after Jesus' death, are not particularly helpful in looking at the historical man from Nazareth.

Most Roman scourges were simple leather (but, still, I wouldn't want to be beaten with one). There were embedded ones, but they were quite rare.

John 18:6 says that when Jesus admitted that he was who they were looking for they "stepped back;" no word about cowering (which would imply fear, not just surprise at his honesty or some such).


Rev, you have some good points, but if I may, I wish to challenge some of them.

1) I'm aware of Lk 4 and how there could be visiting teachers, but Jesus didn't give his interpretation of a passage, he gave THE interpretation. He DID fulfill the passage. My statement about Andrew Dice Clay referred to Jesus' entire ministry, not simply this passage. Also, regarding my statement that this was in the temple...that's my bad. :)

2) God's word is truth. Therefore, any metaphors written about Christ after his death are as much truth as anything Jesus had said in person while on Earth. If Revelation speaks of Christ vomiting out the lukewarm, then He will vomit the lukewarm.

3) Christian history speaks again and again and again of the scourging. Why should some historical-critical interpretation of the last 100 year or less trump almost 2000 years of Christian history?

[Revdyer]

It seems our hermeneutics differ.

On the scourge, it was on the glass and metal pieces being rarely used that I was noting; so I don't know what you're referring to in your third comment. If you could refer me to some Biblical or patristic references to the actual construction of the implement used on Jesus, I would be much appreciative. At this point, I've not aware of any such sources of information.

I suppose that since I find Andrew Clay's "Dice" character singularly unattractive, I have trouble relating it to someone I love.

[Penitus]

On the scourge, it was on the glass and metal pieces being rarely used that I was noting; so I don't know what you're referring to in your third comment. If you could refer me to some Biblical or patristic references to the actual construction of the implement used on Jesus, I would be much appreciative. At this point, I've not aware of any such sources of information.

I'll get researching, and I'll also ask if you could show me where the bone, metal, glass, etc. were actually rare. Thanks Rev.

EDIT: Also, in considering Is 53:5, I had always believed that "stripes" referred to marks left behind by Christ's scourging, which seems more plausible for something that would cut deep, not just leave red marks and some broken skin.

EDIT2: The practice of scourging was a legal preliminary to every Roman execution (Hengel, 1977) because it weakened the victim through shock and blood loss. Without scourging, strong, condemned men might live on the cross for several days until exposure, wild animals, insects, or birds resulted in their death. The only allowable exemptions to this law were women and Roman senators or soldiers (except in cases of desertion) [Barbet, 1953, p. 45]. In their critically acclaimed article, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” in the March 21, 1986 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, William Edwards and his coauthors (of the famed Mayo Clinic) described the instrument used by the Roman soldiers for flogging as “a short whip (flagrum or flagellum) with several single or braided leather thongs of variable lengths, in which small iron balls or sharp pieces of sheep bones were tied at intervals” (Edwards, et al., 1986, 256:1457, parenthetical item in orig.). Ironically, this is the same type of instrument Jesus Himself used in John 2:15 when He drove the moneychangers from the Temple (although the text does not indicate whether He actually used it, or merely held it out as a symbol of authority).

Most of that info comes from:
Edwards, William D., Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer (1986), “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of American Medical Association, 256:1455-1463, March 21.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Dictatorbilbo and the anti-theats league

I would first like to apologize for any harsh words I may have said to you, and I ask your forgiveness. On a more serious note, however, I am asking in the most polite way possible that you would read my posts as if they were written by a normal human being, without simply dismissing it as mindless drivel (netherspirit, i am sorry for my year and a half of this!)
or a "steaming pile of nonsense". I read your scholarly scientific support links. I would expect you to do the same for me. Bear in mind, however, that there is no one with living memory back that far, and I trust written records more than vague, theoretical time studies.

I would also like to apologize for some of the things I've said. And no, I do not immediately write off your posts as mindless drivel; I do indeed read your links, and then I declare them mindless drivel. :) I regret a few of my choices in words, and I know I should've been a bit nicer.

Sorry! :)

[theats]

Dictatorbilbo and the anti-theats league

I would first like to apologize for any harsh words I may have said to you, and I ask your forgiveness. On a more serious note, however, I am asking in the most polite way possible that you would read my posts as if they were written by a normal human being, without simply dismissing it as mindless drivel (netherspirit, i am sorry for my year and a half of this!)
or a "steaming pile of nonsense". I read your scholarly scientific support links. I would expect you to do the same for me. Bear in mind, however, that there is no one with living memory back that far, and I trust written records more than vague, theoretical time studies.

I would also like to apologize for some of the things I've said. And no, I do not immediately write off your posts as mindless drivel; I do indeed read your links, and then I declare them mindless drivel. :) I regret a few of my choices in words, and I know I should've been a bit nicer.

Sorry! :)

apology accepted.

[Revdyer]

On the scourge, it was on the glass and metal pieces being rarely used that I was noting; so I don't know what you're referring to in your third comment. If you could refer me to some Biblical or patristic references to the actual construction of the implement used on Jesus, I would be much appreciative. At this point, I've not aware of any such sources of information.

I'll get researching, and I'll also ask if you could show me where the bone, metal, glass, etc. were actually rare. Thanks Rev.Sure..any standard encyclopedia or dictionary...Merriam-Wester and Britannica, for examples. One web site, "www.bible-history.com" does agree with your contention, although three of its four illustrations from historical sources show the flail without knottings (one does have sort of tassels). I may have been taught wrong in grad school. It's not a major point, and as I earlier said, I wouldn't want to be beaten by any version of the instrument.

Noted your editing...thanks for the interesting reference.

And I fear I have become disputatious and unedifying, so please forgive me.

[Penitus]

No need for apologies Rev, all is well, all is fine. I just like engaging in dialog over all sorts of things.

[Fezzikthedoor]

Dictatorbilbo and the anti-theats league

I would first like to apologize for any harsh words I may have said to you, and I ask your forgiveness. On a more serious note, however, I am asking in the most polite way possible that you would read my posts as if they were written by a normal human being, without simply dismissing it as mindless drivel (netherspirit, i am sorry for my year and a half of this!)
or a "steaming pile of nonsense". I read your scholarly scientific support links. I would expect you to do the same for me. Bear in mind, however, that there is no one with living memory back that far, and I trust written records more than vague, theoretical time studies.

I would also like to apologize for some of the things I've said. And no, I do not immediately write off your posts as mindless drivel; I do indeed read your links, and then I declare them mindless drivel. :) I regret a few of my choices in words, and I know I should've been a bit nicer.

Sorry! :)

I regret.....nothing......
:blowup:

[jaques]

Christianity is not based on tolerance, but love. It is out of love of a persons soul that we encourage people not to sin. Its not because we don't like them, it because we don't want them to go to hell. Believe me, If I didn't care for you people, I would have NEVER posted here.

Encourage all you like. I encourage you to encourage.

When you cross the line and say that your Biblically derived notion of sin should become my legally prescribed way of life, you are not "encouraging" but oppressing.

Let me say something that I think is important, and here I am speaking to Theats, Penitus, and any others who believe it is important to try to blot out sin within the community.

You cannot lead nonbelievers away from sin. You cannot stop them from sinning. You cannot make them understand that sinfulness is wrong. All of that is Jesus' job.

What you can do is to try to lead nonbelievers toward Jesus, so that he can lead them away from sin. (Or so that they can realize that they must lead themselves away from sin, with his help.)

Your obsession with sin is counterproductive in the effort to lead others to Jesus, because it is (to an outsider) so obviously the height of hubris.

Teach us to love Jesus, and he will do the rest. Try teaching us to hate sin, and you will only make us hate you.

P.S. This is probably my last post before going out of town for a few days, so don't think I'm ignoring you if you comment on it.

[Jotun]

I hope some of the creationists here saw the recent discovery that velociraptors had feathers, which correct me if I'm wrong is more evidence of those gaps in the fossil record being filled by transition phase fossils.

Just one of the many articles in the news recently. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/vicious-velociraptors-were-feathered-fiends/2007/09/21/1189881738945.html)

[Chimpy]

I hope some of the creationists here saw the recent discovery that velociraptors had feathers, which correct me if I'm wrong is more evidence of those gaps in the fossil record being filled by transition phase fossils.

Just one of the many articles in the news recently. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/vicious-velociraptors-were-feathered-fiends/2007/09/21/1189881738945.html)

Well, to a traditional creationist that doesn't say much. If they were not convinced by the hundreds of better (the veliciraptor is not really a missing link; if anything it is a seperate branch) documented "links", then this won't change there mind. (And seeing how a major pro-creationist arguement is that God set up all the evidence to test the faithful, this last spurt of evidence only strengthens their point.)


However, I think all of this is irrelevant. I think Christians should be a little less focused on how the Earth came about, and a little more focused on why it came about. Personally, (I know I have been using that word a lot recently) The knowledge that my spirit was created by God is much more important than whether or not my body was created through millions of years of evoloution or in a few seconds of divine power.

[Revdyer]

Personally, (I know I have been using that word a lot recently) .It's not a bad word. The idea that a subjective understanding is somehow inferior is of fairly recent and certainly not universal acceptance. The wise man, the witch, the sage, the prophet, the inspired writer, and many more all know things personally and that is most powerful. It is not objective, not applicable to the other as a non-involved standard; but it is the standard par excellence of the charismatic leader. There's nothing wrong with knowing "personally" as long as you know it is "personal" and not automatically universal or transferable.

[Jotun]

Personally, (I know I have been using that word a lot recently) .It's not a bad word. The idea that a subjective understanding is somehow inferior is of fairly recent and certainly not universal acceptance. The wise man, the witch, the sage, the prophet, the inspired writer, and many more all know things personally and that is most powerful. It is not objective, not applicable to the other as a non-involved standard; but it is the standard par excellence of the charismatic leader. There's nothing wrong with knowing "personally" as long as you know it is "personal" and not automatically universal or transferable.

I was going to say the same thing about dolphins.

[Revdyer]

Personally, (I know I have been using that word a lot recently) .It's not a bad word. The idea that a subjective understanding is somehow inferior is of fairly recent and certainly not universal acceptance. The wise man, the witch, the sage, the prophet, the inspired writer, and many more all know things personally and that is most powerful. It is not objective, not applicable to the other as a non-involved standard; but it is the standard par excellence of the charismatic leader. There's nothing wrong with knowing "personally" as long as you know it is "personal" and not automatically universal or transferable.

I was going to say the same thing about dolphins.I think that's right about dolphins, except they aren't so new.

[Argent]

Ok. So I have ignored this thread for the most part, but sometimes I feel the need to share some ideas. Hence my last and only other post in this thread back around the mid-70's pages. I love having philosophical and theological discussions, but not if they turn into arguments. Which I worry, sometimes, that this thread will become. having said that, here is something else to share.

My thoughts on combining Creationism and Evolution that I first came up with in high school:

Evolution is a process that takes hundreds and thousands of years.

Creationism says the world and animals were created in 7 days.

There doesn't seem to be a way to connect the two. Until you consider that portions of the Bible were written from God's perspective, or at least the information came from Him. It is also stated in the Bible that a thousand years is but a blink of an eye to God (or something along those lines, I'm sure Rev or someone would know the exact passage). So what if the 7 days mentioned in the Creation were 7 days to God. Meaning that if a thousand years is a blink of an eye to God, then 7 days to God, would be millions of years to us. A matter of perspective.

[Lord Pyre]

Ok. So I have ignored this thread for the most part, but sometimes I feel the need to share some ideas. Hence my last and only other post in this thread back around the mid-70's pages. I love having philosophical and theological discussions, but not if they turn into arguments. Which I worry, sometimes, that this thread will become. having said that, here is something else to share.

My thoughts on combining Creationism and Evolution that I first came up with in high school:

Evolution is a process that takes hundreds and thousands of years.

Creationism says the world and animals were created in 7 days.

There doesn't seem to be a way to connect the two. Until you consider that portions of the Bible were written from God's perspective, or at least the information came from Him. It is also stated in the Bible that a thousand years is but a blink of an eye to God (or something along those lines, I'm sure Rev or someone would know the exact passage). So what if the 7 days mentioned in the Creation were 7 days to God. Meaning that if a thousand years is a blink of an eye to God, then 7 days to God, would be millions of years to us. A matter of perspective.

Hmm, never thought of it that way. I'm Lutheran myself, just so everyone knows...
That makes an interesting point, but there is probably something else in there disproving it. Or, it could be yet another mystery...... :wink:

[Revdyer]

It is also stated in the Bible that a thousand years is but a blink of an eye to God (or something along those lines, I'm sure Rev or someone would know the exact passage). So what if the 7 days mentioned in the Creation were 7 days to God. Meaning that if a thousand years is a blink of an eye to God, then 7 days to God, would be millions of years to us. A matter of perspective.

The referenece is to Psalm 90:4.

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." (KJV)

The troubles are, (1) this is poetry, not definitional prose; (2) the "days" of Genesis, by any good scientific understanding, are by no means the same length; and, most importantly (3) the priestly authors of Genesis 1 (not to mention the J authors of Genesis 2) had no such idea in their minds. God might well have, I suppose; but the authors God inspired did not, and unless you want to take from them human free will and intelligence and make them into mere literary puppets; the argument, which worthy of intent, just doesn't hold; neither for the Biblical conservative nor the for the Biblical (or even non-Biblical) scientist.

[Jonathan]

I also thought "day" could refer to a nondescript period of time. "In that day", etc.

[HSisforcoolkids]

It is also stated in the Bible that a thousand years is but a blink of an eye to God (or something along those lines, I'm sure Rev or someone would know the exact passage). So what if the 7 days mentioned in the Creation were 7 days to God. Meaning that if a thousand years is a blink of an eye to God, then 7 days to God, would be millions of years to us. A matter of perspective.

The referenece is to Psalm 90:4.

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." (KJV)

2 Peter 3:8 also says this:
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (NIV)

But it is important to notice that in context the writer is addressing those who scoff to Christians that Jesus has not come back yet. The next verse reads:
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

I think it's a beautiful verse that speaks of God's grace and love, but I think it's difficult to make a connection between this verse and the Creation stories.

[Revdyer]

I think the Peter passage also shows that there is no simple equation for converting from "God time" to "human being time."

[Grishnakh]

Personally, (I know I have been using that word a lot recently) .It's not a bad word. The idea that a subjective understanding is somehow inferior is of fairly recent and certainly not universal acceptance. The wise man, the witch, the sage, the prophet, the inspired writer, and many more all know things personally and that is most powerful. It is not objective, not applicable to the other as a non-involved standard; but it is the standard par excellence of the charismatic leader. There's nothing wrong with knowing "personally" as long as you know it is "personal" and not automatically universal or transferable.

Might I clarify a few things here if I may. I'd like to point out that saying something is know "Personally" is tantamount to wish fulfillment thinking on the part of an individual. This puts you at the top of the slippery slope of faith without a safety rope, to put it metaphorically. Warm fuzzy feelings that you "know" something does not make that something true. The answer lies in the fact that there are other factors at work that are giving you these feelings of deep conviction. The human brain works in some very old fashion ways due to our evolutionary background. It's up to the educated, modern person to understand these limitations and to recognize them in oneself. That's when the smoke and mirrors of religion go up in flames and one can be free to understand the deeper meanings of the universe. I need no God to understand these meanings. In fact, the theory of God is small and insignificant compared to the wonders of the universe and the natural world around us, once you've opened your eyes to them. The theory of God actually limits you.

And leaders being charismatic of course does not make them right. Just dangerous. Sorry to jump in, I'll step to the sidelines now. Please continue...

[Ugly-Caco]

It is also stated in the Bible that a thousand years is but a blink of an eye to God (or something along those lines, I'm sure Rev or someone would know the exact passage). So what if the 7 days mentioned in the Creation were 7 days to God. Meaning that if a thousand years is a blink of an eye to God, then 7 days to God, would be millions of years to us. A matter of perspective.

The referenece is to Psalm 90:4.

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." (KJV)

2 Peter 3:8 also says this:
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (NIV)

But it is important to notice that in context the writer is addressing those who scoff to Christians that Jesus has not come back yet. The next verse reads:
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

I think it's a beautiful verse that speaks of God's grace and love, but I think it's difficult to make a connection between this verse and the Creation stories.
I agree Rev. The 7 days in the creation passage is 7 days (24 hours each).
Genisis 1:5 (NLT)
God called the light "day" and the darkness "night."
And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

The only time a day wasnt 24 hours at one time was in Joshua's era.

The theory of God actually limits you.
Yep, it sure does! That's why majority of theory based scientists dont like the God theory. While many hands-on scientists acknowledge the existence of an intelligent designer. Creationist science is limited. Theyre confined to findings that can only be found. No quantum leaps. No macro-evolution. No sudden burst of a variety of species from a single celled creature after a couple of millions of years. No millions of monkeys simultaneously punching their keyboard and creating a Shakespear play. Just plain old God created everything, and man fell, triggering the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy).

[Jotun]

The theory of God actually limits you.
Yep, it sure does! That's why majority of theory based scientists dont like the God theory. While many hands-on scientists acknowledge the existence of an intelligent designer. Creationist science is limited. Theyre confined to findings that can only be found. No quantum leaps. No macro-evolution. No sudden burst of a variety of species from a single celled creature after a couple of millions of years. No millions of monkeys simultaneously punching their keyboard and creating a Shakespear play. Just plain old God created everything, and man fell, triggering the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy).

"Many" is an accurate word if you're comparing those creationist scientists to one single person. However, if you're comparing the number of creation scientists to the number of evolution scientists then you might be more accurate to describe their number as "a tiny minority." So your sentence should say "While a tiny minority of hands-on scientists acknowledge the existence of an intelligent designer."

Intelligent design is not only wrong, it's rude. You hear the words and you think, "Cool, I'm about to hear something intelligent." Nope.

Who designed the designer? "Uhh, the designer designed himself according to the ... uh, laws of Candyland, where we avoid tough questions."

[Ugly-Caco]

Nobody/nothing designs the uncaused Cause. 8)

However, everything else is caused.

[Chimpy]

I agree Rev. The 7 days in the creation passage is 7 days (24 hours each).
Genisis 1:5 (NLT)
God called the light "day" and the darkness "night."
And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

The only time a day wasnt 24 hours at one time was in Joshua's era.
.

Ah, but seeing as the first three days had niether sun nor moon, you can not use the 24 hour Earth Day as a dividing point.

[Agent Minivann]

Regarding the 1000 years = 1 day idea, I find it interesting that Adam was told that he would die in the day he ate the fruit in the garden. None of the long living patriarchs managed to live 1000 years. That said, the biblical statements of 1000 years = 1 day look a whole lot like literary statements.

[Jotun]

Nobody/nothing designs the uncaused Cause. 8)

However, everything else is caused.

The uncaused Cause is a very easy way to say, "Conversation over." If you're willing to accept "uncaused Cause" as a possible explanation in a discussion about science, then we weren't having a discussion about science in the first place.

Will you at least admit that you are going to believe creationism no matter what evidence there is? How creationist are you: no evolution at all or God guided evolution? How about the Earth being 6,000 years old?

[Dictatorbilbo]

Nobody/nothing designs the uncaused Cause. 8)

However, everything else is caused.

One could argue that point... What if there was no prime mover, and the universe continues off into infinity in both directions in time?

Who designed the designer? "Uhh, the designer designed himself according to the ... uh, laws of Candyland, where we avoid tough questions."

Any sort of omnipotent creator would be outside of this dimension, and would be freed from the laws of causality and time.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

Nobody/nothing designs the uncaused Cause. 8)

However, everything else is caused.

One could argue that point... What if there was no prime mover, and the universe continues off into infinity in both directions in time?
If God can be uncaused then so can the universe be uncaused - no God necessary.
Who designed the designer? "Uhh, the designer designed himself according to the ... uh, laws of Candyland, where we avoid tough questions."

Any sort of omnipotent creator would be outside of this dimension, and would be freed from the laws of causality and time.
This doesn't really make sense to me -
a) we don't know if there can actually exist things "outside of space and time" and
b) if there are - can they possibly interact with this universe.

This just seems to me to be another way of sweeping God into the unknowable to avoid the discussion.

[Bannister]

Any sort of omnipotent creator would be outside of this dimension, and would be freed from the laws of causality and time.

It is a paradox.

Can God create a rock that he can't move?

If yes then he has limits, because there would come a certain point where his "powers" aren't enough. If he has limits then he can't be an all powerful creator.

If the answer is no then he has limits, because there would be something that he couldn't create. If he has limits then he can't be an all powerful creator.

Unilimited power would be like infinity. No matter how far you go down the road to unlimited power there would always be infinitely more power to be had. You couldn't actually reach unlimited (all powerful) because that in itself would be setting limits. If he has limits then he can't be an all powerful creator.

You claim that God lives outside of causality and time. This is really just a statement that claims that God lives outside the bounds of science. Once someone does this then any other arguements that they may make in regards to a "scientific discussion" are IMO irrelevant because you have already shown the tendancy within a "scientific discussion" to set aside any possible "scientific" arguements against your position.

Bannister

PS What DMG said.

[HSisforcoolkids]

With regard to time and space and such, I think it's interesting to note that Genesis 1:1-2 seems to suggest that the earth was present before God had anything to do with it.

A translation of Genesis 1:1-2 from Hebrew scholar Richard E. Friedman:

"In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth, when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering on the face of the water-"

Other translations say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." before a separate sentence talks about the earth being formless and shapeless. A period separates the 1st and 2nd verse where there shouldn't be one, based on the original Hebrew (according to Dr. Friedman).

I have thought about this often since I've come across this information. When I shared the creation story with my youth group I focused on how God brought order out of chaos (water is often a symbol of chaos in the the Bible and other literature), and less on the fact that God created the earth "ex nihilo" (Latin for "out of nothing").

[Jotun]

The idea that the Earth is a special place in the universe sounds very absurd when you think of how immense the universe is. The universe is 156 BILLION LIGHT YEARS wide. It's perhaps out of the grasp of the human mind to be able to even ponder something that large. Light travels from the Sun to the Earth in eight minutes (8 min 18 seconds). Now try to imagine how far it would have traveled in eight hours or eight months or a year. Now multiply that times 156 billion.

There are 70 sextillion stars in the visible universe, or some 70 thousand million million million. That's a 7 followed by 22 zeros. That's more stars than the number of grains of sand on Earth. - Space.com

Yet, Earth is God's little pet project. Hmm...sounds like someone on Earth just made the Bible up.

[HSisforcoolkids]

The idea that the Earth is a special place in the universe sounds very absurd when you think of how immense the universe is. The universe is 156 BILLION LIGHT YEARS wide. It's perhaps out of the grasp of the human mind to be able to even ponder something that large. Light travels from the Sun to the Earth in eight minutes (8 min 18 seconds). Now try to imagine how far it would have traveled in eight hours or eight months or a year. Now multiply that times 156 billion.

There are 70 sextillion stars in the visible universe, or some 70 thousand million million million. That's a 7 followed by 22 zeros. That's more stars than the number of grains of sand on Earth. - Space.com

The universe being that wide is out of the grasp of the human mind. I cannot fathom how big that is, and I think it's possible that the universe could be bigger. But really, how can someone say definitively that the universe is exactly that big if it is out of the human mind? To be fair, if it is acceptable to say that certain things are out of the grasp of the human mind, why is it not acceptable for someone to say that completely understanding God is out of the grasp of the human mind?

Yet, Earth is God's little pet project. Hmm...sounds like someone on Earth just made the Bible up.

I don't think that the universe's size really has any bearing on whether Earth is a "special place" or not. Regardless, the Bible never says that there is not life on other planets or that Earth is the only "special place in the universe." Genesis was written on Earth so of course Earth is important to the writers. I think finding fault with the earthly writers of Genesis 1-2 for focusing on Earth is like finding fault with a biology book written by a biologist for only discussing biology.
edit: typo

[Grishnakh]

The idea that the Earth is a special place in the universe sounds very absurd when you think of how immense the universe is. The universe is 156 BILLION LIGHT YEARS wide. It's perhaps out of the grasp of the human mind to be able to even ponder something that large. Light travels from the Sun to the Earth in eight minutes (8 min 18 seconds). Now try to imagine how far it would have traveled in eight hours or eight months or a year. Now multiply that times 156 billion.

There are 70 sextillion stars in the visible universe, or some 70 thousand million million million. That's a 7 followed by 22 zeros. That's more stars than the number of grains of sand on Earth. - Space.com

Yet, Earth is God's little pet project. Hmm...sounds like someone on Earth just made the Bible up.

I'd like to add by quoting author Jennifer Michael Hecht here:

"Jesus had a worldview that was comically focused on farm life and small-town sights. It is what unschooled folk would understand, sure, but it's really funny when you take a step back and look at the events of Jerusalem, 30 C.E., and see the tiny little size of it. ... the records kept in the Qur'an and the Bible are: an account of vicious quarrels between a few hundred or sometimes a few thousand unlearned villagers and townspeople, in which the finger of God was supposed to settle and determine the outcome of parochial disputes."

Would an all powerful God, Creator and Ruler of the Universe be all that concerned with the events and people portrayed in the Bible? And why only those select few? What about all of the other people that were alive at the time? And why do religious people pour over ancient biblical writings, study them for hours, and then try to use "reason" to make sense of it all? Why muddy the issues with the Bible in the first place, just use "reason" to start with to understand the universe we live in. Most religious "discussions" are about absurd ideas thrown at even more absurd concepts. Like the time scale for God to create the Earth thread that we are currently slugging through. How about I suggest another: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Discuss. Talk amongst yourselves. It's a pretty absurd concept. I'll get the popcorn and listen in.

I don't know if anyone has ever said this to the religious people on this thread but I think it needs to be said: "It's O.K. not to believe in a supernatural element to the Universe." Really. The world won't come to an end. The universe will continue along just fine. Free your mind.

[Grishnakh]

To be fair, if it is acceptable to say that certain things are out of the grasp of the human mind, why is it not acceptable for someone to say that completely understanding God is out of the grasp of the human mind?

Not meaning to attack you here, just trying to get you to understand why your statement can not apply to God. Using your reasoning all of us might as well except the concept of the Tooth Fairy too. The concept of God and the Tooth Fairy have a lot in common (invisible supernatural beings, etc.) yet I'm sure you'll reject one but not the other. Why? They both could be considered as you say "... out of the grasp of the human mind". "Super" "Natural" beings such as God or the Tooth Fairy are just what they say they are. They are outside of the "Natural" world. But no one has ever shown that anything exists outside of the natural world, and many have tried. When they do your statement will garner serious inquiry, but I'm not holding my breath. I give the human race more credit than you do, I think we are clever monkeys that have figured out and invented so much already (like the computer you are using) and I look forward to the discoveries we will make in the future. And I don't think it's acceptable to say that certain things are out of the grasp of the human mind, we just haven't discovered them yet. Poor God, he keeps getting moved deeper and farther away from reality the more we learn about the universe we live in.

Yet, Earth is God's little pet project. Hmm...sounds like someone on Earth just made the Bible up.

I don't think that the universe's size really has any bearing on whether Earth is a "special place" or not. Regardless, the Bible never says that there is not life on other planets or that Earth is the only "special place in the universe." Genesis was written on Earth so of course Earth is important to the writers. I think finding fault with the earthly writers of Genesis 1-2 focusing on Earth is like finding fault with a biology book written by a biologist for only discussing biology.

But the flip side is true, the Bible never says there is life on other planets or there are other special places. The point is why would such a supreme being even care about Earth. We are back to using ancient agricultural texts to try to understand our place in the universe again and either proving or disproving the existence of "God".

I think the answer to the angel question is 7 by the way. That's how many can dance on the head of a pin.

[Onion Knight]

I hope some of the creationists here saw the recent discovery that velociraptors had feathers, which correct me if I'm wrong is more evidence of those gaps in the fossil record being filled by transition phase fossils.

Just one of the many articles in the news recently. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/vicious-velociraptors-were-feathered-fiends/2007/09/21/1189881738945.html)

Oops. I guess they made a mistake with this missing link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/08cnd-fossil.html?ex=1344312000&en=67ba5b402257ecec&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss :wink:

[Onion Knight]

I don't know if anyone has ever said this to the religious people on this thread but I think it needs to be said: "It's O.K. not to believe in a supernatural element to the Universe." Really. The world won't come to an end. The universe will continue along just fine. Free your mind.

I would also like to extend that thought to you. It's okay to believe in God, it really isn't the same as believing in a flying spagetti monster as some would have you think.

sorry for the double post :oops:

[Bannister]

I hope some of the creationists here saw the recent discovery that velociraptors had feathers, which correct me if I'm wrong is more evidence of those gaps in the fossil record being filled by transition phase fossils.

Just one of the many articles in the news recently. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/vicious-velociraptors-were-feathered-fiends/2007/09/21/1189881738945.html)

Oops. I guess they made a mistake with this missing link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/08cnd-fossil.html?ex=1344312000&en=67ba5b402257ecec&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss :wink:

What is your point?

Bannister

PS Actually FSM = Lemmy. Lemmy = God. Therefore I surmise that FSM does infact = God.

[Onion Knight]

My point is that Jotun cited rising evidence for missing links. "Take that you creationist idiots!" he yelled at his monitor as he posted. (I know this because he is a friend of mine.)
The article I cited showed one area of evidence for missing links that turned out not to be evidence after all. Habilis and erectus did not evolve one after the other as conventional science believed, they existed at the same time. Scientists are sometimes wrong, that's all.

[HSisforcoolkids]

To be fair, if it is acceptable to say that certain things are out of the grasp of the human mind, why is it not acceptable for someone to say that completely understanding God is out of the grasp of the human mind?

Not meaning to attack you here, just trying to get you to understand why your statement can not apply to God.

I didn't take this as your attacking me. But, I would like to say that some can become offended by people being sarcastic about God and saying things like "Poor God, he keeps getting moved deeper and farther away from reality the more we learn about the universe we live in," or making comments about angels on the head of a pin. If this is about open discussion, then you have to realize that statements like that can seem inflammatory. It may have been your purpose to be inflammatory, in which case I wrote this paragraph for nothing, but knowing how you post elsewhere on the site I don't think you meant to be.

Using your reasoning all of us might as well except the concept of the Tooth Fairy too. The concept of God and the Tooth Fairy have a lot in common (invisible supernatural beings, etc.) yet I'm sure you'll reject one but not the other. Why? They both could be considered as you say "... out of the grasp of the human mind".

You say that the concept of God and the tooth fairy have a lot in common before listing one thing similarity that you find. "A lot" would imply more than one (not trying to be sarcastic-just pointing that out). When I used the phrase "out of the grasp of the human mind" I was using Jotun's language about pondering vastness of the universe. Several posts before people were talking about how Christians always fall back on the idea of the vastness of God as an excuse of why we cannot describe it. I have personally never used that excuse (as far as I remember) but I may say it is something we should explore and discover. I think it is impossible to describe the vastness of the universe with any certain accuracy (which I took as part of Jotun's point), and in the same way I think it is impossible to describe God's enormity. That was the correlation I was trying to draw there; I was not saying that we should believe in everything we cannot comprehend as you seem to be implying.

"Super" "Natural" beings such as God or the Tooth Fairy are just what they say they are. They are outside of the "Natural" world. But no one has ever shown that anything exists outside of the natural world, and many have tried. When they do your statement will garner serious inquiry, but I'm not holding my breath.

That's true. I know this won't be acceptable to you, but that's where faith comes in for me. In my experience, I have found God to be real. I know plenty of other people who have had experiences that lead them to believe that God is real. I can't really dispute what you say above, so I'll just humbly leave it at that. Chastise me for it if you must. :wink:

I give the human race more credit than you do, I think we are clever monkeys that have figured out and invented so much already (like the computer you are using) and I look forward to the discoveries we will make in the future.

I don't think I said anything that would suggest that I don't give the human race credit. I think humans are intricate and awesome creatures, each of whom have a great potential to do wonderful or terrible things. I do believe we're more than clever monkeys, but I, like you, am in awe of the progress humans have made and the great inventions that humans have come up with. I also look foward to seeing what discoveries we will have in the future. I, in fact, believe that humans are created in God's image. I'm sure you can gather how great I think God is, so hopefully that will let you know that I have a pretty high view of humankind (regardless of whether you believe in God or not).

And I don't think it's acceptable to say that certain things are out of the grasp of the human mind, we just haven't discovered them yet. Poor God, he keeps getting moved deeper and farther away from reality the more we learn about the universe we live in.

Again, please realize that I was using Jotun's language about not being able to comprehend the vastness of the universe. I was talking about pondering the size of God, like Jotun was talking about pondering the size of the universe. We can't ponder in our brains how big the universe is. I can't ponder how big God is in my mind either.

I don't think it's acceptable to not seek out answers either. Humans should keep moving foward in our discoveries, our inventions, our ways of being just, our understanding of the world around us, and anything else one can think of. For me, that includes trying to find a better understanding of God. While I may never fully understand God, I should never stop trying to understand God, just like while I may never fully understand the natural world and the greatness of it, I should never stop trying.

Also, just because something isn't in the natural world does not mean it is removed from reality. That's the way Christians understand things anyways.

I don't think that the universe's size really has any bearing on whether Earth is a "special place" or not. Regardless, the Bible never says that there is not life on other planets or that Earth is the only "special place in the universe." Genesis was written on Earth so of course Earth is important to the writers. I think finding fault with the earthly writers of Genesis 1-2 focusing on Earth is like finding fault with a biology book written by a biologist for only discussing biology.

But the flip side is true, the Bible never says there is life on other planets or there are other special places. The point is why would such a supreme being even care about Earth. We are back to using ancient agricultural texts to try to understand our place in the universe again and either proving or disproving the existence of "God".

I don't see how your comments here relate to what you quoted me saying. Jotun made a comment about someone on Earth writing about the Earth in the Bible. My point was that of course Earth was important to the writers of Genesis 1-2 because they lived on Earth. You can't fault the writers of the Bible for not writing about creatures on other planets when they didn't know if they existed.

As to why a supreme being like God would care about Earth-it is because God created it. I believe that the same is true for why God would care for humankind on Earth.

These are some of my thoughts on the nature of God and God's relationship to Earth and humankind. You don't have to believe them too and you can certainly dispute them, but please respect them as I tried to respect your ideas.

[Bannister]

My point is that Jotun cited rising evidence for missing links. "Take that you creationist idiots!" he yelled at his monitor as he posted. (I know this because he is a friend of mine.)
The article I cited showed one area of evidence for missing links that turned out not to be evidence after all. Habilis and erectus did not evolve one after the other as conventional science believed, they existed at the same time. Scientists are sometimes wrong, that's all.

But isn't that the beauty of Science. It can get things wrong, learn from its mistakes and come to a new better informed conclusion.

Your example doesn't do anything to weaken the Theory of Evolution however. It merely takes out an incorrect connection thereby improving our knowledge of the actual tree of life.

Bannister

[Onion Knight]

My point is that Jotun cited rising evidence for missing links. "Take that you creationist idiots!" he yelled at his monitor as he posted. (I know this because he is a friend of mine.)
The article I cited showed one area of evidence for missing links that turned out not to be evidence after all. Habilis and erectus did not evolve one after the other as conventional science believed, they existed at the same time. Scientists are sometimes wrong, that's all.

But isn't that the beauty of Science. It can get things wrong, learn from its mistakes and come to a new better informed conclusion.

Your example doesn't do anything to weaken the Theory of Evolution however. It merely takes out an incorrect connection thereby improving our knowledge of the actual tree of life.

Bannister
Yes, beauty of science. I agree. Scientists can be wrong about macro-evolution as well. It is possible that science will one day look back on the theory of macro-evolution and correct itself.
Is that possible?

BTW, great post HSisforcoolkids.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

My point is that Jotun cited rising evidence for missing links. "Take that you creationist idiots!" he yelled at his monitor as he posted. (I know this because he is a friend of mine.)
The article I cited showed one area of evidence for missing links that turned out not to be evidence after all. Habilis and erectus did not evolve one after the other as conventional science believed, they existed at the same time. Scientists are sometimes wrong, that's all.
That's the great thing about science and scientists - they are perfectly willing to back up and change their views if the evidence warrants. Bet you'll never find a creationist doing that - their dogma requires them to mash all of their round evidence into sqaure holes.

[Jotun]

The universe being that wide is out of the grasp of the human mind. I cannot fathom how big that is, and I think it's possible that the universe could be bigger. But really, how can someone say definitively that the universe is exactly that big if it is out of the human mind? To be fair, if it is acceptable to say that certain things are out of the grasp of the human mind, why is it not acceptable for someone to say that completely understanding God is out of the grasp of the human mind?

Yet, Earth is God's little pet project. Hmm...sounds like someone on Earth just made the Bible up.

I don't think that the universe's size really has any bearing on whether Earth is a "special place" or not. Regardless, the Bible never says that there is not life on other planets or that Earth is the only "special place in the universe." Genesis was written on Earth so of course Earth is important to the writers. I think finding fault with the earthly writers of Genesis 1-2 for focusing on Earth is like finding fault with a biology book written by a biologist for only discussing biology.
edit: typo

First, I will grant you the areas where I think you have a point. A book written on Earth would probably focus on Earth. I would think that as a book of knowledge (if it is called that--asking here) the Bible would have mentioned something else about the universe. To use your analogy, it would be like having a biology book with blank pages. The information that you get is pretty much: books exist.

As far as the size of the universe, we already understand miles. We understand a thousand miles. A layperson can even understand 239,000 miles (to the moon) perhaps. Eventually the number just gets so huge that it's hard for us to put it within a context we understand. With God, nothing is measurable. There is no context. It's all based on personal experience. You can make up how many feet are in one of God's miles, and no one can prove you wrong.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of Biblical text that speaks of God's actual, literal size. I guess being all powerful, God can be any size (including non-existent).

God takes the mystery out of a genuinely mysterious universe. When I die, what will happen? Nothing is not the answer. Maybe I can have my ashes used in one of Grishnak's sweet terrains. What do you say, Grish? Ashes to ashes, dust to sand hex.

[Jotun]

My point is that Jotun cited rising evidence for missing links. "Take that you creationist idiots!" he yelled at his monitor as he posted. (I know this because he is a friend of mine.)
The article I cited showed one area of evidence for missing links that turned out not to be evidence after all. Habilis and erectus did not evolve one after the other as conventional science believed, they existed at the same time. Scientists are sometimes wrong, that's all.

But isn't that the beauty of Science. It can get things wrong, learn from its mistakes and come to a new better informed conclusion.

Your example doesn't do anything to weaken the Theory of Evolution however. It merely takes out an incorrect connection thereby improving our knowledge of the actual tree of life.

Bannister
Yes, beauty of science. I agree. Scientists can be wrong about macro-evolution as well. It is possible that science will one day look back on the theory of macro-evolution and correct itself.
Is that possible?

BTW, great post HSisforcoolkids.

Perhaps, but not likely. They may also find out that the laws of gravity are wrong. What we can be sure of is that whatever they change it too, it won't be God because it would have to be another idea supported by evidence. That is, unless the creationists gain control of the scientific community. Can you imagine? ::shudder::

Not likely to happen. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. There is no dispute in the scientific community, and the only people offering up alternative ideas are the people who refuse to do science.

[Grishnakh]

I don't know if anyone has ever said this to the religious people on this thread but I think it needs to be said: "It's O.K. not to believe in a supernatural element to the Universe." Really. The world won't come to an end. The universe will continue along just fine. Free your mind.

I would also like to extend that thought to you. It's okay to believe in God, it really isn't the same as believing in a flying spagetti monster as some would have you think.

sorry for the double post :oops:

You miss understand me. The current climate in our country is one of hostility towards nonbelievers. Many whom might be questioning their beliefs are actually scared to seek out new ideas that conflict with the cherished beliefs of those around them. Religiosity really commands a overly special privilege in our society. It never occurs to most that it is O.K. to not believe. No one they know has ever expressed that view. Many people around them for example, would be shocked to learn that a son or daughter is an atheist. (Ask yourself if you would vote for an atheist or allow your daughter to marry one.) So your statement is just plain wrong. It's very much O.K. to be a christian. It takes courage and bravery to admit to being an atheist.

[theats]

I agree Rev. The 7 days in the creation passage is 7 days (24 hours each).
Genisis 1:5 (NLT)
God called the light "day" and the darkness "night."
And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

The only time a day wasnt 24 hours at one time was in Joshua's era.
.

Ah, but seeing as the first three days had niether sun nor moon, you can not use the 24 hour Earth Day as a dividing point.


Its a poetic verse, not literal. You have to take it literally, and by taking it literally, you realise that it is poetic.

[Cavalier]

It's very much O.K. to be a christian. It takes courage and bravery to admit to being an atheist. Just as in the early Common Era it took bravery to admit being a Christian?


Its a poetic verse, not literal. You have to take it literally, and by taking it literally, you realise that it is poetic.Huh? :confused: :wtf: That is some of the most round about gibberish I've seen in a while.


~Cav, goes back to lurking

[theats]

That passage from genisis is a line of peotry. It is poetic language. Anyone with half a brain, even as you all pointed out, would know that it didn't actually mean one week.

[Onion Knight]

I don't know if anyone has ever said this to the religious people on this thread but I think it needs to be said: "It's O.K. not to believe in a supernatural element to the Universe." Really. The world won't come to an end. The universe will continue along just fine. Free your mind.

I would also like to extend that thought to you. It's okay to believe in God, it really isn't the same as believing in a flying spagetti monster as some would have you think.

sorry for the double post :oops:

You miss understand me. The current climate in our country is one of hostility towards nonbelievers. Many whom might be questioning their beliefs are actually scared to seek out new ideas that conflict with the cherished beliefs of those around them. Religiosity really commands a overly special privilege in our society. It never occurs to most that it is O.K. to not believe. No one they know has ever expressed that view. Many people around them for example, would be shocked to learn that a son or daughter is an atheist. (Ask yourself if you would vote for an atheist or allow your daughter to marry one.) So your statement is just plain wrong. It's very much O.K. to be a christian. It takes courage and bravery to admit to being an atheist.
I see what you are saying now, Grish. I thought you were trying to be condescending. Sorry.

[Cavalier]

That passage from genisis is a line of peotry. It is poetic language. Anyone with half a brain, even as you all pointed out, would know that it didn't actually mean one week.Yes, theats. My point was the literally poetic literal poeticness that you wove in and out of.

[Aldin]

That passage from genisis is a line of peotry. It is poetic language. Anyone with half a brain, even as you all pointed out, would know that it didn't actually mean one week.

*sigh*

Just for grins and giggles - are you aware that many prominent scholars and scientists throughout history have believed it actually meant one week? The idea that it covers a longer period of time is fairly recent. One imagines that Newton, for example, could be considered to have had at least half a brain.

~Aldin, poetically

[theats]

That passage from genisis is a line of peotry. It is poetic language. Anyone with half a brain, even as you all pointed out, would know that it didn't actually mean one week.

*sigh*

Just for grins and giggles - are you aware that many prominent scholars and scientists throughout history have believed it actually meant one week? The idea that it covers a longer period of time is fairly recent. One imagines that Newton, for example, could be considered to have had at least half a brain.

~Aldin, poetically

I was using sarcasm with that.


I like this saying "I'm left handed, which makes me the only one in my right mind" im a righty, just thought it was funny.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Wait; I thought theats was advocating a literal interpretation of the bible... :? :)

Nobody/nothing designs the uncaused Cause. 8)

However, everything else is caused.

One could argue that point... What if there was no prime mover, and the universe continues off into infinity in both directions in time?
If God can be uncaused then so can the universe be uncaused - no God necessary.

That's the exact point I was trying to make; The 'prime mover' argument doesn't prove the existence of a creator.

Who designed the designer? "Uhh, the designer designed himself according to the ... uh, laws of Candyland, where we avoid tough questions."

Any sort of omnipotent creator would be outside of this dimension, and would be freed from the laws of causality and time.
This doesn't really make sense to me -
a) we don't know if there can actually exist things "outside of space and time" and
b) if there are - can they possibly interact with this universe.

This just seems to me to be another way of sweeping God into the unknowable to avoid the discussion.

I was just saying that "Who designed the designer" doesn't disprove the existence of a creator.

[theats]

Wait; I thought theats was advocating a literal interpretation of the bible...

If you take it at literal value, then you realize that it is a poem. TAke it as a poem. By taking it as a tiemline, you are not taking its literal meaning.

[Chimpy]

My point is that Jotun cited rising evidence for missing links. "Take that you creationist idiots!" he yelled at his monitor as he posted. (I know this because he is a friend of mine.)
The article I cited showed one area of evidence for missing links that turned out not to be evidence after all. Habilis and erectus did not evolve one after the other as conventional science believed, they existed at the same time. Scientists are sometimes wrong, that's all.

After reading this statement I have to conclude that the evidence you gave only supports evolution. The fact that Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus existed at the same time gives reason to the whole idea behind natural selection.

Just because one species evolved from another species does not mean that the first species died out immediately- or even at all. Don't think of evolution as a linear process, because it is not. Rather, it is a series of Vs. Human genetics provides a very good example here. Let us say my grandpa and grandma have orange hair. Out of their 6 kids, 3 of them have blonde hair to a rare genetic mutation and 3 of them have the same color of orange hair as their parents. Does the fact that both orange hair and blonde hair exist at the same time mean that the genetic variation did not occur? No, it simply means that there is evidence of genetic variation.

[Agent Minivann]

After reading this statement I have to conclude that the evidence you gave only supports evolution. The fact that Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus existed at the same time gives reason to the whole idea behind natural selection.

Just because one species evolved from another species does not mean that the first species died out immediately- or even at all. Don't think of evolution as a linear process, because it is not. Rather, it is a series of Vs. Human genetics provides a very good example here. Let us say my grandpa and grandma have orange hair. Out of their 6 kids, 3 of them have blonde hair to a rare genetic mutation and 3 of them have the same color of orange hair as their parents. Does the fact that both orange hair and blonde hair exist at the same time mean that the genetic variation did not occur? No, it simply means that there is evidence of genetic variation.
The orange/blonde analogy doesn't quite work. H. Habilis and H. Erectus are separate species (or sub species) and the orange/blonde hair is an expression of one or more genes. You do bring up the idea of genetic mutation. Genetic mutation does most of the heavy lifting for evolution. Natural selection doesn't really get it done. One of the issues some have had with evolution is the time required for evolution to get us to where we are purely be natural selection. It doesn't work that way. Mutation makes it much more likely. Evidence of mutation can be seen in genomes. I think mutation is also one of the hardest things to account for. It's hard to say when, why, and to what extent mutation is a driving force.

[Onion Knight]

Jotun said, "There is no dispute in the scientific community, and the only people offering up alternative ideas are the people who refuse to do science."

Go here, http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ about halfway down where it says "Click here to download."

Which one of us just used propaganda?


Also, it isn't that I am thinking linearly about evolution, that's what the scientists in the article believed for years in regards to habilus and erectus. Then they found out that they were wrong and said, "Boy, we're gonna have to figure out another way to make this work if we want to prove our theory."
Does that disprove evolution? No. But it does support the point that they could be wrong about macro-evolution. The missing links are still missing, yet there are millions of fossils in our fossil record. This point is important because there are people who are trying to marginalize the ideas of those who don't believe in evolution.
And, BTW, I don't think that comparing the law of gravity to the theory of evolution holds up when it comes to "scientific fact."

[Dictatorbilbo]

Wait; I thought theats was advocating a literal interpretation of the bible...

If you take it at literal value, then you realize that it is a poem. TAke it as a poem. By taking it as a tiemline, you are not taking its literal meaning.

What if one feels that the entire Bible is a poem?

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

I was just saying that "Who designed the designer" doesn't disprove the existence of a creator.
Of course not, it only counters a popular Christian argument rather effectively.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

Jotun said, "There is no dispute in the scientific community, and the only people offering up alternative ideas are the people who refuse to do science."

Go here, http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ about halfway down where it says "Click here to download."

Which one of us just used propaganda?
Of all the people in the US - about 1% have the name Steve or some derivitive (Stephen, Stephanie, etc).

How many of the guys/girls on your list are named Steve? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

ETA - gender equality

[Grishnakh]

To be fair, if it is acceptable to say that certain things are out of the grasp of the human mind, why is it not acceptable for someone to say that completely understanding God is out of the grasp of the human mind?

Not meaning to attack you here, just trying to get you to understand why your statement can not apply to God.

I didn't take this as your attacking me. But, I would like to say that some can become offended by people being sarcastic about God and saying things like "Poor God, he keeps getting moved deeper and farther away from reality the more we learn about the universe we live in," or making comments about angels on the head of a pin. If this is about open discussion, then you have to realize that statements like that can seem inflammatory. It may have been your purpose to be inflammatory, in which case I wrote this paragraph for nothing, but knowing how you post elsewhere on the site I don't think you meant to be.

"Super" "Natural" beings such as God or the Tooth Fairy are just what they say they are. They are outside of the "Natural" world. But no one has ever shown that anything exists outside of the natural world, and many have tried. When they do your statement will garner serious inquiry, but I'm not holding my breath.

That's true. I know this won't be acceptable to you, but that's where faith comes in for me. In my experience, I have found God to be real. I know plenty of other people who have had experiences that lead them to believe that God is real. I can't really dispute what you say above, so I'll just humbly leave it at that. Chastise me for it if you must. :wink:

Lots to read through. I'll do my best to take it a little bit at a time but unfortunately I'm on several tight deadlines (so it won't be quick) .

First let me say that I didn't mean to offend anyone. Sometimes bad attempts at getting my point across simply come out wrong in the written word. If we were talking across a kitchen table this would be much easier, but since we are not we have to rely on getting these difficult concepts out to each other via this electronic forum. That's where the difficulties and misunderstandings lie. Please realize however that when I talk about religion I do not wear kid gloves. It's not individuals that I'm critiquing but the concepts.

I have found that many religious people get extremely sensitive when someone who has a different belief system calls theirs to task. I do not belief in the sanctity of cherished beliefs and if a person takes offense at what I might say in the future then I ask them to please look inwards to why they feel bother by my statements. If I have to constantly apologize for my statements then I am going to stop responding to this thread immediately and go spend my time in better pursuits than trying to give many of you a perspective you've probably never encountered before.

With that said the angels on the head of a pin story is not my invention. It's been around for a long time in various incarnations. Wether it's historical is debatable, but it summarizes my point to the futility many atheist feel when discussing the concept of God with believers. Why not discuss it? Now again, I'm not trying for sarcasm, nor to be inflammatory. If I offend you I once more apologize in advance. But when a discussion of how many days or months or years equals the seven days in the creation story we have moved into a conversation that can not reach a conclusion and serves no real purpose. From what I've scanned of the 80 some pages of this thread that seems to be happening somewhat. We might as well be talking about angels and pins (or needles as the story sometimes goes).

Let me address Faith. Faith and reason are separate. If reason is a logical way to try to understand the concept of God then the appeal to faith is just the opposite. Faith is the believing in something in the total absence of logic, and therefore it is, by definition, irrational. Faith is only needed for beliefs that can not be logically defended. If you can not defend your beliefs through logic, and you want desperately to retain those beliefs in spite of the fact that you can not defend them, then you must appeal to faith. If a Christian wants to argue for the rationality of his convictions he should stick to presenting evidence and arguments and he should never appeal to faith in the first place. By calling upon faith you have already admitted the irrationality of your belief and you have conceded that your beliefs can not be defended through reason. You can not come closer to understanding the concept of God through faith. Christianity is absurd, and it does not loose it's absurdity through the appeal to faith. Faith, in other words, does not erase contradictions and absurdities; it merely allows one to continue to believe in spite of contradictions and absurdities.

So an appeal to faith solves nothing and explains nothing. It merely diverts attention from the crucial issue of truth. To summarize, the concept of faith is not only opposed to reason but it is evasive and, as far as I'm concerned, quite useless as well.

I'll try to address some of the other key points in this thread at a later time, probably next week. And, I might add, as a Humanist I do not wish to offend, merely educate. I certainly do wish well to all.

[Grishnakh]

Maybe I can have my ashes used in one of Grishnak's sweet terrains. What do you say, Grish? Ashes to ashes, dust to sand hex.

Why wait? Go ahead and chop off a finger, burn it out back somewhere and send it to me. I'll include you in some Hot Lava Death tiles!
:chainsaw:

[Grishnakh]

It's very much O.K. to be a christian. It takes courage and bravery to admit to being an atheist. Just as in the early Common Era it took bravery to admit being a Christian?

That's very correct Cav. But we currently do not live 2,000 years ago. It's not that safe these days to be openly Atheist either. And I unfortunately do speak from personal experience here.

[HSisforcoolkids]

First, I will grant you the areas where I think you have a point. A book written on Earth would probably focus on Earth. I would think that as a book of knowledge (if it is called that--asking here) the Bible would have mentioned something else about the universe. To use your analogy, it would be like having a biology book with blank pages. The information that you get is pretty much: books exist.

As far as the size of the universe, we already understand miles. We understand a thousand miles. A layperson can even understand 239,000 miles (to the moon) perhaps. Eventually the number just gets so huge that it's hard for us to put it within a context we understand. With God, nothing is measurable. There is no context. It's all based on personal experience. You can make up how many feet are in one of God's miles, and no one can prove you wrong.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of Biblical text that speaks of God's actual, literal size. I guess being all powerful, God can be any size (including non-existent).

God takes the mystery out of a genuinely mysterious universe. When I die, what will happen? Nothing is not the answer. Maybe I can have my ashes used in one of Grishnak's sweet terrains. What do you say, Grish? Ashes to ashes, dust to sand hex.

As far as the Bible being a Book of Knowledge, I think it is much more than that. I find knowledge and wisdom in the Bible, but it does not hold all knowledge or all wisdom of the universe. In college I wrote in a paper something like "...this religious leader believed that anything found outside of the Bible could not be true..." (I think I was writing on Zwingli.) My professor made a comment on my paper that there are plenty of things the Bible doesn't discuss, and he used the simple example of colors to show his point. No fundamentalist would deny that something is yellow, even though the knowledge of the color yellow is outside of the Bible.

Too often, IMO, the Bible is thought of as the only place to find knowledge. Books from other subjects are sometimes cast aside as unnecessary for a Christian to learn. I'm sure you would agree that this is unfortunate. When I look at the Bible, I find truth in it the way it describes man and his relationship to the earth and to God. I do not find, however, a definitive source of knowledge on everything. There are plenty of things the Bible doesn't discuss. For me, I think it is appropriate to tests the "truths" found in the Bible, and it is appropriate to search out knowledge not found in the Bible.

You have a point with my discussion on the size of God. There is no measurement for how big God is and there is nothing in the Bible (to my knowledge) that says God is X cubits long. I guess I meant to focus on the vastness of God to the human mind, as you did with the size of the universe. A full understanding of God can never be attained by us. Countless people in the Judeo-Christian tradition has been trying to understand God for at least 3000 years, and many more people from many other religions have been trying too, but no one person can do it. Our understanding of God is collective, and probably no two persons think of God in the exact same way. We build on each other's ideas until we get an idea that is satisfactory to us, but even then, we should realize that we don't know everything there is to know about God. I, BTW, think the same is true about the universe. I don't think we will ever know everything there is to know about the universe, it's size, it's intricacies, exactly how it came to be. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying to understand it. I hope that we can agree on that.

The idea of God doesn't take the mystery out of the universe. God adds to it. We can find out why the sky is blue, but I don't think we can really know why it is beautiful to us. We can know what causes human touch to be comforting and pleasant, but I don't think we can really know why it is comforting and pleasant. We don't fully understand God, but we can still explore God. The mystery of the universe is a good thing to be explored as well.

[HSisforcoolkids]

It's very much O.K. to be a christian. It takes courage and bravery to admit to being an atheist. Just as in the early Common Era it took bravery to admit being a Christian?

That's very correct Cav. But we currently do not live 2,000 years ago. It's not that safe these days to be openly Atheist either. And I unfortunately do speak form personal experience here.

Can I ask what has happened? Were you denied a job or something of the sort? Is it a "I won't be trusted" type of thing?

[Jotun]

Jotun said, "There is no dispute in the scientific community, and the only people offering up alternative ideas are the people who refuse to do science."

Go here, http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ about halfway down where it says "Click here to download."

Which one of us just used propaganda?


Also, it isn't that I am thinking linearly about evolution, that's what the scientists in the article believed for years in regards to habilus and erectus. Then they found out that they were wrong and said, "Boy, we're gonna have to figure out another way to make this work if we want to prove our theory."
Does that disprove evolution? No. But it does support the point that they could be wrong about macro-evolution. The missing links are still missing, yet there are millions of fossils in our fossil record. This point is important because there are people who are trying to marginalize the ideas of those who don't believe in evolution.
And, BTW, I don't think that comparing the law of gravity to the theory of evolution holds up when it comes to "scientific fact."

The level of support for creationism in the scientific field is 5% according to a 1997 Gallup Poll (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm).

Also consider that a poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way found only 48% of the people polled could choose the correct definition of evolution from a list.

I've also read that the surveys that The Discovery Institute uses are phrased mischievously, like "Is it impossible to rule out creationism?" Any scientist would say, "We don't rule anything out as absolute."

Evolution has been validated by many separate fields of study. Creationism does not offer an alternative. It says, the world rest on the back of a turtle and that turtle is the top turtle of an infinitely descending stack of turtles. You're not allowed to ask what the bottom turtle stands on, and once you get to that point you've left the field of science. These people are snake oil salesmen, and nothing less. They know they are exploiting science. They are still using arguments that have proven to be incorrect scientifically, like the bacterium flagellum minimum parts.

It's even more ludicrous than that. The creationist believe in Super Evolution. They believe that you can go from the two species on the Ark and achieve 100 species in 400 years (from a display in the Creation Museum). Sure, but the mutation rate had to be 125,000 times higher than current rates. Not two times or ten times, but 125,000 times higher. (Granted, this comes from a source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk) that I personally cannot verify, but maybe someone else here knows more about the science to be able to say that it is reasonable.)

To the doubters of evolution here, what would convince you that evolution is real?

[Onion Knight]

So, your list is longer than my list?
Great.
My point is that there are legitimate scientists out there (not necessarily creationists, btw) who don't support macro-evolution.

"Well, those scientists are stupid! So there!"
Great.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

So, your list is longer than my list?
Great.
My point is that there are legitimate scientists out there (not necessarily creationists, btw) who don't support macro-evolution.

"Well, those scientists are stupid! So there!"
Great.
By this statement I can tell you didn't even read the link. The whole point of the Steve Project parody is to point out the futility of lists of scientists who say this or that.

Actually my list isn't longer than yours - its about the same. But my list is made up of only scientists whose name is Steve. Its a parody.

List mean nothing. In other words, that there are lists of scientists who question the validity of evolution, has no bearing on the validity of evolution. Peer reviewed scientific research and experimentation is the only thing that has a bearing on the validity of evolution.

[HSisforcoolkids]

It's even more ludicrous than that. The creationist believe in Super Evolution. They believe that you can go from the two species on the Ark and achieve 100 species in 400 years (from a display in the Creation Museum). Sure, but the mutation rate had to be 125,000 times higher than current rates. Not two times or ten times, but 125,000 times higher. (Granted, this comes from a source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk) that I personally cannot verify, but maybe someone else here knows more about the science to be able to say that it is reasonable.)

To the doubters of evolution here, what would convince you that evolution is real?

Just to show there can be variation, I am a creationist in the sense that I think God created the earth and humankind (and everything else in nature for that matter). I also believe that the Noah's Ark story is not historical, which is to say I don't think all species came from two members of that species. I also don't believe a couple named Adam and Eve actually existed in the Garden of Eden and all people descended from them. It just doesn't make sense. I think there are enough clues left in Genesis 1-11 that suggest that these stories are not meant to be taken literally as history. One can be a creationist and not believe in "Super Evolution" (I put it in quotes only because I've never heard that term before).

I would be convinced of macro-evolution if there were a documented case of one species of animal producing another. Also, I think it is important to notice that evolution and what the Bible says does not necessarily contradict each other. I used to believe in evolution while I was a Christian (granted I also believed that God created the process of evolution). I found no contradictions at the time. I doubt evolution now, not because of the Bible, but because after studying evolution a bit I found too many holes for it to be taken seriously.

List mean nothing. In other words, that there are lists of scientists who question the validity of evolution, has no bearing on the validity of evolution. Peer reviewed scientific research and experimentation is the only thing that has a bearing on the validity of evolution.

I'm not saying that evolution is real or isn't real in the following statement, but it is interesting to note that there have been documented cases of scientists who have been peer reviewed in the past getting ostracized for writing an argument against the theory of evolution.

EDIT: After reading that Gallup Poll I noticed that 45% of scientist have a belief that God had a part in the development of man (5% Creationists + 40% Theists).

EDIT2: I don't have internet at my house and Friday is my day off, so I likely won't get back on this site until Sunday. I just didn't want it to seem like I am ignoring anyone.

[Onion Knight]

I did read the link.
Perhaps you didn't read that I posted my link in response to Jotun's claim that there is no disagreement in the scientific community in regards to evolution. In that context, the list I posted is absolutely not futile.
Then, I responded to his attempt at trying to undercut the validity of the scientists on the list by comparing them to snake oil salesmen.

My list is not an effort to disprove anything. It is a rebuttal to the claim that anyone who doesn't believe it is uneducated. :?

[Jotun]

I would be convinced of macro-evolution if there were a documented case of one species of animal producing another.

EDIT: After reading that Gallup Poll I noticed that 45% of scientist have a belief that God had a part in the development of man (5% Creationists + 40% Theists).

95% of scientist believe in evolution. 45% believe that God is has some role to play. Nothing surprising at all about that considering how many people believe in He Who Refuses to Give Evidence. It supports the concept that there isn't a clash between believing evolution and God cannot be linked.

I'm working on the macro-evolution part. I hope you're not wanting to see a dog give birth to a cat? You're asking something extremely difficult because you're wanting to see macro-evolution without micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is the culmination of micro-evolution.

One place to start might be this very lengthy paper entitled 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

[Revdyer]

What if one feels that the entire Bible is a poem?

Then one has begun a wonderful spiritual journey that will, I have learned, lead to God, life, love, peace, hope, and eventually, truth. (This is a poem.)

[Revdyer]

It's very much O.K. to be a christian. It takes courage and bravery to admit to being an atheist. Just as in the early Common Era it took bravery to admit being a Christian?

That's very correct Cav. But we currently do not live 2,000 years ago. It's not that safe these days to be openly Atheist either. And I unfortunately do speak from personal experience here. I am sorry that you have not been able to enjoy the civil blessings we had promised to all people in this society, of having freedom of belief (or from it). Part of my sorrow (genuine) is that it threatens me, for if your beliefs bring discrimination today, mine may well tomorrow. But that is a small part of it; for my real sorrow is that we as a society lied to you about your freedom of religion, and in that lie, we diminishe and endangere and perhaps, enslave ourselves, and that, as the theologians say, "Sucks."

[Revdyer]

I know this is a triple post...and woe unto me...but it strikes me how very ironic and sad the two previous posts of mine are when contrasted to each other; yet I would not remove any of the meaning of either.

[STAROCEAN980]

I'm Chtistian. Oh and I love the "other, please do tell option"!

[Jonathan]

[quote=HSisforcoolkids]
"He Who Refuses to Give Evidence"


I'm sure I've said this before, but just what specific evidence are you looking for, Jotun?

[Bannister]

"He Who Refuses to Give Evidence"


I'm sure I've said this before, but just what specific evidence are you looking for, Jotun?


I can't speak for Jotun but I am looking for anything that will prove once and for all that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll.

Bannister

[Onion Knight]

One word... Zapruter.
Back and to the left...
Back and to the left...
:johnwoo2: :passout:

[Jotun]

"He Who Refuses to Give Evidence"


I'm sure I've said this before, but just what specific evidence are you looking for, Jotun?

Anything that doesn't sound like an excuse to make up for the fact that there is no evidence. Saying "the evidence is in my heart" or "scientific instruments can't detect the Almighty" is just another way of expressing, "There is no proof, but I have made up a fancy reason for why there isn't."

Or perhaps if the Bible said anything specific about modern science.

[theats]

"He Who Refuses to Give Evidence"


I'm sure I've said this before, but just what specific evidence are you looking for, Jotun?

Anything that doesn't sound like an excuse to make up for the fact that there is no evidence. Saying "the evidence is in my heart" or "scientific instruments can't detect the Almighty" is just another way of expressing, "There is no proof, but I have made up a fancy reason for why there isn't."

Or perhaps if the Bible said anything specific about modern science.


*sigh

That would defeat the purpose of faith. However, even if we presented an instance with supernatural intervention, you would call it coincidence, so it is useless.

[Bloody the Marro Stinger]

"He Who Refuses to Give Evidence"


I'm sure I've said this before, but just what specific evidence are you looking for, Jotun?

Anything that doesn't sound like an excuse to make up for the fact that there is no evidence. Saying "the evidence is in my heart" or "scientific instruments can't detect the Almighty" is just another way of expressing, "There is no proof, but I have made up a fancy reason for why there isn't."

Or perhaps if the Bible said anything specific about modern science.


*sigh

That would defeat the purpose of faith. However, even if we presented an instance with supernatural intervention, you would call it coincidence, so it is useless.
I'm sure that all of them can be solved by science or by using simple logic of it not being true at all.

[jaques]

I know this is a triple post...and woe unto me...but it strikes me how very ironic and sad the two previous posts of mine are when contrasted to each other; yet I would not remove any of the meaning of either.

I think you've just eloquently pointed out that life is a contradiction, Rev.

You know, you win one game of Heroscape, and then you lose the next one. :wink:

[Dictatorbilbo]

Just for reference, discrediting an opposing theory does not make yours true...

[theats]

I'm sure that all of them can be solved by science or by using simple logic of it not being true at all.

This quote only strengthens my point.

You will either use scientific reasoning, or claim that it is false. You will refuse to believe anything that is not supported by science, thus, if the proof was in front of you, you attribute it to a natural occurrence, or you say it isn't real, a mere projection of your inner thoughts.

[Dictatorbilbo]

I'm sure that all of them can be solved by science or by using simple logic of it not being true at all.

This quote only strengthens my point.

You will either use scientific reasoning, or claim that it is false. You will refuse to believe anything that is not supported by science, thus, if the proof was in front of you, you attribute it to a natural occurrence, or you say it isn't real, a mere projection of your inner thoughts.

If you can use scientific reasoning to explain it, it isn't a miracle...

( I've already stated my reasons to doubt the existence of a God... ) :(

[theats]

I'm sure that all of them can be solved by science or by using simple logic of it not being true at all.

This quote only strengthens my point.

You will either use scientific reasoning, or claim that it is false. You will refuse to believe anything that is not supported by science, thus, if the proof was in front of you, you attribute it to a natural occurrence, or you say it isn't real, a mere projection of your inner thoughts.

If you can use scientific reasoning to explain it, it isn't a miracle...

( I've already stated my reasons to doubt the existence of a God... ) :(

but if it happened, and it can't be explained, then what is it? a strange occurance? or a figment of your imagination.

[XSI Addict 32]

I'm an agnostic. I don't care what you believe, as long as you don't try to force people to do things your way because your religion tells you its the only way. I am pro-choice.

[Jotun]

"He Who Refuses to Give Evidence"


I'm sure I've said this before, but just what specific evidence are you looking for, Jotun?

Anything that doesn't sound like an excuse to make up for the fact that there is no evidence. Saying "the evidence is in my heart" or "scientific instruments can't detect the Almighty" is just another way of expressing, "There is no proof, but I have made up a fancy reason for why there isn't."

Or perhaps if the Bible said anything specific about modern science.


*sigh

That would defeat the purpose of faith. However, even if we presented an instance with supernatural intervention, you would call it coincidence, so it is useless.



but if it happened, and it can't be explained, then what is it? a strange occurance? or a figment of your imagination.

And even if we presented you with an instance of coincidence, you would call it supernatural intervention. The default answer to an unknown occurrence is not "God did it."

Is the purpose of having faith just for faith's sake? I wouldn't want to have faith that God pushes everything against the Earth when I could investigate and find that there is a Law of Gravity which explains that. Save faith for the unexplained. If you had good examples of supernatural intervention that would be different. But He doesn't do that. He only does odd interventions like make a person speak really weird or heal someone who could have perhaps gotten better.

What about sister Simon-Pierre who was healed of Parkinson's by Pope John Paul II? Surely that's evidence of a miracle. There is no cure for Parkinson's. If she was cured of Parkinson's she would have a moral obligation to a battery of scientific exams so that doctors could understand that condition better and help others who so desperately want help.

But then we find out that 20% of all cases of Parkinson's are misdiagnosed because the condition requires special expertise to recognize and treat.
What's more likely: she was miraculously cured by God's representative on Earth OR she was misdiagnosed like 200,000 other people?

Having faith is not necessarily a good thing. My apartment got robbed because I had faith that my upstairs neighbor was a decent guy who really just wanted to use my phone book when he was scoping my place out. Asking for evidence is not a trick of the devil.

So tell me a few examples of supernatural intervention. Please. If they are evidence of God, then shout it from a hilltop.

EDIT: I tried tidying this post up a bit. Every time I tried to delete an old quote it would mess up.

[The Super Atheist]

"He Who Refuses to Give Evidence"


I'm sure I've said this before, but just what specific evidence are you looking for, Jotun?

Anything that doesn't sound like an excuse to make up for the fact that there is no evidence. Saying "the evidence is in my heart" or "scientific instruments can't detect the Almighty" is just another way of expressing, "There is no proof, but I have made up a fancy reason for why there isn't."

Or perhaps if the Bible said anything specific about modern science.


*sigh

That would defeat the purpose of faith. However, even if we presented an instance with supernatural intervention, you would call it coincidence, so it is useless.



but if it happened, and it can't be explained, then what is it? a strange occurance? or a figment of your imagination.

And even if we presented you with an instance of coincidence, you would call it supernatural intervention. The default answer to an unknown occurrence is not "God did it."

Is the purpose of having faith just for faith's sake? I wouldn't want to have faith that God pushes everything against the Earth when I could investigate and find that there is a Law of Gravity which explains that. Save faith for the unexplained. If you had good examples of supernatural intervention that would be different. But He doesn't do that. He only does odd interventions like make a person speak really weird or heal someone who could have perhaps gotten better.

What about sister Simon-Pierre who was healed of Parkinson's by Pope John Paul II? Surely that's evidence of a miracle. There is no cure for Parkinson's. If she was cured of Parkinson's she would have a moral obligation to a battery of scientific exams so that doctors could understand that condition better and help others who so desperately want help.

But then we find out that 20% of all cases of Parkinson's are misdiagnosed because the condition requires special expertise to recognize and treat.
What's more likely: she was miraculously cured by God's representative on Earth OR she was misdiagnosed like 200,000 other people?

Having faith is not necessarily a good thing. My apartment got robbed because I had faith that my upstairs neighbor was a decent guy who really just wanted to use my phone book when he was scoping my place out. Asking for evidence is not a trick of the devil.

So tell me a few examples of supernatural intervention. Please. If they are evidence of God, then shout it from a hilltop.

EDIT: I tried tidying this post up a bit. Every time I tried to delete an old quote it would mess up.

Depends upon your view of it. I like how someone expects us to have belief without proof, but then if we don't believe, we burn.

There are like 6 billion-ish people on earth, there are bound to be amazing coincidences, just like eventually I will roll 0 shields out of 20 dice and my opponent will kill me with a deathreaver.

[theats]

I take it biblical references would not suffice for your hunger of destroying the foundation of one's beliefs?

There are more Iconoclasts on heroscapers then I had previoulsy thought.


Oh, and my opinion isn't goin to change because some random person says something. Im gonna pray for all of you, and I suggest any other christians to do the same.

[Ugly-Caco]

Nobody/nothing designs the uncaused Cause. 8)

However, everything else is caused.

The uncaused Cause is a very easy way to say, "Conversation over." If you're willing to accept "uncaused Cause" as a possible explanation in a discussion about science, then we weren't having a discussion about science in the first place.

Will you at least admit that you are going to believe creationism no matter what evidence there is? How creationist are you: no evolution at all or God guided evolution? How about the Earth being 6,000 years old?
There has to be an uncaused cause for everything to exist. Uncaused cause is essential. What is your uncaused cause?

How creationist am I? I believe that God created everything, complete and without lacking. I believe in micro-evolution (within the species). I believe that evolution is not really generating new information, rather losing information. The Earth is young (6000 to 30,000? Not a million or more). I also believe that "Intelligent design" is not rude. :wink:

And yep...I admit that I am going to believe creationism no matter what evidence there is, just like others who believe the opposite no matter what evidence there is. Just like the man landing in the moon controversy...but that's a different thread. :)

[Dictatorbilbo]

Why is it impossible that the universe could've had no beginning?

[Tiberius]

Beginning is a relative term. Are you referring to our mortal perceptions of time, or an omnipotent being's definition of the beginning of all?

[XSI Addict 32]

Religion was created so that man could understand the world around him. If he could not explain it, he attributed it to a higher power. Man couldn't comprehend "no begining." He believed everything starts and ends. Thus we have the 6 days used to create the world, and Judgement day.

[jaques]

There has to be an uncaused cause for everything to exist. Uncaused cause is essential.

This denies the possibility of an infinite series of causes. If you deny the possibility of infinity, then you deny the possibility of God.

I believe in micro-evolution (within the species).

If micro-evolution occurs, and macro-evolution does not, it can only be because God is using his supernatural powers to prevent macro-evolution. It's just like erosion. If you concede that erosion can create a gully during a heavy rain, then you can't turn around and say it could never create the Grand Canyon, unless you presume that God prevents it from doing so.

Small steps lead to large differences. What exactly is so hard about this?

[theats]

I am not saying the earth isn't millions of years old, I am just saying that man entered earth as we see man today, and that this happened around 6000 years ago.

[The Super Atheist]

I suppose god loves me becuase I have severe eczema all over my body, asthma, a growth hormone defiency, and allergies.

[Ugly-Caco]

Why is it impossible that the universe could've had no beginning?
Because it is ever expanding therefore it began. In response to "it expands and it will shrink again and it will be another era of the Matrix," I say; Where's the evidence of the Universe shrinking and starting all over again? So yeah, no matter what evidence there is, I believe what I chose to believe as much as others believe what they chose to believe. :)

*High five everybody!

[Ugly-Caco]

I suppose god loves me becuase I have severe eczema all over my body, asthma, a growth hormone defiency, and allergies.
Yep! It's part of the package of the fall.

Ahhhh...I love this thread.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Why is it impossible that the universe could've had no beginning?
Because it is ever expanding therefore it began. In response to "it expands and it will shrink again and it will be another era of the Matrix," I say; Where's the evidence of the Universe shrinking and starting all over again? So yeah, no matter what evidence there is, I believe what I chose to believe as much as others believe what they chose to believe. :)

My point is that the "uncaused cause" does NOT necessitate a creator.

In fact, this thread is beginning to loop back into itself...

I guess I'll take this opportunity to bow out... It's been fun, even though I was called an iconoclast, had my haikus ridiculed, and had the very foundations of my beliefs toppled. :wink: Of course, it did lead me to adopt the religion of Bobism...

[The Super Atheist]

I suppose god loves me becuase I have severe eczema all over my body, asthma, a growth hormone defiency, and allergies.
Yep! It's part of the package of the fall.

Ahhhh...I love this thread.

I itch constantly. That is not loving.

[Ugly-Caco]

I suppose god loves me becuase I have severe eczema all over my body, asthma, a growth hormone defiency, and allergies.
Yep! It's part of the package of the fall.

Ahhhh...I love this thread.

I itch constantly. That is not loving.
Sorry about that man. Maybe that's how Apostle Paul felt about his thorn in the flesh. Why dont you humbly ask God "why?" Perhaps you'll get your answer like I got mine.

[Jonathan]

"He Who Refuses to Give Evidence"


I'm sure I've said this before, but just what specific evidence are you looking for, Jotun?

Anything that doesn't sound like an excuse to make up for the fact that there is no evidence. Saying "the evidence is in my heart" or "scientific instruments can't detect the Almighty" is just another way of expressing, "There is no proof, but I have made up a fancy reason for why there isn't."

Or perhaps if the Bible said anything specific about modern science.

:lol: So, if the Bible, written thousands of years ago, mentioned modern science, that would prove God to you? All other evidence you might take, I'm guessing, can be interpreted in multiple ways depending upon your worldview so it's probably a moot point.

[Revdyer]

The Bible does mention Carl Sagan, but it spells his last name wrong, using a "t" for the "g."

THIS IS A JOKE, NOT A SERIOUS THEOLOGICAL SLANDER!

[Chuckrock]

This thread is still alive?

Amazing!

[Jotun]

Why is it impossible that the universe could've had no beginning?
Because it is ever expanding therefore it began. In response to "it expands and it will shrink again and it will be another era of the Matrix," I say; Where's the evidence of the Universe shrinking and starting all over again? So yeah, no matter what evidence there is, I believe what I chose to believe as much as others believe what they chose to believe. :)

*High five everybody!

The correct answer can be: I'm sorry but I don't have enough information at the time to be able to answer your question with confidence (Confidence does not equal truth. It just means that you have some reason for being confident).

The shrinking aspect of the universe is part of the hypothesis of the Big Crunch. From wikipedia: "If the gravitational attraction of all the matter within the observable horizon were high enough, the expansion of the universe would slow, and then reverse eventually. The universe would then contract, with about the same duration as the expansion. Eventually, all matter and energy would be compressed back into a gravitational singularity."

However, the Big Crunch doesn't seem to be holding up to scientific scrutiny. At the moment it seems that an expanding, accelerating universe is more likely. Keep in mind this is hypothetical.

So, if the Bible, written thousands of years ago, mentioned modern science, that would prove God to you? All other evidence you might take, I'm guessing, can be interpreted in multiple ways depending upon your worldview so it's probably a moot point.

The point is that I don't automatically assume that there is a God without evidence. I'm not actively trying not to believe in God. I'll know God when I see him or evidence of him. As a fantasy fan, it would be awesome to have real magic in this world, but unfortunately nothing supports that. Not the Bible.

Is it possible that a group of men 2000 years ago made up the Bible? Of course. And they probably didn't do it maliciously. From your own experience, when a friend or relative dies, you probably remember them in a pure form. Good or bad, you remember their life as something meaningful. My friend quit his job, and did nothing but stay at home until he finished writing a novel. When he finished the novel he killed himself. After he died, the strongest memories I have of him are of the awesome things he did. The historical Jesus may have been involved in a some pretty crazy times. Did he do magic? Probably not. Was he remembered as someone greater than he actually was? Perhaps. And back then, people were extremely dumb, not IQ-wise, but science-wise. A 10-year-old child from today could talk to Aristotle and blow his mind. So it's no big surprise that people would have instilled magic and misunderstanding into every line in the Bible [exaggeration alert!].

[Tiberius]

Well Jotun, I wouldnt want to confuse technology and science. I am a firm beleiver that back in the days of Aristotle and the greek philosophers, the writers of the bible, ancient egypt, ancient rome, are some of the best times for science because of all the new life changing inventions being brought to the table. These guys were the ones coming up with the theories, thinking it through, right or wrong, and developing the science that we base our technology and science off of today. To me, they were the ones that paved the road, we simply walk on it, and unfortunately may have lost a little bit of that reasoning on the way because we already have that basis to spring from. Can we go further and higher because of that foundation that is already established? Sure, but I am in the firm beleif that developing that foundation is where the core of science is truely found.

[Jotun]

Well Jotun, I wouldnt want to confuse technology and science. I am a firm beleiver that back in the days of Aristotle and the greek philosophers, the writers of the bible, ancient egypt, ancient rome, are some of the best times for science because of all the new life changing inventions being brought to the table. These guys were the ones coming up with the theories, thinking it through, right or wrong, and developing the science that we base our technology and science off of today. To me, they were the ones that paved the road, we simply walk on it, and unfortunately may have lost a little bit of that reasoning on the way because we already have that basis to spring from. Can we go further and higher because of that foundation that is already established? Sure, but I am in the firm beleif that developing that foundation is where the core of science is truely found.

That's an interesting point. It does illustrate another difference in our viewpoints, but luckily not one that I predict will not cause tempers to flare up. If I took a general view of science as in systematic knowledge or practice, then I would agree. However, I prefer to use a little more restricted sense of science, referring to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

I believe that science has taken us to place where we can finally shake off mythologies that were based on our misunderstanding of the universe, and it has prompted us to raise the bar as a society. When we have a tough question we don't have to just ask the "shaman" but now we have a way to verify his advice.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

And yep...I admit that I am going to believe creationism no matter what evidence there is, just like others who believe the opposite no matter what evidence there is.
wow :shock:

Willful acknowledgement that you ignore evidence that contradicts your position. Wait... thats not shocking at all actually - that's exactly what is required to be a creationist. :D

So yeah, no matter what evidence there is, I believe what I chose to believe as much as others believe what they chose to believe. :)

*High five everybody!
I do not thave the ability to choose to become a Christian. That will require some evidence at which point not believing would then be irrational.

My guess is you have chosen to believe because of one or more of the following factors
1. You were born and brought up in America where Christianity is the most common religion and your parents and community were Christian.
2. You believe you have had some personal revelation from God his/her self that confirmed what you already believed.
3. It makes you feel good - and how can so many Christians be wrong?

You will either use scientific reasoning, or claim that it is false. You will refuse to believe anything that is not supported by science, thus, if the proof was in front of you, you attribute it to a natural occurrence, or you say it isn't real, a mere projection of your inner thoughts.
Untrue - if proof was in front of me it could be confirmed by science - very simple really. I'm coming to think that this kind of "you'll never believe, no matter what the evidence" is sort of like a whiny "I'm taking my ball and going home" type of thing - the last resort of someone who knows their position is weak and has nothing else to offer. Sort of like this...

Theist - I know its true - I just know it!
Atheist - Got any evidence?
Theist - No! But I have faith!
Atheist - Your faith doesn't help me become a believer. Any evidence?
Theist - but, but, but evidence doesn't matter cuz you wouldn't believe it anyway cuz you just wanna wallow in your sins, hate God and eat babies!!

Many Christian say they believe because they have had some sort of revelation from God that leaves absolutely no doubt in their mind. I want that as well. I don't want a huge miracle that everyone can know, I want a personal tap on the shoulder from Jesus like Christians say is soooo common amoungst them. I have sincerely asked for that and never gotten it. Even when I was a Christian I never got it. During my deconversion I pleaded for it. Why dont I qualify for that personal revelation?

[Renquist]

Making another attempt to get embroiled in the conversation at perhaps a greater cost to my morale than I can foresee....

I have two points to offer as a fledgling theologian.

1. I am of the opinion that, if believing in SOMETHING improves the quality of your life, than believing in it cannot be a terribly bad thing. This statement does not include blind fanaticism. I have gone so far to admit that I, to some degree; envy people of faith in that they have a positive no matter the obstacle, that they have a reassurance of sorts that can get them through the worst day. God has a grand scheme and what not.

2. I am firmly convinced that organized religion trumps government and other factors for it's ability to control the masses. Threaten a person's health, their well being, their family and get so far. Convince them that their eternal soul is in jeopardy should they not bow down to your whims is close to omnipotent. History illustrates that pushing your belief with violence and subjugation is down right scary.

As for the science vs religion debate I ask something that occurred to me at a very young age - please excuse the following infantile question...

Where did it all begin? If darwinism is correct, if we trace it all back to the age old 'big bang' theory (as tired as it may be,), where did it all begin? Gas? Chemical reaction? Where did the required ingredients originate?

Perhaps God. And then the one thing that threw me into mental turmoil for some time.... Where did he come from? Who what created God? God created all else, did he create himself?

I really don't think there is an answer and choose not to believe in god as I think that faith can be fickle and do require some measure of evidence.

I have witnessed many other things in my time, none religious. I have my faith and my beliefs, but choose not to share them in this particular thread.

I apologize if I've offered nothing new and am simply beating a dead horse. This is a large thread.

[Jonathan]

2. I am firmly convinced that organized religion trumps government and other factors for it's ability to control the masses. Threaten a person's health, their well being, their family and get so far. Convince them that their eternal soul is in jeopardy should they not bow down to your whims is close to omnipotent. History illustrates that pushing your belief with violence and subjugation is down right scary.


The cool thing about Christianity is that we do not have to bow down to anyone's whims, we have freedom in Christ. The old law has been fulfilled, and we have freedom to follow after God, and not the whims of man.

However, if Richard Dawkins were to say that we should all live on the moon...

:wink:

[Jotun]

As for the science vs religion debate I ask something that occurred to me at a very young age - please excuse the following infantile question...

Where did it all begin? If Darwinism is correct, if we trace it all back to the age old 'big bang' theory (as tired as it may be,), where did it all begin? Gas? Chemical reaction? Where did the required ingredients originate?

Perhaps God. And then the one thing that threw me into mental turmoil for some time.... Where did he come from? Who what created God? God created all else, did he create himself?

I really don't think there is an answer and choose not to believe in god as I think that faith can be fickle and do require some measure of evidence.

I have witnessed many other things in my time, none religious. I have my faith and my beliefs, but choose not to share them in this particular thread.

I apologize if I've offered nothing new and am simply beating a dead horse. This is a large thread.

The Big Bang is not the beginning of existence, just the beginning of our universe. This is why I find reading about the cosmos to be so interesting. It really is an investigation into where everything came from. Are universes formed on the other side of a black hole? What will be the implications of the discover of dark matter?

Some theoretical physicists believe in a multiverse. But then what is before that? Early in this thread I quoted Dr. Stephen Hawking: "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing according to the laws of science. It has no beginning and no end."

Immediately after that in the same interview (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7402050545823663887&q=stephen+hawking&total=624&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2) he was asked about God. "The basic assumption of science is scientific determinism. The laws of science determine the evolution of the universe given its state at one time. These laws may or may not have been decreed by God, but he cannot intervene to break the laws or they would not be laws. That leaves God with the freedom to choose the initial state of the universe, but it seems in here there may be laws. So God would have no freedom at all."

I personally am very interested in the idea of infinity. I don't have a lot of basis for my ideas, but I am slowly trying to cultivate my understanding of infinity and it's implications within the laws of science. If matter, perhaps, could form from a positive or negative infinite law, then perhaps that could give me a place to say, "Well, I just need to give up my concept of beginning and end and just say that it is all just middle." I'd like to see science connected with concepts like the Mandelbrot set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set). Maybe just because it would look cool, and if when I died I knew I was part of a Mandelbrot set then I could be pretty comfortable with the idea. That would be a faith I could be comfortable with. However, while I may seek information that supports my wacky, perhaps unrealistic idea, I will still try to insist that the ideas are supported by evidence.

I'd also love to see string theory validated. Then we can all say that we're all just part of the world's biggest orchestra. Of course, I'm sure some people would begin to claim that they are the first chair. Chaos theory. Quantum mechanics. That's where God is probably hiding. It's big enough to encompass and explain everything, but I also really don't know what I'm talking about to even a preschool level of those concepts.

[Bannister]

2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.


Bannister

[Aldin]

So for the naturalists here I have a question - if you saw a guy you didn't know turn a cup of water into a cup of wine - or take a walk over the water of a swimming pool, would you believe it was a supernatural event or think it was merely as yet unexplainable science (or a Coperfieldesque "magic" trick)?

~Aldin, who notes that any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

So for the naturalists here I have a question - if you saw a guy you didn't know turn a cup of water into a cup of wine - or take a walk over the water of a swimming pool, would you believe it was a supernatural event or think it was merely as yet unexplainable science (or a Coperfieldesque "magic" trick)?

~Aldin, who notes that any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic
These are easy tricks for an accomplished magician so I would probably respect their skill and be suitably amazed. However, if it seemed there was more to it than trickery - I would have them take the James Randi challenge. If anyone ever wins that challenge, now that would be something.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

The cool thing about Christianity is that we do not have to bow down to anyone's whims...
Sure you do - God's whims. :wink:

However, if Richard Dawkins were to say that we should all live on the moon...

:wink:

Haha! Good one!

Actually we should be living on the moon. If we ever want to get off this planet the moon would be a great testing ground. Someday our sun will supernova and the human race had better be far away long before it happens.

[Aldin]

If anyone ever wins that challenge, now that would be something.

Something that convinced you that the event was indeed supernatural, or something that convinced you that we as of yet do not fully understand the natural laws of the universe?

~Aldin, leaving the question open to all naturalists

[davidlhsl]

I'd like to see science connected with concepts like the Mandelbrot set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set). Maybe just because it would look cool, and if when I died I knew I was part of a Mandelbrot set then I could be pretty comfortable with the idea. That would be a faith I could be comfortable with. However, while I may seek information that supports my wacky, perhaps unrealistic idea, I will still try to insist that the ideas are supported by evidence.

As someone who believes in a Creator, it may be heresy for me to say this: If it turns out that I am wrong and the universe is simply the manifestation of a deterministic process, I would love your conception of a fractal reality.

-David

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

If anyone ever wins that challenge, now that would be something.

Something that convinced you that the event was indeed supernatural, or something that convinced you that we as of yet do not fully understand the natural laws of the universe?

~Aldin, leaving the question open to all naturalists
Nothing "natural" should be able to pass the James Randi challenge.

From James Randi's site...
"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

[Aldin]

What about nanotechnology or molecular computers or any number of sci-fi gadgets we wouldn't have the ability to detect? What if it were simply an incredibly skilled illusionist who managed to spoof all the equipment or subvert the observers? What I'm asking (for the third time) is if someone did something you couldn't explain is it supernatural or is it merely a natural law we currently don't understand well enough (or some other trick)?

~Aldin, still keeping it open to any naturalists

[Jonathan]

2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.


Bannister

The king is not the leader of the religion.

[Revdyer]

If anyone ever wins that challenge, now that would be something.

Something that convinced you that the event was indeed supernatural, or something that convinced you that we as of yet do not fully understand the natural laws of the universe?

~Aldin, leaving the question open to all naturalists
Nothing "natural" should be able to pass the James Randi challenge.

From James Randi's site...
"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."
I've had the privilege of several conversations with the Amazing Randi. He is a really nice, funny, intelligent, and tolerant guy. He just doesn't put up with liars very well. (Good for him!)

[Bannister]

2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.


Bannister


The king is not the leader of the religion.

I don't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth???

Bannister

[Renquist]

2. I am firmly convinced that organized religion trumps government and other factors for it's ability to control the masses. Threaten a person's health, their well being, their family and get so far. Convince them that their eternal soul is in jeopardy should they not bow down to your whims is close to omnipotent. History illustrates that pushing your belief with violence and subjugation is down right scary.


The cool thing about Christianity is that we do not have to bow down to anyone's whims, we have freedom in Christ. The old law has been fulfilled, and we have freedom to follow after God, and not the whims of man.

However, if Richard Dawkins were to say that we should all live on the moon...

:wink:

I, myself, believe that to be something of a disillusioned statement. Religion comes with a very strict set of rules, or it would not be religion. Religion without the rules is simply faith and/or a belief. You are not simply following your own whims and making choices dependent on your moral standing or code of ethics.

Religion creates rules and enforces them. It has in the past and does still today, often enforce them with dire consequences. As I stated - threatening someone's eternal soul is terribly powerful. It is a manner of fear mongering IMO and is used as the "what if" should religions rules not be followed by any one person.

The ten commandments? Rules. Many passages in the bible, quotes of and epitaphs, conversations with God; all rules. A priest who tells you that God is all forgiving is a jackass IMO. There is not and should not be forgiveness without limit. I am not saying that all believers and/or people partaking in this debate believe the concept of forgiveness without question... I am stating I have seen many people abuse this concept. Plenty of people are proverbial lawyers as it were, finding every loophole in their faith.

There is not freedom in religion. Maybe comfort, plenty of reassurance and belonging, but not freedom. Freedom is the ability to act and do as you will, without any threat of or implied consequence. Freedom doesn't exist.

[Renquist]

The cool thing about Christianity is that we do not have to bow down to anyone's whims...
Sure you do - God's whims. :wink:

However, if Richard Dawkins were to say that we should all live on the moon...

:wink:

Haha! Good one!

Actually we should be living on the moon. If we ever want to get off this planet the moon would be a great testing ground. Someday our sun will supernova and the human race had better be far away long before it happens.

Mankind won't be here at the time the sun is the dominant threat to our continued existence, at least in regards to it's growth.

Mankind will be it's own downfall. I don't believe we have very long left at all, but that's another thread waiting to happen.

[Renquist]

So for the naturalists here I have a question - if you saw a guy you didn't know turn a cup of water into a cup of wine - or take a walk over the water of a swimming pool, would you believe it was a supernatural event or think it was merely as yet unexplainable science (or a Coperfieldesque "magic" trick)?

~Aldin, who notes that any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic

Perhaps those examples are too passe Aldin. They are things we have seen done and are no longer miracles. They cannot be considered as such unless performed under the most controlled circumstances.

Healing power is still in question for me. It's been praised as an age old miracle and some times as a sign of divine power. It's been used by many as evidence of God's existence and benevolence.

I myself have been privy to, witnessed and felt the power of spiritual healing. I have seen it work and studied how it works. Nothing in my belief looks to God or any theory of a divine being for the reason of it's existence. To me, it's fact and is part of my reality. That's the luxury of experience I suppose.

Reiki was actually founded by a priest in search of the foundation of Jesus' ability to heal after being challenged by his students. The end result was a healing art without foundation in religion.

Belief is not without it's gaping loopholes and I don't buy into acceptance and/or ignorance simply compensating for the gaps in anyones philosophy.

We can't have all the answers. That being the case, perhaps we should all be Taoists. Heheh.

I do believe in spiritual entities and would go so far as to say I believe in Demons. The belief in some things that could be considered religious entities does not however allow me the luxury of simply assuming that God and everything under him is fact.

The minute I experience something new, whether it changes my philosophy or not; my beliefs will adapt suitably. I'll discontinue my babbling now.

[jaques]

Well Jotun, I wouldnt want to confuse technology and science. I am a firm beleiver that back in the days of Aristotle and the greek philosophers, the writers of the bible, ancient egypt, ancient rome, are some of the best times for science because of all the new life changing inventions being brought to the table. These guys were the ones coming up with the theories, thinking it through, right or wrong, and developing the science that we base our technology and science off of today. To me, they were the ones that paved the road, we simply walk on it, and unfortunately may have lost a little bit of that reasoning on the way because we already have that basis to spring from. Can we go further and higher because of that foundation that is already established? Sure, but I am in the firm beleif that developing that foundation is where the core of science is truely found.

One problem with this is that Aristotle was a lousy scientist. He was a great thinker, but had no concept of verification through experimentation. As a result, he believed all kinds of crazy and easily disprovable things, like the notion that objects with more mass fall more quickly.

If you believe things simply because you've done a whole lot of thinking and talking about them, and you aren't willing to research them through experimentation or interaction with others who have done the experimentation, then you're really just indulging in guesswork.

Most credit Francis Bacon with inventing or at least popularizing what we think of today as "science" -- a rigorous empirical study of the world which attempts to understand it through observation and experimentation instead of just thinking up something that sounds good to you.

Bacon might never have been possible without Aristotle, but to look to Aristotle while ignoring Bacon is to deny a fundamental source of our modern civilization.

[Tiberius]

Well Jotun, I wouldnt want to confuse technology and science. I am a firm beleiver that back in the days of Aristotle and the greek philosophers, the writers of the bible, ancient egypt, ancient rome, are some of the best times for science because of all the new life changing inventions being brought to the table. These guys were the ones coming up with the theories, thinking it through, right or wrong, and developing the science that we base our technology and science off of today. To me, they were the ones that paved the road, we simply walk on it, and unfortunately may have lost a little bit of that reasoning on the way because we already have that basis to spring from. Can we go further and higher because of that foundation that is already established? Sure, but I am in the firm beleif that developing that foundation is where the core of science is truely found.

One problem with this is that Aristotle was a lousy scientist. He was a great thinker, but had no concept of verification through experimentation. As a result, he believed all kinds of crazy and easily disprovable things, like the notion that objects with more mass fall more quickly.

If you believe things simply because you've done a whole lot of thinking and talking about them, and you aren't willing to research them through experimentation or interaction with others who have done the experimentation, then you're really just indulging in guesswork.

Most credit Francis Bacon with inventing or at least popularizing what we think of today as "science" -- a rigorous empirical study of the world which attempts to understand it through observation and experimentation instead of just thinking up something that sounds good to you.

Bacon might never have been possible without Aristotle, but to look to Aristotle while ignoring Bacon is to deny a fundamental source of our modern civilization.

Aristotle aside, as I agree, he was a lousy scientist as philosophers go, the point I was making is I get the distinct impression now a days we are no longer inventing the wheel. We are taking other inventions and improving upon them without completely understanding the science that had to go into them and I feel that today's scientists are not the calibur of the scientists of the past.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

What about nanotechnology or molecular computers or any number of sci-fi gadgets we wouldn't have the ability to detect? What if it were simply an incredibly skilled illusionist who managed to spoof all the equipment or subvert the observers? What I'm asking (for the third time) is if someone did something you couldn't explain is it supernatural or is it merely a natural law we currently don't understand well enough (or some other trick)?

~Aldin, still keeping it open to any naturalists
Something natural we don't understand yet.

ETA - I see I just contradict my earlier statement that nothing natural should pass the challenge. Now I have to think about this a bit because it s a bit of a Catch 22. Dinner now though.

[jaques]

Aristotle aside, as I agree, he was a lousy scientist as philosophers go, the point I was making is I get the distinct impression now a days we are no longer inventing the wheel. We are taking other inventions and improving upon them without completely understanding the science that had to go into them and I feel that today's scientists are not the calibur of the scientists of the past.

But we don't need to be inventing the wheel. We've already got a wheel.

Today's scientists are working on quantum computers, cloaking devices, and teleportation. And they've actually made measurable (if small) progress on these technologies. Maybe you're not impressed with their results, but I certainly am.

[Jotun]

What about nanotechnology or molecular computers or any number of sci-fi gadgets we wouldn't have the ability to detect? What if it were simply an incredibly skilled illusionist who managed to spoof all the equipment or subvert the observers? What I'm asking (for the third time) is if someone did something you couldn't explain is it supernatural or is it merely a natural law we currently don't understand well enough (or some other trick)?

~Aldin, still keeping it open to any naturalists

It would have to be settled on a case by case basis. If a being snaps his fingers and suddenly the Earth is flat, and this event is confirmed by scientists, then I think it would be safe to assume that was a supernatural being and event. No one would be happier to see such a thing happen than scientists. They would understand the significance and the accomplishment of such a task to a certain degree more than someone who did not understand the laws of gravity, etc.

But then again if he snaps his fingers and a eventually am able to find a home for some kittens I've had for a while, I would have to wait for more solid evidence. Or he snaps his fingers and grandma eventually recovers from an illness that only 1% of the sufferers recover from, then I would have to once again politely wait for evidence. If someone had the ability to save all 99% but chose not to, then I would want to know why. If they said, "you don't get a reason, just believe," then I would have to say, "I'm sorry, but you've just violated one of my personal beliefs about being a good Samaritan. This is not the mafia where you can say that I don't get an opinion. And if you want me to believe in you then you're going to have to earn my trust. If you think that hack stories from thousands of years ago are going to convince me, then you'll have to pull out some of that fairy dust and do something that convinces a rational thinker in the year 2007."

I would not just analyze the event. I would analyze its effect. If 30% of the believers were inspired to do things I consider to be morally reprehensible, like hate gays (even if they politely hate them) or lie to children about important issues like science or tell people in an AIDS infested country that wearing a condom is worse than contracting AIDS, then I would say, "Maybe you are supernatural, but until you clean up your act then I refuse to participate."

[Chuckrock]

I dunno about the whole science and everything is explained thing or the whole faith thing.

I know there are things out there that I personally don't understand. I believe there's a plan and that there is something out there a little bigger than I am.I wasn't sure about that until I became a Dad.

Perhaps, I'm wrong, I dunno, but I know as a Christian, I've got less of a chance to be just dirt when it's all over. I like the idea of "Good News" rather than no hope at all.

All the other discussions are a matter of debate. I won't and can't bring incontrovertible truth that there is a God or not.

Denominations can't even agree or disagree. Baptists, Catholics, or whatever. There is one thing that is accurate and true. Jesus of Nazareth was a man, the other stuff, it's up to you.

It is interesting that some of the most famous scientists were Christians and did believe in the afterlife.

[Renquist]

I dunno about the whole science and everything is explained thing or the whole faith thing.

I know there are things out there that I personally don't understand. I believe there's a plan and that there is something out there a little bigger than I am.I wasn't sure about that until I became a Dad.

Perhaps, I'm wrong, I dunno, but I know as a Christian, I've got less of a chance to be just dirt when it's all over. I like the idea of "Good News" rather than no hope at all.

All the other discussions are a matter of debate. I won't and can't bring incontrovertible truth that there is a God or not.

Denominations can't even agree or disagree. Baptists, Catholics, or whatever. There is one thing that is accurate and true. Jesus of Nazareth was a man, the other stuff, it's up to you.

It is interesting that some of the most famous scientists were Christians and did believe in the afterlife.

I feel that the concept of "no hope at all" is nothing but man's fear of his own mortality ringing through. People have a hard time swallowing the concept that when they die, it is the be all and end all.

As I've told people, if it is the end of your existence, then your consciousness ceases as well. Your knowing will cease, there will be no perception, no reality. It won't bother you that you're nothing but dirt, because you won't know any different. You will be nothingness.

Now that's the scientific view, not that I agree myself. But the reality of it really isn't that scary. Death is the single most assured, natural event in your lifetime. Perhaps it should be celebrated.

[jaques]

I feel that the concept of "no hope at all" is nothing but man's fear of his own mortality ringing through. People have a hard time swallowing the concept that when they die, it is the be all and end all.

As I've told people, if it is the end of your existence, then your consciousness ceases as well. Your knowing will cease, there will be no perception, no reality. It won't bother you that you're nothing but dirt, because you won't know any different. You will be nothingness.

Now that's the scientific view, not that I agree myself. But the reality of it really isn't that scary. Death is the single most assured, natural event in your lifetime. Perhaps it should be celebrated.

It's certainly less scary to contemplate complete nonexistence than to contemplate a situation in which you could, at the moment of death, experience a crisis of faith that would result in being sent to hell for all of eternity.

[Renquist]

I feel that the concept of "no hope at all" is nothing but man's fear of his own mortality ringing through. People have a hard time swallowing the concept that when they die, it is the be all and end all.

As I've told people, if it is the end of your existence, then your consciousness ceases as well. Your knowing will cease, there will be no perception, no reality. It won't bother you that you're nothing but dirt, because you won't know any different. You will be nothingness.

Now that's the scientific view, not that I agree myself. But the reality of it really isn't that scary. Death is the single most assured, natural event in your lifetime. Perhaps it should be celebrated.

It's certainly less scary to contemplate complete nonexistence than to contemplate a situation in which you could, at the moment of death, experience a crisis of faith that would result in being sent to hell for all of eternity.

There's those darn rules again LOL.

I would say it's more feasible for all functions keeping you alive and thus grounded in reality to cease and therefore bring about that non existence; than to simply transverse into another realm which defies all experience and reality otherwise known and live there indefinitely. Must be a crowded place hm?

[jaques]

There's those darn rules again LOL.

I would say it's more feasible for all functions keeping you alive and thus grounded in reality to cease and therefore bring about that non existence; than to simply transverse into another realm which defies all experience and reality otherwise known and live there indefinitely. Must be a crowded place hm?

So here's an interesting thought.

Every second of our lives, enormous numbers of photons have been bouncing off of our bodies, reflected away in every direction. Even at night, photons from a trillion stars reflect from us, creating images far too dim for our eyes to see. Inside a dark room, photons at infrared wavelengths stream constantly from every piece of matter nearby and interact with us.

Our lives are thus reflected out into space along the paths of those photons that escape Earth's bonds, to travel forever into the darkness or be absorbed by distant suns or planets. Even our words bend the paths of light as we speak, creating compression waves in the air that ever-so-faintly refract the photons passing through it.

That information can never be destroyed, whether it is altered when knocking a passing electron into a higher orbital, or whether the event horizon of a black hole swallows it from any eye's view.

In an endlessly expanding universe, the substance of our lives will travel outward forever, spread thinner and thinner over uncountable eons. In a "Big Crunch" universe, the boundary of space and time will curve those photons back to the vast, universe-devouring singularity in which all energy and matter will merge.

We as human beings cannot really fathom this as a form of existence -- it does not meld easily into our conception of immortality. But it is there nonetheless.

I wonder if we could all agree to believe in some form of infinity -- and if we could then take the step of admitting that any form of infinity is so beyond our comprehension that we might as well concede them all to be the same thing?

[Grungebob]

admitting that any form of infinity is so beyond our comprehension that we might as well concede them all to be the same thing?

Egg-freakin-zactly!!

[Renquist]

I completely agree with your post. I simply offered a view for debate.

I do believe in an ideal of infinity. I have a belief system and have knowledge of what happens after physical death. My beliefs have many things in common with some current religions and philosophies, none of which are being discussed herein.

I have my security blanket and will be quite happy becoming a tree lol.

[jaques]

I hope my last few posts have not come across as argumentative -- I intended them purely as thought-objects for contemplation, if anyone cared to indulge in that sort of thing.

[jaques]

admitting that any form of infinity is so beyond our comprehension that we might as well concede them all to be the same thing?

Egg-freakin-zactly!!

Thanks, GB. It's good to see that you're still hanging in here!

[Renquist]

I hope my last few posts have not come across as argumentative -- I intended them purely as thought-objects for contemplation, if anyone cared to indulge in that sort of thing.

Debate can be misconstrued as argumentative, especially online and especially with a topic such as this. But no, no offense taken by me at least.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

What about nanotechnology or molecular computers or any number of sci-fi gadgets we wouldn't have the ability to detect? What if it were simply an incredibly skilled illusionist who managed to spoof all the equipment or subvert the observers? What I'm asking (for the third time) is if someone did something you couldn't explain is it supernatural or is it merely a natural law we currently don't understand well enough (or some other trick)?

~Aldin, still keeping it open to any naturalists
Something natural we don't understand yet.

ETA - I see I just contradict my earlier statement that nothing natural should pass the challenge. Now I have to think about this a bit because it s a bit of a Catch 22. Dinner now though.

The event or trick that passes the Randi challenge will garner alot of attention. It would be studied to oblivion and back and once studied and understood and repeated and tested it would no longer be a supernatural thing - it would have become natural.

Guess that's why I was having trouble answering earlier because the answer is both really - a seemingly supernatural thing will BE natural once studied and understood - if it happens in this universe it IS natural and its impossible for it to be otherwise IMO.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

I've had the privilege of several conversations with the Amazing Randi. He is a really nice, funny, intelligent, and tolerant guy.
How cool! What were the circumstances?

He just doesn't put up with liars very well. (Good for him!)
I agree - Randi is following in the footsteps of the great Houdini who had no stomach for supernatural claims either.

[Chuckrock]

I feel that the concept of "no hope at all" is nothing but man's fear of his own mortality ringing through. People have a hard time swallowing the concept that when they die, it is the be all and end all.

As I've told people, if it is the end of your existence, then your consciousness ceases as well. Your knowing will cease, there will be no perception, no reality. It won't bother you that you're nothing but dirt, because you won't know any different. You will be nothingness.

Now that's the scientific view, not that I agree myself. But the reality of it really isn't that scary. Death is the single most assured, natural event in your lifetime. Perhaps it should be celebrated.

Didn't think I was giving a no hope at all point of view. At least that's not the way I saw it. When we are gone, it's just another opportunity to recycle! It's an awful big place out there, who knows what's going to happen? Remember energy is neither created nor destroyed and that's basically what we are, souls- energy. What ever you want to call it. There's the scientific side you're looking for so cessation does make any sense the energy is just transferred to something else.

[theats]

If someone you ask and someone answers "I am a practicing Taoist," then they are a liar. To be a taoist, you let things happen, and you do not TRY to be a taoist, it just HAPPENS. if you TRY to be a taoist, then it undoes its own foundation.

[Renquist]

I feel that the concept of "no hope at all" is nothing but man's fear of his own mortality ringing through. People have a hard time swallowing the concept that when they die, it is the be all and end all.

As I've told people, if it is the end of your existence, then your consciousness ceases as well. Your knowing will cease, there will be no perception, no reality. It won't bother you that you're nothing but dirt, because you won't know any different. You will be nothingness.

Now that's the scientific view, not that I agree myself. But the reality of it really isn't that scary. Death is the single most assured, natural event in your lifetime. Perhaps it should be celebrated.

Didn't think I was giving a no hope at all point of view. At least that's not the way I saw it. When we are gone, it's just another opportunity to recycle! It's an awful big place out there, who knows what's going to happen? Remember energy is neither created nor destroyed and that's basically what we are, souls- energy. What ever you want to call it. There's the scientific side you're looking for so cessation does make any sense the energy is just transferred to something else.

You're 100% correct.

f someone you ask and someone answers "I am a practicing Taoist," then they are a liar. To be a taoist, you let things happen, and you do not TRY to be a taoist, it just HAPPENS. if you TRY to be a taoist, then it undoes its own foundation.


I don't really see the relevance of that statement, but it is a very literal and layman way to look at taoism.

It's not literally letting things happen. It is more the acceptance of things and their existence. Taoism does not negate free will.

Taoism isn't a religion - it's a philosophy. Practicing toaism cannot be seen in the same context as practicing a religion; because it isn't a religion.

[Revdyer]

I've had the privilege of several conversations with the Amazing Randi. He is a really nice, funny, intelligent, and tolerant guy.
How cool! What were the circumstances?

He just doesn't put up with liars very well. (Good for him!)
I agree - Randi is following in the footsteps of the great Houdini who had no stomach for supernatural claims either.In 1994 and again in 1995 when I was an instructor at the Arkansas Governor's School (a six-week summer program for bright rising High School seniors) Randi spoke to the convocation. We was also gracious enough to talk to faculty in a casual setting. I wouldn't tell us an magic secrets, though. He did talk freely about his investigations of some religious "miracle" personalities and their techniques.

[Revdyer]

It's certainly less scary to contemplate complete nonexistence than to contemplate a situation in which you could, at the moment of death, experience a crisis of faith that would result in being sent to hell for all of eternity.

An interesting echo or reflection of the line from the Book of Common Worship Funeral Rite:

"Suffer us not, at our last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee."

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

...and that's basically what we are, souls- energy...

You're 100% correct.
Actually I think this is false. Or at least its a simplistic, romantic view with no support in reality. Nice to imagine but ultimately, since we don't know what happens after death (no matter how certain anyone seems), its just hopeful speculation.

[Jonathan]

2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.


Bannister



The king is not the leader of the religion.

I don't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth???

Bannister


My statement was in response to someone saying that religious people were at the whims of their religious leaders. I said, in reference to Christianity, that that was untrue. You posted some scriptures saying that Christians should honor the king, which is civil obedience, which I feel is something completely different.

If I'm still not making sense, please let me know. Thanks :D

[Jotun]

What about nanotechnology or molecular computers or any number of sci-fi gadgets we wouldn't have the ability to detect? What if it were simply an incredibly skilled illusionist who managed to spoof all the equipment or subvert the observers? What I'm asking (for the third time) is if someone did something you couldn't explain is it supernatural or is it merely a natural law we currently don't understand well enough (or some other trick)?

~Aldin, still keeping it open to any naturalists
Something natural we don't understand yet.

ETA - I see I just contradict my earlier statement that nothing natural should pass the challenge. Now I have to think about this a bit because it s a bit of a Catch 22. Dinner now though.

The event or trick that passes the Randi challenge will garner alot of attention. It would be studied to oblivion and back and once studied and understood and repeated and tested it would no longer be a supernatural thing - it would have become natural.

Guess that's why I was having trouble answering earlier because the answer is both really - a seemingly supernatural thing will BE natural once studied and understood - if it happens in this universe it IS natural and its impossible for it to be otherwise IMO.

DMG, it's nice to see that someone else had difficulty answering this question. I should also give credit to Aldin for asking a tough question. The answer seems that it will have to be tough as well.

I've still been trying to come up with an answer for HSisforcoolkids. He said that evidence of macroevolution would be needed for him to believe in evolution. As Jaques pointed out, there is no difference between micro and macroevolution. It's like believing in yards but still waiting for evidence of miles. When you see the miles you just say that it's just a bunch of yards.

The test is though, can you take a step of one yard and end up a mile away (different species). Yes, if you are a corn snake.

Cross a corn snake (pantherophis gutattus) with a California kingsnake (lampropeltis getula californiae) which are not only a different species, but a different genus. The result is fertile F1 hybrid "jungle corns." There can be some loss of fertility, but some breeders have produced at least an F3 generation. This type of hybridization is possible between a bunch of North American snake species within several genera.

To solve your question I started a thread at the Richard Dawkins forum. Scientists there are not just drooling over Dawkins in every thread. Many come there to debate elements of science, and some disagree with Dawkins on major points, macroevolution is one of them. However, when they argue about macroevolution they are disagreeing on the cause, eg. microevolution + a strong environmental change VS macroevolution is the culmination of microevolution.

This thread is for you, HSisforcoolkids. (http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=25353&p=425813#p425813)

[Onion Knight]

It's like believing in yards but still waiting for evidence of miles.
It's not quite like that. We can see yard after yard after yard culmintating into miles. What we don't see is beak after beak after beak culminating into pig noses.
Billions of fossils and no link. The burden of proof is no solely on the religious, but also the macroevolutionist.
I read the lengthy paper that you posted the other day, Jotun. I liked that it was directed at people who were "unsure" about macroevolution. That made it feel a little less hostile than some posters on this thread. It was a long read, but it did enlighten me on the theory a bit further. I also read the critique of the paper and found that it raised some of the questions that I had formed while reading. The rebuttal to the critique got argumentative, and my head hurt, so I stopped reading it about halfway through.
Any-who, I recommend the paper, as well as the critique, by all of us involved in this discussion.

[Chimpy]

I still don't understand why you thinkl there is a lack of "links." We have hundreds of fossil examples.

And forget about the Yard/Mile stuff. Rather, think of the stream/grand canyon arguement put forward by jaques earlier. Both large scale ersoion and macro evoloution take thousands upon thousands of years. Likewise, both microevoloution and small scale erosion can be seen in a lifetime.

[Jotun]

It's like believing in yards but still waiting for evidence of miles.
It's not quite like that. We can see yard after yard after yard culminatating into miles. What we don't see is beak after beak after beak culminating into pig noses.
Billions of fossils and no link. The burden of proof is no solely on the religious, but also the macroevolutionist.
I read the lengthy paper that you posted the other day, Jotun. I liked that it was directed at people who were "unsure" about macroevolution. That made it feel a little less hostile than some posters on this thread. It was a long read, but it did enlighten me on the theory a bit further. I also read the critique of the paper and found that it raised some of the questions that I had formed while reading. The rebuttal to the critique got argumentative, and my head hurt, so I stopped reading it about halfway through.
Any-who, I recommend the paper, as well as the critique, by all of us involved in this discussion.

The first question would be: are we on the same page as far as the age of the Earth? If you don't believe that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old then this isn't going to work. If you think the Earth is only a few million years old, then this still isn't going to work.

I have to ask. Are you exaggerating about the beak-beak-beak-snout or do you actually think that it would go from beak to snout? It would go through a million years of: beak-mostly beak-beaklike-beakish-unfamiliar beak-is it a beak?-it doesn't look like a beak-oh, geez what is that thing?-that looks vaguely familiar-doesn't that kind of remind you of a snout?-you're right it does kind of look like a snout-snoutlike-snoutish-mostly snout-snout. This is assuming of course that a bird could gain a pig nose. If birds undertook the journey to develop pig characteristics, it would probably not end up being a typical pig snout. It would end up being able to function like a pig's snout and may only have a few similar characteristics.

We have found evidence of dinosaurs with feathers. What kind of fossil are you waiting for? We all agree that microevolution happens. Take an organism and let it microevolve for a few billion years. Is that animal going to look anything at all like it used to? It's not a strange concept. Or is God going to step in and say, "I'd really prefer that you looked like a dog." and zap he removes a few million years of microevolution.

Explain, if you would, your concept of what 500 million years of microevolution is going to do to a species, not to mention 3.5 billion years.

[jaques]

It's certainly less scary to contemplate complete nonexistence than to contemplate a situation in which you could, at the moment of death, experience a crisis of faith that would result in being sent to hell for all of eternity.

An interesting echo or reflection of the line from the Book of Common Worship Funeral Rite:

"Suffer us not, at our last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee."

I'm very interested in the response of believers to death and to funerals. I completely understand why a nonbeliever like myself would be distraught at such occasions, but I always imagine that it ought to be a big party for the faithful -- a joyful celebration that a loved one has entered the larger and happier stage of his or her existence. I hope this doesn't seem disrespectful of me; it just seems to be the logical application of what Christianity tells us.

[Bloody the Marro Stinger]

It's certainly less scary to contemplate complete nonexistence than to contemplate a situation in which you could, at the moment of death, experience a crisis of faith that would result in being sent to hell for all of eternity.

An interesting echo or reflection of the line from the Book of Common Worship Funeral Rite:

"Suffer us not, at our last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee."

I'm very interested in the response of believers to death and to funerals. I completely understand why a nonbeliever like myself would be distraught at such occasions, but I always imagine that it ought to be a big party for the faithful -- a joyful celebration that a loved one has entered the larger and happier stage of his or her existence. I hope this doesn't seem disrespectful of me; it just seems to be the logical application of what Christianity tells us.
I've been to a Christian funeral before, and while Christians have joy that the desceased person in question is going to a better place, they are distraught that that same person has left the world, for even though they're in a better place, the family is shocked at their passing. It's a sad time even for Christians.

[GaryLASQ]

We have found evidence of dinosaurs with feathers. What kind of fossil are you waiting for? We all agree that microevolution happens. Take an organism and let it microevolve for a few billion years. Is that animal going to look anything at all like it used to? It's not a strange concept. Or is God going to step in and say, "I'd really prefer that you looked like a dog." and zap he removes a few million years of microevolution.

Speaking of microevolution and of dogs in the same breath reminded me of a little experiment performed on Russian foxes to breed for tameness. Just pull up Google and search for "Dmitri Belyaev". Interesting stuff...

[Chimpy]

I have found that it is a sad occasion when a family member moves to a different location. I am sad as I will be seperated from those I love- even if it is but for a short time only.

[GaryLASQ]

We have found evidence of dinosaurs with feathers. What kind of fossil are you waiting for? We all agree that microevolution happens. Take an organism and let it microevolve for a few billion years. Is that animal going to look anything at all like it used to? It's not a strange concept. Or is God going to step in and say, "I'd really prefer that you looked like a dog." and zap he removes a few million years of microevolution.
Speaking of microevolution and of dogs in the same breath reminded me of a little experiment performed on Russian foxes to breed for tameness. Just pull up Google and search for "Dmitri Belyaev". Interesting stuff...

[Jotun]

We have found evidence of dinosaurs with feathers. What kind of fossil are you waiting for? We all agree that microevolution happens. Take an organism and let it microevolve for a few billion years. Is that animal going to look anything at all like it used to? It's not a strange concept. Or is God going to step in and say, "I'd really prefer that you looked like a dog." and zap he removes a few million years of microevolution.
Speaking of microevolution and of dogs in the same breath reminded me of a little experiment performed on Russian foxes to breed for tameness. Just pull up Google and search for "Dmitri Belyaev". Interesting stuff...

Hey Gary. I'm already familiar with the experiment. The serotonin levels in the tamed foxes were much higher after a short amount of the breeding. Richard Dawkins discusses this at length in The Ancestor's Tale.

[Jotun]

If you guys haven't heard about it yet, there's a new movie coming out hosted by Ben Stein where he looks at how intelligent design supporters allege they have been treated by their peers. www.expelledthemovie.com (http://www.expelledthemovie.com)

The movie hasn't even been released yet (March 2008), and the inaccuracies are already flying from the blog on the site. Ben Stein tries to add credence to his stance by saying that Einstein believed in a creator. We went over this very early in this thread. Einstein would be outraged to hear this misuse of his name. He was a deist, but he was very outspoken about his disbelief in a personal God that was concerned about us.

The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. [Albert Einstein, in a letter to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein]

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. [Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]

[Chimpy]

While we are on the subject, I always found this quotation from Einstien interesting:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

[Renquist]

It's certainly less scary to contemplate complete nonexistence than to contemplate a situation in which you could, at the moment of death, experience a crisis of faith that would result in being sent to hell for all of eternity.

An interesting echo or reflection of the line from the Book of Common Worship Funeral Rite:

"Suffer us not, at our last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee."

I'm very interested in the response of believers to death and to funerals. I completely understand why a nonbeliever like myself would be distraught at such occasions, but I always imagine that it ought to be a big party for the faithful -- a joyful celebration that a loved one has entered the larger and happier stage of his or her existence. I hope this doesn't seem disrespectful of me; it just seems to be the logical application of what Christianity tells us.

Actually I haven't seen many people in any circumstance that had a sufficient degree of emotional attachment to the deceased not be, at the very least; morose at a funeral.

I see people of faith unattached from that person simply suggest "well they have their reward/well they are in a better place now". Not that it's up for discussion at that time, I find it a romantic statement, given that there is not assurance that the deceased would in fact be in heaven.

The passing of someone is sure to bring up all manner of such romantic notions. People are sympathetic and act delicately. People of faith close to the deceased, a percentage of the time at least; come to accept the passing and can imagine that the deceased is in heaven; regardless of whether that may be the case or not. You rarely hear anyone say "Well they're in hell now" which is understandable. Others turn from their faith.

I believe that the behavior of people at such times, whether they are of faith or not; is dictated by their bond to the person who has passed. If you were fond of them, you'll be sad and forlorn but try to have something positive to say. If you are neutral you'll act as the situation requires - at the funeral you'll offer solace. If you disliked the person, please keep your comments to yourself, or at least kept behind close doors.

I have cried at the passing of a friend. I have not had to loose any family as yet. I'm sure I'll be a mess. I will also know that they have gone back to creation, that their death is natural and shouldn't be mourned.

The emotional upset is not for the person passing. It is their passing from YOUR life. You miss them and what not. It's our own frailty that makes us sad when someone dies, not so much the fact of death.

Now, when someone is taken prematurely from us, that's another ball game.

[GaryLASQ]

Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. [/i][Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]
I love the way he plays with the word soul in this quote. The context in which it is used here simply means person -- for example "not a soul in sight" -- rather than suggesting that people actually have a soul in the more familiar supernatural context. Albert certainly was a clever little deist. :)

[jaques]

The emotional upset is not for the person passing. It is their passing from YOUR life. You miss them and what not. It's our own frailty that makes us sad when someone dies, not so much the fact of death.

Now, when someone is taken prematurely from us, that's another ball game.

I guess my issue with this is that it just doesn't reflect much of an immortal mindset. Christianity and many other religions tell us that we are eternal beings, but don't seem to be very successful at teaching us how to think as such.

Every day, my wife and children pass out of my life. I don't particularly miss them on most days when I'm at work, because my mind fully comprehends that within a very limited span of time, I'll see them again.

Every week, my oldest friend in the world passes out of my life. We get together to play D&D on Sundays, and in between, I usually neither see nor speak to him. While I have a vague regret that our lives aren't more closely intertwined, we're both busy people with a lot of family and business commitments on our time, and we're generally comfortable with the level of contact we're able to achieve. It's a rare week when I find myself missing him, as I know that I'll see him again after a fairly limited passage of time.

My mother lives hundreds of miles away, my sister and brother in distant states. We see each other once or twice a year on average. I do feel a mild pang at the end of some visits, wishing they could stay longer or come to visit more often. When I think of them in between visits, or in between phone calls, it's generally with warm fondness, not with desperate hunger to call them again or rush off to see them.

Why? Because my faith in the relationship I have with them sustains me and keeps me sure that we will see each other again after some moderate but still limited period of time.

When I think back upon the milestones of my life, things five years back, ten years back, and longer ago than that do not seem so distant to me. When I look forward across the (hopefully) 30 or 40 years I have left, even that stretch of decades does not seem like so great a time to wait for something in which I have total faith.

I would expect that if I had an ironclad faith in my own immortal soul and in the beneficence of a God watching over us and shepherding us toward eternity in heaven, then mortal death would have relatively little impact upon me.

But maybe I'm just a peculiarly emotionally detached, over-cerebral person to begin with.

[Tiberius]

I agree with you guys on the funeral thing, it is odd when christians (like myself) state it is a better place to go and be with the Lord, then why are we so sad at funerals? Well a few reasons, the first, I really dont fear death, but I am not the judge of someone else's soul. That is God's job. Is someone going to heaven or not? I dont know. I have faith that I am, but perhaps I am in for a rude suprise and God tells me I just didnt make the cut, I dont know for sure, but I have faith that my relationship with Jesus Christ has justified me in God's sight.

But why do I cry at a funeral? To morn thier loss in my temporal life here, I will miss them, regardless of where they are going. I would not put someone down if they did rejoice if someone they thought was a christian passed and they were happy they were going to be at a better place. That was the case with my grandfather who passed a few years ago and was in great pain with brain cancer his last few weeks. It was almost a releif to the family when he passed because we couldnt stand to see him in such great pain. But there was still morning for our loss of his presence in our lives. And rejoicing that his sufferring had ended and he would at last find peace. Does that make any sense? Did I answer why some christians cry and mourn at funerals?

[jaques]

I suppose I've framed my thoughts on this unclearly. I'm really not asking why people cry at funerals, which I think is pretty obvious to anyone who's ever been to one. (One of my cousins died when I was seven, and my grandmother passed on when I was 16, so I've observed this from a relatively early age.)

So it's not the sensation of grief that I want to be educated on. I comprehend what it is to miss someone, and what it is to know that you're not going to see that person again in this life.

What I find interesting is that Christianity does not seem to teach most of its adherents the patience that an eternal being ought to have in these situations. I hope I don't sound to judgmental there, because I know it may sound like I'm looking down my nose at Christians on this issue, when I'm not.

Many Christians in my life have expounded to me on the profound impact of their faith in their own lives, on the joy and solace that it brings them, on the strength it gives them through bad times and good. They've spoken of the certainty they have of God's love, of his plan for them, of his desire to help them attain eternal salvation.

And yet in this key instance, this moment when a divine transition is supposedly occurring, they very often weep, and grieve, and ask why?

It seems at odds, to me, with the certainty they have described.

My brother once expressed to me his concern for my soul, and his worry that the two of us might be separated forever because of my lack of belief.

My response to him was, "Do you really think God would do that to you? Would he really let your eternal time in heaven be marred by the fact that you would never again get to see this person whom you loved?"

I cannot help but see in the tears at a funeral a form of fear and of doubt. That fear and that doubt seem very human and materialist to me, and they seem to speak out against certainty in a benevolent God shepherding us all toward paradise, if only we accept him.

I'm not saying that this disproves God in any way. Only that it undercuts some of the arguments about what an improvement a life of faith is over a life of nonbelief.

At the death of those close to us, we seem all to be in about the same boat.

[Tiberius]

Well death is the one constant in the universe, everyone does it. I agree with what you are saying Jaques, and maybe I didnt frame my thoughts accurately either. I guess the point is, people are imperfect. I may have faith I am going to heaven, but people have an imperfect faith and going toward that end is still scary because we really dont know what exactly happens. We beleive and have faith, but we have yet to experience for ourselves. And as I said before, I am not the judge that gets to decide who goes where. I dont know where God will send my wife or children or me for that matter so I might not see my wife or children in heaven or wherever.

Now the point of having my afterlife marred by not seeing them is explained away in the christian circles by the overwhelming presence of God taking your full attention, but again, that is what I am taught, I have yet to experience death itself.

So yeah, christians say it will be a better place after death (if you are a christian). But they cry like everyone else and have doubts like everyone else. They just have an additional tool to deal with these feelings of remorse and loss. I think the discussion I gave earlier, though you said it didnt have much to do with the explanation, I still think that part of it is key as well, morning your own loss of that person from your own life. Is it selfish and materialistic? Sure, but I am human and I do have feelings. Will I see them again in heaven? Maybe, but I will miss them for now.

[Chimpy]

What I find interesting is that Christianity does not seem to teach most of its adherents the patience that an eternal being ought to have in these situations. I hope I don't sound to judgmental there, because I know it may sound like I'm looking down my nose at Christians on this issue, when I'm not.


I found this quote really interesting. One of the big things that seperates us Mormons from everybody else is there insistence on an eternal family. You ask the odd Mormon what the greatest blessing they get from their church is, and to a tee, they will all say the knowledge that their families will be together forever.

Due to this belief, it seems that most Mormons follow the pattern you plotted out earlier.

NOTE: A cynic will take note that this is one of the Church's largest selling points, and one of the things that keeps the members faithful. I would be a rich man if I had a quarter everytime I heard the phrase, "I just don't know how people who don't have this knowledge could bear having some one die."

[Renquist]

I just proposed the very question of separation from family and friends in the afterlife to my fiance. She told me what she was told - that in death, upon going to heaven, we all have acceptance of the way things are. If someone you loved is in hell or not with you, it won't upset you because you are granted this 'universal acceptance.' Sounds convenient. It also seems that this theory, or some close variant is accepted amongst some religious circles. It's the very 'loosely explain everything away and god works in mysterious ways' thinking that urks me.

Here's my bother with this thought though:

Happiness in life can be summed into three things I believe. Love for others and the returning of it as such, material possessions and experience.

I would say that loving and being loved in return is the single most important factor in our life experience when considering happiness obtained in life.

Now, if heaven is meant to be one hell of a happy place (pardon the word play,), why negate that love by separating people? Does that not in some way negate life's experience itself?

If God is all encompassing and so dominant in one's existence then that confuses me as well. If true faith and loyalty to God is love, which I've been told it is... then aren't we crossing lines here? A Love for God is whole and pure, is something to be nurtured and be proud of, but love for others in a way is pointless because it is fragile and ultimately mortal?

Jesus loved us all. But not all of us will join him. Why bother? Because God loves us all and all we need to do is believe and turn to him to reap the benefits of that love? Than why create us in his image, so gosh darn mortal and give us the ability to love? Seems fleeting. How many sins are committed in the name of love?

I know this is not a debate on the human condition and all emotions tied to that.... but this seems to blur at this point. I could rant for hours but will try to control myself.

Here's the other thing - the acceptance. Why wait until death for such universal acceptance - it sounds something like enlightenment to me. Enlightenment may be something very hard to obtain, but acceptance in life is much easier. We can accept our frailty, our mortality, the fact that we will die... but I would offer that western philosophy is the thorn in our side. Whether by science or by religion, we simply can't accept anything. We have to wonder why.

Here's the thing - we became the so-called higher life form on our planet because we grew big brains and started to contemplate ourselves and our surroundings. We killed instinct and developed reasoning. However, existence is far too large for us to understand.... and yet we can't accept that. We have to fill in the gaps, or go mad trying because we can't simply accept the void in our knowledge; our understanding.

As I've said before, religion is a method to control the masses. No one likes their eternal existence in question, but all of us are concerned about it. We can't accept nothingness.

I have also said that religion is beautiful in that it brings us comfort - something to look forward to, a positive in every negative.

It's great to have a reason to be an eternal optimist - but that hardly is an answer. It's an excuse IMO. Being such an optimist could be taken as blind faith. Blind faith is a very scary thing and can bring about ruin.

Perhaps religion was born as something to keep us feeling safe in the dark. The anti-boogey man as it were. The answer to the creature under the bed, the reverse of the Babba Yagga that will come and eat you up if you don't eat your greens and listen to your parents. I'd say it's an alarming comparison, as both things are borne of the want to control those around by manipulating their insecurities and fears - their mortality.

I've looked long and hard into the dark and can tell you this - being afraid is human. Being cautious is wise. Don't turn your back on it because there is nothing that can comfort you and have you know that it's all ok in the end, except for acceptance. Acceptance doesn't imply the removal of free will.

Life is what you make of it - perhaps that should be your main concern. Perhaps you should treat yourself with the reverence you lend your gods, because not doing so i not truly loving yourself, and nothing short of ignorant and selfish.

Hope I don't offend anyone - stringing these thoughts can get messy. Just some more food for thought.

[Tiberius]

Isnt that the point of the great commission, go and tell the Good News of Jesus so that they too can be saved and all ultimately make it to heaven? Christians are supposed to go and help others find thier way to salvation because they love those people. You dont want to have them separated from you for eternity, right?

[Renquist]

Is it out of love for all humanity, or because that's what your religion essentially requires you to do?

[Tiberius]

Ideally it is out of love. If you are doing it because your religion requires you to do it, you are doing it for the wrong reasons. Most christian organizations, you will find put more emphasis on the why you do it rather than the what you do. God judges the heart and its motives and the new testament has many stories, parables and examples of this. One example in particular would be the old poor widow giving her life savings vs the pharisee giving his 10%.

As I said above, ideally it is out of love. I am certainly not perfect and often do it because I am supposed to, not because I love someone. Motives make a big difference when you get into the topic of "spiritual maturity".

[Renquist]

So we are to simply hope that we convert our loved ones, out of our love for them, so that we can spend all eternity with them?

Is that selfish or righteous?

[Tiberius]

Again, check your motives, why are you converting them? Is it so you can spend eternity with them, or is it so that they dont spend eternity in hell? I am sure there is a better answer out there, these nuances are hard to explain.

[Renquist]

Indeed they are hard to answer, but should be questioned all the same. Is there, in your opinion, any possibility that faith is so all-encompassing in the assurance that it brings the devout; that it also allows a measure of naivety?

Obviously you are well educated in this area Tiberius and I am in no way questioning your own morales and faith. I value your insight.

It seems to me however, that many of the devout are not so well educated, but will reap their reward all the same. Seems the end perhaps justifies the means, regardless of motive....

[Tiberius]

I beleive Jesus refered to those people as whitewashed tombs, people that pretended to be in the faith but were there just for show. People as you say who are trying to get thier fire insurance or are there for just the benefits. I believe, and my church teaches that God judges your heart and motives when we are brought before him in judgement. We will have to answer for our actions and even our thoughts.

So as far as reaping the reward, God will be the judge of who is actually devout and deserving of reward, and who is not and is rejected. I cannot see into a man's heart, none of us can. I guess that is where the guessing games begin that we really should not play, dealing with, is that person devout or is that one? Just because someone thinks they are, doesnt make it true. The pharisees in Jesus time fell into this category, they were the religious leaders and were the most highly criticized by Jesus and his followers for thier practices. Like I mentioned above, the whitewashed tombs, looks great on the outside but dead on the inside.

[Tiberius]

As far as the question about naivety, I certainly hope so. We are told in the new testament to have faith of children. That is about as naive as I can imagine. It would be to my benefit as a devout person to remove all distractions and sin from my life, an impossible task, but something that children would have an easier time doing than adults because thier influences are limited to what thier parents allow.

Example, if I have a problem with porn and remove all possibilities of me being able to look at porn by blocking websites, movie channels, etc from my house, what are the chances I will be able to sin in that way? I shelter myself from those influences.

[Renquist]

But can it be asked of all of the faithful to have such extensive knowledge of their religion? Perhaps it is sufficient for them to be honest and true of heart and to attend church.

If they were to stray from the path due to lack of knowledge, does ignorance mean exemption from consequence?

On another note though here's another issue, as layman as it may be; that I often ponder:

With so many different religions, all spouting their own angles, all with their own consequences and rewards....

Isn't following one something like gambling?

I know that many will testify that they have spoken to God or Jesus or had some other profoundly moving experience, but what of the rest of us? Pick and hope we get it right?

Can anyone, God included, find fault in a man who simply couldn't choose one faith or another, regardless of concern for his own eternal well being?

Seems rather foolhardy to simply stop at a church that looks nice and join the congregation.

Choose the lesser of two evils.... in the end the odds are stacked against you.

[Tiberius]

But can it be asked of all of the faithful to have such extensive knowledge of their religion? Perhaps it is sufficient for them to be honest and true of heart and to attend church.

If they were to stray from the path due to lack of knowledge, does ignorance mean exemption from consequence?

On another note though here's another issue, as layman as it may be; that I often ponder:

With so many different religions, all spouting their own angles, all with their own consequences and rewards....

Isn't following one something like gambling?

I know that many will testify that they have spoken to God or Jesus or had some other profoundly moving experience, but what of the rest of us? Pick and hope we get it right?

Can anyone, God included, find fault in a man who simply couldn't choose one faith or another, regardless of concern for his own eternal well being?

Seems rather foolhardy to simply stop at a church that looks nice and join the congregation.

Choose the lesser of two evils.... in the end the odds are stacked against you.

Very good questions Renquist, I will try and do the answers justice for you. I agree with your first statement, if your heart is true, your lack of knowledge does not matter. A new christian can be just as effective as a well grounded one. God will qualify the unqualified. Are you familiar with the holy spirit and spiritual gifts? Spiritual "powers" God gives to those who choose Him. For some it is gifts of teaching, knowledge, boldness in preaching, wisdom, faith, healing, tounges, and many others. Truthfully, attending church has little to do with being a christian.

Straying and making a mistake, means asking for forgiveness. The benefit of being a christian is that we beleive Jesus died for our sins and shed his blood to cleanse us in God's sight. That is present, past and future. It also means striving for that holiness and purity, if you fall and make a mistake, ask for forgiveness and move one, resolve to do better. New christians, educated, and uneducated sin, if they say otherwise, they are lying.

Here is where I dont have a good answer for you. I am not going to tell you what to beleive, but I am happy to explain what I beleive to the best of my ability and perhaps God will till the soil of your heart and help a seed of faith grow. With so many churches, I like to think of it this way, at least for the ones that claim to be Christian. I feel there are certain core christian principles that they beleive, mostly dealing with the nature of God, Jesus, salvation, and the resurrection of Christ. Then the rest is what a church focuses on, how they do thier services, and other periphery issues that have little to do with your salvation but more to do with how you worship God and how you should live your life. The core principles are important, the other things, not so much. Think of all the different denominations as the whole body of Christ, some are hands, some are feat, some are eyes, some are hearts, etc. Each has different focus areas and perform different functions in the body. Unfortunately, we dont always work together for the greater good of the body of Christ or the kingdom of God, sometimes we get caught up too much in our own pride and issues that have little to do with what is important. At least that is my opinion. I am sure others disagree with that assessment.

As far as what religion to pursue, other religions will tell you they are the right one, I tell you mine is the right one. I guess that is a journey you must make on your own and use your best judgement. I hope the truth finds you my friend. But in the end someone is correct, I beleive it is christianity. If that is true, then yes, people will be faulted for choosing the wrong one, as that is what the bible clearly says. But again, I am not the judge, so I dont know how lenient that is.

[Renquist]

Thank you for being informative.

Now this: who is more at fault, a man who chooses the wrong path convinced it is true, or the man who bows out - not wanting the risk of being wrong and simply living as a good person.

I have sinned in my life and have been and am making amends. I believe in karma in a fashion and feel guilt and remorse. I don't choose a path as none have shown me the light as it were.

Until I can know where my faith should lie, I choose to live my life in a manner that benefits mankind with respect to all.

Should I not find faith, where does that leave me? Purgatory until I in turn am judged?

[Tiberius]

According to my faith, they are equally wrong in God's eyes. Neither one is the way to heaven, as that can only be obtained through accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. Have you ever heard of the saying, you cannot earn your way into heaven? That is what it is talking about. Again, this is according to the doctorine of my faith and as unpopular as it is to say, I do stand by it.

My advice is to not give up your search. Whatever you decide, I will respect your choice (if not completely agree with some of the choices). I will certainly pray for you, as that is all I can do other than share my faith with you. The decision on when and if you ever decide to follow a religion or make a decision of faith, is entirely up to you, no one else can dictate that for you.

[Renquist]

Thank you sincerely Tiberius for being understanding and informative.

I am not actively in search of a religion as my beliefs are founded upon my experiences and perhaps considered somewhat unconventional.

Suffice it to say I am a spiritual person and my knowledge brings me comfort. It doesn't cause me to worry for the salvation of others at least. ;)

[HSisforcoolkids]

I would be convinced of macro-evolution if there were a documented case of one species of animal producing another.

EDIT: After reading that Gallup Poll I noticed that 45% of scientist have a belief that God had a part in the development of man (5% Creationists + 40% Theists).

95% of scientist believe in evolution. 45% believe that God is has some role to play. Nothing surprising at all about that considering how many people believe in He Who Refuses to Give Evidence. It supports the concept that there isn't a clash between believing evolution and God cannot be linked.

I'm working on the macro-evolution part. I hope you're not wanting to see a dog give birth to a cat? You're asking something extremely difficult because you're wanting to see macro-evolution without micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is the culmination of micro-evolution.

One place to start might be this very lengthy paper entitled 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

Agreed on the bolded part, if I understand what you're saying.

I don't want to see a dog birthing a cat (that's just kind of weird, no?). But I would like to see documented evidence from Darwin's time to sometime when I'm alive of one species turning into another.

I'll print that document out and mull over it this week. I may get back to you on my thoughts of it.

[Onion Knight]

Chimpy,
The lack of transitional forms about which I am speaking are the ones Darwin himself acknowledged in Origin of Species.

Jotun,
Please believe me when I say that I completely understand the theory of microevolution culminating into macroevolution over billions and billions of years. Yes, I was exaggerating about beak, beak, beak, snout. My point is that within species there are very obvious changes that illustrate variation. However, these obvious changes are noticably absent when it comes to transition from one species to another. If they were there, then this thread probably wouldn't have lasted past 2 or 3 pages.

I think that Ben Stein movie looks great. Can't wait. Thanks for the link.

BTW, I am not a young earth Christian. I did hear a young earth creationist put forward an interesting theory though. He argued that Adam was created as a full grown man, not as a fetus. It could be then that the earth, and life on it, would have taken billions of years to "evolve" but was actually only created a few thousand years ago at this stage we currently observe.

I haven't really chewed on that too long. Which is to say that I don't know how well that would gel with any proven scientific facts. (population size, etc.)

[Jotun]

Chimpy,
The lack of transitional forms about which I am speaking are the ones Darwin himself acknowledged in Origin of Species.

Jotun,
Please believe me when I say that I completely understand the theory of microevolution culminating into macroevolution over billions and billions of years. Yes, I was exaggerating about beak, beak, beak, snout. My point is that within species there are very obvious changes that illustrate variation. However, these obvious changes are noticably absent when it comes to transition from one species to another. If they were there, then this thread probably wouldn't have lasted past 2 or 3 pages.

I think that Ben Stein movie looks great. Can't wait. Thanks for the link.

BTW, I am not a young earth Christian. I did hear a young earth creationist put forward an interesting theory though. He argued that Adam was created as a full grown man, not as a fetus. It could be then that the earth, and life on it, would have taken billions of years to "evolve" but was actually only created a few thousand years ago at this stage we currently observe.

I haven't really chewed on that too long. Which is to say that I don't know how well that would gel with any proven scientific facts. (population size, etc.)

There not being any evidence of transitional fossils is just not true. Transitionals and Observed Speciation. (http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm)


I seriously believe these creationists are just as devilish as Jerry Falwell, etc. They intentionally deceive people. Why? Because they get lots of financial support from religious organizations. Probably much much more than a typical science program, but I'm just speculating.

I would still like to hear what a transitional fossil would look like. Let's say a fossil from the transitional phase of a dinosaur changing into a bird. I honestly just do not understand what creationists are wanting to see. We have transitional fossils, but people seem to want to see them as an animated undead fossil beast.

And I forgot to mention my favorite piece of news from recently!! In the field of creationism the two top names are Michael Behe and Kent Hovind. Kent Hovind started Creation Science Evangelism, and apparently he is one of the most requested creationism speakers. However, those requests will have to be put on hold because Kent was recently convicted of tax evasion and found guilty of, and I'm not making this up, "smurfing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smurfing_%28crime%29)." Found guilty on 58 charges total and not eligible for release until 2015. I'd feel sorry for his family, but they were also in on it. His wife got sentence to one year.

Kent Hovind was quite a creep. He got his Phd and M.A. from Patriot Bible University, a diploma mill. You have to visit this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Bible_University). These people are con artists in every way.

[Aldin]

So DMG & Jotun (and potentially other naturalists), doesn't that mean that the absence of supernatural explanations is part of your assumptions rather than part of your conclusions?

~Aldin, who thinks this thread may move far too fast for him since he's talking about something from four pages ago

[Onion Knight]

I honestly just do not understand what creationists are wanting to see.
The same thing that Darwin wanted to see. If its not a big deal, why did he mention it as a problem? (I'm reading your link. I'll respond after I've read it.)

Kent Hovind was quite a creep. He got his Phd and M.A. from Patriot Bible University, a diploma mill. ...These people are con artists in every way.
See, this is where we have a problem. Why do you continually do this? Jerry Falwell, Kent Hovind, etc. etc. It's logical fallacy. You try to discredit ideas by listing off "creeps." I'll bet there are some atheists out there who have dodged taxes. I guess that means all atheists are dishonest. Also, your claim that Hovind is one of the "leading" creationist thinkers is, to put it bluntly, deceitful. There are many creationists who disagree with his claims.

As you paint believers and their views with the broad "Kent Hovind brush" what do you to say about Francis Collins, who believes in evolution, and led the Human Genome Project, which sucessfully mapped the genome? He was an atheist who now believes in God because of science. Another con man?
Not every believer is young earth, tax evading, science hater.
Just something to consider.